ESPN reports the Mavs' are asking teams what they would Give for Finley - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Joe Joe · 02-15-2002, 03:55 AM

David Aldridge reported on NBA2Night that 1 GM swore to him that the Mavs has asked what his team would give for Mike Fin. He didn't give the GM's name of course but said that if the Mavs can get a super star type PF than Finley is likely to go.

BASKETBALL 101 · 02-15-2002, 04:48 AM

This is a bunch of crap, Fin will NOT be traded!![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Joe Joe · 02-15-2002, 08:06 AM

I sure hope he isn't traded, if he is that just goes to show Cuban is not loyal to him or any other player on this team. IMO the Mavs' have to atleast listen to the offers. I don't want Fin to go anywhere but if he does it sure better be for an PF or some good rebounder type.

MavKikiNYC · 02-15-2002, 09:27 AM

What superstar PF would be worth Finley?

Duncan? Not gonna happen.

Garnett? Not gonna happen.

Webber? Not gonna happen.

Wallace? Not worth it.

Malone? Not worth it.

Plus, then Mavs would be stuck paying Juwan $17M (and $20M next year) to be backup.

Trading Finley, while not out of the question, doesn't look like the move to make now. Mavs should be focusing on making complementary acquisitions (Oakley, and/or Brad Miller; any others?) to toughen up a soft inside game.

Making a blockbuster superstar acquisition while weakening the perimeter game seems like a step down at this point in the season.

TheKid · 02-15-2002, 09:42 AM

Mav Kiki, I agree with what you say.. You're right, the Mavs would be stupid NOT to listen to what people have to say but in the end I can't see them accepting anything.

Murphy3 · 02-15-2002, 10:09 AM

weakening the perimeter with trading finley for an inside presence is actually a good idea in theory. the mavs would still have more than enough players that could shoot the ball from outside. and let's be honest, finley isn't a great shooter from the outside anyways
however, in all actuality, i believe it is only theoretically a sound move. The problem is, is that you couldn't get a power forward that is equivalent to finley in worth to a team.
therefore, trading finley appears to be an undesirable move.

now, if the mavs could somehow pull some strings to get a top notch PF, then yes, i would do it in a heartbeat. however, it doesn't appear to be realistic

TheKid · 02-15-2002, 10:36 AM

I have a feeling, just my opinion though that they're trying to see if there are any takers for Bradley. I just have this feeling.

MavKikiNYC · 02-15-2002, 12:22 PM

Trading Bradley would make some sense, if:

1)there were upgrades available;

2)there were teams interested;

3)Mavs had been able to play him enough recently to showcase what skills he has.

I still think the Mavs should be looking to make small-scale acquisitions at this point--some frontcourt players for toughness-- and let the team go as far as it can this year.

Realistic Goal: Make it back to the second round and play more competitively, probably against the Lakers. Upsetting the Lakers would be overachieving.

Losing Calvin Booth last year looked like it was going to hurt, but with the way things have turned out, he might not've made any more contribution than Bradley. For now, the objective should be to keep the core intact (Finley, Nash, Nowitzki), then work harder in the off-season to make a bigger acquisition.

TheKid · 02-15-2002, 12:29 PM

Kiki, I don't know if we need another point guard. I like us at that position with Nash and Timmy.. Also we have Charlie Bell for insurance and if we need to get Nash and Timmy more of a rest, we can fun Fin at the point which they did the game before Portland....

madape · 02-15-2002, 02:07 PM

Kid - We all know that Nelson loves to play around with match-ups, and play forwards and off-guards at the point. By playing Finley at the point position, Nelson may be asking Mike to do more than he's capable of. He doesn't have the skills to do it well. This is one of the reasons I think Finley doesn't exactly fit the Mavericks need at the two spot. He is basically a one dimensional offensive player. He plays both the two and three, but his game doesn't exactly change that much based on where he plays. Maybe I'm getting too excited about the possibility of Rose, but he seems to be just what the Mavs need at that position. If we could pull off a trade where we land both Rose and a good young low post rebounder like Foster, I think the Mavs would be a much better team.

Chris · 02-15-2002, 02:10 PM

What are you talking about? Trade Bradley? That would make absolutely NO sense. Bradley is still a player with some talent, and the ability to turn games around. He is a defensive stopper and a tremendous mismatch problem.

