WHO...? Nash Or Dirk

[Chiwas]

Vote.

[Nash13]

This is easy, Dirk. Dallas is just one player and a bit of chemistry away from a title. Pheonix is never winning it with that bunch.

[u2sarajevo]

With Amare? I think they *could* win it. But they will need a deeper bench and add some role players... which they could do by parting with a piece of their all-star lineup, IMO.

But my heart says Dirk. That is, if we can just leave this team intact and add bit pieces... not mammoth pieces.

[bo319]

The most likely answer is not included and that is the obligatory..None of the above.

As a Mav fan I of course want Dirk to win a title but that does not always happen even with the best players. I will say that if either win a ring it will be Dirk.

[chumdawg]

When is Dirk's contract up?

[Chiwas]

Originally posted by: bo319
The most likely answer is not included and that is the obligatory..None of the above.

Fixed.

[mavsfanforever]

Dirk

[madape]

What a suprise. A Mavs message board votes overwhelmingly for Dirk.

[mary]

Originally posted by: madape
What a suprise. A Mavs message board votes overwhelmingly for Dirk.

Who do you think a phoenix message board would vote for?

[sp3nc3r13]

Dirk, easy. He has many years left with Dallas in his career, as Donny and Mark both love him and would never part with the franchise player until at least 5 years down the road. The team is extremely close to Superstar quality, we just need a little bit more developement of the younger players. Neither Josh, Marquis, Devin, or JT have flexed their full potential. With a combination of those people and our veterans(Michael Finley, Jerry Stackhouse, Darrel Armstrong[who i believe we should keep on our roster], and Alan Henderson) this team could go very far, if not win a championship, next year.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: mary

Who do you think a phoenix message board would vote for?

San Antonio.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[bo319]

Originally posted by: Drbio

San Antonio.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

RACK 'EM!

[Caliente]

[EricaLubarsky]

I love that picture.

[Caliente]

Thanks. It's my favorite out of basketball uniform pic.............[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Reminds me of this little one...............[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[jayC]

A couple of things nash had a great run this year and they still came up short. Dirk had a great regular season and is one tweak of his game is ready to be the best player on the planet. Dirk has made four all nba teams in his career.

Madape what a suprise you undercut the mavs. In your regular season predictions this year you predicted a 40 win season. Oh my god your negative what a shock.

We will see who finishes their careers with the most championships. 9 new players and we still won 58 games that is pretty damn good for a team with so many young players. Remember Nash didn't come into his own for two or three years. He got booed off the court his first season here. Every time he touched the ball he was booed.

[Ninkobei]

I don't know if he was trying to be 'negative,' jayc.

His comment has truth to it. Poll the same question to Miami/Detroit except this time use Shaq/Wallace's and the result will be similar to our results.

[sike]

dirk

[Chiwas]

Without fanaticism, if Phoenix doesn't change the style of run and gun with little defense -and it seems they will be playing it for several years-, it has less chances than the Mavs to get a title. The Mavs won't rest looking for a formula to get it, changing every year till the bell rings. This year Avery showed good things, a more defensive mind-set, not enough yet but improving.

Despite the fact that the way Nash plays is very impressive, it looks like it's not viable for sprouting a championship; it hurt the Mavs in the process, but not anymore. Dirk has to have it first.

That or Nash getting it in several years as a benched PG without D'Antony.

[sike]

...only Future Hall of Famers should win the MVP Award, and the only way Steve Nash is making the Hall of Fame is if he's giving Nowitzki's induction speech. -Bill Simmons

Nash will be in the Hall.

[DRsock33]

Amare is a very hard factor to look past. He did some amazing things in the playoffs, but it was made clear that no matter how good he is, they wont get past San Antone. They would need to make a complete roster change if they want to win it, and I don't see them doing that nearly quick enough to have Nash in that picture. Even though Nash had a great year, he isn't gonna pull a Barry Bonds and keep doing it till he's in his 40's. His tank is gonna run out sometime soon, and then the Suns won't have a chance at winning anything.

