What happened 2big Man?? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

bcrav4 · 02-04-2004, 12:08 AM

Did Dallas just give up searching for a big man b/c they got scott williams??? According to cbs sportsline.com we barely have a top 50 center in shawn bradley. btw williams is #51.

Are there any new articles on the subject? I'm scared b/c shaq, kg, and duncan, are all gonna bring their game to the playoff level real soon!!!!!!!

Sportsline Link

Max Power · 02-04-2004, 12:18 AM

What big man is available? I'm sure the Mavs would love to acquire another big man but they won't overpay for another Eschmeyer type.

MavsFanFinley · 02-04-2004, 12:45 AM

What big man is available that won't cost the Mavs an arm and a leg? Don't forget it has to be a big man that Nelson will use. And let's not forget that the league isn't exactly overflowing with Shaq/Duncan/KG stoppers.

I'm sure the Mavs tried for one of those cheaper big men but teams were not biting for whatever reason. The Mavs are lucky to have picked up Williams for peanuts and for a short-term stint.

The Mavs will gladly go to bat with Bradley/Williams/Fortson as the 3 headed monster in the middle with Dirk filling in when necessary for this season. You can bet they'll more aggressive in the off-season, especially if we make an early exit.

XERXES · 02-04-2004, 11:23 AM

Good post, MFF.

There's an article in ESPN Insider (I'm feeling too lazy to post it) this morning about how so many teams consider themselves playoff contenders that phone calls for trades have "slowed to a trickle." It goes on to say that very few teams are going to have a "fire sale" (Atlanta, Philly, Golden State, and CHicago) and almost every other team is trying to make a trade (young talent or expiring contracts) with those teams.

The fact is we really don't have any expiring contracts (since including CHris Mills contract in the Boston trade) but we do have young talent. A deal with any of those teams would probably have to include Josh Howard. Would you be willing to do that?

I like Howard...but we wouldn't have been able to build this current roster without including Donnell Harvery, Courtney Alexander, and Etan Thomas in packages...

Food for thought, I guess...

bcrav4 · 02-04-2004, 12:39 PM

A Feb. 4, 2004 Seattle article states that the following the big men are still available.

Are the mavs (still) interested in:
Shareef Abdur-Rahim,
Eddy Curry,
Tyson Chandler,
Rasheed Wallace,
Michael Olowokandi or
Scot Pollard

????
Seattle Article

grndmstr_c · 02-04-2004, 01:00 PM

Well, first off, cbs.sportline's player rankings should be regarded with some skepticism. Bradley's as low as 50th because of his low playing time and the questionable and (to my knowledge) unpublished idiosyncracies of their statistical weightings. As for Williams, only time will tell, but after last night I'll say that I'm comfortable with him. He's not a complete player, but he was cheap, and he looks to me to be exactly the kind of guy who would have given us fits on the inside, which means he should fit a need pretty well. Like Fortson with a couple inches, a jumper, and better defense. And Nellie might actually play him. I'd still consider trades for guys like SAR or Sheed, probably for Walker, who's dismal +/- continues to amaze me.

Jamisonite · 02-04-2004, 02:05 PM

Williams is great for this year...but thats just it...this year...we need to make a move for the future...i dunno how many times i have to say that

Poindexter Einstein · 02-04-2004, 02:33 PM

BCRAV .... the only ones on that list I would consider would be one of the young Chicago Cs, or maybe Pollard.

WIth Chicago, I would try to get one of the two plus A Davis and give up Walker and Delk.

For Pollard, I dont think there is a good salary match. I doubt they would want TAW.

uberfan · 02-04-2004, 05:48 PM

Quote:

For Pollard, I dont think there is a good salary match. I doubt they would want TAW.

Fortson for Pollard works straight up. At least Fortson would give them some toughness in the paint and Pollard gives us some height.

I can't figure out what is wrong with Pollard this year, why he can't get on the court.

