Dampier yet to pay off after Mavs' investment

[madape]

That's one thing i've noticed about is that when Damp plays well you drift away but you're the first person to take notice of a bad game he has.

I've heard this comment from other boneheads on the board, but it's not true. I just said that the Atlanta game was Dampier's best game of the season, but I'm still here.. posting more than usual if you're paying attention. I barely posted anything after his great seven minute debacle, or the domination at the hands of Eddie Curry, or the Sonics game. No, that argument is shit. I don't need a bad game to rip Dump. Everyday is an opportunity.

[FilthyFinMavs]

Originally posted by: madape

I've heard this comment from other boneheads on the board, but it's not true. I just said that the Atlanta game was Dampier's best game of the season, but I'm still here.. posting more than usual if you're paying attention. I barely posted anything after his great seven minute debacle, or the domination at the hands of Eddie Curry, or the Sonics game. No, that argument is shit. I don't need a bad game to rip Dump. Everyday is an opportunity.

Well first off that Atlanta game wasn't his best game this season especially against a teams whose big men include Drobnak and Collier. I guess you feel you aren't drifting away this time because you actually think this was a good game by Damp but I don't recall you giving Damp his props on shutting down Boozer when we went against Utah this year. I don't mind when you drift away after Damp has a big game because that means I don't have to see shit on my screen.

[madape]

Look, I know you don't like him, but Dampier is an asset for the Mavs, not a liability. He's the first legitimate starting center we've had since Roy Tarpley re-joined the team in 1994-1995.

Of course, that's your opinion. I think we were a much better team with the Raef/Bradley rotation. We had the best regular season in the history of the franchise. We broke all kinds of defensive records. We went to the Western Conference finals. Raef/Shawn may not have the qualities that most would associate with "legitimate" centers (i.e. they aren't big, strong black men), but they were perfect for this team. Cuban decided they weren't, so here we are.

And not to be picky, but I don't think Tarpley was even a starting center in '94-'95. The starting honors that year went to Lorenzo Williams, arguably a much inferior player. Hmmm... a legitimate starting center playing behind a bum. Sound familiar?

[madape]

Well first off that Atlanta game wasn't his best game this season especially against a teams whose big men include Drobnak and Collier. I guess you feel you aren't drifting away this time because you actually think this was a good game by Damp but I don't recall you giving Damp his props on shutting down Boozer when we went against Utah this year. I don't mind when you drift away after Damp has a big game because that means I don't have to see shit on my screen.

Actually, it was the Mavericks coaching staff who proclaimed Atlanta his best game of the year... the first time that he recieved a "B" on his report card, if I remember the article correctly. I was just re-stating what I read. I'm sure you know better.

[dude1394]

Well 'ape we sort of walk around each other. I ALSO think we were better off with raef/shawn. But I also see that damp provides his own assets that neither raef/shawn has. I'll defend to my dying day that Raef was a perfect center for this team, I still do not feel that the mavs needed to get that much "bigger" inside.

Phoenix may prove it this year.

[EricaLubarsky]

I wouldnt mind having Raef and Bradley, but neither of them played here. I liked getting Dampier because I thought, "finally! We have a center that Nelson has to play" but that wasnt too true. Fact is, that the loss of Nash meant that our offense went from fantastic to mediocre overnight. We had to do something and defense was the solution. Will it work out? We'll see.

Fact is that we didnt need a center too much when our offense was superb, just like Phoenix this year. We could play forwards out of position and it wouldnt matter too much because Nash would find them on the weak side or on the break where the size wouldnt matter too much. It's all about Nash, but don't get me wrong- I'm not making a stand on whether matching phoenix was right or not.

Are the talking heads on TV right? Playoff basketball favors the team with defense and a center to anchor it? We'll see when that comes.

[madape]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Well 'ape we sort of walk around each other. I ALSO think we were better off with raef/shawn. But I also see that damp provides his own assets that neither raef/shawn has. I'll defend to my dying day that Raef was a perfect center for this team, I still do not feel that the mavs needed to get that much "bigger" inside.

Phoenix may prove it this year.

Yes!