The Mavs do have a chance, not a big one, but they do have one. Dirk is still pretty young, and they have a young nucleus. If all goes well, and they make some changes (center position). They can win a championship.

I'm staying optimistic.... Dirk, if either.

[poohrichardson]

Change the center position? I'd change the 1 before I touched the 5..

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: DRsock33
Even though Nash had a great year, he isn't gonna pull a Barry Bonds and keep doing it till he's in his 40's. His tank is gonna run out sometime soon, and then the Suns won't have a chance at winning anything.

It's possible, but by no means guaranteed. Stockton played until he was 40, so why can't Nash?

The Mavs do have a chance, not a big one, but they do have one. Dirk is still pretty young, and they have a young nucleus. If all goes well, and they make some changes (center position). They can win a championship.

Not a big chance? I'd say our chances are as good as anyone's. Look, San Antonio may be winning their 3rd championship, but that's misleading. They're a great team, but they're by no means Jordan's Bulls, Magic's Lakers, or Bird's Celtics. I'd say they're probably as good as Isiah's Pistons, maybe a little better. The fact of the matter is, their competition isn't as tough as it was for those other great teams. Think about it, who are the opponents they've had to beat? Their first championship was in the lockout season against a mediocre New York team the year after the Bulls broke up, when they had no competition in the conference. The second was more impressive because they dethroned the 3-time defending champion Lakers, but the Lakers were not the team they were before and didn't have their heads in the game, and they played a pathetic New Jersey team in the finals. And now the 3rd is going to be against Detroit, who, lets face it, just isn't that great. The Spurs have certainly succeeded in becoming the best team of their era, but if you ask me, they just don't stack up to those other title-winning dynasties. IMO, the Mavs are a few very small steps away from being as good as or better than the Spurs; Dirk improves his post game, some very minor roster changes, and just developing chemistry. PG isn't our problem, and neither is center. Tony Parker isn't that far removed from Jason Terry, and Dampier is actually better than Nesterovic and Mohammed. The guy that separates us from them is Ginobili, however we've got plenty of quality players at that position who can even it out a little bit; Finley, Stackhouse, and hopefully Daniels. I know I'm going out on a limb, but what the hell. The Mavs WILL be better than the Spurs, and they WILL win a championship. If not next year then the year after that, and so on.

[birdsanctuary]

The Suns mortgaged their future by trading away the youth of their team this year for veterans that could help them in the playoffs ie. Jackson from NO.

The Suns will face a steady decline, while the Mavs' sun continue to rise.

[chumdawg]

The Mavs' sun has been setting for the last couple years, in case you didn't notice...

[DwD]

All I saw was an improvement in all aspects of the Mavs' game from last year to this - I wouldn't exactly call it a setting sun.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
The Mavs' sun has been setting for the last couple years, in case you didn't notice...

Well, if you go back a little further than that, there was a time when the Mavericks were usually winning something like 17 games in a season. So, considering now that we're consistantly a 50+ win team that took one step backwards after a trip to the WCF, but then came back to do some major changes and seems to be on the right track, I'd say that our sun is steadily rising.

[chumdawg]

I think if you look at what typically happens with other teams, you will see that when a team really starts to rise it usually does so over the course of three to four years and then sortof plateaus. It can usually maintain that level for a couple seasons, sometimes more. Then it starts to taper off.

Unless, of course, the team breaks through and rises all the way to the top. Those teams usually have a great deal more staying power. But the ones that come close and just barely miss--well, historically they watch their window of opportunity close before too long. Star players age, salary cap and roster flexibility get spent, perhaps even the "always a bridesmaid, never a bride" mentality sets in. Soon complacency becomes commonplace.

Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's fairly common, and I think it might come close to explaining the Mavericks' dropoff the last couple seasons.

