the mavericks biggest problem - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Murphy3 · 05-07-2003, 10:00 AM

the top 7 players on the team are all average to below average man to man defenders at best.

grbh · 05-07-2003, 10:05 AM

Agreed, and you can't hide that in a zone against the Kings

TheKid · 05-07-2003, 10:06 AM

Agreed....

However this I do know, people are really going crazy too early. People it's ONE GAME... Granted the Mavs looked bad lastnight but the Kings looked exceptionally good too. Do I think the Kings will shoot that well the remainder of the series, NO.. If they do, give them the championship NOW... Some of it had to do with defense but the other stuff had to do with the fact that the Kings were ON FIRE lastnight.

Now do the Mavs have to play better defense, HELL YES.. They have to give more time to Raja Bell and Griffin. While Neither are defensive stallworths, they just work harder on the defensive end and if they foul out, who cares. If we go down 2-0 in Dallas, then I would worry, but if we win Thursday then steal a game in Sacramento the series is even and the Mavs still have home court advantage.

Usually Lurkin · 05-07-2003, 10:06 AM

the mavs biggest assett:
the top 4 players are above to very much above average offensive players.

It seems we can't really blame Nellie's great plan for our recent losses. Nellie's plan seems to be to have 5-7 players who are very much above average offensive players. Only then could we say "screw defense"

ariosto · 05-07-2003, 10:08 AM

I totally agree. In another thread, I just said that we need at least 2 guys in the rotation that are solid defenders. Remember, the Kings were a terrible defensive team a couple of years ago, before Christie and Jackson were part of their regular rotation. With Christie and Jackson on the perimeter, and Divac inside, they have become a top defensive team. Maybe not great-- but good enough that they can beat most teams with their offense and still keep from getting ripped up on the other end. We can do the same with a couple of good players.

How are we going to get them? I have some ideas, but I'm going to wait until the off-season before talking about it. I don't expect to win the series against the Kings, for the reason Murph stated above. But I'm still going to root for them while they are in it.

Go Mavs!

Murphy3 · 05-07-2003, 10:09 AM

<< It seems we can't really blame Nellie's great plan for our recent losses. Nellie's plan seems to be to have 5-7 players who are very much above average offensive players. Only then could we say "screw defense" >>

UL, is that a sound basketball theory? I really cannot see how you can argue that it is.

and thekid, the mavs can still get back in the series. Do i expect the mavs to win? No, I do not. Why? Because the kings are the better team. This is why i picked them to win before the series started. But, I do expect the mavs to come back and win a couple of games

Usually Lurkin · 05-07-2003, 10:22 AM

<<

<< It seems we can't really blame Nellie's great plan for our recent losses. Nellie's plan seems to be to have 5-7 players who are very much above average offensive players. Only then could we say "screw defense" >>

UL, is that a sound basketball theory? I really cannot see how you can argue that it is. >>

I wouldn't say it is. But I wouldn't say Nellie is sound, either. This is a valid 'out' for him, however. His plan has not been implemented. Partly due to Raef's and Rigadau's and Williams' offensive impotences. They've been down too much to say they've performed as expected.

Personally, I think if we hit on all cylinders like the Kings did last night, this series is a toss up. I don't think the kings have enough to keep the mavs from hitting. Only the mavs do. They've come up short mentally.

I also think it'd be better to put more emphasis on traditional man to man defense. Can Fin be convinced to be a defensive player again? With enough minutes to possibly improve, would Bradley or TAW or Bell move into the top 5-7 based on defensive skills? I'd rather do that than trade, whether it be for more defense or offense.

seelenjaeger · 05-07-2003, 10:45 AM

Having our guys exposed is directly connected to the Kings motion offense. The offensive guy is ALWAYS having an advantage about almost any defender in the league if he gets the ball while he is moving AND has alot of space to move.

The Kings were excellent in making the passes to get their offensive guys in a position where the defender was either isolated against his guy (making it impossible to get control of him) or completely open, because his defender had to switch in order to help out.

If your offense is clicking that way, any team will have troubles making stops.

Possible ways back in those games:

- run with them and hope that they start missing shots.
- do some hard fouls and hope they get intimidated.
- try to slow the game down immediately and make it a half court game.

The third option wasn´t possible, because we cannot play the half court game ourselves.
The second option wasn´t possible, because we don´t have the guys and it´s not our style.
The first option failed last night.

How to prevent this situation again?

