The"Crap, it didn't happen..but it was awesome to think of" thread

[stoble]

I miss yelling "Hit me up on my Peja!"

[mavs777]

Nobody knew what tyson's production going forward would be, he was coming off 2 injury riddled season where he was bad in 1 (charlotte) and just average in the other (new orleans) when on the court. The contract year thing is a myth but there were/are red flags to signing him to a long term deal at 10 mil+.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Case closed.

Lol.. You do have a point. But it's a strange obscure, weird wonderful one.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mavs777

Nobody knew what tyson's production going forward would be, he was coming off 2 injury riddled season where he was bad in 1 (charlotte) and just average in the other (new orleans) when on the court. The contract year thing is a myth but there were/are red flags to signing him to a long term deal at 10 mil+.

The health deal I can agree with, however I've never heard that anywhere out of the Mavs mouth or even fish. But valuing him at 10mil assuming health I don't get.

[BGMaverick9]

Speaking of him, seeing Peja go nuts in Houston in February was much-needed and very awesome to see.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Dont put words in my mouth.

2012 - first round exit. - center haywood
2011 - nirvana. - center Tyson
2010 - First round exit - center Haywood
2009 - 2nd round - center dampier? Bass?
2008 - First round exit - center dampier
2007 - First round exit - center dampier
2006 - finals ( near nirvana ) - center dampier
2005 - Conf finals - center dampier

I don't know about you but I see a pattern here.

Do you think we would have won the title this year with Tyson?

What free agent or free agents can you get to replace Terry/Kidd with the limited cap space we'd have this offseason?

Is that hypothetical team making it past the 2nd round with the limited offense we would have?

These are the questions that lead me (and probably the MBT) to believe that Tyson wasn't worth the 13 or 14 million a year we'd have to have paid to keep him here.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

Do you think we would have won the title this year with Tyson?

DUHHH, hell yeah we would've repeated - without Tyson's DEFENSIVE presence, Dirk, Kidd and Terry would have never produced career-low OFFENSIVE numbers this season.

(and a few more rolling eyes...)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

Do you think we would have won the title this year with Tyson?

What free agent or free agents can you get to replace Terry/Kidd with the limited cap space we'd have this offseason?

Is that hypothetical team making it past the 2nd round with the limited offense we would have?

These are the questions that lead me (and probably the MBT) to believe that Tyson wasn't worth the 13 or 14 million a year we'd have to have paid to keep him here.

I do not know and IMO its an unfair question. It takes more than two players to win a title. I am sure that we would have been competitive, whereas we were not.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

Do you think we would have won the title this year with Tyson?

What free agent or free agents can you get to replace Terry/Kidd with the limited cap space we'd have this offseason?

Is that hypothetical team making it past the 2nd round with the limited offense we would have?

These are the questions that lead me (and probably the MBT) to believe that Tyson wasn't worth the 13 or 14 million a year we'd have to have paid to keep him here.

I also thinks cubes days of picking up free agents to build a roster is ovah. Since he has to stay out of luxury tax land, he's not going to be able to build it that way anymore. I would look at the roster of the spurs outside of the big three as as a model

[nowhereman]

Originally Posted by Underdog

DUHHH, hell yeah we would've repeated - without Tyson's DEFENSIVE presence, Dirk, Kidd and Terry would have never produced career-low OFFENSIVE numbers this season.

(and a few more rolling eyes...)

Unbelievable that some posters here still can't acknowledge Tyson's obvious offensive impact. It's not like he's lead the league in true shooting for the last two years, it's not like he was a top-10 offensive win shares player this year, it's not like he had 9 offensive rebounds in a critical game 5 win against Miami in the finals, it's not like he had 13 offensive rebounds in a pivotal game 5 win against Portland, it's not like his involvement in the high screen against Miami in game 2 of the finals had nothing to do with our comeback, it's not like he plainly and obviously opens the floor for Dirk and for guards that penetrate, it's not like he averaged the most points at the center position for us since when Nash was on the team... no, of course not. Of course all our core player's offensive numbers magically dipped this year and not a single percentage of the reason why is because they lost a player that actually presents an offensive threat at the center position out on the court with them.

