How about this for Ben Wallace? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Simon2 · 10-31-2003, 09:29 PM

Jamison for Wallace and Sura

Detroit trades: PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 20.6 minutes)
Detroit receives: SF Antawn Jamison (22.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 39.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +8.0 ppg, -11.4 rpg, and -2.9 apg.

Dallas trades: SF Antawn Jamison (22.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 39.3 minutes)
Dallas receives: PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 73 games)
SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 55 games)
Change in team outlook: -8.0 ppg, +11.4 rpg, and +2.9 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

I read that Sura will get a limited role now in Detroit. Trade makes Detroit a stronger offensive team and Dallas a stronger rebounding team. Dallas gets a starting lineup of:

Nash, Fin, Walker, Dirk and Ben Wallace.

Shaq Attack2 · 10-31-2003, 09:36 PM

Will never, ever happen. Maybe if the Mavs traded Jamison and Walker and only got Wallace in return it could happen. But otherwise, not Jamison for Wallace straight up.

And yes, Mavs would be scary with Wallace even without Walker and Jamison. He brings so many rebounds, blocks and generally good defense it's just great. KG and Duncan won't have it totally easy, and certainly no guard will penetrate with Wallace in the lane.

Lvubun1 · 10-31-2003, 10:05 PM

Here we go again. Why was Jamison along with a couple of solid players traded away for NVE and scrubs? Because their isn't a lot of trade value for Jamison because of his contract, 6 years at the max. Now if Ben Wallace was available for Jamison why didn't the Warriors just trade Jamison for Wallace? Why do you think Jamison came so cheap? The Warriors were drugged? Cuban had pictures of Gary St. Jean and Chris Mullin playing naked twister? Their is some conspiacy around the league to give the Mavs good players? We have to realize the reason why Jamison came so damn cheap is because their wasn't alot of demand for him. We have to stop looking at these trades soley talent wise, I'm not sure in the current state of the NBA if their is another owner save Cuban who is willing to pay Jamison a max contract in'till the year 2010, nobody, and if another team is willing to take on Jamison, their going to be willing to send much talent back, kinda like how the W's didn't get much back besides NVE.

LRB · 10-31-2003, 10:16 PM

We already have dozens of trades for Ben Wallace threads. Almost everyone if not everyone would require Detroit's GM to be smoking crack to make the trade. Wallace is a very good defender on western conference sized power forwards or eastern conference centers which IMO is about the same thing. He does not have the size to be near as effective against western conference sized centers. Furthermore he's almost as bad an offensive liability as the potato. Forget about driving to the basket when Wallace is in the game because his man will always be there. Wallace isn't a threat from outside 2 feet and he doesn't even have a decent postup game. He will not make us that much better defensively though he would definitely improve us. So even though we'd be raping the Pistons I don't see this helping us that much. The added defense by Wallace won't make up for the lost offense by Jamison coming off the bench.

Now I don't see how this helps Detroit? They can certainly get a much better deal IMO if they feel a burning need to dump Big Ben.

Simon2 · 10-31-2003, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Lvubun1
Here we go again. Why was Jamison along with a couple of solid players traded away for NVE and scrubs? Because their isn't a lot of trade value for Jamison because of his contract, 6 years at the max. Now if Ben Wallace was available for Jamison why didn't the Warriors just trade Jamison for Wallace? Why do you think Jamison came so cheap? The Warriors were drugged? Cuban had pictures of Gary St. Jean and Chris Mullin playing naked twister? Their is some conspiacy around the league to give the Mavs good players? We have to realize the reason why Jamison came so damn cheap is because their wasn't alot of demand for him. We have to stop looking at these trades soley talent wise, I'm not sure in the current state of the NBA if their is another owner save Cuban who is willing to pay Jamison a max contract in'till the year 2010, nobody, and if another team is willing to take on Jamison, their going to be willing to send much talent back, kinda like how the W's didn't get much back besides NVE.

You speak of Jamison as if he was some scrub. This was the guy who was the man in Golden State. He obviously will give Detroit a solid SF. That's unless they want to hitch their wagon to Tayshaun Prince or Corliss Williamson. I don't understand why the long contract is such a bad idea for Jamison. He's young, not injury prone and he's a pretty good player. It wouldn't be bad for a team to tie this guy up for a long time. Another thing is that the Pistons already have a lot of Big men. Darco, Mehmet, Rebraca and Campbell. I don't know why Detroit didn't trade for Jamison in the off-season. Maybe the Mavs can pull this off. They seem to be stealing from other teams already. This doesn't look too much of a lopsided trade.

