damp traded for tyson chandler - Page 12 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

BGMaverick9 · 07-19-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Are the 76ers even trying to trade Iggy?

Has he even been on the FO's radar since last season's trade deadline?

I haven't heard anyone other than Mike Fisher and people who read Mike Fisher (like myself) mention Iguodala's name and the Mavericks in the same breath since we acquired Caron Butler...

I don't think he's been in the news really as of late. It's probably for multiple reasons:
-reconsidering if they can even unload Brand or not
-it's not the best time to really being shopping a player like Iggy (maybe in the preseason, and especially at the deadline)
-Evan Turner's performance has been terrible so maybe they need to keep Iggy on board as insurance and buy some more time for Turner.

DevinHarriswillstart · 07-19-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Are the 76ers even trying to trade Iggy?

Has he even been on the FO's radar since last season's trade deadline?

I haven't heard anyone other than Mike Fisher and people who read Mike Fisher (like myself) mention Iguodala's name and the Mavericks in the same breath since we acquired Caron Butler...

We have kinda murdered this trade rumor to death...and the loooong offseason has just begun....

SMC0007 · 07-19-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

We have kinda murdered this trade rumor to death...and the loooong offseason has just begun....

overkill

DLord · 07-19-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

...I am still hoping the Granger deal goes down and ....

There is no "Granger deal" to go down. Never has been, he isn't being shopped. Those rumors of "failed talks" came from the NJ end not Indy, and not coincidentally the report also made sure to mention that a ton of teams had tried to get Favors. The names someone wanted to make sure everyone knew are available are Harris and Favors....Granger was the window dressing used to make them look appealing.

Male30Dan · 07-19-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLord

There is no "Granger deal" to go down. Never has been, he isn't being shopped. Those rumors of "failed talks" came from the NJ end not Indy, and not coincidentally the report also made sure to mention that a ton of teams had tried to get Favors. The names someone wanted to make sure everyone knew are available are Harris and Favors....Granger was the window dressing used to make them look appealing.

Well that is certainly unfortunate - smart by Indy - but unfortunate.

Male30Dan · 07-19-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMC0007

I don't think it's embarrassing.

That is because it isn't embarrassing. He made a comment that was stupid, I told him it was stupid, he changed the subject, I pointed out that he changed the subject, and he told me that I was embarrassing myself.

Whatever... On to more important things than a pissing match with a jackass.

jthig32 · 07-19-2010, 02:14 PM

FWIW, based on everything I've ever read on the Iggy/Brand stuff, I think it's absolutely out of the question that they would give up anything of any value to acquire Brand AND Iggy.

Everything we've ever heard tells us that they've been completely unwilling to take on Brand's contract, at all. So I'm not sure why we'd assume that they would take on Brand AND give up a chip like Butler, much less anything of any more value.

The more believable scenarios had us dumping Carroll, maybe even Terry.

Underdog · 07-19-2010, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

FWIW, based on everything I've ever read on the Iggy/Brand stuff, I think it's absolutely out of the question that they would give up anything of any value to acquire Brand AND Iggy.

Everything we've ever heard tells us that they've been completely unwilling to take on Brand's contract, at all. So I'm not sure why we'd assume that they would take on Brand AND give up a chip like Butler, much less anything of any more value.

Yep, the *idea* of swallowing Brand's contract to acquire Iggy died with the DUST Chip...

(it only made some kind of sense on our end when the price for Brand was Erick Dampier's instant expiring - no sense in trading away multiple talents just to land one guy who might not even put us over the top...)

sike · 07-19-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yep, the *idea* of swallowing Brand's contract to acquire Iggy died with the DUST Chip...

(it only made some kind of sense on our end when the price for Brand was Erick Dampier's instant expiring - no sense in trading away multiple talents just to land one guy who might not even put us over the top...)

all word from the "experts" was that the Mavs NEVER had any interest in taking on Brand...even when they had the Dust.

DLord · 07-19-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yep, the *idea* of swallowing Brand's contract to acquire Iggy died with the DUST Chip...

Actually it was dead LONGGGGGGGGGGGG before that ... it was dead when the total due to be paid to Brand and Iggy was $105M (in case we keep ignoring it, that's One Hundred Five Million Dollars) - with presumably another One Hundred Five Million Dollars in tax.

Cuban will obviously take an obligation like that to get Lebron. But in order to get Igoudala?!? It's not even an idle consideration. Frankly I have doubts he'd even be interested in Iggy alone (at 55M or thereabouts) because he certainly isn't really the guy they want. With them needing a guy who can create his own shot and dominate as a scorer, he's a shooting guard that can't shoot.

Underdog · 07-19-2010, 02:34 PM

N/M - DLord just stole my thundah...

Not much of a debate when you compare Iggy/Brand's price tag to Butler/Chandler's expiring contracts...

Male30Dan · 07-19-2010, 03:24 PM

If I might add my 2 cents, you realize that for the Dust chip that was being talked and discussed like it was gold for the entire off-season by many people (your own sidekick Fisher certainly did his share of that DLord) that we landed Tyson Fing Chandler, right?

Sure, that gave us great flexibility to make a move in the future, but you realize that other teams will be there at the deadline with max-dollar trade exceptions that offer INSTANT savings - not just savings after half a year, right?

I mean, trust me - I get the reasoning behind the Mavs NOT going after Iggy with Brand's price tag (though in my humble opinion suggesting that the Mavs wouldn't take on Iggy alone is just silly) but to sit here and state things like "it is absolutely out of the question that the Mavs would......" is just comical considering the last 30 days of activity.

We have a couple of years left in Dirk's prime. Maybe after that he settles into a 20/7 guy for a couple of years - maybe less - or maybe his prime lasts through his contract. Lord (no pun intended) knows that the guy doesn't depend on his athleticism to dominate a game, so there is not a huge reason to believe he has a huge dropoff coming. Dirk is definitely (as was well said in another thread) in his senior season looking to win state.

With that said you have Miami that IS GOING TO WIN TITLES and Dirk and all of you know this. So the window is likely 2 years, despite what Dirk may offer after that.
If they don't surround him with guys that are better suited in certain positions instead of guys playing out of position, this team is not going to take the next step. Hell, it might not even after a move considering the talent of both the Lakers and the Heat.

My point in this rant is that to contend that the Mavs aren't slightly desperate - if not a good bit so - is just not true. What do you think happens if a week is left prior to the trade deadline and they still haven't pulled the trigger and they are sitting there 4th in the West and preparing for a very likely 2nd round exit in the playoffs after Dirk decided to stay and be loyal? Do we stay firm or improve the team, damn the cost?