I agree. Infinite eyerolls.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Unbelievable that some posters here still can't acknowledge Tyson's obvious offensive impact. It's not like he's lead the league in true shooting for the last two years, it's not like he was a top-10 offensive win shares player this year, it's not like he had 9 offensive rebounds in a critical game 5 win against Miami in the finals, it's not like he had 13 offensive rebounds in a pivotal game 5 win against Portland, it's not like his involvement in the high screen against Miami in game 2 of the finals had nothing to do with our comeback, it's not like he plainly and obviously opens the floor for Dirk and for guards that penetrate, it's not like he averaged the most points at the center position for us since when Nash was on the team... no, of course not. Of course all our core player's offensive numbers magically dipped this year and not a single percentage of the reason why is because they lost a player that actually presents an offensive threat at the center position out on the court with them.

I agree. Infinite eyerolls.

Damn that's a fine post. It's strange that folks who really are very astute basketball observers seem to forget that it's a 5 man game. Maybe there is just too much sportscenter, diving into the lane for free throws to appreciate how having someone you can just throw a lob upto means that ibaka cannot come up and challenge someone at the free throw line. I mean how many times did we see jet challenged there by ibaka, that just doesn't happen with Tyson back there waiting to slam down a 95% shot.

[dude1394]

Now fish is reporting that the Mavs are looking at hibbert, what a laugh.
http://mavericks.scout.com/a.z?s=268...2f1191654.html

"Exclusive: Mavs Eye Bid On Roy Hibbert*

By Mike Fisher
DallasBasketball.com
Date: Jun 3, 2012

Dallas has a Plan A, and due to the super-tax, it has a ‘Plan Powder-Dry,’ too. But spending big beyond Deron remains an option. NBA sources tell DB.com that if the Mavs can’t get him (and maybe even if they do) a top secondary target will be Pacers RFA center Roy Hibbert. Our exclusive Premium piece details how to Poach The Pacers and the juggling act involved in an offer sheet on Roy Hibbert:
"

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Unbelievable that some posters here still can't acknowledge Tyson's obvious offensive impact. It's not like he's lead the league in true shooting for the last two years, it's not like he was a top-10 offensive win shares player this year, it's not like he had 9 offensive rebounds in a critical game 5 win against Miami in the finals, it's not like he had 13 offensive rebounds in a pivotal game 5 win against Portland, it's not like his involvement in the high screen against Miami in game 2 of the finals had nothing to do with our comeback, it's not like he plainly and obviously opens the floor for Dirk and for guards that penetrate, it's not like he averaged the most points at the center position for us since when Nash was on the team... no, of course not. Of course all our core player's offensive numbers magically dipped this year and not a single percentage of the reason why is because they lost a player that actually presents an offensive threat at the center position out on the court with them.

I agree. Infinite eyerolls.

Food for thought!

[CapitanObvious]

I am all down on Roy Hibbert. But doesn't Indiana have some sort of right on him?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by CapitanObvious

I am all down on Roy Hibbert. But doesn't Indiana have some sort of right on him?

There is NO WAY Indiana lets him walk IMO.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Unbelievable that some posters here still can't acknowledge Tyson's obvious offensive impact. It's not like he's lead the league in true shooting for the last two years, it's not like he was a top-10 offensive win shares player this year, it's not like he had 9 offensive rebounds in a critical game 5 win against Miami in the finals, it's not like he had 13 offensive rebounds in a pivotal game 5 win against Portland, it's not like his involvement in the high screen against Miami in game 2 of the finals had nothing to do with our comeback, it's not like he plainly and obviously opens the floor for Dirk and for guards that penetrate, it's not like he averaged the most points at the center position for us since when Nash was on the team... no, of course not. Of course all our core player's offensive numbers magically dipped this year and not a single percentage of the reason why is because they lost a player that actually presents an offensive threat at the center position out on the court with them.

I agree. Infinite eyerolls.

Fun fact: Dirk won MVP and Terry won 6th Man of the Year before Tyson Chandler was ever on this squad - his contributions on offense are not what put this team over the top.

And the point I was trying to make is that the Mavericks struggles went far beyond anything that Chandler brought to this team - Kidd finally hit a wall, Dirk was out of shape when the season started, the whole team was plagued with injuries, we had zero outside scoring and Jason Terry was far more concerned about his upcoming contract than he was about playing defense. Re-signing Tyson Chandler wouldn't have fixed any of that.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by CapitanObvious

I am all down on Roy Hibbert. But doesn't Indiana have some sort of right on him?

