PDA

View Full Version : Report: Rick Carlisle to coach Mavs



Kofi
05-03-2008, 02:08 AM
I don't see on any sports news websites yet, but you can read about it here (http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=12).

Lord Helmet
05-03-2008, 02:10 AM
Good for Rick.

BoomBaby31
05-03-2008, 02:11 AM
Nice, this could be good for Rick. I'm sure Cuban is going to clean house this offseason. Everyone is on the Block, even Dirk IMO.

Isaac
05-03-2008, 02:17 AM
Nice, this could be good for Rick. I'm sure Cuban is going to clean house this offseason. Everyone is on the Block, even Dirk IMO.

He'll certainly try. Especially with Dirk.

rexnom
05-03-2008, 03:22 AM
I'm jealous.

andreialta
05-03-2008, 04:00 AM
i wonder if he makes a trade for Mike.. lol

JHo for Mike D. and Diogu!

he praises Dunleavy on NBA fastbreak most of the time so hmmh. management wont allow it anyways. haha

but better situation for him rather than Bulls

aero
05-03-2008, 04:26 AM
JO for Dirk do it

;)

King Tuts Tomb
05-03-2008, 04:33 AM
He'll certainly try. Especially with Dirk.

Why would he especially try to trade one of the five best players in the league?

Eindar
05-03-2008, 06:42 AM
That's a bad situation to go into. Their salary situation is kinda messed up, and they're getting old, and don't have a lot of good assets to blow it up with. I guess this is good because Rick can come in and "do his thing" where he'll get the guys to play at 100% ability, but then it'll be the same old thing for him.

I'd like to see Rick take a job where he's not just a caretaker for an above average team.

Fool
05-03-2008, 08:37 AM
Didn't they claim that one of the problems with Avery was micromanaging?

duke dynamite
05-03-2008, 09:21 AM
Good for Rick, he's got himself a job.

I'm sure he is a little excited to be there.

Smoothdave1
05-03-2008, 09:21 AM
Congrats to Rick. I guarantee you that Cuban and Nelson have inquired about Pacer players and whom would be a good fit for the Mavericks.

I think Howard would be available, especially after his confessed pot smoking. However, it may take Dunleavy and someone else (Diogu, Wiilliams, pick) to get a deal done. Do the Pacers pull the trigger on a deal?

Tom White
05-03-2008, 09:34 AM
Why would he especially try to trade one of the five best players in the league?

Because Dirk isn't?

They have been just sort of spinning their wheels with the current team. Seems to me that Dirk disappears during crunch time a lot.

Tom White
05-03-2008, 09:36 AM
I think Howard would be available, especially after his confessed pot smoking. .......Do the Pacers pull the trigger on a deal?

That is exactly why the Pacers don't make that deal. Bad PR...AGAIN.

Evan_The_Dude
05-03-2008, 10:03 AM
I'll be watching the Mavs a lot next season. I miss Rick a lot. I'm glad to see him get a good gig.

Arcadian
05-03-2008, 10:59 AM
I'm happy for Rick. I think Dallas keeps Kidd and Dirk and tries to get over the hump in the next two years.

Basketball Fan
05-03-2008, 11:05 AM
Mavs will still win nothing

Mourning
05-03-2008, 11:18 AM
That is exactly why the Pacers don't make that deal. Bad PR...AGAIN.

Isn't Howard a SF aswell?

Mourning
05-03-2008, 11:20 AM
Here's a question I posted yesterday... anybody have other possibilities in mind with maybe a third team involved with contract and some picks maybe going forth, etc?



IF Cuban hires Carlisle ... then does anybody else view the chances of a Pacers-Mav's deal getting more realistic? JO did well when he played for Rick as he was the focal point of our offense. Having Dirk and JO might be very interesting to Cuban if he thinks he can keep JO healthy and at the sametime unload Dampier and his ungodly contract to us. At the the sametime the Mav's would have a huge expiring sooner then with Dampier.

Dampier has been with the Pacers, so he knows the organization a bit and well he is big and a center.
Offcourse, the Mav's would have to add something which would make it way more remotely interesting for us.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=711019

Hicks
05-03-2008, 11:31 AM
If this proves to be true, good for Rick.

Taking on Dampier would be a huge mistake. His deal is actually longer than JO's.

Moses
05-03-2008, 11:35 AM
Here's a question I posted yesterday... anybody have other possibilities in mind with maybe a third team involved with contract and some picks maybe going forth, etc?



http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=711019
Why would we want Dampier or his horrid contract? They would have to throw in some serious talent and draft picks.

Mourning
05-03-2008, 11:43 AM
Like I said... I'm not saying in favour of getting Damp and I know his contract expires after JO's contract, but with that all said it IMO all comes down to what comes our way besides him. What if we also get a good pick and a pretty good expiring?

Maybe a third team would like to get Howard and the Mav's pick and send an expiring contract to us aswell as a pick?

Dunno if it could work. Just asking about the likelyhood of a Pacers-Mav's deal increasing now :).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

idioteque
05-03-2008, 11:59 AM
Good deal for RC. But I don't think he will be able to take them any further than they've already gone. It will be interesting to see if they blow the team up or if they try to integrate the players they have into a more controlled offense. It has been absolutely established this postseason that the Mavs-Suns style of play is never going to win you a title.

Taterhead
05-03-2008, 12:36 PM
Isn't Howard a SF aswell?

He plays SF for them, but is a SG no doubt.

If they are hiring Rick, they have got to be planning on making some moves to accomodate his style. They don't have the roster to do play a slow down half court right now. I think they could be the best option for JO now.

Another thing is that they could really value Marquis Daniels. The fans there loved him and were livid when they traded him for Croshere. Avery didn't feel he fit thier style, but now he's gone. Plus the cap relief he would bring.

Plus does Jason Kidd really fit in Ricks offense? He like to run, Rick doesn't. It seems to me Cuban is giving up on thier run and gun style.

Arcadian
05-03-2008, 01:00 PM
I disagree that coaches going somewhere new makes it more likely that they will go after former players. With Donnie and Mark I doubt a new coach will have much input about the roster even if he in fact wants to coach JO where ever he goes, which I doubt.

Rick likes high percentage shots and ball control. I imagine with Kidd and Dirk this points will translate differently than when he coached our roster which had several players who liked the post and he did not trust to make decisions.

imawhat
05-03-2008, 02:04 PM
Not saying this won't happen, but....


Vescey reported this, and he's as reliable as the National Enquirer.

maragin
05-03-2008, 02:05 PM
I wish we'd supported Rick rather than insisting on creating a style to please the fans. If we'd "Sloan'd" him, I'd be fine with it.

Good luck in Dallas Rick.

Unclebuck
05-03-2008, 02:07 PM
Cuban may be a pain to work for, but that is a great job because he'll do anythng to win.

Good for Rick

grace
05-03-2008, 02:22 PM
If Cuban is doing everything to win he's done a pretty bad job of it so far.

Suaveness
05-03-2008, 02:30 PM
He's doing things to win, but that doesn't mean he has to do it well

Kstat
05-03-2008, 02:38 PM
Best possible man to coach Dallas. Great choice.