And that really raises the bigger question of what's wrong with this team. We throw away all of the key peices of that championship run... Raef, Van Exel, NASH. And get back a bag full of coal in Dampier, Jason Terry, Devin Harris.

How can a championship team chock full of youthful talent get demolished and turned into a borderline lottery team in two years? It's the GM! It's the owner. Rule #1: If you have a good point guard, don't trade him. Rule #2: If you have a good center, don't trade him. Cuban did, and now we suck. Over the past month, we're a .500 team.


Why is it that Cuban gets a free pass on this board? Why is it that Nelson gets dogged on like he's the second coming of Barry Switzer. Everything good that has ever happened to this franchise in the past 10 years is because of Don Nelson. He's even managed to win games DESPITE three years of the worst personel moves in all of basketball.

Nelson isn't perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better at his job than Mark Cuban is at his.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: madape

Of course, that's your opinion.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh to say we haven't had a legitimate starting center since Tarpley. For a couple of years there when the team still stunk, Shawn was posting decent stat lines -- and we were a bad or downright terrible defensive team.

I think we were a much better team with the Raef/Bradley rotation.

The Mavs that year held opponents to .438 shooting. This year, they're holding opponents to .429 shooting. The Mavs that year got outrebounded by 3.4 rebounds per game. The Mavs this year outrebound opponents by nearly a board a game.

That team may have been better than this team is right now, but it wasn't because of superior center contributions.

We had the best regular season in the history of the franchise. We broke all kinds of defensive records. We went to the Western Conference finals. Raef/Shawn may not have the qualities that most would associate with "legitimate" centers (i.e. they aren't big, strong black men), but they were perfect for this team.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Raef as a starting center was part of the reason that this team, as constructed in its 2002-2003 version, had about maxed out its potential.

The clear goal going into the summer of 2003 was to try and find a big guy who could play the center spot more effectively than Raef could. Some relevant quotes:

"We need somebody who can rebound, somebody we can throw the ball [to] in the low post and give us some inside presence. That's basically what we don't have. Everywhere else we're pretty good." - Dirk Nowitzki, 6-2-03

"There's no secrets. You can see them, as well as I, the holes that need some work. We have to do something about our athleticism in the frontline [and] about our rebounding problems in the frontline." - Don Nelson, 6-2-03

"If they're looking at me to be an enforcer or to be a dominator underneath the goal, I never have been that and probably won't be that," LaFrentz said. "So get somebody else in here to fill that spot." - Raef LaFrentz, 7-20-03

Re: the "big, strong black man" comment, I could care less what color our starting center is, so long as he can offer what Dampier does.

And not to be picky, but I don't think Tarpley was even a starting center in '94-'95. The starting honors that year went to Lorenzo Williams, arguably a much inferior player. Hmmm... a legitimate starting center playing behind a bum. Sound familiar?

By legitimate starting center I meant someone qualified and talented enough to be a legitimate starting center. I do remember that Zo "Save Myself For the Fourth Quarter" Williams was the named starter, but he wasn't a legitimate NBA center.

As for the attempted analogy with Dampier and Bradley, I disagree. In this instance, the best man for the job is starting.

[kg_veteran]

Nelson isn't perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better at his job than Mark Cuban is at his.

Cuban's not the GM. Nelson is. And from all accounts, the actual process works something like this:

Donnie goes out and finds potential trades and acquisitions, discusses the financial implications of same with Cuban, and then Don gets a final say on whether to approve any trades that Donnie and Cuban approve of.

Thus, if your complaining about personnel moves, you need to complain about Don and his son, not Cuban. If you're complaining about not paying Nash, that does fall on Cuban, as it would on any team owner. At the same time, though, it's REALLY premature to say Cuban screwed up. The Suns have done ZERO in the playoffs so far.

I'll put it to you this way. If the Suns advance further in the playoffs this year than the Mavericks, come back and talk to me about how Cuban screwed up. Until then, let's wait and see.

[dude1394]

I think we were a much better team with the Raef/Bradley rotation.

The Mavs that year held opponents to .438 shooting. This year, they're holding opponents to .429 shooting. The Mavs that year got outrebounded by 3.4 rebounds per game. The Mavs this year outrebound opponents by nearly a board a game.

