Do you let Ellis walk in the Summer?

[EricaLubarsky]

I think that there are a lot of people that are under the false understanding that somehow fielding a good team every year and trying to build a championship roster are mutually exclusive, as if rebuilding is the only way to a championship and iterating/tweaking a good roster to get better and better isn't an option.

I'm not arguing against the idea that parts of the roster are fatally flawed, but fielding a 48-50 win team every year doesn't preclude upward movement. In fact, I'd argue that it's easier to go from good to great than from awful to great. Just because some teams have gone from zero to hero in a single year (2008 Celtics? 2011 Heat?), doesn't mean that gambling it all on a rebuild is the best option. Most teams that choose to rebuild end up bad for years and years and years and very few sniff the playoffs for 5-10 years after starting the rebuilding process.

We're Mavs fans so we want to get back to the elite level ASAP, but sometimes it's better to make a lot of small, smart gambles over time than putting your life savings on a single hand of poker.

[Thukydides]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

I think that there are a lot of people that are under the false understanding that somehow fielding a good team every year and trying to build a championship roster are mutually exclusive, as if rebuilding is the only way to a championship and iterating/tweaking a good roster to get better and better isn't an option.

I'm not arguing against the idea that parts of the roster are fatally flawed, but fielding a 48-50 win team every year doesn't preclude upward movement. In fact, I'd argue that it's easier to go from good to great than from awful to great. Just because some teams have gone from zero to hero in a single year (2008 Celtics? 2011 Heat?), doesn't mean that gambling it all on a rebuild is the best option. Most teams that choose to rebuild end up bad for years and years and years and very few sniff the playoffs for 5-10 years after starting the rebuilding process.

We're Mavs fans so we want to get back to the elite level ASAP, but sometimes it's better to make a lot of small, smart gambles over time than putting your life savings on a single hand of poker.

that´s so true. In 2010 how many people were there, who thought we could make the leap? I mean.. who do you think is more likely to win a chip over the next decade: the Sixers or a team like Toronto or Portland?
It´s not even close. I think being one or two pieces away from seriously contending isn´t the worst thing. And I feel the Mavs aren´t that far off.

I think the whole tanking thing is not working unless you get really, really lucky like the Spurs (Duncan) or Cavs (Lebron -> and it actually didn´t work there). Just look at the Sixers: In MCW they already gave up on one guy, who they thought could be a franchise-player. What if Embiid is a bust and Saric stays in Europe? Noel seems to be a solid player, but will he become a great one? All that for the price of being unwatchable?

Furthermore by blowing up a team you basically tell all of your players: It´s not necessary to compete, just go out there and have fun! I just think it´s almost impossible to generate a championship-ready demeanour in such an environment.

I don´t think blowing up a team and going full tank-mode can fix anything. To me it´s a move of desperation rather than rationality.
As Erica said: Keep adding pieces, be smart and let things grow together.

And continuity is really the most important thing the Mavs lack right now:

Bring Rondo and Ellis back, see if Parsons can improve and keep this starting-five together for the last years of Dirk.

[rimrocker]

Hey...looks like I'm the only one in favor of taking a step back to take a bigger one forward.
My points are completely exhausted so I'll end on this topic and we'll see what happens in the POs and off-season.
Nice debate!!!

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

Hey...looks like I'm the only one in favor of taking a step back to take a bigger one forward.

See, though - you still haven't explained how the "bigger step forward" is going to happen... The only part that's clear is that we're going to take a step back if we strip this team to the bone.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

...

Was already quoted so I won't re-quote again for page scrolling friendliness. I agree 100% with the entirety of the post though. Pretty much put words to what I feel.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Underdog

See, though - you still haven't explained how the "bigger step forward" is going to happen... The only part that's clear is that we're going to take a step back if we strip this team to the bone.

Please name the top 5 Mavs of all time and how we acquired them.
Not sure how much more clear I need to be.
I'll give you a hint...one of them has been around about half as long as the Mavs' have.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

Please name the top 5 Mavs of all time and how we acquired them.
Not sure how much more clear I need to be.
I'll give you a hint...one of them has been around about half as long as the Mavs' have.

#1 Dirk, we traded Robert Traylor for him... After a decade of being the worst franchise in professional sports.

What are you advocating here?

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Underdog

#1 Dirk, we traded Robert Traylor for him... After a decade of being the worst franchise in professional sports.

What are you advocating here?