Sollozzo
05-03-2008, 02:40 PM
If Cuban is doing everything to win he's done a pretty bad job of it so far.


Are you kidding? He totally turned that franchise around. The Mavericks were dead in the 1990's, but Cuban has made them one of the most exciting and respectable franchises of the decade. They have been 50 game winners for 8 straight seasons in a super competitive conference, and also have an NBA finals appearance. Additionally, he built a palace of a stadium and totally rejuvenized the fan base down there.

He has done an awesome job. All of their successes can directly be traced to the fact that Cuban is willing to dig deep into his pockets and do everything possible for that team to win.

Anthem
05-03-2008, 03:00 PM
I'd be pretty intrigued by a Dun-for-Josh Howard swap. Dallas comes out ahead in that deal, but there are plenty of ways to balance it out.

Defensively, I'd feel a whole lot better with Granger/Howard on the wings than Granger/Dunleavy.

Kstat
05-03-2008, 03:02 PM
I'm not sure Dallas comes out better, I just think both players would be better fits on the other team.

Dallas is in dire need of another consistent outside shooter, and Indiana needs perimeter defense badly.

Anthem
05-03-2008, 03:05 PM
I'm not sure Dallas comes out better, I just think both players would be better fits on the other team.

Dallas is in dire need of another consistent outside shooter, and Indiana needs perimeter defense badly.
True that Dun would fit well there, and true that Howard would hugely help our perimeter D. But Dun is a LOT more accomplished on the offensive end... look at the numbers difference and percentage difference. It's significant. Howard's a better rebounder, but Mike is a MUCH better passer.

If we'd have had Howard this year instead of Mike, we'd have ended up with a much worse record.

Kstat
05-03-2008, 03:11 PM
Dunleavy is a very good shooter, but everyone is probably in agreement that Granger is still a better offensive player.

The benefit from Howard's defense would far outweigh the loss of Dunleavy's shooting.

Unless you can get a very good point guard, you aren't going to utilize both of them well enough to offset the defensive issues.

Kofi
05-03-2008, 03:20 PM
I would trade Dunleavy for Howard in a heartbeat.

Anthem
05-03-2008, 03:25 PM
Dunleavy is a very good shooter, but everyone is probably in agreement that Granger is still a better offensive player.

The benefit from Howard's defense would far outweigh the loss of Dunleavy's shooting.

Unless you can get a very good point guard, you aren't going to utilize both of them well enough to offset the defensive issues.
I agree with all of that. And I've been on the "It makes sense to move Dunleavy" train for a while. I'm just saying that it seems that we ought to be able to get a tiny bit of sweetener in that deal. Dun has the better contract and is probably the better all-around player. It's a big win for Dallas... surely a little something thrown in makes the trade nice and even.

Kstat
05-03-2008, 03:29 PM
Dunleavy is a better shooter, but I doubt you'd find 2 GMs out of 10 that would say he's more versatile.

Arcadian
05-03-2008, 03:30 PM
With Howard in place of Dun we would have been the worst ball handling in the league.

There is no way we are going to go after a player who just said he smokes pot when we are trying to clean up our image.

Fool
05-03-2008, 03:36 PM
Are you kidding? He totally turned that franchise around. The Mavericks were dead in the 1990's, but Cuban has made them one of the most exciting and respectable franchises of the decade. They have been 50 game winners for 8 straight seasons in a super competitive conference, and also have an NBA finals appearance. Additionally, he built a palace of a stadium and totally rejuvenated the fan base down there.

He has done an awesome job. All of their successes can directly be traced to the fact that Cuban is willing to dig deep into his pockets and do everything possible for that team to win.

Incorrect.

Cuban bought the team in 2000. When he purchased the team, they already had Dirk, Nash, Finley, and Don Nelson. It's true that Cuban made the team much better in terms of fan enjoyment and player moral, as well as helped it grow in monetary worth, through spending whatever it took, but the actual success of the team was not primarily due to Cuban coming in and making great personnel moves with his open pocket book. In fact, the moves he's most known for have hurt the team and been done to save money (letting go of Nash, buying out Finley, firing Nelson and then not paying him that back salary) Nash and Nelson went on to knock the Mavericks out of the playoffs and Finley played a key role in helping the Spurs take the Mavs to a game seven before winning a championship the next year.

dohman
05-03-2008, 03:37 PM
yeah lets trade for a player so quis, hulk, and williams have someone to smoke pot with after the games.

JayRedd
05-03-2008, 03:43 PM
I'd be pretty intrigued by a Dun-for-Josh Howard swap. Dallas comes out ahead in that deal, but there are plenty of ways to balance it out.

Sorry, dude, but that's probably the funniest thing I've ever read on here.

Kstat
05-03-2008, 03:52 PM
With Howard in place of Dun we would have been the worst ball handling in the league.

There is no way we are going to go after a player who just said he smokes pot when we are trying to clean up our image.

I disagree completely with the first remark.

You're the worst ballhandling team in the league already. Adding Howard would not make it much worse.

That said, I do agree with your second point from a PR perspective.

Not that he smokes pot, but that he publicly admits to it, freely. It's bad PR.

Of course, the fact he simply smokes it during the off season doesn't bother me one bit.

Arcadian
05-03-2008, 03:57 PM
So you agree that we would be a worse ballhanding team and the worst in the league?

Howard is a better player than Dun. I don't believe that Howard is the fix for what we need.

Will Galen
05-03-2008, 04:05 PM
There is no way we are going to go after a player who just said he smokes pot when we are trying to clean up our image.

Exactly!

It seems to me there's a certain percentage of posters that always ignore reality when discussing possibilities. That puzzles me.

idioteque
05-03-2008, 04:18 PM
The there was a common sense perception of marijuana in the United States instead of this reefer madness garbage so many of us believe in, this would be a great trade for the Pacers.

But since we don't, it would never work from a PR standpoint. But then again, if we did have a common sense perception, Howard probably wouldn't be on the block anyway.

Kofi
05-03-2008, 04:22 PM
Howard is a better player than Dun. I don't believe that Howard is the fix for what we need.

You don't have to be a cure-all to be a step in the right direction. Who cares if he smokes pot in the offseason? His on and off court track record is close to pristine. We need perimeter defense more than anything else right now.

idioteque
05-03-2008, 04:24 PM
Who cares if he smokes pot in the offseason?

The United States government and most of our culture/media. Most importantly, the rather conservative contingent that makse up most Pacer fans. I'm not saying it's right, but it's reality, and I think it would **** fans off rather than bring more back to the seats.

Arcadian
05-03-2008, 04:29 PM
I don't care about his pot use. I'm just saying the Pacers won't look to trade for him in the current PR climate.

I wouldn't use our tradable assets to trade up wingmen. I would use those assets to do something about our abysmal pg spot or our paper thin big man rotation. While it isn't a good thing having Dun and Granger being your two best players, it isn't why we are so bad either.

Kofi
05-03-2008, 04:35 PM
The pot-smoking issue will blow over in a matter of months. I don't think it's that big of a deal to management nor the fans. If it was, David Harrison would've been outright cut back in...whenever it was he was suspended.

