A Split Could Aid Finley and Mavs

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: alby
Okay fine. Tim Duncan also has a 6' 10" guy in Big Shot Rob that does practically everything, even trapping in full court press (which is amazing to me) and a 40% three point shooter in Brent Barry which we have in Mike Finley.

Aside from Manu/Finley and our need for a backup 5, I really don't see any gap at all between our roster and San Antonio's. I agree with your earlier statement that we just need better team defense (we need better team offense as well) Which is why I think our #1 priority should be continuity. Sure, a few improvements here and there would be nice, but for the most part I like the team the way it is and just want it to gell under AJ's system.

[alby]

I totally agree with you.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: alby
True. He is the "best center in the west."

Yes, he is. Except for Yao, Amare, Camby, and Magloire. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[alby]

At least he beat out Foyle. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[foglemann]

I agree with the idea that it would be better for our defense to improve more than a consistent 20 point scorer behind dirk, but Manu avg. 16 pts. and Parker avg. 16 pts also. Where Finley avg. 15 and Terry avg. 12. I understand that we may have more offensive options beyond that than the Spurs have, but my point is with this set of players, our defense will never be like the Spurs. Our offense should be better and more prolific than the Spurs and really it wasn't much better last season. We need that seperation to beat them, the defense is just never going to get to the level of what we saw in the finals, especially with Finley starting and playing 35+ mpg.

[alby]

Our offense IS much better than the spurs especially when you add in Stackhouse avg. 15 pts, Howard avg. 13 pts, and KVH avg. 12 pts. If you improve the overall team defense by lets say 5 stops a game, we would be holding the trophy.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: alby
Our offense IS much better than the spurs especially when you add in Stackhouse avg. 15 pts, Howard avg. 13 pts, and KVH avg. 12 pts. If you improve the overall team defense by lets say 5 stops a game, we would be holding the trophy.

Essentially I agree with you. We do have much more offensive talent, however our main problem was chemistry and consistency. More than anything, I think it was because the players were still in Nellie's system, which is too complex for Terry, and not natrual to AJ. So, I reiterate: our top priority is developing this team and its players under AJ.

[alby]

Like I said earlier, I agree with you. =]

Developing under AJ means a better defensive team yes?

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: alby
Like I said earlier, I agree with you. =]

Developing under AJ means a better defensive team yes?

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

[Misfit Mav]

I think it is a bad idea for any team to dump a former flagship player. It would have a terrible impact on the team's reputation with veteran players around the league. Finley shown us a lot of loyalty over the years and he deserves the same from management.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: The Miles

Sure it does. It allows Cuban to spend the MLE and still break even, as it is Cuban would be in the hole at least $36,000,000 over three years if he spent the MLE and kept Finley. Cutting Finley, and retiring Bradley, puts Cuban $36,000,000 ahead, basically the amount of the full MLE over three years (with a dollar for dollar LT).

I don't see that it does anything for the basketball team talent-wise. Cubes would get someone for the MLE anyway if he found someone. He sure wasn't shy about picking up killer. It saves him money I confess but doesn nothing for the teams talent base, in fact it degrades it. Now if you are thinking that waiving finley would allow the mavs to pick up some other good person who's also been abandoned by their team, it still wouldn't help as they are over the cap. It helps cubes bottom line, which doesn't help his basketball team.

Or it allows Cuban to feel willing to move Van Horns expirer if the right deal comes along. If Cuban is really watching his cash, and I think he has to be considering that other than Kwame Brown (if he blew up in Dallas) there isn't an MLE level player on the market (you aren't getting Bobby Simmons for the MLE IMO) worth the extra $36,000,000 it would cost if they kept Finley too.

Cubes will move KVH if the right deal comes along period, irregardless of finley.

Either you decide DJ and/or Pavel is good enough to play in the rotation, and you keep Fin, or you cut ties with Fin and use that money to add a legitimate backup big ala Kwame or Gadzuric. That is just how I look at it, it is a tough choice because Fin is Fin, he has been the backbone of the franchise for years. Can Quis + Stack fill 48 mpg at SG? I think so, and Jet/Josh can both help there too. Van Horn can provide the 4th swing/backup SF minutes needed behind Josh and serve as the backup to both Josh and Dirk. The real benefit is adding that 3rd true big, the MLE guy, and the way it is possible is through this CBA loophole.

Again cubes can add a MLE guy AND have finley. DJ/Pavel have not much to do with it. Your assertion again is taht 'quis is a better player than finley, that's basically what it boils down to and it seems your arguement is setup to exploit that. But I don't buy that, still don't. Stack is a flawed player as well imo so if "I" were moving finley, I'd try to find another shooter to be honest as I don't think the team has that many.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: dude1394

if "I" were moving finley, I'd try to find another shooter to be honest as I don't think the team has that many.