Trade for better defenders? Maybe. But I think it´s far easier to defend the passing lanes better and force them into non-moving 1-on-1 situations. If we can stop them from moving the ball, and match up with our mediocre defenders, I don´t think we´ll have too much of a problem. Our defenders will get burned every now and then, but as long as we force them to take mid-range jumpers with someone sticking a hand into their face (not even great defense making it a bad shot - would be great just to make it an "okay" shot) we´ll do fine.

A side note:

The top 4 teams in the West (and the League) are where they are because NO ONE can stop them if they are on fire. Yesterday it was the Kings. That´s why they are considered a contender. Time to show them why we are.

Murphy3 · 05-07-2003, 11:43 AM

personally, UL, it is nearly difficult to have 5-7 offensive players that will consistantly contribute unless some of the bottom on the list will get there looks via dirty work.

and nellie could add two more scorers and it won't make a bit of difference unless they can significantly help on the defensive end.

there are only so many shots to go around..the more scorers on the team, but more likely that the person that needs the ball the most will get the short end of the stick in shot attempts in lieu of some other less efficient/effective option getting their attempts

mavsfanforever · 05-07-2003, 01:36 PM

Finley used to be pretty good defender till he understood Nellie's strategy.

Murphy3 · 05-07-2003, 04:02 PM

is it nellie's strategy to let the other team score two quickly so that the mavs can go down and score three?

i wouldn't be surprised...actually, judging by his personnel moves throughout his tenure with the mavs, i would say that I might be on to something

MavsFanatik33 · 05-07-2003, 05:45 PM

I agree with THE KID!
Kings will never play THAT good this series and mavs will never play that bad. They deny our passes and we're gonna have to respect that. Michael Finley I thought had a big problem getting his passes by the King defenders. Najera,Griffin, and Bell need more minutes. Also, if all else fails...give the ball to Dirk.
P.S- How come Van Exel is so good in the postseason and Nash isn't?
-Nate The Great

David · 05-07-2003, 08:27 PM

<< is it nellie's strategy to let the other team score two quickly so that the mavs can go down and score three?

i wouldn't be surprised...actually, judging by his personnel moves throughout his tenure with the mavs, i would say that I might be on to something >>

Speculation with no basis in fact.

Murphy3 · 05-07-2003, 09:18 PM

david, i was joking... get with it

David · 05-08-2003, 05:59 AM

<< david, i was joking... get with it >>

It was hard to tell since your "jokes" are EXACTLY LIKE your usual anti-Nelson blather. It's the type of thing that's a joke, only if someone calls you on it.

TheKid · 05-08-2003, 09:54 AM

David,

I know you're a fan of Nellie's but really, he's been here long enough and there really hasn't been that much change. For instance, when Adelman went to Sacramento, there's been NOTICEABLE improvement each year. They've made acquisitions to ADDRESS their problems each year and each year they've advanced further and further. What has happened with the Mavericks? The Mavericks have needed rebounding and defense EVERY YEAR, and what have we acquired, MORE SCORERS! Well Nellie ball is very entertaining we have not advanced anymore than we have two years ago. Two years ago to beat Utah and move on was great. Then we expected to atleast get to the conference finals last year, it didn't happen a loss in the second round because of pathetic defense. We still have yet to see what happens this year, but if we don't advance, I'm sorry, I'm all for Nellie getting the boot.

David · 05-08-2003, 12:48 PM

<< David,

I know you're a fan of Nellie's but really, he's been here long enough and there really hasn't been that much change. For instance, when Adelman went to Sacramento, there's been NOTICEABLE improvement each year. They've made acquisitions to ADDRESS their problems each year and each year they've advanced further and further. What has happened with the Mavericks? The Mavericks have needed rebounding and defense EVERY YEAR, and what have we acquired, MORE SCORERS! Well Nellie ball is very entertaining we have not advanced anymore than we have two years ago. Two years ago to beat Utah and move on was great. Then we expected to atleast get to the conference finals last year, it didn't happen a loss in the second round because of pathetic defense. We still have yet to see what happens this year, but if we don't advance, I'm sorry, I'm all for Nellie getting the boot. >>

I think everyone is entitled to expect whatever they want. Personally, I don't think the Mavs should go from making the playoffs for the first time in 10 years, one year, and then should advance past the best team in the league the next year. This year, it's the same deal. Eveyone says the Kings improved when they got Clark and JJ but we all know there were reasons why they shouldn't be in Dallas.

The Mavs need rebounding, sure, but we all know who the Mavs persued instead of rebounders. Was it Nellie's fault or was he getting his instructions from his boss?

