# Jamison, Fortson to Dallas for NVE



## The Cat (Jul 14, 2002)

surprised no one has posted this yet. What a great deal for Dallas... no, Jamison's not a great defender, but he is a very good low post scorer, which is something they need in the postseason.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/basketball/6543831.htm

_Mavs trade Van Exel, 3 others, to Golden State
Warriors send 4 players, including Antawn Jamison

By Art Garcia
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Antawn Jamison and Nick Van Exel are the kingpins in an eight-player trade between the Mavericks and the Golden State Warriors that was agreed on Friday night, the Star-Telegram learned.

The trade can't be approved until Monday when the NBA offices open.

In addition to Jamison, the Warriors' leading scorer the last season, the Mavericks also receive power forward Danny Fortson, small forward Chris Mills and guard Jiri Welsch. Along with Van Exel, the Mavs send Avery Johnson, Evan Eschmeyer and Popeye Jones to Golden State. 

Jamison, who averaged 22.2 points and 7.0 rebounds per game last season, his fifth in the NBA, and immediately becomes the Mavs' starting small forward. Jamison, 27, will be joined in the starting lineup by Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Michael Finley and Raef LaFrentz.

Fortson adds toughness and rebounding off the bench. Despite playing only 17 games last season because of injury, the six-year veteran has averaged at least 11 rebounds three times in his career.

Welsch, a 6-7 guard, was a first-round draft pick last year and played in only 37 games as a rookie. Mills played in only 21 games last season, his 10th in the league.

Van Exel was the Mavs' leading scorer off the bench and second-leading scorer in the playoffs last season at 19.5 points per game. He spent the last 1 ½ seasons of a 10-year career with Dallas. The Warriors are his fourth team.

Johnson, who spent the 1993-94 season with Golden State, Eschmeyer and Jones were each role players. Jones, a free agent, wasn't expected back this season.
_


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

what is golden state thinking?? they're getting ripped off. i wouldnt even do jamison for van exel straight up.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Trade?*

Jamison
Fortson
Mills
Welsch

for

Van Exel
Johnson
Eschmeyer
Jones

Is that right? GS gets a terrible deal. But Jones is a FA...can they sign and trade him? IF it happens.....

Mavs
C-LaFrentz/Bradley
PF-Nowitzki/Fortson
SF-Jamison/Najera/Mills
SG-Finley/Howard
PG-Nash/Welsch

Warriors
C-Dampier/Foyle/Eschmeyer
PF-Murphy/Jones
SF-Dunleavy/?
SG-Richardson/Pietrus
PG-NVE/Johnson


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Golden State is just clearing out room for Dunleavy to start, and Pietrus to get good minutes. Excellent trade fo Dallas though, not that bad for GS.

Van Exel/Claxton
J.Rich/Pietrus
Dunleavy/Pietrus
Murphy
Dampier/Foyle


Nash
Finley/Welsch
Jamison
Nowitzki
Fortson


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe45555</b>!
> Golden State is just clearing out room for Dunleavy to start, and Pietrus to get good minutes. Excellent trade fo Dallas though, not that bad for GS.


Yeah, it seems to be about saving money long-term too. Fortson and Jamison both had long-term expensive contracts, they get Avery Johnson who is an expiring contract to help out immediately.

Good deal for Dallas. Not so good, in terms of winning for G-State...


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Fantastic move by the Mavs, simple as that. While I don't think it's as horrible as when I first saw it for the Warriors, they definitely are the losers in this deal. It shows that they have a lot of faith in Dunleavy though, and if he can turn into a player worthty of the 3rd pick in the draft because of the extra minutes, then it may very well be worth it for them.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

I like this trade for both teams actually.

The dark horse of this trade is Fortson. He is such a monster, just what Dallas needs if he stays healthy.


----------



## Charlotte-Bobcats-04 (Aug 14, 2003)

Very good deal for Dallas. They have an un-believeable starting lineup, but there may be chemistry problems down the line. They also get a beast of the bench in Fortson...Just the type of muscle they need.
As for Golden State, it is most definitly a cost-cutting measure down the line, with minutes and opportunities for their younger players in mind. Seems to me to be a side-ways move for Golden State.

Mavericks Lineup:
PG- Steve Nash / Marquis Daniels
SG- Michael Finley / Raja Bell
SF- Antwain Jamison/ Eduardo Najera
PF- Dirk Nowitzki / Raef LaFrentz
C- Danny Fortson / Shawn Bradley
#11- Josh Howard
#12- Jiri Welsch


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> I like this trade for both teams actually.
> 
> The dark horse of this trade is Fortson. He is such a monster, just what Dallas needs if he stays healthy.


I totally agree with the Fortson point. I'm not sure what he did to earn a seat at the end of the bench last year, but I know he's a hell of a rebounder and a beast inside. He should get great minutes off the bench for Dallas.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

hahahhahahahha...told yall to stop handing out championships until the seasons played. Now thats a line up to respect and we still kept most of the core

BRING IT ON!!!!!


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I still don't like the Mavs more than the Lakers or Spurs, but in my mind it certainly cements them above the Kings and Wolves.


----------



## amd pwr (Jun 24, 2003)

golden state should have really tried tried to get lafrenz just so the talent coming out could somewhat come close to the talent coming in. but they probably didn't want his huge contract.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

If Dunleavy has a breakout year, then getting Van Exel might make this team just as good as last year. I think Van Exel is a better player than Jamison anyway and I think he will help this team in GS. I think the Warriors could fight for an 8th seed with him. 