Now, Bradley has played deplorably this year. Ridiculously bad. But there's no reason to think that this is the Bradley we will see for the rest of the 6 or so years that he has on his contract. One of the many problems that Bradley has is that he is maddeningly inconsistent; I think it's only reasonable to assume that this is an extended slumb, exacerbated by his new contract, and worsened even more by Nellie's refusal to play players who are in his 'doghouse.'

However, Bradley's trade value has to be at an All Time Low right now. Who would want him? What does he offer? A player who has performed dismally this year. We do, however, have Bradley locked up for something like 6 more years. And, if Wang develops into a regular center, or Dirk can shift over there, or we can find a legitimate first line center, Bradley would be a tremendous, reasonably-paid back-up who gives us excellent flexibility. Right now, the best bet is to keep him, wait for him to turn his game around, and, only at that point trade him.

Of course, I'd like to see us send Eschemeyer packing. He's definitely not going to compete with Wang in Nellie's system and I don't see his value ever rising. If we could get rid of him, without taking anything significantly negative in return, we should look to make that move.

madape · 02-15-2002, 02:12 PM

Here is exactly what Aldridge said in his ESPN commentary:

The Dallas Mavericks covet Jalen Rose. But how do they get him to Big D? With a week to go before the trade deadline, craziness abounds. A general manager swears to me that the Mavs have told teams that Michael Finley is available. The Mavericks, just as vehemently, deny it. Would one necessarily equal the other, anyway? Rose is still a base-year player (worth only $8.148 million in trades) and still hard to move, but the Pacers would do it for the right price. Juwan Howard could be had, but he's not what the Pacers covet.

TheKid · 02-15-2002, 03:17 PM

Madape it's obvious you are a Rose fan and that's fine, I'm actually not saying he's a bad player but to say he gives the Mavs something that Finley doesn't I do NOT agree with. Jalen WANTS to play point and I got news for you, if he came here, he better take a number because I wouldn't run him at point before Nash or Timmy. Secondly I know Nelson likes to do the matchup thing, but he has done it quite a bit this year with Finley. Finley can run the point in this offense because teams RARELY press against the Mavs, that would be the only time it would be asking a lot of him is to bring the ball up against the press. Like I said, maybe Finley isn't the best or tops in the league, but he's a better player than Rose, so I don't see why you downgrade at that position and not improve your front line. Foster doesn't improve it that much to do that.

To get to the Bradley thing Chris, I said that Bradley is probably on the block ONLY because Nelson said NONE of the core players are going to get traded. The lineups I've been seeing this year, Bradley isn't one of the core players anymore. Therefore he's available. If he is the defensive stopper you say he is, then how come you can see that but no other team could? So if you think that he COULD be a force in the middle then I'm sure other GM's recognize that same potential. Also, look at Nellie's history, when he has the power, it doesn't matter how good someone is, if they're in his dog house, they're gone!!!!! Remember he once got rid of CHRIS WEBBER so why would he NOT look to trade Bradley?

reeds · 02-15-2002, 04:47 PM

This may sound crazy, but I think Rasheed Wallace would be a perfect fit. Hear me out- I know the man has issues, maybe a slight bit crazy, and could be a poison to the team. But- I will use Dennis Rodman for example. He was surrounded by veteran talent with the Bulls and they won it all. Does Dallas have a close-knit bunch of players that can take his crap, work with him to acheive one Goal? Maybe a change in teams would even mellow the man out- who knows? And you cant say he isnt talented- he can be dominating. Id trade Fin for him in a heartbeat. Just my two cents...

TheKid · 02-15-2002, 04:51 PM

Reeds, you're trippin..

Dooby · 02-15-2002, 05:02 PM

Reeds, that is insane.

The only thing that kept Rodman in line was his respect for Jordan. What could Rodman possibly say to Jordan?

That is the only reason I think Rasheed to Washington might be worth a look. Maybe Rasheed would shut up and do what MJ told him to do. I doubt Rasheed has the balls to throw a towel in MJ's face. But then, maybe in Rasheed's mind, MJ is old and washed up and not worth listening to.

Rodman in Dallas was worth a flier because it cost us nothing. Rasheed to dallas would require a trade and I wouldn't enve think about trading anything for that piece of-....well, maybe Bradley straight up. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

MavsFanFinley · 02-15-2002, 05:02 PM

It's strange what DA reported on espn and what he said last night on NBA2NITE.

