Inside the Dallas Mavericks: January 22, 2004

[Max Power]

The Dallas Morning News' Mavericks beat writer Eddie Sefko and NBA beat writer Chuck Carlton answer your questions about the team and league each Thursday in this column exclusively for DallasNews.com.
E-mail your questions to Eddie and Chuck, and check out more coverage at our Mavericks/NBA area.

Mavs make significant progress
02:42 AM CST on Thursday, January 22, 2004

Call Mavericks center Danny Fortson greedy.

“We’re not satisfied with five wins,” Fortson said after the Mavericks' latest victory Tuesday over New Jersey. “We’ll be happy once we get to 10 wins in a row, like the Pistons.”

Officially, all the Mavericks are thinking about is getting to No. 6 Thursday against the depleted Los Angeles Lakers.

Just the fact the Mavericks are talking about what they can accomplish is a good sign. Last week, with the trade talk and the Nellie vs. Cuban soap opera, the Mavericks were a tent and a couple elephants away from being a full-fledged circus.

Now they are back to being serious contenders again.

They’ve won five in a row and they’re sneaking up on San Antonio and the Lakers. Does anyone really believe that Midwest leader Minnesota is really out of the Mavericks' league?

An implosion is unlikely now.

The question is how much better the Mavericks can be.

They are still winning with a limited Steve Nash, with a just returned Josh Howard and with Eduardo Najera still on the injured list. Players have only started to put a stamp on their roles.

Look at Antoine Walker recording 11 assists and just one turnover in Portland while essentially playing point in Nash’s absence. Look at the increased offensive production from Michael Finley and Dirk Nowitzki the past five games. Continue the three consecutive road wins by six points or less, reminiscent of how the Mavericks played last season.

So does that mean the Mavericks have yet to play their best basketball?

“Oh, yeah. Not even close,” Fortson said. “We’re just starting to finally close games as a unit. Mike and Steve and Dirk have nothing to prove because they won games last year on the road. Those last road games were impressive because we finally closed out at the end.”

Call it a significant step, just like another win or two or three would be in the streak.

MAVERICKS/NBA Q&A
Q: Why does it seem that all of the trade speculation surrounds Antawn Jamison? He's been the most consistent player thus far this year, and he's the only one who actually cuts to the basket without the ball. He scores and rebounds well. Why the rush to move him?

Daniel, College Station, Texas

CARLTON: The Mavericks like Jamison – a lot. He’s given them inside offense and has willingly sacrificed by adjusting to a sixth-man role after being the No. 1 option in Golden State. He’s a positive influence in the locker room. But because he’s a max salary player coming off the bench, people have assumed he might be available. He was a career 20-point scorer in Golden State who can play either forward position, and he has trade value throughout the league. But Jamison has value to the Mavericks, especially with the team coming together. They won’t move him unless they feel they can improve their team, which requires an impact player coming in return.

•••

Q: Exactly what is it about Rasheed Wallace that makes him so desirable? What kind of presence defensively does he bring, if any? Aren't Kurt Thomas or Brian Grant better fits for Dallas?

CARLTON: The key thing about Rasheed Wallace is potential. He’s an athletic 6-10 player who can be difficult to defend inside and can also shoot the 3-pointer. Wallace can play anywhere from small forward to center and is a good defender when motivated. At times, he looks like one of the top-10 players in the league. Other teams believe that if they can find the right formula to motivate and control Wallace, he can be a force. On the down side is all the baggage - -the technicals, the bad attitude -- that he has accumulated in Portland. What makes Wallace more attractive than Kurt Thomas or Brian Grant is the upside. Thomas and Grant work extremely hard and get the most from their ability. What you see is what you get. Wallace can be far more than the player people see now.

•••

Q: Can you please explain what is a team rebound, assist and blocking foul? Though I know what all these mean, I think I miss something.

