NVE to Pacers? - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Nellie · 06-21-2002, 10:56 AM

<< Nellie, if I said the earth was round you would argue that it's flat. Just to let you know, everyone sees that when you post something..well, they simply pass it by without giving it the least bit credibility >>

I enjoy how you speak for everybody on this board. It makes me laugh.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 10:56 AM

NVE doesn't fit the needs of the mavs.
Yes, it makes the mavs better but it isn't the trade i would be looking for

kg_veteran · 06-21-2002, 10:57 AM

<< artest would help the mavs defensively and he's as good of a shooter as NVE (which isn't saying much). The team gets younger. He's a decent rebounder..athletic. >>

Who cares if the team gets younger? I want to get better. Artest can't shoot, and I think he'd have trouble displacing Griffin from the starting lineup. So you have 2 bench players and a rookie from the mid-first round. I'll pass.

<< Austin isn't exactly soft. >>

Um, yeah he is.

<< No, it's not the trade that I would look for.. >>

Thanks for admitting that.

<< but if that was offered and the mavs hadn't been able to move NVE for a big man to help out defensively and on the glass... you make that deal in a second >>

No I don't, and I'm willing to bet Nelson wouldn't either.

madape · 06-21-2002, 10:59 AM

I agree Murph. Rebounding and perimeter defense are bigger needs right now than a high scoring backup PG.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 10:59 AM

KG, i've said from the beginning that it isn't the trade I would look for..that it doesn't address the teams main needs. however, if i wasn't able to address the teams main needs and the Pacers offered the mavs that trade, i'd take it in a second.

i think you're actually confusing the argument here KG. it's not that This trade would address all of the mavs needs because it wouldn't.. it is that the Pacers would be taking it up the ass.

Nellie · 06-21-2002, 10:59 AM

<< nellie, the argument hasn't been that it isn't something the mavs need.. it has been that the trade is heavily in favor of the mavs..which it is >>

The argument has been that this alone is still not a reason to do it. Of course, if you are prejudice against NVE than you do it.

kg_veteran · 06-21-2002, 10:59 AM

<< NVE doesn't fit the needs of the mavs.
Yes, it makes the mavs better but it isn't the trade i would be looking for >>

Explain HOW it makes them better. Getting two bench players at SG/SF (we already have plenty of those floating around) is NOT an improvement.

Trade quality for quality. You may not like him, but Van Exel is a quality player. He would start for over half the teams in the league at point guard, and we can get a starter-quality player in return for him, not a couple of bums.

kg_veteran · 06-21-2002, 11:03 AM

<< KG, i've said from the beginning that it isn't the trade I would look for..that it doesn't address the teams main needs. however, if i wasn't able to address the teams main needs and the Pacers offered the mavs that trade, i'd take it in a second.

i think you're actually confusing the argument here KG. it's not that This trade would address all of the mavs needs because it wouldn't.. it is that the Pacers would be taking it up the ass. >>

I don't think I'm confusing the arguments, Murph. This trade not only doesn't address all of the Mavs' needs -- it doesn't address ANY. It makes them worse. That's the point. You don't make a trade just to make a trade. Especially one that doesn't give you a net return of more talent and/or usable pieces.

I'd rather keep NVE any day than make this deal.

This is probably a silly discussion, though, because I tend to think the Pacers are happy with Tinsley at PG, and don't want to start a "two PG" backcourt. This trade probably never even gets discussed.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 11:03 AM

NVE is a quality player that doesn't fit the mavs needs. why not?
because he looks to shoot first instead of distributing the ball
because he shoots even worse than artest
because he is a mediocre defender

He DOES NOT fit the mavs needs at backup PG.

you receive players in artest and austin AND you also get a #14 pick.

No, it isn't the trade i'd be looking to make. but once again, if the mavs are unable to address their interior issues and if this trade is made, you'd have to take it.

and yes, perimeter defense is one of the major needs of the mavs in case you've forgotten

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 11:04 AM

nellie, you're prejudiced against intelligence

Nellie · 06-21-2002, 11:05 AM

<< nellie, you're prejudiced against intelligence >>

I'll take that as a compliment coming from you.

Next topic..