He's a restricted free agent - we'd have to grossly overpay him to get him.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by dude1394

There is NO WAY Indiana lets him walk IMO.

Unfortunately, this is true. He would be an absolutely fantastic addition.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Unfortunately, this is true. He would be an absolutely fantastic addition.

But I thought we needed offense, not a one dimensional defensive guy.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by dude1394

But I thought we needed offense, not a one dimensional defensive guy.

I don't think Hibbert's one dimensional. Of course, I don't think he's a true star on either end (All-star status not withstanding), but he can play both ends more than serviceably.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Unbelievable that some posters here still can't acknowledge Tyson's obvious offensive impact. It's not like he's lead the league in true shooting for the last two years, it's not like he was a top-10 offensive win shares player this year, it's not like he had 9 offensive rebounds in a critical game 5 win against Miami in the finals, it's not like he had 13 offensive rebounds in a pivotal game 5 win against Portland, it's not like his involvement in the high screen against Miami in game 2 of the finals had nothing to do with our comeback, it's not like he plainly and obviously opens the floor for Dirk and for guards that penetrate, it's not like he averaged the most points at the center position for us since when Nash was on the team... no, of course not. Of course all our core player's offensive numbers magically dipped this year and not a single percentage of the reason why is because they lost a player that actually presents an offensive threat at the center position out on the court with them.

I agree. Infinite eyerolls.

It is unbelievable that some posters here would think that Tyson's efficiency on offense, his offensive rebounds and good screens could be an offensive game plan for any team trying to win a title. Yes he helps create space, but without good shooters to create space for his offensive skills disappear. Yes he gets offensive rebounds, but they are wasted without someone to reinitiate the offense. Yes he lead the league in true shooting, but he only takes The idea is to build a team that can win championship. We need a new offensive leader. Tyson cannot perform that role for any team.

The offensive win share is a measure of efficiency (including 3s and FTs) plus offensive rebounding more than anything else. To say that he is a top 10 offensive player is lunacy.

For a point from this ESPN article http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...-best-shooters

"But when we compare shooters, it's important to note that field goal percentage is not a spatial statistic. It values shots from anywhere inside the 3-point line equally (as does the scoreboard). So while field goal percentage can tell us something about scoring, it doesn’t tell us much about shooting profiles. After all, who really thinks Tyson Chandler, the league leader by percentage, is really the game’s best shooter?"

I also remember reading that the person in the NBA with the worst court vision% was Tyson. Meaning he averages 1.0 point per shoot for the smallest percentage of the court of any player in the NBA. While this does mean his FG% illustrates he chooses to only shoot when he is in that small area around the rim, you cannot game plan for him to dunk the ball 5-10 times every game.

In summary, let's not make his offensive efficiency out to be anything more than a good complimentary offensive piece.

[mavs777]

Originally Posted by dude1394

But I thought we needed offense, not a one dimensional defensive guy.

Ummmm I assume this is sarcasm; right? Either that or you haven't watched Hibbert play, Hibbert's one of the most skilled big man in the game with by far the best array of hook shots in the league.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by Underdog

He's a restricted free agent - we'd have to grossly overpay him to get him.

There is a limit to how much anyone can overpay him. If you use this to make a 4 year deal it actually comes out to nearly the same as Tyson got. I think the Pacers definitely match all the way to a max. I think Fish is on this just to put out content.

Years in NBA1 Defined maximum salary 2011-12
0 - 6 25% of cap2 $12,922,194
7 - 9 30% of cap2 $15,506,632
10+ 35% of cap2 $18,091,071

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by mavs777

Ummmm I assume this is sarcasm; right? Either that or you haven't watched Hibbert play, Hibbert's one of the most skilled big man in the game with by far the best array of hook shots in the league.

I like Hibbert, but after watching the Heat series I'm not sold on him being a primary offensive weapon. He could improve and become one though. I've loved how hard he keeps working to improve himself.

Another school of thought it that he could have been the main low post presence, but David West pushed him aside. I didn't watch them enough all year to have a good feel for Hibbert's offensive ceiling.

