Stein: Big D has big downer in Dampier

[ddh33]

PHOENIX – It was no desert mirage. There really was an ice bag spotted on the lower left leg of Amare Stoudemire on the eve of Wednesday's Game 2 clash between the Phoenix Suns and Dallas Mavericks.

So there you go.

Now you know the highlight so far for Erick Dampier in these playoffs.

Lowlights? How much time do you have?

Dirk and Damp: War of words
Dirk Nowitzki on Erick Dampier after Game 1:
"He's a step slow on everything. He never got involved in the game. He has always been in foul trouble. The first series was the same thing. He gets a quick two fouls in the first two or three minutes, and we can't be aggressive any more. Then he gets the third foul and has to sit. ... The bottom line is we've got to get something out of our center position. We really haven't gotten anything out of it."
Dampier in response to Nowitzki on Tuesday:
"He can say what he wants. We really didn't get a lot from anyone. This is not a one individual game. It's a team concept. We didn't play the way we are capable of playing, so for him to say something like that is totally stupid."

• More on Nowitzki and Dampier


You'd obviously have to start with Dampier's rough Monday night, when Stoudemire outscored him 40-zip and Dirk Nowitzki skewered his teammate with multiple criticisms in a postgame ripping for the media that no one ever expected from the soft-spoken German.

Well, guess what?

Chances are it's not going to get any better for Dampier. In this series? Hearing Stoudemire's ankle or heel feels a bit sore might be the highlight for Dampier.

For two reasons:

No. 1: The money Dallas didn't spend on re-signing Steve Nash was used to land Dampier in a sign-and-trade. Which means the soap opera attracting the most focus at this Southwest track meet – next to Nash vs. Nowitzki and Nash vs. Jason Terry and Nash vs. Mark Cuban – is suddenly Nash vs. Dampier.

No. 2: Dampier has already missed his opportunity to hush Nowitzki and back up his season-long claim that he's "The Best Center In The West."

After repeating his boast that he's a better center than anyone not named Shaquille O'Neal, Dallas' marquee offseason acquisition wound up totaling 23 points and 25 fouls in the final five games of the Houston series.

Now?

Dampier isn't going to be on the floor long enough against the smallish Suns to respond to Nowitzki's call-out and the growing fan discontent with his play back in Dallas. After just one game, Dallas' coaching staff already knows its only shot to stay with the Suns is playing Nowitzki and no one else taller than 6 foot 7 except reserves Alan Henderson and Keith Van Horn (if Van Horn returns Friday or Sunday from a bad ankle sprain).

So now what?

That's only one of the questions the Mavericks and the inhabitants of Mavsland are asking themselves, as Year 1 of Dampier's seven-year, $73 million contract draws to a muted close.

It's worth remembering that Cuban didn't splash out the cash for Dampier to deal with Phoenix. No one last summer was making moves to match up with the Suns. The Mavericks saw Dampier as the first legitimate center they could field since the James Donaldson days, which would make them a) more traditional defensively after years of Don Nelson gimmicks and b) more competitive with San Antonio, Houston, Minnesota, and yes, even Detroit and Miami if they dared to dream of a Finals berth.

The harsh truth, though, is Dampier has disappointed far more than he has dazzled in his debut Mavs season. Team defense unquestionably improved with Dampier as an anchor in the middle because he allowed the Mavs' other defenders to stay with their men instead of running over to double-team a big man. Yet Dampier has frustrated teammates and club officials with his iffy hands, well-chronicled mood swings and habit of focusing on himself. Ask Dampier to give the team more, and his first response, just about every time, is that he needs more offensive touches.

This is all particularly galling for new Mavs coach Avery Johnson, a former teammate of Dampier's in Golden State who lobbied Cuban harder than anyone else to make such a financial commitment to a big man that the Warriors, rather tellingly, barely tried to re-sign. The feeling here is Dampier should feel fortunate that his boss remains such a strong supporter. Johnson's response Tuesday to the Nowitzki-Dampier tiff was simply to say, "I'll take care of it."

Not that Nowitzki should expect a reprimand. Public criticism of teammates is not something to encourage, but the Mavericks learned quickly that you almost have to shame Dampier to motivate him. And considering Nowitzki's history as an international diplomat – he never lashes out at anyone publicly, not even after his buddy Nash was let go – the cynical side of me wonders whether someone in the organization urged him to speak out to light a fire.

