Cuban 1on1

[some1nw]

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/maver...te-of-the-mavs

Thought this might answer some of your questions guys

[marc9211]

Originally Posted by some1nw

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/maver...te-of-the-mavs

Thought this might answer some of your questions guys

That's a really good article... Good to hear about Brandon Wright not that I had any doubts. Really good insight.

[dude1394]

The beginning of we are better off without Howard spin?

"On where things are now with the two-year plan:

"I think we’ve put ourselves in a spot where we’re in a better spot than we were at if we got just the one max-out deal. I think it’d be better shorter term and longer-term. I don’t want to make that sound the wrong way. I think we’ll be better this year because we added five good players or more."

[Murphy3]

Yeah, I noticed that dude... so why waste two years of Dirk?.. so the Mavs could have a shot at Calderon and Ellis?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The beginning of we are better off without Howard spin?

"On where things are now with the two-year plan:

"I think we’ve put ourselves in a spot where we’re in a better spot than we were at if we got just the one max-out deal. I think it’d be better shorter term and longer-term. I don’t want to make that sound the wrong way. I think we’ll be better this year because we added five good players or more."

Well, we are better THIS YEAR by adding five players instead of just one - Dirk, Dwight and nothing wouldn't have done much... But long term? Yeah, we would have definitely been much, much better if we landed Howard.

And it's not like Ellis is a terrible consolation prize - efficiency aside, Dirk hasn't played with a scorer like him since 03-04 Finley.

Calderon was a smart grab too (although, admittedly, he would've looked a helluva lot smarter next to Dirk/Dwight).

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Yeah, I noticed that dude... so why waste two years of Dirk?.. so the Mavs could have a shot at Calderon and Ellis?

That's an odd way of looking at it... They had a shot at Deron, Paul and Dwight, but came up short. Calderon and Ellis were never the target - they were the fallback.

Risk nothing, gain nothing. Just because the gamble didn't pay off doesn't mean it wasn't worth taking.

[dude1394]

Risked A LOT. Gained nothing.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Risked A LOT. Gained nothing.

That's our fault for winning a ring right before a lockout - everyone's value skyrocketed at the worst time.

Wouldn't give the ring back to do it all over though.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The beginning of we are better off without Howard spin?

"On where things are now with the two-year plan:

"I think we’ve put ourselves in a spot where we’re in a better spot than we were at if we got just the one max-out deal. I think it’d be better shorter term and longer-term. I don’t want to make that sound the wrong way. I think we’ll be better this year because we added five good players or more."

And isn't this exactly why a DWill or Howard didn't come because they agree with Cuban about adding five or more players versus just one?

[Dirk's Knee]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Yeah, I noticed that dude... so why waste two years of Dirk?.. so the Mavs could have a shot at Calderon and Ellis?

2 years wasted: 1 shortened season in which Dirk came back out of shape and pit up some bad numbers early and a second in which he missed significant time due to an injury. But sure Cuban wasted it. I'm sure Jet and Barea would've carried us last season when Dirk was out...

[dirt_dobber]

Originally Posted by Underdog

And it's not like Ellis is a terrible consolation prize - efficiency aside, Dirk hasn't played with a scorer like him since 03-04 Finley.

this is what makes me excited for the coming season - Training camp starts Oct.6th

[moogle]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The beginning of we are better off without Howard spin?

Mark Cuban never said that about Howard. He explicitly said "we were disappointed we didn’t get Dwight". How much clearer does he need to get?

What Cuban did say is that "we’re in a better spot than we were at if we got just the one max-out deal". Presumably, that one max deal refers to guys like Andrew Iguodala and Josh Smith. A lot of people assumed the Mavs will blow their cap room on one of the other "max" guys as a fall back plan to Dwight.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by moogle

Mark Cuban never said that about Howard. He explicitly said "we were disappointed we didn’t get Dwight". How much clearer does he need to get?