In Dallas now, are their enough balls to go around. Jamison, Nash, Finley, Nowitzki and Lafrentz, starting. Everyone is gonna want to shoot on that team, how will Jamison react to being the 3rd maybe 4th best player on the team instead of the go-to guy, will his game regress because of it or improve. Either way nice move for Dallas. Though I guess this means that Marquis Daniels impressed them enough to earn back up minutes at all the backcourt spots. He can play PG and SG.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Golden state fans hate fortson and think he is a virus...it will be interesting to see if he behaves being on his first good team since he came into the league. He has played for Denver, Boston(a bad one) and Golden State. Should be interesting.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah. This should be a lesson to everyone not to predict things until the season starts.

You're telling me Dallas kept their core, and got Jiri Welsch, Danny Fortson, Chris Mills, AND Jamison. Welsch might end up being REALLY good in a year or two. And Jamison and Fortson are good now.

In my opinion this puts the Mavs really close to the lakers and spurs, and above the Kings and Wolves.

Poor Minnesota, after all of that, they may end up the 5th seed.

This trade does make Dallas legit title contenders as well. Lord knows the crazy lineups Nelly is going to through out there with this group.


I guess this isn't a terrible deal for the Warriors, because they are logjammed at all of those spots, and this probably clears up space for better players to play--but in just straight talent for talent...this hardly looks fair.

The Warriors better hope they win, because Van Exel is the last guy you want on your team if you're a loser.


----------



## open mike (Jan 3, 2003)

i think this wuz dumb for golden state


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>knickstorm</b>!
> what is golden state thinking??


They were probably thinking "We don't want to have to count on Speedy Claxton as our starting PG. Please someone help us."

Van Exel as the starting 1, and Dunleavy as the starting 3 is a much better situation than Speedy Claxton as the starting 1, and Jamison as the starting 3. Dunleavy deserved bigger minutes anyways, and now he's probably penciled in for 30 minutes a game, barring major struggles.


----------



## dsakilla (Jun 15, 2003)

WOW! Just when the NBA offseason was getting boring, another blockbuster trade. Claxton gets screwed in this deal, he signed with GS because he was going to be the starter, now he'll be lucky to get 25 minutes a game. This frees up PT for Dunleavy, and gives the Mavericks another good scoring threat in Jamison, it gives them a rebounder in Fortson, and a backup Pg in return in Welsch. A solid overall deal for both teams, but i'm still skeptical about if this will go down.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

These players the best teams are getting are just ridiculous...i think there needs to be an idependant investigation. This is really fishy. :sour:  kind of


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Let's look at the roster of the Warriors now. Well only the guys that will get PT anyway.

C- Dampier/Foyle
PF-Murphy/Foyle
SF-Dunleavy/Pietrus
SG-Richardson/Pietrus
PG-NVE/Claxton

Avery,Popeye, Evan (will probably not play, and in Avery's case will probably retire).

I think this makes the Warriors better, if Dunleavy and Murphy break out like they can. Murphy needs room to operate but playing with Jamison and Dampier/Foyle, gave him no room to be a more effective scorer in the paint. I think Murphy might become a 17 and 10 player next year, because with pass-happy Dunleavy and Richardson and NVE in the backcourt, they will be running and gunning again. Too bad for Speedy, he is a backup once again.


----------



## dr-dru (Feb 9, 2003)

LOOL..internet is wow. my brother called in the local bay area knbr 680 to tell them jamison was traded. they were talking about if jamison should be traded, and they didnt know he already was. he told the screener and the screener didn't believe him , but he emailed the article to the screener. and 5 minutes later, JT was reading the same exact article. lol.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> These players the best teams are getting are just ridiculous...i think there needs to be an idependant investigation. This is really fishy. :sour:  kind of


Honestly. Remember back in the days when you had to actually give up good players to get good players? Now we have the lakers getting hall of famers are the league minimum, the Spurs receving players in trades without actually trading any players, the wolves getting top flight point guards for Joe Smith, and Dallas trading Nick Van Exel and change for GSW best player and a former league leader in rebounding along with a former lottery pick.

Meanwhile, out east, the Nets have to overpay ZO mourning, and have to deal with Kenyon Martin wanting max money, and the pacers have to lose Brad Miller...and Pat Riley can't pry anybody off of the LA Clippers...

There is something going on, and it ain't right.


----------



## carayip (Jan 15, 2003)

Is this for real? How long is NVE's contract? I am surprised that GSW didn't insist on getting Nash (who is the better player and has a cheaper and shorter contract I believe) instead of NVE.


----------



## carayip (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> There is something going on, and it ain't right.


Salary cap and luxury tax going on, mate.


----------



## Charlotte-Bobcats-04 (Aug 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>carayip</b>!
> Is this for real? How long is NVE's contract? I am surprised that GSW didn't insist on getting Nash (who is the better player and has a cheaper and shorter contract I believe) instead of NVE.


I highly doubt that Nash was available, especially since Don Nelson said that his core of his three best players were not available via trade.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Honestly. Remember back in the days when you had to actually give up good players to get good players? Now we have the lakers getting hall of famers are the league minimum, the Spurs receving players in trades without actually trading any players, the wolves getting top flight point guards for Joe Smith, and Dallas trading Nick Van Exel and change for GSW best player and a former league leader in rebounding along with a former lottery pick.
> ...


i mean maybe i'm just a frustrated eastern conferencer, but i can't help but wonder.


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

How can everyone think this trade makes Dallas better? They added two absolutely terrible defenders to their rotation, and got rid of arguably the best offensive-spark off of the bench in the entire league, and one that actually accepted coming off of the bench.