That team may have been better than this team is right now, but it wasn't because of superior center contributions.

I think to that I would say SCOREBOARD... It may not have been because of "superior" center contributions but that is linear thinking imo. The team was better, raef blocked shots, raef hit shots, raef ran floor. I would say the team was better and had adequate center contributions.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Raef as a starting center was part of the reason that this team, as constructed in its 2002-2003 version, had about maxed out its potential.

The clear goal going into the summer of 2003 was to try and find a big guy who could play the center spot more effectively than Raef could. Some relevant quotes:

"We need somebody who can rebound, somebody we can throw the ball [to] in the low post and give us some inside presence. That's basically what we don't have. Everywhere else we're pretty good." - Dirk Nowitzki, 6-2-03

Well to that I'd say...Dirk get your ass down on the blocks and become that, quit whining that you need someone else to do that. So your contention now is that Dampier IS that guy who we throw it down on the blocks to?? Okay, but imo so what. If he's not effective down there what is the point.

Again...I like what damp brings and there is a toughness there that we didn't have before. You can also make an argument that Amare is the best of both, tough,mobile AND good in the paint, but they don't have a dirk either.

"There's no secrets. You can see them, as well as I, the holes that need some work. We have to do something about our athleticism in the frontline [and] about our rebounding problems in the frontline." - Don Nelson, 6-2-03

The only reason (imo) that we are even a much better rebounding team is because of josh. If nellie is saying that he needed a bigger guy than raef then hell go get him, but nellie wants it all, shaq I guess. He's got to be a big body and go for 20 when you can throw it down.

"If they're looking at me to be an enforcer or to be a dominator underneath the goal, I never have been that and probably won't be that," LaFrentz said. "So get somebody else in here to fill that spot." - Raef LaFrentz, 7-20-03

Again so what, he wasn't an enforcer or a dominator. I don't exactly see damp out there "enforcing" and "dominating". Again I'm not trying to rag on damp, but everyone has warts, raef's was that he wasn't damp. Okay..he had other talents...not to mention it looks like he played on one leg his last year here.

[madape]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Raef as a starting center was part of the reason that this team, as constructed in its 2002-2003 version, had about maxed out its potential.

Yeah, I've heard you say that before. I don't buy it for one second. We improved something like six straight years. Our regular season record improved from below forty, to 53, to 60. We went from not making the playoffs to a first round suprise against Utah, to a first round sweep of Minnesota, to the Western Conference finals. We weren't slowing down. We weren't leveling out. We were building upon our success.. year after year... with young players. If we would have left everything alone, we probably would have just kept on improving. You might say that we were "maxed out", but I say that we cut short a tend of improvement that would have likely won us a championship or two.

The clear goal going into the summer of 2003 was to try and find a big guy who could play the center spot more effectively than Raef could. Some relevant quotes:

That was a stupid goal. We took a big step back. We are a worse team. Why did we need to blow up the best team in Maverick history? Cuban, the press, the fans... everyone INSISTED on us getting slower, less mobile, worse offensively. Well congratulations, you got what you asked for. Meanwhile Phoenix and Seattle have leapfrogged us big time in terms of the class of the conference. We've trashed our all-world point guard to save a few bucks, yet we're OK with offering a below average center a seven year $70M deal. And now we're not much better than the L.A. Clippers. Maybe going "traditional" wasn't what this team needed after all. Maybe Nelson wasn't as big an idiot as you make him out to be. Maybe it's the folks making the personell decisions who are the idiots. And if you think Don Nelson is making those decisions, I've got to say that are absolutely out of touch with reality.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dude1394

I think to that I would say SCOREBOARD... It may not have been because of "superior" center contributions but that is linear thinking imo. The team was better, raef blocked shots, raef hit shots, raef ran floor. I would say the team was better and had adequate center contributions.

