Poll: If the Mavs can't land Shaq, who's your next choice? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

kg_veteran · 06-26-2004, 10:58 AM

I'm curious to see how this turns out. I tried to make it a pretty comprehensive list. My apologies to those left off.

SeriousSummer · 06-26-2004, 11:20 AM

It's hard to pick, because it all depends on what you have to give up. Since we've got our project, I'd be more inclined to a guy who can play now--at least for a year or two--rather than a younger guy with more upside. Also, he's got to be big--real big and strong, but not completely washed up.

So I'd see as ready to play now: Battie, Dampier, Divac, Foyle, Ilgauskas, and maybe Pollard, Blount, Wright (not big enough but battlers). Young guys who have enough talent to be worth while getting: Dalembert, Chandler, Okur and Diop.

I don't see how we could get Dalembert, Divac, Blount or Okur and still keep Daniels. So our trading partners need to be Golden State (Dampier, Foyle); Cleveland (Diop, Ilgauskas or Battie); Indiana (Pollard) or, least likely, Chicago (Chandler).

Cleveland looks like the best choice--they need players we have. Then Golden State to get something for their free agents in a sign and trade. Indiana is feasible, but Pollard isn't that good.

BTW: I voted for Ilgauskas--but only because I want to see a line up of Daniels/Dirk (at shooting guard)/Ilgauskas (small forward)/Pavel (power forward) and Bradley. I don't think an NBA team has ever played a line up averaging over 7' tall. I have confidence Nelson would try it.

sike · 06-26-2004, 11:31 AM

I voted for Ilgauskas--but only because I want to see a line up of Daniels/Dirk (at shooting guard)/Ilgauskas (small forward)/Pavel (power forward) and Bradley. I don't think an NBA team has ever played a line up averaging over 7' tall. I have confidence Nelson would try it.
doubtful.....

almost too many names kg....and SS is right..what does it take to get these guys...in this little hypothetical does each come for the same price or do we have to weigh all variables? assuming we have to weigh variables, I'll take Dampier because I think he helps us rid ourselves of Walker and adds a huge atheletic body in the middle.
though i do think Chandler has amazing upside...

grndmstr_c · 06-26-2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

I voted for Ilgauskas--but only because I want to see a line up of Daniels/Dirk (at shooting guard)/Ilgauskas (small forward)/Pavel (power forward) and Bradley. I don't think an NBA team has ever played a line up averaging over 7' tall. I have confidence Nelson would try it.
doubtful.....

But the mental image is priceless.

I voted Dalembert, though I doubt he's obtainable. The one ingredient the Mavs are missing in their center rotation is athleticism. I'd like to see them get that in the package that has the best combination of readiness to contribute, health, and upside. IMO, the three most athletic guys from the list are Chandler, Dalembert, and Gadzuric. Of those three, Dalembert strikes me as the most ready to help now, beats Gadzuric out on upside, and beats Chandler out on health.

Of course, like others have said, in the end it comes down to who you have to give up, and fortunately, there are a number of names on that list that I'd be happy to get (including Gadzuric and Chandler). I just hope the Mavs can land one of them.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-26-2004, 11:59 AM

I chose Tony Battie. Two guys I would love to have who don't feel the Mavs needs are Gadzuric and Chandler just based on potential alone.

chumdawg · 06-26-2004, 12:05 PM

KG, I know you were looking for big men only, but I believe there is a decent chance they would trade for T-Mac and continue to play small ball with Dirk at the 5.

I have no idea what my "choice" would be if I could have it my own way, but my "choice" of what I think they will do is: Dampier.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-26-2004, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: chumdawg
KG, I know you were looking for big men only, but I believe there is a decent chance they would trade for T-Mac and continue to play small ball with Dirk at the 5.

I have no idea what my "choice" would be if I could have it my own way, but my "choice" of what I think they will do is: Dampier.

There's no chance to get T-Mac in here now without Dirk. You had Jamison to throw at them with a package but now all you have is an aging Finley and Nash. They are going to want some 20 year old in return for T-Mac.

dude1394 · 06-26-2004, 12:10 PM

I'll have to look at it quite a bit. What I really, truly want in a center that is one mean sob. Malone would have been perfect for us and I can understand why mourning was attractive last year as all I can remember about georgetown players is that they were a bunch of thugs. I don't want a dirty player but one that's edgy for sure.

