Recap: The entertainment of the Josh Howard Contract thread - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 10-11-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokey41

You know one thing I dont get is this assumption that 'kids' dont know a damn thing about basketball. This argument pisses me off to no end, how does being younger dimiss anyones basketball knowledge? An eighteen year old could have been following the sport since five years old in contrast to a thirty year old following it for two years. It has no merit and this guy has brought the term up enough for me to say something. It's faulty logic, how can you justify it?

The point is being older definitely doesnt make you wiser, it just makes you bitter for young people who also happen to be smarter! I think the Josh Howard contract thread is enough evidence to back me up on this one.

You could be a basketball coaching savant for all we know. Are you?

fluid.forty.one · 10-11-2006, 07:00 PM

Comparing Dirk/Howard to Kobe/Shaq and Tmac/Yao is VASTLY overrating Josh Howard.

Let's do this...

Dirk = our mvp. Tmac = rockets mvp
Howard = our mip. Yao = rockets mip

Why have we gotten to the finals and they haven't (even 2005 when they were both healthy?)? I mean Dirk and Tmac would just cancel each other out, so wouldnt Yao dominate Howard and make Rockets the better team?

No. You know why? Cause there are about 9 other important pieces to the team. That's why it's a team sport, and that's why kobe will never win another ring. This whole topic is stupid.

jthig32 · 10-11-2006, 07:05 PM

*Sigh* This discussion gives me such tired head.

Yes, Jordan would not have won the titles had he had Courtney Alexander playing Small Forward instead of Scottie Pippen.

But, in my opinion there were several other players that played during that time that could've take Pippen's place, and the Bulls would've been at least close to equally successful.

Now, do the same thing with Jordan. Replace Jordan with ANYONE in the NBA during that time. Does Pippen win a title? Probably not.

That's why this is silly. Yes Pippen was important. Yes Josh is important. But he's far more replaceable for this team than Dirk.

fluid.forty.one · 10-11-2006, 07:07 PM

Another good example is Duncan. 3 different casts, 3 different rings. Superstars win championship, a good supporting cast (meaning players 2-9 on the rotation) help.

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Another good example is Duncan. 3 different casts, 3 different rings. Superstars win championship, a good supporting cast (meaning players 2-9 on the rotation) help.

When I look at Duncan with those three different casts. Here is how I break down the MVP/MIP my version.

First title-- Robinson MVP, Duncan MIP
Second title-- Duncan MVP,Robinson MIP
Third title---Duncan MVP, Ginobili MIP

Dont get me wrong, role players play a huge role no matter what.

Show me a Superstar winning a title with just role players behind him, and not a MIP type person with him.......

But, a team full of MIP's can win a title..I would say that the last Pistons title team fit that mode..

Pirate · 10-11-2006, 07:12 PM

Inventing new and vague terminology that isnt used elsewhere in basketball discussions or in locker rooms is a total dead end. Why dont you guys abandon this MVP-MIP nonsense?

If you want to talk about the best guy on a team, and the sidekick, use Batman-Robin. They are terms that have been used widely on Mavs discussion boards and that everyone knows instantly what you mean.

Otherwise you are fated to eventually get mired again in all sorts of semantics issues over "valuable" and "important" and whatnot, every time anyone wants to join the discussion without having waded through your personal history of how you invented such terms and what in the world you mean by them.

jthig32 · 10-11-2006, 07:49 PM

Buck is guranteed, as is Benga. Buck's option year is the next year.

I noted that Devin was not guranteed. It's not even a contract. It's just a guess at the qualifying offer.

The point is pretty much moot, anyway, unless you think we're going to replace Stack, Croshere and George with league minimum players, and not resign Devin and Diop.

With Dirk and Terry, and the contract Josh is goign to get, we are never going to be under the cap.

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Buck is guranteed, as is Benga. Buck's option year is the next year.

I noted that Devin was not guranteed. It's not even a contract. It's just a guess at the qualifying offer.

The point is pretty much moot, anyway, unless you think we're going to replace Stack, Croshere and George with league minimum players, and not resign Devin and Diop.

With Dirk and Terry, and the contract Josh is goign to get, we are never going to be under the cap.

I am curious to see where Buck is guaranteed that 3rd year of his contract for that amount. Yeah, I do think that DJ is guranteed but it is not that high on the radar, I think.

