Rumor: Oakley to Dallas - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

NYMavFan · 07-17-2002, 08:47 PM

Link

<< Charles Oakley is rumored to Dallas… >>

thoughts?

Murphy3 · 07-17-2002, 08:51 PM

i could handle that..

the mavs would be left with
oakley
russell (pending)
dirk
nash
fin
najera
nve
raef
griffin
bradley
esch
aj (maybe)
wang (maybe)
taw
wang (possibly)

am i forgetting anyone?

NYMavFan · 07-17-2002, 08:55 PM

2 wangs? not bad...

Base Line Guy · 07-17-2002, 09:10 PM

Mna, if I had 2 Wangs, just think how much the ladies would dig me!!!!

BLG

MavKikiNYC · 07-17-2002, 09:34 PM

<< Link

<< Charles Oakley is rumored to Dallas… >>

thoughts? >>

Been singing this signing since before the trading deadline.

Mavs with Miller (Brad) and Oakley would've been a very different looking team.

Murphy3 · 07-17-2002, 09:40 PM

well...give or take a wang... or two

foglemann · 07-17-2002, 10:17 PM

Nice post base line

DirkNash1341 · 07-18-2002, 12:15 AM

I'd be very happy with this signing.

David · 07-18-2002, 05:43 AM

I don't think Oakley has it any more. It would be a complete waste. He USED to rebound and play defense. In my opinion, if they sign Oakley, they are signing a statue. The Mavs need to sign someone of some use, who can move a little bit. If they had signed him 10 years ago, yes, now, it's too late. His ship has sailed.

MavKikiNYC · 07-18-2002, 07:44 AM

Disagree about Oakley's utility, David. I think they could very possibly get 8-10 mpg out of him as an inside presence that will smack anything that comes by him in a different colored jersey. That's the extent of the contribution that I'd expect from him, and he definitely has that left in him. His signing would be as much about bringing a tougher mentality as anything else, and while he's not the 40 mpg banging/shot-blocking/insider scorer the team needs, he can still be useful.

They're low expectations, but they're MY expectations.

Dooby · 07-18-2002, 07:46 AM

I don't see what has changed since last Spring. Nellie and Cubes flat out dismissed the notion of Oakley playing here. I think it was a good idea then and a good idea now. But I don't see how Nellie and Cuban have seen the light.

seelenjaeger · 07-18-2002, 08:11 AM

Signing Oakley would be a great thing if there was anyone around who can takeover his position in the future and learn while playing alongside him ... he won´t be wasted since most of the roster guys added this summer won´t get too much PT either, but I kinda wonder if 15 mins per game Oakley will be enough for both sides ... maybe he´ll just end up like Manning.

jacktruth · 07-18-2002, 08:34 AM

I think Oak could contribute here. He has a lot of experience. I don't think it is fair to compare him to Manning. Manning is smart, but he is soft and always has been. Soft players don't get tougher. Tough players like Oakley don't get softer, they just play less. I think he is more than capable of 10 MPG.

Plus, he's a great mentor for Najera.

TheKid · 07-18-2002, 09:04 AM

If they were to get Oak for cheap, I see NOTHING wrong with this signing.. It's no risk.. They got Manning for virtually nothing last year and he didn't work out so they let him go and the Mavs didn't take a big hit. They could sign Oak to a one year deal and see what happens... I think he would definately help.. Also the thought that he doesn't play defense as well as he use to or rebound as well as he use to, well maybe that's true but even with his diminished skills if he were to come here, he automatically would be the BEST LOW post defender and the teams second best rebounder.. So what does that say about our front line if he's bad??? I say SIGN HIM...

seelenjaeger · 07-18-2002, 09:44 AM

sure sign him!

and bring in some young raw banger who could take oakley as his menthor [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

David · 07-18-2002, 05:18 PM

I, also, didn't like his attitude with Chicago last year. He could have helped those young guys develop but he chose to be a contrary element. He is old, slow AND has a bad attitude.

Murphy3 · 07-18-2002, 06:58 PM

well.. i think it would be impossible for a vet like oakley to not have a piss poor attitude in a horrible situation like chicago. i'd probably hang myself if i had to play for the Jerry's

MavKikiNYC · 07-19-2002, 08:26 AM

I'm all for an Oak signing because it would make KT a totally superflous and unnecessary signing, and the Mavs could focus on dealing NVE for something they really need.