CARLTON: A team rebound is credited when a team gains possession after a missed shot without a clear-cut rebound. Here’s an example: Michael Finley takes a shot for the Mavericks. Shawn Bradley and several opponents go for the rebound. The ball goes out of bounds but is ruled to have been touched last by an opponent. It’s not a turnover, because the opponent never had possession. Bradley never had possession either. And to make missed shots equal rebounds, the play has to be noted somewhere, statistically. Hence the team rebound accounts for such plays. The team and not any one individual is credited with the rebound. An assist is a pass that leads directly to a made basket. There’s always a gray area with assists. Is merely finding a player who immediately takes a 22-footer an assist? How about if the player takes a pass inside and does a Jordanesque move? In most cases, those count as much as a brilliant behind-the-back pass. A blocking foul is a situation where the defender has not established position to draw a charge.

•••

Q: Why aren't the Mavericks putting the ball into Michael Finley's and Dirk Nowitzki's hands more often? They can't score if they don't get the ball.

Kathy Klimpel, Houston

CARLTON: If you look at the current five-game winning streak, the Mavericks are doing just that. Dirk Nowitzki is averaging 19 shots a game, up three from his season average. Michael Finley is getting nearly 22 shots per game during the streak, an increase of six over his season average. Why weren’t the Mavericks doing this earlier? Roles were still being formed with the additions of Antoine Walker and Antoine Jamison. Nowitzki had the problematic ankle injuries, and Finley suffered from injuries and poor shooting early. But the Mavericks play their best when Nowitzki and Finley do what they do best.

•••

Q: What does the NBA organization look like and who pays David Stern and Stu Jackson? And whom they report to? If Stern or Jackson want to go on vacation or something, who should approve that kind of thing?

CARLTON: David Stern’s official title is commissioner, but it’s probably easier to think of him as the NBA’s chief executive officer, just like the head of American Airlines or General Motors. In terms of NBA employees, the flow chart lines eventually converge with Stern. It’s true for Steve Jackson, the senior vice president for basketball operations. And it’s true for public relations, marketing, officiating, you name it. Just as in the corporate environment, Stern reports to a board of directors, i.e., the league’s 29 owners. If enough of them want Stern out, then he’s gone. Stern and Jackson are paid by the teams. As for vacation, that’s usually part of an executive compensation package that allows Stern and Jackson to use it at any time. Stern has a capable deputy in Russ Granik, so time off isn’t an issue.

•••

Q: I am concerned about the Mavericks’ lack of defense in the final seconds of a quarter. I understand that sometimes it is luck when a shot beats the buzzer, but when you have given up as many as the Mavs have through the first half of the season, isn’t it about time they change strategies on how to defend the waning seconds of a quarter?

CARLTON: A couple factors come into play at the end of quarters. For one, teams are pushing the ball aggressively and the Mavericks aren’t the greatest help team in the world. If the Mavericks go zone, that concedes the kind of outside shot that you’re describing. Another problem is that the Mavericks may be a little snakebit. Remember a couple seasons ago when Steve Nash had a run of buzzer-beaters? Was that poor defense by the opponent or just a series of unique situations? But certainly in the playoffs, the Mavericks must be better in the final seconds of quarters and games.

•••

Q: Michael Finley in 1999-2000 averaged 6.3 rebounds per game, 5.3 assists per game and 22.6 points per game among many other impressive stats. He wasn't even at the top of his game. Michael was still improving. Finley has suppressed his game for chemistry's sake and his stats have gone down. However, he can still play like that when the Mavs need him. He is the leader of the Mavs and is the reason the team has such great chemistry. Michael is also a great player. He can provide both of those things when not playing, and over the past two years the Mavs are 8-10 without him. The Mavs have a better record without Dirk than without Michael. So why are so many people supportive of trading him?

Devon Brewster

CARLTON: I don’t know how many people really would like to get rid of Michael Finley, although there is a vocal group that wonders if making a move might be in the team’s best interest. Their logic is that the Mavericks have gotten the best from Finley, who turns 31 in March. He’s starting to encounter troublesome lingering injuries. As much as they respect his contributions to the team, they would like an opportunity to move a player with an imposing max contract before a likely decline.