What Cuban did say is that "we’re in a better spot than we were at if we got just the one max-out deal". Presumably, that one max deal refers to guys like Andrew Iguodala and Josh Smith. A lot of people assumed the Mavs will blow their cap room on one of the other "max" guys as a fall back plan to Dwight.

It's clear from the context of the quote (and from having talked to BG about this conversation) that Cuban was primarily--if not entirely--referring to Howard when he said "the one max-out deal."

I believe in Cuban's business savvy and his general philosophy, but I will say candidly, this annual "we're better off without the guy we tried to get" isn't a good look for him. There is a way to remain positive and communicate the same idea without saying something so ridiculous. Don't make it comparative--just say "We feel we're in a great spot with the players we got."

[Erod]

Not sure if I've ever seen so much egg on a single person's face.

Back-to-back "Bay of Pigs" offseasons in a row.

[dirt_dobber]

--Originally Posted by LonghornDub - Don't make it comparative--just say "We feel we're in a great spot with the players we got."

that would be the classy way to say it. Somthing MC struggles with sometimes.

[moogle]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

It's clear from the context of the quote (and from having talked to BG about this conversation) that Cuban was primarily--if not entirely--referring to Howard when he said "the one max-out deal."

I disagree. That max player comment was immediately followed by an explicit admission by Cuban that he was "disappointed" he failed to sign Dwight. Dude1394 presented Mark Cuban's quotation out of context. The actual interview went like this:

1. Cuban says he "took a chance" on Dwight but couldn't make it happen.

2. Cuban comments on Mavs' current situation by saying many players > 1 max player

3. Cuban again says he's disappointed he failed to sign Dwight.

I think it's pretty obvious that Cuban's max player comment was referring to the Mavs' remaining options after Dwight had already rejected them. I don't think he was even thinking of Dwight as an available option at that point. Why else would he repeat his disappointment in landing Dwight before and after the max player comment? Here is the entire section of the interview, if you want to see it in the proper context:

On the Mavs' results in free agency:
"Obviously, we didn’t get Dwight. We took a chance and it didn’t happen. I think we put together a really good team. It sticks within the culture we’ve tried to define. We’ve dealt with some of the weakness we had from last year. Hopefully, if we stay healthy, good things will happen."


On where things are now with the two-year plan:
"I think we’ve put ourselves in a spot where we’re in a better spot than we were at if we got just the one max-out deal. I think it’d be better shorter term and longer-term. I don’t want to make that sound the wrong way. I think we’ll be better this year because we added five good players or more."


On adjusting on the fly this offseason:
"You guys like to make a big deal about it. Obviously, we were disappointed we didn’t get Dwight, but we pretty much got everything else we wanted to get and then some. Much more. We never thought we’d be able to get Monta. It turned into a good summer. Now, the key is to get everybody playing together, get everyone healthy, keep them healthy and go."

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by moogle

I disagree. That max player comment was immediately followed by an explicit admission by Cuban that he was "disappointed" he failed to sign Dwight. Dude1394 presented Mark Cuban's quotation out of context. The actual interview went like this:

1. Cuban says he "took a chance" on Dwight but couldn't make it happen.

2. Cuban comments on Mavs' current situation by saying many players > 1 max player

3. Cuban again says he's disappointed he failed to sign Dwight.

I think it's pretty obvious that Cuban's max player comment was referring to the Mavs' remaining options after Dwight had already rejected them. I don't think he was even thinking of Dwight as an available option at that point. Why else would he repeat his disappointment in landing Dwight before and after the max player comment? Here is the entire section of the interview, if you want to see it in the proper context:

Bro, I talked to the guy who had this conversation with him. The guy who sat face to face with Cuban during this conversation and asked the questions.

It was about Dwight. He repeated his disappointment to hedge, like most people do when analyzing issues from multiple angles.

