2014 Offseason Thread

[spreedom]

I agree that Ivan Johnson hasn't looked very good for the Mavs' summer league team... but WTH are they doing having him spot up for threes? He isn't a shooter. At all. He isn't much of an offensive player in any sense. Bring him in for toughness, energy and hustle. That sort of thing isn't easy to translate from SL play.

[jamaljasonandjimmy]

so is felton our official point guard?

[alby]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

Have a blog going up about his assignment for the SL today.
Results have been very mixed.

Thanks BG. Just read it via your FB

[G-Man]

While I love image of the Lance Crazy Train, I'm glad it will only stop in Dallas occasionally, rather than derail in front of the AAC.

Not so sure about the senior citizen rotation at the 4...hopefully between Jefferson and Lewis, they have enough. My thinking is that with Tyson behind him, Wright might prove to be the best at the backup 4.

My biggest concern in the PG. Maybe if my intro to Felton had not been the hilarious Youtube video declaring him the worst starter in the NBA, I'd feel better about him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K8s2K96GvY

Not so sure why some are so down on Mekel. I think he runs the summer league offense pretty well. Its not his fault that his assists are down because some of the kids around him can't catch and finish. I'm much happier with him as the 3rd PG than I am wiith Raymond as the first.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Every offseason I seem to hear about Wright playing backup 4, and he never does.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

I disagree, but it doesn't matter at this point. I am of the opinion having watched Ellis run our offense for much of last year in many situations (he dominates the ball a lot like Rondo does at times so, even with Calderon on the court, he still controlled the tempo many times) that, given the passing abilities of him, Stephenson and Parsons (not to mention Dirk) that we would have been just fine there to ultimately get the positive from Lance's defense, grit, rebounding and potential scoring. It would have just added a different dimension to our team that we won't have now and the expense would be the marginal drop in true PG abilities from Devin/Felton to Ellis (which, frankly, are not nearly as much of an issue as most seem to think - IMHO).

I'm with you on Stephenson's potential, and I'm even with you that Monta could play some point. But it still wouldn't have made any sense, financially or roster-wise, to add Lance after adding Parsons at nearly $15M.

The Mavs would have likely had to ship out Wright, probably their best frontcourt bench player, plus another piece, all to obtain a guy who plays the same nominal position as two of the Mavs' three best players (Ellis and Parsons). And it's not even clear who else the Mavs could have shipped out with Wright. Felton? Can't be packaged with another player once the Mavs are over the cap.

If you've got some explanation as to how it would have made sense, I'd love to hear it, but I'm not seeing it at all. And I was one pushing for Lance even over Parsons.

[LSMF]

Originally Posted by alby

I'm actually on the side of being glad we didn't pick up Lance.

Same here.

[jthig32]

Stein says the Blair SnT to Washington should happen today. Don't expect for that to be much of anything of value for us.

[Melonhead]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Stein says the Blair SnT to Washington should happen today. Don't expect for that to be much of anything of value for us.

Bummer. We dont need him now, but Ill miss his energy in the paint. Came alive in the playoffs. Good on Dallas to help him out if thats the case here.

[alby]

Props to Dallas organization wanting to help him out.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Every offseason I seem to hear about Wright playing backup 4, and he never does.

Doesn't fit the system 4. Never did, his body screams 4, but in a league where the 5 spot is getting smaller and quicker....he fits that role. I mean, geez, Lewis, fits the system 4 much better than Wright. RJ will see minutes there as well.

[Eman]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I'm with you on Stephenson's potential, and I'm even with you that Monta could play some point. But it still wouldn't have made any sense, financially or roster-wise, to add Lance after adding Parsons at nearly $15M.

The Mavs would have likely had to ship out Wright, probably their best frontcourt bench player, plus another piece, all to obtain a guy who plays the same nominal position as two of the Mavs' three best players (Ellis and Parsons). And it's not even clear who else the Mavs could have shipped out with Wright. Felton? Can't be packaged with another player once the Mavs are over the cap.

If you've got some explanation as to how it would have made sense, I'd love to hear it, but I'm not seeing it at all. And I was one pushing for Lance even over Parsons.