Agreed. The team doesn't have many shooters, in the backcourt anyway. We've got Dirk and KVH in the frontcourt, and we all know that Dirk is trying to become more of post player (I'm nervous as hell about how that will work out) The point is, I still don't see anyway the team would benefit by waiving Fin. It might save Cuban a few bucks, but he still has the MLE regardless. And at this point, I really don't think we can afford to lose Finley by any means. We just need his shooting that badly. Without Fin, the only real shooter we'd have is Jet. As much as I was pleased with Stack this season, I'd feel far less anxiety about losing him than Fin. This argument really breaks down into whether or not you think a Stack/Marquis rotation at SG would cut it. I personally don't.

[Bookit]

The more I think about it the more I think losing Finley makes absolutley no sense. It doesn't help the salary cap situation. It doesn't doesn't help the team's financial flexibility whatsoever because the Mavs are limited anyway by the CBA and the salary cap. So what good does waiving Finley do? It might save Cuban some cash but it actually hurts the team if Fin leaves. Finley isn't going anywere except maybe to the bench for a few more minutes next season. Nobody in the Mavs organization would want this except maybe Cuban but the Mavs just signed KVH for huge money as a luxury off the bench! Why waive Finley?? Am I missing something?

[chumdawg]

I feel like I'm missing something, too. There are so many conflicting things here. Cuban opts not to pay Nash his contract, but then signs Damp to a worse contract. If Cuban cuts Finley, it looks like a cost-saving move--but then again, paying $50MM for nothing is not exactly being cheap.

My best guess is that all this is part of a Mavericks makeover that is equal parts AJ's putting his stamp on the team and Cubes' distancing from the Nellie regime. At least I would LIKE to think that there is some method to all this apparent madness.

[NewMexiMav]

Eddie Sefko either has some deep-seated hate for Fin or he truly doesn't understand the situation. Under either scenario, that makes him a sorry excuse of a beat writer.

If the Mavs waive Fin, it will be purely for the financial reason of saving lux tax. And Sefko makes that part of it sound like a certainty when nobody knows if or when the lux tax will kick in for 05-06.

If Mark waived Fin, he basically would be waving the white flag to the Mavs' rivals in the West: "Hey Suns, Spurs, Lakers, Kings (whoever), come sign my starting SG for the MLE and I'll chip in $50+ million and not get anything in return!" How assinine is that?? But Sefko describes this as a "win-win"? Somebody straighten this guy out!

[MavsFanFinley]

Likable Finley now very expendable

Gil LeBreton
IN MY OPINION/Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Shawn Bradley is retiring, and Michael Finley may soon be released.

The Avery Johnson Era, in other words, is upon us. Every general likes to go to war with his own handpicked troops.

It's not that the head coach doesn't like Finley. The latter's tenure with the NBA Mavericks even predates the arrival of the Nelsons.

The Nelsons, Don and Donnie, have always been fond of Finley. Owner Mark Cuban likes Finley and has the canceled paychecks to prove it.

The fans like Finley. The media likes Finley. One day Finley's No. 4 jersey will hang in the American Airlines Center rafters.

But if the Mavericks don't take advantage of a one-time loophole in the newly agreed upon collective bargaining agreement, Finley could end up costing owner Cuban $103.6 million over the next three seasons.

That's an obscene amount of money for a player whose future role with the Mavericks could soon border on ceremonial.

No, nobody has cut Finley -- yet. But president of basketball operations Donnie Nelson said he discussed the possibility at a Friday staff meeting, and Cuban reportedly planned to talk privately with Finley this weekend.

The owner owes Finley the remainder of a max, seven-year deal signed in July 2001 -- almost $51.8 million for three more seasons of work. With the Mavericks already operating above the NBA's luxury tax ceiling, the tax on Finley's paycheck could be almost one dollar on every dollar.

And Cuban needs time to think about this?

The decision on Bradley is not exactly mental heavy lifting, either. Don't expect to see Johnson ringing the Bradley house's doorbell, begging the big guy to come back.

As Cuban pointed out Thursday, Bradley himself has been worried about hip and knee problems and faces another possible knee surgery. A settlement on the $14.5 million owed to the 7-foot-6 Bradley is expected to be negotiated soon.

I'll miss him. There, I said it. I think Bradley, when healthy, when utilized in the right situations and when sufficiently focused, was a useful Mavericks resource. Let me also suggest that, in a social setting, he's smarter, friendlier and funnier than you probably think.