*edit to add* I do appreciate, though, that you're trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's a much better approach than what a lot of folks do when it comes to these things.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Of course Cuban is referring to Howard, and it does send a somewhat mixed message. Like Longhorn said, there are better ways of putting a positive spin on something.

[nowhereman]

Originally Posted by Underdog

That's an odd way of looking at it... They had a shot at Deron, Paul and Dwight, but came up short. Calderon and Ellis were never the target - they were the fallback.

I don't know that they were the fallback so much as they just happened to be there (especially Ellis) when we tried to pick up the pieces.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Bro, I talked to the guy who had this conversation with him. The guy who sat face to face with Cuban during this conversation and asked the questions.

It was about Dwight. He repeated his disappointment to hedge, like most people do when analyzing issues from multiple angles.

*edit to add* I do appreciate, though, that you're trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's a much better approach than what a lot of folks do when it comes to these things.

But then he slams poor old dude for taking it out of context. .

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

I don't know that they were the fallback so much as they just happened to be there (especially Ellis) when we tried to pick up the pieces.

We tried to trade for Calderon last season, so I don't know how you could view him as less than a fallback... Hell, all signs indicate that we would've made a run for him even if we had landed Dwight Howard.

And I have no idea where Ellis ranked in our offseason plans, but a ton of writers pegged him as the Mavs #1 fallback plan if/when we missed out on Paul and Howard.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by Underdog

We tried to trade for Calderon last season, so I don't know how you could view him as less than a fallback... Hell, all signs indicate that we would've made a run for him even if we had landed Dwight Howard.

And I have no idea where Ellis ranked in our offseason plans, but a ton of writers pegged him as the Mavs #1 fallback plan if/when we missed out on Paul and Howard.

You're overthinking it. The key is to automatically drag whatever the FO does through a pasture full of shit first and ask quest... scratch that. Just do the first part. And something, something, Chandler. The end.

[yahyes]

Mavs are better off in a way. During this long ordeal of Dwight creating an circus. Cuban just didn't come out looking like the desperate one. There wasn't anything to lose for us. Mostly Dwight just saying "no". The real losers in this are the Lakers for investing so much into him. But nothing in return.

[rabbitproof]

Been riding Cuban pretty hard the last couple days but all in all, still have to thank him for getting Dirk a ring and keeping him a Mav. Weird to see Pierce as a Net today.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Been riding Cuban pretty hard the last couple days but all in all, still have to thank him for getting Dirk a ring and keeping him a Mav. Weird to see Pierce as a Net today.

Yeah EXACTLY. For all of the pro tankers...just look at Boston. They are a Wiggins team that somehow have Gerald Wallace and his horrid contract instead of a perennial playoff team. The logic of tanking is swell as long as you're willing to risk losing the fanbase in the process.

[He15man]

At the end of the day our finals run was due in part to Dirk catching fire at the right time.

Outside of Tyson Chandler, none of those guys we lost were that big

We brought Terry, Kidd, and Marion back and that didn't get us much, Dallas went 41-35 or something like that, would Chandler have given us another 20+ wins and another run to the title? Unlikely.

Miami is a better team now than the one we faced and they have been the past couple seasons.

Dallas wouldn't have repeated and keeping Chandler at his price tag was a risky gamble but outside of that we didn't lose anybody big.

I honestly don't believe that even with Tyson Chandler we would have defended our title, especially against the Heat.

Had Dallas not won a ring and dismantled that team what would you guys be saying right now? "Those guys were getting old, Tyson wanted too much money and we need a star for the future".

Stevenson, Peja, Cardinal, JJB,Brewer good role players but not stars.

The only "asset" we lost off that squad was Tyson, that's it.

[dude1394]

Here we go again and again and again.

Once it became obvious that the Mavs were not interested in defending their title that team was gone. Tyson, jjb, desean, brewer. The rest knew they were gone next year as well.

It was the stupidest most arrogant front office screw up in nba history.

It cheapened the title and gave legs to this type of post and opinion.

