"The TRADE" My Analysis after 30 days. - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

mick · 03-22-2002, 12:01 PM

It's been about 30 days since "The TRADE" and time to look at it objectively.

From the beginning,let me say that I have no problem with the talent level of Raef or Nick. No matter what we do the rest of this season we are a better team than last year.

The way I analyze any business decision is that I ask myself a series of questions.

First question I have to ask myself is, "where would we be if we hadn't made this trade?"

Answer: Pretty much where we are now. The big 3 have brought us to the place we are now.

Second, why was this particular trade made?

Answer: Easy answer. Nellie ball. Nellie has one year left on his contract and he truly believes he can win a championship with his style of play. Only time will tell. He has the personnel on this team now to play his game.

Third, was any trade necessary?

Answer: Probably. The team had no real identity. The personnel didn't really fit any particular style of play. Not half-court, not run and gun, pure jump shoot, and we were in salary-cap jail for longer than just the Howard contract. The only way we would add any significant player, with or with Howard's contract, would be through a sign and trade.

Fourth, of all the trade scenarios that were realistically available, is this the trade I would have made?

Answer: No. I said before the deadline I would have contacted Chicago. I still would have. I would have offered Howard and Hardaway for what went to Indiana, and when they turned that down, I would have (GASP!!! Here comes the heresy) I would have offered Finley and Hardaway.

Here's why. I would have a front line of Miller, Nowitski, and Arteest. Arteest is the type of SF we need, can score, play defense, and rebound. If Howard was still here, he would be valuable off the bench. And we still would have his contract gone after next year, or he could be traded next year for any still missing pieces. I would still have Harvey for the future. My team would be a little younger (important since we don't have any draft choices developing) and I would have added rebounders and defenders. Najera would still rotate in at PF/SF, Buck at SF for defense and rebounds.

I would have a SG rotation of Mercer, Griffin, and Newman.

I would still have Wang to play center when I wanted to try and pull Shaq away from the basket.
And I would have adequate back up PG, plus see if a younger PG like Charlie Bell or someone else could be developed.

Fifth, would THAT trade have made us better?

Answer: Probably. We would definitely have been stronger inside and not lost much in scoring. Maybe meshed even better with the core of Dirk and Steve. I am not sure that the loss of Fin would have upset the chemistry any more than the loss of the 3 H's. Winning helps team chemistry.

Sixth, what do we do with the trade that we made?

Answer: A) I would like to see a front line of Wang/Bradley, Dirk, and Raef some. I think Raef may be better at SF beleive it or not. He has the outside shot, can take it to the basket, and his strongest defensive asset is coming from the weakside. In fact, I would have used that lineup on SA last night. I was hoping that Nellie would at least tried it for a series. I wouldn't do this all the time, just enough to get a feel for Raef at SF.

B) when I played Nick and Steve at the same time, Nick would be the point and Nash the shooter.

C) If I were Cuban/Nellie I would go to Nick and say just play your game. Let's take a shot at going all the way. If after,the season, you feel you would be happier, starting at PG on a team, I will try and move you to the East.

D) Depending upon how my experiment in "A" looked for the future, and on the outcome of my conversation in "C", I would try and move Nick +(possibilities of Manning, Bradley, and pick included) in the offseason for either a C or SF. Best trade partner is probably the Nicks. They will not rebuild, but retool. I would target Camby (assuming he is healthy at the time), Ward, and one of Andersen/Thomas.

My new front line would be Raef, Dirk, Camby with Wang, Eshmeyer, Najera, and Andersen/Thomas as back ups.

PG is still Nash, with Ward and AJ as backups.

SG is still Fin with Griffin, Tariq and Buck as backups(I would re-sign Buckner somehow).

grbh · 03-22-2002, 12:14 PM

Beat me to it i was just getting ready to make a post about the trade. Nice post. I will tag along yours.

Here is why I think this trade is working. I think one of the main concerns was what would the shot distribution be. Many, myself included were a little leary of the trade for this reason. I like Raef, and NVE but I didn't want their shots to effect the number of shots taken by the big 3. Well after 13 games here is how it breaks down.