[dirno2000]

Unless, of course, the team breaks through and rises all the way to the top. Those teams usually have a great deal more staying power. But the ones that come close and just barely miss--well, historically they watch their window of opportunity close before too long. Star players age, salary cap and roster flexibility get spent, perhaps even the "always a bridesmaid, never a bride" mentality sets in. Soon complacency becomes commonplace.

Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's fairly common, and I think it might come close to explaining the Mavericks' dropoff the last couple seasons.

There is some truth to what you're saying...the Kings illustrate the point as well as any team in recent memory. That being said, our team has changed so dramatically over the past three years that I don't think this rule applies to the Mavs. Simply put, this team hasn't been together long enough to get stagnant. Plus our star player is just reaching his prime and he's managed to avoid any major injuries. And he’s surrounded by a nice mix of veterans and young players with potential. Honestly the only thing that worries me about our future is the fact that the best team in basketball plays in our division.

[Misfit Mav]

Originally posted by: dirno2000

There is some truth to what you're saying...the Kings illustrate the point as well as any team in recent memory. That being said, our team has changed so dramatically over the past three years that I don't think this rule applies to the Mavs. Simply put, this team hasn't been together long enough to get stagnant. Plus our star player is just reaching his prime and he's managed to avoid any major injuries. And he’s surrounded by a nice mix of veterans and young players with potential. Honestly the only thing that worries me about our future is the fact that the best team in basketball plays in our division.

And unlike the Kings, we have more youth than we ever had in 2003, when we had a lot of stars, but not much depth and no developing talent (save Dirk). We've gotten dramatically younger as a team over the last few years, so I really don't think the "window is closing."

[LRB]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I think if you look at what typically happens with other teams, you will see that when a team really starts to rise it usually does so over the course of three to four years and then sortof plateaus. It can usually maintain that level for a couple seasons, sometimes more. Then it starts to taper off.

Unless, of course, the team breaks through and rises all the way to the top. Those teams usually have a great deal more staying power. But the ones that come close and just barely miss--well, historically they watch their window of opportunity close before too long. Star players age, salary cap and roster flexibility get spent, perhaps even the "always a bridesmaid, never a bride" mentality sets in. Soon complacency becomes commonplace.

Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's fairly common, and I think it might come close to explaining the Mavericks' dropoff the last couple seasons.

Man CD it sounds like you got a major case of negativity towards the Mavs. I can understand some reasons to be upset with the Mavs, even if I don't agree with all of them. But to say that the sun is setting on this team and to use as your evidence they haven't won as many games in either of the last 2 seasons as they did in the 2002/2003 sesason is being a little unfair.

The Mavs have had essentially 3 different teams over the past 3 years because of all the turnover in personnel. Not counting TAW (who hasn't done crap over this 3 year span) the Mavs had only 4 players returning from the 2002/2003 season returning for the 2003/2004. Now IMO I think that 2003/2004 was a huge step backwards from the previous year. The players that we had really didn't fit well with one another and I don't feel like the talent was best used either. Still if was a 50+ win season. The Mavs finished with the 5th best record in their conference, down from being tied for 1st the year before.

In 2004/2005 there was once again a major transition. We had only 5 players returning from the previous year (again not counting TAW). But this year saw the most rookies out of the 3 years with one getting a good deal of PT. We had 2 sophomore players, the most of any of the 3 years. We saw 2 players added midseason, the most of the 3 years. We saw by far the most time lost to injuries of any of the 3 years. We had a coaching change that took place midseason. We had the stiffest competition in the west of the 3 years IMO as well. I would say that SA especially was much better this past season than they were in 2002/2003. The only reason that SA record was less was because of Duncan's injury at the end of the season. But despite all this, we won only 2 less games than in 2002/2003. I think that this past year would meet most reasonable definitions of a rebuilding year. And the Mavs are still in process of changing. Next season will be Avery's 1st season as a head coach. It will be Devin Harris' 2nd season in the NBA. It will be Damp's and Terry's 2nd season as Mavs. Remember that it took NVE and Raef till their 2nd season with the Mavs before they finally started clicking well with the other team members.