I'm not sure how you can say "scoreboard", considering that this season isn't over.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: madape

Yeah, I've heard you say that before. I don't buy it for one second. We improved something like six straight years. Our regular season record improved from below forty, to 53, to 60. We went from not making the playoffs to a first round suprise against Utah, to a first round sweep of Minnesota, to the Western Conference finals. We weren't slowing down. We weren't leveling out. We were building upon our success.. year after year... with young players. If we would have left everything alone, we probably would have just kept on improving. You might say that we were "maxed out", but I say that we cut short a tend of improvement that would have likely won us a championship or two.

You don't buy it?

There was a lot of fortuity involved in the Mavs even reaching the WCF in 2002-2003, and I think that people tend to forget that too quickly. Had Chris Webber not gone down in Game 2 against Dallas, the odds are pretty good that the Mavs lose that series. If the Mavs had lost again in the second round for the third year in a row, I doubt we would have heard everybody talking about how they were continuing to improve. In fact, what the Mavericks organization realized was that even though they had reached the WCF, they were lucky in doing so and needed to improve the makeup of their team if they wanted to have a legitimate chance at the ultimate goal: an NBA title.

If Raef LaFrentz had been good enough down low, the Mavericks would NOT have been looking to replace him.

And I can't fathom that you honestly believe that if we had left the 2002-2003 team alone and just kept on going, we'd be better off. Nick Van Exel is now a hobbled, broken point guard, and Raef is still Raef.

That was a stupid goal.

Talk to Nellie about it. He agreed with that goal.

We took a big step back. We are a worse team.

You're assuming that the Mavs would have done better last year and this year by leaving things alone. I don't think that's a fair assumption.

Why did we need to blow up the best team in Maverick history?

Because the team couldn't defend or rebound well enough to win it all.

Meanwhile Phoenix and Seattle have leapfrogged us big time in terms of the class of the conference.

Nonsense. Let's see them advance further than the Mavericks in the playoffs before you make such proclamations.

We've trashed our all-world point guard to save a few bucks, yet we're OK with offering a below average center a seven year $70M deal.

A few bucks? A below average center?

Nice hyperbole.

And now we're not much better than the L.A. Clippers.

Now THAT'S funny.

And if you think Don Nelson is making those decisions, I've got to say that are absolutely out of touch with reality.

I follow this team just as closely as you do. Nelson's approving of, if not making, the personnel decisions. And frankly, given that Nelson abdicated his duties as GM while he continues to accept the CHECK for being GM, I would think you would blame Nelson if he doesn't care enough about the team he coaches to put in the time to help build it exactly to his specifications.

[Bayliss]

A summary of madape's posts:

Dampier suckes... Dampier's bat dung.. blah blah bah Dampier sucks...

He is actually intelligent but he'd doesn't want to be objective and analyze the Mavericks. Instead he wants to use hyperbole and wish that Bradley would be the center that Nellie craves.

[madape]

Originally posted by: Bayliss
A summary of madape's posts:

Dampier suckes... Dampier's bat dung.. blah blah bah Dampier sucks...

He is actually intelligent but he'd doesn't want to be objective and analyze the Mavericks. Instead he wants to use hyperbole and wish that Bradley would be the center that Nellie craves.

I've said a lot more in this thread than just that jerkoff. I'm also not the only one with a negative opinion of Dampier. Go read the article posted at the head of this thread. The whole team is souring on the guy. Maybe YOU are the one who wants to wish that Dampier was a decent center, despite overwhelming evidence that he isn't. You accuse me of not being objective? When it appears that all the statistical analysis as well as expert opinions from everyone within the Mavericks organization points to Dampier being a huge, collosal, BUST? Open your eyes, buddy.

I'm beginning to think this Dampier obsession is a form of religion. We've never seen him play well here in Dallas. There's no evidence he's ever been anything other than an average center. Yet we all must beleive as strongly as possible that he's a good player.. the big man the Mavericks have been waiting for for years to take them to the championships. Hey, if you want it badly enough, it just might happen. Right?

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I'm not sure how you can say "scoreboard", considering that this season isn't over.

I can say scoreboard because of your statement:

That team may have been better than this team is right now, but it wasn't because of superior center contributions.

