Where are the Nash-type trades? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 12:44 AM

As we enter the NBA trading season, I wonder...where are the Nash-type deals?

As common wisdom has it, the Mavs traded Nash for Dampier and got better as a result.

Now, when you discuss trades, you don't ever discuss something like Nash for Dampier. But the Mavs did it, and they won in the offing.

So why not more trades like this? I'm talking about trades where a team takes a piece that is perceived as much more valuable than the other, but that knows the new piece will complement the team that much better.

Are the Mavs just that much more gutsy than other teams? Or was it just a once-in-a-lifetime confluence of player fits?

What I wonder is this: Should teams be more willing to trade their multiple All-Stars for role players who fit their teams well?

Are teams, besides the Mavericks, gutsy enough to do this? Do you think the results would be just as good for them as they were for the Mavericks? Why don't we see more of this type of deal?

kg_veteran · 01-22-2007, 12:47 AM

It wasn't a trade, so I don't see your point.

Drbio · 01-22-2007, 12:54 AM

You can't revise history to fit an anti-mavs agenda.

Rhylan · 01-22-2007, 01:16 AM

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

It wasn't a trade, so I don't see your point.

For all intents and purposes, it was. And I'm sure you will agree that a trade could be fashioned that would serve the same purpose.

I'm serious about this. Is there no other team that thinks outside the box enough to deal a multiple-All-Star for a role player, or set of role players, that will make their team that much better?

Are there no (other) GM's with so much cajones? Even if not, wouldn't they look at the example set by Nash-for-Dampier and try to follow suit?

kg_veteran · 01-22-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Wow. The genius of Dooby is invoked.

Where is Dooby, anyway?

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 01:24 AM

It is a shame to me that certain of you are glossing over what is certainly something that hard-working GM's consider very carefully.

kg_veteran · 01-22-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote:

For all intents and purposes, it was.

No, it wasn't.

capitalcity · 01-22-2007, 01:26 AM

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, it wasn't.

If your claim is that it wasn't in the early going, I will reluctanctly agree (though I think it's not quite close to the truth). But it without question was in retrospect. How do you claim otherwise?

Drbio · 01-22-2007, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capitalcity

OMG!!!!!!!

HAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 01:34 AM

The gay cartoons--and the inevitable Doc-without-an-original-thought-of-his-own--aside...I'm serious about this. Why hasn't the Nash trade yet sparked off a number of similar trades around the league?

Drbio · 01-22-2007, 01:35 AM

The corny and inane Nash nuthugging cumdawg schtick aside....this thread is a waste of bandwidth.

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 01:37 AM

DrBio...I realize that you only once in a half-year or so come up with an original thought...but if it worked so well for the Mavs, why don't more teams do it?

Drbio · 01-22-2007, 01:39 AM

Still trying to play that lame broken record schtick chum? Figures. It's all you have anymore. Of course it couldn't be you that is the problem on this forum....it must be 100% of everyone else. The Nash nutsack juice has really scrambled your brain.

Dirkadirkastan · 01-22-2007, 01:39 AM

Iverson? Maybe Gasol?

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Iverson? Maybe Gasol?

I would agree with you on Iverson.

But that trade was forced upon them.

Where are the teams that have the foresight the Mavericks had?

dirno2000 · 01-22-2007, 01:56 AM

Wasn't foresight, it just turned out that way...but obviously you already know that. Where are you trying to go?

fluid.forty.one · 01-22-2007, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Where are the teams that have the foresight the Mavericks had?

Those teams didn't make the 2006 nba finals. Maybe they should take a page out of the Mavericks book.

Hopefully we win a championship with Damp, because we never could with Nash. That will turn out to be a pretty freaking awesome "trade" in retrospect if we win one or more championships and the Suns don't. We'll see.

So far I like how it turned out, good job head-maverick-people.

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirno2000

Wasn't foresight, it just turned out that way...but obviously you already know that. Where are you trying to go?

Whether it was hindsight or foresight is immaterial. It is what it is. Where are the other trades that follow suit?

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Those teams didn't make the 2006 nba finals. Maybe they should take a page out of the Mavericks book.

Hopefully we win a championship with Damp, because we never could with Nash. That will turn out to be a pretty freaking awesome "trade" in retrospect if we win one or more championships and the Suns don't. We'll see.

So far I like how it turned out, good job head-maverick-people.