Not that it matters since he will be with the Pacers for the foreseeable future, but could he average 20pts/game on 50% shooting? It is a really good question.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

You get his point. Johnson made 18 million this year and LeBron made 16 million. Can we assume that LeBron is worth more than Joe Johnson even though the math inexplicably suggests Johnson is worth 2 million more?

Could Jordan's restricted status have played a role in Golden State offering more than they though he was worth? Of course. You are saying that just because they offered it and the Clippers matched that this somehow proves him as the standard of what 10 million/year gets you at center.

Just because it was in the same offseason and involves the same position doesn't mean they can be compared without thinking more in depth about the differences that existed.

I concur -- let's think more in depth here about LeBron's decision to forego salary in order to play with Wade and Bosh. If the Heat hadn't tampered and Bron/Bosh/Wade colluded prior to free agency to come together, LeBron's options were rumored to be The Knicks, Mavericks, Bulls, and Nets. The Knicks gave not one, but two, deals worth nearly 21 a year. The Mavericks gave Dirk one as well. The Nets struck out and the Bulls threw over 15 a year on Boozer and signed Noah to a lucrative longterm deal. LeBron is in an entirely different position than Tyson Chandler and we both know it. You and I both know that LBJ was in a particularly unique situation that can't be emulated so readily.

In retrospect, take a look at the contracts currently being played to NBA starting centers. This is what I meant by context: in a world where Haywood earns 9 million a year to brick 70 percent of his freethrows, Noah gets 12 million for having a hot mom and sister, and Nene gets 13 million for being the most dangerous man with one testicle since Adolf (too soon?), Tyson earning 13.8 is reasonable.

Gortat: 7.2
Brendan Haywood: 9
Andris Biedrins: 9
Noah: 12
Horford: 12
DeAndre Jordan: 10.6
Emeka Okafor: 13.5
Nene: 13
Bogut: 13
Tyson 13.8
Marc Gasol: 14.3
Al Jefferson: 14.5
Howard: 18.5

[Jon]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

Speaking of him, seeing Peja go nuts in Houston in February was much-needed and very awesome to see.

http://slanchreport.com/2009/10/26/p...a-west-updated

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Jon

In retrospect, take a look at the contracts currently being played to NBA starting centers. This is what I meant by context: in a world where Haywood earns 9 million a year to brick 70 percent of his freethrows, Noah gets 12 million for having a hot mom and sister, and Nene gets 13 million for being the most dangerous man with one testicle since Adolf (too soon?), Tyson earning 13.8 is reasonable.

Gortat: 7.2
Brendan Haywood: 9
Andris Biedrins: 9
Noah: 12
Horford: 12
DeAndre Jordan: 10.6
Emeka Okafor: 13.5
Nene: 13
Bogut: 13
Tyson 13.8
Marc Gasol: 14.3
Al Jefferson: 14.5
Howard: 18.5

Which part of "new CBA" do you not understand?

Only 3 of those players received contracts post-lockout; Chandler, Nene and Jordan. You can toss out the rest of those numbers if you're trying to make anything resembling a valid point.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by Jon

I concur -- let's think more in depth here about LeBron's decision to forego salary in order to play with Wade and Bosh. If the Heat hadn't tampered and Bron/Bosh/Wade colluded prior to free agency to come together, LeBron's options were rumored to be The Knicks, Mavericks, Bulls, and Nets. The Knicks gave not one, but two, deals worth nearly 21 a year. The Mavericks gave Dirk one as well. The Nets struck out and the Bulls threw over 15 a year on Boozer and signed Noah to a lucrative longterm deal. LeBron is in an entirely different position than Tyson Chandler and we both know it. You and I both know that LBJ was in a particularly unique situation that can't be emulated so readily.

In retrospect, take a look at the contracts currently being played to NBA starting centers. This is what I meant by context: in a world where Haywood earns 9 million a year to brick 70 percent of his freethrows, Noah gets 12 million for having a hot mom and sister, and Nene gets 13 million for being the most dangerous man with one testicle since Adolf (too soon?), Tyson earning 13.8 is reasonable.

Gortat: 7.2
Brendan Haywood: 9
Andris Biedrins: 9
Noah: 12
Horford: 12
DeAndre Jordan: 10.6
Emeka Okafor: 13.5
Nene: 13
Bogut: 13
Tyson 13.8
Marc Gasol: 14.3
Al Jefferson: 14.5
Howard: 18.5

As Underdog already mentioned you are using contracts from both the old and new CBA. I don't want to hang out in that argument though.