The reason I think we are over now, is because we were paying two Dirk type of contracts with Finley, top that off with Bradley and a host of other contracts that were linked to us after that player left.

Plus, I think that cap space is going to go up a bit in my viewpoint.

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Buck is guranteed, as is Benga. Buck's option year is the next year.

I noted that Devin was not guranteed. It's not even a contract. It's just a guess at the qualifying offer.

The point is pretty much moot, anyway, unless you think we're going to replace Stack, Croshere and George with league minimum players, and not resign Devin and Diop.

With Dirk and Terry, and the contract Josh is goign to get, we are never going to be under the cap.

I forgot to mention my reply to your last part. Stack's salary will go down a ton, because of his age. Croshere and George will never make much. I think when it is time to re-sign Devin we will lose him or trade Terry in my opinion. As for Diop, unless Diop starts averaging 15 points a game, he wont get that huge contract.

jthig32 · 10-11-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

I forgot to mention my reply to your last part. Stack's salary will go down a ton, because of his age. Croshere and George will never make much. I think when it is time to re-sign Devin we will lose him or trade Terry in my opinion. As for Diop, unless Diop starts averaging 15 points a game, he wont get that huge contract.

We're not talking huge contracts. I'm not talking about resigning Stack and Croshere and George, I'm talking about what their replacements will make.

Dirk is 20 mil. Jet is 9, Josh will be 8 or 9, probably. That's over half the cap in three players. Add in Damp and you're almost to 50 mil in four players.

If you trade Terry when it's time to resign Devin, you still have to bring pretty much the same salary back in the trade, so how does that move us under the cap?

Yes, we have several big contracts coming off the books, but we are also WAY, WAY over the cap right now. We're still in the luxury tax.

We will never be under the cap when three players make up over half the cap.

And it has been widely reported that Bucks is a 5 year deal, with a team option for the fourth year, and a player option for the 5th year, if the 4th year option is exercised. So yes, he's guaranteed that year.

Also, if the cap goes up, then the price of mid level and low level exceptions will also go up. So I don't really think that will help us that much.

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

We're not talking huge contracts. I'm not talking about resigning Stack and Croshere and George, I'm talking about what their replacements will make.

Dirk is 20 mil. Jet is 9, Josh will be 8 or 9, probably. That's over half the cap in three players. Add in Damp and you're almost to 50 mil in four players.

If you trade Terry when it's time to resign Devin, you still have to bring pretty much the same salary back in the trade, so how does that move us under the cap?

Yes, we have several big contracts coming off the books, but we are also WAY, WAY over the cap right now. We're still in the luxury tax.

We will never be under the cap when three players make up over half the cap.

And it has been widely reported that Bucks is a 5 year deal, with a team option for the fourth year, and a player option for the 5th year, if the 4th year option is exercised. So yes, he's guaranteed that year.

Also, if the cap goes up, then the price of mid level and low level exceptions will also go up. So I don't really think that will help us that much.

I think we wont replace them, we will re-sign Stack,Croshere and Devean for the league mins or a bit more rather than bring in more salary. From what I know and from what I know with the Mavs, we are moving towards the SA salary model.

SA has this big three as well, but the key is the role player salaries. In the past we were trying to buy a title. Now, good role players will sign for cheaper to play with the Mavs. This itself in my viewpoint is how we will make cap room. I have watched a trend to where teams like SA sign great older role players to smaller contracts. I think the Mavs are going in that direction.

dude1394 · 10-11-2006, 08:30 PM

It will be quite interesting to see what happens once dirk/timmah are done. In those cases I expect the mavs/spurts will have to go bottom feeding to continue. In the NBA if you don't have a top 5 player you aren't doing squat.

It will be interesting to see what cubes does however. Another way would be to go back to spending like a banshee to get bargaining chips to get that top 5 in trades.

jthig32 · 10-11-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

I think we wont replace them, we will re-sign Stack,Croshere and Devean for the league mins or a bit more rather than bring in more salary. From what I know and from what I know with the Mavs, we are moving towards the SA salary model.

SA has this big three as well, but the key is the role player salaries. In the past we were trying to buy a title. Now, good role players will sign for cheaper to play with the Mavs. This itself in my viewpoint is how we will make cap room. I have watched a trend to where teams like SA sign great older role players to smaller contracts. I think the Mavs are going in that direction.

Well, that's going to be tough to accomplish paying Damp around 10 mil a year.