But in a league that has been becoming more physical by the year, the Mavericks need to get tougher, not necessarily taller. Once Johnson took over for Nellie last season, Bradley barely made the radar screen.

The Avery Johnson Era is upon us. Johnson wants to get a better look at 7-0 DJ Mbenga and 20-year-old, 7-5 Pavel Podkolzin and, in his words, "see if those kids can play."

Johnson needs to find out, too, what Marquis Daniels' eventual role can be. Nellie was infatuated with Daniels. Johnson seems to want a further look.

The head coach also needs to find out whether Jerry Stackhouse's knee can handle an increased workload. And what's the current book value -- in the lineup or on the open market -- of a Keith Van Horn?

The Nellie summers were spent under the banyan tree in Maui. Johnson, a tad more restless, will spend July coaching the Mavericks' summer league team in Las Vegas.

The Mavericks will be changing. In Johnson's system, Finley likely would be coming off the bench.

If you were the owner, would you take a $103.6 million payroll hit for a Michael Finley that logs 15 minutes a night?

Around the NBA, as teams are digesting the fine print on the new agreement, most are probably pondering their own one-time tax-saving maneuvers -- their own Michael Finleys. The New York Knicks reportedly are ready to waive the often-injured Allan Houston and save $40 million.

Don't cry for Finley. If they waive him, the Mavericks still are required to pay Finley every penny of his nearly $51.8 million.

Under terms of the new agreement, Finley would not be able to re-sign with the Mavericks for the next three seasons. The payroll-bloated Mavericks would receive no salary cap relief. Cuban's NBA luxury tax bill would be the only thing to benefit.

Finley would be allowed to take his money and run. There are a dozen NBA teams who likely would welcome Finley, playoff baggage and all, with open arms.

We like him. You all like him. But do the math.

The Avery Johnson Era is upon us.

[Misfit Mav]

I really don't want to see a Finley-Nash reunion in Phoenix. If Mark is determined to save the money, how about a trade for Antonio Davis? He'd end up saving more, and getting something in return.

[SeriousSummer]

Some statistical information on Michael Finley's standing as a shooting guard--one caution, this comes from ESPN's statistical information including all NBA player's since Finley didn't play enough games or minutes to make it onto ESPN's "Qualified" list and also some of ESPN's positional classifications may be suspect, still:

<u>Finley's place among shooting guards</u>

Scoring 21
Rebounds 29
Assists 29
Steals 53
Blocks 33
3 pt % 14
FG % 59
TO 28

Comparison (per 48 minutes) to Marquis Daniels and Jerry Stackhouse:

Points Reb. Ast. St. Blk TO FG% 3pt% FT FT%
Finley 20.4 5.3 3.4 .98 .4 1.2 .427 .407 2.8 .831
Stack 24.7 5.4 3.8 1.57 .3 3.1 .414 .267 8.8 .849
Daniels 18.5 7.3 4.4 2.82 .5 2.9 .437 .200 4.5 .737

A brief review of these statistics makes it clear that Finley is strong in only two categories: 1) three point shooting; and 2) low turnovers. In all other categories, Finley is either statistically indistinguishable or well below Stackhouse and Daniels.

Another option would be to play Josh Howard at shooting guard and start Keith Van Horn at small forward (per 48):

Points Reb. Ast. St. Blk TO FG% 3pt% FT FT%
Finley 20.4 5.3 3.4 .98 .4 1.2 .427 .407 2.8 .831
Howard 18.8 9.5 2.1 2.28 1.0 2.4 .475 .296 4.6 .733
Van Horn 22.2 9.4 2.4 1.15 .7 2.6 .456 .380 5.0 .815

This line up is clearly much stronger (except for defensive problems caused by mismatches). Finley is one assist and 1.4 turnovers per game better than Van Horn, but 4.1 rebounds, 2.2 free throws, and marginal amounts in blocks and steals per game worse. Although Finley is slightly stronger than Van Horn in 3pt% and FT%, that is more than counterbalanced by Van Horn's better overall shooting.

The potential problem, of course, is that KVH would likely have great difficulty matching up against quicker small forwards (somewhat balanced by their potential problems in matching up with him).

My conclusion, for what it's worth, the Mavericks (barring injury) would suffer very little without Michael Finley. I think the Mavs defense would be better, as would rebounding and passing. I think Finley's low turnover numbers are somewhat misleading because he handles the ball so little.