Shaq Attack2 · 10-31-2003, 11:54 PM

Sorry LRB, you've got to be on something if you don't think Wallace doesn't help the Mavs out "all that much" defensively. Bradley and Fortson are a joke compared to Wallace, an absolute joke. Wallace protects the lane and pulls down more rebounds than Fortson and Bradley combined. He's the best blocker in the NBA, and has gotten much better offensively this year.

LRB · 10-31-2003, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2
Sorry LRB, you've got to be on something if you don't think Wallace doesn't help the Mavs out "all that much" defensively. Bradley and Fortson are a joke compared to Wallace, an absolute joke. Wallace protects the lane and pulls down more rebounds than Fortson and Bradley combined. He's the best blocker in the NBA, and has gotten much better offensively this year.

SA2 he doesn't help the Mavs that much because it only address 1 of 5 players defensively. The Mavs need to lear to play better team D. One player isn't going to change that. And Wallace plays in the East, he'll still be good in the West but not as good.

As for Ben's offense, it may have gotten better, but it still SUCKS. Shaq shoots FT's better than Ben. Basically Ben is a garbage bucket scorer.

Murphy3 · 11-01-2003, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Wallace isn't a threat from outside 2 feet and he doesn't even have a decent postup game. He will not make us that much better defensively though he would definitely improve us. So even though we'd be raping the Pistons I don't see this helping us that much. The added defense by Wallace won't make up for the lost offense by Jamison coming off the bench.

Ben Wallace does get eaten up from time to time by some of the better inside players...that happens. However, I can't say I really agree with any of this. Why wouldn't Ben Wallace help out that much defensively? That is absurd. Ben Wallace may not be the best defender in the game but he definitely is an impact defender down low.

And who cares if he doesn't score offensively. The Mavs could sacrifice a scorer for a top notch defender/rebounder.. there offense would barely notice.

And for the record, bench scoring can be very highly overrated. The Mavs could easily still have at least two top notch scoring options on the court at virtually all times even without Jamison. Besides, Wallace's additional offensive rebounds would just mean more looks for players such as dirk, aw, fin, and nash...

Wallace would instantly turn the mavs into one of the better rebounding teams in the NBA. Being a top notch defensive rebounding team instantly helps the Mavs defense. Yes, it's only one position..one player. However, a player such as wallace can change a game defensively with his presence.

MavsFanFinley · 11-01-2003, 12:17 AM

Nelson will never want a guy like Wallace here. He doen't score enough.

Murphy3 · 11-01-2003, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley
Nelson will never want a guy like Wallace here. He doen't score enough.

I have to believe that Nellie would make an exception with a player such as Wallace

MavsFanFinley · 11-01-2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

I have to believe that Nellie would make an exception with a player such as Wallace.

I know. We'd all like to think he would.

I don't see him doing it at the expense of Walker, Finley, Nash, or Jamison.

veruca salt · 11-01-2003, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley

Quote:

I have to believe that Nellie would make an exception with a player such as Wallace.

I know. We'd all like to think he would.

I don't see him doing it at the expense of Walker, Finley, Nash, or Jamison.

And I don't see Detriot giving up Wallace for anything on that table...unless it was 2-3 of them.

Murphy3 · 11-01-2003, 01:34 AM

"Murphy you know that you're a closet Najera fan. Some day you'll come out.

And Both the Lakers and SA have a lot more that one offensive option. As I've said those are the 2 teams that we need to get by. "

Yes, they have more than one scoring option..and your point is....?
I still don't see how you could possibly say that wallace wouldnt' make much of a diference..still waiting for that part to be explained

Simon2 · 11-01-2003, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley
Nelson will never want a guy like Wallace here. He doen't score enough.

How about a guy named Fortson?

SeriousSummer · 11-01-2003, 11:04 AM

The best I can do in a trade for Ben Wallace:

Dallas trades: SF Antawn Jamison (22.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SG Michael Finley (19.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.0 apg in 38.3 minutes)
PG Travis Best (8.4 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 3.5 apg in 25.1 minutes)
Dallas receives: SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 20.6 minutes)
PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SF Corliss Williamson (12.0 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 25.1 minutes)
PG Chucky Atkins (7.1 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.7 apg in 21.5 minutes)
SG Hubert Davis (1.8 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 0.7 apg in 7.6 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -14.8 ppg, +10.3 rpg, and +1.1 apg.

