What would you do?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by ibivibiv

Although I probably would have amnestied Wood this year and used that money to try harder to keep Chandler.

Tyson Chandler is making $13.8M/year and Brendan Haywood is only making $8.7M/year, so you'd have to come up with another $5.1M/year to make that work... The idea that simply amnestying Haywood would allow us to keep Chandler is a big misconception that I've seen many national sports writers mention as well, but the salaries aren't even close (although you did use the word "try," which makes you a lot more grounded than Bill Simmons on the matter...)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Tyson Chandler is making $13.8M/year and Brendan Haywood is only making $8.7M/year, so you'd have to come up with another $5.1M/year to make that work... The idea that simply amnestying Haywood would allow us to keep Chandler is a big misconception that I've seen many national sports writers mention as well, but the salaries aren't even close (although you did use the word "try," which makes you a lot more grounded than Bill Simmons on the matter...)

Not really, since we want over the cap anyway.

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Tyson Chandler is making $13.8M/year and Brendan Haywood is only making $8.7M/year, so you'd have to come up with another $5.1M/year to make that work... The idea that simply amnestying Haywood would allow us to keep Chandler is a big misconception that I've seen many national sports writers mention as well, but the salaries aren't even close (although you did use the word "try," which makes you a lot more grounded than Bill Simmons on the matter...)

$Wood + $Odom = $Chandler + maybe some spare pocket change for a scrub.

Would you take that in a trade? If today, NY lost their minds and said, "Yes we'll take Lamar Odom and Brendan Haywood for Tyson Chandler" you would say no? You'd have to think about it huh? That's the one that eats at me.... it's the same money and look what we could have had. Oh well.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by ibivibiv

$Wood + $Odom = $Chandler + maybe some spare pocket change for a scrub.

Would you take that in a trade? If today, NY lost their minds and said, "Yes we'll take Lamar Odom and Brendan Haywood for Tyson Chandler" you would say no? You'd have to think about it huh? That's the one that eats at me.... it's the same money and look what we could have had. Oh well.

If it creates cap space for them to sign all of Lin, Novak and Smith, they would think about it...then again, that's the DPOY.

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by Kidd Karma

If it creates cap space for them to sign all of Lin, Novak and Smith, they would think about it...then again, that's the DPOY.

To be fair, at the time it was more like EAT Haywood's salary since it wouldn't have been a trade, but hey we are playing make believe manager. I am sure it is easy for me to say swallow 8 million on Wood when it isn't my money to get Chandler. Cuban apparently didn't agree

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The problem is that chum's point is not actually responsive to anything that it was supposedly offered in response to, which unfortunately has become the norm.

It's in response to the notion that locking guys in right now hamstrings, I think the word was, the franchise for several years...all for a small, small chance of winning a title.

Now, to me, that implies that the chance is expected to greater at some later date...at which time locking guys in is, I guess, the smart thing to do?

What I am saying is that you need to step back and think about what it is that you are waiting for. Because it may not ever come to pass.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It's in response to the notion that locking guys in right now hamstrings, I think the word was, the franchise for several years...all for a small, small chance of winning a title.

Now, to me, that implies that the chance is expected to greater at some later date...at which time locking guys in is, I guess, the smart thing to do?

What I am saying is that you need to step back and think about what it is that you are waiting for. Because it may not ever come to pass.

You're framing the issue as whether the league will be "down" in a few years. Nobody has suggested that's what's going to happen, or that the Mavs should just wait for that hypothetical (nonexistent) perfect moment and then make their move.

The point is, whenever a franchise is at a major crossroads about how to build the team--which will typically be the case when several contracts run out at the same time, like last year--the bigwigs have to make decisions based on many threads of information. Yet, when arguing that the Mavs should have re-signed Chandler at a pretty steep cost, people have mentioned only two threads: 1) Dirk's "window" is almost closed, so do whatever you can, at any cost, to immediately try for another championship; and 2) the Mavs won the championship in 2011, so retaining a similar roster would have meant a good shot of winning it again in 2012.