The Spurs have their big three making slightly less than what our big three will make, and their nixt highest paid player is at 5 mil. We have Damp at around 10.

Dirkadirkastan · 10-11-2006, 08:58 PM

REFS = MIPs!

dude1394 · 10-11-2006, 09:03 PM

Credit...I'm not playing anything with your words, I'm not parsing them, don't start that crap again. Here is your post.

Quote:

When I say cancel each other out, I am talking about in most games. I think that Dirk/Wade did cancel each other out in my opinion. Wade did better, but I think the main difference was Walker/Payton. W/O those two the Mavs would have won the title even with Wade's numbers. My opionion is that Howard's lack of production to back Dirk killed us.

Let me repeat

Quote:

but I think the main difference was Walker/Payton. W/O those two the Mavs would have won the title even with Wade's numbers.

Either just say that you mis-spoke or meant something different or revise your remarks but for goodness sakes quit trying to somehow refuse your own posts. You continue to make it very difficult to have a conversation with you.

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Credit...I'm not playing anything with your words, I'm not parsing them, don't start that crap again. Here is your post.

Let me repeat

Either just say that you mis-spoke or meant something different or revise your remarks but for goodness sakes quit trying to somehow refuse your own posts. You continue to make it very difficult to have a conversation with you.

Just say you dont get it....In your view of what I am saying, I would say that Wade is the reason they won a title. In my view, I am saying that the key along with Wade that most players view as key are the points that I am making..

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Credit...I'm not playing anything with your words, I'm not parsing them, don't start that crap again. Here is your post.

Let me repeat

Either just say that you mis-spoke or meant something different or revise your remarks but for goodness sakes quit trying to somehow refuse your own posts. You continue to make it very difficult to have a conversation with you.

Once again you are taking my viewpoints and arguing with it....Just because you feel Walker/Payton was not a difference maker then my viewpoint is mute! What I will do is start taking your viewpoints and if mines is different than I will just argue against you until you see it my way.

Nothing you say or do will cause me to change my mind on MY statement. There is no right or wrong in my statement. It is my view point. If you think other wise, just state your view point. It is as simple as that.

Lastly, whenever I post my view point you seem to show up on my reputation with a negative. Face it, this is not a right or wrong discussion with my view point.

dude1394 · 10-11-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Nothing you say or do will cause me to change my mind on MY statement. There is no right or wrong in my statement. It is my view point. If you think other wise, just state your view point. It is as simple as that.

Lastly, whenever I post my view point you seem to show up on my reputation with a negative. Face it, this is not a right or wrong discussion with my view point.

This is becoming painfully obvious and you are tiresome.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about with your "reputation" as I've given you 1, count them 1 neg rep. You may be delusional as well as ridiculous.

Drbio · 10-11-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is becoming painfully obvious and you are tiresome.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about with your "reputation" as I've given you 1, count them 1 neg rep. You may be delusional as well as ridiculous.

He can't escape his DNA dude.

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

REFS = MIPs!

Agreed.......

Five-ofan · 10-11-2006, 09:07 PM

See why it was a good thing i just admitted i was wrong about zito? this is why i did that. Its either, admit you were wrong, run away, just keep posting the same thing over and over even after its been proven wrong, or pull a floyd landis.

Dirkadirkastan · 10-11-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

For the record, Superstars from each team cancels out each other..Remember that....

Michael Jordan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirate

Age and exposure to the game doesnt carry with it any guarantee to insight whatsoever. You can be older and still be clueless. Even though you might even think you know it all.

Bill Walton.

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Michael Jordan?

Pippen?

Bill Walton.

Magic?

Now, what would a list look like if we looked at 15-25 ages?

Would you agree that list would alot longer?

creditXpert2003 · 10-11-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Michael Jordan?

Bill Walton.

Mendoza Boys?
Jackass Cast?
Maurice Clarett?

Dirkadirkastan · 10-11-2006, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Michael Jordan?

Bill Walton.

Mendoza Boys?
Jackass Cast?
Maurice Clarett?

I don't know what this response means, but I was wondering who ever "canceled" with Mike.

creditXpert2003 · 10-12-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I don't know what this response means, but I was wondering who ever "canceled" with Mike.

So is your point that if a Superstar does not have a so called equal, then the general statement that Superstars usally cancel each other is false?