He did say that one gm swore to him that the Mavs asked if anyone had any interest in Finley. He said that he doesn't think the Mavs are shopping Finley, but if they could get a super-star pf or center they would have to listen to offers.

All I know, is Cuban loses all credit if he does trade Finley. Im not saying you don't listen to offers, but he and Nelson better be thinking this through.

Finley stuck with this team and could have signed elsewhere (lesser pay yes) but for them to max him out and send him to some bottom-feeder team would hurt the Mavs with free agency in the future.

Chris · 02-15-2002, 05:30 PM

Sorry, Kid, I think you may have misunderstood.

I don't trade Bradley now not because I like him. I trade him now because his value is as low as it has ever been. Yes, he can be a defensive stopper, but I doubt any other GM is going to take that risk on a newly unmotivated Shawn Bradley. Still, I have confidence that he'll at least return to previous levels of performance.

If we could get anything valuable for Shawn, and didn't mind breaking that promise we made to him, I would be all for it. But right now, I can't imagine that we'd get an unproductive player with a bloated contract in exchange for Shawn. He's absolutely worthless as trade bait right now.

MavKikiNYC · 02-15-2002, 05:41 PM

Tough to see the 'Sheed/Rodman comparison through to the point of relevance. Both nut cases, but beyond that...

Rodman did NOT fit in in San Antonio, even though he was playing on a veteran team with one of the top players in the game at the time, David Robinson. He managed to be useful in Chicago in a nearly one-dimensional role (rebounder), and as MFF points out, he was in no position to challenge Jordan directly, and if he had, they'd have cut him immediately. Even so, his presence on the Bulls was occasionally disruptive, and could have very easily destroyed the chemistry of a lesser-talented team.

My fear would be that Wallace would NOT respect his teammates, and would destroy the chemistry of the team. Even if he didn't create dissension among the players, his on-court idiocies can completely destroy a team's concentration in a given game, and Portland never seems to know what is going to set this idiot off. As a Mavs fan, I'm happy to see him anywhere but Dallas.

I'd be very hesitant to pull the trigger on a Wallace for Howard deal straight up. Wallace for Finley is a no sale here.

reeds · 02-15-2002, 06:04 PM

its just my opinion. there are not many players that bring you what he can bring u. All I know is this- the mavs the way the stand right now will not win you a championship! Maybe its tough words, but its the facts. I havent heard any better ideas- ideas that are realistic anyway

threadkilla · 02-15-2002, 06:20 PM

All of Rasheed's teammates say he is the nicest guy you would ever want to meet off of the court. Not a thug, doesn't party, family man. He obviously has a problem with his temper. If we could trade for him I would do it in a heartbeat. This is the NBA not Sunday school. He is a dominant pf who can play serious defense. Nellie is a large presence, and more formidable then Rasheed's previous two coaches. Plus the nucleus of this team would provide the type of atmosphere for him to shine. He is a difference maker and would instantly improve this team. Whether Portland gives him up for what we have to offer is another story.

MavKikiNYC · 02-15-2002, 06:21 PM

Hey, Reeds...

Thanks for posting. Understand that disagreeing with your idea isn't an attack against you personally.

But I do agree with you about this--realistically, the Mavs as currently constituted are going to have a very, very tough time challenging for a championship. Probably not beyond second round of Western Conference Playoffs.

Acquiring Wallace just sounds like one of those less realistic ideas you mentioned.
In my opinion.

Joe Joe · 02-15-2002, 06:23 PM

I have to agree with reeds here, when Finley was out guys stepped out from that position. There was scoring and a whole lot of defense that was played. I think if we get Rasheed in here at the 4 position and have Dirk at the 3 then this would give us a great 3/4 punch. Throw EE at the 5 position and that's a damn good front line IMO. I know EE isn't the best center but he will get in there and mix it up with the best of them, and you always needs a guy like that. Nash at the 1, and Griffin at the 2. That's 1 of the best PG's at the PG and Griffin 1 of the best defenders at the at the 2. Everyone knows that alot of teams have great SG's, and Griff is a great defender. I think a lineup of Nash, Griff, Dirk, Sheed, and EE is a pretty damn good 1, alot better than the 1 we have now. We still have Najera, Manning, Timmy, and Newman coming off the bench. I think if you could trade Finley and Bradley for Sheed and say Dale Davis or 1 of their big bodies you do it. Well I know I would do it in a heart beat, I do not know about you all. I may have a thing or 2 wrong in this post, but you guys know what I mean.

threadkilla · 02-15-2002, 06:28 PM

Sheed for Finley and Bradley works under the BYC and cap rules according to RealGM. If Portland bites this is a no brainer.

