Milwaukee trade

[grndmstr_c]

This probably isn't my first choice, but I'm curious to see what kind of a reaction this one gets from the board and whether y'all think Milwaukee would do it:

Dallas trades: Antoine Walker
Dallas receives: Keith Van Horn and Dan Gadzuric

Those who have a bad reaction to this are probably focusing on the same thing that concerns me about it - no way Nellie would be able to resist the temptation to play AJ, KVH, and Dirk together in the front court, hence we might be doomed to a repeat of this year's failure. Here are my caveats, though: 1) KVH can knock down three pointers at a rate considerably higher than Antoine Walker, 2) Nellie would never try to get KVH to be a point forward, 3) I like Gadzuric - he plays with Najera-like hustle, but he's a better shotblocker and rebounder than Eddie will ever be.

Milwaukee does it to save the 15.7 million KVH is due in 05/06 and kick start their rebuilding process a year early. Don't know if that would be enough, but there you have it.

[kg_veteran]

I'd make that trade, but I think that Van Horn creates yet another logjam.

[ddh33]

It's not my favorite, but I would do it. I guess that tells you how I feel about Walker's impact on this team.

I would still much rather avoid that logjam at the forward position and move Walker out for a more legit center.

[madape]

I like Van Horn, but this probably isn't a deal the Mavericks or the Bucks would make.

[dirno2000]

I wouldn't do it. We already have enough scoring forwards and it would probably cut into Howard's time because you have to get Van Horn and Jamison on the floor.

Gadzuric could help us in spots, but getting Van Horn makes it harder to play him since it would probably mean more time at center for Dirk.

[dalmations202]

I'd do it. I'd still be looking to move a forward though. I think Van Horn could be a good 6th man. I just don't see him starting, and don't like the idea of Dirk having to move to C when Nellie plays KVH, Dirk, and Jamison

[grndmstr_c]

Let's assume for a minute that Milwaukee was on board with this trade. Then, how would you feel about turning it into a three-way with JHo going to Washington in exchange for Haywood (I realize it's debatable whether the Wizards would go for it, but I feel confident they'd at least think about it). That would give us the following lineup:

C - Haywood, Bradley, Gadzuric
PF - Dirk, KVH
SF - AJ, KVH
SG - Fin, Quis
PG - Nash, Quis

Factor in a third, preferrably defensively solid PG for insurance, and then Eddie and TAW filling out the 12 man roster, with Fortson and Delk going to the IL. That would be a very deep and positionally well balanced team. Plenty of height, rebounding, shotblocking, fouls to give, and efficient, if not go-to offense out of the center position. Four legit three point threats who can all be on the floor at the same time. Unsurpassed offense out of your starters at 1-4, a very nice two-way combo guard coming off the bench, one hell of a combo forward in Van Horn, and a couple defense first guys in TAW and Eddie to round it out.

[mavsman55]

We'd have to hope that Van Horn would have the same attitude about coming off the bench as Jamison did. But what does Walker have that you can't find in the combination of Van Horn/Gadzuric? This would work out well for us but I would have to decline if I were Milwaukee.

[ddh33]

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c
Let's assume for a minute that Milwaukee was on board with this trade. Then, how would you feel about turning it into a three-way with JHo going to Washington in exchange for Haywood (I realize it's debatable whether the Wizards would go for it, but I feel confident they'd at least think about it). That would give us the following lineup:

C - Haywood, Bradley, Gadzuric
PF - Dirk, KVH
SF - AJ, KVH
SG - Fin, Quis
PG - Nash, Quis

Factor in a third, preferrably defensively solid PG for insurance, and then Eddie and TAW filling out the 12 man roster, with Fortson and Delk going to the IL. That would be a very deep and positionally well balanced team. Plenty of height, rebounding, shotblocking, fouls to give, and efficient, if not go-to offense out of the center position. Four legit three point threats who can all be on the floor at the same time. Unsurpassed offense out of your starters at 1-4, a very nice two-way combo guard coming off the bench, one hell of a combo forward in Van Horn, and a couple defense first guys in TAW and Eddie to round it out.

No way do I deal a versatile young kid with potential for a young big man who has underacheived on every level. There is a reason Haywood was called "Brenda" in college and couldn't get consistent minutes in Washington. Howard is better already and will continue to get better.