Nellie · 06-21-2002, 11:10 AM

<< No, it isn't the trade i'd be looking to make. but once again, if the mavs are unable to address their interior issues and if this trade is made, you'd have to take it >>

LOL...making a deal BEFORE the draft is not enough time to even consider possibilities for addressing interior defense.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 11:15 AM

is it possible the mavs could use their draft pick to possibly address their interior defense problems?.. or from that point, they could possibly make a deal to move up in the draft to address the interior defensive issues..or package the draft pick and some pieces to address the interior defensive issues?

the possibilities are endless

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 11:17 AM

yes, you would have a different commodity at that point..but your one commodity wouldn't be someone considered to have a difficult to move contract. with the addition of croshere and artest, some of your other players would also be possible to move

Nellie · 06-21-2002, 11:17 AM

<< is it possible the mavs could use their draft pick to possibly address their interior defense problems?.. or from that point, they could possibly make a deal to move up in the draft to address the interior defensive issues..or package the draft pick and some pieces to address the interior defensive issues?

the possibilities are endless >>

And quite a stretch to think that anybody we could get at #14 is going to immediately address interior defense.

kg_veteran · 06-21-2002, 11:19 AM

<< NVE is a quality player that doesn't fit the mavs needs. why not?
because he looks to shoot first instead of distributing the ball
because he shoots even worse than artest
because he is a mediocre defender0

He DOES NOT fit the mavs needs at backup PG. >>

I've already conceded that NVE isn't a great fit in Dallas because he needs to be a primary scorer to thrive -- but if I'm going to deal a quality player that doesn't fit the team's needs, I want to get one or more back that DO fit the team's needs. And this trade does NOT do that.

<< you receive players in artest and austin AND you also get a #14 pick. >>

Players - bench players. I want starter-quality player(s) in return for a top 10 PG.

<< No, it isn't the trade i'd be looking to make. but once again, if the mavs are unable to address their interior issues and if this trade is made, you'd have to take it.

and yes, perimeter defense is one of the major needs of the mavs in case you've forgotten >>

Murph, why turn to insults? Adding a bench perimeter defender by subtracting a BETTER overall bench player makes no sense. Artest, if he is an upgrade at all, isn't a significant one over Griffin. And certainly you're not looking at Croshere to provide perimeter defense, are you?

The deal's not a good one, and no amount of protestation to the contrary about how bad NVE is for this team makes it better.

kg_veteran · 06-21-2002, 11:23 AM

<< is it possible the mavs could use their draft pick to possibly address their interior defense problems?.. or from that point, they could possibly make a deal to move up in the draft to address the interior defensive issues..or package the draft pick and some pieces to address the interior defensive issues?

the possibilities are endless >>

Anything is possible, but now I think you're overvaluing the No. 14 pick. The talent there is going to be of the project variety, and Nelson will not play the guy, whoever he is.

MavsFanFinley · 06-21-2002, 11:28 AM

i think you're actually confusing the argument here KG. it's not that This trade would address all of the mavs needs because it wouldn't.. it is that the Pacers would be taking it up the ass.

That sounds so like Nellie. Making a trade cause he thinks he'd be out-smarting the other team.

I hate this trade. The only reason I'd consider it is for the draft pick, but I'm tired of having to take back crappy contracts. I know, I know, it's Mark's money, blah-blah.

I don't see what we're gaining, but a chance to land a young player...one that Nelson might not give minutes to this season.

I'll take Griffin over Artest, too. Don't much care for Croshere and do we need another contract that will be impossible to unload?

I just can't imagine that there isn't a better deal out there for NVE, even if we had to wait until February to deal him.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 11:47 AM

yes, the mavs would have other issues to address but even WITH NVE at PG, they mavs still need a backup PG that would actually look to distribute that ball.

so the mavs would be losing a quality player that doesn't remotely fit in with the mavs needs... at the same time, they'd be acquiring someone that would at least make them better defensively and would also be acquiring a high draft pick that could be used in several different ways... to improve the interior defense via trade.. could possibly move up..could possibly actually use the draft pick

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 11:49 AM

<< I just can't imagine that there isn't a better deal out there for NVE, even if we had to wait until February to deal him >>

of course there might be a better deal for the mavs needs.. that's well established and i think everyone agrees with that..once again MFF, that is not the argument now nor was it the argument at the beginning of the thread

TheKid · 06-21-2002, 12:00 PM

because he shoots even worse than artest

NO WAY... I don't care if Artest shoots a better percentage or not, NO WAY is he a better shooter than Van Exel and he can't create his own shot either like Van Exel can. NOW NVE isn't HALF the defender Artest so that would probably be the ONLY need the Mavs has that would be somewhat addressed with this trade but I'm sorry, from an offensive standpoint, NVE is inconsistent but he's MORE reliable from the offensive end than Artest. Also, while NVE may be a shoot first pg, he still averaged somewhere around 6 or 7 assists with the Mavs which is WAY more ball distribution than Artest would bring to the table.

If you ask me this trade would be basically NVE for the 14th pick in the draft and along with two bench players. While NVE isn't the best player in the league or even close but his value is worth more than that.