Murphy3 · 02-15-2002, 06:32 PM

well..rasheed for finley..
interesting. yes, rasheed is supposed to be a very nice guy away from the court and getting away from the craziness on the portland team (although he is a big part of it)..well, that might help him out.
how would it affect the mavs chemistry?..i don't know..no one knows..

however, having him playing the 4 or 5 spot next to juwan and dirk would be a very interesting front court. actually, i believe that if you made that move, juwan goes to the bench and dirk plays the spot that rasheed doesn't occupy and you can start griffin at 3 if you'd like..or even najera (putting griffin into the starting lineup would make the mavs a good defensive team really quickly..along with rasheed in the lineup)

the mavs would still have plenty of outside shooters with nash and dirk and they would have inside forces with dirk and rasheed..with juwan coming off of the bench...
now, who would the mavs play at the 2 spot?..well, the mavs could give hardaway more minutes,..but i believe the mavs would have to bring in a 2 guard as well...(that is, unless the mavs wanted to start dirk at 3, juwan at 5, rasheed at 4, buckner/griffin at 2, and nash at 1)..

would i make the trade?..i'd have to look at it..right now, i might say yes...

rasheed for juwan?..of course

MavKikiNYC · 02-15-2002, 06:54 PM

Playing 'Sheed alongside Dirk raises some questions, particularly when you're talking about losing Finley in the process.

For one thing, I'd be concerned about the effect on Dirk's game. Posting Wallace down low will take up a lot of the space that Dirk needs to be as effective as he's been so far this season. He is max effective right now because he can play outside OR inside (recently developed and still-developing low post game). What he doesn't seem to do all that well yet is get to the basket from out on the perimeter.

Which is where Finley is supposed to help. With Finley healthy and on his game, teams will have a difficult time doubling Dirk, or bringing a weakside defender over to clog the middle, because Finley is over on the weakside waiting to have the ball swung to him for an open three or drive to the hoop. Admittedly, Finley needs to focus on putting the ball on the floor and getting inside, but he has shown the ability to get to the rack in the past. He just needs to do it more consistently. Having this alternative is going to be all the more important in a seven-game playoff series.

I'm amazaed at the openness to taking on Wallace. The ONLY first-hand observations I have of him are of him oncourt, and the most salient impression I have of him is where he has lost control and been thrown out of games at critical points in the game, at a critical point in the season, or at at critical point in a critcal playoff series. I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot syringeful of whatever sedative he should be taking.

All the third, fourth and fifth-hand stories about what a nice guy he's SUPPOSED to be leave me unconvinced when balanced against what I've seen for myself.

I don't think there's any chance of him coming to the Mavericks, but again I'm shocked at how many seemingly knowledgable posters here would be willing to dump a class guy like Finley, classy on- and off-court, for a confirmed headcase like Wallace.

Careful what you ask for.....

Murphy3 · 02-15-2002, 07:17 PM

well, the funny thing is..is that some of us are trying to address issues that will help the mavs advance in the post season.

another funny thing..2 of the past 4 years, wallace has actually been a better three point shooter than finley...

quite frankly, dirk isn't going to have a problem getting shots off. He will get good shots..if that's your concern, well, i would have to say that dirk can get a good shot off at almost anytime because of either his height or ability to drive around someone..or even his developing ability to post up...so i don't see that as a concern.

the thing is..do you want a significant upgrade on the inside offensively and defensively in wallace..but also a bit of an attitude ..
but with wallace, you're not as good from the outside but you are also much better (with starting griffin or buckner) defensively on the outside...

it's an interesting trade to ponder

another thing..when addressing why finley doesn't drive more often... well, it's because he simply isn't that good of a ball handler in traffic....he really doesn't pass that well off of the drive and he turns the ball over too much on the drive.

now, with all of that said, i would look long and hard at the trade.. currently, i would say i'd like to have rasheed..but it would take a bit more convincing to actually pull the trigger

MavKikiNYC · 02-15-2002, 07:39 PM

Thanks for the perspective, Murphy.

I'm a big Dirk fan--love to see him play, but don't get to see him from NYC as often as the local Dallas fans do.

