Recap: The entertainment of the Josh Howard Contract thread - Page 5 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

You do realize that we spent the finals double and triple teaming that "shell", right?

Is the Mavs biggest problem not having 2 Supestars?

capitalcity · 10-12-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Once again, look at my reply to this question, my cancel replies only to a game against each other's team...

Gervin.

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Look at the numbers....Shaq is on his way out

I wasn't aware you guys were discussing fantasy basketball picks. My bad.

DLord · 10-12-2006, 12:21 PM

V2M ...

Did you know that the Spurs only had one summer where they had the ability to pursue a free agent at more than the MLE? That was the summer DRob retired - and their prize acquisition with all that cap room was Nesterovic.

Did you know that other than that one year, the Spurs have been over the cap - in many years FAR over the cap - in their player payroll?

Did you know that the Spurs were one of the few teams last year with a payroill so larget they had to pay tax?

They are not a bunch of magicians with a "low payroll" and a very good team - they have a big payroll and a very good team. Typical NBA payroll fare.

As to the prototypical financial model for today's NBA, I dont think there is only one workable concept.

Getting talent is hard. Getting one superstar is super hard. Getting more than one is double super hard. In today's NBA, what you have to do is avoid paying superstar money to players who arent superstars, and avoid paying "key player" money ($8-10M, perhaps) to guys who are MLE guys, and so on. You only have so much money to go around. Your financial model needs to reflect what talent you have and what you can add without overpaying individually or as a total.

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Is the Mavs biggest problem not having 2 Supestars?

Not that the record ever worked but it is officially broken now...

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

And there I feel we made a fatal error. I feel if we put this effort on Wade it would have worked better. I feel we treated Shaq with too much respect, and should have trusted Damp/Diop more let they did in all other games against the Heat.

Did you watch the Eastern Conference finals?

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Is the Mavs biggest problem not having 2 Supestars?

Huh? I think you're confusing conversations. What does that have to do with Shaq's ovbious superstardome?

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

Did you watch the Eastern Conference finals?

Still waiting on your answer...

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

Huh? I think you're confusing conversations. What does that have to do with Shaq's ovbious superstardome?

I answered your question that had nothing to do with my conversation about Superstar canceling each other out..

Can you answer?

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

Huh? I think you're confusing conversations. What does that have to do with Shaq's ovbious superstardome?

Hes using his argument with me to bring into your argument. I said that the mavs biggest problem was the lack of a second superstar(and a starting sg, preferably they would be the same player) He disagrees with me so I guess he thinks bringing that up in an argument with everyone else somehow makes him look better.

fluid.forty.one · 10-12-2006, 12:28 PM

Ben Wallace sure contained Shaq in the ECF... and Diop and Damp are so much better at defense than Ben. Stupid of Avery to spend attention on one of the most dominant players to ever play the game.

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Hes using his argument with me to bring into your argument. I said that the mavs biggest problem was the lack of a second superstar(and a starting sg, preferably they would be the same player) He disagrees with me so I guess he thinks bringing that up in an argument with everyone else somehow makes him look better.

See once again avoid the whole thing. My point was to see how they felt about your statement, but they refused to answer, but had no problem with jumping into my conversation with you. Did this not happen? When I disagreed with you, then they show up, then when I ask them to state their view point on your statement they run like roaches to my question, while I answer their questions..

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

I answered your question that had nothing to do with my conversation about Superstar canceling each other out..

Can you answer?

Anwswer what? Are you high?

My issue with your previous post is that you don't think Shaq is a superstar. I would like to know how he isn't. I'm really interested to know how a guy who is STILL a pernnial All-star, is one of the most famous basketball players on the planet, just won his fourth ring, and routinely draws double and triple teaming in the playoffs isn't a superstar - and yet Yao Ming is.

I realize you're trying to redirect me somewhere else, but I'm not interested in playing that game with you.

fluid.forty.one · 10-12-2006, 12:30 PM

EXPERT IT'S HARD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESIONS WHEN YOU AREN'T MAKING ANY SENSE.

Yo Xpert, if an egg layed by a robin was blue would the color of a chicken change because of the farmer?

See that was a question, and it makes absolutly no sense. When you can answer that I'll try to figure out what they hell you're trying to prove.

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:33 PM

Request to Pirate:

Can you please add "Yao is a superstar, but Shaq isn't" to your list please. I think it'd fit nicely under "Dirk doesn't rebound in traffic."