Both of those threads, frankly, are pretty bogus. They are bogus for the reasons described above by UD, myself, thig, and many others over the past several months.

I think the Mavs' FO evaluated both of those two threads in a much more calculated manner than most fans. Then, without those things unduly influencing their decision, Mark and Donnie determined that paying Chandler his market value (or slightly below if you assume a hometown discount) would not be worth the opportunity cost. To this day, I have yet to hear a persuasive counterargument that didn't revolve around significantly overvaluing at least one of the two threads above.

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

You're framing the issue as whether the league will be "down" in a few years. Nobody has suggested that's what's going to happen, or that the Mavs should just wait for that hypothetical (nonexistent) perfect moment and then make their move.

The point is, whenever a franchise is at a major crossroads about how to build the team--which will typically be the case when several contracts run out at the same time, like last year)--the bigwigs have to make decisions based on multiple threads of information. Yet, when arguing that the Mavs should have re-signed Chandler at a pretty steep cost, people have mentioned only two threads: 1) Dirk's "window" is almost closed, so do whatever you can to win another championship at any cost; and 2) the Mavs won the championship in 2011, so retaining a similar roster would have meant a good shot of winning it again in 2012.

Both of those threads, frankly, are pretty bogus. I think the Mavs' FO evaluated both of those threads in a much more objective manner than most fans. Without those things unduly influencing their decision, Mark and Donnie determined that paying Chandler his market value (or slightly below) would not be worth the opportunity cost. To this day, I have yet to hear a persuasive counterargument that didn't revolve around significantly overvaluing one (or both) of the two threads above.

There is another...... The value of a Center in the game as a whole and how that value translates to dollars in both the new and old CBA world. So the REAL kicker will be will solid performing Centers continue to garner the same salary numbers under the new CBA? Also, in the current NBA is a solid Center crucial to winning playoff games? If the answers are yes and yes, then you either choose to run at a deficit in a crucial spot in the game, or you pay more than you may be comfortable with and remain competitive. I am still waiting to see how Center salaries get affected. If they hold, then maybe not paying up for a good Center that "fit in" well on our team was an oops. If Center salaries drop, beers to you Mr. Cuban/Nelson, you are truly wise men.

I am assuming that we can agree that Centers do play a pivotal role in the NBA game of today. Me personally I think PG and Center are the most crucial spots on the floor. At least if you plan on going the distance in the finals. There have been exceptions as always, but for the most part those 2 spots seem to be the biggest difference makers.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ibivibiv

There is another...... The value of a Center in the game as a whole and how that value translates to dollars in both the new and old CBA world. So the REAL kicker will be will solid performing Centers continue to garner the same salary numbers under the new CBA? Also, in the current NBA is a solid Center crucial to winning playoff games? If the answers are yes and yes, then you either choose to run at a deficit in a crucial spot in the game, or you pay more than you may be comfortable with and remain competitive. I am still waiting to see how Center salaries get affected. If they hold, then maybe not paying up for a good Center that "fit in" well on our team was an oops. If Center salaries drop, beers to you Mr. Cuban/Nelson, you are truly wise men.

I am assuming that we can agree that Centers do play a pivotal role in the NBA game of today. Me personally I think PG and Center are the most crucial spots on the floor. At least if you plan on going the distance in the finals. There have been exceptions as always, but for the most part those 2 spots seem to be the biggest difference makers.

I don't disagree, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Mark and Donnie didn't include the "center premium" in their valuation of how much Chandler would be worth. Mark's shown no qualms in the past about paying a steep dollar for centers. He's the guy who threw copious money at Dampier and Haywood, and an entire MLE at an out-of-shape, past-his-one-year-prime Diop.

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Mark's shown no qualms in the past about paying a steep dollar for centers. He's the guy who threw copious money at Dampier and Haywood, and an entire MLE at an out-of-shape, past-his-one-year-prime Diop.

Oh man don't remind me lol.

[Bayliss]

To jump on a small point earlier in the thread on the Thunder, and the Mavs repeating.