MikeB · 02-04-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Jamisonite
Williams is great for this year...but thats just it...this year...we need to make a move for the future...i dunno how many times i have to say that

This is very true Jamisonite. We do not have a big man for the future and unless we sign someone like Vranes and stow him on the IL for a year or two(like we are intending on doing with Steffansson) then we won't ever get one. We are trying to win now and have a team that with a little more in the middle may be able to do somethings come playoff time. I don't advocate trading Walker for an unproven big man just to do it...I actually like what Walker sometimes brings to the table. Now if we we're able to drop Delk or Fortson or TAW on Washington for Haywood and a bad contract or two then I say GO FOR IT...but I don't see that happening. This is the team for the rest of the season with the addition of Williams that we will take to the playoffs...unless we get a Helluva sweetheart deal that we can't resist.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-05-2004, 02:39 AM

I still think the way to go is to target A Davis + Curry (or Chandler), from Chicago. No doubt they would love to move Davis cause of his bloated multi-year deal, and they are said to be open to moving Curry (or Chandler) "in the right deal." Would "getting rid of Davis' contract" plus getting a bonafide all-star qualify as the right deal?

Davis could help the Mavs now, ala S Williams, as a vet big man. Curry (or Chandler) could be groomed for the future.

Offer Walker + Delk. That gives Chicago a bonafide star in Walker, plus a serviceable vet in Delk, and neither has a killer contract. Adding Delk could give Chi the flexibility to trade Crawford (as they have seemed to want to do) for someone that they like, without being short at the G position.

This deal works just as well in the summer, too, if they want to keep from messing with the team again during the season.

Jamisonite · 02-05-2004, 12:28 PM

With your trade the only problem is it creates too much of a log jam at center....im not really for this deal but this would fix that

Chicago trades: PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 13.8 minutes)
C Eddy Curry (13.0 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.8 apg in 27.6 minutes)
SG Jamal Crawford (17.2 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 5.5 apg in 34.8 minutes)
PF Antonio Davis (8.7 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 1.6 apg in 32.2 minutes)
Chicago receives: PF Antoine Walker (15.9 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 5.3 apg in 37.8 minutes)
PF Danny Fortson (3.7 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 0.1 apg in 11.7 minutes)
PF Melvin Ely (4.1 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.1 minutes)
PF Predrag Drobnjak (4.1 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.1 minutes)
SG Marko Jaric (9.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 4.4 apg in 29.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -12.7 ppg, -2.0 rpg, and +1.5 apg.

Dallas trades: PF Antoine Walker (15.9 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 5.3 apg in 37.8 minutes)
PF Danny Fortson (3.7 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 0.1 apg in 11.7 minutes)
Dallas receives: C Eddy Curry (13.0 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.8 apg in 42 games)
PF Antonio Davis (8.7 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 1.6 apg in 48 games)
Change in team outlook: +2.1 ppg, +1.1 rpg, and -3.0 apg.

L.A. Clippers trades: PF Melvin Ely (4.1 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.1 minutes)
PF Predrag Drobnjak (4.1 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.1 minutes)
SG Marko Jaric (9.0 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 4.4 apg in 29.3 minutes)
L.A. Clippers receives: PF Marcus Fizer (6.5 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.9 apg in 29 games)
SG Jamal Crawford (17.2 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 5.5 apg in 47 games)
Change in team outlook: +10.6 ppg, +0.9 rpg, and +1.5 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

MightyToine · 02-05-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
I still think the way to go is to target A Davis + Curry (or Chandler), from Chicago. No doubt they would love to move Davis cause of his bloated multi-year deal, and they are said to be open to moving Curry (or Chandler) "in the right deal." Would "getting rid of Davis' contract" plus getting a bonafide all-star qualify as the right deal?

Davis could help the Mavs now, ala S Williams, as a vet big man. Curry (or Chandler) could be groomed for the future.

Offer Walker + Delk. That gives Chicago a bonafide star in Walker, plus a serviceable vet in Delk, and neither has a killer contract. Adding Delk could give Chi the flexibility to trade Crawford (as they have seemed to want to do) for someone that they like, without being short at the G position.

This deal works just as well in the summer, too, if they want to keep from messing with the team again during the season.

I got news for all of you... Walker is NOT a bonafide all-star. Just because he is a 3-time allstar in the EAST(where there is a real shortage of good big men there), doesn't make him Karl Malone. Walker is what he is : A Versatile, multi-talented foward who has the potential to be a SUPER-SUB/ROLEPLAYER on this Mavs team. That would be a huge mistake for Chicago if they did this trade. Remember also that Curry has been having BACK Issues (Raef LaFrentz revisited, anyone?) while Walker has missed only 7 GAMES in his Entire Career thus far.