So don't criticize Nowitzki for the pointed commentary. Lighting into Dampier behind closed doors hasn't worked. As it happens, Dampier's best stretch of the season followed ESPN.com's disclosure in late January that Johnson called Dampier into his office after a home win over Denver and berated him so loudly that Johnson's voice could be heard through the walls. The story circulated quickly, and a chagrined Dampier, with his doghouse status made public, answered with seven double-doubles in a stretch of eight games, including a 26-rebound outing against Philadelphia and a 15-point, 14-rebound showing against Shaq.

A six-week absence caused by a stress fracture in his right foot soon followed, and Dampier has yet to rediscover his post-scolding level. Yet that didn't stop Dampier from announcing to the world that he would outduel Yao Ming in the first round, and you also can safely surmise that some of the Nowitzki frustration that spilled out stems from Dampier's undelivered promise.

The Mavs are praying they're wrong and Dampier can find a way to be a factor against the Suns. But he's dealing with two mismatches – vs. Nash and vs. Stoudemire – and the latter almost guarantees no shot at redemption for Damp until the next round. To have any shot at getting to the conference finals, Dallas knows it must reach back for its small-ball playbook and give more minutes to Marquis Daniels, Henderson and Darrell Armstrong. If Dampier couldn't successfully bang with Yao, he's never going to be able to run with Amare.

The Suns aren't shy about saying so, either.

"We always like the matchup for Amare," Suns coach Mike D'Antoni said. "We think he's unguardable."

Stoudemire's thoughts?

For starters, he laughed off the idea that any discomfort in that left leg could slow him down. He didn't stop smiling when someone invited him to play armchair general manager and rate the Mavs' decision to let Nash, 31, walk over down-the-road durability concerns, then commit a longer contract to an inconsistent 29-year-old.

"Never, never, never," Stoudemire said, asked whether he'd have made that move.

"But I'm kind of glad they did."

[jthig32]

I'm depressed.

I've defended the move for so long and now find myself second-guessing it.

[madape]

Can we hire Amare Stoudamire to be our general manager? He can still play for the suns, I just want someone with sense running this team.

No one with any sense would have turned down Steve Nash and then turned around and given his money to Erick Dampier. It takes an idiot to do that.

[kg_veteran]

Boo friggin' hoo.

I'm pissed at Damp right now, but that doesn't suddenly make Nash any kind of magical answer for this team. Whether Dampier's signing was ultimately a mistake will be answered soon enough, but that doesn't mean he necessarily should have signed Nash instead.

[FilthyFinMavs]

Damn. I'm clueless here because I could've sworn Cuban tried to sign Nash but Nash left because he wanted more money. Did that no occur? So why are we still blaiming the Mavs for not keeping Nash? Because we overpaid Dampier instead of Nash? I don't know what its gonna take for Mavs fans to realize that if we had Nash we would probably be either as good as we are now or even worse. Matters if Nash would've committed himself to defense which clearly wasn't gonna occur but i'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Nash would've had his same 14/7 season he has had every year since this year. Suns have a better supporting cast that fits what Nash is good at. We don't have the spot up shooters(Qrich, Joe Johnson) the Suns have. We don't have the finishers(Qrich, Amare, Marion) that the Suns have so scoring wouldn't have been so easy.

[Simon2]

I hope Amare breaks his leg tonight. That's how pissed I am with his cockiness.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Boo friggin' hoo.

I'm pissed at Damp right now, but that doesn't suddenly make Nash any kind of magical answer for this team. Whether Dampier's signing was ultimately a mistake will be answered soon enough, but that doesn't mean he necessarily should have signed Nash instead.

I agree. Damp sure doesn't appear to be the answer, but that doesn't mean Nash would have been the answer either. Nash is a better fit with the suns than he ever was with the Mavs.

[Bookit]

I had a feeling madape would break out his Damp/crap pic sooner or later but there isn't a need to actually see a picture of dog crap on this board. Everybody knows you hate Damp.

[kg_veteran]

I have no problem with ripping Damp. He deserves it. Just don't bring Nash into it. The two issues are not related, no matter what ESPN talking heads say.

