Raef and Jiri and a #1..... for Terry? - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

LRB · 08-05-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Big Boy Laroux
would you do a laettner for laettner trade? i sure as hell would!

How about Booth for Booth?

Psychedelic Fuzz · 08-05-2004, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Big Boy Laroux
would you do a laettner for laettner trade? i sure as hell would!

no, bt I'd trade Stackhouse and Laettner to portland for NVE. then we'd be awesome.

SeriousSummer · 08-05-2004, 04:33 PM

Yes, I'd do the Booth for Booth trade, but not the Laettner for Laettner deal. You've got to make a keen judgment about when someone's past their peak. Besides, Booth is easier to spell.

Jiri hasn't convinced me he's a real player yet--and Raef may not be healthy. When you compare their respective costs, then a Terry for Raef deal looks pretty good to me.

LRB · 08-05-2004, 04:35 PM

The real high cose of the deal IMO was having to put up with Walker and Delk for a year.

Big Boy Laroux · 08-05-2004, 04:39 PM

lrb, you know very well we did not trade booth originally. he signed with seattle as a FA. Thus, your conjecture is meaningless.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

chumdawg · 08-05-2004, 05:02 PM

I'll consider Laettner for Laettner, but I also want cash considerations or a second round pick or both.

LRB · 08-05-2004, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Big Boy Laroux
lrb, you know very well we did not trade booth originally. he signed with seattle as a FA. Thus, your conjecture is meaningless.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

OK, how about Avery for Booth? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Max Power · 08-05-2004, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Hitman
The term "tradeable piece" was the reason why many (including myself, mind you) defended the Walker trade.

But....if that tradeable piece, that we acquired for Raef, Jiri and a # 1 draft pick only landed us Jason Freaking Terry in return...

then I wonder how valuable that piece was.

Or I wonder how good we were in getting value in return.

I don't think we got maximum value for Walker. But in order to get that max value we would have had to held onto Walker until the trade deadline and THAT had the potential to ruin the upcoming season. Would Portland have made the playoffs in they had chosen not to hold onto Wallace until the trade deadline? I think the constant distraction was a major reason the Blazers didn't make it.

So I prefer to get 75 cents on the dollar for Walker now and make the playoffs rather than get full value later and possibly NOT make the playoffs.

LRB · 08-05-2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Max Power

Quote:

Originally posted by: Hitman
The term "tradeable piece" was the reason why many (including myself, mind you) defended the Walker trade.

But....if that tradeable piece, that we acquired for Raef, Jiri and a # 1 draft pick only landed us Jason Freaking Terry in return...

then I wonder how valuable that piece was.

Or I wonder how good we were in getting value in return.

I don't think we got maximum value for Walker. But in order to get that max value we would have had to held onto Walker until the trade deadline and THAT had the potential to ruin the upcoming season. Would Portland have made the playoffs in they had chosen not to hold onto Wallace until the trade deadline? I think the constant distraction was a major reason the Blazers didn't make it.

So I prefer to get 75 cents on the dollar for Walker now and make the playoffs rather than get full value later and possibly NOT make the playoffs.

Of course MP we could have ended up getting less for Walker or nothing at all if we had waited. Certainly Walker's value would have gone up the closer to the trade deadline we waited to trade him, but there are a butt load of high dollar expiring contracts this year, Ratliff, Stoudamire, Big Dog, and SAR are just some besides walker. It's quite possible by waiting too long we might have had to take 30 cents on the dollar or just be stuck with walker and Delk.

vinnieponte · 08-05-2004, 05:40 PM

I haven't been on the site all day but the first thing I see is the name RAEF, and I get sick to my stomach. Are you serious? This thread must be a joke right? Raef sucks, yes he does!

MightyToine · 08-05-2004, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
A healthy Raef does not suck. If he sucks, I suppose most players in the NBA suck.

They DO, actually. Remember that Lack of Fundamentals thing, Murph? It's the reason the USA Team is getting their asses beat nowadays....