It's strange but I keep looking back at mavericks in the past who were very successful without a dominant center and I think of donaldson. He wasn't a scorer, he was a rebounder but he also was pretty chippy in there. That is my only knock I think on dampier, he may not be that kind of guy.

grndmstr_c · 06-26-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

There's no chance to get T-Mac in here now without Dirk. You had Jamison to throw at them with a package but now all you have is an aging Finley and Nash. They are going to want some 20 year old in return for T-Mac.

The Mavs have considerably more than an aging Finley and Nash that they could throw out there for TMac if they were so inclined (and I'm not talking about Dirk). Maybe more important than what they could throw out there is what they could potentially take back, eg., Grant Hill, Juwan Howard. Not saying that's what I want them to do, just saying that's what they can do.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-26-2004, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

Quote:

There's no chance to get T-Mac in here now without Dirk. You had Jamison to throw at them with a package but now all you have is an aging Finley and Nash. They are going to want some 20 year old in return for T-Mac.

The Mavs have considerably more than an aging Finley and Nash that they could throw out there for TMac if they were so inclined (and I'm not talking about Dirk). Maybe more important than what they could throw out there is what they could potentially take back, eg., Grant Hill, Juwan Howard. Not saying that's what I want them to do, just saying that's what they can do.

Well who else is left? Josh who is still on his rookie contract or Stackhouse?

grndmstr_c · 06-26-2004, 12:28 PM

FFM, come on man. Use your brain. All the talk is about the Magic trading him away for Francis and Mobley and still being stuck with Grant Hill's contract. The Mavs have the roster flexibility to give them cheaper, younger guys (JHo, Harris, Pod), established talent at any position other than center, and/or can offer them expiring contracts to rescue them from the albatross of Grant Hill AND Juwan Howard at the same time. Now maybe the Magic hold Steve Francis in higher regard than I do, but surely you can see that if the Mavs wanted to inject themselves into the bidding for McGrady they have the pieces to do it.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-26-2004, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c
FFM, come on man. Use your brain. All the talk is about the Magic trading him away for Francis and Mobley and still being stuck with Grant Hill's contract. The Mavs have the roster flexibility to give them cheaper, younger guys (JHo, Harris, Pod), established talent at any position other than center, and/or can offer them expiring contracts to rescue them from the albatross of Grant Hill AND Juwan Howard at the same time. Now maybe the Magic hold Steve Francis in higher regard than I do, but surely you can see that if the Mavs wanted to inject themselves into the bidding for McGrady they have the pieces to do it.

Use your brain. This isn't a regular player this is T-Mac. This guy is a top 5 player in this league. Mavs don't even have a top 5 player on their team but you mean to tell me that the Mavs can up up about 28 million in salaries which is about what T-Mac and Grant come to without giving up Dirk? Howard, Harris nor Pod don't come out to what T-Mac and Grant Hill contracts come out to.

Evilmav2 · 06-26-2004, 12:35 PM

I vote for Laettner and Pavel. I am already very, very happy with our young offseason, and with the prospective state of our frontcourt rotation...

FilthyFinMavs · 06-26-2004, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Evilmav2
I vote for Laettner and Pavel. I am already very, very happy with our young offseason, and with the prospective state of our frontcourt rotation...

I just hope those 2.5 points a game and those 2 boards a game doesn't show what he is capable of doing. Donnie was on the radio yesterday talking about how he was just in a bad coaching situation. I hope that's right.

grndmstr_c · 06-26-2004, 12:45 PM

FFM, I sent you a PM so we won't hijack the thread.

uberfan · 06-26-2004, 12:54 PM

I agree with the other cooments regarding what we give up on our end.

If I am looking at the most "get-able" players, then I think you look at Nazr, Grant, Dekembe and Calvin mostly because of their contract situations, and then Ostertag if he comes at a home-town discount (LLE).

If you are willing to forego re-signing Daniels to MLE, then

Blount, Okur, Etan, and Foyle are all real possibilites.