BTW, we did win more games this year than last, and we did advance further this year than last, despite a lot more injury problems. Even based on early returns, I'm pretty happy with the decision to let Nash go, regardless of how this series turns out.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I have no problem with ripping Damp. He deserves it. Just don't bring Nash into it. The two issues are not related, no matter what ESPN talking heads say.

You sure about that? I'm not. I don't recall the specific situation, but I'm pretty sure I recall Cuban explaining that if he had signed Nash he couldn't have afforded to sign Damp.

BTW, we did win more games this year than last, and we did advance further this year than last, despite a lot more injury problems. Even based on early returns, I'm pretty happy with the decision to let Nash go, regardless of how this series turns out.

As long as you are happy with getting to the second round, fine. Me, I'm looking for this team to get further than that, considering the talent and resources at its disposal.

[birdsanctuary]

The loss of Nash will ultimately benefit the Mavs future
The Inclusion of Damp ...?

[madape]

Originally posted by: Bookit
I had a feeling madape would break out his Damp/crap pic sooner or later but there isn't a need to actually see a picture of dog crap on this board. Everybody knows you hate Damp.

Apparently, Dampier's fans are just as big of pussies as the Dump himself. Don't worry bookit, I changed my sig just for you. I hope it's easier on your womanly senses.

[rakesh.s]

I think I'm going to give Dampier until the end of game 4. I was also a defender of the dampier sign and trade.

The mavs were unbeatable during that west coast road trip when dampier was stringing together double-doubles. It's not too late now. We lost one game, and everyone was flat, like game 1 in round 1. If Dampier can get it together and post double doubles in 4 or 5 games this series, I think the Mavs still have a chance.

Honestly, this whole "dirk calling out dampier" scenario is out of control. BSPNRadio is all over it and Dan Patrick spent 2 hours talking about it. Give me a break. The guy couldn't find 10 minutes all year long to talk about the mavericks and now he talks about this issue for 2 hours? People are making more out of it than they should.

[madape]

So, maybe letting Nash go for nothing was a good decision. I don't know how you can really say that considering he just won the MVP and it looks looks like he's helped a preiviously shitty team become the best team in the West ( the same conference the Mavericks used to be competitive in, just in case you didn't know)

But let's say you're right. Let's pretend that all the bullshit logic Cuban spat at us after he lost Nash makes sense. (you remember, the "we can't commit guaranteed money past 2008, he can't play more than 30 minutes per game, he doesn't perform in the playoffs, he's going to get worse as he ages.. blah blah blah). Then why in the HELL did we sign a aging, broken down, no-heart BUM like Erick Dampier for a 7 year deal at roughly the same money? Everything that Cuban said was WRONG with signing nash to a 7 year deal should also be wrong for signing Dump to the same deal, right?

The only problem is that it's now obvious to anyone that Nash is among the best players in the NBA and Erick Dampier is a worthless pile of dog shit...

oh, and Erick Dampier supposedly plays center. At least that's what I've heard. I've yet to see it in the playoffs.

[kg_veteran]

ape - Knock that shit off. Namecalling is for trolls.

[madape]

Oh, I forgot, we're going easy on the big fella.

Dampier isn't a worthless pile of dog crap. He's a fluffy bunny, rosy-smelling beauty! I love him. You should love him too.

And while we're on the subject of namecalling, call me a troll again and I'm going to go ape on you.

[Zack]

I am going to give Dampier until the 3rd quarter tonight..

If he has made 5 points and 2 rebounds, I will hate up until next POST SEASON when he has a chance to show us again..
but he will only get 2 games next year to prove himself.

I wish we Had a Lebron/Dirk team.. With Howard and Terry.. Ya that would be sweet..

[kg_veteran]

You sure about that? I'm not. I don't recall the specific situation, but I'm pretty sure I recall Cuban explaining that if he had signed Nash he couldn't have afforded to sign Damp.

Yes, I'm sure about it, because in spite of whatever after-the-fact spin Cuban put on things, from a basketball standpoint the two decisions are not connected. It was never an "either-or" proposition in that respect. Even if they hadn't signed Dampier, I think the decision to let Nash go was a good one.

Nash is a great fit in Phoenix, but his success there thus far is NOT indicative of how successful he would have been in Dallas. Pointing to how things are going in Phoenix as evidence of a "mistake" by Cuban or Dallas is poor logic.

