What would you do?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

I'll stop talking about and mentioning Tyson Chandler when I don't have to see following equally overused terms or pics:

1) gd Chuck Norris

2) Straw Man.

Seconded.

[EricaLubarsky]

I apologize if anyone disagrees that I speak for them but...

you have a deal!!!

[ibivibiv]

I KNEW there was a reason he was so damn good!!!!! LOL

[|_Jeff_|]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

There are a lot of unknowns, but the decision had to be made one way or the other, so you necessarily have to go with what you do know. There's no other option. And here, there's a lot they did know: the age of the team, the age of their primary competitors, the positional strengths and weaknesses, the way those traits tend to intersect with increased age, the style of play, the emotional release from winning the first time, Chandler's injury history, the restrictive new CBA, the shortened season this year, on we go.

I'm sorry you don't find the argument compelling, but when the vast majority of the "knowns" counsel in favor of the decision that was made, I'm compelled.

You left out the most important "known" from your list: they had the NBA's Championship Team, fresh off a total domination of all competition, going 12-3 in the playoffs against the Lakers, Thunder and Heat.

Some think re-signing Chandler would have possibly sacrificed a season or two of the Mavs future. To avoid potentially sacrificing a couple of future seasons, they sacrificed one now, and another next year (if they keep the powder dry again). And as a side effect also sacrificed a title defense opportunity, a final year (or two) of Dirk's prime, and a DPOY center. The payoff: a 40% chance to sign Deron Williams to a depleted roster.

What are we left with? prayer. And IF that prayer is answered we'll be back to 75% of were we started.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by |_Jeff_|

You left out the most important "known" from your list: they had the NBA's Championship Team, fresh off a total domination of all competition, going 12-3 in the playoffs against the Lakers, Thunder and Heat.

Some think re-signing Chandler would have possibly sacrificed a season or two of the Mavs future. To avoid potentially sacrificing a couple of future seasons, they sacrificed one now, and another next year (if they keep the powder dry again). And as a side effect also sacrificed a title defense opportunity, a final year (or two) of Dirk's prime, and a DPOY center. The payoff: a 40% chance to sign Deron Williams to a depleted roster.

What are we left with? prayer. And IF that prayer is answered we'll be back to 75% of were we started.

Total domination? Not really. They ended up standing on the top of the mountain, but they weren't exactly running away from the pack.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by |_Jeff_|

You left out the most important "known" from your list: they had the NBA's Championship Team, fresh off a total domination of all competition, going 12-3 in the playoffs against the Lakers, Thunder and Heat.

Some think re-signing Chandler would have possibly sacrificed a season or two of the Mavs future. To avoid potentially sacrificing a couple of future seasons, they sacrificed one now, and another next year (if they keep the powder dry again). And as a side effect also sacrificed a title defense opportunity, a final year (or two) of Dirk's prime, and a DPOY center. The payoff: a 40% chance to sign Deron Williams to a depleted roster.

What are we left with? prayer. And IF that prayer is answered we'll be back to 75% of were we started.

Thank you for recognizing that they had the 2011 championship team. That is an excellent point, one I'd overlooked.

[|_Jeff_|]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Thank you for recognizing that they had the 2011 championship team. That is an excellent point, one I'd overlooked.

Apparently. Its the most important known, and really the only one that matters.

And yes it was domination. 4-0, 4-1, 4-2 against the best teams/players in the world.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by |_Jeff_|

Apparently. Its the most important known, and really the only one that matters.

And yes it was domination. 4-0, 4-1, 4-2 against the best teams/players in the world. Sucks that people are now trying to take away from that team to defend the current FO failures.

I'm not taking away from it. Those are just numbers, I look at how they got those numbers more than the actual number itself. They had to catch lightning in a bottle numerous times in order to come back from what seemed like insurmountable deficits.

Dirk Nowitzki? HE was dominant. The 2011 Mavericks will never be considered one of the most dominant champions the league has ever seen. They will hopefully go down as one of the most persistent and resilient ones anyone as seen.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by |_Jeff_|

Apparently. Its the most important known, and really the only one that matters.

No.

[|_Jeff_|]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

I'm not taking away from it. Those are just numbers, I look at how they got those numbers more than the actual number itself. They had to catch lightning in a bottle numerous times in order to come back from what seemed like insurmountable deficits.

Dirk Nowitzki? HE was dominant. The 2011 Mavericks will never be considered one of the most dominant champions the league has ever seen. They will hopefully go down as one of the most persistent and resilient ones anyone as seen.