Big 3 Shots Per Game Season: 48.2
Big 3 Shots Per Games Since Trade: 48.3

Note I excluded the Portland game as the Big 3 ended up playing pretty limited minutes that night.

So where are NVE and Raef getting their shots:
1. Obviously from Howard and NVE: A good trade off
2. The tempo has increased a bit since the trade: Creates more shots, a good thing.
3. Finally the bottom of the bench, Najera, Griffen, Buckner are getting fewer shots. Last night is an expample of this. Only 6 out of 86 shots came from outside the Big 5. A good thing.

seelenjaeger · 03-22-2002, 12:17 PM

I have to disagree a little on the last thing ...

I actually like both Griffin and Buckner to take some shots, especially Buckner isnt that a bad shooter or finisher from mid-range

j

MavsFanFinley · 03-22-2002, 12:23 PM

<< Fourth, of all the trade scenarios that were realistically available, is this the trade I would have made?

Answer: No. I said before the deadline I would have contacted Chicago. I still would have. I would have offered Howard and Hardaway for what went to Indiana, and when they turned that down, I would have (GASP!!! Here comes the heresy) I would have offered Finley and Hardaway. >>

Well, we know they asked around about Finley. Cuban has said as much. What teams they contacted we'll never know until/if he's ever traded.

I would think Chicago was a team they contacted for obvious reasons. Send Finley back home, trying to get Brad Miller and/or Ron Artest.

However, why would the Bulls give up what they did to the Pacers for Howard/Hardaway? I know that's only your first offering. Howard could leave after his contract is up and even though they would have cap room, nobody wants to go there. Hardaway is good for one more year, two at best, imo.

Go to your 2nd offering (of Fin/Hardaway), and the Bulls would have given up 4 players for Finley basically. With Best, you at least have more years than what Hardaway is going to give you.

I imgagine Cuban tried, but it would have made no sense for the Bulls in either offering.

You also have to keep in mind that no one might have wanted Finley.

grbh · 03-22-2002, 12:29 PM

I like Griffin and Buckner taking shots also, but not at the expense of Raef or NVE. Just personal preference.

Obviously if they get open looks they should take em.

nekked · 03-22-2002, 12:32 PM

my biggest problem with your proposed chicago trade is that it changes the direction of the team before we've had a chance to play it out. while i like artest - he is all the best attributes of buck, griff, and newman - bringing him here would make those players useless. those guys don't seem to fit the plan that nellie has. if we've come this far, we might as well see it thru.

another point - this team has a hard enough time guarding good sg/sf without buck/griff/newman on the court. if you replaced the raef/dirk/buck frontline with a big line of wang/dirk/raef, we'd block 8 shots a game and be better on the boards, but steve smith, kobe, bonzi wells, peja, etc. would score 40 a night, and we still couldn't guard shaq/duncan/cwebb.

i think we should plug raef into juwan's spot and nick into timbug's spot and not try to force nickie v into the starting lineup. lets test his newfound attitude toward winning over whining. this team plays better with raef/dirk/sf du jour/fin/nash than it does with nick at the 2 and fin at the 3. let nick play 20 mins a night to rest nash and fin and hope he likes winning.

gosh, i love a good sports debate.

mick · 03-22-2002, 12:58 PM

MFF,
We all have our opinion, but I think Chicago would have done the deal with Fin in a heart beat. Don't forget the have two up and coming PG. They could have exercised their team buy out of Hardaway after the season to free up more cap if needed, but I think they would have kept him for veteran leadership.

Fin fits Chicago's needs more than Rose, because Fin is better suited for SG. CHI has young players they want at C, PF, SF, PG but veteran SG is the weak link for them now.

If it would make you feel better, you could have given them the pick we sent to Denver.

MavsFanFinley · 03-22-2002, 01:07 PM

<< If it would make you feel better, you could have given them the pick we sent to Denver. >>

It's not about making me feel better. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

I just think that with all the stupid moves that the Bulls have done, they wouldn't have given up all those players just for Fin? Even if they would have bought out Hardaway.

Also, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Cuban contacted Chicago about Fin. What he offered, we'll never know. Since it didn't get done, Im assuming Cuban didn't offer anything to go along with Fin that was attractive enough for Chicago.