TheKid · 07-19-2002, 08:39 AM

Mavs Kiki, you are thinking along the same lines I'm thinking.

Murphy3 · 07-19-2002, 08:50 AM

KT would provide much more than Oakley would.

i think i'm thinking along the same lines as norm.. sounds good to me

TheKid · 07-19-2002, 10:18 AM

The reason I like the Oakley acquisition more than Thomas is because I see it less of a risk signing a free agent then trading away something. If you sign a free agent and he doesn't work out, if you sign for the right price it doesn't have ANY effect on you.(ie: Danny Manning) However when you trade and it doesn't work out you feel the effects more and you second guess yourself (ie: Juwan Howard for Christian Laettner, Hubie and etc.)

Murphy3 · 07-19-2002, 10:30 AM

you're trading away a guy that doesn't fit the mavs needs for a guy that fits the mavs needs at center and a guy that can play 10-15 minutes of backup PG without a problem

much of the reason ward has a bad rap is because of his shooting..not his ability to play the point

TheKid · 07-19-2002, 10:45 AM

yeah and what I'm saying is if you bring in a guy via free agency who can still give you the same rebounding, the same defensive presense (KT is better offensively but that's not even necessary in this situation) and you still have a "capable" back up point guard, I think it's a better move because you save money more than likely and NOW you have NVE that you can STILL use for trade bait.

Murphy3 · 07-19-2002, 10:47 AM

i don't think you're going to get that out of oakley or anyone else the mavs could bring in via free agency.

TheKid · 07-19-2002, 10:55 AM

I can't get rebounding and defense.. He gives that... People laugh but look at Toronto once he was taken out of their front line mix... They suffered.. Like I said, he's not the answer but he gives the front line some toughness and rebounding for sure, he's smart and he knows the game AND his limitations which is the MOST important.

MavKikiNYC · 07-19-2002, 10:56 AM

KT is even less of a center than LaF.

If anyone thinks you can successfully masquerade KT as a center, even in a league where there's only Shaq as a center...well, you're probably interviewing as Laydown's assistant as I type this.

Hoopsmeister · 07-19-2002, 11:06 AM

My main concern about Oakley is the same as I have about Russell and that is that if we bring them in we will find ourselves in the same situation we were in with Manning and Hardaway last year. Maybe I'm wrong, and if Oakley can give us what he gave Toronto (which will be 2 years ago when next season starts) then I like the signing. I'm just wary of continually bringing in guys who are past their prime.

MavKikiNYC · 07-19-2002, 11:22 AM

True, Hoops. And I will be equally concerned if I get the sense that the Mavs are considering Oakley for a major role. He is NOT the answer in the middle. But that's not at all the role I would see for him. He's a tertiary contributor, at most...strictly situational. But I also think that playing and practicing with him will make players like Nájera and maybe LaF somewhat tougher, and maybe he'll even throttle a little passion into Mantis.

And maybe, just maybe, if things are close against the Lakers.....well, I'm not saying that Oak has Shaq's number, but he knows the area code, and he's figured out the exchange.

Murphy3 · 07-19-2002, 11:23 AM

thekid, if the mavs aren't going to make any other moves to bolster the front line..then you take what you can get and at that point i would take Oakley

I share the same concerns as hoops...can the guy still play? does his legs have enough in them? is he too old?

However, I would quickly take KT if that deal was made

With KT and Raef at the 5-4 spots, i believe the mavs would quickly become a much better team on the interior

mpb319 · 07-19-2002, 11:28 AM

Yeah Oak has his way with O'neal...but he might get LaFrentz killed. In Chicago Oak was doing the majority of the pushing and fouling and Shaq went and tried to kill Brad Miller...he wanted NO PART of the OAKTREE. I was also for Dallas trying to get Oak here last season...sure he is past his prime...but he doesn't back down from s#it. That kind of toughness on the Mavs would be most welcome. If the contract is right and the role is clear and understood by him then I say its a "NO BRAINER"....just do it!

Just211 · 07-19-2002, 11:31 AM

i agree KT over Oak any day, I see what ya'll are saying that it is more of a risk to trade for someone than to just take a flyer on Oak, but I don't see Oak as that good of a player.
As for Kt having more offense and it not being necesarry in this case, it's totally necesarry. If it wasn't We'd just stick with Najera. Whoever we bring in has to rebound, but they have to hit the open jumper when necessary, KT can do that, Oakley isn't as consistant with his jumper.