What this scenerio does is show me how far behind the Pacers are in talent. They would be giving us two of their better players and their first round draft pick for ONE player, and to be honest, it's NOT that lopsided.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-21-2002, 12:00 PM

I agree with u KG here. I dont understand I dont think no one is over valuing NVE I think yall are overvaluing Artest and Chroshere. I know it snot possible because Pacers think he is there next reggie miller but I wuold much rather get Bender than both Artest and Chroschere. I dont know whats up with Chroshere but he is declining and cant even start for the Pacers anymore we really dont need that. Artest like others have pointed he is just as bad as a shooter as NVE and being that he cant drive to the hoop like NVE ill pass on Artest we dont need another defensive guy here we have 4-5 of them now who can actually score. The 14# pick is probaly the only value u hear and I like someone pointed out Mavs dont need any projects. Teams like the Spurs or Minnesota they need projects but right now Mavs are right there with Kings and Lakers and to throw a project in? Naw I would much rather have a proven player like a Kurt Thomas or a similiar player maybe Brian Grant if he can walk next season.

Artest made neither 1st or 2nd all defensive team and got like 1 more vote than Finley got so I wouldnt say too much about his defense.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:13 PM

his value is worth more than a 14th pick?..to some teams, possibly so.

however, his value as a Player on the dallas mavs.. nope, not worth more than a 14th pick, artest and croshere.. not at all.

he DOES NOT fit the mavs needs

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:16 PM

so thekid, you do agree that it is lopsided..well, i can handle that. however, to think the mavs are getting the short end of the stick is ridiculous.

YES. I KNOW THE MAVS MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE NVE TO GET SOMEONE TO PROVIDE A DEFENSIVE PRESENCE ON THE INSIDE FOR THE 75TH TIME THIS THREAD. HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE..OR MAYBE THE DEBATE HAS CHANGED

seelenjaeger · 06-21-2002, 12:18 PM

Well, Kid, there are two different approaches to the Mavs needs -

1st) get a banging big man to play the middle
2nd) get some decent role players for the SF and some big guy help

It surely doesnt address no. 1 directly, but the 2nd approach is pretty well handled with this trade. why? artest and croshere can both play the 3, two different types of 3. And no. 14 draft pick - take Boozer and you got your big body ...

We get younger, don´t lose much (where should VanE get the minutes he need??) and gain some depth in areas we´re not too deep with ... (we have no croshere guy atm, and depends on who we´ll get with the pick)

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:18 PM

what's the argument now?

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:20 PM

synopsis of this trade..

1. some of you over value what NVE means to the mavs...way over value.

2. most of us agree that the mavs should look to get an inside presence first.

3. some of you jump in and argue regardless of whether or not you know what the argument is about..what does this do..change the debate.

4. NVE doesn't fit the Mavs needs

TheKid · 06-21-2002, 12:23 PM

Well he may not fit the Mavs needs but I look at it like some people look at the draft. You look for a particular player who fits your teams needs, if they're all gone, then you take the best available.

So if someone says to me you have a choice to choose Van Exel or Artest, Croshere and the 14th pick of the draft, I go with Van Exel. The reason being, I'm going with who has been more productive in their career? Van Exel.

Who actually has shown an ability to step up in the clutch? Van Exel although Croshere did ONE YEAR and hasn't done a damn thing since.

Now like I said, I don't think it would be HORRIBLE to accept this trade but really there's much more atleast that I would like to explore before I pulled the trigger on something like this. Also, Artest is a free agent this year so the Mavs would have to resign him. So even though we would be getting rid of NVE's contract we would take on Croshere and Artests new salary. I'd be willing to bet we would be able to work something out with the Knicks and actually get more of what we need and get a higher draft pick.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-21-2002, 12:24 PM

I think everyoen here agrees that its lopsided but im my opinion hte Mavs can pass on the trade. It does make maves worser because we lose a back up pg and gain 3 players out of it. When u can get 3 players for NVE of course its gonna be lopsided but liek soemone pointed out a Kurt Thomas or a Brian Grant would be much more valuable then two guys who the Pacers want to get rid of. If Chrosher can play like he did 2 seasons ago then we can talk about the trade helping the Mavs but Chroshere all he showed me was that he can play good when he wants a new contract and suck when he gets it.

TheKid · 06-21-2002, 12:27 PM

so thekid, you do agree that it is lopsided..well, i can handle that

I think in the Pacers eyes it's VERY lopsided. They think the world of Artest and they like Croshere also. So they would be willing to trade two of their more important players AND a draft pick for Van Exel.

Van Exel wouldn't provide everything they're losing. That's why I think it's lopsided in their eyes. However I don't think it makes the Mavericks significantly better which is why I'm not on board with this. I think if anything you pretty much stay the same, so from the Mavs standpoint why do this trade? We may address defense somewhat but then we lose depth at a vital position in the process.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:27 PM

van exel is clutch only because:
if you shoot enough in that situation, you'll eventually hit a couple of shots.

yes, nve has been more productive than Artest.
However, artest fits more into what the mavs need.

