Dallas are the perfect example of "You do not change a winning formula"

[k0kakw0rld]

I know Tyson Chandler is expensive but still :lol when you win you just don't change that formula that made you successful. Marc Cuban = Fail :facepalm

[Mirko Cro Cop]

I know Tyson Chandler is expensive but still :lol when you win you just don't change that formula that made you successful. Marc Cuban = Fail :facepalm
It's not like it was just Chandler that would have made all the difference, Barea was our speed and pretty much the only weapon we had to really attack the paint, which we were using to kill the Lakers and the Heat. That along with a list full of other anomaly's such like Stevenson coming off the bench, etc.

[All Net]

Bet you won't be thinking the same if Dallas nab a big name free agent like deron Williams this summer. This year was never about winning for Dallas.

[protox]

Bet you won't be thinking the same if Dallas nab a big name free agent like deron Williams this summer. This year was never about winning for Dallas.

And if they don't, Dirk will suffer.

[k0kakw0rld]

Bet you won't be thinking the same if Dallas nab a big name free agent like deron Williams this summer. This year was never about winning for Dallas.
D-Will is staying in Brooklyn Dwight is joining him and Crapmelo CanNotWin :roll:

[Dresta]

2006 heat are the perfect example of why you should change a winning formula.

Where does that leave us?

[dbugz]

Changes are necessary. Teams around your team are improving and reloading to beat your so called "formula" of winning.

That Cuban move to not sign Chandler is a preparation for the Mavs to sign another superstar player and it will be good for them in a long term basis.

[PP34Deuce]

Steve Kerr basically said that Cuban saw a team that was getting older, Jason Terry, Jason Kidd are going to be free agents and both have said they will not play for the vet minimum.

Haywood is 31 and really more a back up...
Marion is like the 9th wonder of the world, 33 but still cat like reflexes...

They have a lot of capspace and I think you see him really push for Williams, and build young talent to prolong Dirks career and winning.

[creepingdeath]

I still believe it was the right move by Cuban. Even for Dirk, it's the best thing to do. Yeah, he "lost" a year, but he'll still be a superstar for another 2-3 years, and next season he will have a much better and, more importantly younger cast.
What hurts much more is that we had the chance to win this series. Not that this means we would have defended our title, but.. . Meh.

[DMAVS41]

Jesus Christ.

The Mavs could have brought everyone back and still would have been the 4th or 5th best team in the league.

Do people forget so quickly how they won the title last year? It was in improbable fashion. With Dirk going nuts in every close game....playing out of his mind in the most clutch run perhaps the game has ever seen. It was Terry and Marion and Kidd playing out of their minds as well.

The likelihood of doing that all again? Against improved teams like the Lakers, Thunder, and Spurs? Not to mention the Clippers and Grizzlies....

Not likely at all.

Cuban and Don Nelson Jr. made all the right moves.

Not to mention this team is missing a huge piece still. Odom. This team is missing the player we signed to be our 2nd best guy at the beginning of the year. This team would be much better with a guy like Odom producing well. And that is what we thought we were getting.

You just can't ignore that when the line between winning and losing can be so fragile.

But even then, the chances of the Mavs winning the title again would have been extremely small even with Chandler back. And that is all this franchise cares about with Dirk....winning it.

The best course of action was to do our best this year and try to make another run...and then overhaul this old ass team in the off season.

Not complicated at all...

[Odinn]

2006 heat are the perfect example of why you should change a winning formula.

Where does that leave us?
Actually it isn't.

They didn't make it to the finals coz of injuries in 2005. 2005 Heat was the best non-championship team in 2000s right after 2002 Kings. They didn't change their formula and they won in 2006.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Jesus Christ.

The Mavs could have brought everyone back and still would have been the 4th or 5th best team in the league.

Do people forget so quickly how they won the title last year? It was in improbable fashion. With Dirk going nuts in every close game....playing out of his mind in the most clutch run perhaps the game has ever seen. It was Terry and Marion and Kidd playing out of their minds as well.

The likelihood of doing that all again? Against improved teams like the Lakers, Thunder, and Spurs? Not to mention the Clippers and Grizzlies....

Not likely at all.

Cuban and Don Nelson Jr. made all the right moves.

Not to mention this team is missing a huge piece still. Odom. This team is missing the player we signed to be our 2nd best guy at the beginning of the year. This team would be much better with a guy like Odom producing well. And that is what we thought we were getting.

You just can't ignore that when the line between winning and losing can be so fragile.

But even then, the chances of the Mavs winning the title again would have been extremely small even with Chandler back. And that is all this franchise cares about with Dirk....winning it.

The best course of action was to do our best this year and try to make another run...and then overhaul this old ass team in the off season.

Not complicated at all...
so you are saying that last years championship was a fluke?

[DMAVS41]

so you are saying that last years championship was a fluke?

How do you define "fluke"? If you define it as unlikely to happen again and improbable? Then yes.

If you define it as they got lucky and didn't deserve it...with negative connotations...then no.

The Mavs were 20 to 1 to win the title last year. I'd call it unlikely or improbable.

It just never ceases to amaze me how its somehow a negative that a team wins as a huge underdog and then people want to turn it into a negative.

[lilgodfather1]

The plan is going to blow up in his face when the best free agents all return to their teams. They might get Nash, but Nash and Dirk are not winning a title.

Any ways I really hope JKidd doesn't retire. I love that man.

[It's A VC3!!!]

Any ways I really hope JKidd doesn't retire. I love that man.

He said he has one more year he would like to play. He also said that his final year will be spent backing up Deron Williams. Either in Brooklyn or Dallas.

[game3524]

I don't see how anything Cuban did was wrong. Everything had to break right for the Mavericks to win last year, it is hard to bank on that happening again?

So instead of being stuck with an aging core.....Cuban opted for cap space that gives them options.

[Mr. Jabbar]

They manhandled the cHeat, that Mavs team is my favorite non Laker team of all time. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

If they grab d-will esque talent cuban will be praised as a god

[CelticsDraftee]

http://i.minus.com/ibcHUbTADO7aqr.gif

[swi7ch]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. enjoy your one and only championship you cheapskate Cuban!!! :mad::mad::mad:

[PickernRoller]

It's no news to anyone that Cuban wants Dwight and Deron in Dallas....just like he took Odom for a pick like a greedy bastard....I guess no one can blame him thou, anyone would have done it in a heartbeat. Cuban thinks he knows what he's doing I guess. So far he has done a great job with the franchise. However, looking at what happened this year with the Lakers and the CP3 trade, anything can blow up in your face.

[97 bulls]

You that dont break up a team that just won a championship. That makes no sense in no way, shape, or form. Its the same argument that the bulls had with management back in 98.

And the age excuse doesnt fly. Chandler, Stevenson, and Berea are not finished old basketball players.

All this is is an excuse for what has always been said about Nowitzki, hes not a winner. I stated this all summer. Dirk has always been surrounded by a great team, coaches and management aand only has one fluke title to show for it. And their title was a fluke nott due to the Mavs not being a good enough, but cuz, they encountered teams in turmoil.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

I don't blame Cuban. I mean, the core players Dirk, Marion, Terry, Kidd are all getting older. By signing Tyson Chandler to what he wants, you're essentially crippling their cap, making them unable to bring in young talent for the future. Cuban was thinking long term.
It's like choosing between having a small chance to defend the title next year and be in a no man's land for 5-6 years, or throw away the chance to defend the title for another decade of success.


http://i.minus.com/ibcHUbTADO7aqr.gif
:oldlol: That's priceless!

[creepingdeath]

All this is is an excuse for what has always been said about Nowitzki, hes not a winner. I stated this all summer. Dirk has alwaays been surrounded by a great team, coaches and management aand only has one fluke title to show for it. And theirthe titlte was aaa fluke nottitle due toto the Mavsbulls not beinga good enough, but cuz, they encountered teams in turmoil.
:biggums:

[jbryan1984]

Cuban would rather have D-Will and a shot at Dwight over Barea, Chandler and Stevenson. Pretty much sums it up. I understand completely where you are coming from, you usually don't break up a championship team unless its beyond your control but he is looking at the bigger picture here...... the future.

[97 bulls]

How do you define "fluke"? If you define it as unlikely to happen again and improbable? Then yes.

If you define it as they got lucky and didn't deserve it...with negative connotations...then no.

The Mavs were 20 to 1 to win the title last year. I'd call it unlikely or improbable.

It just never ceases to amaze me how its somehow a negative that a team wins as a huge underdog and then people want to turn it into a negative.
Maybe cuz your team was much better than what you ve given them credit for.

And stop using gambling odds as a way tp prove your point. Do you even know how the odds makers determine those odds? Its based on the patern of the gamblers. And we all know most gamblers are not qualified to make determinations on the outcome of an athletic event passed star power.


Which brings me to the mavs team. When the mavs aquired Tyson Chandler year before last, i believed they had everything needed to beat the lakers. They had three guys to throw at kobe in stevenson, marion and kidd, they were bigger than the lakers with three legit 7 footers, they had a great coach, and wised up and commited to bringing in players that were commited to playing defense. Not to mention they had one of the best benches in the league and two scoring PGs. They matched up great with the lakers. And the heat for that matter.

[97 bulls]

Cuban would rather have D-Will and a shot at Dwight over Barea, Chandler and Stevenson. Pretty much sums it up. I understand completely where you are coming from, you usually don't break up a championship team unless its beyond your control but he is looking at the bigger picture here...... the future.
Lol the future? Nothing is guaranteed. They were the champs. And as i stated earlier, the players got rid off, werent old. You guys need to get away from being so enamored with star power.

[jbryan1984]

Lol the future? Nothing is guaranteed. They were the champs. And as i stated earlier, the players got rid off, werent old. You guys need to get away from being so enamored with star power.



My point is..... Dirk and Terry are getting older man. They have already started to decline. There comes a time you need new blood. With that being said, would you rather build around Chandler once Dirk, Terry and Kidd retire or around Deron? Look at the Celtics for example. They stuck with the same core forever and once Parish, McHale and Bird all got old at once, nobody was left. The Reggie Lewis situation made building even worse but do you see my point? Pierce and Walker had like 1 or 2 good years between the Bird era and the big 3 era.

[97 bulls]

:biggums:
Lol i predicted this from the mavs. Tyson Chandler was the heart and soul of the mavs. As well as their defensive anchor. And it showed this year.

[RoseCity07]

No way in hell Dallas is down 0-3 if Chandler and Barea stay. Hell, with just Chandler they would be much better. Just look at their center now. It's pathetic. Haywood has Kwame hands.

Chandler is kind of a dick though for leaving. Instead of a long term deal, Dallas should have overpaid for fewer years. Getting out of his contract around the time the window closes.

[DMAVS41]

Lol i predicted this from the mavs. Tyson Chandler was the heart and soul of the mavs. As well as their defensive anchor. And it showed this year.

Actually it didn't you ****ing moron. The defense was very good to great all year. It was the offense that was terrible.

You predicted the Mavs would be worse without Chandler, a year older, other teams getting better, and the Odom situation?

Congrats. Could it be more obvious that the Mavs would be worse.

Unreal.

Oh, and Dirk isn't a winner? Really? That is what you get out of this? Holy shit dude. You are even dumber than I thought.

Please go back to thinking Pippen was better than Magic and that Chandler is better than Dirk.

How is Chandler working out in NY by the way? He's really changed that team around. On the verge of getting swept again and they haven't even been competitive.

The Mavs lost 2 games that could have gone either way in OKC. That happens. At least we have actually competed...unlike the Chandler led Knicks.

Not a winner? GTFO you ignorant moron.

[DMAVS41]

No way in hell Dallas is down 0-3 if Chandler and Barea stay. Hell, with just Chandler they would be much better. Just look at their center now. It's pathetic. Haywood has Kwame hands.

Chandler is kind of a dick though for leaving. Instead of a long term deal, Dallas should have overpaid for fewer years. Getting out of his contract around the time the window closes.