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary

Anwswer what? Are you high?

My issue with your previous post is that you don't think Shaq is a superstar. I would like to know how he isn't. I'm really interested to know how a guy who is STILL a pernnial All-star, just won his fourth ring, and routinely draws double and triple teaming in the playoffs isn't a superstar - and yet Yao Ming is.

I realize your trying to redirect me somewhere else, but I'm not interested in playing that game with you.

Mary,
You have proved my first thought on you that you were a bandwagon member. I have asked you now 5 times for your viewpoint, but you refuse to answer. No, you still have not realized that I want to see your basketball knowledge. Stop worrying about my posts to others. I asked you directly. Dont worry since you only expect me to answer your questions and not answer mines, I will just do the same.

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

See once again avoid the whole thing. My point was to see how they felt about your statement, but they refused to answer, but had no problem with jumping into my conversation with you. Did this not happen? When I disagreed with you, then they show up, then when I ask them to state their view point on your statement they run like roaches to my question, while I answer their questions..

Dude, im not them, I cant control what they answer. I already posted why i feel this way, if they want to cool, if not, they didnt bring it up so they dont need to defend my posts. Go Back to the earlier 80s. Out of about the last 30 years, 8 teams have won without a second superstar and 3 of those teams had a hofer still playing at a high level besides there superstar and 1 of them was the pistons of two years ago which i personally feel was a complete anomaly.

Before you ask, The 80s celtics-take your pick, mchale or parrish. The 80s Lakers-Magic(or kareem if you feel magic was the lead guy) The Fo-fo-fo sixers-Dr. J.

The weird thing about you is that you dont really go by numbers most of the time(except shaq) but you dont seem to watch the games either.

IE- you think josh howard is some beast depsite fairly pedestrian numbers but you dont think shaq is a superstar purely because of his numbers(which are still close to superstar level) despite the fact that Shaq has about 10 times the impact outside of his numbers that Josh has. Unless you are just trying to stir _____ up, thats a really weird way to view things.

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Ben Wallace sure contained Shaq in the ECF... and Diop and Damp are so much better at defense than Ben. Stupid of Avery to spend attention on one of the most dominant players to ever play the game.

If Avery was using triple teams on a "shell" who could've been easily contained by the well-known defensive prowress of either Erick Dampier or DeSegana Diop,.......... he should be fired immediately

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Mary,
You have proved my first thought on you that you were a bandwagon member. I have asked you now 5 times for your viewpoint, but you refuse to answer. No, you still have not realized that I want to see your basketball knowledge. Stop worrying about my posts to others. I asked you directly. Dont worry since you only expect me to answer your questions and not answer mines, I will just do the same.

Dude, it is a frickin message board. If you do not want other people "jumping-in" on your discussion, then take it to PM's.

Don't talk to me about basketball knowledge and then sit there and tell me Yao is a superstar and Shaq isn't. If you're going to make such statements, you're not allowed to dictate who responds to them. I'm pretty sure you haven't been promoted to board moderator.

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Ben Wallace sure contained Shaq in the ECF... and Diop and Damp are so much better at defense than Ben. Stupid of Avery to spend attention on one of the most dominant players to ever play the game.

Since Shaq has been with the Heat what is his record against the Mavs? The first year we still had Bradley. So lets move forward to last year including the pre-season. Our game plan was to play Shaq head up, and put extra attention on Wade. This has worked like a charm for the Mavs. If it ain't broke dont fix it...

As I have looked at Shaq's numbers in the regular season and playoffs these last two years, I would not say double Shaq, if you have a true center who can somewhat guard Shaq. If you do, then FLASH will kill you.

Please dont bother to say my above gameplan that I suggested the Mavs used was not right against the Heat. You may look fine here, but anyone inside the Mavs organization would laugh at you. I am telling you the gameplan used..

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Since Shaq has been with the Heat what is his record against the Mavs? The first year we still had Bradley. So lets move forward to last year including the pre-season. Our game plan was to play Shaq head up, and put extra attention on Wade. This has worked like a charm for the Mavs. If it ain't broke dont fix it...

As I have looked at Shaq's numbers in the regular season and playoffs these last two years, I would not say double Shaq, if you have a true center who can somewhat guard Shaq. If you do, then FLASH will kill you.

Please dont bother to say my above gameplan that I suggested the Mavs used was not right against the Heat. You may look fine here, but anyone inside the Mavs organization would laugh at you. I am telling you the gameplan used..