You can try to spin it into something else but that trade was on draft night so the point is our best players have been home-grown. We've had more success at acquiring stars through the draft than FA.
Donnie and Mark have done a hell of a job acquiring complementary players for Dirk but now we have a bunch of complementary players to complement nobody.
Dirk is now one of those complementary players.

FA hasn't worked, it will be near impossible to trade for a star, so our options are limited. I don't see resigning the current team as doing anything but taking us in a lateral direction...even if some of them are traded down the road. The best we would most likely net are other complementary players.

At some point we either need tradable assets, something to attract star FAs, or just draft them. Sure there have been disasters going that route but there have been plenty of successes including our 80s situation. But in order to do that this team will need to take a step backwards for a while.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

You can try to spin it into something else but that trade was on draft night so the point is our best players have been home-grown. We've had more success at acquiring stars through the draft than FA.
Donnie and Mark have done a hell of a job acquiring complementary players for Dirk but now we have a bunch of complementary players to complement nobody.
Dirk is now one of those complementary players.

FA hasn't worked, it will be near impossible to trade for a star, so our options are limited. I don't see resigning the current team as doing anything but taking us in a lateral direction...even if some of them are traded down the road. The best we would most likely net are other complementary players.

At some point we either need tradable assets, something to attract star FAs, or just draft them. Sure there have been disasters going that route but there have been plenty of successes including our 80s situation. But in order to do that this team will need to take a step backwards for a while.

And you know how often a Dirk comes around? Teams have gambled on players like Nicolas Tskitishvili, Darko Milicic, and Andrea Bargnani...none of which came close to Dirk's level.

I understand taking the draft more seriously as I'm a huge advocate of that, but tearing it down to rebuild in hopes of the next big thing is extremely risky and likely to put the team in the dumps for at least a couple of seasons. Mark made a commitment to put a competitive team around Dirk especially since Dirk took a pay cut. That won't change until Dirk retires.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

And you know how often a Dirk comes around? Teams have gambled on players like Nicolas Tskitishvili, Darko Milicic, and Andrea Bargnani...none of which came close to Dirk's level.

I understand taking the draft more seriously as I'm a huge advocate of that, but tearing it down to rebuild in hopes of the next big thing is extremely risky and likely to put the team in the dumps for at least a couple of seasons. Mark made a commitment to put a competitive team around Dirk especially since Dirk took a pay cut. That won't change until Dirk retires.

But its not just drafting players. Its getting the picks themselves as potential trade pieces.
Houston rebuilt pretty quickly using high draft picks and young players to acquire a star player that in turn helped lure another star player.

I'd be more inclined to take that route even though it would require us to take a step back.
With the exception of the Spurs, its also very difficult to sustain a legit contender for a long stretch like we have. I personally think its time to start looking at taking that step back now that Dirk is nearing the end.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

But its not just drafting players. Its getting the picks themselves as potential trade pieces.
Houston rebuilt pretty quickly using high draft picks and young players to acquire a star player that in turn helped lure another star player.

I'd be more inclined to take that route even though it would require us to take a step back.
With the exception of the Spurs, its also very difficult to sustain a legit contender for a long stretch like we have. I personally think its time to start looking at taking that step back now that Dirk is nearing the end.

Houston got extremely lucky in getting Harden and that took them years to do after the Mcgrady/Yao era. And they've made it out of the first round once since the Hakeem years so not sure if that is a good example.

Once again, you don't tear it down until Dirk retires. You'd likely have to trade Dirk in the scenario which isn't going to happen under Cuban's watch.

[tap2390]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

I think that there are a lot of people that are under the false understanding that somehow fielding a good team every year and trying to build a championship roster are mutually exclusive, as if rebuilding is the only way to a championship and iterating/tweaking a good roster to get better and better isn't an option.

I'm not arguing against the idea that parts of the roster are fatally flawed, but fielding a 48-50 win team every year doesn't preclude upward movement. In fact, I'd argue that it's easier to go from good to great than from awful to great. Just because some teams have gone from zero to hero in a single year (2008 Celtics? 2011 Heat?), doesn't mean that gambling it all on a rebuild is the best option. Most teams that choose to rebuild end up bad for years and years and years and very few sniff the playoffs for 5-10 years after starting the rebuilding process.

We're Mavs fans so we want to get back to the elite level ASAP, but sometimes it's better to make a lot of small, smart gambles over time than putting your life savings on a single hand of poker.

Originally Posted by Thukydides

that´s so true. In 2010 how many people were there, who thought we could make the leap? I mean.. who do you think is more likely to win a chip over the next decade: the Sixers or a team like Toronto or Portland?
It´s not even close. I think being one or two pieces away from seriously contending isn´t the worst thing. And I feel the Mavs aren´t that far off.