I get where you're coming from - the way they whipped the Lakers and Thunder was unexpected. But each series victory was convincin. The NBA could have made those series best-of-fifteen and the Mavs would have still won. So it wasn't lightning in a bottle from that perspective - the Mavs were just better. The Heat? If you gave them enough games they may have figured it out and came back in the series. I doubt it. The Mavs finished them off with three straight including the last two by double digits.

The part about Dirk. Yes he was very good but that's par for the course with playoff Dirk. He had some stinkers in there where the team picked him up including the closeout game 6 in the Finals. Jet was the player that played way over his head - you could say that was the stroke of lightning.

[|_Jeff_|]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

You get to be GM and in Marks ear.

What do you do from here through the end of Dirk's ability?

Give specifics and plan to get back to another title.

I think DWill most likely re-signs with the Nets and Hibbert gets maxed by Pacers and there aren't any other obvious options.

Amnesty Wood.

Sign Dragic, Camby, Jet, West, and draft an athletic wing scorer: Terrence Ross.

PG Dragic/Kidd/Roddy
SG West/Jet/Roddy
SF Trix/Ross
PF Dirk/MLE/Trix
C Camby/Wright/Mahinmi

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by |_Jeff_|

Apparently. Its the most important known, and really the only one that matters.

And yes it was domination. 4-0, 4-1, 4-2 against the best teams/players in the world.

Damn straight,what part of 4-0, 4-1, 4-2 is not understood. Just possibly that collection of men had a hell of a lot more game than many seem to,give them credit for.

You DO have the best team in the world, you just shoved it right down all comers throats. When did winning it all in 4 best of 7 series become "lucky"

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

I'm not taking away from it. Those are just numbers, I look at how they got those numbers more than the actual number itself. They had to catch lightning in a bottle numerous times in order to come back from what seemed like insurmountable deficits.

Dirk Nowitzki? HE was dominant. The 2011 Mavericks will never be considered one of the most dominant champions the league has ever seen. They will hopefully go down as one of the most persistent and resilient ones anyone as seen.

You are taking away from it.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You are taking away from it.

Alrighty.

[chumdawg]

Anyone listen to Barkley on GAC a day or two ago? He is of the opinion that Chandler was the deciding factor in at least the Heat series. He made a pretty compelling point, I thought, when he claimed that it wasn't because Dirk was just out of this world...he said that Dirk was actually better a few years ago...but the supporting cast was the difference this time...and particularly the size in the middle.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Anyone listen to Barkley on GAC a day or two ago? He is of the opinion that Chandler was the deciding factor in at least the Heat series. He made a pretty compelling point, I thought, when he claimed that it wasn't because Dirk was just out of this world...he said that Dirk was actually better a few years ago...but the supporting cast was the difference this time...and particularly the size in the middle.

Dirk was going to be Dirk no matter what. The "supporting" cast is nothing without Dirk. The coin flips both sides.

[Bayliss]

Barkley also said Dirk is done. He also said the Thunder will never win because they have no inside presence. He also said Duncan should retire.

In other news, Barkley talks a lot of his @ss. And before everyone says"he picked the Mavs last year".... well, as the saying goes: "even the sun shines on a dog's @ss occasionally".... or "blind hog finds an acorn".....

Take your pick.

[dude1394]

It's okay to disagree with Barkley, but to disagree BECAUSE he's Barkley is silly. We can debate it all day, but I certainly see last years Mavs being in this mix.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Anyone listen to Barkley on GAC a day or two ago? He is of the opinion that Chandler was the deciding factor in at least the Heat series. He made a pretty compelling point, I thought, when he claimed that it wasn't because Dirk was just out of this world...he said that Dirk was actually better a few years ago...but the supporting cast was the difference this time...and particularly the size in the middle.

Barkley really believes in defense and inside strength. I happen to agree with him. He's not right all of the time ( if he was he wouldn't lose in Vegas ), but I agree with his fundamental basketball principles.

[Bayliss]

but I certainly see last years Mavs being in this mix.

In the mix and winning it all are two different things. And if the latter isn't garaunteed then there is no reason to squander all your assets for the former.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

In the mix and winning it all are two different things. And if the latter isn't garaunteed then there is no reason to squander all your assets for the former.

You've got some circular logic going on there. It will *never* be guaranteed.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

In the mix and winning it all are two different things. And if the latter isn't garaunteed then there is no reason to squander all your assets for the former.