As long as you are happy with getting to the second round, fine. Me, I'm looking for this team to get further than that, considering the talent and resources at its disposal.

Your assumption (which I think is incorrect) is that having Nash would have ensured that the team advanced further than the second round.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: madape
Oh, I forgot, we're going easy on the big fella.

Dampier isn't a worthless pile of dog crap. He's a fluffy bunny, rosy-smelling beauty! I love him. You should love him too.

And while we're on the subject of namecalling, call me a troll again and I'm going to go ape on you.

I was talking about you calling Bookit a pussy. I don't care what you call Dampier, but there's no reason to disrespect another board member.

Also, give me a friggin' break with the "you're going to go ape on me" nonsense. I didn't call you a troll. I told you to stop acting like one. If you were a troll, I'd have just deleted your post. I tried to show you a bit more respect.

[grndmstr_c]

1) While I think it's fair to say that the Damp S&T may have been influenced by what happened with Nash, that doesn't mean that Damp influenced the decision to not sign Nash.

2) As a consequence of that, I don't think Damp's struggles should cause us to call into question the way the Nash situation was handled. If you want to call into question the decision to go after Damp because of his poor play, that of course makes perfect sense. The only reasons to criticize management for letting Steve sign with Phoenix that I can see would be: 1) you aren't happy with our current point guard situation - I'm guessing most people don't feel this way since Terry did far more for the team in round 1 this year than Nash did in round 1 last year, or 2) even if Dallas wouldn't be much better with Steve than they are without him, our current opponent would certainly be worse without him than they are with him; then again, Phoenix was going to spend that money on somebody, and who knows who they would have gone after and how it would have worked out for them.

[Speedy]

Nice post gmc. Your point about letting Nash go to the suns is my only gripe about that situation. Cuban should have matched and then traded him east.

Of course hindsight is 20/20 and what's done is done. Man, a win tonight would do this board a world of good.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I have no problem with ripping Damp. He deserves it. Just don't bring Nash into it. The two issues are not related, no matter what ESPN talking heads say.

BTW, we did win more games this year than last, and we did advance further this year than last, despite a lot more injury problems. Even based on early returns, I'm pretty happy with the decision to let Nash go, regardless of how this series turns out.

This is exactly how I feel.


Damp is a prick for his reply. I'm no Damp fan today.

[MrCheerios]

Nash played hard for the mavs, even though he didn't always produce the best numbers. Damp has yet to show that same effort. But the release of Nash and the signing of Damp are not necessarily related. And Terry is better than anyone had hoped at pg, so what's everyone's problem? The only problem of letting nash go is that the suns got that much better with him, and now the mavs have to face them. But could cuban could have foreseen that? And the mavs needed a big man. Who would you have signed besides Dampier?

[kg_veteran]

Good post, Cheerios.

[madape]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I was talking about you calling Bookit a pussy. I don't care what you call Dampier, but there's no reason to disrespect another board member.

Also, give me a friggin' break with the "you're going to go ape on me" nonsense. I didn't call you a troll. I told you to stop acting like one. If you were a troll, I'd have just deleted your post. I tried to show you a bit more respect.

Well then by your definition I no more called bookit a pussy than you called me a troll.

When I proclaimed that "Dampier's fans are pussies" I somewhat implied that Bookit fell into the group of "Dampier's fans", which I then assigned the derogatory term "pussies"

When you proclaimed "Guys who call people names are trolls" you somewhat implied that I fell into the group "guys who call people names", which you then assinged the derogatory term "trolls".

Tell me the difference.

[Ninkobei]

Say Mavericks had signed no one instead of Dampier? Let Benga and Pavel play some late in the year. We wouldn't have had an anchor in our defense and would have had to play smallball all year but we would have a, pardon the pun, crap load of cap room for this year.

[dirno2000]

but we would have a, pardon the pun, crap load of cap room for this year.

not even close...

[madape]

we traded just about everything that was worth anything when we picked up Damp. Two first round picks, a giant expiring contract, high-value guys like Najera with small contracts. If we still had those cards to play, there's no telling what we could have wound up with.

Considering we got Keith Van Horn for much, much less, I think we can assume it would have been someone pretty darned good (at least measurably better than Dampier has been).