Any of the fans who do get their panties in a bunch over such minor issues will stop caring once the team starts winning more than it loses.

grace
05-03-2008, 04:43 PM
The pot-smoking issue will blow over in a matter of months. I don't think it's that big of a deal to management nor the fans. If it was, David Harrison would've been outright cut back in...whenever it was he was suspended.

Any of the fans who do get their panties in a bunch over such minor issues will stop caring once the team starts winning more than it loses.

I think there are quite a few people around here who have said David should have been cut.

Maybe these are minor issues but when 3/4 of the team has minor issues it becomes a major problem. As long as the Pacers have major problems they aren't going to win enough to make a difference.

grace
05-03-2008, 04:47 PM
Are you kidding?


No, I'm not kidding. Yes, he turned the franchise around. The problem is they aren't moving forward. IMO keeping Dirk and bringing in Kidd is at best a side step if not a move backward.

The team they have right now isn't going to win jack whether Avery, Rick, or John Wooden coach the team.

Anthem
05-03-2008, 04:50 PM
The pot-smoking issue will blow over in a matter of months. I don't think it's that big of a deal to management nor the fans. If it was, David Harrison would've been outright cut back in...whenever it was he was suspended.
If it was important, Big Smooth would never have been so popular.

JayRedd
05-03-2008, 04:56 PM
Those were different times, Anthem.

Now, there is 0% chance that we would now trade for Josh Howard. And, there is also 0% chance they would take MDJ for him.

So this is all a theoretical debate anyway.

SycamoreKen
05-03-2008, 06:19 PM
Good deal for RC. But I don't think he will be able to take them any further than they've already gone. It will be interesting to see if they blow the team up or if they try to integrate the players they have into a more controlled offense. It has been absolutely established this postseason that the Mavs-Suns style of play is never going to win you a title.

The problem that some people had with AJ is that his offense was not in the Suns mode. Too much match up/iso stuff and not enough flow. Kidd was brought in and then forced to let the ball go too much. That is what has been written about and talked aobut on the local radio down here anyway.

Anthem
05-03-2008, 07:18 PM
Those were different times, Anthem.

Now, there is 0% chance that we would now trade for Josh Howard.
Yeah, I buy that.


And, there is also 0% chance they would take MDJ for him.
If they're really looking to remake their roster, they're going to have to ponder pretty hard. Other than Dirk, they just don't have a whole lot in terms of movable contracts except for Howard and Terry. And I don't see either of those guys netting them a better player than MDJ.


So this is all a theoretically conversation anyway.
:arrgh:

Sollozzo
05-03-2008, 07:35 PM
No, I'm not kidding. Yes, he turned the franchise around. The problem is they aren't moving forward. IMO keeping Dirk and bringing in Kidd is at best a side step if not a move backward.

The team they have right now isn't going to win jack whether Avery, Rick, or John Wooden coach the team.

The only franchises that have won championships since 1980 are Boston, Philly, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Antonio, and Miami. And given the fact that Philly and Miami were one hit wonders, it becomes pretty obvious that really 6 franchises have dominated the 80's, 90's, and 00's.

It's pretty damn hard to become an NBA champion. But Cuban took a franchise that was nothing in the 1990's and turned it into one of the most successful franchises of the 00's. 8 straight 50 game seasons, a beautiful arena, and most importantly a revitalized fan base.

Is it Cuban's fault that Miami is on that list of champions instead of Dallas? No. Cuban gave that team the tools to win, but it was the players and coaches who choked that away.

Yes, they are hitting hard times now, but what team doesn't?

Sollozzo
05-03-2008, 07:40 PM
Incorrect.

Cuban bought the team in 2000. When he purchased the team, they already had Dirk, Nash, Finley, and Don Nelson. It's true that Cuban made the team much better in terms of fan enjoyment and player moral, as well as helped it grow in monetary worth, through spending whatever it took, but the actual success of the team was not primarily due to Cuban coming in and making great personnel moves with his open pocket book. In fact, the moves he's most known for have hurt the team and been done to save money (letting go of Nash, buying out Finley, firing Nelson and then not paying him that back salary) Nash and Nelson went on to knock the Mavericks out of the playoffs and Finley played a key role in helping the Spurs take the Mavs to a game seven before winning a championship the next year.

First off, Dallas didn't take SA to 7 in 03, SA eliminated them in 6. Second, are you forgetting that Sacramento waxed Dirk/Finley/Nash 3-1 in the first round of the playoffs the next year? That's probably what would have happened in the 03 series against Sacramento if Cwebb hadn't got hurt in his prime. In case you forgot, Sac took them to 7 without Cwebb, and the 3-1 beating that happened in 04 is probably what would have happened in 03 had Cwebb not gotten hurt.

The Mavericks got farther than ever after Cuban got rid of Nash and Finley and went with the likes of Howard and Terry. They were in a position to win the title, but the players and coaches choked it away. That's not Cubans fault.

JayRedd
05-03-2008, 07:48 PM
If they're really looking to remake their roster, they're going to have to ponder pretty hard. Other than Dirk, they just don't have a whole lot in terms of movable contracts except for Howard and Terry. And I don't see either of those guys netting them a better player than MDJ.

I think they'll get better offers than MDJ for sure.

Howard's contract is one of the best in the League, IMO. Let's not pretend one bad series and a stupid radio interview is gonna tarnish 3-4 years of very good play. I mean, he was the only thing keeping Dallas in that GState series last year and he was fantastic throughout the Mavs Finals run. He's still a above average defender that can create his shot whenever he wants and is a smart decision-maker, able ball-handler, good rebounder, and dead-eye shooter from both the mid-range and behind the arc.

I think Vince or RJ may be available from NJ, given their "looking ahead to Brooklyn" mentality.

Miami may throw Marion their way given contracts. Wade/Howard/Beasley may be a more desirable nucleus to build around considering Matrix is gonna want a near-max extension.

LA might offer Odom since they have plenty of O firepower and could use a better "stopper" type to take some of the load off an aging Kobe.

And those are only a few 1-for-1 scenarios that popped to mind for an established vet. There has to be dozens of offers that Cubes would get depending on what he's looking for.

I just doubt that, even though I've been singing his praises all year, Cubes is looking for MDJ as the answer to his team's woes.


:arrgh:

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anthem
05-03-2008, 09:18 PM
I was nodding my head through most of this, but got here

He's still a above average defender that can create his shot whenever he wants and is a smart decision-maker, able ball-handler, good rebounder, and dead-eye shooter from both the mid-range and behind the arc.
and I went :jawdrop:.

Are we talking about the same guy? This guy? Deadeye shooter?

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/josh_howard/career_stats.html

JayRedd
05-03-2008, 09:28 PM
Okay...after looking more closely, deadeye could be a stretch.

But a dude that, after taking some time to transition to the NBA line, hits 42.9% from three one year and then ups his attempts more than 3x the next season and still drills 38.5% is a capable shooter from distance.

I honestly had know idea his percentage plummeted so drastically this year. Did he hurt his hand or something?

Let's replace "dead-eye" with "capable" on threes then.

And I still maintain he's an very good mid-range shooter.