There are 96 minutes at the wing positions. That's 32 minutes each for Monta, Stephenson and Parsons, without looking at Parsons at the 4 (or 1) and Stephenson or Monta playing the point for short spurts. Plenty of minutes. Ideally Monta would be the shooter off the bench, or maybe Carlisle wants Stephenson as the defensive stopper off the bench. With Stephenson's passing and driving we are even less reliant on our point guards and our lineup is stacked.

We could have traded Wright/Crowder/Ledo and signed Stephenson at 9.5 million per at least. Indy would have at least gotten something.

Stephenson takes Ledo and Crowder's minutes, so we really are trading a backup power forward for a 23 year old Star in the making?! I'd do that every day and twice on Saturday.

Felton/Harris
Monte
Parsons
Dirk
TC
sixth man Stephenson

That is a tough, tough lineup. And we can find someone to at least come close to Wrights backup minutes either this year with the 2.7 mill, in the draft next year or with the full mid level for taxpayers next year.

[jthig32]

Why are we assuming that Stephenson signs here for less than what he was offered in Indy without a clearly defined starting role?

And if we're giving him a clearly defined starting role, we're demoting Monta, who hasn't shown a willingness to to be on board with such a move.

And if your point is play Stephens and Monta together in the back court for extended minutes...I just don't see that was ever going to be plan A even if they signed Stephenson.

And Wright is both our backup C and backup PF at this moment in time. I'm not a huge fan of his game or his fit on this roster, but let's not underestimate the importance of his role given the current roster.

[hayth.james.g]

Originally Posted by Eman

There are 96 minutes at the wing positions. That's 32 minutes each for Monta, Stephenson and Parsons, without looking at Parsons at the 4 (or 1) and Stephenson or Monta playing the point for short spurts. Plenty of minutes. Ideally Monta would be the shooter off the bench, or maybe Carlisle wants Stephenson as the defensive stopper off the bench. With Stephenson's passing and driving we are even less reliant on our point guards and our lineup is stacked.

We could have traded Wright/Crowder/Ledo and signed Stephenson at 9.5 million per at least. Indy would have at least gotten something.

Stephenson takes Ledo and Crowder's minutes, so we really are trading a backup power forward for a 23 year old Star in the making?! I'd do that every day and twice on Saturday.

Felton/Harris
Monte
Parsons
Dirk
TC
sixth man Stephenson

That is a tough, tough lineup. And we can find someone to at least come close to Wrights backup minutes either this year with the 2.7 mill, in the draft next year or with the full mid level for taxpayers next year.

I doubt any of those players would want or be willing to come off the bench at this stage of their careers. Don't get me wrong, we have a blast here playing fantastic nba GM. It just wasn't realistic. Factor in Stephenson stat grabbing antics, and I'm almost certain that this had no chance of happening after we got Parsons.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Eman

There are 96 minutes at the wing positions. That's 32 minutes each for Monta, Stephenson and Parsons, without looking at Parsons at the 4 (or 1) and Stephenson or Monta playing the point for short spurts. Plenty of minutes. Ideally Monta would be the shooter off the bench, or maybe Carlisle wants Stephenson as the defensive stopper off the bench. With Stephenson's passing and driving we are even less reliant on our point guards and our lineup is stacked.

Stephenson wouldn't have agreed to play in Dallas off the bench, and I think it'd be very risky to ask Monta to do so.

So when you say there are "96 minutes at the wing positions," that's a red herring. Not all of those are starter's minutes. Some guys, like Jason Terry, are old enough and mature enough that they don't care whether they come off the bench. Other guys, that's not the case.

Originally Posted by Eman

We could have traded Wright/Crowder/Ledo and signed Stephenson at 9.5 million per at least. Indy would have at least gotten something.

Doesn't work. Not enough outgoing salary from the Mavs.

Also, that's trading their best backup big--when they're already lacking in that area--and probably their best current perimeter defender, who makes pennies. Your point is that Stephenson can replace his defense. I understand that point, but paying a guy $9.5M for good defense is not the same value proposition in a salary-capped league as paying a guy $900k for good defense.

Originally Posted by Eman

Stephenson takes Ledo and Crowder's minutes, so we really are trading a backup power forward for a 23 year old Star in the making?! I'd do that every day and twice on Saturday.