Of course the Mavs would be better. Would it be enough to win this series and then win 3 more? My answer would be absolutely not.

This team has changed much more than just Chandler. Marion, Kidd, and Terry are playing far worse. Dirk is not playing as well either.

Again....the offense is what is killing this team.

[97 bulls]

My point is..... Dirk and Terry are getting older man. They have already started to decline. There comes a time you need new blood. With that being said, would you rather build around Chandler once Dirk, Terry and Kidd retire or around Deron? Look at the Celtics for example. They stuck with the same core forever and once Parish, McHale and Bird all got old at once, nobody was left. The Reggie Lewis situation made building even worse but do you see my point? Pierce and Walker had like 1 or 2 good years between the Bird era and the big 3 era.
The celtics wouldve been fine had reggie lewis and bias not die. But look at the bulls. They thought that same thing in breaking up that team in 98. Hows that work out for them? Theres no doubt in my mind that the bulls would've beat the spurs in 99. I say you ride it till the wheels fall off.

And the bulls wouldve been fine to had they not dicked over brian williams who went to detroit and avg 16 and 9 and trade kukoc.

[jbryan1984]

The celtics wouldve been fine had reggie lewis and bias not die. But look at the bulls. They thought that same thing in breaking up that team in 98. Hows that work out for them? Theres no doubt in my mind that the bulls would've beat the spurs in 99. I say you ride it till the wheels fall off.

And the bulls wouldve been fine to had they not dicked over brian williams who went to detroit and avg 16 and 9 and trade kukoc.



Bulls cleaned out like EVERYBODY though. You got good players along the way. I can't even remember, did Pippen want to stay and lead the team or did you guys just trade him to Houston to move on?

[DMAVS41]

97 Bulls.

What player in the league right now do you think would win the title in place of Dirk?

Please answer.

[Force]

The Mavs weren't trying to win a title this year. They let Tyson and Barea go for a reason. So they could make a run at Deron, Cp3, Dwight, who were supposed to be free agents this off season. CP3 and Dwight extended but they are the front runners to land Deron. Cuban knew his team was going to be weaker this year, it was talked about early on before the years started. The mavs plan was to free money up (lots of expiring contracts this summer) and make a run at all the big free agents.

I could see why they let Tyson go since it would rule out getting any big free agents this summer but they could have hung onto Barea. He killed the Lakers and Heat last year and only got 4m from Minny. They could have afforded him.

[SCdac]

If they brought Chandler and one of Butler/Stevenson/Barea back I think they would have remained contenders (despite Butler getting injured). For not just talent but also chemistry. The Mavs were a first round exit team with Haywood starting at center in 2010, he's got a low basketball IQ, doesn't have the intensity on both ends like Chandler. Everybody from Dirk to the coaching staff admitted Chandler's worth. A front court of Dirk/Chandler/Haywood/Marion is very formidable. Chandler averaged 37 minutes a game in the Finals, you can't quantify what having him on the floor (with his size and agility) does for the defense versus somebody like Ian Mahinimi who's basically a "walking foul".

[97 bulls]

Actually it didn't you ****ing moron. The defense was very good to great all year. It was the offense that was terrible.

You predicted the Mavs would be worse without Chandler, a year older, other teams getting better, and the Odom situation?

Congrats. Could it be more obvious that the Mavs would be worse.

Unreal.

Oh, and Dirk isn't a winner? Really? That is what you get out of this? Holy shit dude. You are even dumber than I thought.

Please go back to thinking Pippen was better than Magic and that Chandler is better than Dirk.

How is Chandler working out in NY by the way? He's really changed that team around. On the verge of getting swept again and they haven't even been competitive.

The Mavs lost 2 games that could have gone either way in OKC. That happens. At least we have actually competed...unlike the Chandler led Knicks.

Not a winner? GTFO you ignorant moron.
This is always a battle of philosophy with you. Just admit i was right and keep going

[SCdac]

Who are the Mavs planning on trading for Dwight anyways? any rumors floating before the offseason hits? Dwight makes like 19 million next season and Deron has a guaranteed 17 million he could make if he decides to stay for another season.

[DMAVS41]

If they brought Chandler and one of Butler/Stevenson/Barea back I think they would have remained contenders (despite Butler getting injured). For not just talent but also chemistry. The Mavs were a first round exit team with Haywood starting at center in 2010, he's got a low basketball IQ, doesn't have the intensity on both ends like Chandler. A front court of Dirk/Chandler/Haywood/Marion is very form formidable. Chandler averaged 37 minutes a game in the Finals, you can't quantify what having him on the floor (with his size and agility) does for the defense versus somebody like Ian Mahinimi who's basically a "walking foul".

I agree with this.

But I also think you'd have to understand that while we would definitely be better, the likelihood of winning again would be slim.

I'd still maintain that the Thunder, Spurs, and Lakers would be better. The Grizzlies would be a toss up. The Heat would be better as well.

So even if you get lucky and only have to play 3 of those teams, your path to the title still entails winning at least 2 series on the road as an underdog.

We'd certainly have a better chance, but I don't think it would be very realistic to expect another run like last year.

I think people forget just how great Dirk was....and how Terry, Kidd, and Marion played really well also.

And it would have taken even more this time around. The Thunder are better. The Spurs are better. The Lakers are better.

So factoring in things like just logical probability and age....it was not likely.

And if you knew you weren't going to win again...then you'd never sign those guys because the cost was so damn high.

[gasolina]

Can somebody just merged this with the "Dear Cuban" thread. All the right answers were made there

[97 bulls]

Bulls cleaned out like EVERYBODY though. You got good players along the way. I can't even remember, did Pippen want to stay and lead the team or did you guys just trade him to Houston to move on?
The bulls management was determined to break up that team. And krauses excuse was that they were "getting old" even tough they tied for the best record in the league with pippen missing half the season. I just dont agree with breaking up a team thatthat just won a championship based on age. Give them a chance to defend theiir title.

[DMAVS41]

This is always a battle of philosophy with you. Just admit i was right and keep going

Right about what? The Mavs being worse this year? Then I was right as well. I said that from the get go....certainly after Odom happened.

Do you really expect people to be impressed with you for thinking a team losing Chandler and replacing him with nobody was going to be worse? Holy shit dude....come on now.

Answer me these questions:

If Chandler was the main reason the Mavs won....why is he making no impact on the Knicks in the playoffs?

What other player...replacing Dirk... do you think could win the title on this current Mavs team?

Please answer. Don't be a bitch and run away. Answer the questions.

[Sarcastic]

No way in hell Dallas is down 0-3 if Chandler and Barea stay. Hell, with just Chandler they would be much better. Just look at their center now. It's pathetic. Haywood has Kwame hands.

Chandler is kind of a dick though for leaving. Instead of a long term deal, Dallas should have overpaid for fewer years. Getting out of his contract around the time the window closes.

Why is he a dick for leaving? He wanted a long term deal, and the Mavs wouldn't give him one. Look how many ACL injuries we have had in the past week alone. If he takes a 1 year deal, and tears his ACL, then what for him?
A year of rehab. Come back at 31. Maybe get an MLE if he's lucky. He was smart to take the offer from the Knicks.

The Mavs didn't want him for more than a year, so he went to a team that did. The Mavs wanted Dwight. Their fans can spin it anyway they want, but that is the fact.

[DMAVS41]

Who are the Mavs planning on trading for Dwight anyways? any rumors floating before the offseason hits? Dwight makes like 19 million next season and Deron has a guaranteed 17 million he could make if he decides to stay for another season.

Howard was only an option to sign...not trade for. Same with Deron.

[hawkfan]

I know Tyson Chandler is expensive but still :lol when you win you just don't change that formula that made you successful. Marc Cuban = Fail :facepalm

The Mavs could have kept Chandler and traded away Haywood.

If the Mavs don't get Deron Williams in free agency, they are going to be real old next season.

[Sarcastic]

Right about what? The Mavs being worse this year? Then I was right as well. I said that from the get go....certainly after Odom happened.

Do you really expect people to be impressed with you for thinking a team losing Chandler and replacing him with nobody was going to be worse? Holy shit dude....come on now.

Answer me these questions:

If Chandler was the main reason the Mavs won....why is he making no impact on the Knicks in the playoffs?

What other player...replacing Dirk... do you think could win the title on this current Mavs team?

Please answer. Don't be a bitch and run away. Answer the questions.


You do realize Chandler has been sick with the flu, right?

You do also realize how many injuries the Knicks have suffered this year, right? They are starting Baron Davis at PG, and he can barely move out there, his back is so bad. Despite all that, the Knicks had a one of the top defenses in the league this year.

[97 bulls]

Who are the Mavs planning on trading for Dwight anyways? any rumors floating before the offseason hits? Dwight makes like 19 million next season and Deron has a guaranteed 17 million he could make if he decides to stay for another season.
The plan has already began to backfire cuz howard decided to stay in orlando another season. And is gonna be comming off back surgery.

[hawkfan]

If the Mavs don't land Gerald Wallace, then they should trade for Emeka Okafor.

The Mavs need some interior defense badly.

[DMAVS41]

You do realize Chandler has been sick with the flu, right?

You do also realize how many injuries the Knicks have suffered this year, right? They are starting Baron Davis at PG, and he can barely move out there, his back is so bad. Despite all that, the Knicks had a one of the top defenses in the league this year.

And? They have done nothing better than last year.

I'm not saying Chandler isn't good. He is. He just isn't the franchise changing player people make him out to be.

And you prove my point. It's the Mavs offense that is struggling...not the defense.

I would imagine you and I think very similarly about Chandler. My post was not directed at you. Its to the moron that thinks Chandler is literally twice as good as he is.

[DMAVS41]

The Mavs could have kept Chandler and traded away Haywood.

If the Mavs don't get Deron Williams in free agency, they are going to be real old next season.

Who was trading for Haywood? Who?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

There are a couple of reasons Dallas isn't as good as last year (and not just due to Chandler/Barea's absence). Dirk simply isn't having the year he did last season. Look at the shots he's missed this series alone. Dude was knocking down those same ones around this time last postseason.

Both Terry and Kidd have regressed considerably..as has Marion. Not only that though, but their mentality is different (gotta admit, much of this has to do with Chandlers intangibles; he single-handedly changed their defensive principles). It's almost as if the Mavs are content with just playing OKC tough because they know they don't have the fire power to ACTUALLY beat them.

Bottom line, they're old. They don't have the legs to keep up with this Thunder team. This BS that Tyson Chandler was Dallas' most important player needs to stop. Did people forget Dirk had a legendary postseason?

[SCdac]

I agree with this.

But I also think you'd have to understand that while we would definitely be better, the likelihood of winning again would be slim.

I'd still maintain that the Thunder, Spurs, and Lakers would be better. The Grizzlies would be a toss up. The Heat would be better as well.

So even if you get lucky and only have to play 3 of those teams, your path to the title still entails winning at least 2 series on the road as an underdog.

We'd certainly have a better chance, but I don't think it would be very realistic to expect another run like last year.

I think people forget just how great Dirk was....and how Terry, Kidd, and Marion played really well also.

And it would have taken even more this time around. The Thunder are better. The Spurs are better. The Lakers are better.

So factoring in things like just logical probability and age....it was not likely.

And if you knew you weren't going to win again...then you'd never sign those guys because the cost was so damn high.

Personally, I think if the Mavs hypothetically brought everybody back they would be the favorites to win the championship this season, probably next to the Heat.

I'm thinking in terms of how these teams fair going into the season, and how the season itself would have been different - combined with what we know about teams/players, or in other words, what did happen.

I think the Mavs from 11-12 got worse more than other playoff teams got better, personally. They almost didn't make the playoffs even. Teams fluctuate every season, but the Mavs fluctuated downward surprisingly fast after a championship win.

I don't think that's entirely on Odom, but no doubt he put a funk on a team that decided to dismantle a proven product.