The heat in the playoffs specifically after the first round and the heat in the regular season last year are 2 entirely different things.

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Since Shaq has been with the Heat what is his record against the Mavs?

Let me go check the last four games...I'll be right back.

Quote:

Please dont bother to say my above gameplan that I suggested the Mavs used was not right against the Heat. You may look fine here, but anyone inside the Mavs organization would laugh at you. I am telling you the gameplan used..

Again, what? Laugh at what? Avery didn't use mutliple defenders? Avery's not in the Mav's organization? Huh?

fluid.forty.one · 10-12-2006, 12:44 PM

That was because shaq wasn't doing very well in the regular season. He looked tired for once (even a tired shaq is the best center in the league).

But once AGAIN he stepped up in the playoffs and dimolished people. Of course Avery had to take this into consideration.

It's easy to say "if we would have gone against shaq 1vs1, and double wade, we would be champs". It's a lot harder to prove it.

Shaq will be a superstar until he retires.

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Dude, im not them, I cant control what they answer. I already posted why i feel this way, if they want to cool, if not, they didnt bring it up so they dont need to defend my posts. Go Back to the earlier 80s. Out of about the last 30 years, 8 teams have won without a second superstar and 3 of those teams had a hofer still playing at a high level besides there superstar and 1 of them was the pistons of two years ago which i personally feel was a complete anomaly.

Before you ask, The 80s celtics-take your pick, mchale or parrish. The 80s Lakers-Magic(or kareem if you feel magic was the lead guy) The Fo-fo-fo sixers-Dr. J.

The weird thing about you is that you dont really go by numbers most of the time(except shaq) but you dont seem to watch the games either.

IE- you think josh howard is some beast depsite fairly pedestrian numbers but you dont think shaq is a superstar purely because of his numbers(which are still close to superstar level) despite the fact that Shaq has about 10 times the impact outside of his numbers that Josh has. Unless you are just trying to stir _____ up, thats a really weird way to view things.

And they dont need to defend/defame my posts as well. It is too lopsided. When this happens it becomes obvious their intentions. Do you agree on that?

Since, you bring up the 80's, go back to the 70's as well. In each decade the game of the NBA has changed. The players, the teams and the rules.

70's was about the centers, 80's about Showtime and having many go to guys on each team. The 90's started the thrend to where Sidekicks became the main way to win. Having 2 Superstars like Utah never got them by. As we look at the 90's we see the what you all call the Batman/Robin dominant the titles, even 1999 with Robinson and Duncan. Early 2000 was Shaq/Kobe. Early on Shaq was the Superstar, and Kobe was the rising star. Then I would say they had a title with both as a Superstar, then fell off as times went back to Batman/Robin or complete team ball like the Pistons. SA has ruled the 2000's, and their style is Batman/Robin with Duncan as "Batman" and Ginobili and Parker as "Robin".

Now, the Heat just won with Batman(Wade) and Robin(Shaq). I feel the Mavs defensive gameplan should have stayed designed to stop Batman, because Robin was not going to beat u, especially if you put him on the free throw line..

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

And they dont need to defend/defame my posts as well. It is too lopsided. When this happens it becomes obvious their intentions. Do you agree on that?

Again, if you want to have a private conversation, a message board isn't the best place to do that.

fluid.forty.one · 10-12-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

I feel the Mavs defensive gameplan should have stayed designed to stop Batman, because Robin was not going to beat u, especially if you put him on the free throw line..

Yeah shaq didn't sink some key free throws in that series at all...

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

That was because shaq wasn't doing very well in the regular season. He looked tired for once (even a tired shaq is the best center in the league).

But once AGAIN he stepped up in the playoffs and dimolished people. Of course Avery had to take this into consideration.

It's easy to say "if we would have gone against shaq 1vs1, and double wade, we would be champs". It's a lot harder to prove it.

Shaq will be a superstar until he retires.

Now your point is a valid point but it is your view point. My viewpoints you take them and argue. Why is that?

Me myself would not say that Shaq dimolished anyone in the playoffs. I would say exactly what Shaq said about himself. He didn't do much..Words from his mouth. But, I do think he is the most important player to Wade for this team to win a title. I also think he did what he could, but it is not the same Shaq. He needs it, and it hurts him to be this way.

To me, the game has changed so much that dominant centers are the thing of the past. I also feel Shaq is the best center in the league. What he brings to the table and his knowledge of the game is great.

mary · 10-12-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Yeah shaq didn't sink some key free throws in that series at all...