On Dallas, Jamison's offensive talents aren't worth his defensive liabilities.


----------



## mofo202 (Apr 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hobojoe45555</b>!
> Golden State is just clearing out room for Dunleavy to start, and Pietrus to get good minutes. Excellent trade fo Dallas though, not that bad for GS.
> 
> Van Exel/Claxton
> ...


Why didn't the Warriors hold on to Jamison and start him at PF?

They could put MD Jr. at SF and Murph at C.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Warriors projected rotation:

PG- Van Exel (36), Claxton (12)
SG- Richardson (36), Sura (12)
SF- Dunleavy (30), Pietrus (10), Sura (8)
PF- Murphy (36), Foyle (6), Popeye! (6)
C- Dampier (30), Foyle (18)

This team's hope this year is going to lie in Van Exel's unselfishness. If he plays selfish ball they might be lucky to shoot 40% from the floor as a team.

Jamison is going to fit in well for Dallas. His patented little floating jump hook from 8-10 feet will be a huge benefactor of Steve Nash's ability to penetrade. I doubt there is going to be a lot of chemistry problems. Besides, Jamison isn't the kind of ego that is going to be demanding a lot of shots.. I'd wager he'll be happy if he puts up 15ppg a game in Dallas.. You have to realize after playing for a loser your entire career, playing for a contender is such a huge emotional lift that there's no way Jamison is going to have problems shooting less. He'll also become a much more efficient scorer given Dallas' other threats.

Tom, I for one am glad these trades are being made. Next year could be the highest quality ball (amongst the top tier teams at least) that we've seen since the early nineties.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

It doesn't help the NBA's Ratings in the finals though...until we get a great finals the NBA won't return to greatness. I do understand your point though.


----------



## Charlotte-Bobcats-04 (Aug 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mofo202</b>!
> 
> 
> Why didn't the Warriors hold on to Jamison and start him at PF?
> ...


They can't be that undersized and weak in the Western Conference.


----------



## carayip (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> How can everyone think this trade makes Dallas better? They added two absolutely terrible defenders to their rotation, and got rid of arguably the best offensive-spark off of the bench in the entire league, and one that actually accepted coming off of the bench.


That's no question Dallas got the better talent though, whether it works or not in real game is another matter.

It's definitely a salary dump on GSW's part. They got rid of 2 overpaid and long-term contracts and also lowered the payroll as I believe Avery's contract can be bought out now and Jones's contract is expiring.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> How can everyone think this trade makes Dallas better? They added two absolutely terrible defenders to their rotation, and got rid of arguably the best offensive-spark off of the bench in the entire league, and one that actually accepted coming off of the bench.
> 
> On Dallas, Jamison's offensive talents aren't worth his defensive liabilities.


Hmm.. general consensus for the last two years has been that Dallas needs an interior presence both offensively and defensively to become a real contender. Jamison and Fortson are pretty viable solutions if you ask me. The only problem will be getting Antawn to stay inside (where he's more in his element and adept at scoring anyways). In the past he's *****ed about having to play inside at the power forward slot.. I don't think he'll have problem taking opposing small forward's inside though.


----------



## CP26 (May 8, 2003)

Popeye Jones was traded  ...........:laugh:


----------



## Charlotte-Bobcats-04 (Aug 14, 2003)

Here is the story on ESPN: LINK 

Yep..Your boy Popeye was traded. :laugh:


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> Hmm.. general consensus for the last two years has been that Dallas needs an interior presence both offensively and defensively to become a real contender. Jamison and Fortson are pretty viable solutions if you ask me. The only problem will be getting Antawn to stay inside (where he's more in his element and adept at scoring anyways). In the past he's *****ed about having to play inside at the power forward slot.. I don't think he'll have problem taking opposing small forward's inside though.


Fortson can rebound, but he can't defend anyone. He might actually be the worst defensive frontcourt player in the league.

Jamison can score, but he's a dreadful defender. There's a reason that Golden State has been, by far, the worst defensive team in the league over the past three years.

Yes, Jamison is a good offensive player... and he has a versatile inside-outside game that might make their offense better (if that's even possible): But they got worse defensively, they lost their only offensive spark off of the bench, and they're actually going to make the mistake of playing Fortson, since they can't rebound.

I think there's no way Dallas gets 60-wins again this year.


----------



## KeonBackinTO (May 26, 2003)

> Poor Minnesota, after all of that, they may end up the 5th seed.


Not only that, getting out of the first round is beginning to look suspect, they may even lose KG if they don't.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Fortson can rebound as good as Anyone, cept maybe Wallace. Role players are still allowed in this league aren't they. Steve Kerr, couldn't defend either...i think the Spurs were happy to have had him.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> they got worse defensively, they lost their only offensive spark off of the bench, and they're actually going to make the mistake of playing Fortson, since they can't rebound.
> 
> I think there's no way Dallas gets 60-wins again this year.


You're right, but I think the zone can help mask Fortson's and Jamison's defensive weakness. We'll have to see.. They might not get 60 wins, but I think they can.. teams just aren't going to be able to stop them when they're on offense.


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> Fortson can rebound as good as Anyone, cept maybe Wallace. Role players are still allowed in this league aren't they. Steve Kerr, couldn't defend either...i think the Spurs were happy to have had him.


It's easy to cover for poor-perimeter defenders at the 1/2/3, if you have the shotblockers (ie Tim Duncan). Although Steve Kerr played as situationally as someone can play last year.

