So I'm listening to Galloway

[dude1394]

I know, I know it will stunt my brain. But the conversation was typical of media types who kneejerk around and don't know much of anything about running anything. They've never met a payroll, made strategic decisions, etc.

So the gist of the argument was
- What has cuban done to offset the damage he's currently done to this team and the mavs reputation around the league.

Galloway gave him credit for not firing nelson, the other yacker (can't recall his name for good reason) said he's done nothing. He's had no impact one way or the other period. It was all Perot and Zachanellia and big nellie. That's it.

Now someone please job my memory about what happened when cuban bought the team.

Before cuban record was - ??
After cuban record was - ??
You would think that maybe a "journalist" would think that maybe this is relevant.

Now to Dale Hanson's credit he just stated the obvious, how can you not give a guy credit who's gotten you to the WCF's, the Finals and won 50games 8 years straight? It was all because of Zachanelli?

From wikipedia

On January 14, 2000, Cuban purchased a majority stake in the NBA Dallas Mavericks basketball team for $285 million from H. Ross Perot, Jr.[39][40]

In the 20 years before Cuban bought the team, the Mavs had a winning percentage of 40%, and playoff record of 21-32. [41] [42] In the six years following, the team has won 69% of their regular season games and have reached the playoffs each season. The Mavs playoff record with Cuban is 39 wins and 40 losses, including their first trip to the NBA Finals in 2006, where they lost to the Miami Heat.[43]

Now in that very same year...before cuban the team was...11-24 or 31%...They ended the year at 40-42... Or 29-18..or for 62%...

Now I guess any old owner could have done that, they went 53-29 the next year and won their first playoff series against UTAH only to lose in 5 against the spurts.

Now this is why the sports "journalist" completely drives me crazy. They are lazy, don't know their facts and don't really care to know them as they throw crap out there. I am shocked that sports figures talk to those guys at all, they are such idiots.

[BGMaverick9]

It's a shock value thing, they need to say stuff to be entertaining or gain attention to the network. It boils down to you have to take the bad with the good with Cuban.

[Dtownsfinest]

Imagine if you agreed with sports analysts or radio personalitys? Why listen? LikeBG brought up, I believe its for shock value. Especially Randy Galloway. He's the worst in the city on going for shock value.

[Kidd Karma]

I guess they did not care about the new lockerrooms that Cuban put in, state of the art and at that time, the only one of it's kind. I don't think Perot, nor Zaccannelli had much to do with the drafting of Nowitzki. Perot's vision was real estate, the real estate surrounding the arena. many stadium planners, arenas (Brooklyn now) are being used in a similar manner. If Perot really gave a shit about the team, he would have paid the 5 million tampering fine, Stern threatened if they talked to Larry Brown. Zaccanelli went as far as saying that Brown would have been mavs coach if they met. Consider it a 5 million dollar investment. Just looking at that fact, should tell all that Perot and Zaccanelli never gave a shit about the Mavs, they spent the minimum as all others spend on their team, and just went ahead with the greater picture of planning the development around the arena.

[Darth Ape]

Pretty good recap by Galloway and the boys.

The team was turning it around before Cuban got here. Nash, Dirk and Finley were hitting their stride and the Mavs were one of the hottest teams in the NBA toward the end of the 2000 season. In fact, they probably would have made the playoffs if Cuban hadn't meddled with the lineup by forcing a broken down and uninspired Rodman onto the team and ruining the chemistry the team was building. I guess that was a harbinger of things to come.

Bottom line, Cuban had nothing to do with acquiring the teams core players, hiring the team architect, or negotiating the construction of a new stadium. If you are going to point to reasons why the Mavs became what they were, you start with these three things. What Cuban did do was run the architect out of town, let two of the team's best three players leave without any compensation, and turn a brand new state-of-the-art arena into the fourth worst place to watch a game in basketball, according to USA today.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...as-cover_x.htm

I'll give credit to Cuban for bringing a little more excitement to the team. I'll also give him credit for being a little more national exposure...although I'd argue that most of the attention he brought wasn't really the kind of attention I'd prefer to attract.

Cuban gets way too much credit for what has happened to this franchise. But I suppose he doesn't mind the attention.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

Pretty good recap by Galloway and the boys.