It isn't my money so it is an easier decision for me, obviously. With that said, I think given the circumstances you boys are looking at 2 pair after the turn and expecting a full house. Sure, the river could give us the boat, but there are more outs for ol dude in seat 4 looking to hit his flush.

Everyone wants a Gasol-trade, but the more likely scenario is us having to make a more fair exchange in which we get the best player that fits our team the best but have to pass on another talented player and take on salary.

Again, I said all along that this is what I would like to see happen (the core exchange of Chandler, Butler, and Roddy for Iggy, Brand and Granger - there are other moving parts mind you - see my long posts earlier in the thread for specifics), not what I anticipated the Mavs doing. I didn't know or even really hold out hope that one or both were coming - just a two-trade scenario I would like to see.

I get the thought process that the Mavs wouldn't pull the trigger, but come deadline time when you either improve the team or "go to war" with a team that is just a little better than a team that couldn't get out of the first round (with the team that beat us getting swept in the 2nd round), you are either going to improve yourself or have marginal cap space after declining to sign quite a few players.

Then what does THAT team have regarding trade chips and talent to continue? Not a damn thing. So if it comes down to it and nothing else is there I would be willing to bet that Mark doesn't call that All-In bet from the guy with 4 of his 5 towards securing the winning flush. I bet he doesn't call with the hope that the Gasol-full house card falls. I bet he decides to win the tournament, not necessarily that hand and, ultimately, gives up more to improve his team for the long haul while getting younger and more talented in the process, despite taking on more cash.

But what do I know. I am just a dumbass on a message board filled with guys that DO know (good luck with that). This is the last thing I am going to say on this matter. I know one very certain thing and that is not a damn one of you know anything for certain (it is safe to say that no one saw Chandler coming from a centimeter away amongst the ones with DEFINITIVE answers here today).

Here is hoping whatever they do is something that will actually push us over the hump and get Dirk that elusive ring. We all know he deserves it - that is one thing we can agree on.

LSMF · 07-19-2010, 04:04 PM

^Excellent Post.

dude1394 · 07-19-2010, 04:39 PM

Well I still believe that we need to get a change in the post. Unless they shove the dirkster down there and he gets it done then we will continue to be a pick and pop team. It has not gotten it done for the last 5 years or so. (That's why I really wanted Jefferson, defense be damned).

dalger · 07-19-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

But what do I know. I am just a dumbass on a message board filled with guys that DO know (good luck with that). This is the last thing I am going to say on this matter.

Why would you write that after a long and fine posting like that with lots of points for discussion? As Denny Crane once said: "Don't be such a girl!"

Personally, I'd enjoy reading more postings like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

N/M - DLord just stole my thundah...

Not much of a debate when you compare Iggy/Brand's price tag to Butler/Chandler's expiring contracts...

It would be insane to make that deal and trade away our two most valuable chips to only get Iggy and take Brand's contract in the process. Perhaps, a best-case scenario would be to realize two trades in February with Butler and Chandler as the main pieces. We could then surround these two with additional expirings (Stevenson, JJB) and, depending on the quality of the incoming players, talent (Roddy, DoJo).

It's quite difficult to say which options are going to be on the table in six months after the first half of the season, so it's just as difficult and maybe even useless to make up dream scenarios in the summer that revolve around the February trade dealine. A year ago, the Wizards thought they could be pretty good with players like Arenas, Jamison, Butler, Haywood, Blatche and McGee. And then they totally imploded and allowed us to take advantage of it. Those are scenarios that can hardly be foreseen and present fortunate circumstances for teams like us.

With that in mind and as far as the much talked about Iggy/Brand package is concerned, the only remote possibility I could see is a Chandler/Jet for Iggy/Brand deal to at least make the 76ers eat some salary, if we had another offer on the table to bring in a player or players who could really make a difference alongside Iggy and together with the core we have. That might be something to make the FO think about taking on Brand's contract. Then again, we don't know our options and Brand's contract is absolutely horrible.

All that said, I still think that we need two trades to give us a shot against the Lakers and Heat. Even getting Iggy without Brand wouldn't cut it.

mac222b · 07-19-2010, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well I still believe that we need to get a change in the post. Unless they shove the dirkster down there and he gets it done then we will continue to be a pick and pop team. It has not gotten it done for the last 5 years or so. (That's why I really wanted Jefferson, defense be damned).

i went back and forth on Jefferson. but for me it came down to this: he commands a double team in the post. Dirk commands a double. Roddy is able to break defenders down off the dribble. Caron is a damn fine 3 or 4 option. add one of the 3 or 4 great shooters(Korver, Reddick, Miller, Morrow) for full MLE. Terry and Kidd spotting up. offensively we'd be in good shape.
we lack the ability to go inside out. have lacked that for all of Dirk's time here. hell, the '06 team used to resort to posting up Adrian freaking Griffin from time to time.
it's simply too hard to score a basket sometimes w/haywood/kidd/marion out there. we couldve easily bought back a 1st rd. pick that was sent to T-Wolves if necessary. so it wouldve just cost Damp, essentially.

im aware of all the negatives associated w/ Al Jeff. we all value interior defense very highly and that's not his forte. but you can bet the opposing team wouldve always been aware of Jefferson's whereabouts. we really couldve used that. and Jefferson has never been on a good team before. is it his fault? hard to say. perhaps he would improve his efficiency w/ better teammates . it was a classic "buy low" scenario. they didn't get it done. they got greedy. they had to make one more pitch for CP. whatever. an opportunity was missed. and there will be fewer at the deadline due to TE's.

grndmstr_c · 07-19-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

That is because it isn't embarrassing. He made a comment that was stupid, I told him it was stupid, he changed the subject, I pointed out that he changed the subject, and he told me that I was embarrassing myself.

Whatever... On to more important things than a pissing match with a jackass.

Dear Short-Bus,

Please see pretty much every comment that's been posted in the interim about the merits and likelihood of Dallas taking on Brand in order to get Iggy.

Love,
Jackass

mac222b · 07-19-2010, 05:37 PM

im waiting for the "Ajinca demands trade" headline. or he could just hold out like Revis

LSMF · 07-19-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well I still believe that we need to get a change in the post. Unless they shove the dirkster down there and he gets it done then we will continue to be a pick and pop team. It has not gotten it done for the last 5 years or so. (That's why I really wanted Jefferson, defense be damned).

I really wanted Jefferson as well. I'm over it now but there were just so many reasons why we should have gotten him. Cuban has wanted a "Gasol like deal" for quite some time now, and Dust/JJ for Jefferson/Sessions was it imho. The FO apologists around here love to say that Jefferson's defense is horrible. The funny thing is I actually think of Jefferson as similar to Gasol in his Memphis days. Think of it, good player on a sucky team, both can score in the paint, both are called soft and both didn't play good defense.