The Thunder have improved in a lot of ways:
1) Thabo's ability to hit the 3 ball this year.
He is no longer a liability on the court for them. If he is open he can knock dowqn that corner 3. He has become their version of Bruce Bowen. Last year that was not the case AT ALL. The guy could not hit that spot up j consistently enough.

2) Ibaka's defensive improvement
Last year he was like DJ Benga. He bit at EVERYTHING. This year he is learning to stay down and still be a presence. He is a beast around the rim. And offensively the guy can hit the 15 footer pretty consistently.

3) Westbrook's decision making + added jumper
Westbrook's elbow jumper is pretty consistent nowadays. You run him on the screen and roll and give him the the "contested" 15 footer off the big... he'll make it a lot more than he did last year. And his decision making has improved. He doesn't go rogue nearly as often as he did last year.

4) Durant's vision/playmaking
Durant this yuear has improved his ballhandling and when the defense converges he is more willing to pass. That is a huge improvement of his game.

Those 4 things make the Thunder a lot better than last year. Adding Chandler would not have helped the Mavs enough to counteract that. Especially with the decline of Kidd, Terry, Marion...

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

To jump on a small point earlier in the thread on the Thunder, and the Mavs repeating.

The Thunder have improved in a lot of ways:
1) Thabo's ability to hit the 3 ball this year.
He is no longer a liability on the court for them. If he is open he can knock dowqn that corner 3. He has become their version of Bruce Bowen. Last year that was not the case AT ALL. The guy could not hit that spot up j consistently enough.

2) Ibaka's defensive improvement
Last year he was like DJ Benga. He bit at EVERYTHING. This year he is learning to stay down and still be a presence. He is a beast around the rim. And offensively the guy can hit the 15 footer pretty consistently.

3) Westbrook's decision making + added jumper
Westbrook's elbow jumper is pretty consistent nowadays. You run him on the screen and roll and give him the the "contested" 15 footer off the big... he'll make it a lot more than he did last year. And his decision making has improved. He doesn't go rogue nearly as often as he did last year.

4) Durant's vision/playmaking
Durant this yuear has improved his ballhandling and when the defense converges he is more willing to pass. That is a huge improvement of his game.

Those 4 things make the Thunder a lot better than last year. Adding Chandler would not have helped the Mavs enough to counteract that. Especially with the decline of Kidd, Terry, Marion...

Must spread rep.

[EricaLubarsky]

I'm confident that last year's team could have had a good chance with everyone East/West except the Thunder and Spurs. Unfortunately, we'd have had to face at least one if not both of them. No one knew that the Spurs would come on so strong or that the Thunder would be so much improved.

Then again, maybe much of our issues were related to the shortened season and age and we would have left in the first round as we did this year.

Either way I really don't see us repeating. Just saying.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

You're framing the issue as whether the league will be "down" in a few years. Nobody has suggested that's what's going to happen, or that the Mavs should just wait for that hypothetical (nonexistent) perfect moment and then make their move.

The point is, whenever a franchise is at a major crossroads about how to build the team--which will typically be the case when several contracts run out at the same time, like last year--the bigwigs have to make decisions based on many threads of information. Yet, when arguing that the Mavs should have re-signed Chandler at a pretty steep cost, people have mentioned only two threads: 1) Dirk's "window" is almost closed, so do whatever you can, at any cost, to immediately try for another championship; and 2) the Mavs won the championship in 2011, so retaining a similar roster would have meant a good shot of winning it again in 2012.

Both of those threads, frankly, are pretty bogus. They are bogus for the reasons described above by UD, myself, thig, and many others over the past several months.

I think the Mavs' FO evaluated both of those two threads in a much more calculated manner than most fans. Then, without those things unduly influencing their decision, Mark and Donnie determined that paying Chandler his market value (or slightly below if you assume a hometown discount) would not be worth the opportunity cost. To this day, I have yet to hear a persuasive counterargument that didn't revolve around significantly overvaluing at least one of the two threads above.