The team was turning it around before Cuban got here. Nash, Dirk and Finley were hitting their stride and the Mavs were one of the hottest teams in the NBA toward the end of the 2000 season. In fact, they probably would have made the playoffs if Cuban hadn't meddled with the lineup by forcing a broken down and uninspired Rodman onto the team and ruining the chemistry the team was building. I guess that was a harbinger of things to come.

Bottom line, Cuban had nothing to do with acquiring the teams core players, hiring the team architect, or negotiating the construction of a new stadium. If you are going to point to reasons why the Mavs became what they were, you start with these three things. What Cuban did do was run the architect out of town, let two of the team's best three players leave without any compensation, and turn a brand new state-of-the-art arena into the fourth worst place to watch a game in basketball, according to USA today.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...as-cover_x.htm

I'll give credit to Cuban for bringing a little more excitement to the team. I'll also give him credit for being a little more national exposure...although I'd argue that most of the attention he brought wasn't really the kind of attention I'd prefer to attract.

Cuban gets way too much credit for what has happened to this franchise. But I suppose he doesn't mind the attention.

You mean with that 31% winning percentage. Right...I'm not sure what the attendance increase was but I expect it was also significant.

[alexamenos]

i feel it move a little every time i see that picture of cubes in Darth Ape's sig...

the sleeveless button up shirt really does it for me.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Yeah, it was Rodman that ruined it for us in 2000 (not). If my memory serves me correctly the Mavs finished 40-42 and Seattle, who was the 8th seed, had 48 wins to get in. No way that Mavs team would have made up 8 wins/losses Rodman or not. Dirk didn't come on until the end of the season but it was too little, too late.

[alexamenos]

my recollection of the 99-00 season is that they started out like the same ole 90's mavs and then caught fire at the end of the season....kinda like a "whoa, look who's had the best record in the league over the last 20 or 30 games" turnaround.


....but as for zacanelli....

he went on with hansen after last year's debacle by the bay and took credit for building this mavs team...gimmee break..that used car salesman didn't have anything to do with the mavs roster as it was comprised in '07.

[jthig32]

Anyone wishing to argue that Cuban has done nothing for this team is doing a bit. Plain and simple. Even the biggest Cuban dectractors, if being reasonable, are willing to admit the good things he has done for this franchise, and they are many.

To think that we once lost Kurt Thomas after a verbal commitment because he found out what a second rate organization this was.

Again, even if you hate Cuban with everything inside of you, if you aren't willing to give him any positive credit, you are merely doing a bit.

[Some Guy]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Anyone wishing to argue that Cuban has done nothing for this team is doing a bit. Plain and simple. Even the biggest Cuban dectractors, if being reasonable, are willing to admit the good things he has done for this franchise, and they are many.

To think that we once lost Kurt Thomas after a verbal commitment because he found out what a second rate organization this was.

Again, even if you hate Cuban with everything inside of you, if you aren't willing to give him any positive credit, you are merely doing a bit.

I agree. And I don't understand why people continue to argue with people doing that bit.

[alby]

The thing with Galloway and most guys who have their own sports radio show is that basketball isn't his thing (they normally are experts on just one, maybe two sports), but he has to talk about it.

[LonghornDub]

Cuban is quite possibly the best owner in all of sports. You'd have to be blind to the myriad positive things he brings to this organization to think that his character flaws (i.e. being a complainer and somewhat immature) somehow make him a bad owner.

[Bookit]

Perot didn't want to spend a nickel and basically didn't offer Kurt Thomas any money because his injury wasn't worth the risk. (I heard a Nellie interview where he said the Mavs' doctors told Perot Thomas' foot would heal fine and Perot balked at paying him) Cuban changed the whole environment and players actually wanted to stay here. And the bottom line is the team has been a winner since he got here any number of things could have killed this team but they keep plugging along.

[Darth Ape]

Originally Posted by Bookit

Perot didn't want to spend a nickel and basically didn't offer Kurt Thomas any money because his injury wasn't worth the risk. (I heard a Nellie interview where he said the Mavs' doctors told Perot Thomas' foot would heal fine and Perot balked at paying him) Cuban changed the whole environment and players actually wanted to stay here. And the bottom line is the team has been a winner since he got here any number of things could have killed this team but they keep plugging along.

Yeah, the Mavs have been great at nabbing free agents since Cuban took over. Oh wait... no, they've actually been terrible.

I guess they can claim that the players on the roster actually want to stay here... that is if you exclude all-star point guards and future league MVPs.