Look at Gasol now, everyone seems to have forgotten how he was in Memphis. The guy was a horrible defender. I still remember guys like Duncan, Dirk, KG, and Amare straight up abusing Pau. Look at what happened as soon as he got on a winning team. He began to work hard on defense, because he actually knew he had a chance to win. The same would have happened with Jefferson. He just came off a major knee injury and was playing in the triangle offense which pretty much disrupted that whole T-Wolves team last season. Yet he still put up 17/9. If he came here, he would be with legit players in Dirk, Butler, Kidd, Roddy, Marion/Jet. You think he wouldn't be playing hard on both ends, knowing that he finally had a chance to win?

It would have completed the team. You'd have Kidd/Roddy/Jet bombing from the outside. Butler/Dirk lighting up the mid range area. A weapon off the bench in Ramon Sessions. Marion/Haywood rebounding and doing the dirty work. And then you'd have Jefferson giving us easy baskets down low. Well, its OK though. What's done is done. It's just funny though, because the same folks who said they didn't want Jefferson here will be the same folks whining when the team is bricking Jumpshots in the playoffs...

rabbitproof · 07-19-2010, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSMF

You'd have Kidd/Roddy/Jet bombing from the outside. Butler/Dirk lighting up the mid range area. A weapon off the bench in Ramon Sessions. Marion/Haywood rebounding and doing the dirty work. And then you'd have Jefferson giving us easy baskets down low.

This sounded so damn good.

Um, Ty, scrap the USA thing and go work on your post moves.

dude1394 · 07-19-2010, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSMF

What's done is done. It's just funny though, because the same folks who said they didn't want Jefferson here will be the same folks whining when the team is bricking Jumpshots in the playoffs...

True 'dat.

DLord · 07-19-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

If I might add my 2 cents, you realize that for the Dust chip that was being talked and discussed like it was gold for the entire off-season by many people (your own sidekick Fisher certainly did his share of that DLord) that we landed Tyson Fing Chandler, right?

Sure, that gave us great flexibility to make a move in the future, but you realize that other teams will be there at the deadline with max-dollar trade exceptions that offer INSTANT savings - not just savings after half a year, right?

I mean, trust me - I get the reasoning behind the Mavs NOT going after Iggy with Brand's price tag (though in my humble opinion suggesting that the Mavs wouldn't take on Iggy alone is just silly) but to sit here and state things like "it is absolutely out of the question that the Mavs would......" is just comical considering the last 30 days of activity.

We have a couple of years left in Dirk's prime. Maybe after that he settles into a 20/7 guy for a couple of years - maybe less - or maybe his prime lasts through his contract. Lord (no pun intended) knows that the guy doesn't depend on his athleticism to dominate a game, so there is not a huge reason to believe he has a huge dropoff coming. Dirk is definitely (as was well said in another thread) in his senior season looking to win state.

With that said you have Miami that IS GOING TO WIN TITLES and Dirk and all of you know this. So the window is likely 2 years, despite what Dirk may offer after that.
If they don't surround him with guys that are better suited in certain positions instead of guys playing out of position, this team is not going to take the next step. Hell, it might not even after a move considering the talent of both the Lakers and the Heat.

My point in this rant is that to contend that the Mavs aren't slightly desperate - if not a good bit so - is just not true. What do you think happens if a week is left prior to the trade deadline and they still haven't pulled the trigger and they are sitting there 4th in the West and preparing for a very likely 2nd round exit in the playoffs after Dirk decided to stay and be loyal? Do we stay firm or improve the team, damn the cost?

It isn't my money so it is an easier decision for me, obviously. With that said, I think given the circumstances you boys are looking at 2 pair after the turn and expecting a full house. Sure, the river could give us the boat, but there are more outs for ol dude in seat 4 looking to hit his flush.

Everyone wants a Gasol-trade, but the more likely scenario is us having to make a more fair exchange in which we get the best player that fits our team the best but have to pass on another talented player and take on salary.

Again, I said all along that this is what I would like to see happen (the core exchange of Chandler, Butler, and Roddy for Iggy, Brand and Granger - there are other moving parts mind you - see my long posts earlier in the thread for specifics), not what I anticipated the Mavs doing. I didn't know or even really hold out hope that one or both were coming - just a two-trade scenario I would like to see.

I get the thought process that the Mavs wouldn't pull the trigger, but come deadline time when you either improve the team or "go to war" with a team that is just a little better than a team that couldn't get out of the first round (with the team that beat us getting swept in the 2nd round), you are either going to improve yourself or have marginal cap space after declining to sign quite a few players.

Then what does THAT team have regarding trade chips and talent to continue? Not a damn thing. So if it comes down to it and nothing else is there I would be willing to bet that Mark doesn't call that All-In bet from the guy with 4 of his 5 towards securing the winning flush. I bet he doesn't call with the hope that the Gasol-full house card falls. I bet he decides to win the tournament, not necessarily that hand and, ultimately, gives up more to improve his team for the long haul while getting younger and more talented in the process, despite taking on more cash.

But what do I know. I am just a dumbass on a message board filled with guys that DO know (good luck with that). This is the last thing I am going to say on this matter. I know one very certain thing and that is not a damn one of you know anything for certain (it is safe to say that no one saw Chandler coming from a centimeter away amongst the ones with DEFINITIVE answers here today).

Here is hoping whatever they do is something that will actually push us over the hump and get Dirk that elusive ring. We all know he deserves it - that is one thing we can agree on.

Male29Dan, there's so much in that diatribe that I see as "completely off base" that I almost didn't even answer because it would take so long to address it all in detail. But rather than ignore it, I'll offer a quick list of the main items I don't buy at all.

RE DUST CHIP

1 - Fisher and I never said the DUST chip itself would or could land anything. You've merely echoed an oft-repeated fallacy misstating what we wrote.
2 - To state it again (accurately), putting the DUST chip on the table by itself meant nothing. It was only a tool that might open other doors that the Mavs didn't have a better way to open.
3 - What the DUST chip did not do and could not do was make players of choice automatically available. It could not make any particular free agent pick Dallas, nor make any team trade their player to Dallas.
4 - So the hope was that in a summer with potentially massive free agent movement, one of the Mavs players of choice would also become available to them.
5 - When it was said and done, we got proof that DUST could have worked exactly as we said it would. The reason it didn't, was because the Mavs said no. But the exact type of trade we talked about - DUST plus a pair of picks - landed Al Jefferson, and he would have been in Dallas if the Mavs decided he was a player of choice. Instead, they said no and Utah said yes.
6 - You assert the Mavs are desperate and paint a dire picture. But the evidence says the opposite - they had no problem turning down a trade to use all of their assets in a desperation move (for AJ) that they felt wouldn't have provided enough positive impact to get them over the top ...instead making a more modest but positive move that simultaneously banked their assets to look for a later opportunity.
7 - You disparage it, but I thought the Chandler trade was genius. Once Lebron-Wade had teamed up, the player options for a giant upgrade to the Mavs were so sparse that I thought grabbing a TE for DUST - in essence banking it - would be their best option. Instead, they banked DUST a different way with Chandler - and somehow also got rid of 17.5M in junk payroll in the process. How'd they do that?