Dallas may miss Finley's three point shooting, but almost any line up the Mavs played would feature at least two good 3-pt shooters in Dirk and Terry (or Harris) and Van Horn is available as a third good 3pt shooter if necessary. San Antonio seems to do fine with only two respectable 3pt shooters (Bowen and Ginobili) in its starting line up.

While a stand still three point shooter is a valuable commodity--and that's all Finley is these days, such players don't command even the MLE in normal circumstances. The Mavs could pick up such a player, I believe, for not more than $3 million per year, perhaps for much less. That would mean a savings of in excess of $9 million per year, if the luxury tax is in effect.

[LRB]

If you were the owner, would you take a $103.6 million payroll hit for a Michael Finley that logs 15 minutes a night?

Looks like Sefko disease has spread to the Star Telegram as well. LeBreton must be trying to proof that he's a big an idiot as Sefko. There are soooooo many just outright untruths in both their articles, it make you wonder if they ever bother getting up off their ass to do a little research or at least do a google search on the new CBA bargaining agreement. Well for all the dumbass sports writers who just love making up crap and pulling it out of their asses here's a link for you. Check it out, it says

The effect of the existing luxury tax on teams will be reduced and there will be no additional taxes. The tax level will be set at 61percent of league revenues (the same level as in the 2001-02 – 2003-04 seasons). Tax treatment for injured players and minimum salary players will be liberalized.

That means the dollar for dollar luxary tax is no longer the case morons. So there is no way in hell Fin cost Cubes $103.6 million over the remainder of his $51.8 million contract. With a little more research which I'll leave to the idiots being paid to do this, you would see that even in worst case scenario, Cubes will get a share of any luxary tax paid under the new CBA.

Now that both these idiots credibility has been sorely tarnished, why believe another word out of their lying mouths, or this case fingers?

That said, I don't find it hard to believe that the Mavs would discuss this, or that Cubes would talk to Fin abou this. But that hardly would mean that the Mavs are strongly considering doing this move. Truth is the final details are still being ironed out and nobody knows what the exact loopholes are. But Sefko is just making shit up to try and sell papers again trying to create a controversy out of nothing.

And for those who want Fin to go to the bench, I totally echo the comments of GMC, KG, and others in that someone needs to beat Fin out of the job. Right now Fin is the best all around player out of Stack, Quis, and Fin. Just because Fin is no longer as good as he was a few years ago is no reason to bench him when there is no one better than he is. As GMC has repeatedly posted, Fin's +/- numbers are the best out of any of the 3 players. The best thing that Fin does is shoot the spot up three. But if you think that is all Fin does, then you'r saidly mistaken. He made twice as many 2's as 3's, his assist to turnover ratio is miles better than any of the other 2, Fin plays as good or better D than the other 2. Fin's only real weakness is his less than stellar handles, but still he knows his limitation there and works great within those limitations. Averaging over 15 points and 2 assists while not even averaging 1 full turnover per game is pretty damn good for someone with suspect handles, much better than either Marquis or Stack.

I'm sick of people treating Fin like he's 12 man garbage lucky to even be playing in the NBA. Fin is still easily a top 40 player in the NBA when fully healthy, which he wasn't last year BTW. But even injured Fin is still a very good player and would start on more NBA teams that not. Sure he has his weaknesses, but show me 1 player in the NBA today who doesn't. And yes, i'd like to see Fin average less minutes next season, assuming that someone can play well enough to earn those minutes from him.

[SeriousSummer]

Fin's only real weakness is his less than stellar handles, but still he knows his limitation there and works great within those limitations.

And his poor passing--he has fewer assists per 48 than either Daniels or Stackhouse, he assist to turnover ratio is only good because he does so little with the ball that he commits few turnovers.

And his rebounding is poor for a shooting guard.

And, in spite of your assertion, his defense is not as good as either Daniels or Stackhouse--fewer steals, about the same on blocks, and weak lateral movement.

And, he doesn't get to line--although I guess you could say that was a result of his poor handles.

If you haven't noticed, last year when the game was on the line at the end of the season Nelson went to Daniels. This year Avery went to Stack. Finley has remained the starter, but if the best players are the ones on the floor when the game is in the balance, then I think you can argue that Fins already been beat out.

Fin is still easily a top 40 player in the NBA when fully healthy

Fin is barely a top twenty shooting guard. He's not anywhere close to a top 40 NBA player.

[ddh33]

Before Dirk and Nash, there was Fin...

Reading this thread almost makes me wish Fin was somewhere else simply because I'm tired of him being the scapegoat for everything. I'm tired of people only talking about what he doesn't do instead of all the good things he does do.

