The official Mark Cuban is smoking crack thread - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

fluid.forty.one · 03-07-2009, 07:54 PM

The Mavericks lost in 06. The calls were unfortunate, but they still lost.

They were not the moral champions, or the should-be champions. They were 2nd place. It's time to move on.

Thespiralgoeson · 03-07-2009, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

No one has blamed Kidd for this year's debacle. I think some people have blamed this organization for trading a 25 year old point guard for a 35 year old point guard though.

bingo.

tcat075 · 03-07-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

The Mavericks lost in 06. The calls were unfortunate, but they still lost.

They were not the moral champions, or the should-be champions. They were 2nd place. It's time to move on.

never

ghazi · 03-07-2009, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

The Mavericks lost in 06. The calls were unfortunate, but they still lost.

They were not the moral champions, or the should-be champions. They were 2nd place. It's time to move on.

Never!

Tokey41 · 03-07-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMC0007

I would call the 14th-ish pick a good one. It's potentially better than losing against the #1 or 2 seed in 5 or 6 games and getting a mid 20+pick. Besides, It's not as much the pick it's the people making the pick. There have been some really good players from 14-17!

This years draft is weak, which is probably why NJ stole last years and next years picks instead. The little things like this really annoy me about the front office.

Re-Dirk-ulous · 03-08-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokey41

This years draft is weak, which is probably why NJ stole last years and next years picks instead. The little things like this really annoy me about the front office.

name the studs in this draft...

vmac · 03-08-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokey41

This years draft is weak, which is probably why NJ stole last years and next years picks instead. The little things like this really annoy me about the front office.

No, I'm pretty sure you can't trade back to back picks.

eyedentifyme · 03-08-2009, 01:57 PM

Cubes has to overvalue the players on this team so that we can get good value deals come time to trade them.

Thespiralgoeson · 03-08-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyedentifyme

Cubes has to overvalue the players on this team so that we can get good value deals come time to trade them.

Yeah that doesn't make sense.

LonghornDub · 03-08-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyedentifyme

Cubes has to overvalue the players on this team so that we can get good value deals come time to trade them.

wat

tcat075 · 03-08-2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

wat

best post ever.

Tokey41 · 03-08-2009, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Re-Dirk-ulous

name the studs in this draft...

Griffin and Rubio. Let's hope they fall to the 14-18 range.

Tokey41 · 03-08-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vmac

No, I'm pretty sure you can't trade back to back picks.

That too, but we still get stuck with a pick in the weakest of the three drafts (unless next years is weak as well, I haven't really heard much).

aexchange · 03-09-2009, 05:00 AM

we have a snow man's chance in hell of doing anything this year or next year as this team is currently constructed. cuban has essentially become a cheap version of jerry jones in that he has become overly attached to his core players and unlike jones, has refused to take on additional salary via trades in order to improve the overall talent of the team.

to all of you who think we have any chance of doing anything in the playoffs, i laugh. we have zero chance, and in fact would be lucky just to make it a 6 game series with anyone currently in the playoffs. our record against the top 7 is pathetic and we are too slow, too old, and too mediocre to do anything. the trade for kidd is absolutely one of the worst things this franchise has done and has set us back 5-6 years. in a conference that is packed with stud PGs, we have an old cagey vet on his last legs who can no longer keep up with anybody on the perimeter.

barring some major movement this off season, we should prepare ourselves for total and utter failure. we are the suck right now.

jthig32 · 03-09-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aexchange

we have a snow man's chance in hell of doing anything this year or next year as this team is currently constructed. cuban has essentially become a cheap version of jerry jones in that he has become overly attached to his core players and unlike jones, has refused to take on additional salary via trades in order to improve the overall talent of the team.

Aex, he paid a pretty penny to get the Kidd deal done. Which tells me that his reluctance to take on salary is about staying flexible, not saving money.

I mean they gave Diop 5 years at the MLE. That's a funny example because it was a horrible decision, but a team worried about adding salary doesn't hand out that contract.