Originally Posted by He15man

At the end of the day our finals run was due in part to Dirk catching fire at the right time.

Outside of Tyson Chandler, none of those guys we lost were that big

We brought Terry, Kidd, and Marion back and that didn't get us much, Dallas went 41-35 or something like that, would Chandler have given us another 20+ wins and another run to the title? Unlikely.

Miami is a better team now than the one we faced and they have been the past couple seasons.

Dallas wouldn't have repeated and keeping Chandler at his price tag was a risky gamble but outside of that we didn't lose anybody big.

I honestly don't believe that even with Tyson Chandler we would have defended our title, especially against the Heat.

Had Dallas not won a ring and dismantled that team what would you guys be saying right now? "Those guys were getting old, Tyson wanted too much money and we need a star for the future".

Stevenson, Peja, Cardinal, JJB,Brewer good role players but not stars.

The only "asset" we lost off that squad was Tyson, that's it.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Here we go again and again and again.

Once it became obvious that the Mavs were not interested in defending their title that team was gone. Tyson, jjb, desean, brewer. The rest knew they were gone next year as well.

It was the stupidest most arrogant front office screw up in nba history.

It cheapened the title and gave legs to this type of post and opinion.

Not sure how it cheapened the title. I'd argue it made the title even more special. We never had to watch that team lose (which they would have, had they stayed together much longer). That squad is undefeated and unblemished in the playoffs, forever. I rather like that.

[dude1394]

I think it cheapened the title because they did not have a chance to show what a great team it was.

It is now perceived as a one hit wonder that just got lucky.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think it cheapened the title because they did not have a chance to show what a great team it was.

It is now perceived as a one hit wonder that just got lucky.

And how would it have been perceived if they had brought the team back and lost in the playoffs the following 2-3 years?

[dude1394]

Well assuming they did, certainly not less than they are perceived now. Unless it was a sweep and a lottery team like the last two years.

I expect they would have made the wcf the next year. And would have had a good chance to get to the finals again. Spurs/thunder didn't put that much fear into me in 2012.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think it cheapened the title because they did not have a chance to show what a great team it was.

It is now perceived as a one hit wonder that just got lucky.

They did show what a great team they were when they won the title. If that wasn't enough to convince someone of how great that team was, or how legendary Dirk is and always has been, that someone isn't worth worrying about

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I expect they would have made the wcf the next year. And would have had a good chance to get to the finals again. Spurs/thunder didn't put that much fear into me in 2012.

That's the fundamental problem with your argument. Always has been.

[Melonhead]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well assuming they did, certainly not less than they are perceived now. Unless it was a sweep and a lottery team like the last two years.

I expect they would have made the wcf the next year. And would have had a good chance to get to the finals again. Spurs/thunder didn't put that much fear into me in 2012.

Assuming we got to face spurs/thunder in 2012, I agree. Western conference was up for grabs.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

They did show what a great team they were when they won the title. If that wasn't enough to convince someone of how great that team was, or how legendary Dirk is and always has been, that someone isn't worth worrying about

You don't have to convince me how good the team was but perceptions are perceptions. You cannot tell me that winning b2b wouldn't have cemented that teams legacy..

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

That's the fundamental problem with your argument. Always has been.

Oh so you also think they were a lucky one hit wonder?

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Oh so you also think they were a lucky one hit wonder?

Age, dude. Age and wear and tear.

[oilfieldtrash]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Age, dude. Age and wear and tear.

So you wanted to blow it completely up including Dirk?

If Dirk's getting old regardless wouldn't you want a defensive poy center next to him to finish his career?

[oilfieldtrash]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Oh so you also think they were a lucky one hit wonder?

Lucky? No. Likely to repeat? No.
They peaked at the right time. If they were all a couple years younger then they repeat.

[Five-ofan]

We are the only team to ever beat Lebron with anything other than an absolute pile of dogshit as his help. That proves how great that team was