The best thing that I can say about Cuban is that his heart is in the right place. He genually cares about the team and is willing to invest financially in it... which is actually a legitimate gripe against Perot and Zachanelli.

But don't get dedication confused with competence. Perot may not have cared as much as Cuban appears to. But he may have been better at his job.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

Yeah, the Mavs have been great at nabbing free agents since Cuban took over. Oh wait... no, they've actually been terrible.

I guess they can claim that the players on the roster actually want to stay here... that is if you exclude all-star point guards and future league MVPs.

The best thing that I can say about Cuban is that his heart is in the right place. He genually cares about the team and is willing to invest financially in it... which is actually a legitimate gripe against Perot and Zachanelli.

But don't get dedication confused with competence. Perot may not have cared as much as Cuban appears to. But he may have been better at his job.

Well I don't confuse dedication (to anti-cuban bias) with competence either.

[Darth Ape]

"The team has been better since he's been here"

That's the crux of the pro-Cuban sentiment. But it makes as much sense as attributing the ascension to Mavs Man. If you can't point to one positive thing he's contributed, then the simple fact that he's been here doesn't cut the mustard.

I can recite dozens of things he's done since he's been here to screw things up. But what actual good has he done? All the crap he's spent his money on: The plane, the chairs, the playstations, the towels... what has the end result been? This team can't attract a decent free agent to save his life. And many current players are outwardly releived to leave this place.

His willingess to take on salaries via trade? Hey, it's great in principle, but it only works when you get back decent players. Real success is built on being smart with the players you acquire. Perot didn't need to spend $100M to get Nash, Dirk, and Finley. With all his millions, Cuban has yet to acquire a single player in trade to even sniff the all-star team.

[dude1394]

The one thing that cubes has done is...and it's the most important one...

He removed all excuses from the players for poor performances. He made sure their bodies were taken care of, he made sure they had the best scouting, video, training, coaching that money could buy.

He removed any and all excuses. He set the tone for the organization that they would be looking for a championship, that nothing else would be the goal, that they would continue down that path until they got one. All within some sort of financial reason.

He took lessons from successful franchises (spurs for example) and tried to build infrastructure and human collateral in his players by learning his lesson about turning over the roster (like nellie liked to do) every 2-3 years.

He gave them direction and a clear purpose and made sure they had the resources to compete for that purpose.

That's what leaders of businesses and sports teams do.

And the results he's gotten are irrefutable.

[Darth Ape]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The one thing that cubes has done is...and it's the most important one...

He removed all excuses from the players for poor performances. He made sure their bodies were taken care of, he made sure they had the best scouting, video, training, coaching that money could buy.

He removed any and all excuses. He set the tone for the organization that they would be looking for a championship, that nothing else would be the goal, that they would continue down that path until they got one. All within some sort of financial reason.

He took lessons from successful franchises (spurs for example) and tried to build infrastructure and human collateral in his players by learning his lesson about turning over the roster (like nellie liked to do) every 2-3 years.

He gave them direction and a clear purpose and made sure they had the resources to compete for that purpose.

That's what leaders of businesses and sports teams do.

And the results he's gotten are irrefutable.

OK. Whatever.

We'll see how far this wonderful "no excuses" contribution takes the team when they have a bunch of aging players, an average coach, no draft picks, no cap flexibility, and waning fan interest.

And we'll see how far Cuban's mad skillz as an owner take him when he doesn't have the luxury of living off his inheritance.

My guess is that he falls flat on it's smug f***ing face. When that happens, I wonder what "excuse" he'll come up with for failure.

Probably blame it all on the refs again, eh? A grand conspiracy by David Stern to keep the Mavs down.

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

Yeah, the Mavs have been great at nabbing free agents since Cuban took over. Oh wait... no, they've actually been terrible.

I guess they can claim that the players on the roster actually want to stay here... that is if you exclude all-star point guards and future league MVPs.

The best thing that I can say about Cuban is that his heart is in the right place. He genually cares about the team and is willing to invest financially in it... which is actually a legitimate gripe against Perot and Zachanelli.

But don't get dedication confused with competence. Perot may not have cared as much as Cuban appears to. But he may have been better at his job.

god i hate you

[Darth Ape]

Originally Posted by Bookit

And the bottom line is the team has been a winner since he got here any number of things could have killed this team but they keep plugging along.

That's a great point.