The key will be this offseason.

TheMaverick · 03-09-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Aex, he paid a pretty penny to get the Kidd deal done. Which tells me that his reluctance to take on salary is about staying flexible, not saving money.

I mean they gave Diop 5 years at the MLE. That's a funny example because it was a horrible decision, but a team worried about adding salary doesn't hand out that contract.

The key will be this offseason.

Good post.

horse900703 · 03-09-2009, 09:37 AM

Wow, nice Cuban!

DevinHarriswillstart · 03-09-2009, 05:27 PM

Really good article by David Moore in the DMN today. Probably the best he has written.

Quote:

Nearly a week has passed since Mark Cuban questioned his team's effort and threatened action.

His words will echo into an off-season that seems destined to unleash significant change.

Cuban resists attempts to discuss the long-term implications of his challenge. He insists the only reason he went public was to give his team a kick in the butt. He will tell you the Mavericks either respond, or they don't.

But there is more at work here as the team prepares for a crucial, four-game road trip.

Ever wonder why Cuban has gone to such lengths to avoid criticizing his players in the past? Because that undercuts the Mavericks brand. Bash the players, and fans have the right to ask why they should pay to watch your product.

The Mavericks didn't lose to Miami in the Finals. Cuban sold you on the idea they had the series stolen from them by the officials.

The Mavericks weren't taken apart by New Orleans in the first round last season because they weren't good enough. The dismissal of coach Avery Johnson let you know Johnson had mismanaged the wealth of talent he had been given.

There are no more villains in the wings. Rick Carlisle hasn't been around long enough to be part of the problem. You can blame Donnie Nelson, but he takes his personnel cues from the head coach and Cuban.

You can blame Cuban. But if the organization places blame on the person at the top, it doesn't exactly stir confidence that the team will improve or get it right.

That leaves the players.

The Mavericks aren't a championship contender. They aren't a bad team, even though a growing number of critics and disgruntled fans would lead you to believe that's the case.

The Mavericks are pretty good. The problem is, that doesn't inspire passion.

You try to sell "pretty good" in this economy.

Cuban realizes there is no longer a buzz about his team. The longest consecutive sellout streak in the NBA doesn't mask the fact the turnstile count falls short of a full house on many nights and excitement in his product has waned.

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban questioned his players' effort after a loss to Oklahoma City on March 2.

When Cuban called out his players, he sided with the fans. He gave them a voice and validated their frustration, which explains why so many went up to him during the San Antonio game and said thanks.

But don't lose sight of who else is upset.

"It's been a frustrating year, not only for him as an owner to watch, but as players," forward Dirk Nowitzki said. "We don't want to have the ups and downs all the time. We don't want to play well one night and not play well the next.

"As a player who is used to winning with this organization, it hasn't been an outstanding, fun year. But you've got to make the best out of it."

What is the best this team can do? No reasonable person anticipates a long playoff run.

I believe that's why Cuban said what he did last week. He knows where this season is headed. Making his comments now gives the players a chance to redeem themselves, yet lets the fans know he won't stand pat.

And don't get too caught up in Cuban's choice of the word "effort," which is often a euphemism for lack of talent. I don't care how hard the Mavericks play the rest of the way. If the team fails to get out of the first round for the third consecutive season, if it fails to even make the playoffs, how can Cuban come back with the same group?

He can't.

He can't sell that.

That is the bottom line to his comments.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...l.3a6e5bc.html

GermanDunk · 03-09-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Re-Dirk-ulous

We're not good enough for a seven game series

That´s it. It doesn´t matter if Lakers or whatever is the opponent. It´s a question of team spirit and capability. In this case Lakers are a nose ahead. There is now doubt about it.

BGMaverick9 · 03-09-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Really good article by David Moore in the DMN today. Probably the best he has written.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...l.3a6e5bc.html

Thanks. If we get what we somewhat expect to happen (get in...MAYBE win in the first round or get bounced quickly), changes will happen.

eyedentifyme · 03-09-2009, 06:45 PM

We can beat the Spurs (w/o Ginobili) in a seven game series.