Some ideas:
Chris Webber
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Michael Redd
Carlos Boozer
Shareef Abdul Rahim
Samuel Dalembert
Stromile Swift
Eddy Curry
Tyson Chandler
Kwame Brown
Donyell Marshall
Jalen Rose
Latrell Sprewell

and many others

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: madape
Well then by your definition I no more called bookit a pussy than you called me a troll.

When I proclaimed that "Dampier's fans are pussies" I somewhat implied that Bookit fell into the group of "Dampier's fans", which I then assigned the derogatory term "pussies"

When you proclaimed "Guys who call people names are trolls" you somewhat implied that I fell into the group "guys who call people names", which you then assinged the derogatory term "trolls".

Tell me the difference.

I can't believe we're arguing about this, but I'd be happy to.

You quoted Bookit's post and said:

Apparently, Dampier's fans are just as big of pussies as the Dump himself. Don't worry bookit, I changed my sig just for you. I hope it's easier on your womanly senses.

You didn't "somewhat imply" anything. You called the dude a pussy and said you changed your sig to make it easier on his "womanly senses." That's what I took issue with, and you know it.

What I said to you was, "Namecalling is for trolls." Clearly, I meant that you weren't a troll and therefore should be above such behavior.

I'll say it one more time, so that it's clear. I don't care what you say about Dampier. I just see no justification for you to call another board member a "pussy".

[chumdawg]

Yes, I'm sure about it, because in spite of whatever after-the-fact spin Cuban put on things, from a basketball standpoint the two decisions are not connected. It was never an "either-or" proposition in that respect. Even if they hadn't signed Dampier, I think the decision to let Nash go was a good one.

Let me make sure I'm getting this straight. If, hypothetically, the Mavs were sitting there in the offseason with this exact same roster, except they had Nash instead of Terry...and then someone asks you if you'd like to swap Nash for Terry, straight up...you say: "yes, that sounds like a good trade"?

I'll have to disagree with you on this note. (And frankly, I think a lot of people are grossly underestimating Nash's value as part of a basketball team.)

But of course, if we believe that Cuban did in fact make a serious offer to Nash--which no one has denied--then it wasn't purely a basketball decision at all. (These things never are, are they?) Cuban didn't decide "to let Nash go." He decided not to pay the asking price. These are very, very different things.

Nash is a great fit in Phoenix, but his success there thus far is NOT indicative of how successful he would have been in Dallas. Pointing to how things are going in Phoenix as evidence of a "mistake" by Cuban or Dallas is poor logic.

For one thing, we don't need to see Nash in another uniform to know how successful he would have been in Dallas. There is already a large body of evidence.

For another, you aren't really saying anything here. Of course it's all guesswork. The best we can do is make reasonable conjectures. What would it take to qualify as evidence that Cuban did NOT make a "mistake?" Nash to fail miserably in Phoenix? The Mavs to win it all without him? Besides those two, what?

Your assumption (which I think is incorrect) is that having Nash would have ensured that the team advanced further than the second round.

I don't assume anything will necessarily happen. I do believe, however, that certain of your options can give you a better chance than others could. That's all you are asking for: the best chance you can muster.

And again, two years ago Nash did make it past the second round. People seem quick to dismiss this--for what reason I do not know.

[MavKikiNYC]

Dirk/Nash or Amare/Nash.

Which combo has more potential, and why?

If you think the latter, then should the Mavs have let Dirk go and tried to acquire Amare?

Or did they do the right thing in keeping Dirk, and trying to re-shape the rest of the roster to allow them to have a more capable, more effective defensive team?

Anyone thing Nash is better than Dirk?

[mary]

How exactly would the Mavs had "tried" to acquire Amare?

[FilthyFinMavs]

I'll have to disagree with you on this note. (And frankly, I think a lot of people are grossly underestimating Nash's value as part of a basketball team.)