Now you're just trying to confuse the issue with facts. You big meanie.

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

And they dont need to defend/defame my posts as well. It is too lopsided. When this happens it becomes obvious their intentions. Do you agree on that?

Since, you bring up the 80's, go back to the 70's as well. In each decade the game of the NBA has changed. The players, the teams and the rules.

70's was about the centers, 80's about Showtime and having many go to guys on each team. The 90's started the thrend to where Sidekicks became the main way to win. Having 2 Superstars like Utah never got them by. As we look at the 90's we see the what you all call the Batman/Robin dominant the titles, even 1999 with Robinson and Duncan. Early 2000 was Shaq/Kobe. Early on Shaq was the Superstar, and Kobe was the rising star. Then I would say they had a title with both as a Superstar, then fell off as times went back to Batman/Robin or complete team ball like the Pistons. SA has ruled the 2000's, and their style is Batman/Robin with Duncan as "Batman" and Ginobili and Parker as "Robin".

Now, the Heat just won with Batman(Wade) and Robin(Shaq). I feel the Mavs defensive gameplan should have stayed designed to stop Batman, because Robin was not going to beat u, especially if you put him on the free throw line..

Umm, im fairly certain without actually looking it up(this has zito potential for me to be completely wrong because i didnt look that up either) I cant think of a team that won in the 70s without a second superstar either.

In general the batman and robin idea i agree with. However, Batman and robin refers to Batman and robin both being superstars generally and btw, hte lakers have more rings in the 2000s than the spurs do just fyi. Jordan and Pippen was batman and robin and both were superstars. What you seem to be thinking about would be something like Batman and Alfred or Batman and commisioner Gordon. If you truly feel that either shaq or kobe of the lakers wasnt a superstar then im just done because you are too ignorant to be reasoned with.

Shaqs last season of the threepeat, 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.0 bpg and 58% shooting. Thats pretty darn superstarish.

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Yeah shaq didn't sink some key free throws in that series at all...

I guess going 14 for 51 from the free throw line did the Mavs in.

fluid.forty.one · 10-12-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Now your point is a valid point but is your view point. My viewpoints you take them and argue. Why is that?

Is English your first language? If not then you're excused for your lack of ability to use it properly.

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Now your point is a valid point but is your view point. My viewpoints you take them and argue. Why is that?

Me myself would not say that Shaq dimolished anyone in the playoffs. I would say exactly what Shaq said about himself. He didn't do much..Words from his mouth. But, I do think he is the most important player to Wade for this team to win a title. I also think he did what he could, but it is not the same Shaq. He needs it, and it hurts him to be this way.

To me, the game has changed so much that dominant centers are the thing of the past. I also feel Shaq is the best center in the league. What he brings to the table and his knowledge of the game is great.

Its not so much the way the game has changed as the way players and their upbringing has changed which you could say is the game but by you saying the game i would think you are talking about some kind of rule change or something.

The difference is that 15-20 years ago, Duncan, Dirk, KG, Sheed(this would be better for him) and about all of the 7 ft, skilled pfs would have been centers.

fluid.forty.one · 10-12-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

I guess going 14 for 51 from the free throw line did the Mavs in.

Did you watch the games or just look at the box score the next day? Yes he missed a lot, but that's not what I meant by "key free throws". I figured they would have taught you the meaning of that term in basketball 501.

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Umm, im fairly certain without actually looking it up(this has zito potential for me to be completely wrong because i didnt look that up either) I cant think of a team that won in the 70s without a second superstar either.

In general the batman and robin idea i agree with. However, Batman and robin refers to Batman and robin both being superstars generally and btw, hte lakers have more rings in the 2000s than the spurs do just fyi. Jordan and Pippen was batman and robin and both were superstars. What you seem to be thinking about would be something like Batman and Alfred or Batman and commisioner Gordon. If you truly feel that either shaq or kobe of the lakers wasnt a superstar then im just done because you are too ignorant to be reasoned with.

Shaqs last season of the threepeat, 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.0 bpg and 58% shooting. Thats pretty darn superstarish.

I dont see Robin as a "Superstar", I see him as a compliment to "Batman". I think the Batman/Robin you suggest is a perfect example of T-Mac/Yao...I think that is the reason they cant win the whole thing, barring those injuries as well.