If you add Jamison and Fortson to a below-average defensive team, without any inside-shotblocking prescence, you're begging for trouble.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> 
> 
> It's easy to cover for poor-perimeter defenders at the 1/2/3, if you have the shotblockers (ie Tim Duncan). Although Steve Kerr played as situationally as someone can play last year.
> ...


I agree. I think the Mavs were desperate, although they did get more talented, they didnt get what they really needed. They needed a lot of toughness and some sort of big man defensive presence, which Jamison and Fortson arent close at all to either. And Fortson isn't exactly a good size for a center in the West.

You can't argue with the Mavs on doing the deal because they did get more talented, but they needed a certain thing and they couldnt get it. And NVE was extremely important for them last year.

Trade might make them better than Minny, but doesnt put them over the top against Sacramento, LA, or San Antonio.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Well both Bradley and LaFrentz are good shot blockers (both get over 2 blocks a game for there careers) but you can't play zone all the time so Raef and Bradley are bound to get into foul trouble trying to block shots after one of the other teams guards get penetration.

Once the Mavs see that Fortson can't do anything other then rebound I think he's minutes will go down but even before that I don't think he will play alot of center. He will probably get most of his minutes at the backup PF spot.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> In the past he's *****ed about having to play inside at the power forward slot.. I don't think he'll have problem taking opposing small forward's inside though.


Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Jamison had a cry last off-season about wanting to start at the 4 spot, and Fortson had a counter-cry about Antwan taking his minutes... I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is what was out in the press.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Fortson will protect his teamates and will lead the league in Flagrants...He will help them. Look, with The big 3 Dallas is never going to be a great defensive team...so get more scoring and a tough guy. They got what they needed...or a reasonble facsimile...at this point in the off-season. Getting Jamison is just an absolute steal.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

I think Jiri Welsch is gonna be a big addition to Dallas as well. He is a big guard who can play 1 and 2. He should flourish in Dallas' style of play.

I really don't understand what Golden State was thinking.


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> Look, with The big 3 Dallas is never going to be a great defensive team


They were only a slightly below-average defensive team last year, while this year they'll be bad.

They scored 103ppg last year, while giving up 95.2ppg. Realistically, after this trade, where do you see those numbers going?


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dee Bo</b>!
> I really don't understand what Golden State was thinking.


They were going into the season with Jiri Welsch and Speedy Claxton as their only PGs. Welsch has barely played NBA-ball yet, and Speedy Claxton has gotten a major injury every season, giving them what would have been the worst PG-situation in the NBA. 

Dunleavy will fill in for Jamison quite nicely.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

They won't be worse than that...the #'s may be similar but...they will have more scoring options and tougher rebounding off the bench. They are now the friggin big 4! Come playoff time try guarding that at the end of the game.

I expect them to be better and more exciting to watch.

When healthy and motivated they are very good players.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Wow, the West is going to be really fun to watch

at least the leastern conference has LeBron


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

[email protected] not liking this deal for the mavs. NVE was gonna make almost 13 million this year. Way too much for a backup pg. Josh Howard is a very good rookie and he's a heck of a defender. So is najera. Bell will prolly be resigned and he can defend. Finley is an ok defender. Raef is a good shotblocker. So is bradley. Peeps are saying the mavs can't stop anyone but honestly who will stop this team from scoring?


nash/daniels
fin/howard
jamison/najera
dirk/fortson
raef/bradley
11th man: bell
12th man: welsch


Peeps act like the kings are a good defensive team. The spurs are really the only good defensive team in the west. The lakers are gonna be very old and payton isn't that great of a defender anymore. Neither is malone. ANd the wolves? cassell doesn't play "D" neither does wally and spree has lost a step. This year it'll be more of an offensive game in the west


----------



## StraylightRunner (Aug 14, 2003)

great trade for dallas, well if you think about with the big three in there, jamison wont have to concentrate so much on offense like in GS where he and arenas were the main cogs and practically the only ones. all he needs to do is realize that he doesnt have to exert as much energy on the offensive side. then he can use that energy to play much better d. didnt watch gs so much and when i did i was watchin jamison, j-rich and arenas, so i cant comment on fortsons supposed bad defense. hopefully dunleavy will blow up and prove all those people who said golden state made a horrible decision on gettin him third. agreed tho, claxton will be upset. and as a denver fan, hopefully NVE wont wimp out and demand to be traded. maybe they can do what dallas did last year, where at some points clax is the PG and NVE is the SG now on d, it'd be troublesome for big guards, but on offense it should work a lot better than giving NVE the chance to never pass the ball  . just my opinion


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Overrated trade for Dallas. First of all, without Nick they lose to Portland.

Second a starting frontline of Jamison, Nowitzki and Fortson, as some of you are proposing, will give up 100 layups a game.

This is only a good trade for GS if Dunleavy reaches Jamisons level. Fortson was a cancer to them, Millis is a good bench player but always hurt and they can't have Welsh, Claxton and Pietrus all earning backup minutes.



> Dallas trading Nick Van Exel and change for GSW best player and a former league leader in rebounding along with a former lottery pick.


Fortson led the league in rebounding?

Drafted in 97-
98- Rodman
99- Webber
00- Shaq
01- Mutumbo
02, 03- Wallace

And who was the former lottery pick? Forston and Jamison were but Millis was drafted 24 by the Cavs and Welsh 16 by the 6ers.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

The scoring ability of Dallas's starters is truly magnificent... this will continue to be a fun team to watch, for sure. 