That team was the best the mavs have ever had and were 1 game away from a championship. To just lay it out there that the team this year WILL be better is certainly yet to be proven. I have factual data on my side. You MAY get factual data this year, but you do not have it yet. So that's why I can say it.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: madape
When it appears that all the statistical analysis as well as expert opinions from everyone within the Mavericks organization points to Dampier being a huge, collosal, BUST? Open your eyes, buddy.

I'm not sure what statistical analysis you're referring to, but here's what the stats DO say:

When Dampier plays at least 30 minutes, the Mavs are 10-2 (.833). The Mavs shoot 44.6%, the opponent shoots 41.8%. The Mavs score 100.7 ppg, and the opponent scores 90.2 ppg. The Mavs get 47.5 rpg; their opponents get 42.0 rpg. For those of you keeping score at home, that's a FG% differential of 2.8%, an average margin of victory of 10.5 ppg, and a rebounding differential of 5.5 rpg. If you do that, well, you win at about a 83% clip.

When Dampier plays less than 30 minutes per game, the Mavs are 6-7 (.462). The Mavs shoot 41.6%, the opponent shoots 43.9%. The Mavs score 96.7 ppg, and the opponent scores 98.3 ppg. The Mavs get 43.0 rpg; their opponents get 46.5 rpg. For those of you keeping score at home, that's a FG% differential of -2.3%, an average margin of defeat of 1.6 ppg, and a rebounding differential of -3.5 rpg. If you do that, well, you win at about a 46% clip.

The stats speak VERY clearly to Dampier's impact on this team. They just don't agree with you.

[Bayliss]

I've said a lot more in this thread than just that jerkoff. I'm also not the only one with a negative opinion of Dampier. Go read the article posted at the head of this thread. The whole team is souring on the guy. Maybe YOU are the one who wants to wish that Dampier was a decent center, despite overwhelming evidence that he isn't. You accuse me of not being objective? When it appears that all the statistical analysis as well as expert opinions from everyone within the Mavericks organization points to Dampier being a huge, collosal, BUST? Open your eyes, buddy.

Answer me this madape: can Shawn Bradley hold Shaquille O'Neal and Yao Ming to under 40% shooting?

I'm beginning to think this Dampier obsession is a form of religion. We've never seen him play well here in Dallas. There's no evidence he's ever been anything other than an average center. Yet we all must beleive as strongly as possible that he's a good player.. the big man the Mavericks have been waiting for for years to take them to the championships. Hey, if you want it badly enough, it just might happen. Right?

I consider someone that averages 8 and 8... good. Of course, you consider that "dung." Of course, I also consider someone that can hold the two best centers to poor shooting nights "good." But you disagree with that.

I don't think Dampier is a savior. But he will do and does more than than any other center in Maverickj history not named Donaldson. And those things don't show up in the boxscore.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dude1394

I can say scoreboard because of your statement:

That team was the best the mavs have ever had and were 1 game away from a championship. To just lay it out there that the team this year WILL be better is certainly yet to be proven.

I never said that this year's team WILL be better. I may believe that, but I never stated that as a matter of fact.

What I said was, even IF the 2002-2003 team was better than the 2004-2005 team is going to be, it isn't because that team had better center play than this team does.

That, I believe, I can say with a degree of certainty.

[Bayliss]

I'm not sure what statistical analysis you're referring to, but here's what the stats DO say:

When Dampier plays at least 30 minutes, the Mavs are 10-2 (.833). The Mavs shoot 44.6%, the opponent shoots 41.8%. The Mavs score 100.7 ppg, and the opponent scores 90.2 ppg. The Mavs get 47.5 rpg; their opponents get 42.0 rpg. For those of you keeping score at home, that's a FG% differential of 2.8%, an average margin of victory of 10.5 ppg, and a rebounding differential of 5.5 rpg. If you do that, well, you win at about a 83% clip.

When Dampier plays less than 30 minutes per game, the Mavs are 6-7 (.462). The Mavs shoot 41.6%, the opponent shoots 43.9%. The Mavs score 96.7 ppg, and the opponent scores 98.3 ppg. The Mavs get 43.0 rpg; their opponents get 46.5 rpg. For those of you keeping score at home, that's a FG% differential of -2.3%, an average margin of defeat of 1.6 ppg, and a rebounding differential of -3.5 rpg. If you do that, well, you win at about a 46% clip.