Through a SNT? Dampier is a possibility, but so is Gaduric a possibility in a 3-way if Dampier goes to Bucks.

I haven't voted yet, still thinking this one through.

Let me add a twist to this poll. If it is absolutley impossible to get Shaq without Dirk, would you go another way and give up on Daniels to use the full MLE on a FA center?

dalmations202 · 06-26-2004, 12:54 PM

Quote:

I voted Dalembert, though I doubt he's obtainable. The one ingredient the Mavs are missing in their center rotation is athleticism. I'd like to see them get that in the package that has the best combination of readiness to contribute, health, and upside. IMO, the three most athletic guys from the list are Chandler, Dalembert, and Gadzuric. Of those three, Dalembert strikes me as the most ready to help now, beats Gadzuric out on upside, and beats Chandler out on health.

Of course, like others have said, in the end it comes down to who you have to give up, and fortunately, there are a number of names on that list that I'd be happy to get (including Gadzuric and Chandler). I just hope the Mavs can land one of them.

Grand,
you nailed my opinion right here, and said it better than I could.

dude1394 · 06-26-2004, 12:55 PM

please hijck it, please!

kg_veteran · 06-26-2004, 01:09 PM

I didn't put in what we'd have to give in each situation because that would be a really long poll...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

If we can't get Shaq without giving Dirk, my first preference would be to let Daniels walk, but I'd have to know that I had either Okur, E. Thomas, or Foyle inked to an MLE deal. I don't want him walking so that I can sign Greg Ostertag or Mark Blount.

dirno2000 · 06-26-2004, 01:14 PM

Dalembert but, like GMC, I don't think he's attainable so I went with Dampier.

kg_veteran · 06-26-2004, 01:27 PM

I have concerns about Dampier. I think he was playing for a contract. I don't know that we should count on him playing hard if we end up giving him a big contract in a sign-and-trade deal.

uberfan · 06-26-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I didn't put in what we'd have to give in each situation because that would be a really long poll...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

If we can't get Shaq without giving Dirk, my first preference would be to let Daniels walk, but I'd have to know that I had either Okur, E. Thomas, or Foyle inked to an MLE deal. I don't want him walking so that I can sign Greg Ostertag or Mark Blount.

I agree with you on that KG. That is the way I have been thinking.

Actually, I have been trying to think of a scenario where Orlando signs Daniels, we give them a wink/wink that we won't match, then we trade for McGrady and take back Hill and Juwan Howard, sending them expiring contracts. I haven't thought this through yet, but if Orlando would be interested in taking Fin to use for veteran leadership and a productive player, we could send Walker and L8 in separate deals, Hill's and Juwan Howard's contracts back.

Use the MLE on a starting center.

Sign Etan or Foyle for MLE.

I guess I would for Etan in this case because he has been a bit more durable than Foyle. But I wouldn't mind Foyle.

chumdawg · 06-26-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I have concerns about Dampier. I think he was playing for a contract. I don't know that we should count on him playing hard if we end up giving him a big contract in a sign-and-trade deal.

I would think that playing for a championship would be great motivation, too. It has to have been tough to wallow in that Golden State mess all these years.

I think we'd get a similar effort out of him if we could bring him in here. And I think there's a chance we get something even better. NVE and Jamison are proof positive that this Dallas team has a way of bringing out the good in players.

chumdawg · 06-26-2004, 03:01 PM

I've done a little studying up on Dampier. It could be that the guy was just coming into his own last year.

Most of his career he has played significantly fewer minutes per game than he did last year. The only year he was on the floor as much as last year was his sophomore season, when he averaged 11.8 points and 8.7 boards.

His third, fourth, and fifth seasons were plagued by injuries to his left knee, which could be a reason why he developed slowly. The good news on this front is that apparently he worked hard on conditioning, and when he missed the last eight games of this past season, it ended a streak of 156 consecutive games played.