Although Van Exel is as talented as anybody in the league (in my opinion), he can't really carry a load for a team reliably like Jamison can. Dallas may be able to do more as a team now.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> Overrated trade for Dallas. First of all, without Nick they lose to Portland.
> 
> Second a starting frontline of Jamison, Nowitzki and Fortson, as some of you are proposing, will give up 100 layups a game.


not with raef and bradley swatting 6 to 8 shots a game. and you act like the wolves are a great defending team. how about the kings? or the lakers? the only good defensive team in the west is the spurs and maybe the blazers.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

A great trade for both teams. While the mavericks still lack interior defense, they now have a lost post threat, making the big three even more deadly.


This also frees up Mike Dunleavy to come into G.S. and shine, and like someone above me said G.S. was going to be screwed this year if they didn't get a decent pointguard, unfortunately for them NVE is someone who hates being on a losing team, it'll be interesting to see what he does.


The other interesting thing is that a big reason the mavs got as far as they did last year was chemistry. NVE was a huge part of that and for them, no one played better in the playoffs. They are trading a leader and a revitalizer for a headcase ( danny fortson) and Antawn jamison who is a low post scorer but another poor defender. 

Both teams will play very different from last season, and it should be interesting to watch.


----------



## JPBulls (Aug 15, 2003)

Now I can´t wait to see the Wolvs getting elimineted in the first round again!!


This trade make Dallas title contenders again, and even with the trade looking bad in the paper to the warriors it isn´t bad for them, now the youngs can play!!


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

wow gs got owned. but i love it seeing that nve will lose more than even denver this year! i love irony.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Knicksbiggestfan</b>!
> A great trade for both teams. While the mavericks still lack interior defense, they now have a lost post threat, making the big three even more deadly.


You know they had Juwan Howard right? And they got a lot farther with Nick than they did with Juwan Howards 18 points per game in the low post.

Is anyone going to argue that without Nick they don't beat Portland last year? Yet guys like futurixisten insist that the "core" remained in tact.

Lets see Jamison carry them in the 4th quarters and in the playoffs.

By the way NBA fans everywhere should feel mad at the Mavs for depriving them of the joy of watching Nick perform in the playoffs.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Jemel, I know what you're saying, but it's not like following this trade they're going to update the history books and erase Dallas' win against Portland in the playoffs (it wasn't last year, bro ). I guess it's the same NVE that couldn't lead them to victory against a CWebb-less SacTown also? He's not the all conquering Nick the Quick you make him out to be, dude.

The point is, Dallas feel they can get better because of this trade. Weight of numbers in the front court is far better than weight of numbers in the back court. Dallas doesn't have to write off the small forward position as a loss automatically against the Western Conference powerhouses now, which is a huge plus. I'd also say some weight has been taken off Michael Finley's shoulders because he won't have to worry about battling at the 3 spot, when Nelly gets creative.

Further, Danny Fortson if simply a bail out move by Dallas. Anything positive he can contribute is a bonus.


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NugzFan</b>!
> wow gs got owned. but i love it seeing that nve will lose more than even denver this year! i love irony.


well i thought gs got owned first as well, then i looked at this trade more closely. now gs was finally starting to win, with arenas improvement. withou arenas they are plain terrible. they even shopped around richardson.

Yes it was a salary clearence, but the vottom line is that jaimason doesnt fit in with the warriors system. They need a sf with good shooting mechanics, hopefully dunleavy can become this. i mean as much as i dont like dunleavy, gs see something in him pietrus that i do not. 

i think this makes gs a better team defensively. I dont think their record will be that bad if their 3 sport is decently manned. as for van axel, he is the man. Hopefully his career has still many years left in him. j-rich has to lift his game, and gs need a center.

Denver kills peoples game outside the big 3, van axel and especially lafrenz, had hugggge game in denver. Lafrenz is wasted in dallas. In denver he used to mix it up inside and out.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> Is anyone going to argue that without Nick they don't beat Portland last year? Yet guys like futurixisten insist that the "core" remained in tact.


It's called the big 3 for a reason. The "core" for the mavs is Dirk, Nash, and Finley. You talk like Nick was league MVP just cause he was hot for a series and a half in the playoffs. You can't say that adding Jamison as a lowpost scorer isn't a huge upgrade for the team. And I thought Welsch was a lottery pick, that's why I said that. But Fortson was a league leader in Rebounds. Not the league leader, but a league leader as in being in a group near the top of the NBA in rebounding.

Anyways. LOL at the people who are saying this is a bad trade because it hurts the mavs defensively.

They lost: NVE, Popeye Jones, Eschmeyer, and Avery Johnson. Not ****ing Ben Wallace. This trade doesn't make them worse defensively. They still have all of the defense they had before. Which wasn't much. The Mavs win with their offense, which just got a ton more balanced and more high powered.

I think Jamison will flourish with the role he'll have on dallas. Fortson will give them a tough guy to protect Dirk. Chris Mills will fill a nice role. And I wouldn't be suprised to see Welsch breakout with the Mavs this year or the next.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Their starting lineup will be MUCH worse defensively if the projected lineups are true.

Najera (against the PF heavy teams) or Griffin for Jamison? Gigantic drop off! Look at Kobes numbers against Griffin last year. In the game where the Lakers came back Kobe had 6 points through 3 quarters and then Griifin sat the entire 4th and he finished with like 28. Bradley for Forston? One is one of the best shotblockers in league and the other can't guard anyone in the post or jump over a phone book. I doubt Nelson starts Fortson though.