When I HAVE seen him this year, my impression has been that the weakest part of his game is beating his man off the dribble. He DOES get to the line a lot, but I'm wondering how many of his free throw attempts come from fouls resulting by drives initiated on the perimeter. But since I don't see him as often as local fans, I'm willing to defer to someone else's perspective here (to a degree).

I think we agree that it's a tough decision to make to trade volatility for versatility.

Mavinator · 02-15-2002, 07:58 PM

I would trade Findawg for Rasheed Wallace with little hesitation. Something tells me Rasheed would be happy here- he is a great off-court presence and a VERY unselfish on-court one, and playing for the best player's-coach in history and one of the most closeknit teams in the league might help to alleviate that temper he's got. The trade instantly makes us a much better defensive team and probably a better offensive one, assuming Nellie convinces Wallace to park his ass in the post where it belongs instead of floating on the wings waiting for the spot-up like Mo Cheeks lets him do in Portland.

With that being said, why would Portland do this when they've already got Bonzi, Anderson, Pippen, and Patterson at the swing positions? If they do this trade, they've also gotta trade Bonzi and probably Derek Anderson.

Interesting that no one has mentioned Antonio McDyess.

MavKikiNYC · 02-15-2002, 08:11 PM

"another funny thing..2 of the past 4 years, wallace has actually been a better three point shooter than finley..."

BTW, Murphy, I thought this sounded a little weird.

The three-point stats for Finley and Wallace from the prior four years:

Finley

97-98 87-244 .356
98-99 45-136 .331
99-00 99-247 .401
00-01 91-263 .346

Wallace

97-98 08-39 .205
98-99 13-31 .419
99-00 08-50 .160
00-01 52-162 .321

What this shows is that prior to this year, Wallace has taken far fewer 3PT attempts than Finley, and even based on far fewer attempts, he hasn't been more accurate. The only year that he took enough shots to make any kind of legitimate comparison, he wasn't as accurate as Finley on a comparable number of shots.

Getting Wallace for Finley would probably strengthen the Mavs inside offensive game, but with these numbers it's hard to argue that it wouldn't significantly diminish their longball game.

Murphy3 · 02-15-2002, 08:20 PM

actually, as i said in my post..yes, it would be a downgrade on the perimeter (fin for wallace)...however, the mavs as a whole might actually be better from behind the arc with fin gone (this was my point..i guess i was just a bit too subtle with the way i said it)

also, i was counting this year.
if you count this year, then I was correct..wallace has had a better 3pt percentage in two of the past four years, "including this year".

i know it would be a downgrade on the perimeter but it would be such a significant upgrade on the inside that I believe there's a good chance the mavs would be a better team.

no, wallace isn't the outside threat that finley is from three..however, it is interesting to see that he has had better 3pt percentages in 2 of the last 4 years (including this year).

the reason i brought that up is to debate that finley is a great outside threat from behind the line. He's simply not that great of a 3pt shooter...of course, neither is wallace.

my argument is that bringing in wallace for finley would actually help the mavs as a threat from beyond the arc. Maybe i should have spelled it out for you but with fin's 3pt percentages, the mavs would actually be better from beyond the arc if they didn't have him shooting near as many.

the mavs would take less three point shots without finley but would have a better percentage from behind the arc.

Now, where finley is really dangerous is that he's a very good shooter from 14-18 foot out.
that's really where most of his scoring comes from

Murphy3 · 02-15-2002, 08:23 PM

also, welcome to the board...

with dirk..well, he has gotten to the foul line alot this year..he's one of the tops in the NBA at getting to the line.
Yes, he does get fouled alot on his jumpshot but the majority of his free throws probably come from going to the basket or from posting up.

obviously, his height probably helps him out with getting fouled on the jumper...players can't get their hands in his face as well and hit him on the elbow alot...but, he's actually pretty good at getting to the free throw line from every aspect offensively (except for not enough from getting on the o-glass....alot of that has to do with nellie playing him so much on the perimeter)

MavKikiNYC · 02-15-2002, 09:16 PM

Murphy, thanks for the welcome, and you are making some subtle points there. ;-)

But you're looking at percentages, rather than overall productivity. Fin's percentages, even in this his worst year, are within sight of Wallace's. Dirk and Nash are having very good and phenomenal years (respectively) in that they're taking loads of 3s and making a high percentage of them--Nash a lot higher than Fin's good years, but Dirk just about where Fin usually is in terms of percentage, and nobody is complaining about Dirk's percentages.