[grndmstr_c]

Another option would be to play Josh Howard at shooting guard and start Keith Van Horn at small forward (per 48):

Points Reb. Ast. St. Blk TO FG% 3pt% FT FT%
Finley 20.4 5.3 3.4 .98 .4 1.2 .427 .407 2.8 .831
Howard 18.8 9.5 2.1 2.28 1.0 2.4 .475 .296 4.6 .733
Van Horn 22.2 9.4 2.4 1.15 .7 2.6 .456 .380 5.0 .815

This line up is clearly much stronger (except for defensive problems caused by mismatches). Finley is one assist and 1.4 turnovers per game better than Van Horn, but 4.1 rebounds, 2.2 free throws, and marginal amounts in blocks and steals per game worse. Although Finley is slightly stronger than Van Horn in 3pt% and FT%, that is more than counterbalanced by Van Horn's better overall shooting.

I'm looking over the positional +/- for Finley and Van Horn, and here's what's jumping out at me. The Mavs were only at +1.6 per 48 minutes with Keith playing as the small forward, as compared to +11.6 with Finley at SG. Want some individual performance stats to go along with that? Finley's PER as a shooting guard was 16.5; Keith's PER as a SF was 10.

Two notes: 1) the ample size for Keith's time at SF is very small, and think we could probably expect more out of him than that over the long run, and 2) I'm quoting Fin's SG numbers because we're comparing a Fin/Josh lineup at the 2/3 to a Josh/Keith lineup at the 2/3. But we can compare Fin at SF to Keith at SF as well. Fin doesn't look as good at SF, but he still looks better than Van Horn - PER of 14.9, +/- of +4.2.

So I think you can see when you look a little closer at the numbers that there's no statistical justification for the claim that subbing Keith in for Fin in the starting lineup would be a good thing for the team

My conclusion, for what it's worth, the Mavericks (barring injury) would suffer very little without Michael Finley. I think the Mavs defense would be better, as would rebounding and passing. I think Finley's low turnover numbers are somewhat misleading because he handles the ball so little.

I'll take these in turn.
1) defense - we can adress this by looking at the defensive on-court numbers for Fin's pairings with the team's top two defensive difference makers, Josh and Damp, and comparing those numbers to the equivalent ones for Stack, Daniels, and Keith, the guys who'd be taking his minutes.
Fin/Josh - allow 96.9 per 100.
Fin/Damp - allow 92.5 per 100

Quis/Josh - allow 97.5 per 100
Quis/Damp - allow 97.2 per 100

Stack/Josh - allow 98.1 per 100
Stack/Damp - allow 94.1 per 100

KVH/Josh - allow 94.8 per 100
KVH/Damp - allow 94.3 per 100

The only instance where one of the guys who'd be taking Fin's minutes looks as good or better than Fin defensively is the KVH/Josh pairing. The only problem is that most of Keith's minutes with Josh have been with Josh at the 3 and Keith at the 4, and if we scan around a little bit we can also see that Keith's pairing with Fin allowed only 95 points per 100 posessions. I think these numbers demonstrate very clearly that you couldn't be more wrong about the defense being better without Fin.

2) rebounding - this one's a mixed bag. Fin didn't rebound particularly well last year, and accordingly Daniels does come out looking better than Fin, both in terms of individual production and team rebounding performance (49.6% of rebounds for Quis, 48.7% for Fin), though it should be noted that Fin played almost half his minutes at SF whereas Quis did not. Unfortunately the stats we'd need to see aren't readily available, but it wouldn't surprise me if Fin's weaker team numbers didn't result at least partially from the amount of time he played at SF, where he is a below average rebounder (Quis, by comparison, played the overwhelming majority of his minutes at the 1/2). Keith at SF would be even more of a step up relative to Fin's SF minutes. Stack would not.

3) passing and TO's - Okay, first off, any move that gives more minutes to Stackhouse and Van Horn is not going to be likely to improve ball movement. Both those guys are looking to score the ball themselves. But I digress. The stats: with Fin on court, 53% of the Mavs field goals were assisted, and the Mavs committed only 12 TO's per 48 minutes. With Quis on the court 51% of fg's were assisted, and the team committed 13 TO's per 48. With Stack those figures were 50% and 13. And finally, with KVH, 50% and 11. Again, the stats just don't back up your claim that the Mavs would be better off without Fin, overall, or in this particular area.