If I'm the GM, I would have at least kept Chandler. (and I was thinking that before the start of this season)

[DMAVS41]

There are a couple of reasons Dallas isn't as good as last year (and not just due to Chandler/Barea's absence). Dirk simply isn't having the year he did last season. Look at the shots he's missed this series alone. Dude was knocking down those same ones around this time last postseason.

Both Terry and Kidd have regressed considerably..as has Marion. Not only that though, but their mentality is different (gotta admit, much of this has to do with Chandlers intangibles; he single-handedly changed their defensive principles). It's almost as if the Mavs are content with just playing OKC tough because they know they don't have the fire power to ACTUALLY beat them.

Bottom line, they're old. They don't have the legs to keep up with this Thunder team.

Well said.

[Owl]

I know Tyson Chandler is expensive but still :lol when you win you just don't change that formula that made you successful. Marc Cuban = Fail :facepalm
Really you think it would have been a good idea to offer a guy who had played 11 years, and suffered badly through injuries and inconsistency a 4 year contract near the maximum amount that would be possible (excluding Bird exceptions)?
Why?


Jesus Christ.

The Mavs could have brought everyone back and still would have been the 4th or 5th best team in the league.

Do people forget so quickly how they won the title last year? It was in improbable fashion. With Dirk going nuts in every close game....playing out of his mind in the most clutch run perhaps the game has ever seen. It was Terry and Marion and Kidd playing out of their minds as well.

The likelihood of doing that all again? Against improved teams like the Lakers, Thunder, and Spurs? Not to mention the Clippers and Grizzlies....

Not likely at all.

Cuban and Don Nelson Jr. made all the right moves.

Not to mention this team is missing a huge piece still. Odom. This team is missing the player we signed to be our 2nd best guy at the beginning of the year. This team would be much better with a guy like Odom producing well. And that is what we thought we were getting.

You just can't ignore that when the line between winning and losing can be so fragile.

But even then, the chances of the Mavs winning the title again would have been extremely small even with Chandler back. And that is all this franchise cares about with Dirk....winning it.

The best course of action was to do our best this year and try to make another run...and then overhaul this old ass team in the off season.

Not complicated at all...
Right.


so you are saying that last years championship was a fluke?
How do you define "fluke"? If you define it as unlikely to happen again and improbable? Then yes.

If you define it as they got lucky and didn't deserve it...with negative connotations...then no.

The Mavs were 20 to 1 to win the title last year. I'd call it unlikely or improbable.

It just never ceases to amaze me how its somehow a negative that a team wins as a huge underdog and then people want to turn it into a negative.
Hard to say something is improbable but that it is not fortune or luck when that thing happens.

It doesn't mean they don't deserve it, and bluntly the Mavs won't and shouldn't care because they've got the chip. They played well at the right time, and were fortunate that that good play came at the time that counts most. But they weren't the best team that year. That's neither a negative nor a positive, it's just a reflection on how the teams played over the year.


2006 heat are the perfect example of why you should change a winning formula.

Where does that leave us?
Actually it isn't.
They didn't make it to the finals coz of injuries in 2005. 2005 Heat was the best non-championship team in 2000s right after 2002 Kings. They didn't change their formula and they won in 2006.
Thats not what Dresta means. He's saying after Miami won they swiftly became very bad and as such should have made big changes to their roster. Now theoretically desirable changes might not have been possible, but the point, that keeping the roster of champion entirely intact is not always the best idea, is correct.

[gasolina]

A good comparison would be the 99 knicks. Overachieving their way to getting whooped in the finals. (Mind you they were my favorite team back then) Houston, Sprewell, Larry Johnson in their primes. Camby entering his. Sold role players in Charlie Ward, Chris Childs, Kurt Thomas with old ass Ewing.

Nobody had them winning against the Spurs, much less advancing to the finals. They were basically the Mavs last year, except they didn't win.

Next season they kept everyone intact, won 50 games, lost to the Pacers. This was around the time they locked up everyone to big contracts. They didn't win anything after that... eventually setting themselves up for their worst decade in sports. Highest payroll in history, nothing to show for it on court.

I just can't believe people here would pass on a legitimate chance to get DWill and Howard just for a miniscule chance of repeating. I bolded repeating because its very important.

Dirk has done it. He's got nothing left to prove. He's not like Lebron who desperately needs a title to cement his legacy.

[DMAVS41]

Personally, I think if the Mavs hypothetically brought everybody back they would be the favorites to win the championship this season, probably next to the Heat.

I'm thinking in terms of how these teams fair going into the season, and how the season itself would have been different - combined with what we know about teams/players, or in other words, what did happen.

I think the Mavs from 11-12 got worse more than other playoff teams got better, personally. They almost didn't make the playoffs even. Teams fluctuate every season, but the Mavs fluctuated downward surprisingly fast after a championship win.

I don't think that's entirely on Odom, but no doubt he put a funk on a team that decided to dismantle a proven product.

If I'm the GM, I would have at least kept Chandler. (and I was thinking that before the start of this season)

Well...this is where we disagree. Even if we brought everyone back....realistically we would be worse. Age would be a big reason...and another would just be its pretty much impossible for Dirk to play as well as he did in the playoffs last year again. Same with Terry, Marion, and Kidd.

So at the very least if we are going to have this discussion, we should both agree that the Mavs were going to be worse. I will even say just slightly so we can be on common ground...even though I think it would be more than slight.

Then. There is no denying that the Lakers, Spurs, and Thunder all got better. I wouldn't say the Heat are for sure better.

So where does that leave us? The Mavs get slightly worse. Then 3 other contending teams in conference get better. Ok.

Then extrapolate that. Think about how fragile that series with OKC was last year. It took Dirk having one of the greatest playoff games ever, epic comebacks, some lucky bounces....and an absurdly high level of play from Dirk to win.

Think about the Lakers series. Very similar to this current Mavs vs Thunder series actually. Kobe misses the game winner. What if he makes that? He got a wide open look and just missed it. Do the Mavs still win that series if he makes it? Not sure. Same with the Durant shot. What happens if he misses that...etc.

So I just don't think I can get to your place of the 2nd favorite. I think at best we'd be even with the Lakers, Spurs, and Thunder...slightly behind the Heat. And that is with everyone back. With just Chandler back? No way do I put us on that level.

If it was just about winning this year, then I would have brought Chandler back as well. But its obviously about more than that.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Well said.

Thanks, but you forgot the last line of my post:

This BS that Tyson Chandler was Dallas' most important player needs to stop. Did people forget Dirk had a legendary postseason?

By and large that is the reason Dallas hasn't won a game yet.

[Whoah10115]

It's not about not changing a winning formula. Keeping things the same don't make you winners. I think you have to pick and choose and I believe Cuban made pretty obvious mistakes.




To say Cuban=FAIL doesn't make much sense. He's done alright with them.

[DMAVS41]

Really you think it would have been a good idea to offer a guy who had played 11 years, and suffered badly through injuries and inconsistency a 4 year contract near the maximum amount that would be possible (excluding Bird exceptions)?
Why?


Right.


Hard to say something is improbable but that it is not fortune or luck when that thing happens.

It doesn't mean they don't deserve it, and bluntly the Mavs won't and shouldn't care because they've got the chip. They played well at the right time, and were fortunate that that good play came at the time that counts most. But they weren't the best team that year. That's neither a negative nor a positive, it's just a reflection on how the teams played over the year.


Thats not what Dresta means. He's saying after Miami won they swiftly became very bad and as such should have made big changes to their roster. Now theoretically desirable changes might not have been possible, but the point, that keeping the roster of champion entirely intact is not always the best idea, is correct.

To the bold. I don't think so actually. It was improbable that the Mavs played so well. Would you describe Dirk's play as "luck" or "good fortune"....meh...I don't think that fits.

Fluke to me implies that they got lucky to win. That a fluke play or thing happened. If you want to define that as the play of Dirk and the Mavs...then ok.

But its not like they got lucky in terms of an injury or a team losing before they should have.

Fluke generally has negative connotations to it.

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls.

What player in the league right now do you think would win the title in place of Dirk?

Please answer.
With the team they have now? No one. Dont get me wrong, i feel dirk is an alltime great. But i also feel the mavs team get drastically underrated by you. Do they have the star power of your typical dynasty team? No. But theyre not competing againt the historic teams of the past. Theyre competing against teams this season. And lats year, the mavs had

A top 3 center

A top 3 power forward

A top 3 coach

The second best bench (to the bulls)

Top 2 6th man.

And their pg was top 3 in assists if i remember correct. As well as being the best at running an offense.

And their small forward was damn good too.

Had they stayed relatively injury free, theres no doubt that they finish top 2 in the west with the spurs

They really had no weakness. Why break that up?

[DMAVS41]

Thanks, but you forgot the last line of my post:


By and large that is the reason Dallas hasn't won a game yet.

Yes. Although I must say that I thought Dirk played really well the first two games and actually agree that with Chandler we win 1 of them...maybe both.

But hell, with an average Odom....or a guy like Kaman...I think the same thing.

But you are dead on. People forget just how great Dirk was last year. For example, his game 2 he played really well and had like 31 or something. Guess what....that wouldn't have been good enough last year. Dirk had to drop 48 (one of the best playoff games ever) and 40 in two of the 5 games against the Thunder last year to win. Both of those games were close. The one he dropped 40 in went to OT. So this notion that the Mavs easily beat the Thunder last year needs to stop. It took everything Dirk had and more to beat them. A few bounces go the Thunder's way and that series might have a different outcome...at the least it goes 6 or 7. The line between winning and losing is fragile.

If he had done that in games 1 and 2....the Mavs would be up 2-1 right now.

Or if Terry, Kidd, and Marion were playing at all close to how they played last year. Same thing.

I just can't believe people have already forgotten....

[97 bulls]

To the bold. I don't think so actually. It was improbable that the Mavs played so well. Would you describe Dirk's play as "luck" or "good fortune"....meh...I don't think that fits.

Fluke to me implies that they got lucky to win. That a fluke play or thing happened. If you want to define that as the play of Dirk and the Mavs...then ok.

But its not like they got lucky in terms of an injury or a team losing before they should have.

Fluke generally has negative connotations to it.
But youre calling their run a fluke in essence. By saying everything they did was improbable. Or out of the norm. They hit their shots, they played defense, dirk was clutch, and they played with a chip on their shoulder.

[gasolina]

They really had no weakness. Why break that up?
Because having no weakness on paper is not the same att he game. Because that same team w/o weaknesses needed a legendary run by Dirk to win it all. Because NOT breaking it up means overpaying for Chandler and Barea and mortgaging the next few years of Dirk's career.

[97 bulls]

A good comparison would be the 99 knicks. Overachieving their way to getting whooped in the finals. (Mind you they were my favorite team back then) Houston, Sprewell, Larry Johnson in their primes. Camby entering his. Sold role players in Charlie Ward, Chris Childs, Kurt Thomas with old ass Ewing.

Nobody had them winning against the Spurs, much less advancing to the finals. They were basically the Mavs last year, except they didn't win.

Next season they kept everyone intact, won 50 games, lost to the Pacers. This was around the time they locked up everyone to big contracts. They didn't win anything after that... eventually setting themselves up for their worst decade in sports. Highest payroll in history, nothing to show for it on court.

I just can't believe people here would pass on a legitimate chance to get DWill and Howard just for a miniscule chance of repeating. I bolded repeating because its very important.

Dirk has done it. He's got nothing left to prove. He's not like Lebron who desperately needs a title to cement his legacy.
The 99 knicks arent a good comparison CUZ THE DIDNT WIN.

[SCdac]

Then extrapolate that. Think about how fragile that series with OKC was last year. It took Dirk having one of the greatest playoff games ever, epic comebacks, some lucky bounces....and an absurdly high level of play from Dirk to win.

Think about the Lakers series. Very similar to this current Mavs vs Thunder series actually. Kobe misses the game winner. What if he makes that? He got a wide open look and just missed it. Do the Mavs still win that series if he makes it? Not sure. Same with the Durant shot.