Neither am I too concerned about using salary to rank players. It's good information, but it is a sunk cost. Besides, I count on that list only 2 guys I would immediately take on their contract. Gortat and Howard. One is underpaid and the other is a young superstar. No one else on that list jumps out as value.

Anyway though. Signing Tyson was more about the opportunity cost than the financial cost. Even if Tyson rightfully deserves 13.8/year because the market dictates it, we were/are trying to end up with a team that will be better than a Dirk/Tyson led team. The jury is still out on that, but I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in 4+ weeks.

[jthig32]

That Hibbert article was the epitome of Fish click-fishing. There is absolutely nothing of substance in that story.

The Pacers are not letting Hibbert walk. And the Mavs are not going to renounce all of their free agents to make an offer sheet to Hibbert that will certainly be matched.

What a joke.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by jthig32

That Hibbert article was the epitome of Fish click-fishing. There is absolutely nothing of substance in that story.

The Pacers are not letting Hibbert walk. And the Mavs are not going to renounce all of their free agents to make an offer sheet to Hibbert that will certainly be matched.

What a joke.

Was there anything of substance in his article about the Mavs' key points for recruiting D-Will?

[aexchange]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Now fish is reporting that the Mavs are looking at hibbert, what a laugh.
http://mavericks.scout.com/a.z?s=268...2f1191654.html

"Exclusive: Mavs Eye Bid On Roy Hibbert*

By Mike Fisher
DallasBasketball.com
Date: Jun 3, 2012

Dallas has a Plan A, and due to the super-tax, it has a ‘Plan Powder-Dry,’ too. But spending big beyond Deron remains an option. NBA sources tell DB.com that if the Mavs can’t get him (and maybe even if they do) a top secondary target will be Pacers RFA center Roy Hibbert. Our exclusive Premium piece details how to Poach The Pacers and the juggling act involved in an offer sheet on Roy Hibbert:
"

Here's my issue with the Mavs thinking on this. You pass on Chandler, who is arguably a better fit than Hibbert and is capable of defending the pick and roll better in order to keep your salary cap free. In order to sign Hibbert, you will likely have to lock him up at an above market rate, greater than what Indiana is comfortable with at larger dollars than it would have cost to lock up Chandler.

Ignoring the fact Indiana will likely match almost anything, isn't this the world's dumbest strategy to execute on? I like Hibbert, but he is sort of slow, unathletic, and just a slightly more agile version of Damp. EDIT: The other issue I have is he's a sub 50% shooter from the field and his game is mostly within 10 feet. I just don't get this type of thinking. If you are going to blow your money on a center, you might as well have blown it on the player you know compliments Dirk than one that you don't.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by aexchange

Here's my issue with the Mavs thinking on this. You pass on Chandler, who is arguably a better fit than Hibbert and is capable of defending the pick and roll better in order to keep your salary cap free. In order to sign Hibbert, you will likely have to lock him up at an above market rate, greater than what Indiana is comfortable with at larger dollars than it would have cost to lock up Chandler.

Ignoring the fact Indiana will likely match almost anything, isn't this the world's dumbest strategy to execute on? I like Hibbert, but he is sort of slow, unathletic, and just a slightly more agile version of Damp. EDIT: The other issue I have is he's a sub 50% shooter from the field and his game is mostly within 10 feet. I just don't get this type of thinking. If you are going to blow your money on a center, you might as well have blown it on the player you know compliments Dirk than one that you don't.

I don't think the Mavs have any "thinking" on this issue, except for thinking that Hibbert will stay in Indy.

Skin said on the radio today that he checked with his Mavs "people" and they classified the Hibbert news as "throwing stuff against the wall".

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't think the Mavs have any "thinking" on this issue, except for thinking that Hibbert will stay in Indy.

Skin said on the radio today that he checked with his Mavs "people" and they classified the Hibbert news as "throwing stuff against the wall".

Classic Fish...

Sometimes I wonder if Cuban has him on the payroll as an official smokescreen.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

The Dallas Morning News picked up Fish's Hibbert theory. Wow. Certainly a slow part of the offseason.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't think the Mavs have any "thinking" on this issue, except for thinking that Hibbert will stay in Indy.