•••

Q: Would you please tell me why Nick Van Exel was traded to Golden State? Was Danny Fortson part of the deal?

Phil, Los Angeles

CARLTON: The nine-player trade that sent Nick Van Exel to Golden State brought the Mavericks several useful parts. Antawn Jamison is younger and bigger than Van Exel and arrived with a history as a big-time scorer. Danny Fortson came over as well. He’s been effective in limited minutes and maybe should be seeing even more time. Promising European Jiri Welsch was also part of the deal. He was turned (along with Raef LaFrentz and a draft pick) into Antoine Walker, whom the Mavs got from Boston. As much as people may miss Van Exel, he was 31 with a big contract. His value was not going any higher. Now his knee is flaring up, so it’s hard to argue with the Mavericks' decision.

•••

Q: Everybody says "this team can't play defense" and "you can't win with this lineup." I know all you guys are experts, but I just want to remind you that the same folks said exactly the same thing about last year's team, which came within a hair of the finals. Sometimes Nellie drives me crazy, too, and his players certainly aren't helping him much right now (especially the original Big Three). But when everybody expounds on what the Mavs must do or can't do, I remember how wrong these predictions were last year. Your records as psychics usually aren't any better than the Mavs' performance.

Ken Badt, Dallas

CARLTON: Not to be Clintonesque, but it all depends on what your definition of “winning” is. Can the Mavericks win playing an up-tempo style that emphasizes offense and exploits matchups? Well, they can put together 50 or 60 victories in a season. They can go to the conference finals, if everything falls into place. Can they win an NBA title? No, or at least not yet. With recent NBA champions having shown more of a defensive component than the Mavericks, media people and fans will continue to doubt the Mavericks until they do win it all. A Catch-22? Yeah. Unfair? Perhaps. But it’s really no different that people doubting Peyton Manning’s ability to win a playoff game until he did. As for a psychic record, I once turned down a gig at the Weekly World News . So there.

•••

Q: What’s the latest on Eduardo Najera’s injury? And what kind of contribution do you think he’ll make on his return?

CARLTON: Eduardo Najera is sidelined at least another 10 days with a problem in his left leg. Najera has been troubled by knee problems the past couple seasons. Right now, his quadriceps muscle is not strong enough to take pressure off the knee. While coach Don Nelson has referred to Najera as one of his top defenders, much depends on Najera’s health when he returns. Even early this season, he was laboring at times to get up court and in defensive position because of the knee. If he can be the aggressive, energetic player of a couple seasons ago, it will be a significant bonus.

•••

Q: I want a career in journalism and I want to focus on sports. I have encountered many people who say that there is no place for a female in this line of work unless it is focusing primarily on female sports, but my heart is in the NBA. I am looking for internship opportunities and any advances that I might be able to make in obtaining my career goal. I am lacking guidance and looking for answers. Can you tell me how you got to where you are today?

Lauren Latimer

CARLTON: In my case, it was simply good fortune and dumb luck. I think you have more going for you judging from your letter. If you really, really want to work in sports, consider majoring in journalism in college. Volunteer to work for the campus newspaper, even if your first assignment is the chess club. Work your way up, learn to write basic stories and take chances. Think of stories you like and would like to read. Ask what was the most important aspect of a game or individual player. And work hard. Another option might be to enter into sports management, where your horizons could include public relations, marketing or other front office duties. Your gender shouldn’t be a handicap and actually could be an advantage. Employers often look for well-qualified females candidates. A word of caution though: Be prepared for long and strange hours as well as various pressures that come within the industry. Remember that while your friends might be having a great time on a Friday night, you may be sitting in an arena watching the Atlanta Hawks, with no prospect of leaving before hitting your midnight deadline. I’m not trying to discourage you, but there are plusses and minuses to every career, including this one.

[kingrex]

Interesting article. I had no idea that so many morons were also fans of the Mavericks, wow! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]