And if Chicago was so dead-set about getting Finley, wouldn't they have contacted Cuban with some sort of offering? Then, it must have not been attractive to Cuban and they couldn't tinker with it until something was favorable for both sides is my guess.

Or maybe both trades were done so something could be worked out this summer between the two teams. Although a Finley for Rose/Ming still doesn't make sense from Chicago's side, imo.

madape · 03-22-2002, 01:20 PM

The choice of LaFrenz and VanExel, versus Artest and Miller is an EASY one. Miller is not that great of a player, and he would fit into the Mavs system even worse than Howard dis. Giving up Finley to get those guys? That is pure ludicrousy. The Mavs made the steal of the century with this trade. Raef is one of the top ten centers in the NBA, and the Mavs got him for a bag of dirt.

madape · 03-22-2002, 01:25 PM

Don't forget that both Rose and Finley were base year contract players, meaning that swapping them for each other would have been very difficult. What could have happened is that Cuban contacted Chicago, not because he wanted Miller or Artest, but because he wanted Rose. A possible scenario discussed could have been a three way trade of: Miller and Artest to Indiana, Rose and the Bulls first round pick(conditional) to Dallas, and Finley and Best to Chicago. The base year contract situations of Rose and Finley probably made this deal impossible to pull off now, but I wouldn't be too suprised to see a derivation of it reappear in the offseason when both players lose their BYC status.

mick · 03-22-2002, 02:11 PM

Now that is an asinine analysis. Cuban would have known the BYC status of Rose and Finley before making any calls. And we would want a lottery protected pick from Chicago because?

Most likely what happened is that we tried to trade Howard + to CHI and they wanted Finley before Mavs backed off. Cuban said there was interest in Fin but he wasn't interested in moving him.

What you seem to forget is that CHI made overtures to Fin during FA and when they knew he would re-sign with Mavs, backed off. You also weem to forget that Mavs made a run at Miller his FA year.

You have a right to your opinion, it would just help if you tried to back it up with a few facts that make sense.

Dooby · 03-22-2002, 05:30 PM

What possible use can Howard have to Chicago? All he would do is take up space. Any trade scenario involving Howard to Chcago is a pipedream.

mick · 03-22-2002, 05:36 PM

Nobody said CHI would take Howard. All I said was he was probably offered to CHI. Cuban admitted that they were having discussions with CHI until Miller, etc. traded to Indiana.

Appreciate your opinion, but please read and understand what I've said in the post before commenting. It makes for a better discussion IMHO.

madape · 03-22-2002, 06:07 PM

Asinine? Cubans job is ot get on the phone and work out deals. It has been stated several times times by Maverick management that they were interested in Rose, and that they were talking to Chicago as well. How asinine is it to think that they weren't exploring a deal to somehow get Rose to Dallas? I don't think its very far fetched at all.

And the pick from Chicago doesn't necessarily have to be "lottery" protected. It could be top three protected. I posted an article on another thread from a Chicago Tribune columninst who was predicting that Chicago may try to trade down if they can't land Jason Williams. Guess who was mentioned as a potential trade partner? Thats right, the Mavs, who this columninst thinks is after Yao Ming. I'll admit that now that we have Raef, the thought of Ming in a Mav uni is a little less appealing. But remember, at the time we were talking to Chicago, we didn't have Raef.

MFFL · 03-23-2002, 09:46 PM

mick - I like your breakdown of the two trades but I disagree with your assessment. The two players we got were an All-Star caliber point guard and a top 10 center. The players that Chicago traded were not on that talent level. Plus we only gave away Juwan and not Finley.

I can't imagine a better trade for the Mavs. I really think that the Mavs ought to send Kiki a ring if they win a championship.

MavsFanFinley · 03-23-2002, 09:51 PM

<< I can't imagine a better trade for the Mavs. I really think that the Mavs ought to send Kiki a ring if they win a championship. >>

LMAO. It's the right thing to do. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Good point MFFL. We were able to get the center we've wanted without giving up one of the big 3. That's a steal indeed.

Plus, we got a pg that is a great backup to Nash if the Mavs choose to keep him or we have a pg that teams will ask about this summer and we'll be able to afford trading him.