Detroit trades: SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 20.6 minutes)
PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SF Corliss Williamson (12.0 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 25.1 minutes)
PG Chucky Atkins (7.1 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.7 apg in 21.5 minutes)
SG Hubert Davis (1.8 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 0.7 apg in 7.6 minutes)
Detroit receives: SF Antawn Jamison (22.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 82 games)
SG Michael Finley (19.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.0 apg in 69 games)
PG Travis Best (8.4 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 3.5 apg in 72 games)
Change in team outlook: +14.8 ppg, -10.3 rpg, and -1.1 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Basically, you take everything Detroit doesn't want plus Wallace, and give up the best Dallas is willing to give up that Detroit needs (I'm assuming Dirk is untouchable & Nash stays with Dirk). It also works with Walker in the trade instead of Finley.

If I'm Dallas, then I do it with Finley but not with Walker (sorry Fin Fans). If I'm Detroit than I do it with Walker, but not with Finley.

4cwebb · 11-01-2003, 11:27 AM

The strange thing about this thread is that the Mavs don't have a player, other than the Dirk or Nash, that the Pistons really need (or want). If the Pistons wanted a scoring SF, they could have drafted Carmelo. Instead they went with Darko, and will hang their hats on Prince and Williamson at SF. They have a SG in Hamilton that they must like since they just gave him $62 million. They like Billups (but Nash would clearly be an upgrade).

And, let's not forget that Boston was dying to get rid of Walker...so desperate that they were willing to take on Raef's ridiculous contract. Detroit is not, by any means, desperate to rid themselves of Wallace, so in my opinion it would require Dirk or Nash going to Detroit to pry Wallace from the Pistons, and I don't see either Nelson giving up Dirk or Nash. Even offering Walker and Jamison isn't enough. I think the Pistons say no right away.

Oh, and Wallace would help the Mavs D from the start. He would be the only defensive minded player on the floor, and that may make him a bit less effective than he has been in Detroit, but that is still better than anything on the Mavs' roster currently (as pointed out above).

SeriousSummer · 11-01-2003, 11:40 AM

Detroit could have taken Melo. But I think the reason they didn't was because Darko is a bigger talent. I think they still need a small forward. But they only trade Wallace if they think both Okur and Darko are the real thing. They probably are.

LRB · 11-01-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Simon2

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley
Nelson will never want a guy like Wallace here. He doen't score enough.

How about a guy named Fortson?

Don't look for Fortson to keep getting big minutes for long.

Nash13 · 11-01-2003, 01:42 AM

The reason why Wallace's defensive looks real good is because he's on a real good defensive team.

Although i can't see Wallace making that much of a difference, he would fill in the last piece of the puzzle. He would be a real liability in crunch time when teams need to foul.

If we were to give up Walker and Jamison, the trade wouldn't be worth it. We'd actually be worse off than last year. Our focus will be on getting a small forward, AGAIN.

Shaq Attack2 · 11-01-2003, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Nash13
If we were to give up Walker and Jamison, the trade wouldn't be worth it. We'd actually be worse off than last year. Our focus will be on getting a small forward, AGAIN.

No offense, but you're on crack. Dirk, Nash, Finley, Wallace, and Howard is a fine lineup, even if Howard is a rookie. Heck, put in a small forward vet if you want and have Howard back him up, it doesn't matter. There's no way that lineup is worse than last year, especially defensively, unless you think Raef's offensive skills are worth as much to the Mavs as Wallace's defensive skills.

grndmstr_c · 11-01-2003, 07:02 AM

Quote:

If we were to give up Walker and Jamison, the trade wouldn't be worth it. We'd actually be worse off than last year. Our focus will be on getting a small forward, AGAIN.

Well said.

mavsfan4life · 11-03-2003, 09:44 AM

Sorry buddy, but this will never happen. Ben Wallace <u>IS</u> the franchise. They will continue to build the team around him for many years to come. Maybe Darko, but definitley not Big Ben!

Murphy3 · 11-03-2003, 09:54 AM

I don't think anyone realistically does believe that it'll happen, buddy.

MavsFanatik33 · 11-03-2003, 09:56 AM

What is up with all thiese 'what-if" scenarios.
What if MJ comes back and leads The Mavs to a ring?

Murphy3 · 11-03-2003, 10:08 AM

Debates and discussions like this are a common occurrence when talking sports.

MavsFanatik33 · 11-03-2003, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
Debates and discussions like this are a common occurrence when talking sports.

Yes, but let's be reasonable...

Ummmmm Ok · 11-03-2003, 10:06 AM

I think Dallas has a better chance at getting Jordan than they do at Wallace! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]