Are we still talking about the series' where the Mavs swept the Lakers and beat the Thunder in 5 games? :confusedshrug:

These were not 7 game intense series... Those series were what they are... the Mavs as a team putting rising up to put a beat down on teams that were not really contenders... The Lakers looked lost last season, and the Thunder were young inexperienced and are still that way.

I think we have some fundamental disagreements on much of this stuff, from how good or bad the opposition was, to how much Chandler added to the team, to how good the team would have been this season had they stayed toegether. agree to disagree.

Personally, I would take advantage of a small window of greatness, than take a huge gamble on try to compile a "super star" team. Veteran-lead teams with chemistry tend to win championships.

[DMAVS41]

With the team they have now? No one. Dont get me wrong, i feel dirk is an alltime great. But i also feel the mavs team get drastically underrated by you. Do they have the star power of your typical dynasty team? No. But theyre not competing againt the historic teams of the past. Theyre competing against teams this season. And lats year, the mavs had

A top 3 center

A top 3 power forward

A top 3 coach

The second best bench (to the bulls)

Top 2 6th man.

And their pg was top 3 in assists if i remember correct. As well as being the best at running an offense.

And their small forward was damn good too.

Had they stayed relatively injury free, theres no doubt that they finish top 2 in the west with the spurs

They really had no weakness. Why break that up?

And they won the title last year. Stop acting like I ever said Dirk won alone. I simply said that even with all of the above, some I disagree with, it took playing out of his mind to win. It wasn't a true powerhouse team. It was a team that heavily relied on Dirk to make clutch play after clutch play.

Think about this:

16 of the 21 games the Mavs played in the playoffs last year entered into crunch time. They weren't dominant...they were just great in the biggest moments....largely due to Dirk.

I have never said that it was all Dirk. It wasn't. It was a great team effort with players stepping up in crucial situations.

Why break it up? Because the chances of doing it again were small.

The Mavs, no matter what...even with bringing everyone back this year were going to be worse. Just no way around that. Another year older for already old players. The idea that Dirk, Terry, Kidd, and Marion could all play at the same level is not realistic at all.

Then other teams got better. Lakers, Spurs, Thunder...all got better. Just a fact.

So you have the Mavs getting worse, other teams getting better...and then remember how close the Mavs played some of those teams. Specifically the Thunder and Heat.

The reason I list odds is because it illustrates to an extent legit chances. The Lakers were 10 to 1 to win it all about a week ago. And that is about as heavily bet a team as you will find. If they were 10 to 1....do you really think the Mavs of this year with Chandler and some of those other guys would be better than that?

The point is that no matter what its still a long shot. And throwing away the next 4 to 5 years for a long shot hope at the title is not worth it. You have to look beyond next year.

[97 bulls]

Because having no weakness on paper is not the same att he game. Because that same team w/o weaknesses needed a legendary run by Dirk to win it all. Because NOT breaking it up means overpaying for Chandler and Barea and mortgaging the next few years of Dirk's career.
BUT THEYRE MORTGAGING HIS CAREER ANYWAY. According to a few people, the mavs kinda just gave up on this season and next season right? That two year of dirk career. And hes what 31? At some point he gonna need to be replaced too.

[DMAVS41]

Are we still talking about the series' where the Mavs swept the Lakers and beat the Thunder in 5 games? :confusedshrug:

These were not 7 game intense series... Those series were what they are... the Mavs as a team putting rising up to put a beat down on teams that were not really contenders... The Lakers looked lost last season, and the Thunder were young inexperienced and are still that way.

I think we have some fundamental disagreements on much of this stuff, from how good or bad the opposition was, to how much Chandler added to the team, to how good the team would have been this season had they stayed toegether. agree to disagree.

Personally, I would take advantage of a small window of greatness, than take a huge gamble on try to compile a "super star" team. Veteran-lead teams with chemistry tend to win championships.

They beat the Thunder in 5. Needing Dirk to go for 48 on the best efficiency ever...and then 40 to get another key win in OT.

And the Thunder got better this year. And I've already proven to you that the Mavs would be worse.

What a terrible and simplistic view to just look at series as 5 games and not the details.

And even if you just look at the 5 games. A 5 game series can easily turn into 7 or go the other way with some small changes.

Mavs were going to be worse. Just a fact. There is no way at all you can bring back all the same players and expect a repeat performance. Other teams got better...again, just a fact.

So where does that leave you? It leaves you with a much tougher road than even last year to the title.

And its not even a window. Its 1 year. Then its over. Kidd is done. Terry and Marion have declined. Dirk is officially declining. You are left with a team that has an aging superstar and no other elite players.

If we had brought everyone back...it would have been a 1 year title shot. And then nothingness until you blow the team up.

And at best, the Mavs would have been something around 8 to 1 to win the title entering the playoffs. At best.

[97 bulls]

You do realize Chandler has been sick with the flu, right?

You do also realize how many injuries the Knicks have suffered this year, right? They are starting Baron Davis at PG, and he can barely move out there, his back is so bad. Despite all that, the Knicks had a one of the top defenses in the league this year.
In my opinion, the knicks biggest problem is their offense. They run too many isos for anthony. As well as injuries to key players. Lin? Shumpert? Now Amare. They have smith trying to run the point for goodness sake.

[shortsoptional]

First of all... the Mavs were over the salary cap last year, and those players who went to FA got more money than they were making... save for maybe Butler.. .i think he is making a tad less... regardless, that's a lot more than your cap allows. The new CBA that takes effect in 2 years triples every dollar that you dip in to the luxary tax instead of doubling. That's a ton of money. It's easy for us to sit here and say "spend the money", but at what point does it get ridiculous?

Tyson Chandler is a very good defensive player, but he's not going to carry a team. He's a very good role player. He plays his role which is a defender/rebounder. You can't bank on him for offense. So as Dirk ages, he needs someone who can help him out, and Tyson isn't doing that. That's where the cost of Chandler doesn't meet what they need from that expensive of a player. Dallas' problem isnt' even defense at the moment. Having someone that can help them score more than 30 points in 2 quarters is their weakness.

If you put Chandler on this Mavs squad right now, he does not make them better than OKC, SA, LA, or MIA. He's a very good player, but he doesn't make them elite.

So why spend all of the rest of your resources on a player who is injury prone, wouldn't make your team elite, would cripple you financially for the future, keep you an old team, all for the chace to catch lightning in a bottle again?

It's funny how a team can go from being called out by Denver as a team they want to face in the 1st round, to being a team that would have absolutely been an elite contender with Tyson freaking Chandler.

I don't remember Chandler making dagger threes, off balance fadeaways, and game winning shots in Dallas last year. Everyone had to play above their abilites for last year to happen, including an all time great going HAM for the Mavs to win. Chandler played an important ROLE for that to happen.

[DMAVS41]

But youre calling their run a fluke in essence. By saying everything they did was improbable. Or out of the norm. They hit their shots, they played defense, dirk was clutch, and they played with a chip on their shoulder.

No. Dirk has always been clutch and great. To that extent? No, but literally no player other than maybe Jordan and Bird have reached that level of clutch play. Certainly nobody came close in this era.

But if you want to call it a fluke. Go ahead. I don't want to debate semantics.

If you deem it as such, then its even more evidence for me on why breaking up the team was smart.

If it was a fluke, why would you think it would happen again? I've already proven logically why the Mavs would be worse no matter what....and stated the simple fact that other teams got better.

So you are making my point for me. I just have an issue with using a word like "fluke"...because it has negative connotations and is often used to describe something that isn't "earned".....

But again. I don't want to argue semantics. If we call it a fluke...then that only strengthens my position even more.

[DMAVS41]

First of all... the Mavs were over the salary cap last year, and those players who went to FA got more money than they were making... save for maybe Butler.. .i think he is making a tad less... regardless, that's a lot more than your cap allows. The new CBA that takes effect in 2 years triples every dollar that you dip in to the luxary tax instead of doubling. That's a ton of money. It's easy for us to sit here and say "spend the money", but at what point does it get ridiculous?

Tyson Chandler is a very good defensive player, but he's not going to carry a team. He's a very good role player. He plays his role which is a defender/rebounder. You can't bank on him for offense. So as Dirk ages, he needs someone who can help him out, and Tyson isn't doing that. That's where the cost of Chandler doesn't meet what they need from that expensive of a player. Dallas' problem isnt' even defense at the moment. Having someone that can help them score more than 30 points in 2 quarters is their weakness.

If you put Chandler on this Mavs squad right now, he does not make them better than OKC, SA, LA, or MIA. He's a very good player, but he doesn't make them elite.

So why spend all of the rest of your resources on a player who is injury prone, wouldn't make your team elite, would cripple you financially for the future, keep you an old team, all for the chace to catch lightning in a bottle again?

It's funny how a team can go from being called out by Denver as a team they want to face in the 1st round, to being a team that would have absolutely been an elite contender with Tyson freaking Chandler.

I don't remember Chandler making dagger threes, off balance fadeaways, and game winning shots in Dallas last year. Everyone had to play above their abilites for last year to happen, including an all time great going HAM for the Mavs to win. Chandler played an important ROLE for that to happen.

:cheers: :rockon:

[Owl]

To the bold. I don't think so actually. It was improbable that the Mavs played so well. Would you describe Dirk's play as "luck" or "good fortune"....meh...I don't think that fits.

Fluke to me implies that they got lucky to win. That a fluke play or thing happened. If you want to define that as the play of Dirk and the Mavs...then ok.

But its not like they got lucky in terms of an injury or a team losing before they should have.

Fluke generally has negative connotations to it.
I'd say something improbable happening is pretty close to the definition of luck (or chance).

I didn't use fluke myself though I understand you were responding to those who did.

I can understand wanting to make the distinction between a lucky bounce, or getting lucky with refereeing and the luck of getting hot at the right time (which seems more an achievement, because Dallas still had to outperform the teams put before them) but it's a distinction between diferent types of fortune/luck.

[97 bulls]

They beat the Thunder in 5. Needing Dirk to go for 48 on the best efficiency ever...and then 40 to get another key win in OT.

And the Thunder got better this year. And I've already proven to you that the Mavs would be worse.

What a terrible and simplistic view to just look at series as 5 games and not the details.

And even if you just look at the 5 games. A 5 game series can easily turn into 7 or go the other way with some small changes.

Mavs were going to be worse. Just a fact. There is no way at all you can bring back all the same players and expect a repeat performance. Other teams got better...again, just a fact.

So where does that leave you? It leaves you with a much tougher road than even last year to the title.

And its not even a window. Its 1 year. Then its over. Kidd is done. Terry and Marion have declined. Dirk is officially declining. You are left with a team that has an aging superstar and no other elite players.

If we had brought everyone back...it would have been a 1 year title shot. And then nothingness until you blow the team up.

And at best, the Mavs would have been something around 8 to 1 to win the title entering the playoffs. At best.
Have you ever heard of the saying "a bird in your hand is better than the two in the bush"? This applies here. Nothing is guaranteed, but you do know the mavs were contenders if they stayed relatively intact. And thats all one can ask for. Their chance to win would be greater than most of the teams in the league.

[DMAVS41]

BUT THEYRE MORTGAGING HIS CAREER ANYWAY. According to a few people, the mavs kinda just gave up on this season and next season right? That two year of dirk career. And hes what 31? At some point he gonna need to be replaced too.

Dirk is 34....or nearing it iirc.

And I don't see how we threw away this year.

Answer me this. If the Mavs had signed Kaman instead of Odom...which was a possibility, do you think we'd be down 3-0 in this series?

[SCdac]

Mavs were going to be worse. Just a fact.

Keep telling yourself these "facts" and "proven" points man. I don't agree. And I've watched the composition, fluctuation, and progression of a championship team the past 10+ years thats not entirely different than the Mavs' model. The Mavs would have been different and less troubled had they retained some key players IMO.

I think the Mavs would have had just as good a shot in today's league, when considering the load Chander takes off other players on the defensive and offensive end (IE. Dirk is have to work harder on D next to dunces like Haywood and Mahinmi, and nobody is scared of them crashing the boards offensively). Also considering how valuable a deep solid team with chemistry can be.