If so, then lets here your version against the overall consenus that they usually do..

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creditXpert2003

So is your point that if a Superstar does not have a so called equal, then the general statement that Superstars usally cancel each other is false?

If so, then lets here your version against the overall consenus that they usually do..

Lebron is a superstar. AI is a superstar. They dont cancel. Dirk is a superstar. AI is a superstar, they dont cancel. There are many other examples but the problem with this theory is that if you can apply it to superstars than you can apply it to EVERY level and besides do you not understand that the mavs biggest weakness is a second star?(and a sg who deserves to start in the nba) That goes against everything you have argued about josh. Yes the mavs have a good supporting cast but the supporting cast is better than most teams 3-9 or so not at the second star level. Using your own example of Kobe, LAMAR ODOM IS BETTER THAN JOSH HOWARD so why arent they better than the mavs?

DLord · 10-11-2006, 09:46 PM

There is so much I want to weigh in on, regarding all the tax, cap, and contract issues in this thread. Unfortunately, from the angles being discussed, it would be an incredibly lengthy conversation to take things from the starting point of "hooopshype" type numbers, and get them all the way to reality.

Rest assured I dont think I am the only person that understands these things. I'm sure some of you (probably most, in fact) already "get it." But it is apparent some aren't even close, and usually trying to explain things to get the "slow children" caught up becomes problematic on many levels.

So instead, let me just make a few points rather than conduct a seminar ...
..... there is absolutely no way that Josh Howard's deal is not impacted by tax issues
..... the Mavs already are at way more than $18M for the year after Finley expires
..... note also that to focus on the currently existing number of committed dollars for a future year - whatever it may be - is stunningly naive. Such a number ignores tons of added issues that will come into play such as other players that need to be signed between now and then, cap holds for free agents, draft picks, qualifying offers, empty roster slots to be filled, and so on.
..... you aren't going to have 5-6 players on your roster when all is said and done, and you wont fill all the remaining slots with cheapies as they expire either.
..... using easy logical projections based on how the Mavs build their roster, the Mavs money for Josh Howard (once you factor in all the other issues between now and then) will have not only cap consequences but also almost certain TAX ramifications in that year and beyond. Obviously the Mavs themselves are working within the parameters of such projections. Most of you probably intuitively already comprehend this anyhow. (The fuller explanation would get very detailed and probably too technical to be readable or enjoyable to write.)

One other point needs to be made, in relation to something said in this discussion. It was stated that the Mavs are headed towards the SA financial model.
a. One who refers to such a model probably doesnt even know what the Spurs are doing financially.
b. One who refers to such a model also probably doesnt know what the Spurs have done in the past.
c. The reference to copying the Spurs' financial model sounds like a mimicking of the concept that is commonly mentioned in Dallas - that "the Mavs are using the SA model" - without realizing that it is actually used as a reference to playing style and roster makeup rather than to finances.
d. One who refers to such a model probably has fallen for certain popular "myths" about the Spurs finances that aren't even true.

In general, the Spurs player payroll isn't much different than those of other teams. They are regularly over the cap. They almost never have spending money beyond the MLE for free agents (just like the Mavs). They even have to pay tax sometimes. There is a myth that they are magicians with the way they play their players, but it's just not true. Never has been.

This has already gotten long and detailed and I haven't even scratched the surface. But I think the points have been made.

DL

V2M · 10-12-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLord

There is so much I want to weigh in on, regarding all the tax, cap, and contract issues in this thread. Unfortunately, from the angles being discussed, it would be an incredibly lengthy conversation to take things from the starting point of "hooopshype" type numbers, and get them all the way to reality.

Rest assured I dont think I am the only person that understands these things. I'm sure some of you (probably most, in fact) already "get it." But it is apparent some aren't even close, and usually trying to explain things to get the "slow children" caught up becomes problematic on many levels.

So instead, let me just make a few points rather than conduct a seminar ...
..... there is absolutely no way that Josh Howard's deal is not impacted by tax issues
..... the Mavs already are at way more than $18M for the year after Finley expires
..... note also that to focus on the currently existing number of committed dollars for a future year - whatever it may be - is stunningly naive. Such a number ignores tons of added issues that will come into play such as other players that need to be signed between now and then, cap holds for free agents, draft picks, qualifying offers, empty roster slots to be filled, and so on.
..... you aren't going to have 5-6 players on your roster when all is said and done, and you wont fill all the remaining slots with cheapies as they expire either.
..... using easy logical projections based on how the Mavs build their roster, the Mavs money for Josh Howard (once you factor in all the other issues between now and then) will have not only cap consequences but also almost certain TAX ramifications in that year and beyond. Obviously the Mavs themselves are working within the parameters of such projections. Most of you probably intuitively already comprehend this anyhow. (The fuller explanation would get very detailed and probably too technical to be readable or enjoyable to write.)