Anthem
05-03-2008, 10:47 PM
I honestly had know idea his percentage plummeted so drastically this year. Did he hurt his hand or something?

Let's replace "dead-eye" with "capable" on threes then.

And I still maintain he's an very good mid-range shooter.
Fair enough. And I admit that I was overly harsh because I was originally only looking at his percentages this year and not over the course of his career. I didn't watch many Mavs games this year, but his stats didn't come close to looking like the player I watched so often last year.

Even though I can't imagine the trouble that would be caused by another Pacer pot suspension, the idea of a Granger/Howard wing is ridiculously appealing.

King Tuts Tomb
05-04-2008, 02:26 AM
Because Dirk isn't?

They have been just sort of spinning their wheels with the current team. Seems to me that Dirk disappears during crunch time a lot.

I'd take Dirk over anyone in a seven game series except Duncan, Kobe, and maybe Paul.

Disappears during crunch time? He carried that Mavs team into the playoffs with his clutch play. They need better players around him, but Dirk isn't at fault.

Sollozzo
05-04-2008, 03:06 AM
People have selective memories. Did everyone forget when Dirk willed Dallas to that game 7 victory in SA 2 years ago? He had had 37 freaking points and had a crucial three point play to force overtime.

Dirk carried that team to the finals. People who call him a choker really don't know what they're talking about.

I'm trying to figure out how someone who led their team to the finals is a choker. I mean, Reggie didn't get to the finals until his 13th season in the league, yet he was always labeled a playoff god. What if Dirk scored 12 points in a game 7 like Reggie did in Orlando in 95? The media would absolutely kill him. I'm not cracking on Reggie, but you hit some big shots and you get a god-like label for ever. No one ever brings up Reggie's numerous playoff failures, instead he is looked at as a playoff immortal.

Yet Dirk somehow gets labeled a choker and he will never be able to shake it unless he wins a championship. It's totally unfair.

It's really interesting how people create stereotypes of players with little basis. Why is Dirk's heroic game 7 effort against SA all but ignored? If that's Kobe or LBJ, it's talked about for years, but I bet if you ask a lot of fans, you will get many who didn't even realize it happened.

Eindar
05-04-2008, 06:11 AM
The only thing I like about the hire is that Dirk will be doing much, much more damage in the post. No way Rick lets him do his thing where he just spends all day shooting jumpers.

Mourning
05-04-2008, 08:02 AM
Best possible man to coach Dallas. Great choice.

Aggreed!

Mourning
05-04-2008, 08:14 AM
So this is all a theoretically debate anyway.


:arrgh:

:lol:

Kegboy
05-04-2008, 09:55 AM
People have selective memories. Did everyone forget when Dirk willed Dallas to that game 7 victory in SA 2 years ago? He had had 37 freaking points and had a crucial three point play to force overtime.

Dirk carried that team to the finals. People who call him a choker really don't know what they're talking about.

I'm trying to figure out how someone who led their team to the finals is a choker. I mean, Reggie didn't get to the finals until his 13th season in the league, yet he was always labeled a playoff god. What if Dirk scored 12 points in a game 7 like Reggie did in Orlando in 95? The media would absolutely kill him. I'm not cracking on Reggie, but you hit some big shots and you get a god-like label for ever. No one ever brings up Reggie's numerous playoff failures, instead he is looked at as a playoff immortal.

Yet Dirk somehow gets labeled a choker and he will never be able to shake it unless he wins a championship. It's totally unfair.

It's really interesting how people create stereotypes of players with little basis. Why is Dirk's heroic game 7 effort against SA all but ignored? If that's Kobe or LBJ, it's talked about for years, but I bet if you ask a lot of fans, you will get many who didn't even realize it happened.

I've undervalued him ever since I saw in person his pathetic performance against New Zealand in the '02 WBC. Not only did he play like **** the whole game on both ends of the floor, he spent the whole time yelling at his teammates and coach like it was their fault. Hello, you and Sean Marks are the only people on the floor even knowledgeable fans have even heard of, stop blaming the littles.

I knew right then and there that he was never going to lead anyone anywhere, and I've yet to see anything to change my mind.

bulldog
05-04-2008, 10:45 AM
I knew right then and there that he was never going to lead anyone anywhere, and I've yet to see anything to change my mind.

So you didn't watch that season where he led his team to the finals? That's a pretty decent accomplishment.


The only thing I like about the hire is that Dirk will be doing much, much more damage in the post. No way Rick lets him do his thing where he just spends all day shooting jumpers.

Maybe it would help a little bit, but I've always hated all the talk about putting Dirk in the post. That's just not who he is. He's not Tim Duncan, quit trying to make him be Tim Duncan. He's been one of the five most succesful players in the league over the past five seasons playing his style, and suggesting that he should totally change is ridiculous, IMHO. Fine, so he doesn't dominate inside. And fine, so he isn't Kobe and he doesn't create buckets out of thin air when his team is out of synch offensively. But there are a hell of a lot of guys who aren't Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant. And people need to focus more on all the things he is rather than all the things he isn't. There's very few players that I would want on my team before him; right now for me the list is Duncan, Kobe, LBJ, Paul, Howard, and maybe Garnett.

And as far as toughness, the dude had his two front teeth knocked out and came back to play. Are you friggin kidding me? People see his birth certificate and the color of his skin and say "he's soft."

One of the best examples is the David West/Zaza Pzchulia incidents. David West slapped Dirk and people talked about how soft he was. Zaza shoved Garnett and people talked about how Garnett "kept his cool." Dirk gets a lot of crap for how great of a player he is.

Naptown_Seth
05-04-2008, 10:48 AM
I'm jealous.
Group purchase discount on Rick Mavs jerseys. ;)

Actually since he was clearly not coming back to Indy and JOB is not going anywhere at this point this was a best possible outcome for Rick/Pacers fans. The Bulls, Bucks, Knicks situations where Rick could have followed the pattern of making his new team suddenly a big problem for his old team would have been horrible.

And for him he's sitting with a 50 win Finals caliber team, at least in terms of talent. Plus the owner is willing to spend IF it's smart money. People do forget that Cuban let Finley go even though he liked him for purely financial reasons.

Naptown_Seth
05-04-2008, 11:17 AM
Because Dirk isn't?

They have been just sort of spinning their wheels with the current team. Seems to me that Dirk disappears during crunch time a lot.
Sports radio made a strong case against both Nelson and Kerr for their pointless mid-season trades, implicating both more than their coaches. Post-Kidd/Shaq both teams had WORSE records and both of those stars were coming from teams that they were leading nowhere.

Dallas doesn't have to blow it up, they need to dump Jason Kidd and that's all. The wheel-spinning was overblown which led to them getting rid of a fast, strong defending PG for an aging Kidd who famously ruined the current COY's situation in New Jersey.

Dallas was 16-13 post-trade. Personally I suspect the micromanaging with Avery was specifically "sat Kidd late in a game, realized Kidd wasn't a solution, Kidd had locker room personality and didn't care for how Avery handled him". Why do I think that? Byron Scott.