It's like letting go a for sure thing in Bruce Bowen for the sake of very possibly getting a Danny Granger in return. I'm not sure I would do it.

[DMAVS41]

Have you ever heard of the saying "a bird in your hand is better than the two in the bush"? This applies here. Nothing is guaranteed, but you do know the mavs were contenders if they stayed relatively intact. And thats all one can ask for. Their chance to win would be greater than most of the teams in the league.

But I don't think that though. That is my point. I don't think a team that was 20 to 1 to win the title last year and literally had teams hoping to play them would be a legit contender.

I would call them a fringe contender. Like the Celtics.

What I do know factually is that the Mavs would get worse and other teams would get better.

So I don't agree with your statement. I also know that by bringing everyone back it gives 1 year...and 1 year alone to win the title and then ruins your team for another 3 to 5 years depending on trades, drafts, and luck.

So it wouldn't be worth it to me. I'd rather not overpay players that I know don't give me a great chance to win. Sign some new guys and try to make a run.

I'll keep coming back to this. We can't ignore Odom. Having him or a similar player on this team right now is huge. Huge...

[R.I.P.]

http://i.minus.com/ibcHUbTADO7aqr.gif
:oldlol: :oldlol:

Did Cuban really think that shitass team was winning anything?

The Mavs were a Ferrari last year! Dirk was the driver, Chandler was the engine, Kidd was the navigation system. Barea, Stevenson, Marion and Terry were the wheels.

This year you still have your Ferrari with a driver and a navigation system. Unfortunately you have no engine in your Ferrari and you are driving on two wheels. :cry:

[DMAVS41]

Keep telling yourself these "facts" and "proven" points man. I don't agree. And I've watched the composition, fluctuation, and progression of a championship team the past 10+ years thats not entirely different than the Mavs' model. The Mavs would have been different and less troubled had they retained some key players IMO.

I think the Mavs would have had just as good a shot in today's league, when considering the load Chander takes off other players on the defensive and offensive end (IE. Dirk is have to work harder on D next to dunces like Haywood and Mahinmi, and nobody is scared of them crashing the boards offensively). Also considering how valuable a deep solid team with chemistry can be.

It's like letting go a for sure thing in Bruce Bowen for the sake of very possibly getting a Danny Granger in return. I'm not sure I would do it.

It is a fact. You don't just get a year older and have teams factually improve around you without having your chances decrease to win.

Especially when it took such an improbable run to begin with to win.

If you at all make room for people regressing to the mean....then it was going to be factually harder for the Mavs to win a title this year.

How you can't agree to that is beyond me.

How about we go at this a different way.

Do you think the Thunder are better this year? The Lakers? The Spurs?

Please answer.

[shortsoptional]

Keep telling yourself these "facts" and "proven" points man. I don't agree. And I've watched the composition, fluctuation, and progression of a championship team the past 10+ years thats not entirely different than the Mavs' model. The Mavs would have been different and less troubled had they retained some key players IMO.

I think the Mavs would have had just as good a shot in today's league, when considering the load Chander takes off other players on the defensive and offensive end (IE. Dirk is have to work harder on D next to dunces like Haywood and Mahinmi, and nobody is scared of them crashing the boards offensively). Also considering how valuable a deep solid team with chemistry can be.

It's like letting go a for sure thing in Bruce Bowen for the sake of very possibly getting a Danny Granger in return. I'm not sure I would do it.

Ok.. i'm assuming you're talking about the Spurs as the team you watched progress?

Those peieces you watched "progress" were not as old. Tony Parker is 10 years younger than Jason Kidd. TEN FREAKING YEARS! Terry, the second scoring option is 34/35. This is an old team. And signing thirty something year olds to long term contracts cripples you for the future.

[SCdac]

Do you think the Thunder are better this year? The Lakers? The Spurs?

Please answer.

Had the Mavs maintained their roster, I don't think the Thunder or the Lakers would be better, not enough to overcome the gelled and proven Mavs. Kobe and Pau are a year older too mind you, and the Thunder are still a young inexperienced team with a unproven coach (now they have momentum against a dismantled Mavs team.. IE. different Mavs team than what we're talking about). everybody is a year older. The Spurs I think are better than the Mavs now, but then again I think the Spurs would have been close to beating the Mavs last season too. They just didn't meet up.

[97 bulls]

No. Dirk has always been clutch and great. To that extent? No, but literally no player other than maybe Jordan and Bird have reached that level of clutch play. Certainly nobody came close in this era.

But if you want to call it a fluke. Go ahead. I don't want to debate semantics.

If you deem it as such, then its even more evidence for me on why breaking up the team was smart.

If it was a fluke, why would you think it would happen again? I've already proven logically why the Mavs would be worse no matter what....and stated the simple fact that other teams got better.

So you are making my point for me. I just have an issue with using a word like "fluke"...because it has negative connotations and is often used to describe something that isn't "earned".....

But again. I don't want to argue semantics. If we call it a fluke...then that only strengthens my position even more.
It was a fluke in the aspect that they played out of their minds and dominated the lakers and thunder and heat. Not because they werent good enough. I believe the way the lakers dominated in 01 was a fluke. Fisher just didnt miss.

Thats all ive ever maintained. Lets not act as if terry and peja were shooting 60 and 70% from three in alot of those games. Thats what i mean by fluke.

Where we disagree is the notion that, dirk drug a team of scrubs to a championship, that offense is more important than defense, and yes tyson chandlers intensity, and defense were just as important as dirks shooting in the mavs championship run. This season dallas mavericks proves it.

[SCdac]

Ok.. i'm assuming you're talking about the Spurs as the team you watched progress?

Those peieces you watched "progress" were not as old. Tony Parker is 10 years younger than Jason Kidd. TEN FREAKING YEARS! Terry, the second scoring option is 34/35. This is an old team. And signing thirty something year olds to long term contracts cripples you for the future.

Oh I understand why the Mavs did it, everybody does. I'm saying, I wouldn't have if I'm Cuban... who's notorious for changing his roster every other year.

[DMAVS41]

Had the Mavs maintained their roster, I don't think the Thunder or the Lakers would be better, not enough to overcome the gelled and proven Mavs. Kobe and Pau are a year older too mind you, and the Thunder are still a young inexperienced team with a unproven coach (now they have momentum against a dismantled Mavs team.. IE. different Mavs team than what we're talking about). everybody is a year older. The Spurs I think are better than the Mavs now, but then again I think the Spurs would have been close to beating the Mavs last season too. They just didn't meet up.

You misunderstood me. I asked if they were better this year compared to last year.

Meaning. Do you think the Lakers are better right now than they were last year? Same for the Thunder and Spurs.

Please answer.

You also told me that you thought the Mavs in 11 were the worst team since 98 to win the title. So how on earth can you have it both ways?

[gasolina]

Had the Mavs maintained their roster, I don't think the Thunder or the Lakers would be better, not enough to overcome the gelled and proven Mavs. Kobe and Pau are a year older too mind you, and the Thunder are still a young inexperienced team with a unproven coach (now they have momentum against a dismantled Mavs team.. IE. different Mavs team than what we're talking about). everybody is a year older. The Spurs I think are better than the Mavs now, but then again I think the Spurs would have been close to beating the Mavs last season too. They just didn't meet up.
:wtf: Have you seen how Kobe played this year compared to last year? How about Bynum?

[DMAVS41]

It was a fluke in the aspect that they played out of their minds and dominated the lakers and thunder and heat. Not because they werent good enough. I believe the way the lakers dominated in 01 was a fluke. Fisher just didnt miss.

Thats all ive ever maintained. Lets not act as if terry and peja were shooting 60 and 70% from three in alot of those games. Thats what i mean by fluke.

Where we disagree is the notion that, dirk drug a team of scrubs to a championship, that offense is more important than defense, and yes tyson chandlers intensity, and defense were just as important as dirks shooting in the mavs championship run. This season dallas mavericks proves it.

Ok. Just stop then.

I have never once said Dirk dragged a group of scrubs to the title. I said that Dirk had the most clutch playoff run of this era by far and one of the best ever last year. I said Dirk was by far the MVP of that Mavs team. I never, not once, said that Dirk dragged scrubs.

So now the record is set straight. There is no need for you to ever imply that I did that or continue to say that I think that. Because I never said it and I don't think that at all.

[SCdac]

You misunderstood me. I asked if they were better this year compared to last year.

Meaning. Do you think the Lakers are better right now than they were last year? Same for the Thunder and Spurs.

Please answer.

Yes, they are better, but they wouldn't be better than what the Mavs would be had they kept their key players... Mavs got more worse, than those teams got better, in other words. Dirk and Chandler are both still as solid as ever IMO and a dominant front court is more valuable than a dominant back court.

[Owl]

Have you ever heard of the saying "a bird in your hand is better than the two in the bush"? This applies here. Nothing is guaranteed, but you do know the mavs were contenders if they stayed relatively intact. And thats all one can ask for. Their chance to win would be greater than most of the teams in the league.
They would have been borderline contenders (maybe 5% chance of winning it all). But that isn't all you can ask for. Just because, as you say "nothing is guaranteed" that doesn't mean you don't try to maximise your chances. Being better than most of the teams in the league or having title chances "greater than most of the teams in the league") only requires a simple majority but being say the 7th seed isn't a real target. You have to maximise your chances over the long term. Given that Dallas haven't overspent, that they have a couple of euros that could be brought over, that they will have big cap room (and a big market and no state income tax iirc) and that there are 2 stars already obviously eyeing Dallas as an option at least. Given that FA acquisitions will now cost less (hoping to deter guys teaming up) actually means teaming up 2 (or more stars) is cheaper and so allowing for a better all round team. Given all that and the fact that the Mavs were both worse and older than your average champions and I'd say they made the right choice.

[DMAVS41]

Yes, they are better, but they wouldn't be better than what the Mavs would be had they kept their key players... Mavs got more worse, than those teams got better, in other words. Dirk and Chandler are both still as solid as ever IMO and a dominant front court is more valuable than a dominant back court.

Ok. So we agree those teams are better.

And you have also said that the 11 Mavs are the worst team since 98 to win the title.

So it is your opinion that an aging team, that you called the worst team of this era to win the title...playing against better competition than the year before is likely to win the title again.

That is what you are saying. And I don't see the logic to it at all.

And you aren't even making room for the Mavs getting worse. Which is absurd given the circumstances.

[97 bulls]

It is a fact. You don't just get a year older and have teams factually improve around you without having your chances decrease to win.

Especially when it took such an improbable run to begin with to win.

If you at all make room for people regressing to the mean....then it was going to be factually harder for the Mavs to win a title this year.

How you can't agree to that is beyond me.

How about we go at this a different way.

Do you think the Thunder are better this year? The Lakers? The Spurs?

Please answer.
Id like to answer this too. The spurs? No they had the best record last year. The thunder? Yes just by maturing and chemistry. The lakers? No excpet for perhaps they seem much more motivated.
But dont forget they swept the lakers and beat the thunder in 5. Im not sure the lakers are that much better to the point where they go from getting swept to beating the mavs. The thunder too. Its not as if the mavs barely beat the lakers and thunder. They dominated them.

But teams retool every year. Thats nothing new. The knicks used to upgrade their team eevery year after they got ousted by the bulls. The bulls didnt.

[bdreason]

Dallas caught lightning in a bottle last year, and even if they kept the team together, they weren't winning it again. You realize how hard it is to win back-to-back titles?



Cuban played it smart, and cleared cap space for 2012-2013, where you can bring someone in that will really give them another shot at a title.

[SCdac]

Ok. So we agree those teams are better.

And you have also said that the 11 Mavs are the worst team since 98 to win the title.

So it is your opinion that an aging team, that you called the worst team of this era to win the title...playing against better competition than the year before is likely to win the title again.

That is what you are saying. And I don't see the logic to it at all.