The stats speak VERY clearly to Dampier's impact on this team. They just don't agree with you.

Sometimes some people just don't want to see that truth. But go ahead madape, post us Bradley's "per 48" stats so we can see how wrong we are about Dampier.

[madape]

You don't buy it?

There was a lot of fortuity involved in the Mavs even reaching the WCF in 2002-2003, and I think that people tend to forget that too quickly. Had Chris Webber not gone down in Game 2 against Dallas, the odds are pretty good that the Mavs lose that series.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. How I tend to look at it, though is that we were one Dirk ankle sprain away from being world champions. I think it is arguable that the 2002-2003 team was the best team in the history of this franchise. They gave even a better chance at a ring than the Blackman/Harper/Aguire teams of the early 80s.

If Raef LaFrentz had been good enough down low, the Mavericks would NOT have been looking to replace him.

And I can't fathom that you honestly believe that if we had left the 2002-2003 team alone and just kept on going, we'd be better off. Nick Van Exel is now a hobbled, broken point guard, and Raef is still Raef.

Again, maybe changing our game to accomodate a big doofus down low wasn't what was needed. I don't think the team as it's built now has much of a chance of getting past the first round of the playoffs. In fact, if we don't improve dramatically very quickly, I think we'd be lucky to even make it that far.


Talk to Nellie about it. He agreed with that goal.

You're assuming that the Mavs would have done better last year and this year by leaving things alone. I don't think that's a fair assumption.

And it's a fair assumtion to think that we could do no better with the talent on that 2002-2003 team than the Western Conference finals? And what's so bad about that? This team as it's structured now doesn't stand much of a chance of even sniffing the WCFs.

Because the team couldn't defend or rebound well enough to win it all.

If Dirk doesn't turn his ankle, we probably win the title. And if you remember, it wasn't rebounding or inside scoring that won the Spurs the series, it was outside shooting.

Nonsense. Let's see them advance further than the Mavericks in the playoffs before you make such proclamations.

Nonsense? Sorry, it's not nonsense. The Suns are 22-3. The Sonics are 18-5. The last time the Mavericks came close to those records were when Bradley led us to the best start in NBA history (before leading us to the best record, and best post-season performance in franchise history). In every single power ranking, by every major publication, you'll find both teams ahead of the Maverick. If it's "nonsense" to put the Sonics and Suns ahead of the Mavericks, there's a whole lot of lunatics out there.

A few bucks? A below average center?

Well, if we paid Nash, Dampier wouldn't be here. If Nash were here, we'd probably be looking a whole lot better than we are right now. Spin it how you want, but I'd rather have Nash.

And now we're not much better than the L.A. Clippers.

Now THAT'S funny.

Well then keep laughing, buddy. Since Nov.19th, the Mavericks are just one gave over .500. In that same time-frame, the Clippers are just one game under .500. The Clips are a lot closer to us in the standings than we are to the Suns. I guess it's "nonsense" to say we're in another class, eh?

I follow this team just as closely as you do. Nelson's approving of, if not making, the personnel decisions. And frankly, given that Nelson abdicated his duties as GM while he continues to accept the CHECK for being GM, I would think you would blame Nelson if he doesn't care enough about the team he coaches to put in the time to help build it exactly to his specifications.

Nelson does care, which is why he's privately saying that Cuban flushed this team down the toilet. He's not making decisions anymore becuase we have a rich, self-absorbed, narcissistic spoiled brat running the franchise into the ground.

[Bayliss]

If Dirk doesn't turn his ankle,

He didn't turn his ankle. He collided knees with Manu which almost caused the same thing that Chris Webber had: torm M(A)CL. But thankfully it was only a strained ligament.

[madape]

Answer me this madape: can Shawn Bradley hold Shaquille O'Neal and Yao Ming to under 40% shooting?

Hell yes Shawn can. I just presented a dallasbasketball.com article from last year that outlined one instance of Shawn's absolute dominance of Yao. I've seen him more than hold his own against Shaq at times as well (although I've also seem him get squished, but who hasn't?).