Shooting percentage alone isn't the key--a team/players has/have to be willing to take a significant enough number of 3s AND make a decent enough percentage to represent a threat to defenses. Just hitting the occasional three (even at a high percentage) isn't enough to change the way an opponent defends you, and isn't the way Nellie's Mavs have played it the last couple of years. Finley (when he's right) gives the Mavs the ability to stretch defenses to the breaking point.

You gotta take 'em to make 'em.

And up until this year Wallace wasn't taking them. While it's true that Wallace is having a breakout year in terms of 3PT shooting, his current pace is on target for a pretty typcial year from Fin. If you're going to compare Wallace's best year (current year) to Finley's worst year (current year) to get the most favorable comparison, the point you're trying to make (that the Mavericks 3PT game would be better off with Wallace and without Fin) is going to be weaker.

The other point that you allude to regarding Wallace the 7-footer being out on the perimeter jacking 3s when he should be down underneath hitting the boards, I totally agree with. Mavs have Juwan and Shawn to underachieve in the rebounding department already.

Murphy3 · 02-15-2002, 10:43 PM

you're really not getting my point.
my point isn't that wallace is a better three point shooter..it is that finley isn't that good of a three point shooter..
i know that finley is a better three point shooter than wallace, regardless of the percentage..however, he's not that great of a 3 point shooter.

in his 7 years, counting this year, finley has only had a respectable 3pt % twice (above 37%)
that's not very good.
neither of the last two years has he been a good shooter behind the arc as well.

now, let's see if we can wrap this all up IMO.

I believe that without finley, the mavs would be a better shooting team from behind the arc because finley simply isn't a good 3pt shooter this year or as a whole for his career.

Now, the reason i think the mavs would be a better 3 pt shooting team is not because they would now have wallace shooting threes..it is because they wouldn't have finley shooting 3's. In my opinion, finley isn't a great 3 pt shooter and he also puts up some poor shots from behind the arc.

However, I do believe that finley is a very valuable player. He is a great shooter from 14-18ft. This is where he is most dangerous..he is about as dangerous as any 2-guard in the NBA from that range.

now, what we have to way in our arguments is...is the improved inside defense, rebounding, toughness, and inside scoring worth losing a good scorer that is a class person...the mavs wouldn't have as much ability to score from the 2 guard spot..but they would have more inside scoring and better rebounding

and the theory, you have to take 'em to make 'em...well, there's a line you draw..

I have a new theory, if you don't make many of 'em, someone else should be taking 'em.

Murphy3 · 02-15-2002, 10:47 PM

another thing...only one of finley's season's 3pt percentage has been better than nash's worst year.

and other than dirk's rough rookie year, finley has only had one season his entire career that could rival dirk's 3pt shooting % his past 3 years..

i don't want you to think i'm against finley..all i'm saying is that his strength isn't his 3pt shooting..it's the 14-18ft jumper.
he is an exceptional shooter from that range.
i'm also saying that it does deserve some consideration, finley for wallace.
i don't know what would be better for the team..that's what the debates are for...to kinda see what we can collectively come up with.

inside presence offensively and defensively and a bit of an attitude vs the mid range jumper and great guy on/off court

threadkilla · 02-15-2002, 11:05 PM

Portland would have to deal Wells or Anderson. We would have to depend heavily on a couple of injury prone players in Buckner and Griffin.

What would the starting 5 be?

Nash
Griffin
Najera
Nowitski
Wallace

It isn't likely. It would be a huge change, but I think you draft a couple of guards and take your chances. It would be a young lineup that could be extremely tough to match up with for many years.

Murphy3 · 02-15-2002, 11:19 PM

i think the lineup would something like:
Nash
Griffin
Dirk
Wallace
and
Howard...

just my opinion..the mavs would still have plenty of scorers..but there would be a better balance of inside scorers and outside scorers..

nash and dirk can score from the outside
dirk, wallace, and howard could score on the inside along with hitting the medium range jumpers...
and griffin..well, he's a defensive specialist that has shown a surprisingly good offensive game

MavKikiNYC · 02-16-2002, 09:23 AM

Maybe I was missing your point, Murphy.