I think that Mavs fans should learn from the Doug Melvin scenario. Melvin brought success to the Rangers for the first time in team history, while slowly rebuilding the farm system, just as he built a successful farm system in New York.

He followed his bosses instructions, because of budget, and traded Juan Gonzalez. His boss went behind his back and busted the budget and signed ARod. Then Melvin got fired because the farm system didn't have enough prospects. What happened last year? The prospects, that weren't supposed to be there, started coming of age. Where is Melvin? He will be doing a great job for the Brewers, short order. Given time to let his program develop, the Rangers would have built a strong foundation for many years. Instead, the Rangers go in one direction a couple of years. Change ideas and then go in another direction and on and on. Just like the Mavs did before Nelson got here.

Have you noticed the upward swing since Nelson got here or are you only paying attention to a few losses that have soured you on Nelson to the point that you can't see the forest for the trees? This team still won 60 this year, despite no off-season improvements. If the GM is doing poorly, the coach is surely doing great, considering all the down-sides people see in this roster. League-wide, the Mavs are considered a top 4 team in the NBA. Contrast that to before Nelson got here and fast-forward to the team we have now. It's quite a difference.

TheKid · 05-08-2003, 01:20 PM

Well it's hard to compare baseball to basketball because there are far more facets of the game in baseball than basketball. Also you HAVE a farm system where you can develope your players until you feel they are ready.

Also you say it like Nelson has only been here for two or three years, however he's been in Dallas for 5 and 1/2 years. That's right TWO FULL seasons they flat out sucked where he spent building this team. He did a fine job but his philosophies didn't work.

I'll use the example of the Tampa Bucaneers. Dungy built that team and was a fine coach. He just didn't have what it took to get them over the hump, he did GREAT in his four or five year tenure with winning but just couldn't get over that hill. Insert a coach who has a little more fire in his belly and the FIRST YEAR they win it all.. That's not taking anything away from Dungy because he is responsible for that teams makeup, however he just didn't have enough to get them to the promise land.

I think that is what's going on here. I'm not trying to bash Nelson in anyway here, (well maybe a little) but it's time for him to sit down. I said it LAST YEAR and I'll say it again. As a Dallas fan am I greatful for what he's done, YES but move on now.

David · 05-08-2003, 01:41 PM

The Mavs are still on the upswing. We are not looking at the finished product. It's all about growing as a team and learning from mistakes. If you bring in a coach with a radically different approach, the learning curve starts all over. The team will STILL need to play defense or wholesale trades will need to be made to bring in defensive players. That will mean starting in a new direction and more growing pains and learning curves with the new group. That will mean there will STILL be no instant gratification, like the impatient are wanting, RIGHT NOW. Either way, it's going to take TIME.

LRB · 05-08-2003, 02:32 PM

<< The Mavs are still on the upswing. >>

They sure don't appear to be. They finished the season much weaker than they did last year. They blew a much bigger lead to SA to lose the division than they did last year. They struggled much more to close out a team in the 1st round than they did last year. And they appear to be headed for the same sort of 2nd round failure as last year. Just because the won a couple of more games than last year in the regular season does not mean that over all this team is on the up swing. I've seen this team steadily regress throughout the season. Something has to be done soon to fix it or it'll be several extra years just to try and get back to this point.

MavKikiNYC · 05-08-2003, 02:52 PM

<< The Mavs are still on the upswing. We are not looking at the finished product. It's all about growing as a team and learning from mistakes. If you bring in a coach with a radically different approach, the learning curve starts all over. The team will STILL need to play defense or wholesale trades will need to be made to bring in defensive players. That will mean starting in a new direction and more growing pains and learning curves with the new group. That will mean there will STILL be no instant gratification, like the impatient are wanting, RIGHT NOW. Either way, it's going to take TIME. >>

I disagree, David. It's not the fact that they're not winning NOW, that frustrates me; I'd be perfectly willing to watch the right mix of players, in the right system become seasoned and grow into a championship contender.

The issues, as I see them, are that: 1) Nellie the GM isn't acquiring players that Nellie the Coach can win a championship with; and 2) Nellie the Coach isn't developing a style of play that makes the team a more likely contender.

In fact, somewhat the opposite is occuring--Nellie the GM pursues players that make the Mavs even MORE imbalanced as an all-Offense team; and for the second year in a row, it's becoming painfully apparent that the Mavericks' shoot-out/defense-lite style of play does not wear well in the playoffs. They can overcome middle-of-the-pack temas like the Jazz, the T-Wolves, and the Blazers, even though the superior athleticism and physical style of play of the latter caused the Mavericks more problems than most people would've anticipated, in this, a 60-win year.