I think the whole tanking thing is not working unless you get really, really lucky like the Spurs (Duncan) or Cavs (Lebron -> and it actually didn´t work there). Just look at the Sixers: In MCW they already gave up on one guy, who they thought could be a franchise-player. What if Embiid is a bust and Saric stays in Europe? Noel seems to be a solid player, but will he become a great one? All that for the price of being unwatchable?

Furthermore by blowing up a team you basically tell all of your players: It´s not necessary to compete, just go out there and have fun! I just think it´s almost impossible to generate a championship-ready demeanour in such an environment.

I don´t think blowing up a team and going full tank-mode can fix anything. To me it´s a move of desperation rather than rationality.
As Erica said: Keep adding pieces, be smart and let things grow together.

And continuity is really the most important thing the Mavs lack right now:

Bring Rondo and Ellis back, see if Parsons can improve and keep this starting-five together for the last years of Dirk.

Great points, my thoughts..

1. We are that far off because we don't have a superstar. History tells us you just can't compete in the playoffs with merely good players. You need at least one great one. The route to getting a superstar with the highest likelihood of success is the draft.

2. Choosing to go in this direction is akin to gambling more in a round of poker but only because the Mavs shot themselves in the foot with their poor drafting & scouting and eagerness to trade away draft picks. Why are the Spurs able to compete year in and year out? Because they know how to draft. Hell, why are the New England Patriots so good year in and year out? Once again, because they know how to draft.

3. Superstars that are on the trade block get traded for young players and draft picks. Another reason why it's the best route to a superstart.

[tsar]

Originally Posted by tap2390

Why are the Spurs able to compete year in and year out?

It's easy to compete when you have the longest tenured core (trio) in NBA history....

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by tap2390

Great points, my thoughts..

1. We are that far off because we don't have a superstar. History tells us you just can't compete in the playoffs with merely good players. You need at least one great one. The route to getting a superstar with the highest likelihood of success is the draft.

2. Choosing to go in this direction is akin to gambling more in a round of poker but only because the Mavs shot themselves in the foot with their poor drafting & scouting and eagerness to trade away draft picks. Why are the Spurs able to compete year in and year out? Because they know how to draft. Hell, why are the New England Patriots so good year in and year out? Once again, because they know how to draft.

3. Superstars that are on the trade block get traded for young players and draft picks. Another reason why it's the best route to a superstart.

And I think that is what many fail to see.
This core with a 32 yo Dirk would be awesome. This core with a 37 yo Dirk and no other star (let alone superstar) has about a zero chance of winning it all.

Yes we will suck if we start the rebuild process now and we will suck less if we bring everyone back.
Is that really the bar we want to set for this team? A 7-8 seed until the FO decides to use another strategy?

You aren't getting superstars by trading average players on bloated contracts and you aren't getting them by trading picks in the 20s.

I don't agree with your assessment of our inability to draft though. Mark and Donnie have been focused solely on a supporting cast for Dirk and chasing a championship that developing players has been extremely low on their priority list. They haven't even tried to draft talent so I give them a pass on that for now.

But this conversation really needs to be taking place after the POs because I reserve judgment on the direction with Ellis, Rondo and Tyson after the POs. Right now my arguments are pure speculation on how the POs will turn out
and the moves (or non moves) we should consider.

[Five-ofan]

I think parsons can be a star. He has every offensive tool you could want

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

I think parsons can be a star. He has every offensive tool you could want

Agree...I think his potential is a Michael Finley in terms of impact to the team.
Certainly a core player we could start building around and the best player on this team with a decent upside.
Aminu is the other but I'm afraid he will be gone after this season.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Hey, we've made it to the playoffs in a very tough conference the two seasons with Monta. That does count for a lot.

I agree about not treading in the 6-8 spots, but look at how quickly things can change. The Spurs jumped quite quickly when many thought they were at the end of their rope.

I just don't see any definitive series outside of 1 and 8 this season in the first round. Making the playoffs in such circumstances is worth it.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

I think that there are a lot of people that are under the false understanding that somehow fielding a good team every year and trying to build a championship roster are mutually exclusive, as if rebuilding is the only way to a championship and iterating/tweaking a good roster to get better and better isn't an option.