See...THAT's what I'm wondering! Why aren't other teams saying "We won't win a championship with Parker" or with Kidd or with Brand or with Garnett or with whoever else. Will their GM's start to make shrewd moves like the Mavs did?

dirno2000 · 01-22-2007, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Whether it was hindsight or foresight is immaterial. It is what it is. Where are the other trades that follow suit?

immeterial?

Chumdawg: Where are the teams that have the foresight the Mavericks had?

Thespiralgoeson · 01-22-2007, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

See...THAT's what I'm wondering! Why aren't other teams saying "We won't win a championship with Parker"

You mean Tony Parker? Well... if the Spurs aren't saying that, I imagine it's because they've won two championships with him.

Drbio · 01-22-2007, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

You mean Tony Parker? Well... if the Spurs aren't saying that, I imagine it's because they've won two championships with him.

Silly facts always get in the way.

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

You mean Tony Parker? Well... if the Spurs aren't saying that, I imagine it's because they've won two championships with him.

I would expect that GM's are looking to make their teams better in the future. Do you think that Buford imagines his team winning several more with Parker at the helm?

Perhaps he could trade him for someone like a Damp. Or...you know...whatever weakness they have. But I would think that the 5 is certainly a good starting point, wouldn't you?

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirno2000

immeterial?

Chumdawg: Where are the teams that have the foresight the Mavericks had?

That's exactly what I'm wondering, Dirno.

Specifically, I'm wondering why teams (or even media) haven't taken note of the way the Mavs "got better" by trading Nash away, and aren't looking for inventive ways to do the same.

It would seem that the NBA is filled with stodgy old types that insist on talent-for-talent and aren't ready to make such a forward-looking move.

I do believe that it's a legitimate question. I mean, the proof is in the pudding.

Thespiralgoeson · 01-22-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I would expect that GM's are looking to make their teams better in the future. Do you think that Buford imagines his team winning several more with Parker at the helm?

Perhaps he could trade him for someone like a Damp. Or...you know...whatever weakness they have. But I would think that the 5 is certainly a good starting point, wouldn't you?

Sure, they could use an upgrade at the 5... and the 3 as well.. and their entire bench...

Thespiralgoeson · 01-22-2007, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's exactly what I'm wondering, Dirno.

Specifically, I'm wondering why teams (or even media) haven't taken note of the way the Mavs "got better" by trading Nash away, and aren't looking for inventive ways to do the same.

It would seem that the NBA is filled with stodgy old types that insist on talent-for-talent and aren't ready to make such a forward-looking move.

I do believe that it's a legitimate question. I mean, the proof is in the pudding.

Those other teams don't have Dirk Nowitzki.

dirno2000 · 01-22-2007, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's exactly what I'm wondering, Dirno.

Specifically, I'm wondering why teams (or even media) haven't taken note of the way the Mavs "got better" by trading Nash away, and aren't looking for inventive ways to do the same.

It would seem that the NBA is filled with stodgy old types that insist on talent-for-talent and aren't ready to make such a forward-looking move.

I do believe that it's a legitimate question. I mean, the proof is in the pudding.

Why can't the Kings (or any other team for that matter) trade another aging shooting guard for for a young MVP cailiber power forward? Why can't the Pistons (or anybody else) trade a star small forward and get back a journeyman type center who would go on to win defensive player of the year?

We're not dealing with comodities here. Each player and each situation is unique. When you opportunity arises you jump on it.

what we did isn't really repeatable unless a team is in the exact situation that we were in.

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 02:45 AM

That's not entirely fair, Dirno. Dampier wasn't exactly a unique commodity.

Or...was he?

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirno2000

Why can't the Kings (or any other team for that matter) trade another aging shooting guard for for a young MVP cailiber power forward? Why can't the Pistons (or anybody else) trade a star small forward and get back a journeyman type center who would go on to win defensive player of the year?

We're not dealing with comodities here. Each player and each situation is unique. When you opportunity arises you jump on it.

what we did isn't really repeatable unless a team is in the exact situation that we were in.

I guess the good question would be this: What could the Pistons get for Billups? And wouldn't one of those options be the wise one?

Thespiralgoeson · 01-22-2007, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's not entirely fair, Dirno. Dampier wasn't exactly a unique commodity.

Or...was he?

Unique? Maybe not. Valuble? Certainly.

dirno2000 · 01-22-2007, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's not entirely fair, Dirno. Dampier wasn't exactly a unique commodity.