One other point needs to be made, in relation to something said in this discussion. It was stated that the Mavs are headed towards the SA financial model.
a. One who refers to such a model probably doesnt even know what the Spurs are doing financially.
b. One who refers to such a model also probably doesnt know what the Spurs have done in the past.
c. The reference to copying the Spurs' financial model sounds like a mimicking of the concept that is commonly mentioned in Dallas - that "the Mavs are using the SA model" - without realizing that it is actually used as a reference to playing style and roster makeup rather than to finances.
d. One who refers to such a model probably has fallen for certain popular "myths" about the Spurs finances that aren't even true.

In general, the Spurs player payroll isn't much different than those of other teams. They are regularly over the cap. They almost never have spending money beyond the MLE for free agents (just like the Mavs). They even have to pay tax sometimes. There is a myth that they are magicians with the way they play their players, but it's just not true. Never has been.

This has already gotten long and detailed and I haven't even scratched the surface. But I think the points have been made.

DL

Very valid points DL, as always!

As for the Spurs payroll situation, the perception a few years ago was that they were the only elite team in the West with a low payroll. This was when Robinson retired and they let Stephen Jackson go for nothing and still continued to win while the other elite West teams such as the Mavs, Kings, Lakers and Wolves were tagging on huge salaries.

Of course TD was a prime reason, but I think that had more to do with the lucky emergence of Parker & Ginobli who were lowly draft picks and thus were quite inexpensive. Now those two aren't on rookie payscales anymore and hence their payroll has caught up with the rest of the league.

During the last couple years, we lucked out with Josh, Devin (who was acquired through a trade, of course!) and hopefully Ager now. That allowed us to stay competitive while at the same time bringing down our payroll.

Now for the future though, what's a good model do you think? It's obvious, every elite team is trying to stay at or below the tax limit. In such a case, how do you think a team should allocate their money?

Model A (SA, Dallas, etc.): 1 max contract Superstar (ex: Dirk, TD, etc.) and 3 or 4 borderline all-stars at $8-10m/yr (ex: Jet, Josh, Parker, Gino, etc.) and fill the rest with a few experienced and few young un's at or near minimums.

Model B (PHX, Miami, etc.): 2 max contract Superstars and 1 or 2 borderline all-stars, and fill the rest with near minimums.

Model C (Detroit): No Superstars, 4 or 5 borderline all-stars.

Of course, as I typed this, I felt like based on recent results, one can make a case for any of 'em. And I for myself, like the Model B since it not only provides an insurance against injury risk to your Superstar, but also having two players commanding double-teams would give a huge edge that's almost unbeatable.

Thanks in advance!

Five-ofan · 10-12-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V2M

Very valid points DL, as always!

As for the Spurs payroll situation, the perception a few years ago was that they were the only elite team in the West with a low payroll. This was when Robinson retired and they let Stephen Jackson go for nothing and still continued to win while the other elite West teams such as the Mavs, Kings, Lakers and Wolves were tagging on huge salaries.

Of course TD was a prime reason, but I think that had more to do with the lucky emergence of Parker & Ginobli who were lowly draft picks and thus were quite inexpensive. Now those two aren't on rookie payscales anymore and hence their payroll has caught up with the rest of the league.

During the last couple years, we lucked out with Josh, Devin (who was acquired through a trade, of course!) and hopefully Ager. That allowed us to stay competitive while at the same time bringing down our payroll.

Now for the future though, what's a good model do you think? It's obvious, every elite team is trying to stay at or below the tax limit. In such a case, how do you think a team should allocate their money?

Model A (SA, Dallas, etc.): 1 max contract Superstar (ex: Dirk, TD, etc.) and 3 or 4 borderline all-stars at $8-10m/yr (ex: Jet, Josh, Parker, Gino, etc.) and fill the rest with a few experienced and few young un's at or near minimums.