I'm not arguing against the idea that parts of the roster are fatally flawed, but fielding a 48-50 win team every year doesn't preclude upward movement. In fact, I'd argue that it's easier to go from good to great than from awful to great. Just because some teams have gone from zero to hero in a single year (2008 Celtics? 2011 Heat?), doesn't mean that gambling it all on a rebuild is the best option. Most teams that choose to rebuild end up bad for years and years and years and very few sniff the playoffs for 5-10 years after starting the rebuilding process.

We're Mavs fans so we want to get back to the elite level ASAP, but sometimes it's better to make a lot of small, smart gambles over time than putting your life savings on a single hand of poker.

We don't have a star player. It really comes down to this. When you have a star player, you can make all those smaller moves because it makes sense. We don't have that player anymore. We had that player from around 2000 till 2011, and we had him because we were very bad at the end of the 90's. Moot point, the same player is the reason why we won't take a big step back in the next two years, even if it would make perfect sense from one aspect.

[tap2390]

Originally Posted by tsar

It's easy to compete when you have the longest tenured core (trio) in NBA history....

Is that why they compete? Or is it by having a steady stream of young, cheap, hungry players? That team was built entirely through the draft. They continue to find rotation players every year. Hell they're so good at the draft they ran a gambit and traded away a pretty damn good PG for an untested Kawhi. Parker, Duncan, Ginobli, Kawhi, Splitter, Baynes, etc. all drafted by the Spurs.

Watch, this offseason they're going to let some other idiot team overpay for Danny Green and draft someone just as effective.

[spreedom]

If the Mavs decide not to keep Ellis, I would love to see them try to work out a sign-and-trade to send him to Indiana and get George Hill in return. He's been really, really good when healthy this year, mostly carrying the Pacers over the second half of the season, and can play either guard position on both ends of the floor.

Hard to see why Indy would be interested in a deal like that considering their commitment to defense.... but I'm just saying.

[GermanStandard]

They will rather take the 7th or 8th Seed the next 2 years while Dirk still plays and atleast give him a slim chance to compete than sink the ship now.

The Mavs Fanbase would never accept tanking while Dirk is still onboard. After that they will likely suck for the next years. The main reason Dirk took way less money on his recent contract was his chance to compete and Cuban getting capable players to surround him.

The Problem isnt the Supporting Cast altough the Rondo Deal looks like shit right now.

The Problem is that the Mavs cant find solid players in the 20-30 range in the Drafts let alone the 2nd Round.

Its actually embarrassing. Just take the last 10 years or so.

2004 2nd Round Vasilis Spanoulis. Will go down as one of the best european Players in history but never made noise in the NBA. Played a total of 31 NBA Games for the Rockets. Never played for the Mavs. Was traded on Draft day.

The Mavs traded for Devin Harris that year so yeah they got a good player but didnt draft him.

They also traded for 1st Round Pick Pavel Podkolzin who was one of the biggest Busts ever.

2005 No Picks

2006 1st Round Maurice Ager played a total of 44 Games for the Mavs while averaging an outstanding 1,9 Points in 6 Minutes per game.

2nd Round JR Pinnock never played in the NBA.

2007 2nd Round Nick Fazekas played a grand total of 4 Games for the Mavs. Has 26 Career Games in the NBA.

2nd Round Renaldas Seibutis never played in the NBA
2nd Round Milovan Rakovic never played in the NBA

2008 2nd Round Shan Foster never played in the NBA

2009 1st Round Byron Mullens. Never played for the Mavs but looks like atleast an End of the Bench Guy. Mavs traded him for Roddy Beaubois who was selected 3 picks after. Beaubois played 4 Seasons for the Mavs while atleast looking like a Rotational Player. Declined after some promise not playing in the NBA anymore.

2nd Round Mavs got Nick Calathes in a Trade who never played for Dallas.
2nd Round Ahmad Nivins never played in the NBA

2010 1st Round Mavs traded for Dominique Jones. Played a couple of years for the Mavs but hardly saw the Floor. Not an actual peace of the rotation.

2nd Round Solomon Alabi. 26 Career Games. None for the Mavs.

2011 1st Round Jordan Hamilton. Solid End of the Bench Guy but traded away on Draft day.

2nd Round Tanguy Ngombo. Never played in the NBA.

2012 1st Round Tyler Zeller. Solid NBA Rotational Guy. Traded away on Draft Day.

Mavs traded for Jared Cunningham in this Draft who busted and never really played for the Mavs.

They also got Jae Crowder and Bernard James in this Draft through the Trade and both made the Roster as depth guys while having some value to the Team.

2nd Round Darius Johnson-Odom grand total of 7 Career Games. None for the Mavs.