And you aren't even making room for the Mavs getting worse. Which is absurd given the circumstances.

Ehh, I think the league is really wide open right now.

None of these teams we're talking about, including the Mavs, were really that dominant in the grand scheme.

The Spurs lead by a 35-36 year old Duncan for the second year in a row got the #1 seed.

I don't think the Thunder or Lakers "getting better" would be any more of a threat than the Heat last season who were the best team the Mavs faced, and I think are favorites now.

I think the Mavs would definitely have another shot at a title this season - hell, they were keeping up with the current Thunder as is... (but most likely not any more)

[Pointguard]

I think that the Mavericks won the chip on defense first and then Dirk's heroics. By that I mean that Kidd/Chandler and Marion/team/Chandler's defensive stands were as great as any on great guards/small forwards ever seen in the playoffs. Neither Marion or the renown defensive Kidd ever played defense like they did last year. So Chandler anchoring and influence was greatly under appreciated last year. When I said Chandler was the best defensive center, Dmavs and Indiefan lost it and tried to act like I was crazy. But over the course of the year, it proved to be true.

Certainly Dirk's clutch shooting was huge and great, but in general he doesn't outscore Kobe, Wade, Lebron or Durant in the playoffs - even in his scoring prime. The Mavs were defensively consistent, I know that the Knicks are totally on another level defensively when Chandler plays. He was their consistency and they were in every game because they played good D.

[DMAVS41]

Id like to answer this too. The spurs? No they had the best record last year. The thunder? Yes just by maturing and chemistry. The lakers? No excpet for perhaps they seem much more motivated.
But dont forget they swept the lakers and beat the thunder in 5. Im not sure the lakers are that much better to the point where they go from getting swept to beating the mavs. The thunder too. Its not as if the mavs barely beat the lakers and thunder. They dominated them.

But teams retool every year. Thats nothing new. The knicks used to upgrade their team eevery year after they got ousted by the bulls. The bulls didnt.

The Spurs are definitely better this year....Manu was hurt in the playoffs last year. That alone makes them better. Ignoring of course that they are just better this year as well.

Lakers are for sure better this year. Health alone makes them better.

Thunder...we agree, for sure better.

The Mavs won in 5, but it was a close series. It took games of 48 and 40 from Dirk to win 2 essentially....

Think about it this way. The Thunder are better. Logically, even with bringing everyone back, the Mavs would be slightly worse.

Does that 5 game series turn into 7 off that. Thunder would have home court, hungrier....etc.

Unless you want to get into a semantics debate or some other absurd notion.

Here is the most likely scenario coming into this year.

Spurs, Thunder, Grizzlies, Lakers, Heat, and Bulls would all slightly improve their teams.

Mavs, even with bringing everyone back, would be slightly worse.

Do you really disagree with that?

[DMAVS41]

Ehh, I think the league is really wide open right now.

None of these teams we're talking about, including the Mavs, were really that dominant in the grand scheme.

The Spurs lead by a 35-36 year old Duncan for the second year in a row got the #1 seed.

I don't think the Thunder or Lakers "getting better" would be any more of a threat than the Heat last season who were the best team the Mavs faced, and I think are favorites now.

I think the Mavs would definitely have another shot at a title this season - hell, they were keeping up with the current Thunder as is... (but most likely not any more)

And that is where we disagree.

The idea that the league has less elite championship caliber teams now than it did in 03 or 07....is just beyond me. You have a high number of teams right now with elite championship level talent. There may not be a clear cut favorite, but that doesn't mean its wide open. The level of competition right now starting in round 2 is some of the best of this era.

Could not disagree more.

[97 bulls]

They would have been borderline contenders (maybe 5% chance of winning it all). But that isn't all you can ask for. Just because, as you say "nothing is guaranteed" that doesn't mean you don't try to maximise your chances. Being better than most of the teams in the league or having title chances "greater than most of the teams in the league") only requires a simple majority but being say the 7th seed isn't a real target. You have to maximise your chances over the long term. Given that Dallas haven't overspent, that they have a couple of euros that could be brought over, that they will have big cap room (and a big market and no state income tax iirc) and that there are 2 stars already obviously eyeing Dallas as an option at least. Given that FA acquisitions will now cost less (hoping to deter guys teaming up) actually means teaming up 2 (or more stars) is cheaper and so allowing for a better all round team. Given all that and the fact that the Mavs were both worse and older than your average champions and I'd say they made the right choice.
I just dont see how you can say they made the right choice. They havnt signed anyone. Theyre about to be put out in the first round, howard has signed on for another year with orlando, and in all honesty is a cancer to begin with. And theres no more of a guarantee that they get williams than it is that they win a championship. And then, if they dont dign williams, theres no guarantee that they win a championship. Your talking about a whole lotta ifs.

[DMAVS41]

I think that the Mavericks won the chip on defense first and then Dirk's heroics. By that I mean that Kidd/Chandler and Marion/team/Chandler's defensive stands were as great as any on great guards/small forwards ever seen in the playoffs. Neither Marion or the renown defensive Kidd ever played defense like they did last year. So Chandler anchoring and influence was greatly under appreciated last year. When I said Chandler was the best defensive center, Dmavs and Indiefan lost it and tried to act like I was crazy. But over the course of the year, it proved to be true.

Certainly Dirk's clutch shooting was huge and great, but in general he doesn't outscore Kobe, Wade, Lebron or Durant in the playoffs - even in his scoring prime. The Mavs were defensively consistent, I know that the Knicks are totally on another level defensively when Chandler plays. He was their consistency and they were in every game because they played good D.

You are right that it takes both, but Dirk was absolutely the best and most valuable piece of that team.

We aren't losing this year off defense. Its virtually all offense so far in this series.

[DMAVS41]

I just dont see how you can say they made the right choice. They havnt signed anyone. Theyre about to be put out in the first round, howard has signed on for another year with orlando, and in all honesty is a cancer to begin with. And theres no more of a guarantee that they get williams than it is that they win a championship. And then, if they dont dign williams, theres no guarantee that they win a championship. Your talking about a whole lotta ifs.

But your whole point is off of IF.

You aren't guaranteed of anything if they bring everyone back....well, you are guaranteed that the Mavs will be old as **** and in no place to contend after 12....13 at the most.

So at best you are a contender for 2 more years....which is highly unlikely to begin with.

And again, you can't ignore the Odom situation. Stop ignoring this. Everyone. Stop it. Stop pretending like the Mavs didn't find a way to get a player the caliber of Odom for this year as well. Just because it didn't work does not change the fact that Cuban and Nellie Jr. did it.

You can't see into the future. If Odom had worked out....we simply aren't having this conversation right now. In fact, we are having a conversation about how smart Cuban is. That he found a way to allow the Mavs to challenge for another title and rebuild the following year.

[97 bulls]

Dallas caught lightning in a bottle last year, and even if they kept the team together, they weren't winning it again. You realize how hard it is to win back-to-back titles?



Cuban played it smart, and cleared cap space for 2012-2013, where you can bring someone in that will really give them another shot at a title.
Honestly? Going back over about 30 years, history has proven its not that hard to win back to back titles. Even more multiple titles by a team using the same core.

[DMAVS41]

Honestly? Going back over about 30 years, history has proven its not that hard to win back to back titles. Even more multiple titles by a team using the same core.

Find me back to back title winning teams with only 1 all nba player....

[Pointguard]

You are right that it takes both, but Dirk was absolutely the best and most valuable piece of that team.

We aren't losing this year off defense. Its virtually all offense so far in this series.
True Dirk was the best piece for sure.

Guys were making three's last year. Westbrook is getting open shots and Durant was pretty contained last year.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Dallas caught lightning in a bottle last year, and even if they kept the team together, they weren't winning it again. You realize how hard it is to win back-to-back titles?



Cuban played it smart, and cleared cap space for 2012-2013, where you can bring someone in that will really give them another shot at a title.
a couple points here:
1. winning a championship at all is hard. Sure, winning back-to-back is hard. Lakers did it twice recently.

2. putting a team together that actually wins it is hard. putting another one together, with new players, in short order is even harder.

3. Dirk aint getting younger. Terry aint getting younger. It takes some time to gell, even if you have the right personnel (see the Heat). Thus, Cuban is risking time, injuries, etc.

4. No assurances that you can land the player you need to get back to championship caliber.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Find me back to back title winning teams with only 1 all nba player....
Kobe's most recent back to back.... or did you mean only 1 all-star voted in that season?

[97 bulls]

True Dirk was the best piece for sure.

Guys were making three's last year. Westbrook is getting open shots and Durant was pretty contained last year.
I ve always said dirk was their best player but chandler was just as valuable.

[DMAVS41]

True Dirk was the best piece for sure.

Guys were making three's last year. Westbrook is getting open shots and Durant was pretty contained last year.

Westbrook got open shots last year. He just has improved his game...as has Harden....as has Ibaka.

And Durant was contained in the first two games of this series as well.

Don't forget that the Thunder are clearly a better team this year.

Also, Durant had a game of 40 on 76% TS last year against the Mavs and the Thunder lost.

[DMAVS41]

Kobe's most recent back to back.... or did you mean only 1 all-star voted in that season?

Gasol made all nba in both 09 and 10 unless I'm mistaken. Pretty sure he did.

[DMAVS41]

I ve always said dirk was their best player but chandler was just as valuable.

And that is where we disagree. Chandler was not nearly as valuable as Dirk was last year in the playoffs. :facepalm

And people ask me why I say Chandler is over-rated here. These posts right here are why....

[Mr. Jabbar]

Lol chandler dwngrading dirks chip run by getting DPOY 1 year later....:no:

ppl gets carried away so easily

[97 bulls]

Find me back to back title winning teams with only 1 all nba player....
This doesnt mean a damn thing dmavs. Thats an award.

The mavs won having a great defense, and chemistry along with timely shooting. And their personnel by postion was top 3 when compared to the rest of the league.

[DMAVS41]

This doesnt mean a damn thing dmavs. Thats an award.

The mavs won having a great defense, and chemistry along with timely shooting. And their personnel by postion was top 3 when compared to the rest of the league.

Forget the all nba award. I said it to make a point. its hard enough to repeat regardless....

How about doing it with only 1 elite player. Nearly impossible.

We won last year for all the reasons you say, and the likelihood of repeating this is not good.

But again, I'm not sure I should waste my team with someone that thinks Chandler was the MVP of the Mavs last year in the playoffs. Just absurd.

[97 bulls]

Lol chandler dwngrading dirks chip run by getting DPOY 1 year later....:no:

ppl gets carried away so easily
First, it wasnt dirks run, it was the mavs run. But chandler winning this year just solidifies the fact that hes a damn good center.

[DMAVS41]

First, it wasnt dirks run, it was the mavs run. But chandler winning this year just solidifies the fact that hes a damn good center.

My god. Nobody disputes that. Chandler is a damn good center.

How you leap from "damn good center" to "as valuable or more valuable than Dirk" is where people laugh at you. And rightfully so.

[DMAVS41]

I just have to say how much I love this:

So many people here:

Mavs won last year off a fluke. They are the worst team of this era to win the title. Dirk isn't a winner.


And:

If the Mavs had brought back Chandler they would have won. League is wide open. Mavs would be the 2nd best team in the league...etc.

How those two notions line up is beyond me.

If it was a fluke, then bringing everyone back again to play against better competition is not only a bad decision, but makes no sense at all.

If Dirk isn't a winner, trying to win two years in a row with him as your only elite player and clearly best player on the team is not just a bad decision, but makes no sense at all.

You simply can't have it both ways. Sorry...

[97 bulls]

My god. Nobody disputes that. Chandler is a damn good center.