Good grief man. So this strategy is guaranteed? The only guarantee so far is wasting a cap year and getting swept in the first round.

There is no such thing as a gurantee in the real world.

[Bayliss]

It will *never* be guaranteed.

Maybe that's too strong of a word. But facing the odds is a better bet. It's the same reason why you don't double down with a soft 17 against a face but you do every time when showing a 3.

You are always in the mix until the dealer shows the cards. But the smart man knows when to put it in his favor. And while it may not look like it, Cuban set the Mavs up in his favor for the forseeable future. And the Mavs have no future if he re-signs Chandler. And they definitely don't have a ring too.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

Maybe that's too strong of a word. But facing the odds is a better bet. It's the same reason why you don't double down with a soft 17 against a face but you do every time when showing a 3.

You are always in the mix until the dealer shows the cards. But the smart man knows when to put it in his favor. And while it may not look like it, Cuban set the Mavs up in his favor for the forseeable future. And the Mavs have no future if he re-signs Chandler. And they definitely don't have a ring too.

You're welcome to that point of view. I don't like it, because I don't like any statements along the lines of "the Mavs have no future if he re-signs Chandler." I especially don't like it when the team just won a championship with same said Chandler.

What really doesn't get talked about a whole lot is that the line you are taking basically says, simply, that whoever we can get with Chandler's money is better than Chandler is. (And that assumes we do get someone in that class.) We'll see about that. You may be right.

[Bayliss]

You're welcome to that point of view. I don't like it, because I don't like any statements along the lines of "the Mavs have no future if he re-signs Chandler." I especially don't like it when the team just won a championship with same said Chandler.

And Peja. And Barea. And Stevenson. Peja retired so he wasn't coming back. Would you have also re-signed Barea and Stevenson? Because both were instrumental at various points of the Finals. And Peja was huge for the Mavs to get to the Finals.

What really doesn't get talked about a whole lot is that the line you are taking basically says, simply, that whoever we can get with Chandler's money is better than Chandler is. (And that assumes we do get someone in that class.) We'll see about that. You may be right.

If you can get a superstar with the 17 million. Absolutely. If you can get 2 role players. Absolutely.

I'd rather have **options** than be the New York Knicks of the West. You know, the team that repeatedly outbids everyone for nonsuperstars... then wonders why the hell their team constantly sucks.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

And Peja. And Barea. And Stevenson. Peja retired so he wasn't coming back. Would you have also re-signed Barea and Stevenson? Because both were instrumental at various points of the Finals. And Peja was huge for the Mavs to get to the Finals.

Well, that is true. One of the remarkable things about last year's team is that every single guy on the roster, just about, played a huge role in at least one win. Would I have kept Barea and the junkyard dog? Of course I would have! (I would have been okay with Peja retiring.) But still...while your point is made...I think it remains true that Chandler was a more important piece than the others.

If you can get a superstar with the 17 million. Absolutely. If you can get 2 role players. Absolutely.

I'd rather have **options** than be the New York Knicks of the West. You know, the team that repeatedly outbids everyone for nonsuperstars... then wonders why the hell their team constantly sucks.

I hope so. But I'm not entirely sold yet. "Options" or "flexibility" means nothing, until it is ultimately cashed in. As I said, we'll wait and see.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Well, that is true. One of the remarkable things about last year's team is that every single guy on the roster, just about, played a huge role in at least one win. Would I have kept Barea and the junkyard dog? Of course I would have! (I would have been okay with Peja retiring.) But still...while your point is made...I think it remains true that Chandler was a more important piece than the others.



I hope so. But I'm not entirely sold yet. "Options" or "flexibility" means nothing, until it is ultimately cashed in. As I said, we'll wait and see.

Barea got a bit too much from Minny, but he's actually the first guy I would have kept. All this hand-wringing about Chandler being "the difference" diminishes a bit how fantastic Barea was, especially in big moments.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Barea got a bit too much from Minny, but he's actually the first guy I would have kept. All this hand-wringing about Chandler being "the difference" diminishes a bit how fantastic Barea was, especially in big moments.

Yeah, I thought about the former Mavs great tonight when Chalmers and Rondo attacked the rim with reckless abandon. It's a good skill to have on your roster.

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

Barkley also said Dirk is done. He also said the Thunder will never win because they have no inside presence. He also said Duncan should retire.

In other news, Barkley talks a lot of his @ss. And before everyone says"he picked the Mavs last year".... well, as the saying goes: "even the sun shines on a dog's @ss occasionally".... or "blind hog finds an acorn".....