Model B (PHX, Miami, etc.): 2 max contract Superstars and 1 or 2 borderline all-stars, and fill the rest with near minimums.

Model C (Detroit): No Superstars, 4 or 5 borderline all-stars.

Of course, as I typed this, I felt like based on recent results, one can make a case for any of 'em. And I for myself, like the Model B since it provides an insurance against injury risk to your Superstar but also anytime two players commanding double-teams is a huge edge that's almost unbeatable.

Thanks in advance!

I know you asked Dlord but i would like to throw my 2 cents in here. I think B is the preferable method, However, getting a superstar is the hardest thing there is to do in basketball and getting a second without giving up the first is even harder. I think you attempt to go with B(which i think the mavs did attempt but couldnt get the second superstar) however, if that fails, you go with A. If you cant get the first superstar you go with plan C.

Flacolaco · 10-12-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

I know you asked Dlord but i would like to throw my 2 cents in here. I think B is the preferable method, However, getting a superstar is the hardest thing there is to do in basketball and getting a second without giving up the first is even harder. I think you attempt to go with B(which i think the mavs did attempt but couldnt get the second superstar) however, if that fails, you go with A. If you cant get the first superstar you go with plan C.

Plus Shaq took "less money" than L.A. offered(right?), to go play in Miami. and Wade hadn't got his "BIG" deal yet.

Getting two super stars is VERY hard to do.....

V2M · 10-12-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

I know you asked Dlord but i would like to throw my 2 cents in here. I think B is the preferable method, However, getting a superstar is the hardest thing there is to do in basketball and getting a second without giving up the first is even harder. I think you attempt to go with B(which i think the mavs did attempt but couldnt get the second superstar) however, if that fails, you go with A. If you cant get the first superstar you go with plan C.

Good point. I was actually hoping we could get Pierce at last year's trade deadline who in my opinion would have helped us tremendously against the constant double & triple-teaming of Dirk by Miami.

Drbio · 10-11-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirate

Chumdawg, you said "We should probably be a little nicer to new people who actually want to talk hoops."

Ignoring the dismissive arrogance adopted by the newbie from the get-go, how about considering the "discussion-worthiness" of the following statements by this bozo. Once you look at the things being said, it's hard to treat them seriously. You think these are credible statements worth discussing?

And keep in mind that before you can even deal with one of these gems, another two or three come gushing forth.

1. The Mavs are under the cap from 2007 forward.
2. Who is the Mavs MVP in 2009-2010 with this current roster? Howard!
3. I can name about 6 things working against this deal for now. These obstacles have been in place for all extensions for contracts.
4. [Howard] is also our best rebounder in traffic
5. MVP and MIP have different roles on a team
6. Since you are the smart one, please enlighten me on the 10-point breakdown of a player film session? I am clearly talking over your head, so just dont respond
7. Dirk is not a traffic rebounder
8. the hands are tied for the Mavs and Howard right now, unless Howard says he will accept the highest amount he can extend for right now.
9. That is why you see so many deals where the signing bonus is so high and the salary is lower.
10. Sometimes that huge signing bonus will put you close or over the cap just to get a deal done.
11. Sometimes when you see players fire agents real quick, is because language in the contract comes to light that is not in the best interest of the player.
12. Talk basketball 501 with me. ..Have you heard the basketball terminology "Basketball 501"?
13. For the record, Superstars from each team cancels out each other..Remember that....
14. Since I am a huge idiot dont reply to my posts.
15. do you know how smart a monkey is? Of course you don't, because you would not had let that come out of your lil mouth.
16. Howard does not have any plays for him, so his points have to come from transition points.
17. It has to happen like this to get the most from Howard. If they renew him now ...
18. This is why the Mavs should have waited another year to give Daniels that type of money.
19. Now if Howard was the MVP, this would had been taken care of with a shorter contract extension like Wade and Lebron's contracts.
20. And this is coming from a person who proclaims to be a "LORD"?????????????? Go figure
21. Do more research the Mavs last year for tax issues is 2007-2008 year(http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/dallas.htm). Tax is not an issue.
22. I am not going to hold your hand on it, just read up on it since it is your CBA bible, which it is still not the complete CBA info, and also is not the official rulebook on this situation, because there are still other loopholes in the CBA.
23. This tells me that you are indeed a journalist. Your credibility is now shot with me.
24. Until he tells me he has signed an actually contract and had an actual agent and attorney to decipher the CBA for him then dont expect me to see him as an self-proclaimed expert with the CBA.
25. Not even current NBA players can decipher it. It takes an attorney to decipher the CBA, and a good one at that.
26. It is hard for me to put it in words w/o an attorney, but their is alot of things behind the scene that the public dont have access to
27. All I am saying is that it is not "Cut" and "Dry" like most people think. I know this personally.
28. The Mavs are restricted to show their top hand right now because of the CBA.
29. Josh and his camp feel his value is more than what the max in the CBA can offer him.
30. It could be that Josh would accept the max extension contract, but the Mavs have not offered it yet
31. I am not an attorney or expert to the CBA and DLORD is NOT as well. If he was he would not be a writer, he would be an attorney.
32. Every NBA groupie is just as persistent as yourself. Ever heard of cold shoulder? What about falling on death ears?
33. Far from stupid or old, but I guess you are catechized enough to say that? I would never listen to a loquacious person like yourself when you post like this. Never mind how I decide to post, I just post and hit the submit button. When did a message board become the cream of society for spell check? See your last post farther proved that for the most part philistinism is a common trait in many who have blasted me simply because my view point was different. Now go break that down, Mr. Pundit...