Let me ask you this. Could there ever be a scenario where the great majority of people would agree that the decision was, in retrospect, a bad one? If so, how long would it take for that scenario to develop?

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let me ask you this. Could there ever be a scenario where the great majority of people would agree that the decision was, in retrospect, a bad one? If so, how long would it take for that scenario to develop?

There are hypothetical events that could play out that could make people reasonably say that, in retrospect, the decision churned out bad results. But that is not the same thing as a "bad decision." You make a decision with the information you have at the time. If, at the time, your decision objectively had the highest chance of succeeding relative to any other option, it was the best decision. But that doesn't mean the "best" decision always works.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

There are hypothetical events that could play out that could make people reasonably say that, in retrospect, the decision churned out bad results. But that is not the same thing as a "bad decision." You make a decision with the information you have at the time. If, at the time, your decision objectively had the highest chance of succeeding relative to any other option, it was the best decision. But that doesn't mean the "best" decision always works.

That's pretty much where I thought you were coming from. I understand the sentiment, and I recognize that often good decisions are indeed followed by bad outcomes. I think you are being a bit too absolute about it, though, in this instance.

For example...you talk in this thread about "small, small" chances and about management viewing many threads objectively. And rightfully so. We can distill this, conceptually, to something simple like: Option A gives a 5% chance of "success" (however we wish to define that) over the next five years, and Option B gives a 20% chance. We would be right to choose Option B, though that certainly doesn't guarantee success nor does it imply that success with Option A would have been impossible. Right?

But the rub is...what if your percentages were wrong? What if, for example, the Mavs were going on an assumption that they had a 30% to 50% chance of landing one of their targeted players if they went with Option B, when in actuality the chances weren't nearly that high? Or what if they thought they had a 5% chance at best of being better off signing Chandler, when in actuality the chances were more like half? How do you assess decisions made under those circumstances? And more to my point, can you ever be absolutely sure that your numbers are right?

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's pretty much where I thought you were coming from. I understand the sentiment, and I recognize that often good decisions are indeed followed by bad outcomes. I think you are being a bit too absolute about it, though, in this instance.

For example...you talk in this thread about "small, small" chances and about management viewing many threads objectively. And rightfully so. We can distill this, conceptually, to something simple like: Option A gives a 5% chance of "success" (however we wish to define that) over the next five years, and Option B gives a 20% chance. We would be right to choose Option B, though that certainly doesn't guarantee success nor does it imply that success with Option A would have been impossible. Right?

But the rub is...what if your percentages were wrong? What if, for example, the Mavs were going on an assumption that they had a 30% to 50% chance of landing one of their targeted players if they went with Option B, when in actuality the chances weren't nearly that high? Or what if they thought they had a 5% chance at best of being better off signing Chandler, when in actuality the chances were more like half? How do you assess decisions made under those circumstances? And more to my point, can you ever be absolutely sure that your numbers are right?

Now we're talking.

Yes, your last paragraph identifies what really is "the rub." Put simply, there is always a risk that you've miscalculated the likelihood of certain outcomes in the decision tree. For instance, hypothetically, what if Deron Williams decided privately months ago that he's staying in Brooklyn? Unquestionably, that fact reduces the chance of long-term success for the "cap space" plan (not necessarily to 0%, but it reduces it for sure).

So that's an uncertainty. Added together, uncertainties cause the scenario you've outlined above where the decisionmaker has misjudged the relative chances of success.

Your question was: how do you assess decisionmaking with those types of uncertainties out there? Well, it's incredibly difficult (as you know). As it see it, the key inquiry is this--what facts should the decisionmaker reasonably have known at the time of the decision? I say "reasonably" to eliminate the possibility of willful blindness ("Oh, we had no idea Deron was definitely staying in Brooklyn even though he announced it on TV in December!!"). It's an extremely tough inquiry, but we essentially have to use our common knowledge and practical experience to determine what the decisionmaker should have objectively known, regardless of what he says he did or did not know.