To me people are judging Dallas much like they did with Indy, ignoring the impact of the initial situation. In this case a large portion of this very board felt annoyed with the kind of phantom calls that WADE got away with in the Finals. Those foul calls, the massive amount of shots he got from them, that's what killed Dallas in that series.

Then they caught an extremely hot team and somewhat ironically were also burned by the GS/IND trade (like Rick was). It's never good to blow the #1 seed, but clearly they weren't facing a #8 at that point. GS was playing more like a top 4-5, and #1 seeds can lose to teams like that.

So with those 2 things they made a panic deal for Kidd simply because they weren't cruising to the top. What if they keep Harris, draw the #5 seed and knock off Utah? Suddenly everything is fine.

What could have been?
The Mavs were 35-18 at the time of the deal, and this included a run of 4-4 with Devin Harris out with an ankle injury just prior to the trade. It's not out of the question to see his return put them on something of a .689 win rate (31-14) which would have made that 16-13 finish into 20-9. 55-27, they take Houston's spot vs Utah, also have home court for that series and don't flop like TMac does (Dirk has won playoff series at least).

Sure the Lakers are a tough draw in round 2, but that is at least an understandable loss without HC and the team did push for a #1 seed from within a game.

In fact those extra projected wins just by keeping Harris could have come in games vs LA, SA, and NOK they lost with Kidd. They lost 3 games vs LA with Kidd. Just going 2-1 there changes everything, maybe keeps the Lakers out of the division title let alone the #1 seed. Wins vs SA and NOK with Harris instead might even have put Dallas at the #1 spot.

I mean this thing could have been within inches of being totally different. But instead Nelson decided to "fix" it the way it was already good and fixed in New Jersey, because god knows Kidd had no talent there (Jeff, Vince) and that conference was insanely tough to win in. It had nothing to do with Kidd himself.



Summary - the Mavs aren't as broken as it's being made out to be.

Naptown_Seth
05-04-2008, 11:34 AM
True that Dun would fit well there, and true that Howard would hugely help our perimeter D. But Dun is a LOT more accomplished on the offensive end... look at the numbers difference and percentage difference. It's significant. Howard's a better rebounder, but Mike is a MUCH better passer.

If we'd have had Howard this year instead of Mike, we'd have ended up with a much worse record.
Dun's passing is overrated, this is why I always beat that drum comparing Jackson to Dun's assist rate. Dun's style makes you feel like he's creating all this offense for others, but really it doesn't play out that way.

For me I like Dun as a shooter (even from deep now) and working off the ball to get his own shot. Plus he's good about forcing the drive when he can. And my OLD favorite play was that Jackson-JO give and go on the baseline, my NEW favorite play is Dunleavy driving from the wing for the reverse layup. That's his shot, it's money, when you see that play starting to unfold you hit the +2 button right then. Guess I'm a sucker for baseline action....TWSS (ding).

So I like what he does in some areas. I just don't think "facilitator" is as true as implied, so I don't think we lose that as much as you might suspect.

On the table to me is:

1) Howard's pot thing
2) Howard's outside shooting
3) Dun's SG/perimeter defense




BTW, I'm calling it, future situation that would induce the most jaw-dropping heart attack reactions from PD fans - Dallas trading for Tinsley. ;)
I'm not saying it happens, I'm saying it so doesn't happen that if it does it will bend our minds into stroke-caliber disorientation. I'd have to quit watching the NBA outright.

Kegboy
05-04-2008, 11:36 AM
So you didn't watch that season where he led his team to the finals? That's a pretty decent accomplishment.

Just because you're the leading scorer doesn't make you a leader.

But if he really did lead them to the finals, does that mean he's not to blame for everything that's happened since? If he is the leader, I would think he would be moreso.

Justin Tyme
05-04-2008, 12:25 PM
Any of the fans who do get their panties in a bunch over such minor issues will stop caring once the team starts winning more than it loses.


What's "minor" to you doesn't make it minor to others. Just beause it's your belief doesn't make it true.

It's easy to make that type of a comment when you have nothing involved or at stake. Try having a 340 mil franchise at stake and losing millions upon millions the last few years with a dwindling fan base year after year due to INDIANA fans, those that live in Indiana, who have an image problem with the Pacers. They are the ones not buying the tickets, they are the ones that aren't attending the games, and it's not all about winning or losing. It's about the rep/image the Pacers players have. Image is everything and PR can make or break that image. Just remember this is Indiana and Indiana fans are the ones purchasing the tickets, not the "progressive" thinking fans from the West Coast or wherever that don't care what players represent their team as long as they win.

Josh Howard is a nice player, but his image wouldn't be any different than David Harrison's to those fans. If the Pacers made that trade or any other trade bringing in a player who has a bad image, fans are going to feel ownership condones the behavior and values of the players and their actions of the last few years. If mgnt/ownership can't get those fans back now, how would they get them back with bringing in another player who openly admits breaking the law?

Winning will only bring back some fans, not the ones who refuse to support a team with players who don't fit the values of a good many INDIANA fans. Those are the fans the Pacers need to bring back. That's been pretty evident since the Pacers were last or so in attendance this year. The perception and image of the Pacers has to be changed from what it has been the last 4 years in order to draw those who won't be associated with buying tickets to support the the players who have devastated the Pacers with their unacceptable bad behavior.

When customers of companies won't even take FREE tickets to the games when offered to them, because they don't like the type of players on the team not because of their losing record that says volumes. They don't like the image of the Pacers, nor do they want to waste their time on watching such players even for free. Those players values aren't the same as theirs, and they don't want anything to do with them. I hear those comments all the time from INDIANA residents who use to go to the Pacers games, but not now. Certain past and present players have soured those former ticket buying fans, and they aren't going to spend their money to watch those players or any new ones of that type. That's the reality of the situation.

Die hard fans who feel that winning is everything can overlook bringing in Josh Howard, but the average INDIANA fan doesn't want another pot smoking possible problem player. Just remember the team's name is the INDIANA PACERS! The bottom line is the Pacers represent the people of Indiana and their beliefs. In order to get those former ticket buying fans back in the seats at Conseco, problem players can't be PACERS. Pacer ownership can't afford players of questionable character. Like it or not, but that is the way it is in INDIANA.

JayRedd
05-04-2008, 01:12 PM
Justin is correct.

If 28 other teams were to trade for Josh Howard, the headline in their local paper would be "[Local team] Trades for Former All Star."

If we traded for him, the headline would be "Pacers Trade for Admitted Weed Smoker."

It's unfortunate and unfair, but such is life in Naptown these days.

idioteque
05-04-2008, 01:42 PM
Winning will only bring back some fans, not the ones who refuse to support a team with players who don't fit the values of a good many INDIANA fans.

That is empirically incorrect. Dale Davis, Sam Perkins, and hell even Reggie weren't saints. The difference is that we were winning and we had enough character guys (Jackson, Smits, Reggie himself) and positive press coverage to negate the fact that Dale Davis had a history of scuffling with police and Perkins was toking it up like crazy.

I do agree with you that in these times Howard wouldn't be an ideal player to have in the Pacers core. However if we can get a core with the character equivilent of Jackson/Miller/Smits than we can afford to have a troublemaker or two like Dale Davis or Sam Perkins. Enough good apples can cover up a couple of bad ones.