If you take the seasons where he played fewer minutes and extrapolate those stats out to the 32 minutes he played last year, you get something like this:

year.....pts.....rbs....blks
1997....11.4....9.1...2.2
1998....11.8....8.7....1.7
1999....10.1....8.7....1.3
2000....11.0....8.8....1.0
2001....10.0....7.8....1.8
2002....10.4....7.2....3.1
2003....11.1....8.9....2.5
2004....12.3....12.0....1.9

Interestingly, Dampier came into the league the same year as Ben Wallace. It took Wallace four years of experience (and a move to Detroit) for him to become something special. Could be that Dampier is now strong enough and experienced enough to continue this kind of play for the rest of his career. And playing for a contender would have to help, too.

kg_veteran · 06-26-2004, 04:28 PM

Chumdawg - Don't get me wrong. If we can land Dampier, I'm not going to be upset. I'll take the chance...I'm just concerned.

Uberfan - Interesting thoughts. Taking your idea and running with it, the trade would look like this:

Finley/Walker/Laettner (don't match Daniels with the MLE) for
McGrady/Hill/Howard

Sign Thomas or Foyle (I prefer Foyle) with the MLE.

So we take on Howard's lengthy contract and Hill's three years left and in exchange they take on Finley's deal.

Mavs roster after this maneuvering:

Foyle or E. Thomas, Bradley, Pavel, Fortson
Nowitzki, Juwan Howard, Najera
Josh Howard, Stackhouse
McGrady
Nash, Harris

Yeah, I'd do that.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-26-2004, 04:32 PM

Dampier is just another Jim Mcilvane and Olowakandi waiting to happen.

chumdawg · 06-26-2004, 04:44 PM

That's a pretty good way to get McGrady. There might even be enough left afterwards to still make a run at Dampier. I don't know how high GS's asking price is going to be, but I bet it would be affordable. How scary is this starting lineup:

Dampier
Nowitzki
Howard
Mcgrady
Nash

MightyToine · 06-26-2004, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: chumdawg
That's a pretty good way to get McGrady. There might even be enough left afterwards to still make a run at Dampier. I don't know how high GS's asking price is going to be, but I bet it would be affordable. How scary is this starting lineup:

Dampier
Nowitzki
Howard
Mcgrady
Nash

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!

Pretty good, too. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

MavKikiNYC · 06-26-2004, 05:09 PM

Please add Pat Riley's and Phil Jackon's names to the list.

dirno2000 · 06-26-2004, 05:16 PM

There's no doubt that wherever Dampier ends up that he'll be overpaid, as will Okur. That just speaks to the scarcity of decent big men. That being said, he's head and shoulders above the next available option.

ocelot_ark · 06-26-2004, 05:38 PM

I would really like to see us add Tyson Chandler and if not him, Dalambert. Before Chandler got hurt last season he was pulling down 15+ rebounds a night consistently for a few weeks. I could see him being a good energy guy for this club.

FolterKammer84 · 06-26-2004, 05:41 PM

after reading all of your comments the best scenario in my opinion is the

nash /harris
mcgrady / daniels
howard / stackhouse
dirk/ etan thomas
dampier/bradley/podkolzine

lineup . i really like it . even more than a lineup including shaq but without nash or all of our young players . this would be an explosive young team with

athletism and depth at all positions . my problem is however -- is this lineup any better on defense than last years?

yeah we´ll have a decent center if dampier could produce like last season but will he do it? this would definitely give us a boost on defense .

can tracy mc grady really play defense against the better sg? perhaps he just needs a winning situation to play to his full strength .

and toughest question --- can nellie resist to play small ball with a lineup like : nash , daniels , mcgrady , howard , dirk ? probably not

we would have a bright future but we probably wont get a ring ...

bcrav4 · 06-26-2004, 06:26 PM

What about that boumtje boumtje guy traded from the Blazers to the Cavs in the DMiles deal? Can't he block a ton of shots??

ocelot_ark · 06-26-2004, 06:44 PM

but he's horrible.

Bayliss · 06-26-2004, 07:40 PM

I can't really vote in the poll because with most of these players it depends on the price tag associated with it.

But I grouped them 4 ways: Projects/Shown Potential/Prime/Decline-Washed Up

Projects
Don't need to describe what I mean by the term. I only see 3 prjects out of your list. Those are Diop, Pachulia, and James. None of these players are experienced and none have played many minutes. But since the Mavs have already drafted Pavel, I see no reason to go after those 3.