And Greg, my point is none of the other Mavs have proven they can carry a playoff team yet. Seriously is Finley that more valuable to a NBA team than Nick? What about Nash?

And I don't care what they are called, pretty much every analyst thought Nick was their savior in the playoffs last year.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I keep telling you NVE got hot. That's all there is to it. Look at his numbers against the spurs when he came back down to earth? He only shot 37 percent from the field, and less than that from 3. And his assists dropped, because he was chucking it like he was still hot when he wasn't. Which is what happens everytime he goes cold.

The fact that you have to ask whether Finley is more valuable than NVE to an NBA team, seriously damages your credibilty. You gripe about the Mavs defense, but Finley is a much better defender than NVE has ever been. And he's pretty consistent. He got injured so it was hard for him to get back into the swing of things in the playoffs because Nash, Dirk, and Nick were dominating the play--but over the course of a season, I'll take Finley over a lot of people, including NVE.

It's cool that you are such a big fan of Nick's though. I like his style of play, too. When he's hitting, anyways. And I always like his chances shooting the last shot of the game.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> And Greg, my point is none of the other Mavs have proven they can carry a playoff team yet. Seriously is Finley that more valuable to a NBA team than Nick? What about Nash?


Dallas will never win a championship _without_ Dirk as their go-to-guy in the playoffs, and you don't even discuss him here. Clearly, the ball is now in his court - with this line-up change taking slightly more focus of him (from the opposition's point of view) , I don't see why not.


----------



## Miscellaneous J (Sep 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> 
> Peeps act like the kings are a good defensive team. The spurs are really the only good defensive team in the west.



The Kings led the league in FG% defense—the only meaningful stat—last season, by a lot. The Spurs were second, but not even close. The Kings play bad defense against the Mavs, but they put the screws on everyone else; it's a "no respect" thing they had with Dallas. And it bit 'em once Webber went down, because they couldn't score to match them anymore, and they didn't adjust properly.

East teams score less because they play slower, and this unbalances the points-allowed stat in the East's—especially Detroit's—favor. The Nets and Pacers were the only good defensive teams in the EC last year, by FG%. And while the Nets are fast for the East, when they played the Kings and Mavs last season, it was like Globetrotters vs. Generals. They were lucky they met the Spurs—the slowest West team besides the Nuggets—in the Finals.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>shazha</b>!
> 
> 
> well i thought gs got owned first as well, then i looked at this trade more closely. now gs was finally starting to win, with arenas improvement. withou arenas they are plain terrible. they even shopped around richardson.
> ...


yeah i know...the nuggets did the same thing last year. only difference is we got our cap space much sooner and with a better FA class. the warriors are a mess right now and have a few years to go before they can start getting better. 

they went from the darling of the west to the bottom of the west. they wont even get 30 wins now.


----------



## OwnTheBlocks (Jun 10, 2003)

dallas is committing highway robbery here

getting jamison, a beast of a rebounder in fortson, a solid vet in mills, and an unproven talent in welsch, for headcase van exel and 3 walking wounded, including one guy who i thought was a coach (johnson) sounds like a steal to me


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

it's trades like this that lead me to wonder exactly where the league is heading- and WHY. the rationale behind golden state making this deal (or even considering it) must be SO hazy, SO sketchy and SO ridiculous that it almost doesn't bear mentioning. 

the devil's advocates can submit their respective points-of-view (i suppose), but the fact remains that dallas received a low-post threat that can potentially be seen as a franchise block, while GS received... well... i'm still trying to determine what it is that GS really got out of this deal.

there may be some long-term cap flexibility that the warriors received here, but even THAT is up for debate. plus, would that (on its own) really be WORTH consummating this trade, anyway? antawn jamison is likely a better player than GS could EVER get from the added "flexibility", isn't he? sure, another shaquille o'neal may come around to fill AJ's spot 10 years down the road, but the point is to play the probabilities... isn't it??? avery johnson's contract may enable the warriors to sign, what, voshon lenard next summer? slightly more? is that worth an antawn jamison?

nick van exel happened to stage one great playoff campaign last season. if that somehow vaults his value as a player to antawn jamison's level (in the western conference, no less), i must be going decidedly insane...

and i probably need some help.

peace


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> not with raef and bradley swatting 6 to 8 shots a game. and you act like the wolves are a great defending team. how about the kings? or the lakers? the only good defensive team in the west is the spurs and maybe the blazers.


The Kings led the NBA in FG% defense. Not sure how you can hold your opponents to the lowest FG% in the NBA and not be a good defensive team.

Dallas now has so many huge long term contracts that it isn't even funny:

Fin: 85 million through 07-08
Irk: 70 million through 07-08
Jamison: 69.2 million through 07-08
LaFrentz: 62.5 million through 08-09
Abdul-Wahad: 28.1 million through 06-07
Fortson: 24.65 million through 06-07
Bradley: 22 million through 06-07
Najera: 21 million through 06-07

In 05-06 and 06-07 they'll have 80+ million committed to 9 guys (NOT including Steve Nash - who I can't see them resigning, unless they want to break the 100 million barrier in 06-07).

Personally, I'd rather have NVE than Jamison. I've seen Jamison play 100's of games (the Warriors used to be considered my 'local' team, so their games were on my FSN) and he is the king of empty numbers. He has the horrible combination of being both a bad (too slow to guard 3's, too small to guard 4's) and indifferent defender. Sure, he can score 20+ ppg as a #1 option - but why exactly do you need a #4 option who can do that? Van Exel was the only player on that team with any heart or balls in the clutch; after the Game 1 destruction by Sacramento he singlehandedly brought the team back with his words and his game - he might not be quite as valuable in a general sense, but I think he was more valuable to the Mavs than Jamison will be. Sure, Jamison can score, but I think most people here haven't really seen him play. He's a soft player with no heart who really brings zero positive intangibles to a team (and he's never been the least bit clutch). The LAST thing Dallas needs is another all-offense softy.