Bottom line, it's not so much the fans' impatience for winning in the short-term, as much as it's Nellie's intransigence on developing a championship-contending style of play, and finding players who can execute it that has people ready to willing to see him replaced. And it will make me feel bad to see him leave the team he built behind.

seelenjaeger · 05-08-2003, 03:01 PM

All season I hear the "this is Dirk´s team" song.

He has to take more shots, he has to accept that this is his team, he is the leader, Nelson has
to adjust to this, blah blah.

Now that it is Dirk´s team, he´s getting all the shots, the recognition and we have become a one-man show most of the nights, and suddenly we´re on the decline. Just because we won a couple of games more, just because we finished tied for best record, just because we made drastic improvement in pts against and almost any defensive category, just because there was not the slightest doubt about us making the playoffs, getting homecourt, ... just because that our team is better?

Maybe it´s the constant disrupting of everything that the Mavs do, or don´t, the demand to blow the team at the trade deadline, after the critizism the year before, when the team WAS changed at the trade deadline, maybe all that nit-picking about Nellie, Cuban, our roster, maybe all of this is the real problem.

How about trading all those doubters in the fans for guys willing to support their team when it´s needed and wait with critizing until it´s time for critic, and see what happens next?

If perception is about expectation, which it is in most cases, won´t you agree that you have to change your expectation first?

While everyone was cheering, and beeing confident about the powers and strengths of our team and Coaches, they kept winning. When the journalists, Cubans personnell policy and the Fans started getting into the heads of our guys, we started losing. Why not trade THEM?

MavKikiNYC · 05-08-2003, 03:29 PM

No. The team isn't better.

And, no. <<Maybe it´s the constant disrupting of everything that the Mavs do, or don´t, the demand to blow the team at the trade deadline, after the critizism the year before, when the team WAS changed at the trade deadline, maybe all that nit-picking about Nellie, Cuban, our roster,...>> isn't the problem either.

It's system. And personnel.

seelenjaeger · 05-08-2003, 03:34 PM

Why not wait until the off season to rip them then? Its June till October, plenty of time. Until we´re out, I´m supporting them, and I´m defending them.

TheKid · 05-08-2003, 03:43 PM

No one said they're not going to support them... However pointing out someones faults does not mean you're going to fault them. If you had a brother who was going to fight Mike Tyson (unless your brother was Lenox Lewis) you would be scared as hell and tell your brother all the things he NEEDS to do to win, if he wasn't doing it from what you've seen, you would call him on it regardless if it was a day before the fight. However when he got in the ring, you would route your ass off for him to win. So pointing out the MAVS flaws and what they need to improve on is NOT in any way going against them and not supporting them, it's simply pointing out things that are BLATANTLY wrong.

You're right on one point, they needed to see where the players were an entire year. They have now, they've seen what the team has done for an entire year and guess what, THE SYSTEM after an entire year and players that have been in the system for a year and a HALF still are struggling with it.

If the Mavericks go on to get into the conference finals and challenge whomever seriously for that series, I'll tell you what, I'll eat crow but unless that happens, I'm sorry, it's time for Nellie to GO!!!

seelenjaeger · 05-08-2003, 03:57 PM

Kid - I do agree. But well, Nellie responded to the critic on the system. The main problem, at the moment, with Finley and others, is, imho, that this change was made around the All-Star game and takes time. Some of those problems now blamed on Nellie for NOT changing the system are, again imho, part of Nellie indeed changing the system. The tension between Nellie and Fin is a prime example.

Then again - we don´t we wait until ... in 2, 3, 5 weeks?

Dooby · 05-08-2003, 04:05 PM

<< The Mavs are still on the upswing. >>

The only upswing is the belief that Dirk will continue to improve. While, I agree Dirk will improve, you can't hang your hat on that alone. There isn't a single player other than Dirk that I have any faith in improving at all. The only possible exceptions are Raef and Najera. Raef's game has stagnated, possibly regressed. Najera may improve, but if he does, I suspect his talent stays the same while his basketball IQ increases. Nash is as good as he will ever be; Finley is as good as he will ever be; Bradley is as good as he will ever be; Nick is as good as he will ever be; anybody else even on this team? Bell? AJ? Rigado? Esch? Wahed? Walt? Popeye?