MightyToine · 08-05-2004, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB
The real high cose of the deal IMO was having to put up with Walker and Delk for a year.

Not To mention PUBA. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 07:20 PM

Let's first get facts out there.
1. The walker deal was a cluster. A complete waste of time. There was NOTHING good about it. Not money, not "expiring contract", nothing.
2. As I've said all along, if raef doesn't heal then the trade was a good.
3. If he does, it will be one of the most bonehead deals I've ever seen. Giving up raef, jiri welsch, guy, pick for terry, guy, pick.

Stressboy · 08-05-2004, 07:58 PM

The question is would the Hawks be stupid enough to take on a mediocore PF coming off knee surgery with 52mil left over 5 years or instead offer a real "lazy" center 4 years and 40 mil like they have done.

The Hawks would have been complete idiots to have done the deal of Terry/Henderson/#1 for Raef/Mills/Jiri/#1.

Besides, Jiri would never have gotten to play with Dainials and Howard here so his stock would have continued to drop.

We sold Raef and Jiri at their highest point for us, to argue otherwise is silly.

Stressboy

Evilmav2 · 08-05-2004, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Big Boy Laroux
would you do a laettner for laettner trade? i sure as hell would!

Hell yeah! Me to, BBL...

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Stressboy
The question is would the Hawks be stupid enough to take on a mediocore PF coming off knee surgery with 52mil left over 5 years or instead offer a real "lazy" center 4 years and 40 mil like they have done.

The Hawks would have been complete idiots to have done the deal of Terry/Henderson/#1 for Raef/Mills/Jiri/#1.

Besides, Jiri would never have gotten to play with Dainials and Howard here so his stock would have continued to drop.

We sold Raef and Jiri at their highest point for us, to argue otherwise is silly.

Stressboy

Well I'll just be silly. If raef comes back from his knee surgery please remember this post.

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 08:36 PM

Maybe the mavs should have just traded steve straight up for terry if this is such a great deal.

jayC · 08-05-2004, 09:00 PM

Raef was okay but he always was in foul trouble. This is almost comical hitman why don't we trade nick for Jason Collins. Sheesh part of the reason that we traded Raef was to rid ourselves of a huge contract. The mavs still have two expiring contracts and a trade exception settle down. Sure if Nash was still here the mavs wouldn't have traded for Terry, but we needed a veteran point guard more then we needed an overpayed center. You can always tell how good a player is when he never plays in the clutch.

jopace · 08-05-2004, 09:17 PM

"I don't think we got maximum value for Walker. But in order to get that max value we would have had to held onto Walker until the trade deadline and THAT had the potential to ruin the upcoming season."

To look at it as Raef, Jiri and a #1 for Jason Terry is not valid. We traded Raef, Jiri, Mills and #1 for Walker and Delk. That was a good trade at the time. Walker proved to be a bad fit. So the trade for Walker was bad.

When you are trading a bad fit to your team you are not going to get fair value for him. The whole point is the Mavs made a bad trade for Walker. If Raef comes back and does well for Boston, what's to say he would have done well for the Mavs? He was a bad fit here also.

So, look at it this way. We got rid of Raef and Walker, bad fits to the Mavs team, for a point guard in JT who seems to be a good fit, since Nash left.

I believe if Jiri had stayed, we would not have known how good Daniels was. Jiri was ahead of Daniels in the playing rotation while he was here, and the coaches liked him better than Daniels.

All in all, the unplanned move of loosing Nash caused us not to get fair value for Walker. But then again, the Walker trade was a bad one. If Raef and Jiri were still here, it might have been Raef and Daniels and a #1 for JT and Henderson. Jiri may have stayed. Or, Raef and Jiri and #1 for JT and Henderson, because Jiri was better than Daniels because of playing time. Under that scenerio, I could handle the deal because Raef proved to be a bad fit also, and Daniels would have been discovered this year, or they would have known they had a diamond in the rough and signed him to the LLE instead of the MLE.