Again, assuming that Stephenson would "take the minutes" of end-of-bench players is a faulty assumption. He was willing to sign in Dallas in the event Houston matched Parsons because he would have been the starting SF. He would not have been willing to sign in Dallas to come off the bench.

Originally Posted by Eman

Felton/Harris
Monte
Parsons
Dirk
TC
sixth man Stephenson

That is a tough, tough lineup. And we can find someone to at least come close to Wrights backup minutes either this year with the 2.7 mill, in the draft next year or with the full mid level for taxpayers next year.

Yeah, it's a tough lineup, for sure. It's also unrealistic.

[alby]

I rather have the depth.

[Underdog]

Ummm, Stephenson is in Charlotte - why are you guys still running hypotheticals on him?

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Ummm, Stephenson is in Charlotte - why are you guys still running hypotheticals on him?

Because the Internet.

[Eman]

Good news I think......

Dallas is willing to give summer league swingman Eric Griffin a partially guaranteed deal, reports Keith Schlosser of Ridiculous Upside. Griffin, who went undrafted out of Campbell in 2012, was in camp with the Heat last autumn. It’s unclear whether he’ll accept what the Mavs have on the table, indicating other NBA clubs may have interest, though that’s just my speculation.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I'm with you on Stephenson's potential, and I'm even with you that Monta could play some point. But it still wouldn't have made any sense, financially or roster-wise, to add Lance after adding Parsons at nearly $15M.

The Mavs would have likely had to ship out Wright, probably their best frontcourt bench player, plus another piece, all to obtain a guy who plays the same nominal position as two of the Mavs' three best players (Ellis and Parsons). And it's not even clear who else the Mavs could have shipped out with Wright. Felton? Can't be packaged with another player once the Mavs are over the cap.

If you've got some explanation as to how it would have made sense, I'd love to hear it, but I'm not seeing it at all. And I was one pushing for Lance even over Parsons.

Mavs screwed up with Wright. He is not worth $5M. A 4/5 who can't rebound is not very valuable. SA showed his vulnerability in the playoffs. He's ok at the $vet minimum but a drain on the team at $5M.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by DGM

Mavs screwed up with Wright. He is not worth $5M. A 4/5 who can't rebound is not very valuable. SA showed his vulnerability in the playoffs. He's ok at the $vet minimum but a drain on the team at $5M.

That's just not even close to accurate. And I don't particularly like Wright as a player. But he's very fairly compensated.

[alby]

Wright missed a large chunk of last year. I think he'll do fine for us this year. A line up of Harris, Ellis, Parsons, Wright, Chandler is a freakishly long and athletic group. I'm sure those five would see the floor 4-8 minutes a game.

[Eman]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Stephenson wouldn't have agreed to play in Dallas off the bench, and I think it'd be very risky to ask Monta to do so.

So when you say there are "96 minutes at the wing positions," that's a red herring. Not all of those are starter's minutes. Some guys, like Jason Terry, are old enough and mature enough that they don't care whether they come off the bench. Other guys, that's not the case.



Doesn't work. Not enough outgoing salary from the Mavs.

Also, that's trading their best backup big--when they're already lacking in that area--and probably their best current perimeter defender, who makes pennies. Your point is that Stephenson can replace his defense. I understand that point, but paying a guy $9.5M for good defense is not the same value proposition in a salary-capped league as paying a guy $900k for good defense.



Again, assuming that Stephenson would "take the minutes" of end-of-bench players is a faulty assumption. He was willing to sign in Dallas in the event Houston matched Parsons because he would have been the starting SF. He would not have been willing to sign in Dallas to come off the bench.



Yeah, it's a tough lineup, for sure. It's also unrealistic.

My point is, whether he is starting or Monta, they would both get 35 minutes, starters minutes! So they would get plenty of time to show their stuff, increase their value, and contribute to a championship contender. They would get many more minutes than Tyson or Dirk, two main starters. They would also both often finish games, in my opinion, I don't think they'd have any issue. You underestimate Coach Carlisle. He can convince them that getting 35 minutes, starting or not, is in their best interest and the teams best interest.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Eman

My point is, whether he is starting or Monta, they would both get 35 minutes, starters minutes! So they would get plenty of time to show their stuff, increase their value, and contribute to a championship contender. They would get many more minutes than Tyson or Dirk, two main starters. They would also both often finish games, in my opinion, I don't think they'd have any issue. You underestimate Coach Carlisle. He can convince them that getting 35 minutes, starting or not, is in their best interest and the teams best interest.