Great trade for GS. They weren't going to make the playoffs in the WC with Jamison. Now, they're positioned to finally get out of their rut 3 years from now when NVE's contract expires. Dunleavy/Richardson/Pietrus/Murphy/+3 lotto picks and a TON of cap room in 2006 (not to mention - $15 million available in 2004). I can't believe they were able to dump BOTH Jamison and Fortson with their ridiculous contracts.

I think Dallas made this trade just for the sake of making a move - like a poker player on 'tilt', they felt like they had to do something to stay in the game, and wound up making an overly ambitious move. They wanted Miller and Mourning, and got neither - so they go out and upgrade their #4 option on offense (big deal) at the expense of taking on two of the NBA's worst contracts and the loss of a player that was absolutely instrumental in their 2 playoff wins.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

warriors will be a lot better or a lot worse depending on nicks attitude and millers reaction to getting more playing time. 

mavs, i dont think this was a great move for them. Didnt make them worse, but didnt really make them better. They lost their only player with enough balls to take control when the game is on the line. The big three play like someone else is supposed to take over when its crunchtime. Not good. 

1. Spurs
2. Twolves
3. Lakers
4. Mavs
5. Suns
6. Kings
7. Blazers
8. Rockets


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

This is a steal for Dallas no matter how you want to look at it. NVE + 3 old role players (popeyejones, avery johnson, evan eshemeyer) for Jamison, Fortson, Welsch and an overpaid vet (Mills)

Yes, this doesn't make the Mavs better defensively, but so what? They only lost NVE for 3 more players to make an impact. I loved watched NVE play in Dallas, but the sacrafice was pretty good for Dallas. Welsch should develop well to take up backup duties from Nash. Fortson and Jamison give Dallas more bodies in the paint and a better rebounder (which they need) and better low post scoring (which they need).

I can see why it's debatable on how this affects the Mavs positively or negatively, but it's basically a 3 for 1 deal IMO. And the Mavs got the better part of it regardless.

I don't know what GS was thinking (nor do I really care tho), but they just delayed their playoff run by a nother year. (2006 here they come..) That said, I'm beginning to think that GS is the upper state California clones for the LA Clippers. Only difference is that the Clippers stopped giving players away (didn't let most of their marquee FA go away) while GS just gave away an All-Star type player, a solid rebounder role player, and a potential future star in Welsch.

NVE should play well for the GS.. but I'm thinking he'll do more harm then good just like he did when he played in Denver. GS will prolly wish they could take back the deal later on in the season. I doubt that Dunleavy and Pietrus make that much of an impact that they were hoping for. I just don't see why GS did the deal.. salary dumping? yes. But they must be confident on thier young kids.. or just really dumb with the wishful thinking.

I feel bad for Claxton tho.. signed wit GS knowing he'd be the starter. Now, he will be back to back-up duties. (He should've gone to Utah or Magic instead)


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> How can everyone think this trade makes Dallas better? They added two absolutely terrible defenders to their rotation, and got rid of arguably the best offensive-spark off of the bench in the entire league, and one that actually accepted coming off of the bench.
> 
> On Dallas, Jamison's offensive talents aren't worth his defensive liabilities.


:yes: :yes:


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Miscellaneous J</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[email protected] "putting the screws on dallas" in what lifetime? The only game the mavs failed to score 100 against the k ings was the very first meeting. All the rest of the games were like 110 to 109 and the others had both teams putting up 120.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

can someone explain who teams are gonna stop on the mavs? Peeps keep bringing up the mavs defense but who is gonna stop this team from scoring. Heck they put up like 105 a game last year and now they just added a 22 ppg scorer? The mavs have never had an sf. They ALWAYS get killed by o ther teams sf's anywaz. Fin can't play there and najera isn't fast enough and griffin was NEVER healthy. couldn't depend on him. Teams gonna have to use mad energy to keep the mavs from scoring and the mavs can easily sign a backup pg like travis best. (hmmmm)


----------



## *The1 (Mar 11, 2003)

I think this is a great trade for the Mav's yes they didn't get their big defensive presence in the paint, but how many of them exist? yes they most likely could have worked a deal with Atlanta for SAR and maybe Ratliff, but I don't see how that would have been much better.

I really don't like this trade for Golden State, yes they needed a point guard, but I think NVE is not going to be a happy camper in Golden State. People seem to forget that just 2 seasons ago he was *****ing and moaning in Denver begging to play for a contender, I can't wait to see how he reacts to being shipped off to that grave yard in the bay they call the Golden State Warriors.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

jamison can score on the blocks plus he can hit the three. The mavs have not had a good sf for a long time. That's always been the weak link. Mavs now have alot of SIZE as well

Raef is 6 11
Dirk is 7 feet
jamison is 6 8

bradley 7 6
fortson 6 8 and strong as an ox
mills is l 6 7

mavs are also high on this chinese pg they had in s ummer league. tabuse. he's mad short though. like 5 10. But he got game. Don't know what they gonna do wit him. 