I just thought of something else... I think the real credit for the team's turnaround is MAVS MAN. I mean, look at the facts. How many playoff games did the Mavs win before his arrival? Huh?

[Dim499]

I think Cuban gets a little too much credit for the record after he bought the team.

[Fidel]

The reason for the turnaround was Dirk. As long as you have an MVP type player like Dirk it doesn´t matter who the owner is or what else happens with the team, you´ll allways be in playoff contention (which is exactly what the Mavs are right now: a team in playoff contention but not in championship contention).

[Murphy3]

I've always believed that Cuban got way too much of the credit for this team's turnaround. So much more of the credit belongs with a group of young guys finally figuring out how to win... The credit belongs mainly with Dirk, Fin, and Nash. Cuban is behind all three of those guys on the list.. far behind.

That's not to say that he doesn't deserve credit...

[Darth Ape]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I've always believed that Cuban got way too much of the credit for this team's turnaround. So much more of the credit belongs with a group of young guys finally figuring out how to win... The credit belongs mainly with Dirk, Fin, and Nash. Cuban is behind all three of those guys on the list.. far behind.

That's not to say that he doesn't deserve credit...

Credit ranking:
1) The players (Nash,Dirk, Finley)
2) The GM that acquired those players (Don Nelson in the case of Dirk and Nash)
3) The owner responsible for hiring the GM (Perot)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

Credit ranking:
1) The players (Nash,Dirk, Finley)
2) The GM that acquired those players (Don Nelson in the case of Dirk and Nash)
3) The owner responsible for hiring the GM (Perot)

So exactly what changed between the day cuban didn't own the team to when he did own the team to have them playing at a 62% versus 31% winning percentage. Did dirk learn a post-up move? Did finley grow handles? Did nash learn to play defense?

Hmm...just by having a guy who they knew would give them what they needed to win, they doubled their winning percentage with not a single new player, coach, stadium, nothing.

Yea...I'm SURE the team would have doubled their winning percentage if Zachanelli/Perot would have continued to own the team.

Right, that's why they are so successful with their current teams.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So exactly what changed between the day cuban didn't own the team to when he did own the team to have them playing at a 62% versus 31% winning percentage. Did dirk learn a post-up move? Did finley grow handles? Did nash learn to play defense?

Hmm...just by having a guy who they knew would give them what they needed to win, they doubled their winning percentage with not a single new player, coach, stadium, nothing.

Yea...I'm SURE the team would have doubled their winning percentage if Zachanelli/Perot would have continued to own the team.

Right, that's why they are so successful with their current teams.

No, young Dirk and Nash were just learning how to play. That's where the majority of the credit should be aimed.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Ape, we all know you are secretly in love with Cuban. You are to Cuban like Tom Cruise is to men.




"Come on out of the closet Tom"

Come on Ape, we'll all accept you for who you truly are. Cuban forgives you...

[ghazi]

2006 finals were BS is ALL i gots to add to this argument.

[chumdawg]

Come on, dude. Are you really suggesting that a change of ownership instantaneously made the basketball team so markedly better on the floor? I'm happy to consider arguments about how Cuban has helped the basketball product, but I remain very certain that that team didn't suddenly become better at basketball when they saw Cuban ride in on a white horse.

[dude1394]

You tell me chum. One week they were 31% winners and the next week they were 62% winners?

Was it something nelson said? I happen to think that leadership is a lot more important than many do. I've seen organizations replace their head man and he doesn't do anything more than instill in the organization a desire to achieve by getting them all believing they can do it.

Same people, same products, same processes, same factories, more dollars, more products and higher quality. It's the same with leadership in battle, etc. Not equating cubes to a general, but I'm a very firm believer that leadership and common goals really matter. Especially when the personnel are all great atheletes and so much of performance is want to and desire.

[LonghornDub]

I'm sure Cuban's purchase of the team had an impact on the on-court quality. Not because it made anybody better, but because it gave them a "second wind" via an injection of excitement.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

I'm sure Cuban's purchase of the team had an impact on the on-court quality. Not because it made anybody better, but because it gave them a "second wind" via an injection of excitement.

My thoughts exactly. Nelson may have brought in the talent, and for that he deserves all the credit in the world. But Cuban deserves credit as well for bringing excitement and a "winning attitude" to the team. Of course by "winning attitude," I mean the willingness to spend lots and lots of money.