Pacers fans aren't so self righteous that they'll be turned away if we have a great character core of guys and maybe one questionable guy that is our best rebounder another another questionable guy that is our three point specialist.

King Tuts Tomb
05-04-2008, 01:54 PM
Just because you're the leading scorer doesn't make you a leader.

But if he really did lead them to the finals, does that mean he's not to blame for everything that's happened since? If he is the leader, I would think he would be moreso.

2006 season averages:
26.6 pts/9 reb/2.8 assists/2 TO/47% fg/40% three point

2006 playoffs:
27 pts/11.7 reb/3 assists/2.1 TO/47% fg/38% three point

Those numbers are outrageous and he was the best player in the league that year. If you don't remember, or didn't watch the games, that's on you.

And if you want to blame Dirk for their subsequent playoff losses that's fine, but he willed the Mavs to their two wins against Golden State last year, even as his teammates were letting him down. This year he played amazing against the Hornets (27 and 12), even if Chris Paul played even better.

Infinite MAN_force
05-04-2008, 02:09 PM
Yeah, lets trade one of our most likeable and productive players for a guy who glorifies pot smoking. Brilliant.

Its not like the team has an image problem or anything.

Insane.

Hicks
05-04-2008, 02:26 PM
You know, my initial thought to "We can't trade for Howard because of what he said about smoking pot" was "Yeah, that's right, unfortunately."

But you know what? Now that I've thought about it longer, and as I remember sitting at Conseco Fieldhouse for all but 2 or 3 of the home games this season with pathetic crowds, I've changed my mind.

Generally, the people I saw with me at the games this season are going to be there through thick and thin.

Go get Howard, if Dunleavy will net him. What are the fed up fans going to do? Stay home? So what; they already do. If you can make what I'd view as an offense-for-defense trade of Mike for Josh, and Josh can play the 2 next to Danny, then do it. Because if it works, and we start winning more, plenty of fans will forget his comments and come back.*

* If the team doesn't keep ADDING more bad press, that is.

JayRedd
05-04-2008, 02:31 PM
2006 season averages:
26.6 pts/9 reb/2.8 assists/2 TO/47% fg/40% three point

2006 playoffs:
27 pts/11.7 reb/3 assists/2.1 TO/47% fg/38% three point

Those numbers are outrageous and he was the best player in the league that year. If you don't remember, or didn't watch the games, that's on you.

And if you want to blame Dirk for their subsequent playoff losses that's fine, but he willed the Mavs to their two wins against Golden State last year, even as his teammates were letting him down. This year he played amazing against the Hornets (27 and 12), even if Chris Paul played even better.

I agree with most of this, aside from Josh Howard being included in the bold part.

In that series, Josh averaged 21.3 ppg and 9.8 rpg on 52% shooting and 39% from three.

Taterhead
05-04-2008, 04:02 PM
You know, my initial thought to "We can't trade for Howard because of what he said about smoking pot" was "Yeah, that's right, unfortunately."

But you know what? Now that I've thought about it longer, and as I remember sitting at Conseco Fieldhouse for all but 2 or 3 of the home games this season with pathetic crowds, I've changed my mind.

Generally, the people I saw with me at the games this season are going to be there through thick and thin.

Go get Howard, if Dunleavy will net him. What are the fed up fans going to do? Stay home? So what; they already do. If you can make what I'd view as an offense-for-defense trade of Mike for Josh, and Josh can play the 2 next to Danny, then do it. Because if it works, and we start winning more, plenty of fans will forget his comments and come back.*

* If the team doesn't keep ADDING more bad press, that is.

Indianapolis has always been like this. I remember going to Colts games when they were yearly doormats and seeing 20-25k at most there. Even as little as 5 years ago they were having trouble selling out the smallest stadium in the league, and they were offering 10 dollar nosebleed tickets. And they were winning 10 games! Now they have a waiting list for season tickets in a 70k seat stadium. The Pacers have always had poor attendance when they have been bad. It is a lot less fun for casual fans if nothing is at stake. They are coming off a decade when they were one of the most successful franchises in the league, now they are bottom feeders. Plus look at the economy for cryin' out loud. People are dissapointed but they will come back, no doubt about it.

Josh Howard is far from a bad seed. If we could get him for Jr. and another player, then we have got to do it.

btowncolt
05-04-2008, 04:11 PM
I agree with most of this, aside from Josh Howard being included in the bold part.

In that series, Josh averaged 21.3 ppg and 9.8 rpg on 52% shooting and 39% from three.

Howard was rollin'.

Infinite MAN_force
05-04-2008, 04:25 PM
You know, my initial thought to "We can't trade for Howard because of what he said about smoking pot" was "Yeah, that's right, unfortunately."

But you know what? Now that I've thought about it longer, and as I remember sitting at Conseco Fieldhouse for all but 2 or 3 of the home games this season with pathetic crowds, I've changed my mind.

Generally, the people I saw with me at the games this season are going to be there through thick and thin.

Go get Howard, if Dunleavy will net him. What are the fed up fans going to do? Stay home? So what; they already do. If you can make what I'd view as an offense-for-defense trade of Mike for Josh, and Josh can play the 2 next to Danny, then do it. Because if it works, and we start winning more, plenty of fans will forget his comments and come back.*

* If the team doesn't keep ADDING more bad press, that is.


you may be right, but there is no way Larry Bird makes that move. His job is on the line and as someone said, the headline will read "Pacers trade dunleavy for confessed pot-head". The simons want to turn this thing around as quickly as possible because they are losing revenue... and people will absolutley **** themselves if the pacers make that trade.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I am also not sold at all on the trade dunleavy obsession... at least not right now. Getting a perimeter defender isn't going to fix the glaring hole at PG and the inconsistency at the big spot. If Mike puts up simlier numbers for another year or two and his contract becomes that much shorter, his value will actually be much higher. At that point, one can evaluate the wing situation. For right now he just had a great season and was our most consistent player, and he is exactly the kind of player indiana fans can get behind... not to mention he was born to play in Obrien's offense... as long as Obie is the coach and we have no PG or reliable bigman, what does it hurt to have Dunleavy around?

The dunleavy-granger problem is like the tweak you make to jump from good team to contender, there is no point in doing it when you have glaring holes at all the other positions. Surely we have more pressing needs than fixing the "problem" with our two most productive players.

Hicks
05-04-2008, 04:46 PM
If you have needs, you have needs. I wouldn't NOT make a move just because it fails to address my BIGGEST problem.

idioteque
05-04-2008, 04:54 PM
you may be right, but there is no way Larry Bird makes that move. His job is on the line and as someone said, the headline will read "Pacers trade dunleavy for confessed pot-head". The simons want to turn this thing around as quickly as possible because they are losing revenue... and people will absolutley **** themselves if the pacers make that trade.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I am also not sold at all on the trade dunleavy obsession... at least not right now. Getting a perimeter defender isn't going to fix the glaring hole at PG and the inconsistency at the big spot.