The Mavs have gone from being one of the oldest teams in the NBA to one that has recieved a major infusion of youth. We still have a nice balance of vets and youth though. Dirk has only gotten better over the past 3 years and will probably continue to get better. The players that we have aging, we have young developing players which we're preparing to replace them with. We have highly tradeable commodities (Stack, KVH, and even that do nothing TAW). We have a defense minded coach, but still have one of the most potent offenses in the league. What this team doesn't have is much time together.

I think that there is every reason to believe that the Mavs are prepared to take a long run at a championship with their current core. The window is much closer to opening than closing for this current Mav team. Time will tell whether we take advantage of that or whether we blow it. But just because we won 2 less games this year, in a rebuilding year, than in 2002/2003 is hardly a compelling argument that the Mavs sun is setting.

[chumdawg]

You may be right, LRB. I certainly hope you are. But I worry that most of the "rising Mavericks star" is based on wishes and hopes. One thing about infusing a lot of youth is that you are also infusing a lot of uncertainty. If Harris and Podkolzine develop into above average players--or even if just Harris does--this team will probably be able to avoid losing much more ground over the next two or three years. But if neither does? We might have to spend a lot of time wishing and hoping.

Yeah, I've got a little negativity at the moment. Mostly because I think Mark Cuban is a con-man. He did a brilliant job of resuscitating a failing business and making it profitable again. He's very good at making money. Mostly because he's very good at creating an illusion of value. He's good at estimating what people want and desire, and finding a profitable way to provide it to them. He's also good at getting you pay more for those wants and desires than what they are really worth. He's snaky. He's oily. He's greasy. He's the kind of person I would NEVER want to do business with. In fact, if I were to sit down to negotiate a business deal with him, I wouldn't feel safe just keeping one hand on my wallet. I'd leave the damn thing at home, because that's the only way it would be safe.

But any old con-man can do that. The great ones are the ones who can con you and still leave you somehow having enjoyed the experience. That's the inspiration for my new sig.

[Misfit Mav]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
Mark Cuban is a con-man. He did a brilliant job of resuscitating a failing business and making it profitable again. He's very good at making money. Mostly because he's very good at creating an illusion of value. He's good at estimating what people want and desire, and finding a profitable way to provide it to them. sig.

Then how do you explain The Benefactor?

I'm just kidding, but I do think you're being a little unfair to Cuban, mostly because I think he's actually lost money on the Mavs. I'm open to your opinion though, and would like to hear why you think Cuban is creating a faulty product. Do you think he spent the enough money to expand the fan-base, and now is going to cut and run? I would think the Dampier signing runs counter to that.

[chumdawg]

I'd be pretty suprised if he's lost money on the Mavs. He more than doubled their revenues within the first three years. The Mavs don't comment officially on their financials, but I expect that they take in more revenue than they spend. Not to mention that the franchise has doubtless risen--perhaps considerably--in value since he acquired it. Given that he initially acquired only controlling interest in the franchise, which for all intents gave him all the non-monetary considerations he could get, but since has acquired all the interest he could (I think he now owns greater than 80% of the franchise), I think it's safe to surmise that he sees the Mavericks as a good investment.

I don't expect him to cut and run, no. I think it was a case of spending money to make money. He made a big splash early and threw a bunch of money around. As you say, he expanded the fan base. And now I think he'll be satisfied to reap the profits.

Cuban's nowhere near the only owner who is--or at least appears to be--willing to spend lots of cash on the team. That's why I don't why some people seem to think that he's the Second Coming when it comes to sports owners. Maybe compared to the past owners of the Mavs, yeah. But look out that window and you'll see a lot of owners who are willing to spend, and spend lavishly, in the pursuit of championships. And hey, before anyone bends over backwards praising Cuban's genius for exercising fiscal restraint these days, know that this team's bloated payroll is largely (if not solely) Cuban's doing. A guy is not a genius for figuring out a way to correct his own mistakes.