[jayC]

Screw the finances. Does Finley help the mavs win a title? If he does keep him, if he doesn't get rid of him? Where does Finley rank among the mavericks players?
1)Dirk
2)JHO
3)Damp
4)Terry
5)Stackhouse
6)Van Horn
7)Finley
8)Daniels
9)Harris

Stackhouse can help this team, when his shot isn't falling. Daniels had a good playoff and regular season run in 2003-2004. This season he had a step back. Howard and Terry had the best playoff performances. When Dampier is on the floor he makes the mavs a way better team. If Finley hurts the mavs more then he helps them? Is it even worth keeping him. Granted Stack didn't shoot the ball particularly well in the playoffs, he does get to the rim. He did make a sensational block on Joe Johnson in the playoffs.

[Bayliss]

Another option would be to play Josh Howard at shooting guard and start Keith Van Horn at small forward (per 48):

Points Reb. Ast. St. Blk TO FG% 3pt% FT FT%
Finley 20.4 5.3 3.4 .98 .4 1.2 .427 .407 2.8 .831
Howard 18.8 9.5 2.1 2.28 1.0 2.4 .475 .296 4.6 .733
Van Horn 22.2 9.4 2.4 1.15 .7 2.6 .456 .380 5.0 .815

This line up is clearly much stronger (except for defensive problems caused by mismatches). Finley is one assist and 1.4 turnovers per game better than Van Horn, but 4.1 rebounds, 2.2 free throws, and marginal amounts in blocks and steals per game worse. Although Finley is slightly stronger than Van Horn in 3pt% and FT%, that is more than counterbalanced by Van Horn's better overall shooting.

I think you will see that lineup some next year. Call it "big ball"... or "rebounding ball." That lineup would be excellent if Howard continues to work on his outside shot.

Look at it this way....

Dampier-Stoudemire
Dirk-Marion
Van Horn-Thomas
Howard-Johnson
Terry-Nash

That lineup matches up better than perhaps any other lineup because of Van Horn's ability to hit the outside shot, penetrate, and rebound. And if the Suns go small with Jim Jackson as the 3.... Van Horn while limited laterally negates Jackson's post up ability... and I'd force Jackson to drive a lot. And on offense Van Horn can be on the blocks... and kicking out to Dirk or Terry if they decide to double.

That big lineup is intriguing.

[SeriousSummer]

Again, the stats just don't back up your claim that the Mavs would be better off without Fin, overall, or in this particular area.

True, but that's a strawman argument. What I said is:

the Mavericks (barring injury) would suffer very little without Michael Finley

It's quite different to say the Mavs would be only a little worse without him, than to say that the Mavs would be better without him.

I think the statistics, both those I cited and those you cited, fully support my point. Your statistics, at best, show that the Mavs would have one less assisted basket, one more turnover, and allow about one more basket (or none or two, depending on the combination) per game without Finley. On the other hand, the Mavs get an extra rebound without Finley. Only considering these factors (and assuming they cost Dallas 2 points per game), Dallas falls from 4th to 6th in point differential in the NBA--right behind Detroit.

But I think there are some factors that point the other way. Finley is 32. He's unlikely to get better and pretty likely to get worse over the next three years. Daniels is 23, and was hurt much of last year. I think he's likely to get better. All of the players that would replace Finley get to the free throw line more often (Finley gets to the line only 2.8 times per game, Daniels is 4.5, Howard 4.6, KVH 5 and Stackhouse 8.8). That could easily mean an extra point per game.

Bear with me for a moment and assume that losing Finley makes the Mavs only a point per game worse--that's actually quite a lot for a player like Finley. If so, the Mavs are still 4th in the league in point differential.

Assuming the luxury tax is in effect (Mark Cuban will have a pretty good idea on this, unlike you or I), an extra $15 million per year is lot to pay for no change in position in point differential.

[LRB]

If Finley hurts the mavs more then he helps them?

If Fin hurts the Mavs then why is his +/- numbers the best out of Stack, Daniels, and Fin? And that was a year where Fin was playing hurt versus playing 100% healthy.

If Stack is better than Fin, then why do the Mavs play worse with Stack in? Fin is the best 2 guard on this team or at least he was last year. And with the expectation of Fin coming back better physically this year, there is no indication that this will change anytime soon.

[SeriousSummer]

I think the plus/minus comparison between Stackhouse and Finley is somewhat misleading. When Stack was in the game, he had the responsibility, many times, of making his own shot. That was largely to give Dirk a rest from making his own shot every time down the floor. Finley rarely had that responsibility.

Of course, if the Mavs had had a productive offense last year that amounted to more than giving the ball to Dirk and letting him work (which, I have to admit, he did awfully well most of the time), then all of these numbers might look quite different.

[dude1394]

It could very arguably (and backed up by other players statements) be said that the mavs would have lost in the first round of this years playoff without fin as well.