So, in my hypothetical above, should Mark and Donnie have reasonably known that there was no chance of Deron coming here? Did Deron keep it very private? Did he tell lots of people who Mark and Donnie could have talked to in advance? In short, did they do their due diligence?

Answering those questions will start to give you an idea of whether they used the best information reasonably available to calculate the chance of success for each "plan." If they did, and they drew reasonable inferences from that information, it's a good decision. And it's a good decision even if it ultimately leads to bad results.

I'm sure you already see the numerous complications in doing this kind of analysis. We're having to evaluate from an outside position what people on the inside knew or should have known. It's tough. Imperfect information.

But this really all connects back to my original point about the two "threads." I have yet to see a single truly persuasive argument for why Mark and Donnie underestimated the uncertain chance of repeating with a re-signed roster. All I've seen is, "Dirk's window is closing, so sell out and win now" and "The Mavs would have had as good a shot as anyone in 2012." Both of those arguments defy the information objectively available--the age of the team, the makeup of the roster, the state of the league, and more.

If you've got something compelling, I'd love to hear it. Why should we suspect that the Mavs did not use the best information objectively available to them, or why should we suspect that they misjudged that information?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

If you've got something compelling, I'd love to hear it. Why should we suspect that the Mavs did not use the best information objectively available to them, or why should we suspect that they misjudged that information?

No, I really don't have a compelling argument. I don't think anyone can. And at the same time, I don't think you have a compelling argument, either. I think all arguments rely, at this point in time, on a whole lot of yet unknowns. That's why I asked you how you felt about assessing the decision down the road, in hindsight. I'm the type who believes that hindsight--rather than argument now--will be the ultimate arbiter. You seem to think that there's enough information now, at this point in time, in order to evaluate the decisions. I'm okay with that. You may be right. It may be demonstrated without question that you are right, one day (like, if they get a couple good players and win another championship). And by the same token, there's a chance that neither one of us will ever know. (Actually, that's probably the most likely outcome.)

However...and this is just a little however...if you want to look for criteria, one place to look is track record. There was one time, eight years ago now, when Cuban thought he had it all figured out...and he was dead wrong. Just sayin', just sayin'.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, I really don't have a compelling argument. I don't think anyone can. And at the same time, I don't think you have a compelling argument, either. I think all arguments rely, at this point in time, on a whole lot of yet unknowns.

There are a lot of unknowns, but the decision had to be made one way or the other, so you necessarily have to go with what you do know. There's no other option. And here, there's a lot they did know: the age of the team, the age of their primary competitors, the positional strengths and weaknesses, the way those traits tend to intersect with increased age, the style of play, the emotional release from winning the first time, Chandler's injury history, the restrictive new CBA, the shortened season this year, on we go.

I'm sorry you don't find the argument compelling, but when the vast majority of the "knowns" counsel in favor of the decision that was made, I'm compelled.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's why I asked you how you felt about assessing the decision down the road, in hindsight. I'm the type who believes that hindsight--rather than argument now--will be the ultimate arbiter.

I think hindsight is interesting and worthy of casual conversation, but I see absolutely zero utility in using it to judge decisionmaking. It's lazy. Instead of taking the effort to compartmentalize what the decisionmaker could have known at the time, we tend to start ascribing all the subsequent, then-unknowable information to the decision. Everything bleeds together.

Hell, that's already happened here. "Cuban let the DPOY walk," says someone. No, he didn't....

Originally Posted by chumdawg

However...and this is just a little however...if you want to look for criteria, one place to look is track record. There was one time, eight years ago now, when Cuban thought he had it all figured out...and he was dead wrong. Just sayin', just sayin'.

We disagree some on that issue, but even to the extent I agree with you, I think those circumstances were quite different. Without any hindsight at all, I see much stronger arguments for why that decision was misguided at the time.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

There are a lot of unknowns, but the decision had to be made one way or the other, so you necessarily have to go with what you do know. There's no other option. And here, there's a lot they did know: the age of the team, the age of their primary competitors, the positional strengths and weaknesses, the way those traits tend to intersect with increased age, the style of play, the emotional release from winning the first time, Chandler's injury history, the restrictive new CBA, the shortened season this year, on we go.