I think that once Yao decides to be my "Robin" type then they will advance. I think Yao has to learn to anchor that defense and put more effort into dominating on defense. If this happens he will use more energy, but on offense he can still dominate because of his size, and T-Mac will be T-Mac no matter what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Shaqs last season of the threepeat, 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.0 bpg and 58% shooting. Thats pretty darn superstarish.

That is why I said they in my opinion had 1 title year with both being a Superstar, which would be that year.

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

I dont see Robin as a "Superstar", I see him as a compliment to "Batman". I think the Batman/Robin you suggest is a perfect example of T-Mac/Yao...I think that is the reason they cant win the whole thing, barring those injuries as well.

I think that once Yao decides to be my "Robin" type then they will advance. I think Yao has to learn to anchor that defense and put more effort into dominating on defense. If this happens he will use more energy, but on offense he can still dominate because of his size, and T-Mac will be T-Mac no matter what.

That is why I said they in my opinion had 1 title year with both being a Superstar, which would be that year.

So you dont think kobe was a superstar the year before? You MIGHT be able to get away with an argument that he wasnt the first year though i would disagree but to imply that either wasnt in the other years is just moronic man.

Edit-Yet again you taken something that has a common meaning in basketball circles and just completely made up a different one because you feel like it and think everyone else should have the same view of that ideal as you do.

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Its not so much the way the game has changed as the way players and their upbringing has changed which you could say is the game but by you saying the game i would think you are talking about some kind of rule change or something.

The difference is that 15-20 years ago, Duncan, Dirk, KG, Sheed(this would be better for him) and about all of the 7 ft, skilled pfs would have been centers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Its not so much the way the game has changed as the way players and their upbringing has changed which you could say is the game but by you saying the game i would think you are talking about some kind of rule change or something..

That was my point, the game has changed from then. Players types and rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

The difference is that 15-20 years ago, Duncan, Dirk, KG, Sheed(this would be better for him) and about all of the 7 ft, skilled pfs would have been centers.

Yeah, those players would have been centers, and would had gotten blasted by the centers. It would be a nightmare for them. Plus, the game was alot more physical and allowed banging.

fluid.forty.one · 10-12-2006, 01:11 PM

Credit I must have missed your response to Five-O when he said Tim Duncan was a superstar his rookie year.

Care to explain how he wasn't?

chumdawg · 10-12-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLord

V2M ...

Did you know that the Spurs only had one summer where they had the ability to pursue a free agent at more than the MLE? That was the summer DRob retired - and their prize acquisition with all that cap room was Nesterovic.

Did you know that other than that one year, the Spurs have been over the cap - in many years FAR over the cap - in their player payroll?

Did you know that the Spurs were one of the few teams last year with a payroill so larget they had to pay tax?

They are not a bunch of magicians with a "low payroll" and a very good team - they have a big payroll and a very good team. Typical NBA payroll fare.

As to the prototypical financial model for today's NBA, I dont think there is only one workable concept.

Getting talent is hard. Getting one superstar is super hard. Getting more than one is double super hard. In today's NBA, what you have to do is avoid paying superstar money to players who arent superstars, and avoid paying "key player" money ($8-10M, perhaps) to guys who are MLE guys, and so on. You only have so much money to go around. Your financial model needs to reflect what talent you have and what you can add without overpaying individually or as a total.

David, I would swear that I recall reading about a trade or two the Spurs made (post D-Rob) that on the surface looked to be of marginal value or interest, but upon further inspection it came out that the trade moved them just below the salary cap and allowed them to receive their share of the luxury tax payments. This was in the old CBA, of course.

Are you positive they have been over the cap every year since Robinson left?

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

So you dont think kobe was a superstar the year before? You MIGHT be able to get away with an argument that he wasnt the first year though i would disagree but to imply that either wasnt in the other years is just moronic man.

Edit-Yet again you taken something that has a common meaning in basketball circles and just completely made up a different one because you feel like it and think everyone else should have the same view of that ideal as you do.

Have you not noticed that if I dont agree then you call it moronic and things like that and ignorant? That is why I have a problem with your talk. It is called "Respect".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Edit-Yet again you taken something that has a common meaning in basketball circles and just completely made up a different one because you feel like it and think everyone else should have the same view of that ideal as you do.

Whats the difference between that and saying "Moronic" or "ignorant" if I dont agree?

#1MavsFan · 10-12-2006, 01:16 PM

I want to know how Pippen wasn't considered a superstar, considering he's a shoe in for the hall and was one of the "50 greatest".