But it will fix our glaring lack of a perimeter defender. We may be the worst defensive team in the league, of course trading for one better perimeter defender isn't going to change that completely, but it is going to help. Dunleavy would make a great sixth man but with the talent level we have right now having a great sixth man is a luxury we don't have.

rexnom
05-04-2008, 04:56 PM
If you have needs, you have needs. I wouldn't NOT make a move just because it fails to address my BIGGEST problem.
I agree. Josh Howard is an upgrade over Dunleavy (in overall skill and playoff experience) and would certainly balance the team a little bit better. Like Mark Boyle was saying in another thread, many teams in the league run with two wings these days anyway. As long as we have two guys who can shoot, score and defend, i don't see the problem. If we can get a decent PG who can dish and drive well, we'd have a good start to rebuilding.

idioteque
05-04-2008, 04:58 PM
In completely unrelated news, I just ran into Kevin Durant at work. He generally comes in a couple times a year. Maybe he's the perimeter help we're looking for. It could be a sign!

rexnom
05-04-2008, 07:23 PM
In completely unrelated news, I just ran into Kevin Durant at work. He generally comes in a couple times a year. Maybe he's the perimeter help we're looking for. It could be a sign!
Where do you work? Near Rockville (his hometown)?

Taterhead
05-04-2008, 07:29 PM
If Mike puts up simlier numbers for another year or two and his contract becomes that much shorter, his value will actually be much higher.

I disagree, Mike is coming off a year where he might of actually been a little underpaid for his production. Teams have to think 10 million a year for a guy that shot the ball as well as he did and averages just under 20-6-4 is very good bang for the buck.

I think you trade him now because of that. If he dips next year his value drops tremendously. Then he is an overpaid one year wonder and might never gain good value again. If JO stays healthy next year Mike is exactly the type of guy who will defer to him rather than staying aggressive and continuing his strong play. His value can only go down, IMO.

And I am a Dun supporter, I am totally fine with trading Granger and keeping him. But you can't keep them both. And if he could land you Howard, send him to Dallas. Josh Howard is exactly the type of player this team needs, if we can find another guy who fits that mold then go after him instead. But the Pacers have been hurt enough already by waiting around for the perfect deal for a certain guy. They should've learned this lesson already.

idioteque
05-04-2008, 07:31 PM
Where do you work? Near Rockville (his hometown)?

Pentagon City (hopefully only for a couple more weeks).

Never knew he was from the area. I never asked him what brought him around DC. I have never talked basketball with him at all, but I did have to congratulate him for ROY today. I should have begged him to demand a trade to Indiana for Hulk.

rexnom
05-04-2008, 07:34 PM
Pentagon City (hopefully only for a couple more weeks).

Never knew he was from the area. I never asked him what brought him around DC. I have never talked basketball with him at all, but I did have to congratulate him for ROY today. I should have begged him to demand a trade to Indiana for Hulk.
You're calling me next time that happens. I'll bring slideshows, presentations, gifts, anything so that we can convince him to come to Indiana, or failing that, the Wizards.

Putnam
05-04-2008, 07:52 PM
That is empirically incorrect. Dale Davis, Sam Perkins, and hell even Reggie weren't saints. The difference is that we were winning and we had enough character guys (Jackson, Smits, Reggie himself) and positive press coverage to negate the fact that Dale Davis had a history of scuffling with police and Perkins was toking it up like crazy.

Sorry. "Emprical" doesn't enter into it. The public is not a laboratory, and too many conditions have changed to allow a comparison between then and now.

Indy's tolerance for bad behavior by the Pacer players is more limited now, since the brawl. There may be other reasons, but the brawl is the big one. On that day, Indianapolis was shamed worldwide (I heard about it myself on Russian television). The Pacers were, for the first time ever, perceived as a liability to the community. Since then, they are judged on a different measuring stick.

We used to be pretty lax with our heroes, and willing to look the other way when their "character" showed up in odd ways. It will take a long time to get back to that, if we ever do. Winning alone won't do it.

Of course, there will come a time, I believe, when the Pacers are winning and the fieldhouse will be filled again. Lots of you will feel vindicated and will say, "I said all along that winning would bring them back." But time and other factors will have contributed to the reconciliation.


EDIT: Thread-relevant content: Congrats to Rick Carlisle. I'm delighted that you'll be the coach of a team that isn't the Pacers.

Robertmto
05-04-2008, 08:37 PM
You're calling me next time that happens. I'll bring slideshows, presentations, gifts, anything so that we can convince him to come to Indiana, or failing that, the Wizards.

appreciate that

idioteque
05-04-2008, 08:44 PM
Sorry. "Emprical" doesn't enter into it. The public is not a laboratory, and too many conditions have changed to allow a comparison between then and now.

Before you get that way with me you should take a look at all three definitions of empirical on dictionary.com


Indy's tolerance for bad behavior by the Pacer players is more limited now, since the brawl.

Which feeds into my point that we need a core group of relative boy scouts in the court. If we get three guys with the character of say, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili, we can add a pot-toking three point specialist like Smooth to the lineup. Casual fans will barely even know who it is, as the guy would be far from the face of the team.


There may be other reasons, but the brawl is the big one.

Actually most of the city supported the team after the brawl. Hell, fans were out in full force showing support for Ron Artest. The brawl freaked the city out a bit, but it was incident after incident afterwards that has put the team in the place we are in now.

BlueNGold
05-04-2008, 08:59 PM
Boy scouts we have had. We just needed an entire platoon to round up the bad apples.

The truth is, 2 or 3 bad apples will still ruin the batch if you have no leader. We haven't had a true leader of this team since Mark Jackson. We also had relatively laid back guys like Smooth and Davis to deal with. That's nothing like dealing with a psycho Ron Artest, a card carrying..or at least color wearing member of the bloods in Jackson...who does not have a laid back personality. Now JT is one player that could have been influenced with some leadership, but he was the PG...not a good mix at all...and by the time we got the ring leaders on a plane, it was too late. He already found his way to 38th street.

But I would concur that a few bad boys can actually help to an extent, but there has got to be a different potion...cause that baby blew up in all of our faces.

Oh, as for fans supporting Ron Artest, I can tell you many were calling for his head before the brawl. Many more right after that along with Jackson. I can tell you that because I defended Artest up until that moment.

Edit: I recall discussions trying to explain just how good Artest was, just to hear the prophetic words of wisdom from some of my colleagues who were not strong Pacer fans...but could see the forest for the trees. Yes, some are still wandering around those parts...

Putnam
05-04-2008, 09:28 PM
Before you get that way with me you should take a look at all three definitions of empirical on dictionary.com

I could look at dictionary.com. Sure, I could do that. Or, I could rely on a graduate degree in economics and 19 years of social research experience to tell me what "empirical" means.


Look, I'm sorry if you feel I got "that way" with you. I didn't mean to offend. But your post, like so many other similar ones, makes an unsupportable assumption. The relationship between the Pacers and the fans in 1999-2000 is different from the relationship between fans and the Pacers today. Many thing have changed, and it is just wrong to argue, as you did, that the fans' support of that winning team then, proves (empirically or otherwise) that they will support a different team now if it starts to win.

Most of what you said was right, or was at least an opinion that I happily respect. But you can't know it, and your evocation of the earlier team does not prove it with enough certainty to allow you to tell Justin Tyme that he is "empirically incorrect."