We arguably had the most talent of any other team last season. We were knocked out of the first round with Nash and it showed no signs of getting any further in the playoffs and Nash is only getting older by the year. Some would say that the reason we weren't any good last year was because we didn't have enough time to gel. Suns had just as much time as we did last year. Some would also say Nash never played with a more well balanced team like the one this season. I'd then say the Suns this year are in the same boat. They run small ball out there everynight. It's just different teams man. Nash isn't a better point guard than he was last year. He's the same pass first shoot second point who hits crazy shots everyonce in awhile and doesn't play any defense. Nothing has changed but his surroundings and if Nash would've played for this team this year i'm not even sure if we make it out of the first round. I mean who does he guard in that Rockets series?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
Let me make sure I'm getting this straight. If, hypothetically, the Mavs were sitting there in the offseason with this exact same roster, except they had Nash instead of Terry...and then someone asks you if you'd like to swap Nash for Terry, straight up...you say: "yes, that sounds like a good trade"?

Now you're trying to change the subject.

The issue is not whether I would have traded Nash for Terry.

I'll have to disagree with you on this note. (And frankly, I think a lot of people are grossly underestimating Nash's value as part of a basketball team.)

But of course, if we believe that Cuban did in fact make a serious offer to Nash--which no one has denied--then it wasn't purely a basketball decision at all. (These things never are, are they?) Cuban didn't decide "to let Nash go." He decided not to pay the asking price. These are very, very different things.

True. Money was obviously involved, which is why the hypothetical "Nash for Terry" trade isn't a logical question. Clearly, if money wasn't involved, you'd rather keep a player than just let them walk. You'd rather have something than nothing. But that wasn't how it was going to work. Cuban had to make a complex decision that had financial issues involved as well as basketball issues. From the basketball end of things, all I'm saying is that I think the team is better off in the long run. I don't honestly KNOW if they're better off (now or later), because I do have to speculate. But, like you said, I have a large body of evidence to work with in making an educated guess.

For one thing, we don't need to see Nash in another uniform to know how successful he would have been in Dallas. There is already a large body of evidence.

For another, you aren't really saying anything here. Of course it's all guesswork. The best we can do is make reasonable conjectures. What would it take to qualify as evidence that Cuban did NOT make a "mistake?" Nash to fail miserably in Phoenix? The Mavs to win it all without him? Besides those two, what?

I think it will sting considerably if Nash actually wins a title in Phoenix, but the key factor (IMO) will be whether the Mavs are able to advance further without Nash than they did with him. At some point, that means a Finals run (or more than one).

I don't assume anything will necessarily happen. I do believe, however, that certain of your options can give you a better chance than others could. That's all you are asking for: the best chance you can muster.

And again, two years ago Nash did make it past the second round. People seem quick to dismiss this--for what reason I do not know.

Not to discount what the 02-03 team did at all, but they had several things go their way and pretty much maxed out their potential to get where they got, IMO. I'm not saying it would have been impossible for the Mavs to get back to the WCF with Nash, but I don't think they'd have ever won the title as they were constructed.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: mary
How exactly would the Mavs had "tried" to acquire Amare?

It's hypothetical. Like the rest of the arguments.

Broader point is that Nash has a different synergy with Amare than with Dirk. Both combos can be effective offensively, but Amaré (and the system they play in) is much more effective at covering up/compensating for Nash's defensive liabilities than Dirk (and the system THEY PLAYED in). Not to mention that the current Suns team doesn't have to prepare to play a Shaq/Kobe Lakers team, against whom they would be (hypothetically) blown off the court.

The Mavericks absolutely had to become better defensively (and still have to) in order to be legitimate contenders for a title--conference or league. (It could be argued that they were just a turned ankle away from the finals a couple of years ago, but Dirk or no Dirk, I don't think they were going to beat the Spurs. Bottom line: They didn't. And THAT team, who rode something of a perfect-storm season, wasn't even a team any longer.) And unless they were willing to part with Dirk and keep Nash (whom NOBODY was projecting as an MVP), all the while confident that they could acquire the right players to develop a frontcourt that would cover for Nash's defensive liabilities, then it's hard to argue that the Mavericks made the wrong choice.

[foglemann]

We have come down really hard on Damp for this playoffs, and like KG said, that is fine. But its unfair to do the Nash comparisions. Nash was sort of taken out of our hands. We all thought we would resign him, no questions. Then the suns come out of nowhere and take him on the very first day, I think both Cuban and Donnie were caught off guard and didn't expect that to happen. Hell, I talked to Donnie at the Chinese Summer game and he was in shock, didn't know what they would do without Nash. Cuban had to make a quick decision and he made it for the future of team. Also, at this very time, the Nellie vs. Cuban thing was going on and Cubes wanted to start playing defense, this was the first step once he didn't match the Nash offer.