Speaking of Shaq, I've also seen Dampier get squished time after time after time. Go back and check his record against Shaq while he was with Golden State. You won't find many 38% shooting nights. You'll find a whole lot of 30 point, 18 rebound nights though.

You saw the Chicago game, right? Is Dampier the only player in the NBA who get's punked by Eddie Curry these days? Dump sure made that bust look like an all-star.

[Bayliss]

Well, if we paid Nash, Dampier wouldn't be here. If Nash were here, we'd probably be looking a whole lot better than we are right now. Spin it how you want, but I'd rather have Nash.

If memory serves correctly, Nash was here last year. Last year's record was worse than our record right now. And the Mavs would still have the problem of not having a center. Oh wait, they still have Bradley. I forgot.

You keep saying that the Mavs won't get out of the first round. Yet what did they achieve last year? So what is the difference?

[madape]

Originally posted by: Bayliss

He didn't turn his ankle. He collided knees with Manu which almost caused the same thing that Chris Webber had: torm M(A)CL. But thankfully it was only a strained ligament.

That's right. Thanks for setting me straight.

I'd also like to point out that Shawn Bradley went down to a knee injury in that series. We would have had a much greater chance if Shawn was out there, considering his legacy of holding Duncan in check during the playoffs.

[madape]

Originally posted by: Bayliss

If memory serves correctly, Nash was here last year. Last year's record was worse than our record right now. And the Mavs would still have the problem of not having a center. Oh wait, they still have Bradley. I forgot.

You keep saying that the Mavs won't get out of the first round. Yet what did they achieve last year? So what is the difference?

Did Bradley play? It's not his fault they stunk.

But the real story of last year was how the Raef/Walker trade ruined a good thing. One thing I can assure you is that if we'd had the same personell in the '04 playoffs that we had in the '03, we wouldn't have been bitch slapped by the Kings 4-1.

[Bayliss]

Hell yes Shawn can. I just presented a dallasbasketball.com article from last year that outlined one instance of Shawn's absolute dominance of Yao. I've seen him more than hold his own against Shaq at times as well (although I've also seem him get squished, but who hasn't?).

Laughing. You do realize that last year Dallas went small evverytime against Yao playing Najera against him? Or am I dreaming? Nelson didn't even have confidence in him enough to play him that often.

Speaking of Shaq, I've also seen Dampier get squished time after time after time. Go back and check his record against Shaq while he was with Golden State. You won't find many 38% shooting nights. You'll find a whole lot of 30 point, 18 rebound nights though.

Show me a boxscore where Shawn held his own against Shaq. I'd love to see how long ago it was... perhaps while Shawn was in NJ or Philly?

You saw the Chicago game, right? Is Dampier the only player in the NBA who get's punked by Eddie Curry these days? Dump sure made that bust look like an all-star.

Eddie Curry has been averaging 20 points a game for the last week-week and a half. He had 20+ against the Mavs. Wow, Dampier got "punked." Btw, nice to see you keep up with the NBA. Of course if you had been paying attention to the game instead of Damp's butt or Shawn's scrotum, you might actually realize who in the NBA is playing well. But then again, how can you... you only have 2 eyes and scotum and butt is much better to look at.

[kg_veteran]

Re: the 2002-2003 team, I disagree with you, but one thing is clear: the Mavericks organization felt (and most people agree) that the 2002-2003 team needed to make some changes if they wanted to continue moving toward the goal of an NBA title.

You say this current team won't make it past the first round; I think they're well-equipped by season's end to get to the WCF. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that.

Re: the Suns and Sonics, you said they had leap-frogged the Mavs in terms of being the class of the NBA. I disagree. When they start winning playoff series, then I'll agree with you about who holds what position in the NBA hierarchy. December "power rankings" are meaningless to me. The Mavs were ranked No. 1 by ESPN when they started out 7-1, and I didn't believe then that they were the best team in the league.

Re: Nash, if you want to continue to complain about him not being here, so be it, but the fact that he's not here doesn't have any bearing on Dampier's impact.