TheKid · 05-08-2003, 04:11 PM

Seleen,

Last year I wasn't happy about Nellie coming back but when he did, I said to myself, "well maybe it may take another year to develop." At the beginning of the year I thought, "Ok we have something here." Then I thought about our 14-0 record and thought about that streak and realized only a handful of those teams are in the playoffs now that we beat. That's when I realized, we didn't do ANYTHING to beat the teams that count. Yes we improved our defense (that zone) to defend every team but the one that truly torched us last year in Sacramento. Now I'm not really talking about game 1 because like I said, I truly can't see Sac being that hot again. However when they're not hot, let's just say they only shot 45%. The fact is they got TOO MANY EASY SHOTS. If the Mavs took more pride in their defense this year (As they've said so many times UNDER NELLIE THEY WOULD) there is no way in the world that team or any team for that matter should get as many easy shots as they do.

That's why my problem comes in. If we have so much talent as I'm always hearing, then why is it taking so long to develop. We have a team of VETERANS, not young people, VETS who all have NBA and Playoff experience. Not to mention a veteran coaching staff too. Nellie has been in Dallas since 97 and have had the Big three for Three FULL seasons now and this particular group (with the exception of Williams, Bell, Jones and Rigs) for a year and a half. How much more time is really necessary to wait?

Look at the Lakers prior to these championships? The last two years, they've changed the makeup of their team but they've still won. The Bulls dynasty, they did the same thing. The difference was ONE factor, DEFENSE and the coaches that taught it. There has NEVER and I mean NEVER been a team to win a championship that didn't count on defense. Until that philosophy is instilled nothing will happen.

MavKikiNYC · 05-08-2003, 04:16 PM

<< Why not wait until the off season to rip them then? >>

Because they deserve it now.

seelenjaeger · 05-08-2003, 05:12 PM

TheKid - I am not jumping on you in particular, since your points are very well chosen and to a certain degree very clear.

About the Kings and us not improving. The Kings were the best team in the NBA last year. They improved this year (with adding yet more depth), and deserve to be the favourites on this years title alongside San Antonio (they only lack experience to be considered equal imho). Are we the better team than Sac-To ... I do join Nellie here. We CAN beat them, we have all the weapons we need, but - from a GM point of view - I´d say that they are the better overall construct.

It´s the Karl Malone / Patrick Ewing problem - you can be with one of the most dominant teams of the 90ies and still finish without a ring, if there´s still that one team beeing better.

Do I want to end us like Karl Malone? Well, it´s an improvement above our abysmal records in the 90ies, but it´s not satisfying.

Now we come to the critical point - is our player personnel able to do the change to another system without losing even more ground to the Kings?

I don´t know if any of us can answer this question, simply because if you´d knew this this would be a very rich man.

Should Nellie leave as GM if he is not our coach is another question. Nellie is not that bad of a GM if he can work close with a coach he repects. And he knows so many of the guys out there, he can judge on their personalities and intangibles. Give him props for what he achieved, and don´t judge too early about his failings.

Having the best road record in the league for the 2nd consecutive year doesn´t come out of nothing. If the Kings are our Doom, so be it. Is this worth taking a risk like we want to? Not sure. And it´s nothing to be decided now.

David · 05-08-2003, 05:58 PM

This stuff about Nelson not going after the right players; he can go after any player he wants. That player has to be available and willing to play for the available money. Keon Clark? Pot bust at the wrong time. There was the disruption of team chemistry to worry about. JJ? Been there, done that.

This off-season there was the timing issue. The Mavs waited for a free agent who wasn't going to sign with them. Was that Nelson's call? It didn't appear to be. It took up the exception and cost the possibilities of Donyell Marshall and Harpring, provided they were WILLING to sign with the Mavs for the money available, not a given.

The Redd situation. An offer was made to a player who would have improved the team. It would have cost the Mavs double the contract amount to bring him in. The money was matched. The players signed later were the players available at the time.

Barring a major trade, on the heals of a major mid-season trade, the moves made were the ones available. The talk was giving NVE and Raef a chance to mesh with the team for a year without major moves. It made sense at the time.

LRB · 05-08-2003, 06:54 PM

<< There was the disruption of team chemistry to worry about. JJ? Been there, done that. >>

Of course we sooooooooo much better off with Rigadeau that Jim Jackson. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

FilthyFinMavs · 05-08-2003, 07:05 PM

A big problem of ours is that yes are top 7 players are average and below when it comes to defending. Our biggest problem is that our superstar can't play D and that hurts.