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: jopace
"I don't think we got maximum value for Walker. But in order to get that max value we would have had to held onto Walker until the trade deadline and THAT had the potential to ruin the upcoming season."

To look at it as Raef, Jiri and a #1 for Jason Terry is not valid. We traded Raef, Jiri, Mills and #1 for Walker and Delk. That was a good trade at the time. Walker proved to be a bad fit. So the trade for Walker was bad.

Why is it not valid? We traded raef, jiri, pick to get walker,delk. We traded walker, delk to get terry, pick??

Nor do I think it was a good trade at the time (imho). We wasted a stupid year trying some outlandish three pf system, it was stupid. I said so then, I say so now.

Quote:

When you are trading a bad fit to your team you are not going to get fair value for him. The whole point is the Mavs made a bad trade for Walker. If Raef comes back and does well for Boston, what's to say he would have done well for the Mavs? He was a bad fit here also.

This is also bs. Why was he a bad fit here? He/bradley got us the best center play we ever had. I would MUCH rather have raef/bradley today than what we have. Of course I'm assuming raef comes back healthy. If he doesn't they all this is bs, the mavs were right and I was wrong.

Quote:

So, look at it this way. We got rid of Raef and Walker, bad fits to the Mavs team, for a point guard in JT who seems to be a good fit, since Nash left.

NO!! We got rid of raef/jiri and picked up JT.

Quote:

I believe if Jiri had stayed, we would not have known how good Daniels was. Jiri was ahead of Daniels in the playing rotation while he was here, and the coaches liked him better than Daniels.

So WHAT. If he's better than daniels (which he may turn out to be) he plays. Maybe we should cut finley as well since that will keep daniels time down.

Quote:

All in all, the unplanned move of loosing Nash caused us not to get fair value for Walker. But then again, the Walker trade was a bad one. If Raef and Jiri were still here, it might have been Raef and Daniels and a #1 for JT and Henderson. Jiri may have stayed. Or, Raef and Jiri and #1 for JT and Henderson, because Jiri was better than Daniels because of playing time. Under that scenerio, I could handle the deal because Raef proved to be a bad fit also, and Daniels would have been discovered this year, or they would have known they had a diamond in the rough and signed him to the LLE instead of the MLE.

We got as good for walker as we were ever going to get. I was shocked that we got what we did to be honest. Now I like JT and I think we will be pleasantly surprised but I also thought raef was a very nice center for us, our record in the playoffs bears me out, even when he was playing hurt.

EricaLubarsky · 08-05-2004, 10:02 PM

why not take one more step back?

Juwan Howard, Donnell Harvey, Tim Hardaway (retiring), Martin Muursepp, Bubba Wells, Pat Garrity

for

Jason Terry, Devin Harris, Jerry Stackhouse, Christian Laettner, Calvin Booth, Alan Henderson

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 10:32 PM

why?

EricaLubarsky · 08-05-2004, 10:32 PM

why not? People are making a big deal out out of nothing by taking two steps back, why not take three?

V2M · 08-05-2004, 10:42 PM

Raef was a serviceable player (may be more a 4 than a 5) with an ugly contract and questionable knees at the time he was traded. It's highly debatable what he could have done for us this year especially coming back with a knee surgery and with a couple of young Centers added to the rotation.

The Luxury Tax necessitates every owner to pay close attention to the salaries (except for may be the stupid Knicks owner). You look at what Paul Allen's doing in Portland and the Maloof Bros doing in Sacramento... it's the same thing now Mark Cuban's trying to do: Reduce the payroll while having a competitive team for the long term. And so far, I'd say Cuban's doing a better job at it than any other owner.