How to explain the Damp signing? You're right in that, fiscally, it runs counter to everything Cuban proclaimed last offseason. So either it was hypocrisy--or desperation, take your pick--or it was Cuban being a brilliant basketball mind as opposed to a brilliant CFO. I suspect the former, but I know that a lot of people around here firmly believe the latter.

[dirno2000]

I don't expect him to cut and run, no. I think it was a case of spending money to make money. He made a big splash early and threw a bunch of money around. As you say, he expanded the fan base. And now I think he'll be satisfied to reap the profits.

Then why sign Damp, Marquis and especially KVH? He traded for Van Horn despite the fact that the team was faring pretty well in the win loss column and Hendu's $7MM was coming off the books this summer. He’s going to pay a back up 4/5 roughly $16MM next season because he thought it would make the team a little better.

You may not the basketball moves he's made but it befuddles me how you continue to question his intent.

I’m looking out my window and the only owner I see that willing to spend $90MM on payroll is James Dolan. You can’t believe that he had to elevate the payroll to the level to make a profit in the AAC.

[chumdawg]

I've already suggested a couple of the reasons for signing Damp. I don't think the Daniels signing would count as splurging money, since at the time the kid appeared to have the kind of upside that would make his MLE contract exactly the situation Cuban would want to be in--which is to say, having good players who are probably more valuable than their contract. If he does recover from his relatively poor showing last year, then it's not unimaginable that he could be used, as early as Feb '06, as the bait that makes makes another team bite on one of our unfavorable contracts. Then again, Cuban said himself that at the time they saw Daniels a PG depth, so perhaps the same desperation came into play here (though honestly, I think they would have signed Daniels anyway).

Don't forget that in acquiring KVH he also rid himself of Booth and his two years remaining. Now you are talking about, what, two or three million spent on that deal? (I don't know if Booth's contract is end-loaded, and I can't recall whether Cuban kicked some cash into that trade.) And again, KVH could well be part of another deal that provides some relief.

So we'll have to see how it all pants out before we know for sure either way. But we do know that Cuban gave Donnie the directive to not add any payroll unless it clearly makes the team much better on the court, or something like that. Well, I'm here to tell you, most (if not all) of the players who might be available in deals like that are going to have at least as many questionmarks as the PG did last summer. Given that he passed on that one, it's hard to imagine a scenario he couldn't pass on under these terms.

In my mind, he had a chance to prove last year where his intent was. If he'd kept his own guys and still added another big contract, I'd have been mucho impressed. But he didn't, and I'm not.

As for who else is willing to spend 90MM in payroll, it's hard to know, given that league rules have kept team salary totals in some sort of check. Most teams couldn't spend 90MM on payroll, at least not within the next couple years, even if they were spending Mark Cuban's money. There are only so many trades you can pull off in order to get a bunch of max or near-max guys on your team. For that matter, there are only so many guys in the league who are going to demand that kind of contract, even when it comes to re-signing your own guys. So maybe there are more people willing to spend 90MM than you might think. Probably there are some who are willing to spend a hell of a lot more. (I think that's why the owners wanted a salary cap in the first place.)

But still and all, I don't think Cuban is happy himself with spending 90MM, so I don't know what the point is. I think he's made it clear that total is going down way before it goes up.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
You may be right, LRB. I certainly hope you are. But I worry that most of the "rising Mavericks star" is based on wishes and hopes. One thing about infusing a lot of youth is that you are also infusing a lot of uncertainty. If Harris and Podkolzine develop into above average players--or even if just Harris does--this team will probably be able to avoid losing much more ground over the next two or three years. But if neither does? We might have to spend a lot of time wishing and hoping.