That pile of sheer lunacy was all by one person, in one thread. One. There are so many factual errors and just stupid things said in there, you cant even begin to discuss them. And that's just a partial list.

And you think everyone should have stopped and tried to engage in some sort of serious hoops discussion with him, or considered his words as having some merit, when mixed in the middle of such a pile of manure?

You yourself tried to dig him out of his hole, and as soon as you turned your back, he had dug himself an even deeper one with DLord and others.

I'm sorry, but at some point when dealing with this type, all you can do is just take a step back and start laughing at the sheer folly.

scoreboard.

BTW....Pirate has REALLY been the poster of the month.

Drbio · 10-11-2006, 10:07 PM

Thanks again DLord.

capitalcity · 10-11-2006, 10:17 PM

I got two MIPs and one MIPT over the course of 20 months back in high school.

The Arlington municipal courts made me take Alcohol Awarness 501.

Drbio · 10-11-2006, 10:43 PM

I'm thinking that about half of the original thread qualifies as Ignorance501.

Rhylan · 10-12-2006, 12:23 AM

Wow, I can't believe I missed all this.

Such great material to work with.

Good job to all.

sike · 10-12-2006, 01:31 AM

I agree that the past two days have been exactly what we needed around here...we needed anything that would liven things up....sure, this qualifies near the "dumb end" of anything, but still...its got us awake!

I for one would like to thank Xpert for waking up some of my dozing brothers...

Flacolaco · 10-12-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Please name a team with 2 Superstars

lol.

Oh man I forgot my popcorn this morning.....

V2M · 10-12-2006, 11:57 AM

My thoughts on some of the discussion points on this & it's preceding threads:

- MVP and MIP are interchangeable and I believe are one and the same. Yes, you can certainly have a Batman/Robin concept such as MJ/Pippen etc., but let's not say that while MJ was the MVP, Pippen was the MIP of that team. I don't subscribe to that. To me, MJ was the MVP, MIP, MDP or whatever on that team, just as much as Dirk is on our current Mavs team.

- I don't believe in this Superstars cancelling out each other. Every Superstar is different from the other and brings qualities to the team that are unique and can't be replaced with a straight-forward substitution. Basketball is a team game of 5 on 5 (or one can extend it up to 15 on 15, if you consider depth as a factor!). To argue that any one player cancels another is just too simplistic and inaccurate, I'd say!

- Contracts are indeed complex but certainly not impossible to understand for any high-school grad who puts some time & effort trying to figure it out!

- Age, after a certain obvious minimum, has little to do with smarts or maturity. I've seen some of the most mature and well-thought out posts from our young 'uns. In fact, StackAttack on Aug 2 this year had a great journalistic feature that was universally admired by all & sundry on this board. He was supposedly only 14 when he wrote it!

- Finally, I'll just say it once and leave it at that (no finger-pointing or blame game from here!). One of the board guidelines is to refrain from any personal attacks or insults against any fellow member/s. And 99% of the time we all adhere to that. That is probably the biggest strength of this board which makes it arguably the best place to be to discuss any Mavericks related stuff. Of course, mild banter is understandable and certainly an accepted part of the game. :-)