2013 1st Round Kelly Olynyk. Good NBA Player traded away on Draft Day.

Mavs got Shane Larkin instead who played only 48 Games for the Mavs while never really making the Rotation. Traded away to NY.

2nd Round Mike Muscala. Looks like a solid rotational guy now but traded away to Atlanta on Draft Day.
2nd Round Mavs acquired Ricky Ledo who busted in Dallas. Never made the Rotation.

2014 No Picks.


Of course the Mavs traded away a lot of Picks together with Players to gain some very good FA like Jason Kidd etc. but this is when we only look at the Draft history and what they have done.


Summary.


Mavs impact Draft Picks since 2004 (Not traded away).

0


Mavs impact Draft Picks since 2004 (traded for in trade up/down scenarios).

4

Devin Harris (Good NBA Player and again part of the Team)
Roddy Beaubois (Rotational Guy for a couple of seasons but not in the NBA anymore).
Jae Crowder (Solid rotational Guy, not on the Team anymore).
Bernard James (End of the Bench Guy, on the Team again while also being sent to D-League often and playing a year in China).


Only 2 Picks are still on this Team since 2004 and Bernard James isnt really getting into the rotation.


Mavs traded away Tyler Zeller, Jordan Hamilton, Mike Muscala, Byron Mullins and Kelly Olynyk who all look like solid NBA Players.

Teams picked these Players with the Original Mavs Picks.

Delonte West, Linas Kleiza, Marcin Gortat, Ryan Anderson, Jordan Crawford,


Mavs also traded away a lot of Picks in the near future in the recent trades most Top10-15 Protected but still.

[jthig32]

A few notes on the previous post:

The Mavs DID draft Devin Harris. Just because the NBA is stupid and doesn't register the trade until after the picks are made (for salary cap reasons, mostly), doesn't mean the Mavs didn't daft him. It's not as if the Wizards drafted Devin and then the Mavs decided they wanted him. The Wizards gave them the pick and they chose Devin.

Pavel, while a bust, is hardly "one of the biggest busts ever". The list of players drafted 21st overall that never made an impact is a mile long.

Byron Mullens is not even close to a "solid NBA player". Doesn't really matter in the overall point of the post, but I couldn't let it go. He's terrible, and not even in the NBA anymore.

JJ Barea has to be on this list. While he wasn't drafted, he was still identified coming out of college, pursued, signed and developed. There's no real difference between that and drafting him with pick number 58.

For what it's worth, it's been confirmed by everyone (including Mark Cuban) that Giannis was Donnie's pick two years ago, and if the plan hadn't called for cap room, they would have picked him. Not sure how much credit you give for that, but hey, it's something.

But other than those quibbles - Yep, they're not good at drafting. I don't think they're as bad as the record above, because they've always had priorities ahead of the draft, causing them to move back or trade out instead of just taking best player available. If their plan and/or circumstances had been different I am confident that, while a similar list might not be great, it would most likely be improved.

Thing is, this doesn't make them real unique from other franchises. There are a lot of franchises you can do a similar list with. I do think the Mavs are toward the bottom of the league on drafting, but they're also better than a lot of teams in other areas. I'll be curious to see if they improve in drafting in a few years when they (presumably) start concentrating on it more. After all, we do still employ the guy that identified, pursued and delivered Dirk and Steve Nash on the same draft day. That guy hasn't died or anything. So here's hoping we can make a turnaround in the draft in the coming years.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by jthig32

A few notes on the previous post:

The Mavs DID draft Devin Harris. Just because the NBA is stupid and doesn't register the trade until after the picks are made (for salary cap reasons, mostly), doesn't mean the Mavs didn't daft him. It's not as if the Wizards drafted Devin and then the Mavs decided they wanted him. The Wizards gave them the pick and they chose Devin.

Pavel, while a bust, is hardly "one of the biggest busts ever". The list of players drafted 21st overall that never made an impact is a mile long.

Byron Mullens is not even close to a "solid NBA player". Doesn't really matter in the overall point of the post, but I couldn't let it go. He's terrible, and not even in the NBA anymore.

JJ Barea has to be on this list. While he wasn't drafted, he was still identified coming out of college, pursued, signed and developed. There's no real difference between that and drafting him with pick number 58.

For what it's worth, it's been confirmed by everyone (including Mark Cuban) that Giannis was Donnie's pick two years ago, and if the plan hadn't called for cap room, they would have picked him. Not sure how much credit you give for that, but hey, it's something.