RE OPPORTUNITY GOING FORWARD

1 - Few if any teams at this point are in "give up" mode so once Jefferson was done, the teams knew a DUST/TE-ish sort of deal isn't going to be offered anytime soon ... which is why the Mavs didn't see any benefit to holding onto DUST and sitting by the phone.
2 - The next window is trade deadline. The Mavs rolled their assets forward via the Chandler move to be at max value for use then.
3 - Yes, for a deal RIGHT NOW any TE being offered would be far more attractive to a team looking for cap relief than Chandler and other expirings. At the deadline, not so big a difference unless a team is dodging immediate tax concerns.
4 - CLE and TOR have the only truly big (10M+) TEs. If you think some team might swoop in with a better asset for filler if a big value hits the market at the deadline, that is the extent of your competition.
5 - But if you have one of those TEs while I have Chandler's contract, I can trade match C Paul while you can't, and if I include $3M I've come real close to making his net salary cost $0. TEs have lots of limits.
6 - If THE PLAYER (is it Chris Paul? or whoever) becomes available, it's not the mere presence of a TE or expiring that will swing the deal, it will be good players, picks and promising kids.

All your poker analogies notwithstanding, let's make this simple. The Mavs are not going to bury themselves in salary for some moderately talented player like Iggy.

You can take issue with what's being said, and disbelieve it if you wish, but the Mavs have been very clear and consistent on their approach with these types of moves. There's no indication anything has changed. While we can't tell the future and we can't read minds, they've done as they've said they would.

By that standard, Brand+Iggy is out. It's not even close. How much added payroll would be acceptable, and how much of an upgrade does it require, starts getting fuzzy in considering very good starters who are below all-star caliber ...But based on what they tell us plus observations, I've gotta conclude Iggy alone (with his contract) would be very borderline, and my conclusion is bolstered by their choice on Jefferson. In AJ's case, they wanted him if Minny would eat some bad salary - and I have to think they might have the same stance in any talks for Iggy.

dude1394 · 07-19-2010, 09:12 PM

Sic 'em DLord.

Male30Dan · 07-19-2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Dear Short-Bus,

Please see pretty much every comment that's been posted in the interim about the merits and likelihood of Dallas taking on Brand in order to get Iggy.

Love,
Jackass

A big bag of nothing. Seriously dude, nothing.

Male30Dan · 07-19-2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLord

Male29Dan, there's so much in that diatribe that I see as "completely off base" that I almost didn't even answer because it would take so long to address it all in detail. But rather than ignore it, I'll offer a quick list of the main items I don't buy at all.

RE DUST CHIP

1 - Fisher and I never said the DUST chip itself would or could land anything. You've merely echoed an oft-repeated fallacy misstating what we wrote.

While every single word mentioned in the first item above might very well be correct regarding the Dust chip, I have a hard time feeling bad for someone that complains about misinterpretations in this circumstance considering T-Shirts were made and profited from that referenced the importance of that very phrase. I mean no disrespect from that - it just is what it is.

2 - To state it again (accurately), putting the DUST chip on the table by itself meant nothing. It was only a tool that might open other doors that the Mavs didn't have a better way to open.

I know as much, and said so myself after taking some time to calm down immediately following the trade.

3 - What the DUST chip did not do and could not do was make players of choice automatically available. It could not make any particular free agent pick Dallas, nor make any team trade their player to Dallas.

Again, I know this.

4 - So the hope was that in a summer with potentially massive free agent movement, one of the Mavs players of choice would also become available to them.

Yes, indeed that was the hope.

5 - When it was said and done, we got proof that DUST could have worked exactly as we said it would. The reason it didn't, was because the Mavs said no. But the exact type of trade we talked about - DUST plus a pair of picks - landed Al Jefferson, and he would have been in Dallas if the Mavs decided he was a player of choice. Instead, they said no and Utah said yes.

And thank god - he is NOT a fit and is the exact type of player I am saying we should avoid. A butler at SG type player. Yes, he offers great inside scoring but where does he play? Less than Dirk defensively at the 5 with Dirk's less than stellar D at the 4? Just a horrible idea. THAT is why they passed in my opinion. They didn't want another Walker/Jamison/Dirk situation on their hands.

6 - You assert the Mavs are desperate and paint a dire picture. But the evidence says the opposite - they had no problem turning down a trade to use all of their assets in a desperation move (for AJ) that they felt wouldn't have provided enough positive impact to get them over the top ...instead making a more modest but positive move that simultaneously banked their assets to look for a later opportunity.

But my opinion is that they turned that down due to it being a poor fit - Utah did it because they just lost their POWER FORWARD - you know, the position the guys plays. Now if a guy actually fits a role we need upgraded I wouldn't be so sure they would pass, because yes, if the situation I mentioned above plays out (4th in the West, no Gasol-like trade opportunities, seeing a good chance of a 2nd round exit, etc) you simply can't assume desperation won't set in.

7 - You disparage it, but I thought the Chandler trade was genius. Once Lebron-Wade had teamed up, the player options for a giant upgrade to the Mavs were so sparse that I thought grabbing a TE for DUST - in essence banking it - would be their best option. Instead, they banked DUST a different way with Chandler - and somehow also got rid of 17.5M in junk payroll in the process. How'd they do that?

It was genius only as a direct result of the added flexibility it offers; however, that flexibility isn't as good as the Dust chip due to one being equal to a Trade Exception and one NOT being equal to a Trade Exception. I know they received two small TEs (the biggest being 4.3 or some such) but you can't combine them so it isn't the same thing as one big TE equivalent.

RE OPPORTUNITY GOING FORWARD

1 - Few if any teams at this point are in "give up" mode so once Jefferson was done, the teams knew a DUST/TE-ish sort of deal isn't going to be offered anytime soon ... which is why the Mavs didn't see any benefit to holding onto DUST and sitting by the phone.

Which is why I say the added flexibility was nice from the Chandler trade - but again, the chip itself isn't as nice to the receiving team as the chip they once had - it just isn't. No one wanted the other and it may turn out that no one wants the new one (without taking on a horrible contract and asking for talent in return - what say you IF that happens).

2 - The next window is trade deadline. The Mavs rolled their assets forward via the Chandler move to be at max value for use then.