I don't underestimate Carlisle at all. If tomorrow he magically had the lineup you suggest, he would do great things with it. I have no doubt about that.

The point is that it's not at all realistic for the Mavs to have obtained that lineup in the first place. It was always Parsons or Stephenson. It was never going to be both.

[hayth.james.g]

Originally Posted by Eman

My point is, whether he is starting or Monta, they would both get 35 minutes, starters minutes! So they would get plenty of time to show their stuff, increase their value, and contribute to a championship contender. They would get many more minutes than Tyson or Dirk, two main starters. They would also both often finish games, in my opinion, I don't think they'd have any issue. You underestimate Coach Carlisle. He can convince them that getting 35 minutes, starting or not, is in their best interest and the teams best interest.

I think as others have already pointed out, its just unrealistic. I am glad you have faith in Coach Carlisle, but posters on this forum hardly "underestimate him". I think that everyone gets your point on "it doesnt matter who starts or doesn't, they both play the same minutes". It just doesn't really work that way when dealing with a rising superstar who literally went out of his way to grab balls away from teammates so that his stat sheet filled out. I know I know.... but we have Carlisle. Maybe he could fix it, maybe he couldn't. Ultimately the people who know better than us thought differently. Sorry, but your going to be in the minority on this topic no matter how many points you try to clarify.

Also would like to add that playing off the bench requires a certain type of mentality. It can be hard for players to adjust. It's not just about minutes. It's about being able to come in cold against players who are warmed up and bring a certain type of energy to the game. You literally have to change your mentality as a player. Some players can make that transition, others struggle mightily with it. I wouldn't trust Stephenson with 10 million dollars a year to be able to handle this responsibility. This is coming from someone who preferred Stephenson > Parsons btw.

[purplefrog]

If you look at the 3 and 4 positions, you have terrific depth and diverse skills. Beyond the starters, you have Lewis and Jefferson who are excellent 3pt shooters, and then you have Crowder and Wright who help shore up the defense. You mix and match that group with the all around play of Dirk and Parsons and you have a potent group of forwards. If Tyson and Greg Smith can protect the rim and rebound then you have all of your bases covered. The MBT have done an awesome job putting this roster together so far!

[hayth.james.g]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

If you look at the 3 and 4 positions, you have terrific depth and diverse skills. Beyond the starters, you have Lewis and Jefferson who are excellent 3pt shooters, and then you have Crowder and Wright who help shore up the defense. You mix and match that group with the all around play of Dirk and Parsons and you have a potent group of forwards. If Tyson and Greg Smith can protect the rim and rebound then you have all of your bases covered. The MBT have done an awesome job putting this roster together so far!

Couldn't agree more. I have hesitations on Wright, but not because I doubt he can get the job done. It's just purely a sell high mentality for me. I think for the next 3 years we would be better suited to get more value trading him than wasting away his potential with limited minutes. I can def. see the other side of the coin though.

[Drouche]

Originally Posted by Eman

My point is, whether he is starting or Monta, they would both get 35 minutes, starters minutes! So they would get plenty of time to show their stuff, increase their value, and contribute to a championship contender. They would get many more minutes than Tyson or Dirk, two main starters. They would also both often finish games, in my opinion, I don't think they'd have any issue. You underestimate Coach Carlisle. He can convince them that getting 35 minutes, starting or not, is in their best interest and the teams best interest.

There was no way to get Stephenson.

He publicly stated he wanted to start. There was no way we could afford him.

Yes, I'm sure it sounds nice on a video game, but it wasn't going to happen. It was Chandler or Lance, that's it.

[jamaljasonandjimmy]

Originally Posted by Eman

Good news I think......

Dallas is willing to give summer league swingman Eric Griffin a partially guaranteed deal, reports Keith Schlosser of Ridiculous Upside. Griffin, who went undrafted out of Campbell in 2012, was in camp with the Heat last autumn. It’s unclear whether he’ll accept what the Mavs have on the table, indicating other NBA clubs may have interest, though that’s just my speculation.

thats cool

[MavzMan]

Originally Posted by Drouche

There was no way to get Stephenson.
...
It was Chandler or Lance, that's it.