[chumdawg]

You could sell the Clippers to Tony freakin' Robbins and they still wouldn't get any better on the court. It's digging awfully deep into the psychological voodoo bag to think that Cuban suddenly made a basketball team better when he started signing their checks.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You could sell the Clippers to Tony freakin' Robbins and they still wouldn't get any better on the court. It's digging awfully deep into the psychological voodoo bag to think that Cuban suddenly made a basketball team better when he started signing their checks.

yes... when you're willing to pay money for players... it generally helps the team... When you're not willing to pay... it generally doesn't. Like the Clippers, Bobcats Mavs under the Perot group etc... (And please, Chum, don't use that as a springboard to bring up Nash.)

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You could sell the Clippers to Tony freakin' Robbins and they still wouldn't get any better on the court. It's digging awfully deep into the psychological voodoo bag to think that Cuban suddenly made a basketball team better when he started signing their checks.

It doesn't "make anyone better," but it can snap guys out of a funk where they're just going through the motions. Incidentally, the same phenomenon is part of the reason why Avery was fired.

Same thing happens whenever a team gets a new coach midseason and suddenly starts playing a whole lot better. Normally, it's not a case of new X's and O's, because there isn't enough time to implement them (Nellie to Avery may be the exception there, if you can even call what Avery did X's and O's). It's a case of extra motivation stemming from the new leader.

I dunno about you, but i know I'm a lot more motivated when I first start a new job/class/whatever than when I've been doing it for awhile. And while getting a new owner isn't a "new job," it's an injection of a new element into what otherwise was the same old environment. Things that are new and exciting tend to be more fun, and everybody knows you do your job better when you're enjoying it.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

I dunno about you, but i know I'm a lot more motivated when I first start a new job/class/whatever than when I've been doing it for awhile.

You're still the same guy, though. You didn't get any smarter when you took that new job or class. And by the same token, your professor who's been doing it twenty years doesn't get any worse for the wear.

I'm not discounting the temporary burst that the 2000 Mavs may have received to their psyches when the team changed ownership, but I also know enough about cause and effect--as do you--to be 100% convinced that the change of ownership didn't, in and of itself, make them that much better a basketball team for the long haul. All else being equal, of course.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You're still the same guy, though. You didn't get any smarter when you took that new job or class. And by the same token, your professor who's been doing it twenty years doesn't get any worse for the wear.

I'm not discounting the temporary burst that the 2000 Mavs may have received to their psyches when the team changed ownership, but I also know enough about cause and effect--as do you--to be 100% convinced that the change of ownership didn't, in and of itself, make them that much better a basketball team for the long haul. All else being equal, of course.

Of course, you're absolutely right. I think of it like this: in the very immediate short term, the team got a psychological boost from having a new owner. But, in the long term, the "improvements" stemming from Cuban's purchase were the practical result of his willingness to spend more money than the previous regime. In the long-term, Cuban's presence itself didn't improve anything, but his money did.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

Of course, you're absolutely right. I think of it like this: in the very immediate short term, the team got a psychological boost from having a new owner. But, in the long term, the "improvements" stemming from Cuban's purchase were the practical result of his willingness to spend more money than the previous regime. In the long-term, Cuban's presence itself didn't improve anything, but his money did.

I hear what you are saying. But at the same time, it's interesting to imagine how things would have panned out if a Cuban hadn't bought the team. After all, I think we can all agree that everything the Mavs have done in the 00's has been down to Dirk, and that without Dirk the Mavs could have, at best, hoped to be also-rans.

Imagine, if you will, an RC Buford and the Spurs ownership--who even owns the Spurs? Can you name him/her/them? I can't--building around a Dirk like they built around Duncan.

I guess the fact that I, as a fairly diehard NBA fan, can't tell you who owns the Spurs, with their several championship rings, tells you what I think of Cuban's contributions--and also of Dirk's.

[Darth Ape]

Perot wouldn't have started a losing war with David Stern and the refs.
Perot wouldn't have entered into an ego clash with Don Nelson or undermined him in the press and in front of the team.
Perot wouldn't have thrown a bunch of cash at worthless players, burdening the team with a supporting cast of broken down has-beens and forcing the franchise into an impossibly inflexible cap situation.
Perot wouldn't have felt the need to punish Nash's apparent lack of loyalty and probably would have matched the Sun's reasonable contract offer.
Perot would never have been called a "distraction" by his own players

just to name a few things...