[grndmstr_c]

No way do I deal a versatile young kid with potential for a young big man who has underacheived on every level. There is a reason Haywood was called "Brenda" in college and couldn't get consistent minutes in Washington. Howard is better already and will continue to get better.

Two things: 1) there are no guarantees concerning JHo's potential; he and Haywood are separated in age by only 5 months, so it doesn't make just a whole lot of sense to proclaim that Howard has room to improve and Haywood doesn't, and 2) you're selling Haywood's performance short. His PER (Hollinger's efficiency-like formula) comapres very favorably with other centers out there (and is a bit better than Howard's), and he's got a solid +/- (in this case he ranks a little behind Howard in Rosenbaum's recently published analyses). Bottom line, though, is that with or without the Milwaukee trade this team needs a C, even if it means taking a slight hit in the talent deaprtment. I'd be reluctant to go for my suggested Haywood trade without the Milwaukee trade accompanying it (and in fact the salaries don't work if it's just a two team deal), but as a pair, I like the lineup it would give us.

[ddh33]

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

Two things: 1) there are no guarantees concerning JHo's potential; he and Haywood are separated in age by only 5 months, so it doesn't make just a whole lot of sense to proclaim that Howard has room to improve and Haywood doesn't, and 2) you're selling Haywood's performance short. His PER (Hollinger's efficiency-like formula) comapres very favorably with other centers out there (and is a bit better than Howard's), and he's got a solid +/- (in this case he ranks a little behind Howard in Rosenbaum's recently published analyses). Bottom line, though, is that with or without the Milwaukee trade this team needs a C, even if it means taking a slight hit in the talent deaprtment. I'd be reluctant to go for my suggested Haywood trade without the Milwaukee trade accompanying it (and in fact the salaries don't work if it's just a two team deal), but as a pair, I like the lineup it would give us.

I'm not arguing about the age here. But it is interesting that Howard did more in his rookie season than Haywood has consistently done over his first three years. I think Haywood is a little but of an underacheiver. I watched him struggle at Carolina when he was being guarded by players much smaller than him. In contrast, I watched Howard overacheive and become a star at Wake. I just think that Howard has a better chance of becoming a good player at this level than Haywood does.

You bring up some +/- ratings to support Haywood, but I am always skeptical of those stats. They have players like Evan Eschmeyer, Austin Croshere, and others near the top. i just don't think it is a safe indicator of talent.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Mavs need a center. I would even be willing to take a chance on Haywood, even after all that I've said. There is always a chance that he finally gets it one day. I'm just saying that I wouldn't use Howard as the bait. And if it takes Josh to get him, then I would pass...

[grndmstr_c]

At the risk of getting into a debate over the reliability of +/- stats, as long as you have a large enough sample size - and I'd argue 3,410 minutes over two seasons (Rosenbaum's analysis takes the last two years into account and that's how many minutes Haywood has played in that time) is an acceptable sample size - they're going to give you good data. Only really wacky and uneven use of a player in terms of when and with whom he sees the floor will undermine the statistic. I'm not aware that that's happened with Haywood, but in fairness I haven't watched a whole lot of Wizards games (and thank god for that) so I may just be unaware of something odd that's influencing his stats. All I know is that I've seen some potential from him, and statistically (which if you don't watch a guy play on a regular basis is the best way to evaluate him) he looks solid from most angles. Just out of curiosity, ddh, if the Mavs did pull off the Milwaukee trade, what would you see as the best course of action - roll with the resulting forward logjam and hope Van Horn/Gadzuric could be more succesful than Toine? Or trade one of the forwards - and if so whom, and for whom?

[ddh33]

I wouldn't make the Milwaukee deal unless I had to. Like you said, it just causes a logjam up front. The only reason I would do that deal is because I am desperate for this team to rid themselves of Walker. I don't think he fits. I also like the potential of Gadzuric. At worst, he's an athletic big guy who gives good effort.

I understand that Haywood is a way that somewhat clears that logjam, but I would rather keep Josh and move Van Horn in that scenario. Like I said, it's just too much work. That's why I don't really like this trade as much as others. I would do it if I had to, but I don't think the Mavs will have to.