Kegboy
05-04-2008, 10:04 PM
So, back on topic, is this a done deal yet? The thought occurred to me while I was watching JO play for the Lakers this afternoon.

Arcadian
05-04-2008, 10:08 PM
I think Howard is a alright dude.

However, after Simon said he was going to set the team right there is no way you take that PR hit with perhaps your first big move. If you argue that PR doesn't matter only wins do. Fine, all we have to do is make it to the conference finals on a regular basis. It that is our route we better have some bigger moves than Howard planned.

Even beyond the PR nightmare of just making the trade, what you they do if Howard gets bust with weed on him? You can argue that it could happen to anyone and it could. What can't happen to anyone is a player admits to breaking the law, we trade for him and he then gets busted for breaking that law. The Pacer organization is on zero tolerance level right now. It can't afford to take those risks.

All of this is if Dallas can't get anything better than Dun for Howard. That is a enormous if.

wintermute
05-04-2008, 10:14 PM
Dallas doesn't have to blow it up, they need to dump Jason Kidd and that's all. The wheel-spinning was overblown which led to them getting rid of a fast, strong defending PG for an aging Kidd who famously ruined the current COY's situation in New Jersey.
...
Summary - the Mavs aren't as broken as it's being made out to be.


seth, i'm not sure where you're going with this argument. are you suggesting that by dumping kidd, the mavs will go right back to being a .700 win team? that only happens if they could somehow rescind the kidd trade and get devin harris back from the nets. dumping kidd will be as hard for the mavs as dumping j.o. is for us.

the mavs might not be in terrible shape, mostly because dirk is still at his peak and injury free, but in the west now that only means a string of early playoff exits. can rick beat expectations? he certainly has a good track record at least.

i agree though that j kidd, coach killer, probably had a part in avery's exit.



BTW, I'm calling it, future situation that would induce the most jaw-dropping heart attack reactions from PD fans - Dallas trading for Tinsley. ;)
I'm not saying it happens, I'm saying it so doesn't happen that if it does it will bend our minds into stroke-caliber disorientation. I'd have to quit watching the NBA outright.

would be possible if kidd gets dumped as you supposed. but tinsley can't slow down chris paul or tony parker any more than an aging kidd could...

wintermute
05-04-2008, 10:39 PM
The dunleavy-granger problem is like the tweak you make to jump from good team to contender, there is no point in doing it when you have glaring holes at all the other positions. Surely we have more pressing needs than fixing the "problem" with our two most productive players.


But it will fix our glaring lack of a perimeter defender. We may be the worst defensive team in the league, of course trading for one better perimeter defender isn't going to change that completely, but it is going to help.

ordinarily i would say fix pg first before perimeter defense, but josh howard is pretty talented. put this way, if we look to trade dun for a pg, we might be able to swap him for a guy like tj ford. would you rather have ford or howard? i know i'd pick howard, and just look for a pg elsewhere.

i agree though that the pr thing will make howard a hard sell for indy fans.

edit: also agree that the mavs could probably field better offers

avoidingtheclowns
05-04-2008, 11:09 PM
You're calling me next time that happens. I'll bring slideshows, presentations, gifts, anything so that we can convince him to come to Indiana, or failing that, the Wizards.

i'll bring the laser pointer... and the whores

VJNsZgHCVKU

rexnom
05-04-2008, 11:12 PM
i'll bring the laser pointer... and the whores

VJNsZgHCVKU
In true Indiana fashion...just make sure you've got enough to rain on them *****es...

idioteque
05-05-2008, 10:08 AM
I could look at dictionary.com. Sure, I could do that. Or, I could rely on a graduate degree in economics and 19 years of social research experience to tell me what "empirical" means.

So I can't use the words method, control, or spurious outside of a research setting, either? I get what you're saying and even though you are coming off to me as arrogant, I think you're genuinely a nice guy and I won't hold it against you. This isn't the board for this, anyway.



The relationship between the Pacers and the fans in 1999-2000 is different from the relationship between fans and the Pacers today. Many thing have changed, and it is just wrong to argue, as you did, that the fans' support of that winning team then, proves (empirically or otherwise) that they will support a different team now if it starts to win.

The relationship is different, but the fans are the same. The Pacers were at the peak of their popularity in 2000 and even sustained that popularity for the most part up until the end of the 2004-2005 playoffs. Unless there's something in the water in Indiana I don't know about, there aren't many children in between the ages of 2 and 7 buying season tickets. What does this mean? That the same people who didn't do much to acknowledge the Gold Club Scandal involving Reggie (and I've heard Dale Davis on this board, no clue if it's true though), Sam Perkins' adventures with Cheech and Chong, and Dale Davis getting into it with a cop are the same fans who won't go to games now. It's the same people, it's just that things have changed in the last couple of years that have turned them away from games.

But in the past there is proof that if the Pacers had a core group of likable players and a couple of not to great applies, they fans would still support the team. Part of this is because the core of likable players were generally leaders who seemed to keep the other guys in line when necessary. The Pacers can get to that point again. Fans take things at face value and are generally not very hard to fool...as long as you don't push your luck like we have recently. Fans would be just fine with a team with a core of, say, Steve Nash, Danny Granger, and Tim Duncan. You could get a questionable guy in there and if he was kept in line, I don't think the fans would have a problem.

Naptown_Seth
05-05-2008, 04:43 PM
seth, i'm not sure where you're going with this argument. are you suggesting that by dumping kidd, the mavs will go right back to being a .700 win team? that only happens if they could somehow rescind the kidd trade and get devin harris back from the nets. dumping kidd will be as hard for the mavs as dumping j.o. is for us.

the mavs might not be in terrible shape, mostly because dirk is still at his peak and injury free, but in the west now that only means a string of early playoff exits. can rick beat expectations? he certainly has a good track record at least.

i agree though that j kidd, coach killer, probably had a part in avery's exit.


would be possible if kidd gets dumped as you supposed. but tinsley can't slow down chris paul or tony parker any more than an aging kidd could...
I'm not saying they can just dump Kidd for nothing, but I don't think it's as far gone as suggested either. Expiring contracts have a ton of value and Kidd is going to clear a ton of salary for someone. JO was facing 3 more years last summer, Kidd is going into his final year.

Maybe Philly would like to take the next step up the ladder with Kidd for a year, move the also aging but younger and efficient Miller back to Dallas along with Dalembert's longer, expensive deal. Miller's nice, but I think with their youth that ultimately they are going to want to have a PG there that will be in stride when guys like Young are hitting theirs too, with Iggy as the oldest key vet instead.

That deal gives Dallas some inside D, gives them a more effective PG, gives Philly clearance to put in place a couple more key pieces, and maybe even do a little something with Kidd as the vet on-court leader.

I'm not even seeing that as a best option, just something off the top of my head. Kidd can be moved to a team that has quality players that they might not want to build with. Indy has that issue with Dun for example, where they might like to shift him for something that fits a rebuild better.

Dallas doesn't need a homerun in moving Kidd, just something modest and practical (unlike moving Harris for him in the first place).