How you leap from "damn good center" to "as valuable or more valuable than Dirk" is where people laugh at you. And rightfully so.
Do you understand the difference between being the best player and most valuable? I say chandler was more valuable ue to his role on the team. Case and point, remember last year when the mavs were playing the blaazers and brandon roy got hot and the blazers came back from being down by 20 to win that game in portland? Chandler to a man called out every one of the mavs and said they looked like the old mavs, similar to bird in 84. And im not sure that thee mavs bounce back from that loss if chandler had not been there to light a fire under the mavs ass. Chandler not only brought defense, but he brought toughness, he was the vocal and locker room leader, and played a large role in keeping that mavs teams phycy (i know i butchered that word) intact.

Dirk has never struck me as being a vocal and spiritual leader. Like bird, magic, or jordan.

[DMAVS41]

Do you understand the difference between being the best player and most valuable? I say chandler was more valuable ue to his role on the team. Case and point, remember last year when the mavs were playing the blaazers and brandon roy got hot and the blazers came back from being down by 20 to win that game in portland? Chandler to a man called out every one of the mavs and said they looked like the old mavs, similar to bird in 84. And im not sure that thee mavs bounce back from that loss if chandler had not been there to light a fire under the mavs ass. Chandler not only brought defense, but he brought toughness, he was the vocal and locker room leader, and played a large role in keeping that mavs teams phycy (i know i butchered that word) intact.

Dirk has never struck me as being a vocal and spiritual leader. Like bird, magic, or jordan.

Chandler was valuable. In fact, he was the 2nd most valuable player on the team.

But again....calling him more valuable than Dirk is absurd. I don't care what the context is.

Literally ask anyone associated with that Mavs team who the MVP of that team was and you would get the same answer.

Sorry. Its an absurd notion. What Dirk brings to a team is just quite honestly infinitely more valuable than what Chandler brings.

That doesn't mean Chandler isn't important...just means its like comparing an all time great player to a player that will be forgotten the day he retires.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Gasol made all nba in both 09 and 10 unless I'm mistaken. Pretty sure he did.
I believe you are mistaken.
10-11 was 2nd team all-NBA
09-10 not
08-09 not

[97 bulls]

I just have to say how much I love this:

So many people here:

Mavs won last year off a fluke. They are the worst team of this era to win the title. Dirk isn't a winner.


And:

If the Mavs had brought back Chandler they would have won. League is wide open. Mavs would be the 2nd best team in the league...etc.

How those two notions line up is beyond me.

If it was a fluke, then bringing everyone back again to play against better competition is not only a bad decision, but makes no sense at all.

If Dirk isn't a winner, trying to win two years in a row with him as your only elite player and clearly best player on the team is not just a bad decision, but makes no sense at all.

You simply can't have it both ways. Sorry...
Lol your so simple. Bringing back their team does not guarantee another championship. No one has said that. But you totally eliminate the mavs chance by allowing 3 main pieces go. In an effort to go for something that may not even happen, and then even if they do sign williams or howard or both, thats ddoesnt mean theyre gonna win.

And again, i call last year a fluke in when you try to put dirk on par wiith the likes of magic, jordan, and russell etc. And imply that he should be top 10 or 15. Based on one championship run.

Not because they arent or werent good enough. They won, so they were obviously good enough.

Let it go or comprehend

[Duncan21formvp]

2006 heat are the perfect example of why you should change a winning formula.

Where does that leave us?
Yep pretty much. They kept the same team and lost in round 1 the next year.

[DMAVS41]

I believe you are mistaken.
10-11 was 2nd team all-NBA
09-10 not
08-09 not

Nah. I just looked it up.

Gasol made all nba in 09 and 10. Sorry mate.

He also made it in 2011.

LOL

[DMAVS41]

Lol your so simple. Bringing back their team does not guarantee another championship. No one has said that. But you totally eliminate the mavs chance by allowing 3 main pieces go. In an effort to go for something that may not even happen, and then even if they do sign williams or howard or both, thats ddoesnt mean theyre gonna win.

And again, i call last year a fluke in when you try to put dirk on par wiith the likes of magic, jordan, and russell etc. And imply that he should be top 10 or 15. Based on one championship run.

Not because they arent or werent good enough. They won, so they were obviously good enough.

Let it go or comprehend

Its the exact same thing though. If they dont' win a title...then clearly the course of action Cuban has taken is better. And you can't call a title run a fluke like you have...and then turn around and say there is a good chance it happens again the next year against teams you have already admitted are better

They are both IF statements. Comprehend or STFU.....

Nobody....absolutely nobody has called Dirk a top 10 player. Not even me. The biggest Dirk supporter here.

You continue to argue against a ghost. I have simply said Dirk belongs somewhere in the top 20. Close to top 15? Perhaps, but I don't really care all that much unless people start saying things like Malone, Barkley, and KG are all clearly better players or something.

Also, please give me your top 15 all time.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Nah. I just looked it up.

Gasol made all nba in 09 and 10. Sorry mate.

He also made it in 2011.

LOL
link please. NBA.com says otherwise.

[DMAVS41]

link please. NBA.com says otherwise.

First of all. How do you not even know this as a Lakers fan?

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/12/allnba.team.release/

that is for 09

http://www.examiner.com/article/2010-all-nba-team-announced

that is for 10

LOL

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Nah. I just looked it up.

Gasol made all nba in 09 and 10. Sorry mate.

He also made it in 2011.

LOL

all-nba THIRD team.
OK.

[-p.tiddy-]

I love Cuban, I will never ever ever want another owner...he is one of the greatest owners in all of professional sports IMO


that being said I do think he made a mistake this year not trying to keep everyone together...even if a repeat was improbable...you just don't do that.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

First of all. How do you not even know this as a Lakers fan?

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/05/12/allnba.team.release/

that is for 09

http://www.examiner.com/article/2010-all-nba-team-announced

that is for 10

LOL

LOL. when someone says ALL-NBA, I assume they mean first team.
Not THIRD team. but OK.

[-p.tiddy-]

I think just having Chandler alone would have had Mavs winning both games in OKC...what happens after IDK

[DMAVS41]

LOL. when someone says ALL-NBA, I assume they mean first team.
Not THIRD team. but OK.

What?????????

ROFL....

[Owl]

Find me back to back title winning teams with only 1 all nba player....
Houston would be the closest (they did get Drexler who made 3rd team, for part of their 2nd year). And that was in MJ's absence and Houston had a lot of close series and a lot of luck. And Hakeem was ridiculously good in the playoffs (Dirk has been pretty good himself), an impact player at both ends (Dirk isn't) and at his peak (Dirk wasn't/isn't).

If you're a market like Dallas and you have a chance to land 2 major free agents who are seriously flirting with Dallas, you don't overpay an 11 year vet who has had a troubled injury history (and a chucker and a solid backup guard) you go with the superstars. Even if they don't get Williams this summer they'll get someone good at some point (and I think Brooklyn's bad moves have made them substantially lesser rivals to get both Williams and Howard). And Howard has been an MVP candidate for multiple years, so I don't care if you don't like him or think he should be better or whatever he's an elite player and you don't get players that good very often.

And Gasol was 3rd team for both title runs.

[DMAVS41]

Houston would be the closest (they did get Drexler who made 3rd team, for part of their 2nd year). And that was in MJ's absence and Houston had a lot of close series and a lot of luck. And Hakeem was ridiculously good in the playoffs (Dirk has been pretty good himself), an impact player at both ends (Dirk isn't) and at his peak (Dirk wasn't/isn't).

If you're a market like Dallas and you have a chance to land 2 major free agents who are seriously flirting with Dallas, you don't overpay an 11 year vet who has had a troubled injury history (and a chucker and a solid backup guard) you go with the superstars. Even if they don't get Williams this summer they'll get someone good at some point (and I think Brooklyn's bad moves have made them substantially lesser rivals to get both Williams and Howard). And Howard has been an MVP candidate for multiple years, so I don't care if you don't like him or think he should be better or whatever he's an elite player and you don't get players that good very often.

And Gasol was 3rd team for both title runs.

Yep.

I don't know why this is such a big deal. The Mavs chances of repeating were very small to begin with. Logically it doesn't make sense to go after something so improbable when the stakes are so high.

I just love how people call the title last year a fluke and then throw a tantrum over Cuban not overpaying the shit out of these guys to bring them back. LOL...if it was a fluke...why would you think you are going to win the same way....against better competition mind you.

You would think Cuban let a player like Gasol walk....or Westbrook. Hell....even Nash back in 04.

The idea that Tyson Chandler is as valuable as Dirk has to be one of the dumbest notions ever put forth here.

[Pointguard]

I ve always said dirk was their best player but chandler was just as valuable.
Yeah, there is room for that argument. Whenever you unify a team or cause them all to change their persona and motivate them, you are affecting them in ways that are immeasurable. Tyson's strength of getting everybody to buy into the grand defensive schemes goes along ways. Like he said at his DPOY ceremony. Offense wins games and defense wins championships. So I hear you loud and clear there.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, there is room for that argument. Whenever you unify a team or cause them all to change their persona and motivate them, you are affecting them in ways that are immeasurable. Tyson's strength of getting everybody to buy into the grand defensive schemes goes along ways. Like he said at his DPOY ceremony. Offense wins games and defense wins championships. So I hear you loud and clear there.

No No No.

Chandler was not as valuable as Dirk. Not on any level at all. It's absurd to even think that.

This is a guy that has been a part of 8 playoff wins in his career before last year.

Stop with this nonsense. Stop trying to distinguish between better and value. If Chandler brought more value to a team than Dirk...then he'd be better.

Holy shit....

Then clearly Noah is as valuable to the Bulls as Rose....somehow I doubt you agree with that.

[97 bulls]

Its the exact same thing though. If they dont' win a title...then clearly the course of action Cuban has taken is better. And you can't call a title run a fluke like you have...and then turn around and say there is a good chance it happens again the next year against teams you have already admitted are better

They are both IF statements. Comprehend or STFU.....

Nobody....absolutely nobody has called Dirk a top 10 player. Not even me. The biggest Dirk supporter here.

You continue to argue against a ghost. I have simply said Dirk belongs somewhere in the top 20. Close to top 15? Perhaps, but I don't really care all that much unless people start saying things like Malone, Barkley, and KG are all clearly better players or something.

Also, please give me your top 15 all time.
I dont really do top 15. Cuz i rank based solely on accomplishments. But

1. Jordan
2. Jabaar
3. Chamberlain
4. Russell
5. Duncan
6. Johnson
7. O'neal
8. Bryant
9. Bird
10. Mikan
11. Olajuwan
12. West
13. Pettite
14. Havlicek
15. Robertson
16. Garnett
17. Malone
18. James
19. Pippen
20. Cousy
21. Erving
22. Nowitzki
23. Barkley
24. Rodman
25. Robinson

[DMAVS41]

I dont really do top 15. Cuz i rank based solely on accomplishments. But

1. Jordan
2. Jabaar
3. Chamberlain
4. Russell
5. Duncan
6. Johnson
7. O'neal
8. Bryant
9. Bird
10. Mikan
11. Olajuwan
12. West
13. Pettite
14. Havlicek
15. Robertson
16. Garnett
17. Malone
18. James
19. Pippen
20. Cousy
21. Erving
22. Nowitzki
23. Barkley
24. Rodman
25. Robinson

So you rank solely on accomplishments....fair enough.

I'd say that you might be well served to check out this list...heavily based on accomplishments, but with some other factors as well:

http://nbalegacy.blogspot.com/2011/06/nba-legacy-all-time-25-june-2011.html

But the point stands. You have Dirk at 22. So why would you think its crazy to call him top 20?

Makes no sense, but of course that is standard with you.

[97 bulls]

I think just having Chandler alone would have had Mavs winning both games in OKC...what happens after IDK
I think just having chandler allows this team to go from 7 possibly a second or third seed. And thus not seeing okc till possibly the wcf.

Theyd even be better cuz they replaced berea with west. And then add carter who replaced butler. Theyd still have three 7 footers, but add defense and more offense off the bench. Thats a first seed team in this scenario.