[grndmstr_c]

It's quite different to say the Mavs would be only a little worse without him, than to say that the Mavs would be better without him.

Fair enough. You didn't say the Mavs would be better overall. You only erroneously claimed that the Mavs would be better passing and on defense without him.

I think the statistics, both those I cited and those you cited, fully support my point. Your statistics, at best, show that the Mavs would have one less assisted basket, one more turnover, and allow about one more basket (or none or two, depending on the combination) per game without Finley.

Perhaps you should peruse the stats I presented again, because what they is show that, to the extent that last year's performances can be assumed to be accurate predictors of next year's performances, the Mavs are simply better off with Fin, period. And I'm not sure how, when the stats I quoted directly contradicted three of the specific points you tried to make (Mavs not much worse off with Fin, Mavs better defensively without Fin, Mavs better passing without Fin), you could sit there with a straight face and write that they support your point.

Bear with me for a moment and assume that losing Finley makes the Mavs only a point per game worse--that's actually quite a lot for a player like Finley. If so, the Mavs are still 4th in the league in point differential.

The stats suggest the mavs are losing about three times as much cushion as you're suggesting. The Mavs outscored their opponents by a combined total of 471 points last year. Fin played 2358 of the 3946 possible minutes, and in that time the Mavs outscored opponents by 375 points. So, in the 1588 minutes Finley wasn't playing the mavs outscored their opponents by only 96 points, or ~2.9 points per game. That's a dropoff of almost 3 points differential per game relative to the 5.7 they averaged this year.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: dude1394
It could very arguably (and backed up by other players statements) be said that the mavs would have lost in the first round of this years playoff without fin as well.

But isn't a few million dollars worth not advancing past the 1st round? [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: LRB

But isn't a few million dollars worth not advancing past the 1st round? [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

It's definitely worth not advancing past the second round.

[Murphy3]

In all honesty, I will be disappointed in multiple players if Mike Finley is anything more than the 8th man on this Mavs team next year.... That is, if the Mavs 2/3 components stays the same.

[SeriousSummer]

So, in the 1588 minutes Finley wasn't playing the mavs outscored their opponents by only 96 points, or ~2.9 points per game.

If that's the result, then the Mavs drop back to the 7th best team in the league in point differential--behind Houston and Detroit (along with San Antonio, Phoenix, Seattle and Miami). That would make them the number 5 seed instead of the number 4 seed, probably.

I still don't see that as a cataclysmic change, and I don't think it's inevitable. I expect Daniels to be significantly better next year and, (in spite of the injury issue) I have a hard time seeing Finley doing anything but declining over the next three years. A year with most of the team intact and consistent coaching ought to be able to make up for Finley's loss.

I see the statistics you quoted, but watching the games makes me think Daniels is, or at least should be, a better defender than Finley--and Stackhouse should be no worse.

I think the Mavs will let Finley go on waivers, pick up another, but lower priced, swingman, and we won't miss Finley but only a little bit.

Playing Avery-style, the Mavs are going to go on to become a better defensive team and a more evenly balanced offensive team. We may not get 58 wins, but I think we'll get enough to be the number 4 seed again, and, if we're lucky enough to meet Phoenix again in the second round, then I think we'll beat them.

[grndmstr_c]

You don't think dropping 3 points off your per game differential is bad? You think a positive point differential of +2.9 is good enough to expect to make it out of the first round in the West? I suppose the league would just overlook the corresponding drop in record and let us go ahead and be the 4th seed again rather than starting the playoffs out on the road against the Spurs or Suns as the 7 seed, a very realistic possibility with a +2.9 point differential.

And as far as this Quis improving next year/Fin getting worse, your take on that is nothing more than conjecture (as is mine, as is anybody's). From my perspective I don't think it's very likely Fin's game will manifest significant decline, and on the contrary expect him to be significantly better than he was at the end of this year. Prior to his injury Mike was averaging 17 points, 4.6 rebounds, 2.4 assists, and 52.7% true shooting in only 31.6 mpg. It's not hard to imagine that his subpar play late in the season could have been primarily due to the lingering effects of the injury and the almost 40 mpg he was playing on that hurt ankle over a 3 month span when the Mavs were struggling with all those injuries at the 2/3. I do expect Quis to be better, but let's be honest, both of us are basing that hope on a very small stretch of games over a year ago, and are basically handing him a get out of jail free card for last year because of the injuries he was dealing with from the summer on. If we're going to give a guy who's proven basically nothing in this leauge the benefit of the doubt because of injuries, don't you think for the sake of consistency (and loyalty) that a guy like Finley, who's accomplished as much as he has at the highest level, deserves at least as much?