Exactly, the extra flexibility.

3 - Yes, for a deal RIGHT NOW any TE being offered would be far more attractive to a team looking for cap relief than Chandler and other expirings. At the deadline, not so big a difference unless a team is dodging immediate tax concerns.

Yes it is far more attractive - both now and at the deadline (not AS much then, but still more attractive). If team A offers the same package as team B but team A doesn't require you to pay Xm dollars for the remainder of the year you tell me who YOU pick if all other things are equal.

4 - CLE and TOR have the only truly big (10M+) TEs. If you think some team might swoop in with a better asset for filler if a big value hits the market at the deadline, that is the extent of your competition.

No, that is the extent of our competition with teams with TEs - there is still the competition with other teams with expiring contracts. That list is longer and can be found on HoopsHype's salaries page. There is no guarantee here either and that is why I think before all is said and done we will be a bit more desperate than you think we will be. Do I want that? Of COURSE not. I want us to utterly rape a team. But I doubt that happens.

5 - But if you have one of those TEs while I have Chandler's contract, I can trade match C Paul while you can't, and if I include $3M I've come real close to making his net salary cost $0. TEs have lots of limits.

So you are saying TEs can't be combined with an Expiring contract? That isn't my understanding so upon looking on that HoopsHype salary page referenced above I see a couple of expirings for both teams that would add up nicely. Then there are still the teams with expirings of their own that are of the max level or two that team up to be that.

6 - If THE PLAYER (is it Chris Paul? or whoever) becomes available, it's not the mere presence of a TE or expiring that will swing the deal, it will be good players, picks and promising kids.

Indeed, and it will also be things like keeping the guy out of your division if at all possible. I am not saying that a combination of Chandler/Butler/Stevenson/Roddy for Paul/Okafor/Posey wouldn't be better than the TEs, talent, and picks that another team could offer - but it is far from definite. I keep going back to the same point - what happens if the Gasol-like trade doesn't happen? What then? You still stand firm? Let go of your pieces? Or make the trade that helps your team.

All your poker analogies notwithstanding, let's make this simple. The Mavs are not going to bury themselves in salary for some moderately talented player like Iggy.

IN YOUR OPINION.

You can take issue with what's being said, and disbelieve it if you wish, but the Mavs have been very clear and consistent on their approach with these types of moves. There's no indication anything has changed. While we can't tell the future and we can't read minds, they've done as they've said they would.

I.E. You don't know but based on the fact that the trade hasn't happened you don't see it happening. The fact is that the past is the past and Dirk signed a contract requesting help be brought in. Do you think they relinquish their only trade pieces if the big fish doesn't bite the hook? That would be a no.

By that standard, Brand+Iggy is out. It's not even close. How much added payroll would be acceptable, and how much of an upgrade does it require, starts getting fuzzy in considering very good starters who are below all-star caliber ...But based on what they tell us plus observations, I've gotta conclude Iggy alone (with his contract) would be very borderline, and my conclusion is bolstered by their choice on Jefferson. In AJ's case, they wanted him if Minny would eat some bad salary - and I have to think they might have the same stance in any talks for Iggy.

If the lack of a Jefferson move is fueling your beliefs about Iggy, well, for the reasons listed above you are basing your opinions with poor "facts" and that is why we are on different wavelengths. Bottom line - Jefferson was NOT a fit for this roster but Iggy IS. Whether you think he is a marginal upgrade, a major upgrade, or somewhere in the middle, the fact of the matter is that he fits perfectly as our starting 2 for the next 5+ years. You just can NOT say that same thing about Jefferson so the comparison doesn't stand up.

See my comments above.

Male30Dan · 07-19-2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sic 'em DLord.

Really man?

dude1394 · 07-19-2010, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

Really man?

Yea really. T-shirts to be sold to pay the bills are somehow making a trade clause bigger, better than it was. You knew it was only a mechanism to allow the mavs to sign "he whose name must not be said" if they wanted to come here. Nothing more, nothing less.

There was no mystery to iit, hype, sure but heck, the dudes just selling t-shirts, you want one, buy one. not, not.

Now I do think it's kinda weird to actually sell a t-shirt based on a contract clause, but hey, everyone has to eat.

The mavs got Tysone Freakin chandler because there wasn't much else out there to get after the miami collusion. However they had the wherewithal and the owner willing to spend a crapload of dollars to get it done. Didn't happen...

As far as Jefferson...I still think that was a mistake to not get him..I still do. The mavs remain a pick and pop team...they've been that for almost a decade. Sorta wish they'd shake it up some...

Male30Dan · 07-19-2010, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea really. T-shirts to be sold to pay the bills are somehow making a trade clause bigger, better than it was. You knew it was only a mechanism to allow the mavs to sign "he whose name must not be said" if they wanted to come here. Nothing more, nothing less.

There was no mystery to iit, hype, sure but heck, the dudes just selling t-shirts, you want one, buy one. not, not.

Now I do think it's kinda weird to actually sell a t-shirt based on a contract clause, but hey, everyone has to eat.

The mavs got Tysone Freakin chandler because there wasn't much else out there to get after the miami collusion. However they had the wherewithal and the owner willing to spend a crapload of dollars to get it done. Didn't happen...

As far as Jefferson...I still think that was a mistake to not get him..I still do. The mavs remain a pick and pop team...they've been that for almost a decade. Sorta wish they'd shake it up some...

No man, I get it... I didn't say that HE or FISH was why my hopes were up. I am wholly responsible for that. I just echoed Fish's comments and he ran with it from there. But I have a hard time feeling sorry for misinterpretations when he most certainly led to some of them by hyping it on a damn T-Shirt. Yes, people have to eat, and I have no problem with that, but don't piss the bed and then whine when you notice your ass is wet.

Regarding Chandler - again, fine. The hype that "I" built up led me to expect more, as I said many pages back. The trade was OK considering the flexibility so I am fine with that. Regarding Jefferson, I just can't agree. He would have been truly horrific defensively teamed up with Dirk. Just horrific. He would have indeed changed the offense up, but would that necessarily be a good thing for the Dirkster? He knows this offense and if we are going to win with him it likely needs to be with him fully in his element. I just hated that Walker/Jamison/Dirk year and adding Jefferson seems a lot like that to me (obviously Jefferson doesn't score like Walker - but he plays defense like him, hell - worse).

Thespiralgoeson · 07-20-2010, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

No man, I get it... I didn't say that HE or FISH was why my hopes were up. I am wholly responsible for that. I just echoed Fish's comments and he ran with it from there. But I have a hard time feeling sorry for misinterpretations when he most certainly led to some of them by hyping it on a damn T-Shirt. Yes, people have to eat, and I have no problem with that, but don't piss the bed and then whine when you notice your ass is wet.