I'm sorry you don't find the argument compelling, but when the vast majority of the "knowns" counsel in favor of the decision that was made, I'm compelled.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you just don't think Tyson Chandler is a very valuable basketball player.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

the emotional release from winning the first time.

Oh, just thought I would add...they did a really, really great job of avoiding that danger, didn't they? No sense risking a letdown on a team trying to run it back!

[dude1394]

Well...we are watching the heat possibly lose to the celts. We are watching the team we beat 4-1 last year possibly going to the finals.

Excuse me for not thinking last years team had a chance in hell of competing.

Tbh what I see out of the Mavs right now is timidity and I hate that. It's the safe route to go, you get your financial ducks in a row and you stay good ( not great necessarily ) but good for a longer time. I actually despise that thinking in many ways. A chance to be great was tossed out the window for financial flexibility. Cuban thinking that "oh we will be right back here again" is honestly ludicrous to me.

There is only one reason we are here with a ring on our fingers dirk. And it took decades to get a top tier coach and a top tier center to play with him. At least we kept the top tier coach. I see nothing in these playoffs that tell me the Mavs would not have been competitive this year and the next.

[saclare]

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well...we are watching the heat possibly lose to the celts. We are watching the team we beat 4-1 last year possibly going to the finals.

Excuse me for not thinking last years team had a chance in hell of competing.

Tbh what I see out of the Mavs right now is timidity and I hate that. It's the safe route to go, you get your financial ducks in a row and you stay good ( not great necessarily ) but good for a longer time. I actually despise that thinking in many ways. A chance to be great was tossed out the window for financial flexibility. Cuban thinking that "oh we will be right back here again" is honestly ludicrous to me.

There is only one reason we are here with a ring on our fingers dirk. And it took decades to get a top tier coach and a top tier center to play with him. At least we kept the top tier coach. I see nothing in these playoffs that tell me the Mavs would not have been competitive this year and the next.

So that is what you would do if you were the GM for the remainder of Dirk's career here? Cry in a dark room over not overpaying to keep the same team from 2011?

[dude1394]

No instead I'm going to blow it up and start over.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you just don't think Tyson Chandler is a very valuable basketball player.

Yes, I do. I think he's about as valuable as a non-star player can be. That's still not enough to overcome all the other knowns above. I'm not even sure it's very close.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Oh, just thought I would add...they did a really, really great job of avoiding that danger, didn't they? No sense risking a letdown on a team trying to run it back!

And now you're right back to responding to arguments nobody has made. Come on, man.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No instead I'm going to blow it up and start over.

So you'd trade Dirk or keep just him but change the rest of the roster?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

So you'd trade Dirk or keep just him but change the rest of the roster?

I would obviously keep him, but the Mavs are blowing it up around him. My position is well known, I would have kept Tyson and gotten deron. The rest IMO would be filled out as needed.

Certainly I would have kept Tyson for this year. Jjb you had to let go. Brewer/ Hernandez I probably keep. Deshawn was iffy.

[dalmations202]

I am interested in what everyone would do now........Tyson was great, but he isn't on the team now.

Even if you get Deron -- what else would you do? (or would you get Deron?)
Status on Marion -- amnesty Haywood? Go after xxx?

What is your plan, if you are talking with Mark right now?

If you get Deron, who plays SG, SF, and C for you?

Resign Terry? at what price?

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I am interested in what everyone would do now........Tyson was great, but he isn't on the team now.

Even if you get Deron -- what else would you do? (or would you get Deron?)
Status on Marion -- amnesty Haywood? Go after xxx?

What is your plan, if you are talking with Mark right now?

If you get Deron, who plays SG, SF, and C for you?

Resign Terry? at what price?