Skin said on the radio today that he checked with his Mavs "people" and they classified the Hibbert news as "throwing stuff against the wall".

sounds like Cubes threw Fish a couple of boogers.

[Kidd Karma]

Michael Dugat's blog suggesting Jeff Green might be our real target, given the fact that Hibbert is Falk's client and we're doing him a favor in driving up Hibbert's price tag.

[b_o_r]

Originally Posted by aexchange

Here's my issue with the Mavs thinking on this. You pass on Chandler, who is arguably a better fit than Hibbert and is capable of defending the pick and roll better in order to keep your salary cap free. In order to sign Hibbert, you will likely have to lock him up at an above market rate, greater than what Indiana is comfortable with at larger dollars than it would have cost to lock up Chandler.

Ignoring the fact Indiana will likely match almost anything, isn't this the world's dumbest strategy to execute on? I like Hibbert, but he is sort of slow, unathletic, and just a slightly more agile version of Damp. EDIT: The other issue I have is he's a sub 50% shooter from the field and his game is mostly within 10 feet. I just don't get this type of thinking. If you are going to blow your money on a center, you might as well have blown it on the player you know compliments Dirk than one that you don't.

Or maybe the Mavs are no longer looking to bring in players to compliment Dirk. Dirk has 2 yrs left on his contract and is 34yrs old. You no longer build around a player who is in decline. He is going into the Duncan stage of his career where he is still a part of the team but is no longer the focal point. If they get Deron, Hibbert would be a nice complimentary player for Deron.

I sincerely doubt the Mavs have a chance a getting Hibbert.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Which part of "new CBA" do you not understand?

Only 3 of those players received contracts post-lockout; Chandler, Nene and Jordan. You can toss out the rest of those numbers if you're trying to make anything resembling a valid point.

Jordan, Nene, Chandler, Gasol.
10, 13, 13.8, 14.3
Taking only the contracts given out post CBA, please explain to me how the current DPOY is overpaid.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

As Underdog already mentioned you are using contracts from both the old and new CBA. I don't want to hang out in that argument though.



Anyway though. Signing Tyson was more about the opportunity cost than the financial cost. Even if Tyson rightfully deserves 13.8/year because the market dictates it, we were/are trying to end up with a team that will be better than a Dirk/Tyson led team. The jury is still out on that, but I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in 4+ weeks.

Jordan, Nene, Chandler, Gasol.

10, 13, 13.8, 14.3

Taking only the contracts given out post CBA, please explain to me how the current DPOY is overpaid.



A Dirk/Tyson led team went 16-5 in the post season en route to a championship. After defeating three 50+ win teams and at least four first ballot hall of famers, discounting Durant and Westbrook. If you’re trying to improve upon the nucleus of Nowitzki-Chandler, then there’s only one way you can take a step forward defensively as long as Dirk is closing out games in the 4th: sign Dwight Howard. No other player compliments Dirk’s game as much as Chandler besides Dwight because there isn’t a player in the league who can be the guy next to Dirk that “covers a lot of ground, that can guard on the perimeter as well as the post and block shots.”



http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/maver...-and-a-big-man

The goal this year was not to win a championship as it had been for so many before; it was to stay financially flexible to lure Howard and Williams to Dallas. I pray we land both, or at the very least Howard.

Furthermore, if the goal is to stay competitive long after Dirk is gone, signing Tyson to a four year deal when Dirk's contract expires one year before doesn't cripple you for the future. If anything, it ensures that the team's most potent offensive and defensive weapons will play in tandem throughout their last prime years.

[Jon]

For the record, the above quote was spoken by the man himself.

Terry echoed his sentiments:
http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/maver...ost?id=4689246

As did Marion:
http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/maver...tyson-chandler

13.8, taking into context the contracts signed by centers under this new CBA (which averaged 12.775 a year btw, one million less than Chandler), is not "overpaid." It's a fair market representation of Tyson's worth. Given that he was willing to take less money to sign with NY over GS, it is likely that he would have taken a cut to stay in Dallas. As Simmons said in his podcast, the Mavericks showed no interest in bringing him back because the powers that be thought it best to move on.

Time will tell if they are right. My main contention is that at least on the defensive and rebounding front, they took a huge step back and the list of players who can play the 5 as well as Tyson did defensively is down to one.

Compounded with leadership, that number dwindles down to 0.