Regarding Chandler - again, fine. The hype that "I" built up led me to expect more, as I said many pages back. The trade was OK considering the flexibility so I am fine with that. Regarding Jefferson, I just can't agree. He would have been truly horrific defensively teamed up with Dirk. Just horrific. He would have indeed changed the offense up, but would that necessarily be a good thing for the Dirkster? He knows this offense and if we are going to win with him it likely needs to be with him fully in his element. I just hated that Walker/Jamison/Dirk year and adding Jefferson seems a lot like that to me (obviously Jefferson doesn't score like Walker - but he plays defense like him, hell - worse).

I'm totally with you regarding Jefferson. The guy is not a center. End of story. I don't care what anyone says. And YES! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 4 AND A 5! There's a reason Dirk doesn't play center... because he's, you know... not... a center...

Jefferson plays the same position as Dirk. Therefore, I'm not interested (especially when you consider how over payed he is anyway)

DLord · 07-20-2010, 01:47 AM

Male29Dan

1 Selling T-shirts changes things? The Rangers sold a slew of Chris Davis shirts two years ago, I bet someone has an old Cowboys' Alexander Wright jersey in their closet somewhere, and so on. Did the sales of those shirts imply a promise of a future all-star by the seller? Good grief.

DUST shirts were about knowing a concept no one had heard of, on a site making Mavs fans more informed, and showing it off. Something different, attention getting. And something that eventually the whole NBA world knew about, once we got the ball rolling in our little corner of the NBA universe.

Fish also sells Free Roddy B T-shirts for the same reason. If he never pans out, is it our fault? Of course not. It's just a shirt.

2 At the deadline, an expiring is the more usable asset than a TE, because an expiring can be combined (TE can't) for a bigger salary, and expiring can be used at 125% (TE can't). In addition, the TE loses most or all of its one advantage because the remaining salary on an expiring gets small enough at the deadline to be overcome by cash.

The TE can usually be more useful if you have to settle for that smaller salaried player - except in this case, the Mavs have small TEs that negate that possible flexibility edge as well.

The Mavs went for the deadline-advantaged asset(s).

3 The Mavs will have competition at that point, you say. And you're right, but that's an irrelevancy, because the caliber of player they want will always have competition. Their reasoning in repositioning for the deadline isn't an attempt to avoid competition, but rather based on an analysis of when that player they want is most likely to be available.

4 "IN YOUR OPINION"

What I've told you about the way they value and pursue trade targets is based not on an idle opinion, but on what I've been told and told and told and told - over a long period of time, by those making the decisions as well as those close to them - of how they approach things and what they will and won't consider doing. Which has been confirmed by their actions over and over.

The Jefferson negotiations? They didn't form my basis for what they might do with Iggy, instead they just added an illustration for me that matched what I've already known. In fact, I wrote what would happen on that front in advance, and it unfolded just as I said it would, because it was merely a continuation of the same stuff. It was merely on a player of a bit different caliber than most.

But if you want to think I'm merely spouting wild lucky guesses and don't know what I'm talking about, you can believe what you wish.

5 Re your opinion on Iggy ("he fits perfectly as our starting 2 for the next 5+ years"), that may be part of your disconnect here. That's a long ways away from the Mavs view of him, which is that he'd be an upgrade on some levels, but a very bad fit on others.

6 It takes a ton of effort to weave a few challenges into something insurmountable, as you seem to be attempting here. If you put as much effort into figuring out the advantages and how they work, as you do in looking for possible negatives, I think you'd have a completely different view of things.

rabbitproof · 07-20-2010, 07:05 AM

I get Dan's frustration. Who here didn't consider the possibility of LeBron coming to Dallas because it was reported Dampier would be used for a sign and trade? There's some decent content in Fish's work but when he starts projecting into the future, just turn off your brain. The mistake Fish made was harping on the SIGN and TRADE (aka the UST in DUST). Terming Damp's contract as a mere trade chip would've reduced the backlash but it was his personal "Decision". Reporter he is, analyst he is not.

Anyways, the endpoint I reach when I hear the so and so wasn't or isn't the right piece argument is that we have a case of wanting what we can't have. The shooting guard who can shoot, defend, playmake, drive, isn't overpaid or old... where is he?

The guys that become available will be questionable fits, old or overpaid. Gasol played primarily power forward in Memphis and IIRC the argument against trading JHo for him at the time was that Gasol was a misfit with Dirk in the front court and that we would be weak defensively inside. The All-Stars Boston traded for in 2007 were both about to leave their peak and earning the max. Billlups was regarded as aging and overpaid with 30M+ due at 32 years old when the Nugs traded an expiring AI for him.

The realistic "get" list involves those overpaid, old and probably a little out of place. Just get the best you can in that list without losing too much and Dampier's contract for Al Jefferson qualified.

Hopefully, the Mavs bite harder next time as there is precedent (JHo's expiring) and now they have way more TEs and expiring contracts than ever before. I don't think the market will ever completely become a seller's market though it has turned a little with all the TEs but expirings are like cash, you want to have some around but at some point, the excess should be invested.

rabbitproof · 07-20-2010, 07:12 AM

I have to add I'm a little optimistic with Chandler because he's healthy (and the Mavs didn't get lots of gel time last year). Nevertheless, it's frustrating to miss out on adding good talent for cheap. I understand Al Jefferson's contract + opportunity to unload Najera/Carroll proved too financially tempting for the FO but I hope that translates into something better.

Jefferson and DWill should be great together.

dude1394 · 07-20-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

No man, I get it... I didn't say that HE or FISH was why my hopes were up. I am wholly responsible for that. I just echoed Fish's comments and he ran with it from there. But I have a hard time feeling sorry for misinterpretations when he most certainly led to some of them by hyping it on a damn T-Shirt. Yes, people have to eat, and I have no problem with that, but don't piss the bed and then whine when you notice your ass is wet.

Regarding Chandler - again, fine. The hype that "I" built up led me to expect more, as I said many pages back. The trade was OK considering the flexibility so I am fine with that. Regarding Jefferson, I just can't agree. He would have been truly horrific defensively teamed up with Dirk. Just horrific. He would have indeed changed the offense up, but would that necessarily be a good thing for the Dirkster? He knows this offense and if we are going to win with him it likely needs to be with him fully in his element. I just hated that Walker/Jamison/Dirk year and adding Jefferson seems a lot like that to me (obviously Jefferson doesn't score like Walker - but he plays defense like him, hell - worse).

Well I think a little hyperbole is going on with respect to Walker but I'll give you that Jefferson doesn't play good defense. (I guess...I really haven't paid that much attention to him and comparing Walker at Center versus Jefferson doesn't seem like a winning argument). But we have had a defensive only center for the last decade. And we continue to not be able to get over the hump. How much more defensive do we have to be at that position? I continue to look at a Pau Gasol who is the ending center for the lakers...how can that be??