I would def resign Terry

[aexchange]

I don't think its a slam dunk that the offseason plan includes a plan to resign Terry. In my mind, if you sign Deron, Terry becomes disposable b/c you run the same play action that you do today with JET and Dirk. If I'm Donnie and Cuban, the plan is pretty simple:
- Get Deron signed
- Find additional players who are capable of spacing the floor and giving Dirk space to operate. I saw Brandon Rush mentioned as a possible get (45% from 3) on LMF and that makes some sense to me
- Find some additional young bodies, you may be able to buy low on. Oden would have been the obvious mention but he is out this season and Thabeet seems like a total bust, but may have some value on a make good contract
- Keep your powder dry otherwise for a run at Howard
- Everyone else is on a 1 year deal if you sign them.
- There isn't a real need to amnesty Haywood or Marion until you absolutely have to.
- Re-sign Kidd to back up Deron
- Get Calathes to come over

[LonghornDub]

Unless Terry agrees to take substantially less money than his market value to paly here, which I doubt, it will be very hard for the Mavs to justify keeping him.

[Bayliss]

Unless Terry agrees to take substantially less money than his market value to paly here, which I doubt, it will be very hard for the Mavs to justify keeping him.

And I think it is for the best for the Mavs and Terry to part ways. Terry was HUGE in the Finals. I am not questioning that. But a team cannot hitch their wagon to an undersized SG who plays very little defense and who will be 35(!) at the start of the season next year.

It is best for the Mavs to find a closing SG that has superior size, penetration skills, ballhandling/passing skills.... or maybe a bit of all 3. And before everyone says that player isn't out there.... he may be out there depending on the amnesty/draft. Here is a rundown of capable SGs/SFs in recent drafts.....

2011 Draft
Kawhi Leonard--15
Iman Shumpert--17
Marshon Brooks--25
Chandler Parsons--38

2010 Draft
Avery Bradley--19
Landry Fields--39

2009 Draft
Jrue Holliday--17
Sam Young--36
Marcus Thorton--43
Chase Buddinger--44

2008 Draft
Nic Batum--25

2007 Draft
Bellinili--18
Jared Dudley--22
Wilson Chandler--23
Rudy Fernandez--24
Arron Affalo--27

2006 Draft
Thabo Sefolosha--13

Some drafts are lean years for wings. In those drafts a lot of bigs were taken... some years it is the opposite.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by aexchange

I don't think its a slam dunk that the offseason plan includes a plan to resign Terry. In my mind, if you sign Deron, Terry becomes disposable b/c you run the same play action that you do today with JET and Dirk. If I'm Donnie and Cuban, the plan is pretty simple:
- Get Deron signed
- Find additional players who are capable of spacing the floor and giving Dirk space to operate. I saw Brandon Rush mentioned as a possible get (45% from 3) on LMF and that makes some sense to me
- Find some additional young bodies, you may be able to buy low on. Oden would have been the obvious mention but he is out this season and Thabeet seems like a total bust, but may have some value on a make good contract
- Keep your powder dry otherwise for a run at Howard
- Everyone else is on a 1 year deal if you sign them.
- There isn't a real need to amnesty Haywood or Marion until you absolutely have to.
- Re-sign Kidd to back up Deron
- Get Calathes to come over

This is my favorite post on the internet today...

How would we get Rush? He's definitely a high-value/low-dollar player, and it couldn't hurt to have a bit more young talent on this squad.

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by Underdog

This is my favorite post on the internet today...

How would we get Rush? He's definitely a high-value/low-dollar player, and it couldn't hurt to have a bit more young talent on this squad.

He's got a qualifying option for next season that I imagine the Warriors may not want to pick up at > $4M. The W's have basically screwed themselves for the foreseeable future. The other thing I've been seriously pondering is the ability to go get Harden in 2013/2014 as the fallback for Howard. At worst, you sign him to a max contract which he is probably worth anyways, and have OKC lock him in and create a salary strapped situation for themselves.