I see the statistics you quoted, but watching the games makes me think Daniels is, or at least should be, a better defender than Finley--and Stackhouse should be no worse.

Yet they aren't.

[SeriousSummer]

Statistics are tricky things. They can be guides; expose myths; lead to undiscovered ideas. But they aren't the be all and end all. Remember when Horace Jenkins led the NCAA in scoring? He's having a pretty nice career--in Greece. Where was Dirk when the Mavs drafted him--trying to get Wurzberg into the first division in the German league.

One statistic that has inevitability written into, however, is age. Sooner or later it slows us all down. Michael Finley is 32. Let's look at his scoring progression over the last six years:

1999-2000 22.6
2000-2001 21.5
2001-2002 20.6
2002-2003 19.3
2003-2004 18.6
2004-2005 15.7

Now, you do say that prior to injury, Michael Finley was averaging 17 point per game. That would actually fit more smoothly into his one point per year loss in scoring average over five of the last six years. Given that, then you might expect him to score about 16 points per game this year. Either number puts him right in the middle of the pack for NBA shooting guards. Say 15-18th. Even assuming no decline next year from the prior to injury numbers you give, Finley would be 23rd in rebounding and 22nd in assists for shooting guards.

Given he rebounds to those numbers, he's still in the lower half of NBA shooting guards--maybe 20 next year.

I don't think the absence of a below average starting shooting guard (given how deep the Mavericks are) would affect them very much.

And, although as you say it's all opinion, I expect Marquis to be as good next year as Finley would be, and better by the following year as he matures and Finley declines.

[chumdawg]

Here's a question for you: if Cuban feared that we might end up in the lottery without Nash, but yet he still thought that it was more important to save money and roster flexibility............do you really think he'd worry about 2.9 points a game if he could save (or perhaps reallocate) fifty million bucks?

[SeriousSummer]

Maybe a better way of looking at the financial impact is this: The Mavs (according to what I read Mark Cuban said) lost 20 million last year. If you could save 15 million by waiving Finley, then you've got a legitimate chance to break even. The following year, when KVH's contract is up, then you could sign him for probably half of that and save an additional 16 million (8 in salary and 8 in tax). There isn't any reason why the Mavericks can't both make a reasonable profit and field a competitive team (one with a chance to get to the championship). San Antonis has done it; so has Detroit.

On the other hand, the Blazers, Knicks and Mavs haven't gotten anywhere close in the last few years despite almost unlimited spending.

If Mark Cuban is going to be in this for the long run, then he'll decide to run the Mavs like a business. One that is both competitive and fiscally sound.

[grndmstr_c]

Now, you do say that prior to injury, Michael Finley was averaging 17 point per game. That would actually fit more smoothly into his one point per year loss in scoring average over five of the last six years.

Wrong. The 17 ppg before the injury was in 31 minutes, SS. That's on pace for 21 points in 38 minutes (roughly his normal mpg during the big 3 years). Also, the 4.6 rebounds, extrapolated out to Fin's normal mpg works out to 5.6 rpg, which would be his best total since the 99/00 season. The 2.6 apg? Works out to 3.2 in 38 mpg, which is right in line with what he put up Nash's last two years in Dallas. No evidence of decline whatsoever in his pre-injury play.

Also this whole thing with the declining points per game is making a mountain out of a molehill. In fact, when you look at his PER, it's been remarkably consistent since 01/02:

03/04 - PER (17.81)
02/03 - PER (17.55)
01/02 - PER (17.56)

And his pre-injury productivity was at least on that level, and would put him solidly in the Top 15, potentially even among the Top 10 depending on the year, among SG's league-wide; a ranking that is corraborated by his consistently good +/- numbers.

[grndmstr_c]

Here's a question for you: if Cuban feared that we might end up in the lottery without Nash, but yet he still thought that it was more important to save money and roster flexibility............do you really think he'd worry about 2.9 points a game if he could save (or perhaps reallocate) fifty million bucks?

Time will tell.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

Time will tell.

That's a valid point chum, but in the end, he chose not to resign Nash so he could sign Damp. This is of course debateable, but I think it's safe to say that the team is better because of it. I really can't stand when people trash Cuban for not being "loyal" because he traded our beloved Nick Van Exel, and didn't resign our more beloved Nash. Cuban, like any other good owner, wants more than anything to see his team win. Nash wasn't resigned, because it led to Dampier's signing. The only way Finley will be cut is if it leads to an accquisition that makes the team better, in his mind at least. At this point, I don't see any move that could be made possible as a result of cutting Fin.