I guess it's just my thinking but defense to me has mostly been about want to. Unless it's someone trying to play snack when he's being allowed to bull over everyone, it seems that decent defense could be played if the player is forced to do so. Dirk for example can play some decent defense but if he takes a bunch of fouls, forget it, the team is done.

However imo Jefferson would provide the mavs a way to shake up this team without tearing it completely apart. We were not going to get a driving distributor (diva, that other guy). There just aren't that many out there that make that much difference.

However a post player imo would create a huge change to this team ending offense. It would give them the potential of having a low-post threat AND having a dirk/??? pick and pop. Or a high-low game with dirk/al. Or a Jefferson PNR.

The only other post player that was available was Boozer and I definitely agree that wouldn't work because he's just too small.

Jefferson seems to be the right size to play a center (height and weight). I think it was a huge mistake that could have transformed this team at the end of games where we've seen it come down to a dirk miracle way too many times.

Male30Dan · 07-20-2010, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLord

Male29Dan

1 Selling T-shirts changes things? The Rangers sold a slew of Chris Davis shirts two years ago, I bet someone has an old Cowboys' Alexander Wright jersey in their closet somewhere, and so on. Did the sales of those shirts imply a promise of a future all-star by the seller? Good grief.

No, I didn't say that it changed things. I said that you can't come in here like "We didn't assist in adding Dust hype...." when you used it for a marketing ploy, which obviously got the hopes up of many. Again, you can dislike the fact that doing that creates that hype all you want, but it is what it is. I take full responsibility for me believing that the Dust would return more than it did, but surely you can understand how several articles with numerous ways that major players COULD land here plus the selling of shirts MIGHT just help hype something more than not. But if you still disagree, so be it - just a difference of opinions.

DUST shirts were about knowing a concept no one had heard of, on a site making Mavs fans more informed, and showing it off. Something different, attention getting. And something that eventually the whole NBA world knew about, once we got the ball rolling in our little corner of the NBA universe.

And that is fine - just pointing out the obvious, or at least what I think is obvious - as I have said a few times, what do I know, right?

Fish also sells Free Roddy B T-shirts for the same reason. If he never pans out, is it our fault? Of course not. It's just a shirt.

Yes, it is your fault and I will sue you if that happens. Ask a dumb question, get a dumb answer my mom always said. Seriously though, no, and that isn't what I am doing above. You know what started this all. You know, the entire "hype/shirt" conversation? This sentence from me: "...you realize that for the Dust chip that was being talked and discussed like it was gold for the entire off-season by many people (your own sidekick Fisher certainly did his share of that DLord)..." That was the horrible sentence. I am absolutely correct in saying that - it was talked about like it could bring several things back if everything happened correctly. That isn't me saying it is your fault it didn't happen or even your fault that people were let down - just pointing out that it was hyped by Fish, which you took offense to. You can accept that your group (between the shirts and the articles) played a role in the hype or accuse me of the Roddy equivalent above - really I couldn't care less.

2 At the deadline, an expiring is the more usable asset than a TE, because an expiring can be combined (TE can't) for a bigger salary, and expiring can be used at 125% (TE can't). In addition, the TE loses most or all of its one advantage because the remaining salary on an expiring gets small enough at the deadline to be overcome by cash.

The TE can usually be more useful if you have to settle for that smaller salaried player - except in this case, the Mavs have small TEs that negate that possible flexibility edge as well.

The Mavs went for the deadline-advantaged asset(s).

So you are saying (and understand that I am not a capologist by any means) that the Cavs/Raps (and I don't know that those two teams are the only teams that have a TE - just taking your word there) can't package one large trade exception with an expiring to make a better offer than one large expiring that we offer plus a smaller trade exception? Because if they can, that is a better offer than our offer. One has more instant savings. If neither team can combine trade exceptions with expirings, so be it, but I still don't see how the Mavs would be in the drivers seat because the other team could still make two seperate trades. Let's take Paul for example. Sure, we could send Chandler and Butler for Paul and Okafor but what would stop another team from trading an expiring for Paul and a TE for Okafor, assuming they had those pieces (too early to hit realgm and do the digging)?

3 The Mavs will have competition at that point, you say. And you're right, but that's an irrelevancy, because the caliber of player they want will always have competition. Their reasoning in repositioning for the deadline isn't an attempt to avoid competition, but rather based on an analysis of when that player they want is most likely to be available.

Now that obviously is a fair point and I fully agree; however, my stance hasn't changed and I will ask the question one more time. What do the Mavs do when push comes to shove and they are in the situation where no Gasol-like trade is on the table from any teams and they are looking at the proposed trade I suggested or moving past the deadline and losing all trade assets? Surely you understand that this IS an option. Are you so sure that their stance remains as you have claimed it to be all along in this thread?

4 "IN YOUR OPINION"

What I've told you about the way they value and pursue trade targets is based not on an idle opinion, but on what I've been told and told and told and told - over a long period of time, by those making the decisions as well as those close to them - of how they approach things and what they will and won't consider doing. Which has been confirmed by their actions over and over.

The Jefferson negotiations? They didn't form my basis for what they might do with Iggy, instead they just added an illustration for me that matched what I've already known. In fact, I wrote what would happen on that front in advance, and it unfolded just as I said it would, because it was merely a continuation of the same stuff. It was merely on a player of a bit different caliber than most.

But if you want to think I'm merely spouting wild lucky guesses and don't know what I'm talking about, you can believe what you wish.

So who exactly has told you this? Donnie Nelson? Mark Cuban? Rick Carlisle? Do you have quotes from them or is this back-alley type stuff (not being a smart ass - just asking - maybe some of it is off the record)? Who is "close to them" that you reference? The players themselves? Their financial planner? Who has told you that Dallas isn't ever under any circumstance going to trade for Iggy? And again, "which has been confirmed by their actions over and over" is in the past prior to real desperation from the guarantees to Dirk and the potential loss of trade chips. Things change when you put a team against a wall with only one option - trade or get worse.

5 Re your opinion on Iggy ("he fits perfectly as our starting 2 for the next 5+ years"), that may be part of your disconnect here. That's a long ways away from the Mavs view of him, which is that he'd be an upgrade on some levels, but a very bad fit on others.

Again, says who. I mean, I have seen no quotes about that so, if you don't mind, please share with us who has told you with enough understanding and knowledge of the FO plans to come here and say "That's a long ways away from what the Mavs view of him"? If it is, fine - so be it, but in my opinion we would get younger, more athletic, more driving, better passing, and play better defense at the 2 by moving from Caron/Jet to Iggy. The downsize? He isn't a great shooter. Fairly average at it in fact, but you have a few shooters on this team that could pick up the slack there and that was the very reason I was so interested in the Granger/Iggy combination as the 3 would have much better shooting than it has now (and yes I fully understand that isn't happening).