Some other people I would be looking at if I'm the Mavs this offseason. In this scenario, I'm looking for guys who won't hit my salary structure hard or are willing to accept short term deals that are favorable to the Mavs.
- Greg Stiemsa. Big who has got nice per minute averages in all the right stats you want for a big man and seems to be a better pick and roll defender than the other bigs who get mentioned here --- Camby and Kaman. Also will be a ton cheaper.
- Barbosa. Able to stretch the floor, may accept a short term deal, and can replace some of what you lose from letting Terry go.
- Jordan Hill. Buy low guy who is probably gettable given Lakers current salary situation.
- Darrell Arthur. Injured, Memphis has a bad salary situation and may take a make good deal.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well...we are watching the heat possibly lose to the celts. We are watching the team we beat 4-1 last year possibly going to the finals.

Excuse me for not thinking last years team had a chance in hell of competing.

The no chance in hell of competing bit is just another straw man. Of course they would have had a chance. Just like the Mavs would have had (more of) a chance if Odom hadn't been such a POS, or if the Mavs had kept Brewer and perhaps Rudy. Having a chance isn't the same as having a good chance, though.

Three more things:
1) What does Miami being down to Boston right now have to do with it? Are you suggesting that the Mavs should have adjusted their free agency decision last summer to account for Chris Bosh's injury?

2) This year's Dirk (this year's Kidd, too, for that matter) on last year's roster does not last year's team make.

3) In a similar vein, last year's Oklahoma City team had never experienced anything like the WCF before, and relied on a Russell Westbrook who couldn't hit a midrange jumper, an undisciplined and frankly overwhelmed Serge Ibaka, a not-yet-fully-rehabbed Kendrick Perkins, and a James Harden who hadn't yet come into his own as an all-star caliber playmaker. This is not the same Oklahoma City team that Dallas beat last year.

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by aexchange

He's got a qualifying option for next season that I imagine the Warriors may not want to pick up at > $4M. The W's have basically screwed themselves for the foreseeable future. The other thing I've been seriously pondering is the ability to go get Harden in 2013/2014 as the fallback for Howard. At worst, you sign him to a max contract which he is probably worth anyways, and have OKC lock him in and create a salary strapped situation for themselves.

Some other people I would be looking at if I'm the Mavs this offseason. In this scenario, I'm looking for guys who won't hit my salary structure hard or are willing to accept short term deals that are favorable to the Mavs.
- Greg Stiemsa. Big who has got nice per minute averages in all the right stats you want for a big man and seems to be a better pick and roll defender than the other bigs who get mentioned here --- Camby and Kaman. Also will be a ton cheaper.
- Barbosa. Able to stretch the floor, may accept a short term deal, and can replace some of what you lose from letting Terry go.
- Jordan Hill. Buy low guy who is probably gettable given Lakers current salary situation.
- Darrell Arthur. Injured, Memphis has a bad salary situation and may take a make good deal.

Forgot to add Jeff Green assuming his heart checks out. I believe he also has ties to Williams or Howard's agent if I recall correctly. On a side note, can we please not shit all over every thread about Tyson Chandler and if we really must live in the past, do it in one of the 50 other threads about him. Not sure about the others, but I could do without all of the TC talk.

[SMC0007]

I'll stop talking about and mentioning Tyson Chandler when I don't have to see following equally overused terms or pics:

1) gd Chuck Norris

2) Straw Man.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by aexchange

Forgot to add Jeff Green assuming his heart checks out. I believe he also has ties to Williams or Howard's agent if I recall correctly. On a side note, can we please not shit all over every thread about Tyson Chandler and if we really must live in the past, do it in one of the 50 other threads about him. Not sure about the others, but I could do without all of the TC talk.

I read a blog about Jeff Green yesterday, but it was 1+1 = something that sticks to the wall. David Falk I believe represents both Green and Roy Hibbert, amidst all the Hibbert Plan B rumors, came this blogster, thinking that it's an attempt to scare Indy into a higher contract offer for Hibbert, then the blogster scoured Falk's list of unrestricted free agents and could only see that Jeff Green made any sense for us.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

I'll stop talking about and mentioning Tyson Chandler when I don't have to see following equally overused terms or pics:

1) gd Chuck Norris

2) Straw Man.

Your post IS another straw man - Check Norris is gonna kick your ass!