Look at our 10-Man rotations in
2002-03: Nash/NVE/Fin/Bell/Najera/Griffin/WaltWilliams/Dirk/Raef/Bradley
2003-04: Nash/Best/Daniels/Fin/JHo/Walk/Jamison/Dirk/Najera/Bradley
2004-05: Terry/Harris/Daniels/Stack/Fin/JHo/Dirk/Najera/Bradley/Benga

He's got the team younger, athletic and more defense-oriented with lesser contracts. So, knowing what I know now... would I still do the Raef/Jiri/Mills/#1 for Walk/Delk at the beginning of 03/04 and send Walk/Delk now for Terry/Henderson/#1 (from Philly)? Absolutely!!

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 10:46 PM

I hate to use a ......ugh journalist to bolster my position but what they hey, i'm shameless.

From peter may of espn.com

Quote:

The Celtics traded Walker in part because Ainge felt he would not be able to re-sign him. There was a big difference in opinion as to what Walker might be worth. Walker saw players with fewer All-Star appearances and playoff appearances like Stephon Marbury signing long-term extensions. He felt he belonged in that same category. Ainge did not. The Celtics got Raef LaFrentz, Jiri Welsch and a No. 1 pick for Walker -- and Ainge said that was, by far, the best offer he received.

The Mavericks got Jason Terry, a decent guard, and Alan Henderson, a decent guy who has not been able to play because of injuries. That was it. That makes Ainge's acquisition look like outright theft. And you could argue that Walker was even more appealing as trade bait this time around because of his contract. He still didn't fetch much.

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: V2M
Raef was a serviceable player (may be more a 4 than a 5) with an ugly contract and questionable knees at the time he was traded. It's highly debatable what he could have done for us this year especially coming back with a knee surgery and with a couple of young Centers added to the rotation.

The Luxury Tax necessitates every owner to pay close attention to the salaries (except for may be the stupid Knicks owner). You look at what Paul Allen's doing in Portland and the Maloof Bros doing in Sacramento... it's the same thing now Mark Cuban's trying to do: Reduce the payroll while having a competitive team for the long term. And so far, I'd say Cuban's doing a better job at it than any other owner.

Look at our 10-Man rotations in
2002-03: Nash/NVE/Fin/Bell/Najera/Griffin/WaltWilliams/Dirk/Raef/Bradley
2003-04: Nash/Best/Daniels/Fin/JHo/Walk/Jamison/Dirk/Najera/Bradley
2004-05: Terry/Harris/Daniels/Stack/Fin/JHo/Dirk/Najera/Bradley/Benga

He's got the team younger, athletic and more defense-oriented with lesser contracts. So, knowing what I know now... would I still do the Raef/Jiri/Mills/#1 for Walk/Delk at the beginning of 03/04 and send Walk/Delk now for Terry/Henderson/#1 (from Philly)? Absolutely!!

I don't quite see how the overall team strategy correlates to this one trade. Raef was not old (maybe knees were) jiri wasn't old. Walk certainly wasn't a better defender than Raef. The NVE trade I STILL support and do today. That deal brought us a very nice go. Stack, L8, Harris.

The mavs traded walker to keep him, he did not fit and they traded him for JT. Raef+Jiri for J.T. It does not look like an upgrade to me.

V2M · 08-05-2004, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: dude1394

Quote:

Originally posted by: V2M
Raef was a serviceable player (may be more a 4 than a 5) with an ugly contract and questionable knees at the time he was traded. It's highly debatable what he could have done for us this year especially coming back with a knee surgery and with a couple of young Centers added to the rotation.

The Luxury Tax necessitates every owner to pay close attention to the salaries (except for may be the stupid Knicks owner). You look at what Paul Allen's doing in Portland and the Maloof Bros doing in Sacramento... it's the same thing now Mark Cuban's trying to do: Reduce the payroll while having a competitive team for the long term. And so far, I'd say Cuban's doing a better job at it than any other owner.