MavKikiNYC · 07-19-2002, 11:31 AM

<< Yeah Oak has his way with O'neal...but he might get LaFrentz killed. >>

Damn. Was my plan that transparent?

TheKid · 07-19-2002, 11:44 AM

My main concern about Oakley is the same as I have about Russell and that is that if we bring them in we will find ourselves in the same situation we were in with Manning and Hardaway last year. Maybe I'm wrong, and if Oakley can give us what he gave Toronto (which will be 2 years ago when next season starts) then I like the signing. I'm just wary of continually bringing in guys who are past their prime.

I think this was already answered, but I would say the same thing. Oakley wouldn't be asked to be a major contributor here. He would be more of a role player and less would be asked out of him. We actually looked to Hardaway for offense and we looked to Manning for that front line presence and he didn't give it.. We looked to Manning to give us something, he NEVER really did in his entire career, I think that was problem there. Oakley has ALWAYS been a role player. That's the reason I think he's been able to play so long.

i agree KT over Oak any day, I see what ya'll are saying that it is more of a risk to trade for someone than to just take a flyer on Oak, but I don't see Oak as that good of a player.

Oakley might be one of the most consistent 15-20 foot jumpshooters in the league... KT is better offensively because he has more offensive ability, but Oakley can stick the open jumper.. Now he has NO low post game and KT does.. However Oakley will NOT be asked to post anyone up here.

FilthyFinMavs · 07-19-2002, 11:45 AM

l

<< I'm all for an Oak signing because it would make KT a totally superflous and unnecessary signing, and the Mavs could focus on dealing NVE for something they really need. >>

I agree with this statement. If Oak isnt the answer then KT definaetly isnt. I havent seen Oaky play in awhilie so I dont know if he sitll has it last time I saw him was in the playoffs with the Raptors and I also saw the game they had on WGN with the Bulls. From what I saw by only one game Oakley still has it. When u have scorers like Finley Dirk and Nash Raef on a lineup Oak wont be noticed at all and can bang and leave open shots for Raef or the BIG 3. Im all for it especially if we sign him to the deal we gave Manning. Oak maybe old but I think he can teach Raef and Bradely alot about inside game.

Murphy3 · 07-19-2002, 12:11 PM

of course the mavs wouldn't expect Oakley to play KT minutes.. which is why i'd like to have KT here.. because that's what we need.. 25 minutes or so from a player like KT. not 8-10 minutes from oakley..

however, like i've said.. if the mavs aren't going to make any other moves, then bringing in Oakley is fine with me

TheKid · 07-19-2002, 12:35 PM

Just my opinion, I think Oak could give the Mavs 20-25 minutes a game...

David · 07-19-2002, 06:20 PM

The difference in Thomas and Oakley is that Thomas can still play. Oakley would just keep Bradley company at the end of the bench. I think I'd ask Shawn how he gets along with Oakley before I signed Charles, because they would be spending a lot of time together. I used to like Oakley, in the olden days, when he could still play.

Murphy3 · 07-19-2002, 06:45 PM

i'm not convinced that oakley can't play.. i think he might have a little something left..but not near as much as what KT offers.. i can't see Oakley coming in and logging the type of minutes that the mavs would need out of a banger...

KT would be able to play the needed minutes...another thing, he would help to minimize the amount of foul trouble that Raef was in as well

FilthyFinMavs · 07-19-2002, 11:22 PM

<< i'm not convinced that oakley can't play.. i think he might have a little something left..but not near as much as what KT offers.. i can't see Oakley coming in and logging the type of minutes that the mavs would need out of a banger...

KT would be able to play the needed minutes...another thing, he would help to minimize the amount of foul trouble that Raef was in as well >>

Well IMO I dont think Kurt is the answer to the Mavs problems. If we are gonna trade NVE I think we should go another route thats better than a Kurt Thomas like a Brian Grant or get Dale Davis out of the shit he is in now or I would love Antonio Davis but I think its impossible to get him. I can name abotu 5 guys that would benefit us more than kurt will and can. Im not in for trading Nick as of right now but if a deal came with a Dale Davis or Brian Grant or anyone of there caliber came involved then I would do it. But I would want to see how the Nick thing turns out. I dont think giving guys 40 games a season is fair enough to judge how htey will be for this team.