Re: the Clippers, if you honestly think the Clippers could beat the Mavs in the playoffs (or that the Clippers will even make the playoffs), then I'll just beg to differ with you. If you don't think either of those things, then you really don't believe that we "aren't much better than the Clippers."

Nelson does care, which is why he's privately saying that Cuban flushed this team down the toilet.

Fabrications. Who's he saying it to privately? You?

He's not making decisions anymore becuase we have a rich, self-absorbed, narcissistic spoiled brat running the franchise into the ground.

Criticize Cuban for specific decisions if you want, but spare us all the stereotypical stuff, eh? Cuban's one of the best things ever to happen to the team. He's not perfect; he's made mistakes. But he is NOT running this franchise into the ground.

[madape]

Re: the Clippers, if you honestly think the Clippers could beat the Mavs in the playoffs (or that the Clippers will even make the playoffs), then I'll just beg to differ with you. If you don't think either of those things, then you really don't believe that we "aren't much better than the Clippers."

Yes, I think the Mavs are better than the Clippers. Yes I think they'd win in a seven game series. But the gap between the Clips and the Mavericks is a lot smaller right now than the gap between the Mavericks and the Suns. And the Clippers aren't on their third iteration of a point guard rotation and they seem to be pretty content with their center.

Fabrications. Who's he saying it to privately? You?

I read the papers:

Asked if he ever thinks about what might have been if Nash were still on his roster, Nelson said: "I try not to. It's not fair to anybody to do that. And I can't tell you what I say in my private moments."

Criticize Cuban for specific decisions if you want, but spare us all the stereotypical stuff, eh? Cuban's one of the best things ever to happen to the team. He's not perfect; he's made mistakes. But he is NOT running this franchise into the ground.

I think cuban's been great for this franchise from a publicity standpoint. But he's nowhere close to the best thing to happen to this franchise. He had nothing to do with Dirk. He had nothing to do with Finley. He had nothing to do with Nash, other than to fire him.
He had nothing to do with Dallas building us a stadium. I love his energy, I'm beginning to think that he needs to keep his ass the hell away from basketball operations. None of his moves have worked out, beginning from Rodman, to Courtney Alexander, to Donnell Harvey, to Erick Dampier. Is it stereotypical to call him the worst Gerneral Manager in the NBA?

[dude1394]

Well it is obvious that the mavericks organization felt that the 2002 team needed to make changes, but it sure wasn't to upgrade the center position. To be honest I dont' know what the hell the organization was thinking last year, it made no sense at all to me except to get rid of nve and raef because of contracts. Possibly nellie just hated raef, it seemed so to me.

You would have thought that raef/nve could have garnered dampier or some other center or draft picks but I guess not. Last year was a cluster, it took that cluster maybe to wake cubes up to having a balanced team.

I don't agree with the organization on that season, except for the NVE trade. That one made perfect sense to me for jamison. So the team "could" have been today raef,dirk,jamison,finley,stevie. Jho, 'Quis, 'Shawn... Maybe najera on the bench.

Go find a banger to deal with bangers. I don't see anything wrong with that lineup and they would have contended last year instead of being such a cluster.

[kg_veteran]

I'd also like to point out that Shawn Bradley went down to a knee injury in that series. We would have had a much greater chance if Shawn was out there, considering his legacy of holding Duncan in check during the playoffs.

It's comments like this that make me wonder if, when it comes to discussions of Bradley and the Mavericks center position, you live in some sort of alternate universe.

Legacy of holding Duncan in check? When was that legacy established?

In 2000-2001, the Mavericks lost to the Spurs in a 5 game series, and Duncan averaged 27.0 ppg and 17.4 rpg.

In the one full game that Bradley played against Duncan in the 2002-2003 series, Duncan posted 40 points and 15 rebounds.

I don't think Bradley really slows Duncan down in the playoffs. At all. I'll agree with you that the team would have had a better shot at winning the series if Bradley had been healthy, but let's deal in reality, not dreamland.

[dude1394]

Nah, shawn is fine as a change of pace except for last year, when he should have played every game until he fouled out (since there was no decent alternative). Shawn just isn't coordinated enough to keep from fouling out in 5 minutes when matched up one-on-one.