Take your pick.

This ^ Barkley is an entertainer. He is on that show for "color commentary" as they call it. Even the rest of the TNT staff laugh at his wild statements. I love that he's on there, he keeps it fun. But really he doesn't have much credibility, that's not why he is on.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yeah, I thought about the former Mavs great tonight when Chalmers and Rondo attacked the rim with reckless abandon. It's a good skill to have on your roster.

It is, and one people had been desperately seeking for the Mavs roster for several years prior. Credit to Barea and Carlisle. We don't win the thing without that missing element.

(And this isn't even to mention all the big jumpshots he hit. He had, in my opinion, the biggest shot of Game 6--the cold, cold three early in the 4th after the Heat had cut a 9-point deficit to 4.)

[FreshJive]

The future flexibility, new cba, life after Dirk arguments are valid points that stand on their own merits. They don't need this lightening in a bottle horseshit to prop them up. It's infuriating. The Mavs dominated. They showed what a team with perfectly matched components can do.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

The future flexibility, new cba, life after Dirk arguments are valid points that stand on their own merits. They don't need this lightening in a bottle horseshit to prop them up. It's infuriating. The Mavs dominated. They showed what a team with perfectly matched components can do.

If this is infuriating, I'll tell you what's equally "infuriating"--people acting like whether the Mavs won series last year in 4-6 games, instead of 7, has much bearing at all on how a similar team would have performed this year.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

The future flexibility, new cba, life after Dirk arguments are valid points that stand on their own merits. They don't need this lightening in a bottle horseshit to prop them up. It's infuriating. The Mavs dominated. They showed what a team with perfectly matched components can do.

Yes.

[stoble]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

The future flexibility, new cba, life after Dirk arguments are valid points that stand on their own merits. They don't need this lightening in a bottle horseshit to prop them up. It's infuriating. The Mavs dominated. They showed what a team with perfectly matched components can do.

Great post. Agree 100%.

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

The future flexibility, new cba, life after Dirk arguments are valid points that stand on their own merits. They don't need this lightening in a bottle horseshit to prop them up. It's infuriating. The Mavs dominated. They showed what a team with perfectly matched components can do.

Dominated is not correct. In fact the Finals were in jeopardy several times. Go back and have another look.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SMC0007

Dominated is not correct. In fact the Finals were in jeopardy several times. Go back and have another look.

No kidding... How many comebacks did we have during our championship run? We out-worked and out-willed our opponents, we didn't "dominate" them.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by Underdog

No kidding... How many comebacks did we have during our championship run? We out-worked and out-willed our opponents, we didn't "dominate" them.

This.

Its not to say we were bad or the underdog but last season was about everyone turning it up to 11 because it was many players' first and maybe last chance to get that championship. We didn't see anywhere near that level of play from even our returning players. The NO2 was spent on that run. That's not to discount the talent of the team-- just to recognize that other element that people don;t discuss. We could have come back with the same roster-- or even an improved roster, but without that killer instinct, we may never have even had another shot.

[OneLove22]

I would start with two things.

1. Try and sign Deron obviously.

2. See if I can trade Beaubois and the #17 pick to move up in the draft.

The overall goal would be to get as young as possible.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by OneLove22

I would start with two things.

1. Try and sign Deron obviously.

2. See if I can trade Beaubois and the #17 pick to move up in the draft.

The overall goal would be to get as young as possible.

Man I'm hoping we come away from the draft with a guy who can be a piece for the future. I know it's hit or miss, but I just really want a young guy who we can root for to get better and better.

I miss the days when we were the athletic, good-in-transition team. I know a #17 pick won't immediately do that, but a great young wing + Deron would take us pretty close.

I really wish we could get Bradley Beal.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

This.

Its not to say we were bad or the underdog but last season was about everyone turning it up to 11 because it was many players' first and maybe last chance to get that championship. We didn't see anywhere near that level of play from even our returning players. The NO2 was spent on that run. That's not to discount the talent of the team-- just to recognize that other element that people don;t discuss. We could have come back with the same roster-- or even an improved roster, but without that killer instinct, we may never have even had another shot.

I offered this point of view right before this season started, and certain people assured me that it would never happen--that the team would come back just as hungry or hungrier.

Frankly, I thought it was very unlikely. There's a certain pride in defending your championship, but I don't see how it remotely compares to the drive that comes from realizing that you're on the downslope of your career (or already near the end, in the case of Kidd) and that you may not have another chance.