Lets ask a question. Who is the more quality player by your definition..who has had the better career:
Nick Van Exel or Kurt Thomas?

probably NVE. Who fits the mavs needs better?
Kurt thomas

sometimes you make moves that may mean moving the better "quality" player so that you can fit a need.

once again...i'd much rather the mavs look to acquire a big man..but this trade is heavily in favor of the mavs

aexchange · 06-21-2002, 12:27 PM

i think what everyone is forgetting is that this draft is extremely deep in point guards. i'd rather trade a 30 yr old van exel for a starter, a bench player, and the 14th pick. you can use the 14th pick to draft a point guard, who should be pretty damn good, and groom him behind nash and AJ.

that isnt bad at all. and i agree with murph, the pacers get bent over like the runt in prison.

if we could get bender and the 14th for NVE, im even more on that.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-21-2002, 12:30 PM

<< i think what everyone is forgetting is that this draft is extremely deep in point guards. i'd rather trade a 30 yr old van exel for a starter, a bench player, and the 14th pick. you can use the 14th pick to draft a point guard, who should be pretty damn good, and groom him behind nash and AJ.

that isnt bad at all. and i agree with murph, the pacers get bent over like the runt in prison.

if we could get bender and the 14th for NVE, im even more on that. >>

This is the problem tho evne Murph has said that the window is right there and all we are is one player a way. We dont need any projects in here who arent gonna benefit like a vet in here would. Lakers nor Kings are taking on any projects other than Gerald Wallace but he plays when Christie or Peja is hurt.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:30 PM

<< I think everyoen here agrees that its lopsided but im my opinion hte Mavs can pass on the trade >>

I agree, sure the mavs can pass on the trade. I want the mavs to acquire a big man with nve, not croshere, artest and the 14th pick.

however, that's the argument..that this trade is lopsided in favor of the mavs.. and yes, it does make the mavs better.. the mavs get significantly better defensively and have a chance to add with the 14th pick.

and you can pick up a PG to play some minutes behind nash and AJ

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:31 PM

<< This is the problem tho evne Murph has said that the window is right there and all we are is one player a way. We dont need any projects in here who arent gonna benefit like a vet in here would >>

of course i look to address my interior defensive needs... i've said that all along

FilthyFinMavs · 06-21-2002, 12:34 PM

<<

<< I think everyoen here agrees that its lopsided but im my opinion hte Mavs can pass on the trade >>

I agree, sure the mavs can pass on the trade. I want the mavs to acquire a big man with nve, not croshere, artest and the 14th pick.

however, that's the argument..that this trade is lopsided in favor of the mavs.. and yes, it does make the mavs better.. the mavs get significantly better defensively and have a chance to add with the 14th pick.

and you can pick up a PG to play some minutes behind nash and AJ >>

And ok lets say we do this trade and it doesent work out? Then our best trade value is Finley and he will have to be shipped out. The reason why I dont do this trade and I think it doesent make the Mavs better is this is probaly gonna be the last string for trading. I dont want our last trade to be Chroshere and Artest and a project. I want it to be for a guy who can come in and benefit right away and help us with our needs.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:41 PM

you can say "what if it doesn't work out " for any move in any sport at any time

what if trading nve to the knicks for thomas (just using this as an example) doesn't work out..what if thomas gets injured.
finley becomes the mavs most tradeable commodity.

what if the trade works out but dirk gets hurt..

there's always a what if it doesn't work or what if this happens..

what if the mavs keep NVE and he breaks his leg?

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:42 PM

of course you want a guy that could come in and address our interior defensive needs.. so do i.

i've said that 76 times (i think) in this thread alone

FilthyFinMavs · 06-21-2002, 12:55 PM

<< you can say "what if it doesn't work out " for any move in any sport at any time

what if trading nve to the knicks for thomas (just using this as an example) doesn't work out..what if thomas gets injured.
finley becomes the mavs most tradeable commodity.

what if the trade works out but dirk gets hurt..

there's always a what if it doesn't work or what if this happens..

what if the mavs keep NVE and he breaks his leg? >>

]

I wuold much rather take a gamble on Kurt Thomas thing bringing in even more small fowards that are going to be on our bench. Murph, if U want a guy that can help inside whats the use of u arguing this down and saying that u would do it lol because we dont get it in this trade. This trade is no good because we get Artest which I think TAW is better than him and we get Chrosher who is some how declining and not playing to his potential. Ill pass on this one.

Murphy3 · 06-21-2002, 12:59 PM

filthy, i would rather have kurt thomas in here as well...i think pretty much all of us would