But other than those quibbles - Yep, they're not good at drafting. I don't think they're as bad as the record above, because they've always had priorities ahead of the draft, causing them to move back or trade out instead of just taking best player available. If their plan and/or circumstances had been different I am confident that, while a similar list might not be great, it would most likely be improved.

Thing is, this doesn't make them real unique from other franchises. There are a lot of franchises you can do a similar list with. I do think the Mavs are toward the bottom of the league on drafting, but they're also better than a lot of teams in other areas. I'll be curious to see if they improve in drafting in a few years when they (presumably) start concentrating on it more. After all, we do still employ the guy that identified, pursued and delivered Dirk and Steve Nash on the same draft day. That guy hasn't died or anything. So here's hoping we can make a turnaround in the draft in the coming years.

All great points jthig....Donnie and Mark get criticized for being horrible drafters but they haven't ever been in a good position to draft.
They've had the strategy of building around a superstar for their entire time with the Mavs which has been a good one.

That leads to the point I've been making all along on this thread. The Mavs have no superstar to build around anymore so I see no sense in signing a bunch of support players to lengthy bloated contracts just to be an average team next season.
I know the FO will do that but it will unnecessarily set us back several years and just prolong the agony of the inevitable.
I know I'm all alone on this one but its very simple to see and I can't understand for the life of me why others want to continue down the dreaded path of mediocrity.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

That leads to the point I've been making all along on this thread. The Mavs have no superstar to build around anymore so I see no sense in signing a bunch of support players to lengthy bloated contracts just to be an average team next season.
I know the FO will do that but it will unnecessarily set us back several years and just prolong the agony of the inevitable.
I know I'm all alone on this one but its very simple to see and I can't understand for the life of me why others want to continue down the dreaded path of mediocrity.

Areas where I don't agree with your mindset-

Simply being a bad team and drafting high does not grant a superstar. The Sixers have been bad for a long time and drafting high for a long time. Name their superstar. Even this year can you tell me Towns or Okafor is a superstar?

I consider "superstars" as a top 5-10 player at the very least. You can win with "stars" and role players. Grizz do not have a superstar. Spurs do not have a superstar. Hawks do not have a superstar. Bulls do not have a superstar, butler is close but not a superstar yet imo. If you see cp3 or griffin as superstars then you also see combined with jordan and role players they also have not had much playoff success. Getting a superstar does not end or solve your troubles.

Now let's say we actually are lucky enough to draft a Superstar. He can always leave if you do not get things in order soon after he has reached his potential. If Peli's don't get things going is AD 100% staying? Lebron left his hometown to join a big 3 and win after he felt Cavs failed to provide the help he needed. Are KD and WB staying together even though they haven't won yet? When they leave what does OKC have to show outside of 1 finals appearance despite having arguably 2 superstars and a boat load of talent throughout the years?

There is more than 1 way to rebuild a team. You don't simply have to blow up a team and start from scratch. Bad teams drafting high are not guaranteed anything more than a team acquiring assets and making smart moves to build a good team into a great team. I'd argue you have a much better chance having assets and a good team than being a garbage team hoping to land the next superstar in a draft.

[GermanStandard]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

All great points jthig....Donnie and Mark get criticized for being horrible drafters but they haven't ever been in a good position to draft.
They've had the strategy of building around a superstar for their entire time with the Mavs which has been a good one.

That leads to the point I've been making all along on this thread. The Mavs have no superstar to build around anymore so I see no sense in signing a bunch of support players to lengthy bloated contracts just to be an average team next season.
I know the FO will do that but it will unnecessarily set us back several years and just prolong the agony of the inevitable.
I know I'm all alone on this one but its very simple to see and I can't understand for the life of me why others want to continue down the dreaded path of mediocrity.

Because you have to take the smallest chances in the NBA. A title is never granted or most of the time not.

This Team atleast has a small a very small chance to compete for a title if everything goes extremely well.

You take that chance while you still have Dirk on the Roster.

Do you want to see him rot on a Loser Team before retiring? Or do you want to give him every chance you can to win games and get to the playoffs?

The answer is easy. That man made the Mavs what they are now. He brought the Championship to town.

He deserves to compete until he retires.

Also the Mavs signed a young promising guy (Parsons) for a near Max Contract. Do you think they do that while letting him play with scrubs so he demands a trade or leaves Dallas as early as possible?

I rather see another 2-3 years of a competing Mavs Team that gives his Franchise Player a Chance instead of tanking now.

Tanking is not a sure thing for success and most of our Draftpicks are traded away in the near future anyway.