[Owl]

I dont really do top 15. Cuz i rank based solely on accomplishments. But

1. Jordan
2. Jabaar
3. Chamberlain
4. Russell
5. Duncan
6. Johnson
7. O'neal
8. Bryant
9. Bird
10. Mikan
11. Olajuwon
12. West
13. Pettit
14. Havlicek
15. Robertson
16. Garnett
17. Malone
18. James
19. Pippen
20. Cousy
21. Erving
22. Nowitzki
23. Barkley
24. Rodman
25. Robinson
Apart from the alarming overrating of a 2 time all-star (and to be fair a 2 time 3rd team All-NBA) and a mildly amusing typo, I'd like to enquire which Malone?
Not a bad list though. Certainly no big qualms through 18 though I'd swap Robertson and Kobe. Mikan is always tricky to rank.

[97 bulls]

So you rank solely on accomplishments....fair enough.

I'd say that you might be well served to check out this list...heavily based on accomplishments, but with some other factors as well:

http://nbalegacy.blogspot.com/2011/06/nba-legacy-all-time-25-june-2011.html

But the point stands. You have Dirk at 22. So why would you think its crazy to call him top 20?

Makes no sense, but of course that is standard with you.
I said top 10 or 15. Which were being uttered after the mavs coach basically said as much.

[DMAVS41]

I think just having chandler allows this team to go from 7 possibly a second or third seed. And thus not seeing okc till possibly the wcf.

Theyd even be better cuz they replaced berea with west. And then add carter who replaced butler. Theyd still have three 7 footers, but add defense and more offense off the bench. Thats a first seed team in this scenario.

I think 3rd seed is realistic....or 4th.

That would be either:

Nuggets, Thunder, Spurs, and Heat

Grizzlies, Spurs, Lakers or Thunder, and Heat

Don't see it happening....

[DMAVS41]

I said top 10 or 15. Which were being uttered after the mavs coach basically said as much.

But nobody actually said top 10 other than his coach.....LOL

And why would 15 be so unreasonable....that list I sent you has him at 17. You have him, a known Dirk hater that doesn't think he's a winner, at 22.

So even though you hate him and think he's a "loser"....you still rank him as the 22nd best player ever.

Why is it absurd for someone to go the other way?

And I'm also curious to know if you think Noah is as valuable as Rose is to the Bulls.

[97 bulls]

Apart from the alarming overrating of a 2 time all-star (and to be fair a 2 time 3rd team All-NBA) and a mildly amusing typo, I'd like to enquire which Malone?
Not a bad list though. Certainly no big qualms through 18 though I'd swap Robertson and Kobe. Mikan is always tricky to rank.
I forgot about malone id probably put him at 16 and slide everyone down. But id assume your alluding to rodman. Sorry bro. 5 championships, 2 dpoys awards, 7 rebounding titles, and multiple all defense teams. As well as being the most versitle defender ever. And best defender ever.

[50inchvertical]

Well established Cuban somewhat mailed this season in to have cap space in the offseason. Tyson Chandler, Deshawn Stevenson, and JJ Barea were not willing to sign 1 yr deals to fit into the plan. Brewer and Fernandez had yrs left on their deals. Cuban did what he had to do, which was sacrifice this season for the potential of what could be Dirk and Deron, or maybe even Dirk and Deron and Dwight.

[97 bulls]

But nobody actually said top 10 other than his coach.....LOL

And why would 15 be so unreasonable....that list I sent you has him at 17. You have him, a known Dirk hater that doesn't think he's a winner, at 22.

So even though you hate him and think he's a "loser"....you still rank him as the 22nd best player ever.

Why is it absurd for someone to go the other way?

And I'm also curious to know if you think Noah is as valuable as Rose is to the Bulls.
Lol im not a dirk hater. I just disgaree that hes been surrounded by scrubs and drug last years mavs to the title.

As far as noah? Its kinda hard to say with asik backing him up. As well as gibson. But i do feel the strength of the bulls is their defense and rebounding. But one thing chandler has that noah doesnt is that he (chandler) is a more vocal leader.

[DMAVS41]

Lol im not a dirk hater. I just disgaree that hes been surrounded by scrubs and drug last years mavs to the title.

As far as noah? Its kinda hard to say with asik backing him up. As well as gibson. But i do feel the strength of the bulls is their defense and rebounding. But one thing chandler has that noah doesnt is that he (chandler) is a more vocal leader.

Noah is very much a vocal leader though. And Rose is hardly a "round up the troops" type guy as well.

Asik is no better than Haywood...in fact he's probably worse. And Gibson is no better than Marion.

Seems to me that what Noah provides the Bulls is very similar to what Chandler provided the Mavs.

And we all know the correct conclusion. That of course Noah is not as valuable as Rose. Its just absurd to even think that. I don't care what type of locker room guys these players are. They aren't on the level, in terms of value, as true superstars like Dirk and Rose. Sorry...

Do you see the pattern your line of thinking gets you into? That Pippen was better than Magic, Chandler more valuable than Dirk....etc. Its an inherent flaw in how you see the game. That is the only way you can reach such conclusions.


And concerning Dirk. In this very thread you said you didn't think he was a "winner"....

And nobody said he dragged scrubs to the title. Stop saying that. Stop arguing against ghosts....
The help Dirk has had is only brought up negatively when people start acting like he should have won a bunch of titles. People like you. And its just accurate. Doesn't mean he's had scrubs....he just hasn't had a lot of legit championship type teams around him.

Huge difference and trying to connect the two is silly.

[97 bulls]

Noah is very much a vocal leader though. And Rose is hardly a "round up the troops" type guy as well.

Asik is no better than Haywood...in fact he's probably worse. And Gibson is no better than Marion.

Seems to me that what Noah provides the Bulls is very similar to what Chandler provided the Mavs.
Lol asik is much better than haywood. I wouldnt trade asik for haywood. But dont get me wrong, haywood is a starter on at least half of the teams in the nba. And marion doesnt play the same position as gibson.

[Mavsfan31]

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/8174224/1024/Photoshop/Deron-Williams-cover-mavs.jpg
:bowdown: :bowdown:

[DMAVS41]

Lol asik is much better than haywood. I wouldnt trade asik for haywood. But dont get me wrong, haywood is a starter on at least half of the teams in the nba. And marion doesnt play the same position as gibson.

He doesn't have to play the same position. His value defensively is at least equal to Gibson.

And I disagree completely about Haywood vs Asik. Nothing could support the claim that Asik is much better than Haywood.

But stop shifting focus. Noah very closely plays the Chandler role and of course you won't claim Noah is as valuable or more valuable than Rose. Why? Because its absurd.

LOL

[creepingdeath]

Lol i predicted this from the mavs. Tyson Chandler was the heart and soul of the mavs. As well as their defensive anchor. And it showed this year.
You also said that Pippen > Magic
:roll:

[97 bulls]

He doesn't have to play the same position. His value defensively is at least equal to Gibson.

And I disagree completely about Haywood vs Asik. Nothing could support the claim that Asik is much better than Haywood.

But stop shifting focus. Noah very closely plays the Chandler role and of course you won't claim Noah is as valuable or more valuable than Rose. Why? Because its absurd.

LOL
Im not shifting focus. Noah and chandler play the exact same role. The difference is chandler is better at it.

The bulls have a luxery in that they have another quality defensive center in asik. Who more and more is on the court at the end of games than noah.

Marion on the mavs is more of a wing defender as opposed to a low post defender with the mavs. And hes great at it.

[97 bulls]

You also said that Pippen > Magic
:roll:
And i am right about that too.

[creepingdeath]

And i am right about that too.
http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/funny-gifs-gtfo.gif

[DMAVS41]

Im not shifting focus. Noah and chandler play the exact same role. The difference is chandler is better at it.

The bulls have a luxery in that they have another quality defensive center in asik. Who more and more is on the court at the end of games than noah.

Marion on the mavs is more of a wing defender as opposed to a low post defender with the mavs. And hes great at it.

Asik is not better than Haywood. My god.

I like Asik, but acting like he's clearly better than Haywood is a joke...

And if you say that Chandler is better than Noah...I disagree, but fine. Lets say I get on board with that for arguments sake.

Well, Dirk was clearly better than Rose last year. So the gap between Noah and Rose is absolutely not any bigger than the gap between Chandler and Dirk.

So how again is Noah not more valuable when you readily admit not only do they play the same role, but that the Bulls win off of defense and rebounding?

Just seems like you can't justify any difference at all.

[PTB Fan]

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/8174224/1024/Photoshop/Deron-Williams-cover-mavs.jpg
:bowdown: :bowdown:

D-Will :bowdown:

[97 bulls]

http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/funny-gifs-gtfo.gif
Lol

[97 bulls]

Asik is not better than Haywood. My god.

I like Asik, but acting like he's clearly better than Haywood is a joke...

And if you say that Chandler is better than Noah...I disagree, but fine. Lets say I get on board with that for arguments sake.

Well, Dirk was clearly better than Rose last year. So the gap between Noah and Rose is absolutely not any bigger than the gap between Chandler and Dirk.

So how again is Noah not more valuable when you readily admit not only do they play the same role, but that the Bulls win off of defense and rebounding?

Just seems like you can't justify any difference at all.
I said the mavs won the championship off their size and defense. Along with timely clutch shooting.

I also said the key to the bulls success is more due to the bulls team defense as opposed to roses offense. That seems consistent to me. If the bulls happen to win a championship and noah does what chandler did, id readily say he was more valuable than rose.

Im on record as feeling rodman was more valuable than jordan in the bulls 96 championship series. And deserved the finals MVP, but i wouldnt say hes better than jordan.

As far as asik and haywood, i think we should create a thread and see who ish would take.

[DMAVS41]

I said the mavs won the championship off their size and defense. Along with timely clutch shooting.

I also said the key to the bulls success is more due to the bulls team defense as opposed to roses offense. That seems consistent to me. If the bulls happen to win a championship and noah does what chandler did, id readily say he was more valuable than rose.

Im on record as feeling rodman was more valuable than jordan in the bulls 96 championship series. And deserved the finals MVP, but i wouldnt say hes better than jordan.

As far as asik and haywood, i think we should create a thread and see who ish would take.

No need. I've heard enough.

[97 bulls]

No need. I've heard enough.
Lol what do you want me to say? Your not gonna catch me in an inconsistency. I already told you when we first began discussing basketball that i value defense over offense. I believe this mavs team and last years team prove my point. I agree odom hurt the mavs but he wouldnt have made that much of a difference.

[knicksman]

i like cuban but this is not 2k12 where you can win titles easily and the goal of every franchise is to win. He shouldve retained chandler and get a chance for a title rather thinking of the future already. This same too with boston with the perk trade.

[Whoah10115]

So Dennis Rodman is ranked above Patrick Ewing?



Wowsers.

[Dresta]

Actually it isn't.

They didn't make it to the finals coz of injuries in 2005. 2005 Heat was the best non-championship team in 2000s right after 2002 Kings. They didn't change their formula and they won in 2006.
Err.. no. Pat Riley changed half the team between 2005 and 2006. And that's not even what i meant: after winning the title in 2006, Riley kept the same aged team to have another go in 2007. Everyone got old and lazy quick, which led to the 07/08 season when they won 15 games.

The smart thing to do would've been to dismantle the team and re-build around Wade when Miami's players had some actual value. This is all with hindsight of course.

[ILLsmak]

Actually it didn't you ****ing moron. The defense was very good to great all year. It was the offense that was terrible.

You predicted the Mavs would be worse without Chandler, a year older, other teams getting better, and the Odom situation?

Congrats. Could it be more obvious that the Mavs would be worse.

Unreal.

Oh, and Dirk isn't a winner? Really? That is what you get out of this? Holy shit dude. You are even dumber than I thought.

Please go back to thinking Pippen was better than Magic and that Chandler is better than Dirk.

How is Chandler working out in NY by the way? He's really changed that team around. On the verge of getting swept again and they haven't even been competitive.

The Mavs lost 2 games that could have gone either way in OKC. That happens. At least we have actually competed...unlike the Chandler led Knicks.

Not a winner? GTFO you ignorant moron.


y u mad tho???

-Smak