6 It takes a ton of effort to weave a few challenges into something insurmountable, as you seem to be attempting here. If you put as much effort into figuring out the advantages and how they work, as you do in looking for possible negatives, I think you'd have a completely different view of things.

If you are going to label me as a pessimist I can only label you as an optimist. Like assholes, everyone has an opinion.

[Sarcasm]
Your opinion is more important than mine apparently, so I change my stance completely and agree with everything previously stated by you. Have you planned our parade route yet? I need to know where to park to get a good view.
[/Sarcasm]

Posts above.

Male30Dan · 07-20-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I have to add I'm a little optimistic with Chandler because he's healthy (and the Mavs didn't get lots of gel time last year). Nevertheless, it's frustrating to miss out on adding good talent for cheap. I understand Al Jefferson's contract + opportunity to unload Najera/Carroll proved too financially tempting for the FO but I hope that translates into something better.

Jefferson and DWill should be great together.

I can see the potential from Chandler too. It is possible we move all other trade assets and keep him if he turns his career around here, but again, I doubt given so many years of history that something is going to change, just like I doubt so many years of bad defense as Jefferson's calling card would change. If we had Don Nelson or Mike D as our coach, sure, Jefferson would be a great idea, but with the way Carlisle has our group play this game I just don't think he would have been a good fit.

Male30Dan · 07-20-2010, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well I think a little hyperbole is going on with respect to Walker but I'll give you that Jefferson doesn't play good defense. (I guess...I really haven't paid that much attention to him and comparing Walker at Center versus Jefferson doesn't seem like a winning argument). But we have had a defensive only center for the last decade. And we continue to not be able to get over the hump. How much more defensive do we have to be at that position? I continue to look at a Pau Gasol who is the ending center for the lakers...how can that be??

I guess it's just my thinking but defense to me has mostly been about want to. Unless it's someone trying to play snack when he's being allowed to bull over everyone, it seems that decent defense could be played if the player is forced to do so. Dirk for example can play some decent defense but if he takes a bunch of fouls, forget it, the team is done.

However imo Jefferson would provide the mavs a way to shake up this team without tearing it completely apart. We were not going to get a driving distributor (diva, that other guy). There just aren't that many out there that make that much difference.

However a post player imo would create a huge change to this team ending offense. It would give them the potential of having a low-post threat AND having a dirk/??? pick and pop. Or a high-low game with dirk/al. Or a Jefferson PNR.

The only other post player that was available was Boozer and I definitely agree that wouldn't work because he's just too small.

Jefferson seems to be the right size to play a center (height and weight). I think it was a huge mistake that could have transformed this team at the end of games where we've seen it come down to a dirk miracle way too many times.

For the record, I wasn't comparing Walker and Jefferson both as Cs. I was saying we don't want to make the same Walker/Jamison/Dirk mistake where guys were playing out of position regularly to get all of them playing time. So no, no hyperbole - it is in fact the exact same situation. Trying to bring in a guy that shakes things up and changes our team a bit (point forward reasoning before - inside scoring reasoning here) when it plays guys out of position is just not a good idea. Your view is that he should be able to play the C position well enough due to having good size, and my stance is that, despite his size, he is a turnstill. Maybe it would have worked - I definitely don't know. I know it would have absolutely changed the way we play and that could be a good thing or a bad thing. All I know is the last time we did that we had one of our worst seasons in the last 10. That is why I would prefer to bring a guy in that plays defense AND offers other things. No ONE DIMENSIONAL guys for me please, even if their one dimension is very good.

Male30Dan · 07-20-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I get Dan's frustration. Who here didn't consider the possibility of LeBron coming to Dallas because it was reported Dampier would be used for a sign and trade? There's some decent content in Fish's work but when he starts projecting into the future, just turn off your brain. The mistake Fish made was harping on the SIGN and TRADE (aka the UST in DUST). Terming Damp's contract as a mere trade chip would've reduced the backlash but it was his personal "Decision". Reporter he is, analyst he is not.

Anyways, the endpoint I reach when I hear the so and so wasn't or isn't the right piece argument is that we have a case of wanting what we can't have. The shooting guard who can shoot, defend, playmake, drive, isn't overpaid or old... where is he?

Exactly on that last paragraph... If Iggy isn't the fit, who is out there that does combine the perfect set of tools listed above that isn't named Kobe, LeBron, Wade, etc? You aren't going to find that guy, so get the best guy you can with the chips you have to play with and hope that the areas that position was improved in is enough.

jthig32 · 07-20-2010, 08:29 AM

Dan, you can't combine a TE with any other contracts (or any other exceptions) in a trade.

And in reading DLord for quite some time, it's become very obvious that he has inside people that he talks to. He predicted exactly how the Jefferson thing would play out, and has nailed other things relating to money in the past.

Also, referring DLord to a site like HoopsHype I think shows how out of touch you are with how in tune DLord is with the Mavs and contracts in the NBA in general. When I can't get full salary information from sites much more in depth than HoopsHype, DLord is who I turn to.

dude1394 · 07-20-2010, 08:31 AM

I disagree comparing the jamison/walker/dirk era with a jefferson/dirk combo. All three of those guys DID player power forward/small forward. They all wanted the same space.

The jefferson/dirk combo does not fall into that same category. Unless you are thinking that jefferson is going to push dirk out of the low blocks?

I also believe that having a don nelson coached team versus a RC coached team is eons apart when it comes to giving a rat's ass about defense. Nellie has shown over and over again that he just does not care about that side of the ball.

And my contention is that what we see on the court right now looks almost identical to what we saw last year, Jefferson would have changed that and imo it desperately needs changing.

At the end of games it will be the same dirk/jet pnpop that hasn't gotten it done in about half a decade.

Male30Dan · 07-20-2010, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Dan, you can't combine a TE with any other contracts (or any other exceptions) in a trade.

And in reading DLord for quite some time, it's become very obvious that he has inside people that he talks to. He predicted exactly how the Jefferson thing would play out, and has nailed other things relating to money in the past.

I still think the question is fair and will wait on his answer. I am sure you are right, but I am just curious and I am not asking in a mocking way or doubtful way - just curious.

Regarding the TE/trade comment - thanks for the heads up. There will still be competition for 1-1 trade scenarios and situations where two trades are made instead of one. For teams that ONLY have the TE to work with, I could definitely see how having two expirings totaling much more than the TE could help us trump their offer by our ability to take on a bad contract.