[Five-ofan]

If were going back to 2004 why not go back to 2003 and include Howard and quis who were both amazing selections/signings given where they were chosen/signed. As far as drafting goes id give them an incomplete. They've just never been in a position to draft a guy to build around and give that player the minutes to develop in the dirk era. In fact the last time they were in that position they took dirk. Soooo I'll give them a pass.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by GermanStandard

Tanking is not a sure thing for success and most of our Draftpicks are traded away in the near future anyway.

Tanking and rebuilding are two different things.
Mavs don't necessarily have to go through 4 or 5 brutal seasons developing draft picks.
Simply having some lotto picks can help land one via trade which is Donnie's strong suit.

Mavs are stuck in a position right now to land no stars and certainly won't be by signing guys like Ellis to long term deals.

Donnie and Mark have done a hell of a job finding value players to put around Dirk. They just need to get that next star to build around and I don't see that person on our current roster.

And I think anyone is delusional if they think Ellis is going to carry this team to a championship. I hope his performance in the POs proves me wrong but I doubt it.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

There is more than 1 way to rebuild a team. You don't simply have to blow up a team and start from scratch. Bad teams drafting high are not guaranteed anything more than a team acquiring assets and making smart moves to build a good team into a great team. I'd argue you have a much better chance having assets and a good team than being a garbage team hoping to land the next superstar in a draft.

Completely agree and addressed that in my response to GermanStandard. In order to make trades Donnie needs trade assets and HIGH draft picks are what can get you there.
Tanking and starting from scratch isn't the route I want to go but I certainly don't want to spin our wheels for 3 or 4 more years and then have tanking and rebuilding through the draft to look forward to.
That is a more realistic probability.

Just don't understand why people want to keep beating a dying horse but I'm sure you will all get your wish.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

You can win with "stars"

I'd be delighted if we had one.

[Thebo]

First of all, I don't think anyone should call any team bad at drafting. I think only 2 groups are differentiated - those teams that are great and those who are average. It'd be too much work to find teams who are really bad at scouting and drafting.

Originally Posted by rimrocker

I know the FO will do that but it will unnecessarily set us back several years and just prolong the agony of the inevitable.
I know I'm all alone on this one but its very simple to see and I can't understand for the life of me why others want to continue down the dreaded path of mediocrity.

Perhaps you could finally remind all of us when did the Hawks do the inevitable tanking to get into the top? Even so without having a superstar.

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

The Sixers have been bad for a long time and drafting high for a long time. Name their superstar. Even this year can you tell me Towns or Okafor is a superstar?

Actually, I'd play it cool when talking about Sixers. I watched their recent Bucks-76ers game. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they already have a team that is capable for 6th seed. In my eyes, they are basically tanking with a average/good team. Certainly they aren't as bad as their record shows.

Originally Posted by GermanStandard

Also the Mavs signed a young promising guy (Parsons) for a near Max Contract. Do you think they do that while letting him play with scrubs so he demands a trade or leaves Dallas as early as possible?

For Parsons to develop, I wouldn't mind seeing him play with scrubs/young talent where he is number 1 option on offense. My biggest fear with Parsons is that he won't develop if current team stays as it is.

Originally Posted by rimrocker

In order to make trades Donnie needs trade assets and HIGH draft picks are what can get you there.
Tanking and starting from scratch isn't the route I want to go but I certainly don't want to spin our wheels for 3 or 4 more years and then have tanking and rebuilding through the draft to look forward to.
That is a more realistic probability.

So you actually envision doing the Cleveland? Meaning drafting Wiggins and trading him for Kevin Love. You do realize that Love may be gone come next season? What superstar player wants to play for a team that has no talent but picks? And Harden wasn't a superstar yet when he got to the Rockets.

Originally Posted by rimrocker

I'd be delighted if we had one.

I think it would help all parties a lot if you would define a superstar, star and support/role players. High and low ends would be great. Since Ellis fits as a role player for you, I'm curious to see what standards do you have for stars and superstars. I'm sure this would clear a lot of things because arguments are easily created through people seeing same thing differently (what is a star for one, can be a scrub for the other).

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Thebo

I think it would help all parties a lot if you would define a superstar, star and support/role players. High and low ends would be great. Since Ellis fits as a role player for you, I'm curious to see what standards do you have for stars and superstars. I'm sure this would clear a lot of things because arguments are easily created through people seeing same thing differently (what is a star for one, can be a scrub for the other).