Or...was he?

He was one of the best rebounding centers in the game, he was a solid low post defender and, most importantly, he was available. So yes, he was uniques.

I'm not sure about the Billups thing. Like spriral said, they don't have Dirk or a player of his caliber.

Again, I doubt it's repeatable.

fluid.forty.one · 01-22-2007, 03:02 AM

Chum.

When scientists do experiments they only have one Independant Variable. You know why? That's so they can be certain on what's changing the Dependant Variable.

When Mavs went through the transition from pretender to contender, they changed a whole bunch of things. The roster is almost completely different, the coach is different, mark has a cool looking goatee now. Who KNOWS what made the difference. To say trading Nash for Damp straight up made us a world better, doesn't make sense unless you look at the big picture which is something you refuse to do. What you're doing is cutting out a little bit of it and you're satirically examining it closely so you can make a point.

What really happened with that whole thing is

a: We got Avery. Defense. We go to the finals. We finally beat the spurs. Blah blah blah.

b: We got rid of nash. He wanted too much money, and thank god he went. Avery wants defense. Can you imagine how annoyed you'd be all season if Nash kept getting benched because opposing Point Guards kept setting career records against him? Avery would not tolerate that.

c: We got Damp. We finally have a center. Ahmygod no more Shawn Bradley. We have a legitimate big man inside. Don't look now, but here comes Diop! Now we have two big men! This whole team looks different.

d: We changed every other player on the team besides Dirk, Josh, and Devin. And too be honest, all those players are a lot different and a lot better than they were back then.

So basically you're taking a team. Changing all of the pieces, and then saying only one or two of the moves caused the entire transformation.

I suppose the troll/point you're trying to make is that we could have done all this with Nash, or you're somehow saying we shouldn't have gotten rid of Nash, or even the ever-awesome "Cuban sucks monkey balls" argument.

But it all boils down to the fact that we are better off without Nash because Nash doesn't play defense, and defense gets you to the finals and defense wins championships. And I know that's what us MAVS fans are looking for.

edit - As for why other teams don't do what we did, they do it ALL the time. We basically blew up our roster and we have an almost entirely new one, AND a new head coach.

Teams blow up their roster, great players are traded, and they rebuild. Iverson is a recent example. T-Mac has been traded. Vince Carter has been traded. Steve Nash has been "traded" apparently.

SHAQ in all his glory has been traded. Most of those trades, to my knowledge, did not involve another STAR of their original players caliber going back to their team.

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 03:05 AM

So, FFO, you are saying that we were able to creat an environment where we could trade Nash for pennies on the dollar, so to speak, and come out better.

Why don't more teams do this?

dirno2000 · 01-22-2007, 03:07 AM

Creating the environment is the hard part.

rabbitproof · 01-22-2007, 03:10 AM

I have one.

Multiple All-Star PF who had played deep into the playoffs for Never All-Star who is more of a combo guard and is not a pure 1 or pure 2.

Team recieving multiple all-star PF doesn't even last the season with him before returning him to sender's sender.

Team recieving never all-star combo guard makes it to finals in a couple years.

Can you name these players??

fluid.forty.one · 01-22-2007, 03:12 AM

Chum you also have to keep in mind that prior to Nash being a mighty Sun, he wasn't considered an MVP caliber player what-so-ever.

So if you're saying "why don't more teams trade all-star, but not hall of fame, 2nd best talent on the team players for roleplayers that fit their team better" I bet there are even more instances than the ones I listed.

Not really seeing your point here, I don't know why you won't be more straight up. Satire is fun for awhile, but usually Satire cuts to the point. I'm waitin'.

fluid.forty.one · 01-22-2007, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I have one.

Multiple All-Star PF who had played deep into the playoffs for Never All-Star who is more of a combo guard and is not a pure 1 or pure 2.

Team recieving multiple all-star PF doesn't even last the season with him before returning him to sender's sender.

Team recieving never all-star combo guard makes it to finals in a couple years.

Can you name these players??

I can't for the life of me remember who we traded for Terry, but I'm guessing it was Walker

chumdawg · 01-22-2007, 03:21 AM

The crux of my argument is to wonder why teams insist on dollar-for-dollar in terms of player ability. Anyone in his right mind would have given Dampier for Nash way back when. And evidently that trade is just what Dallas needed.

So why don't more teams do this? Was it just that Dallas had so many assets available?