Look at our 10-Man rotations in
2002-03: Nash/NVE/Fin/Bell/Najera/Griffin/WaltWilliams/Dirk/Raef/Bradley
2003-04: Nash/Best/Daniels/Fin/JHo/Walk/Jamison/Dirk/Najera/Bradley
2004-05: Terry/Harris/Daniels/Stack/Fin/JHo/Dirk/Najera/Bradley/Benga

He's got the team younger, athletic and more defense-oriented with lesser contracts. So, knowing what I know now... would I still do the Raef/Jiri/Mills/#1 for Walk/Delk at the beginning of 03/04 and send Walk/Delk now for Terry/Henderson/#1 (from Philly)? Absolutely!!

I don't quite see how the overall team strategy correlates to this one trade. Raef was not old (maybe knees were) jiri wasn't old. Walk certainly wasn't a better defender than Raef. The NVE trade I STILL support and do today. That deal brought us a very nice go. Stack, L8, Harris.

The mavs traded walker to keep him, he did not fit and they traded him for JT. Raef+Jiri for J.T. It does not look like an upgrade to me.

Talent-wise, on paper, you could make a case to how Raef/Jiri for Terry is not a great deal. But salary-wise, clearly it's a no-brainer. And my point above is, in today's league, you can't really separate the two.

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 11:37 PM

Since we are so interested in salary how about trading finley for a bag of beans. I understand your point, but I don't really agree with it when we are talking about this trade.

Calvin Booth for example is the 91st paid player whereas Raef was 47th. Maybe booth has a shorter contract so ok. We are toying with Antonio Davis at 24th. I just don't think that Raef was wildly overpaid for a center...IF he gets healthy again. Terry is 49th in the league so he and raef are basically a wash contract wise, I don't know about years.

I guess my point is that Raef is equitable to Terry salary wises and Jiri is cheap as dirt. I don't think your salary comparison works that much either.

Psychedelic Fuzz · 08-05-2004, 11:48 PM

Why are so many people working under the assumption that Raef was a real center?

dude1394 · 08-05-2004, 11:59 PM

Why wasn't he? He was certainly as much a center as booth/shawn

Captain Disaster · 08-06-2004, 12:16 AM

It's WAY TOO EARLY to fully judge these moves except to say that Terry is definitely better than Jiri & LaFrentz TOGETHER. Terry is a very durable player who is lightning quick, who can run the pick & roll well, & who will be HUNGRY. LaFrentz didn't have much upstairs, & Jiri is not as good as Terry. Walker is a freak: he is a wealthy NBA star who really can't play basketball well against the upper echelon players in this system. He has way too many bad habits that subtract from his positives.

EricaLubarsky · 08-06-2004, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Psychedelic Fuzz
Why are so many people working under the assumption that Raef was a real center?

He wasn't a true center, but he was a lot better than nothing (that is, until 2003-2004 when he was injured). He was foul prone, so we needed to fill in with other centers when he was in trouble. He was a player that fit Nellie's insane desire too closely and was played poorly. I genuinely liked what he did about 15% of the time and the rest of the time I absolutely hated how he played and where he was. I guess there are similarities to another Celtic player. If he was taught to play like Alonzo Mourning, he would have been our answer, but he was taught Nellie's insane schemes, performed them well and contributed very little. Like Walker, he has skill in the post and in the paint, but like Walker he was always 10 feet away from the basket.

I honestly can't say we are better without him, but I'm not sure that I would rather have him than the monster lineup we have now.

Kleany · 08-06-2004, 12:24 AM

man, people replying, have yall even seen Jason Terry play? dude is real good. im glad as hell we got Jason Terry, i was a fan before this incident though.....how can u compare Jason Terry to Jiri Welsh. haha Jiri sucks ass compared to Jason Terry.

EricaLubarsky · 08-06-2004, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Kleany
man, people replying, have yall even seen Jason Terry play? dude is real good. im glad as hell we got Jason Terry, i was a fan before this incident though.....how can u compare Jason Terry to Jiri Welsh. haha Jiri sucks ass compared to Jason Terry.