"my point isn't that wallace is a better three point shooter..it is that finley isn't that good of a three point shooter..
i know that finley is a better three point shooter than wallace, regardless of the percentage..however, he's not that great of a 3 point shooter."

Because going by what you were writing...

"...another funny thing..2 of the past 4 years, wallace has actually been a better three point shooter than finley..."
"... the mavs would actually be better from beyond the arc if they didn't have him [Finley] shooting near as many."
"...my argument is that bringing in wallace for finley would actually help the mavs as a threat from beyond the arc."

...it sounded like you were making a case for the Mavericks being a better 3-pt shooting team by substituting Wallace for Finley.

So accepting that you weren't suggesting Wallace as a substitution for Finley...

"Now, the reason i think the mavs would be a better 3 pt shooting team is not because they would now have wallace shooting threes..it is because they wouldn't have finley shooting 3's"

...you seem to be saying that if Finley weren't shooting the 3 and the Mavericks shot fewer 3-pointers, they'd be a 'better' 3-point shooting team.

To the extent that I'm understanding this point, I disagree with it--hitting a higher percentage of a lower number of shots from 3PT range doesn't make the team a 'better' 3PT-shooting team.It makes the team a lesser 3PT shooting team.

In order to establish a threat that will alter defenses and open up the inside, a team has to have players who will shoot the 3 (and who can hit with some minimally acceptable level of accuracy). When 3 players are taking between 250-400 3-pointers a year, the effect on defenses is more than just the number of made shots. Assuming the players make a minimally acceptable percentage of these shots, defenses have to change their schemes to account for the threat. If a team shoots significantly fewer 3-pointers, even if they hit a higher percentage, they will not alter opponents' defensive strategies.

I'm sure you've seen the efficiency analysis of the 3-point shot versus the 2-pointer--if a player/team can shoot 33% from 3 point territory, that's as good as shooting 50% of 2 pointers because it generates the same number of points off of the same number of shot attempts. So Fin, at 35% (his career percentage) from beyond the arc is generating points as efficiently as a 50% shooter from inside the arc. He's an adequate 3-point shooter, if not a great one. Any coach will be glad to get that level of production. Just because he's not hitting as high a percentage as Nash and Nowitizki doesn't mean he's not scoring efficiently. Trade Fin, and the Mavs remove about a third of their longball threat, and without him Nash and Nowitizki would would be easier to defend.

Who's going to step up and take those shots?
Is Griffin supposed to replace Finley as the outside threat? Not likely. Buckner? No way. Hardaway?--and use Nash more at the 2-guard spot? Maybe, but that would be taking Nash away from his strength.
Wallace? I would hope not. For one thing, as you acknowledge, he has not historically been anything like as good a 3-point shooter as Finley. Beyond that, the team would presumably be bringing him in as a low-post threat. If he's out hoisting Fin's shots, where's the benefit to having acquired him?

Dirk and Steve played phenomenally during Finley's stretch on the IR, but they can't necessarily be expected to perform at that level over the rest of the season, and once the playoffs start teams will be even more primed to defend against them. (I guess you saw what Portland threw at Nash the other night?) The Mavericks need Finley's versatility--the longball threat he represents, his mid-range jumpers, and the threat he represents taking the ball to the hoop, all of which will open up the court for Dirk and Steve to work inside and out.

Bayliss · 02-16-2002, 12:48 PM

<< and the threat he represents taking the ball to the hoop >>

Which I wish Finley would do more of.

I'd trade Finley for Rasheed. For this simple reason: he can guard Duncan, Webber, and Garnett.

There is not a single Mavs player on the team that can guard Duncan, Webber and Garnett one on one. Rasheed would bring that possibility to the Mavs.

madape · 02-16-2002, 01:25 PM

Trading Finley for Sheed is a no-brainer... but its stupid to even talk about. There is no way in hell Portland would do the trade. People just do not trade great power forwards for great swing men. Two guards are just too easy to find. Look at Portland, they've got great shooting guards coming out of their ears. Would Finley even start on that team? It would do just as much good to ponder Juwan Howard for Shaquille O'Neil trade scenarios.

Mavinator - the same thing goes for any McDyess talks. I would love to get Dice in Dallas, but it ain't gonna happen right now. Kiki is no fool. The only way Dice ever leaves Denver is if he opts out in 2003, or demands to be traded. I haven't heard any trade demands yet, but free agency? If the Mavs keep their plan to have cap room in 2003, it could be a possibility.