Fidel · 05-08-2003, 07:48 PM

<< Our biggest problem is that our superstar can't play D and that hurts. >>

He´s not any worse than most guys on the roster. The problem is that our team is unbalanced. All offense no defense. Especially when your main guy is no defensive standout you´ve got to surround him with at least two capable defenders in the lineup at allmost every given moment in the game. One of these two could even be a defensive specialist. The other Mavs would still have enough firepower.

FilthyFinMavs · 05-08-2003, 08:24 PM

<<

<< Our biggest problem is that our superstar can't play D and that hurts. >>

He´s not any worse than most guys on the roster. The problem is that our team is unbalanced. All offense no defense. Especially when your main guy is no defensive standout you´ve got to surround him with at least two capable defenders in the lineup at allmost every given moment in the game. One of these two could even be a defensive specialist. The other Mavs would still have enough firepower. >>

It's not about who about who plays the worst defense. If you look at other superstars like KG, Kobe, AI or Duncan with the exception of Duncan thsoe guys do not have any defensive standouts but are known as pretty good defenders. I'm sorry but a defensive standout will not improve Dirk's defense anymore than it is. It's going to have to come from him and I believe thats one of our biggest problems. Another problem is our team can't play D but that doesn't stop other superstars in this league.

ariosto · 05-08-2003, 08:53 PM

<<

<< Our biggest problem is that our superstar can't play D and that hurts. >>

He´s not any worse than most guys on the roster. The problem is that our team is unbalanced. All offense no defense. Especially when your main guy is no defensive standout you´ve got to surround him with at least two capable defenders in the lineup at allmost every given moment in the game. One of these two could even be a defensive specialist. The other Mavs would still have enough firepower. >>

I agree with this. The reason a lot of us complain about Nellie's GMing is this: he did a spectacular job in getting 4 all-star quality players with very little to work with. But he got 4 all-star players that all do the same thing! That left us with possibly the most talent in the league but one or two steps behind other teams with more balanced rosters. We have 3 20-point scorers in the back-court, and fantastic offensive forward in the front-court, and two almost completely vacant positions at the 3 and the 5. Contrast this with the Spurs, who have only one all-star, but a solid 7 or 8 man rotation that covers all the team needs: rebounding, perimeter defense, low-post defense, outside shooting, low-post scoring, ball-handling and athleticism.

David · 05-08-2003, 11:44 PM

<<

<< There was the disruption of team chemistry to worry about. JJ? Been there, done that. >>

Of course we sooooooooo much better off with Rigadeau that Jim Jackson. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img] >>

Of course, no one said that, but you. I was talking about the best players available. Rigadeau was worth a shot and he didn't cost very much. Had he been as advertise, as he was overseas, then the Mavs got a bargain. I'm sure your friends were impressed by your comment.

LRB · 05-08-2003, 11:52 PM

<< I'm sure your friends were impressed by your comment. >>

Actually my friends could give a rat's ass about my comments. And anyone who is my friend just because of my comments and for no other reason, I don't consider much of a friend.

Rig was a bad risk. We would have been much safer and better off getting Jimmy Jackson. If we had done this not only would we not have a good athletic player, but the Kings would have one less. Rig is worthless. Yeah he didn't cost that much in money, but he cost a lot in opportunity. Rig cost us the opportunity to get someone who could contribute in the playoffs.

FilthyFinMavs · 05-08-2003, 11:57 PM

<<

<< I'm sure your friends were impressed by your comment. >>

Actually my friends could give a rat's ass about my comments. And anyone who is my friend just because of my comments and for no other reason, I don't consider much of a friend.

Rig was a bad risk. We would have been much safer and better off getting Jimmy Jackson. If we had done this not only would we not have a good athletic player, but the Kings would have one less. Rig is worthless. Yeah he didn't cost that much in money, but he cost a lot in opportunity. Rig cost us the opportunity to get someone who could contribute in the playoffs. >>

I think Jim is taking minutes from guys like Hedo and Pollard and I do not mind that one bit since those 2 guys have killed us in the past. I think with the Kings you have a team with great chemistry. While the Mavs who may have great chemistry could get effected by a guy like JJ. I don't think it makes a difference because if we would've took Rig instead of him he more than likely would be in Rig's place. Though JJ is a better player than Griff, Raja and TAW, he is still a risk and I don't mind passing him up for those 3 guys.

David · 05-09-2003, 12:14 AM

Rigadeau had a long, successful career in Europe and he was signed AFTER JJ was signed by the Kings. It was worth a shot. JJ had been in Dallas and traded, by Nelson. He has been an NBA vagabond, for a reason. Congratulations to him if he has matured enough to not be a cancer.