I've seen him tear Nash a new one. I know him well. Jiri still needs to develop but he's a promising young guy. He's nowhere near Terry right now, but it's hard to say that Terry is better when Welsch is so young- he's only really gotten PT in one season.

V · 08-06-2004, 12:29 AM

One thing for certain: Hawks don't do LaF + Jiri + pick for Terry + hendu + pick.

No regrets. All moves must be placed in context.

Give it up & let's move on.

dude1394 · 08-06-2004, 12:32 AM

And why not? They just gave him up for ANTOINE WALKER AND DELK!!

And if you want to move on, move on...

Captain Disaster · 08-06-2004, 12:44 AM

Here's an Atlanta fan's take off the ESPN board:

REAL take on TERRY from A HAWK fan
Original Message ( Posted: Aug 04, 2004 04:02 PM )
Posted by: smokeythebengal (148 Posts) Report User | reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey one of you guys gave a nice view of Walker on our board so I will return the favor. Jet is fast, very very fast faster than A.I.. He can take it to the hole and make tough shots and just as easy miss a lay up. He is not in any way shape or form close to an NBA point guard. He is clueless when it comes to running an offense and to be fair a bad defensive player mostly because of his size although with the quickness he has he should be a better defender than he is. When he is on shooting wise he is ON but when he is off he is OFF. He is horible on the fast break and his breaks usually result in a turnover and thats the magic word with J.T, TURNOVER. He makes dumb lazy passes and should not be allowed on the court in close games in the 4th quarter. J.T. would be better suited to be your first guard off the bench like we used to use Spud Webb in the Dominique days. He is not a cancer and is a good teamate, even when he lost his starting job to Sura he still didnt pout and played hard. He tried to get what few fans we had into the games and when we won in front of a packed house { which wasnt very often} he would grab the mike and give thanks to the fans and ask them to come out and support the Hawks. If Devon Harris is the real deal then Jet will be a nice bench player for you { like he was at Zona for Bibby} but if he is your starter and is relied upon to run your team you will want him traded by midseason or sooner. He makes the same mistakes over and over and if we had a tougher coach than Terry Stotts he would have been benched much more often then he was. Like I said he is not a bad guy and good in the community but just has a bonehead basketball brain.

ddh33 · 08-06-2004, 12:47 AM

This is all irrelevant. That's what everyone seems to be conveniently overlooking.

Teams change. Players change. Needs change.

Once upon a time, the Mavs needed to compliment their Big Three. They didn't do that like I would have liked. Instead, guys like Walker were brought in. I understoof the reasoning then, even if I didn't agree. They were thinking that Walker could easily rebound just as well as Raef despite the size difference. They were right. They thought Walker could replace some of the attitude lost when Nick was traded. They were right to an extent. They thought Walker's contract was better than Raef's. Hard to argue that. They thought Walker could blend in and play well with the Big Three. They were wrong, but it was worth a shot...

The long short of it is that needs once again changed. The Mavs still needed a center, but they needed a PG worse when Nash left. After all, you have 4 guys to play C in a pinch. You got an untested rookie at the 1, and Nellie relies on his Guards much more than his Centers anyway...so the Mavs made a good move.

You can't always look backwards. You just have to accept the way things are at the moment and do the best you can to improve your team. For what it's worth, I believe these Mavs are better than last years, even if they lack the starpower.

V · 08-06-2004, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: dude1394
And why not? They just gave him up for ANTOINE WALKER AND DELK!!

And if you want to move on, move on...

The differences are obvious Dude... if you've fogotten they have something to do with the almighty dollar.

EricaLubarsky · 08-06-2004, 12:55 AM

We just need a live body in the middle that is stupid as a tree and will disobey Nellie by hanging out in the paint. A few seasons ago the Nets were on fire with Todd Macculough at center and when he went down they were barely over .500. That may be a fluke, but I take it as a testament of how having even a crappy center on the floor helps your team. I really don't think the center is a big concern- the bigger concern is Nellie's refusal to keep centers in the game.