SMC0007 · 03-09-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokey41

This years draft is weak, which is probably why NJ stole last years and next years picks instead. The little things like this really annoy me about the front office.

What makes this draft weak? Just because you haven't heard the hype about several "projected" super studs from random talking heads doesn't mean the draft is gonna be weak. There are plenty of really solid players to be had.

Re-Dirk-ulous · 03-09-2009, 08:51 PM

Mark Cuban only smokes the good billionaire crack

tcat075 · 03-09-2009, 08:52 PM

I sincerely doubt you can label a draft "weak" or not until several years after the draft. Perhaps a decade.

Tokey41 · 03-09-2009, 11:00 PM

Does denial really create this kind of delusion? Name one player you think will be a stud in our drafting range. Sure, there are Howards, Redds, and Arenas' out there... but all I see in this draft are role players. There probably will be one or two players who we will look back on and say "wow he should have gone in the top 5" but the chances of us pinpointing that player where other teams failed and actually drafting them? Please be realistic, its not like scouts have been that far off about draft potential in recent years (save maybe Greg Oden, but the jury is still out on him).

And for the record, you can label a draft weak, you see people do it all the time and for good reason. The entire premise of a draft is to pick players based on their potential contributions to an NBA team. If scouts and analysts believe that there isn't much talent in a draft (as many do in this drafts case), then we can predict that it won't be a stellar year for lottery teams. Granted, you will not know how they will fair until they are actually playing in the NBA, but if your going by that logic, what would be the point of scouting players pre-NBA at all? The draft is all about speculation and particularly in the Mavericks case, we don't have time to wait several years or a decade to find out whether a player will be good. Let's just hope they get a steal and in the meantime find other ways to immediately improve the team.

Bookit · 03-09-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyedentifyme

We can beat the Spurs (w/o Ginobili) in a seven game series.

Dtownsfinest · 03-10-2009, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMC0007

What makes this draft weak? Just because you haven't heard the hype about several "projected" super studs from random talking heads doesn't mean the draft is gonna be weak. There are plenty of really solid players to be had.

Usually when "experts" say that a draft is weak they tend to be right. I remember everyone saying how horrible that 2000 draft was and boy were they right. I don't think they imagined the best player in the draft would be drafted in the 2nd round. Its going to be a weak draft but that doesn't mean there isn't a gem in it. Michael Redd in the 2000 draft is proof of that.

TheMaverick · 03-10-2009, 08:06 AM

If we're banking on finding gems in the draft, we're not a very good team.

SMC0007 · 03-10-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokey41

Does denial really create this kind of delusion? Name one player you think will be a stud in our drafting range. Sure, there are Howards, Redds, and Arenas' out there... but all I see in this draft are role players. There probably will be one or two players who we will look back on and say "wow he should have gone in the top 5" but the chances of us pinpointing that player where other teams failed and actually drafting them? Please be realistic, its not like scouts have been that far off about draft potential in recent years (save maybe Greg Oden, but the jury is still out on him).

And for the record, you can label a draft weak, you see people do it all the time and for good reason. The entire premise of a draft is to pick players based on their potential contributions to an NBA team. If scouts and analysts believe that there isn't much talent in a draft (as many do in this drafts case), then we can predict that it won't be a stellar year for lottery teams. Granted, you will not know how they will fair until they are actually playing in the NBA, but if your going by that logic, what would be the point of scouting players pre-NBA at all? The draft is all about speculation and particularly in the Mavericks case, we don't have time to wait several years or a decade to find out whether a player will be good. Let's just hope they get a steal and in the meantime find other ways to immediately improve the team.

Well thanks for answering my question.?.I guess or not

What does in denial have to do with this? Anyway, first and most importantly we're not sure where we are gonna draft right now so isn't it pointless to attemp a prediction of who will be in our range? They may make some moves by then so who knows.