Shown Potential
To me this term implies that the player has played a decent amount of minutes and has shown growth from one year to the next or a major improvement. But the player still needs refinement and a lot of work on their game. Those players areChandler, Curry, Dalembert, Gadzuric, and Okur.

Prime
These players are in the prime stage whether it be game or age. And personally I'm not sure there is much "growth" from here on out with these players. But the players include Battie, Blount, Booth, Dampier, Foyle, Illguaskas, LaFrentz, Nazr, Pollard, Skinner, White, and Wright.

Decline-Washed Up
These players include Davis, Davis, Grant, Divac, Mutombo, and Ostetag.

So which "style" do the Mavs need in order to progress at the center position? The only true center before Thursday was Bradley. And I'd consider him in the declining-washed up mode. Age is becoming a factor for him and his game has stayed the same for a long time. (Albiet he is productive while on the court.) So the Mavs need to concentrate on getting a center from the prime or shown potential category. Personally, the prime centers have a lot of warts. Too many for my taste. I would look at the Shown Potential category. And like others, I like Dalembert. But Chandler is my favorite. Chandler's ability to hit the J and post up makes him more attractive than Dalembert.

(And Ostertag is the only one out of declining I'd take. And he paired with Bradley will be quite acceptable if Pavel jumps from project to shows potential.)

dude1394 · 06-26-2004, 08:01 PM

Sold.. Walker+ for chandler. Let's do it and go.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-26-2004, 08:15 PM

We'd probaly have to take some of their overpriced guys like Jerome WIlliams and Antonio Davis and that's not a bad thing.

SeriousSummer · 06-26-2004, 08:30 PM

This is one way to go about it:

Dallas trades: PF Antoine Walker (14.0 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 4.5 apg in 34.6 minutes)
PG Tony Delk (6.0 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.9 apg in 15.4 minutes)
SF Josh Howard (8.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 1.5 apg in 23.7 minutes)
Dallas receives: SF Eddie Robinson (6.7 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 1.1 apg in 20.1 minutes)
PF Jerome Williams (6.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.1 apg in 24.1 minutes)
PF Tyson Chandler (6.1 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 0.7 apg in 22.4 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -9.6 ppg, +1.1 rpg, and -4.0 apg.

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (6.7 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 1.1 apg in 20.1 minutes)
PF Jerome Williams (6.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.1 apg in 24.1 minutes)
PF Tyson Chandler (6.1 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 0.7 apg in 22.4 minutes)
Chicago receives: PF Antoine Walker (14.0 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 4.5 apg in 82 games)
PG Tony Delk (6.0 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.9 apg in 33 games)
SF Josh Howard (8.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 1.5 apg in 67 games)
Change in team outlook: +9.6 ppg, -1.1 rpg, and +4.0 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

or you could take A. Davis instead of E. Robinson and Jerome Williams. Either way, I think you have to let Chicago have Howard as well as take on crummy contracts in order to get Chandler.

uberfan · 06-26-2004, 09:00 PM

Chandler is an intriguing guy, but would we be getting someone that we turn around in a few months and say he is better suited to play PF than the 5?

I read an article on HoopsHype.com this morning quoting Joe Smith saying that he knows that Dampier wants to go East (they are supposedly good friends) and as he pointed out the Bucks are in the East.

If you are GS, do you do a S&T with Bucks and try to get Gadzuric come back your way?

It may be the after-draft hangover, but I believe in the potential of Pavel. I want us to get a hard-working on-the-court mentor for him. Someone who will help take the Mavs up a notch with the other recent additions, and with skins on the wall so that Pavel will respect and listen to, (ya I know I am describing Shaq)

I am just pessimistic enough to think that Shaq and LAL kiss and make up, or the price will be too high as someone else jumps in the fray. I don't trust the sly 'ole Jerry West despite his comments this week about the Shaq sweepstakes.

I cannot think of who fits my job description. Dale Davis? Antonio Davis? Divac?

uberfan · 06-26-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

[i]Sign Thomas or Foyle (I prefer Foyle) with the MLE.

KG: I think I voted Etan over Foyle for two reasons, one is Foyle seems to get hurt a little too often. The other is that Etan is a hard worker and will bang on Pavel in practice. I think that competition would help develop Pavel even faster.