Agree on this. I'm a huge Lance fan but financially and roster-wise, it wasn't going to work.

However, just to muddy up the waters .. it would have been interesting to see a Bledsoe / Lance / Parsons / Dirk / Chandler lineup via some overly complicated, pie-in-sky, never gonna happen trade scenario.

But, this team does look like a top 4 WC team which is saying a LOT !!

Mark + Donnie have done their work. Now it's up to RC and team.

[Male30Dan]

Again, I just take such exception to the group here acting like it HAD to be either Lance OR Monta starting instead of both, as if Monta would be worse than what we are going to likely be strolling out there the first game of the year (Fing Felton).

I get people standing firm on the "Indiana wouldn't have traded with us" angle or the "Dallas was scared off by his makeup" angle, but give me a damn break on the "both can't start together" piece with BS about it being like a video game.

I'm not trying to be rude and none of this matters anymore but there's just been a huge group of you saying it wouldn't work despite ample proof that Monta ran point for us a decent bit last year. It's just ridiculous, especially with our offense.

That all being said, no one is focusing on the other side of the coin either, which is how our starting defense will be as is (backcourt) with Felton and Ellis vs how much better we would have been with Lance beside Chandler and Ellis.

It's horse shit that they couldn't have fit together in the starting lineup. Worth the head case risk? Debateable. Does Dallas PREFER Ellis solely as SG? Debateable. Better options to avoid this move? Debateable. But stop it with the Ellis can't play point mess when you'll see him do it 10-15+ minutes a game this year. The way Carlisle tiers his lineup that MAY have been roughly the time they played together if starting anyway.

[Male30Dan]

Also, I would wager that a great many minutes would have been played with Ellis and Lance in the backcourt had Parsons not come given him being our fallback option (he would have played some SF, but not exclusively by any means) so if he could have done it then he could have done it with Parsons beside him. Sheesh.

[grndmstr_c]

Just don't believe that playing Monta at PG is at all what Rick wants to do, and history says Rick can be very stubborn about things like that (JET).

[hayth.james.g]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

Also, I would wager that a great many minutes would have been played with Ellis and Lance in the backcourt had Parsons not come given him being our fallback option (he would have played some SF, but not exclusively by any means) so if he could have done it then he could have done it with Parsons beside him. Sheesh.

I think most of us would of been ok with Monta running the point. The reason that we are acting like it wasn't possible is because MBT has REPEATEDLY said that they had no interest in Monta running the point. Could they of thrown us for a loop? Sure, but every bit of information we had going into this was that Monta was that they wanted Monta at the 2.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by hayth.james.g

I think most of us would of been ok with Monta running the point. The reason that we are acting like it wasn't possible is because MBT has REPEATEDLY said that they had no interest in Monta running the point. Could they of thrown us for a loop? Sure, but every bit of information we had going into this was that Monta was that they wanted Monta at the 2.

I am not most of us. I do not think monta can run the point worth a crude. It is putting him into a position to fail.

Maybe after a few years under carlisle he might be okay. But I just do not see it in him. He is too much of an attacker and not really able to turn it off.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I don't underestimate Carlisle at all. If tomorrow he magically had the lineup you suggest, he would do great things with it. I have no doubt about that.

These days, Carlisle is so prepared for any in-game scenario, he probably already reviewed film on JVG's defensive techniques just in case.

[Underdog]

@WojYahooNBA: DeJuan Blair's deal with Washington will be three-years, $6M -- with a team option on third year, league source tells Yahoo Sports.

[ocelot_ark]

I'm glad he's getting a nice raise. Wish we could have afforded to keep him.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Underdog

@WojYahooNBA: DeJuan Blair's deal with Washington will be three-years, $6M -- with a team option on third year, league source tells Yahoo Sports.

Fair deal. Good for him.

[spreedom]

Great deal for both sides... on a different roster (where Blair could play as a PF alongside a defensive center that has some shooting range), DJ is a great fit as a backup. With us, while I think he played just about as well as we could have expected, he was mostly miscast as a small center and could really only play well offensively next to Dirk.

I hope he has a great run with the Wizards! He should be able to play next to either Gortat or Nene.