And MadApe, you kill Damp as much as possible when he sucks, which is fine and your rite as a fan, but what do you do when McGrady or anyone else kills Bradley. You go and hide and don't say anything. When Brad does something great, you sing from the rooftops. To me, it doesn't make any sense, Bradley can be a good backup, but he's just as or even more inconsistent than Damp. You would rather have a worse Center play just because your favorite player is Bradley.

[chumdawg]

Now you're trying to change the subject.

The issue is not whether I would have traded Nash for Terry.

I'm not trying to change the subject at all. There had to be a Terry. Or a Harris. Or someone else, to replace Nash. Letting Nash go meant the Mavericks had one point guard on the roster, the rookie from Wisconsin. They had to get another one. I'm assuming they did the best they could, given the options that were available to them.

So I'm just asking: now that you see what they've replaced Nash with, do you still believe that replacing Nash was a good basketball decision? You cannot ignore this part of the equation. The choice wasn't Nash or no Nash. It was Nash or whoever replaces Nash.

Just because the player you own is less than perfect from a basketball standpoint doesn't mean that you get better simply by being rid of him. The next guy may have some issues, too.

Not to discount what the 02-03 team did at all, but they had several things go their way and pretty much maxed out their potential to get where they got, IMO. I'm not saying it would have been impossible for the Mavs to get back to the WCF with Nash, but I don't think they'd have ever won the title as they were constructed.

In the wake of that season, I don't think there were too many people who thought the changes in team construction needed to start at PG. And I think that the level Phoenix is playing at these days does bear that out.

[MavKikiNYC]

So I'm just asking: now that you see what they've replaced Nash with, do you still believe that replacing Nash was a good basketball decision?

Yes.

In the wake of that season, I don't think there were too many people who thought the changes in team construction needed to start at PG. And I think that the level Phoenix is playing at these days does bear that out.

Whoa. There were SEVERAL voices here that were saying that very thing.

Also, to use the largely unpredicted success of the Suns this year as the yardstick by which the Mavericks had to make decisions one or two years ago is revisionist at best.

[Rhylan]

I fault Cuban for using crappy logic with the press, to somehow tie the Dampier acquisition in with letting Nash go. Say Nash had signed for Cuban's original offer, or say Nash had counter offered to Cuban but accepted less than Phoenix offered, to stay in Dallas... the Dampier S&T would've still been available to the Mavs, and you can almost guarantee Cuban would've pulled the trigger.

Truth of the matter is, a lot of folks think the team will be better off without Nash in the long run, and some disagree.

Second truth of the matter is, Dampier has sleepwalked for most of his stay here, and somebody needs to do something to light a fire under him. At least use your fouls, if you can't do anything else. I don't necessarily agree with Dirk taking it to the press conference, but I can't exactly fault him, either.

But in my mind, the two are not coupled. I also am of the school of thought that switching teams motivated Nash. He was a sloppy player in his last year here, IMO.. and when he saw he had Marion and Amare on his team, he finally learned to throw a lob. Prior to this year, Nash couldn't throw a lob to save his life.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: chumdawg

I'm not trying to change the subject at all. There had to be a Terry. Or a Harris. Or someone else, to replace Nash. Letting Nash go meant the Mavericks had one point guard on the roster, the rookie from Wisconsin. They had to get another one. I'm assuming they did the best they could, given the options that were available to them.

So I'm just asking: now that you see what they've replaced Nash with, do you still believe that replacing Nash was a good basketball decision? You cannot ignore this part of the equation. The choice wasn't Nash or no Nash. It was Nash or whoever replaces Nash.

Just because the player you own is less than perfect from a basketball standpoint doesn't mean that you get better simply by being rid of him. The next guy may have some issues, too.

In the wake of that season, I don't think there were too many people who thought the changes in team construction needed to start at PG. And I think that the level Phoenix is playing at these days does bear that out.

Getting nothing for nash was a cluster. Not having nash this year is also a cluster. Last years team was a cluster and has no reflection imo on whether nash was/was not on it. They were screwed the minute walker showed up. If the mavs instead of getting walker for raef had goten any serviceable center (or power forward that could play down low) they'd be a better team right now.