You don't have to have a "stud" to help this or any other team, there are several role players and studs currently in the league that do tremendous things for their respective teams that weren't drafted high. You get guys like Boozer, TChandler, Granger, Redd, M Ellis, Josh Smith, Al JEfferson, JR Smith, Jameer Nelson, Kev Martin, CDuhon, Jho, the list goes on and they end up being key parts of a roster!

When it is true that many times you can't tell exactly how players will end up until they play, whats the point of labeling the entire draft weak? If weak draft means there aren't enough Blake Griffins and Stephen Currys to go around then fine.

antoinewalker · 03-10-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

Also in a 7 game series, isnt every single game "any" game?? Therefore a team can be beat in a 7 game series ; )

owned!

Thespiralgoeson · 03-10-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antoinewalker

owned!

Not quite.

Every game may be "any game" in a seven game series, but the odds dwindle with every game. Say the Mavs have a 40% chance of beating the Lakers in one game. Well they have to beat the Lakers 4 times. So that equals out to the Mavs having a 10% chance of beating the Lakers. And that's being optimistic.

tcat075 · 03-10-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMaverick

If we're banking on finding gems in the draft, we're not a very good team.

True dat. Then again, I wouldn't consider us "banking" on finding draft gems. We're hoping we might, but not expected to.

LonghornDub · 03-10-2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Not quite.

Every game may be "any game" in a seven game series, but the odds dwindle with every game. Say the Mavs have a 40% chance of beating the Lakers in one game. Well they have to beat the Lakers 4 times. So that equals out to the Mavs having a 10% chance of beating the Lakers. And that's being optimistic.

That's not right. Using that same math, what would the Lakers (60% of winning an individual game) chance of winning 4 games be?

Thespiralgoeson · 03-10-2009, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

That's not right. Using that same math, what would the Lakers (60% of winning an individual game) chance of winning 4 games be?

4,000%.... You're right. I'm terrible at math, which is why I'm taking the same algebra course for the 3rd time. My only point is that it's a hell of a lot harder to beat someone 4 times than it is to beat someone once. In a seven game series, the better teams tend to win. Suffice it to say we ain't gonna beat the Lakers.

tcat075 · 03-10-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

That's not right. Using that same math, what would the Lakers (60% of winning an individual game) chance of winning 4 games be?

59.667%.

Just kidding. I have no clue. I probably learned how to solve that a couple years back, but I've forgotten it by now...

LonghornDub · 03-10-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

4,000%.... You're right. I'm terrible at math, which is why I'm taking the same algebra course for the 3rd time. My only point is that it's a hell of a lot harder to beat someone 4 times than it is to beat someone once. In a seven game series, the better teams tend to win. Suffice it to say we ain't gonna beat the Lakers.

Yeah I agree with your point, I just wanted to be a d*ck and call out your math. Sorry.

chumdawg · 03-10-2009, 10:44 PM

I did the math, and if the Lakers are 60-40 over the Mavs in every game (home court notwithstanding), they are favored to win the series 71% of the time.

cowdog80 · 03-11-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayC

The great thing about all of this in 2010 the mavs have their get out of jail free card. The Mavericks will have cap space to sign a huge free agent hopefully an athletic two guard. If not James or Wade, Joe Johnson would look good next to Dirk and the merry minimums.

If the mavs dont make the playoffs they have a .5 chance of winning the lottery.

Most of the big names are going to stay put in 2010. Somebody might go to NY for the endorsement money, but beyond that - it's better financially for them to stay put.

With all the teams that have cap space in that offseason, odds are good that most teams are going to be forced to overspend for a tier 2 or tier 3 player, or just sit on their cap space.

Dirkadirkastan · 03-11-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I did the math, and if the Lakers are 60-40 over the Mavs in every game (home court notwithstanding), they are favored to win the series 71% of the time.

Chumdawg is correct.