That's kind of the gamble you have to take in sports, especially the NBA if you want to consistently stay on the top. Of course we know from experience a lot of those gambles have turned into miserable failures. You pick a young guy who you think has potential and sometimes they turn out great, like Dirk (of course we picked him when we were still trying to get to decent) others are big busts. But if anything the Mavs have proven to be creative in looking for new talent (Marquis and Howard come to mind). Still I think we need a bit of luck if we're to ever become a championship team. But hey, so have other teams. The Spurs depended on luck some good (lotto ball coming out #1 for TD) and some bad (Admiral getting hurt so SA had abysmal record to get TD pick). The Bulls lucked out that no one picked MJ in the previous 3 picks. Even the Lakers took somewhat of a gamble drafting Kobe out of Highschool. For every winner in gambling, there are many more losers.

Still I like the Mavs chances as much as anyother team not named San Antonio. Sure we're far from being a shoe in to be next in line for a championship, but I think we have ourselves in a position to have a pretty decent chance. And Cubes might be a con man, but it's hard to argue the success the Mavs have had since he took over the ownership of the Mavs. Sure you can make an argument that Cubes isn't the best owner, but I would think that it's obvious that there are many owners in the NBA who would be a major step down from Cubes.

Of course it all comes down to the glass being half empty or half full. For me it's better to spend the off season with the glass half full even if there is a possibility that it might get spilt once the season starts.

[Misfit Mav]

I generally like Cuban, but I'll be the first to admit that he has his flaws. I think at times he treats the Mavs like his own fantasy basketball team, and wants too much involvement in trades. However, I don't think that you can fault him for being stingy, and I have no problem with him trying to improve the value of the team because I think team value goes hand-in-hand with playoff success.

[dirno2000]

I've already suggested a couple of the reasons for signing Damp. I don't think the Daniels signing would count as splurging money, since at the time the kid appeared to have the kind of upside that would make his MLE contract exactly the situation Cuban would want to be in--which is to say, having good players who are probably more valuable than their contract. If he does recover from his relatively poor showing last year, then it's not unimaginable that he could be used, as early as Feb '06, as the bait that makes makes another team bite on one of our unfavorable contracts. Then again, Cuban said himself that at the time they saw Daniels a PG depth, so perhaps the same desperation came into play here (though honestly, I think they would have signed Daniels anyway).

Anyway you look at it, giving the kid that kind of money based on roughly 30 games was a huge gamble. He erred on the side of caution by gambling that Marquis would live up to the contract. I know he said Quis was PG dept, but you don’t need to pay $36MM over 5 years for PG dept.

As for who else is willing to spend 90MM in payroll, it's hard to know, given that league rules have kept team salary totals in some sort of check. Most teams couldn't spend 90MM on payroll, at least not within the next couple years, even if they were spending Mark Cuban's money. There are only so many trades you can pull off in order to get a bunch of max or near-max guys on your team. For that matter, there are only so many guys in the league who are going to demand that kind of contract, even when it comes to re-signing your own guys. So maybe there are more people willing to spend 90MM than you might think. Probably there are some who are willing to spend a hell of a lot more. (I think that's why the owners wanted a salary cap in the first place.)

Of course nobody could get their payroll to $90MM this summer, but half the teams in the league have had the opportunity to do it over the past few years…just keep trading short contracts for long. Only three owners have proven willing to do it and one of them blinked…and FWIW he was probably the richest of the three.

But still and all, I don't think Cuban is happy himself with spending 90MM, so I don't know what the point is. I think he's made it clear that total is going down way before it goes up.

The point is that he continues to spend. You can rationalize Damp and Quis but if it was all about turning a profit he could have let Nash walk, not signed Quis or Damp and let Hendu walk this summer. That saves him about $12MM this year and $7MM next year…that’s what the smart business man would have done because I guarantee you he still could have sold out the AAC 42 times this year and the TV money was already in the bank.

Is he happy about spending $90MM on a team that lost in the 2nd round, of course not. Especially since his ownership brethren is trying to institute a super luxury tax. The point is, he made a conscious decision to do it because he thought it would help the team win...no other explanation makes sense because once again he could have stopped spending a couple of years ago and still made money in this market…it’s working for Tom Hicks.