I agree with Jerry Sloan's comment way back when...It takes 2 greats and 1 good to have a legit shot at winning a championship.
Our 2011 team was the exception I know but for the most part that statement pretty much holds true.

Superstar would be vintage Dirk, Kobe, LeBron, Harden, Curry, etc...

Ellis, Parsons, Chandler, Rondo, Dirk, Amare, Harris, Aminu and Barea are all outstanding support role players but I don't see any of them quite as all stars and none of them were this season (except Dirk by default).
I could see an argument as to whether Ellis is considered a star or not but he is borderline at best and beginning the backend of his career for his style of play imo. I might buy a good argument for Rondo too.

Your very last comment kind of makes my point but I wouldn't call them scrubs but rather role players. Many people see Ellis as a star but I see him for what he is and has been his entire career and it is a borderline all-star but not a guy who can carry a team of role players.
My view would be different if everyone was younger with an upside.
My view could also be different if I see any kind of improvement in chemistry in the POs. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Melonhead]

The only reason the Mavs have been able to skate for so long without drafting worth a damn is because they ended up with a transcendent player in Dirk. Core teams are built through the draft for the most part.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by Melonhead

The only reason the Mavs have been able to skate for so long without drafting worth a damn is because they ended up with a transcendent player in Dirk. Core teams are built through the draft for the most part.

citation?

[Melonhead]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

citation?

Off the top of my head Thunder, Warriors, Spurs, Pelicans, Clippers, Bulls etc etc all have impact players that were had through the draft. It cant be all done through strictly free agency. Dirk could cover most of that up but not anymore.

[rimrocker]

It would be interesting to see how current stars have been acquired...FA, Draft, Trade


Here are some but help me out here....
I'll put Parsons, Ellis and Rondo on there since some of you think they are stars.

FA
Howard
LeBron
Bosh
Parsons
Ellis


Trade
Harden
Paul
Gasol
Love
Bledsoe
Rondo

Draft
Curry
Thompson
Durant
Westbrook
LMA
Lillard
Conley
Griffin
D. Jordan
A. Davis
Wall
Drummund
Hayward
Cousins
Rose
Butler
Parker

I think Melonhead has a point!

[MaverickGold]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

It would be interesting to see how current stars have been acquired...FA, Draft, Trade

Here are some but help me out here....
I'll put Parsons, Ellis and Rondo on there since some of you think they are stars.

I think Melonhead has a point!

Not sure that Lebron should count totally on that FA list either. I mean, yeah, he moved in free agency, but it's not like he was taking calls and being wined and dined. He made a choice to go home. I guess it helped that Cleveland had some sort of base with which to lure him back.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Melonhead

Off the top of my head Thunder, Warriors, Spurs, Pelicans, Clippers, Bulls etc etc all have impact players that were had through the draft. It cant be all done through strictly free agency. Dirk could cover most of that up but not anymore.

The pelicans and clippers have no place on that list. Between them they have a grand total of one player(deandre Jordan) of any consequence acquired through the draft in any means other than winning the lottery. Clearly if you win the lottery in the year there is a special talent it helps with your "draft record" in fact the pelicans seem to be following the dallas plan exactly with Davis playing the roll of dirk

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

It would be interesting to see how current stars have been acquired...FA, Draft, Trade


Here are some but help me out here....
I'll put Parsons, Ellis and Rondo on there since some of you think they are stars.

FA
Howard
LeBron
Bosh


Trade
Harden
Paul
Gasol
Love


Draft
Curry
Durant
Westbrook
LMA
Griffin
A. Davis
Wall
Cousins
Horford
Leonard

I think Melonhead has a point!

The point stands but I corrected the list. You were being awfully loose with the term star.

[Bryan_Wilson]

From the 2000-2012 Draft 14% of the first round picks made at least 1 all star game. I believe it was 54 out of 384 first round picks. While there are snubs every year, 1 all star appearance is not setting the bar very high for the topic of rebuilding through the draft.

The draft has it's role in a rebuild but lets not get crazy and assume just because we have a top 10 pick for a few years in a row we suddenly will have some young star studded core. Regardless of trading picks. I love the draft, but I'm not looking forward to "needing" the draft. With any luck we won't have to as it's really too early to be talking rebuild as long as Dirk is playing and too many variables between now and his last days in the league.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

The point stands but I corrected the list. You were being awfully loose with the term star.

Well that list is certainly worth debating but even your edited list still supports Mellonhead's point about the draft and my point about the Mavs not having any stars to build around.
I'm glad someone noticed that at least 3 of those names didn't fit.