Keep Walker. Re-sign him to a lower-priced but longer-termed deal next offseason('cause you know there's no way in hell he is going to just give up 14 million) and all will be right with the world.

Jamisonite · 02-05-2004, 03:23 PM

Im not for the trade i proposed MT...im just saying thats mroe likely than PEs idea

Poindexter Einstein · 02-05-2004, 04:58 PM

MT .... ummmmm it is Chandler having back problems not Curry, isnt it?

And you said that Walker is an all-star "in the East" - but, isnt that where Chicago plays???? Walker (with one other player) carried the Celts to the playoffs. Right now Chi is mired in mediocrity. Seems like a plus trade for them, and also they arent stuck with any long-term contracts to do the deal. They get rid of Davis' bloated contract, too.

Jamisonite ...I think that Chicago would prefer Delk over Fortson, due to contracts. And having "too many" Cs will solve itself - Fortson is sized better at PF, and Williams will be gone at season's end.

LRB · 02-05-2004, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
I still think the way to go is to target A Davis + Curry (or Chandler), from Chicago. No doubt they would love to move Davis cause of his bloated multi-year deal, and they are said to be open to moving Curry (or Chandler) "in the right deal." Would "getting rid of Davis' contract" plus getting a bonafide all-star qualify as the right deal?

Davis could help the Mavs now, ala S Williams, as a vet big man. Curry (or Chandler) could be groomed for the future.

Offer Walker + Delk. That gives Chicago a bonafide star in Walker, plus a serviceable vet in Delk, and neither has a killer contract. Adding Delk could give Chi the flexibility to trade Crawford (as they have seemed to want to do) for someone that they like, without being short at the G position.

This deal works just as well in the summer, too, if they want to keep from messing with the team again during the season.

If Chicago would bite on this I'd do the trade. We get help both short term and long term.

MightyToine · 02-07-2004, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
MT .... ummmmm it is Chandler having back problems not Curry, isnt it?

Was it Chandler? My bad. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]

Quote:

And you said that Walker is an all-star "in the East" - but, isnt that where Chicago plays????

What's your point?

Quote:

Walker (with one other player) carried the Celts to the playoffs.

WRONG! You got that backwards. Paul Pierce(with one other player....Antoine-something or other) Carried the Celtics to the playoffs, not just Antoine. He would help here and there but it was all about Pierce. Remember that before Pierce arrived(drafted), Walker could not take his team back to the playoffs.

Quote:

Right now Chi is mired in mediocrity. Seems like a plus trade for them, and also they arent stuck with any long-term contracts to do the deal. They get rid of Davis' bloated contract, too.

Chicago may be mired in mediocrity but that doesn't mean that they would be hell-bent on getting Walker.....

Poindexter Einstein · 02-07-2004, 01:19 PM

MT ... Walker was an All-Star talent in the East. Put him on a team with less talent, and there is no reason to think he wont stand out again in that conference.

"He would help here and there but it was all about Pierce," you say? Total hogwash. As to Pierce and Walker and who was the most vital, it wasnt Pierce alone with Walker tagging along, as you assert. Nor vice versa. It was a 2 player show, which is what it would take in Chi - but Walker could be one of the 2. Right now they need that badly.

Yes Walker was there in Bos a year or 2 before Pierce arrived. But they didnt instantly improve once Pierce was added. In fact, when they added Pierce, their record went DOWN for several years! Walker alone had them to 36 wins the year prior to Pierce. With Pierce, they logged "equivalent of 31" (adjusted by percentage for shortened season, actual number was 19), 35, and then 36. And the Celts certainly have dropped off once Walker was gone.

It was the existence of BOTH - of two All-stars together - that made the Celts a factor.

Pierce's numbers have declined without Walker on the team (rather than increase, even though he now has more opportunity) and of course the Celts record is way worse.

Jamisonite · 02-07-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
Jamisonite ...I think that Chicago would prefer Delk over Fortson, due to contracts. And having "too many" Cs will solve itself - Fortson is sized better at PF, and Williams will be gone at season's end.

that has nothing to do with why they make the trade....chicago makes it cuz they get Jaric and Ely(2 guys they covet)