Mavs still have abdul wahad too. If healthy he's a solid defender. he's like 6 7 i believe. They have alot of long armed players. and alot of big bodies now.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

The Mavs got the best of this deal and greatly improved their team. GS is hoping that NVe will opt out of his contract next year which will never happen because he is not going to get half of what he will anywhere else. GS is hopping Dunleavy steps up which i think he will


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*BTW*

all of these games on tv for dallas will make jamison a star!!!
Dallas will now be the fab four..
People prob dont realize that twan averaged 22 and 7 and 2 years ago he had averaged 25!!!


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

On a talent level, it's clear that the Mavs got the better end. But you have to take in account that the Warriors were never going to be anything with Jamison. He was restricting the growth of Dunleavy (by playing the same position) and was on a max contract that he wan't worth. The Warriors, with him, were not even close to being a playoff team this year. Why not trade him, get some salary relief, develop the young players, and maybe draft a nice center with their better lotto position. Also, Fortson was a cancer to the team and had a ridiculous contract. He might be a good rebounder, but he's not the type of guy you'd want on your team (he doesn't do any of the intangible things). The Warriors did good by moving Jamison and Fortson, if only because they were going nowhere with them. Why be locked down to going nowhere for the next 5 years, when you can trade those guys who are locking you down and possibly get some hope (via free agency/draft). The Cavs and Nuggets did the same thing the last year and were rewarded with LeBron and Carmelo. That's what the Warriors need, a franchise player, and it's much more likely they'll find that in the draft than in Jamison or Fortson.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Errg, I drafted WARRIOR Jamison a few weeks ago. Damn. i want max empty numbers.

INTELLECT, are you alright? He said they didn't out the screws on Dallas. BTW they beat them 4/5 times with Webber if I'm not mistaken.

SAR and Ratliff on DAL? That would've been great for them.

Jamison: PF? Will he not be embarrassed regularly by KG, Duncan, Brand, etc.?


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jokeaward</b>!
> .
> 
> Jamison: PF? Will he not be embarrassed regularly by KG, Duncan, Brand, etc.?


since when have the wolves and clippers beat the mavs?


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

The Wolves split, with last year's squad.

We'll see.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

and finley and dirk also missed games. You wanna talk about the mavs wolves and mavs? how about the mavs sweeping the wolves and dirk OWNING KG?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Everyone read this post again. It's excellent. How can *anyone* say that the Mavs improved, AT ALL? -Amazing- trade for GS, horrible for Dallas. 



> In 05-06 and 06-07 they'll have 80+ million committed to 9 guys (NOT including Steve Nash - who I can't see them resigning, unless they want to break the 100 million barrier in 06-07).





> Personally, I'd rather have NVE than Jamison. I've seen Jamison play 100's of games (the Warriors used to be considered my 'local' team, so their games were on my FSN) and he is the king of empty numbers. He has the horrible combination of being both a bad (too slow to guard 3's, too small to guard 4's) and indifferent defender. Sure, he can score 20+ ppg as a #1 option - but why exactly do you need a #4 option who can do that? Van Exel was the only player on that team with any heart or balls in the clutch; after the Game 1 destruction by Sacramento he singlehandedly brought the team back with his words and his game - he might not be quite as valuable in a general sense, but I think he was more valuable to the Mavs than Jamison will be. Sure, Jamison can score, but I think most people here haven't really seen him play. He's a soft player with no heart who really brings zero positive intangibles to a team (and he's never been the least bit clutch). The LAST thing Dallas needs is another all-offense softy.





> Great trade for GS. They weren't going to make the playoffs in the WC with Jamison. Now, they're positioned to finally get out of their rut 3 years from now when NVE's contract expires. Dunleavy/Richardson/Pietrus/Murphy/+3 lotto picks and a TON of cap room in 2006 (not to mention - $15 million available in 2004). I can't believe they were able to dump BOTH Jamison and Fortson with their ridiculous contracts.





> I think Dallas made this trade just for the sake of making a move - like a poker player on 'tilt', they felt like they had to do something to stay in the game, and wound up making an overly ambitious move. They wanted Miller and Mourning, and got neither - so they go out and upgrade their #4 option on offense (big deal) at the expense of taking on two of the NBA's worst contracts and the loss of a player that was absolutely instrumental in their 2 playoff wins.


----------



## MightyReds2020 (Jul 19, 2002)

Warriors are rebuilding...

Mavericks are looking to outscore everyone on EVERY position...

Those are the rationale behind this trade IMO.

Good trade for Warriors, getting rid of 2 hugely overpaid players when the team is going nowhere. Although the term 'rebuilding' might scare off a lot G.S. loyal fans.

Mavs? A simple NVE-Brian Grant switch is better, IMHO.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> You know they had Juwan Howard right? And they got a lot farther with Nick than they did with Juwan Howards 18 points per game in the low post.
> ...


Yes I did. Twan is more of low post player than Juwan was. He is also more atheltic and a better runner. He won't go back to playing Juwan's role he'll make his own. That's a huge difference right there.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Some of these cracks at Jamison are unbelievable. He is a pretty darn good player and will excel in Dallas. For one, this guy can score without any plays being called for him unlike NVE. But that's not the biggest reason for the trade...

Dallas got outrebounded by 4 a game in the playoffs. 

Twan is a heckva rebounder which is one way to improve your D. 

Taking NVE out of the rotation and puting Twan into it could close that entire gap.


----------



## goNBAjayhawks (May 3, 2003)

man Hopefully the Mavs do outscore everyone, Jamison needs to put up the numbers, i have him on my fantasy team thinkin hed be the go to guy for a long time.Now he is the 3rd to 4th option!!!! On a realistic note..... The mavs have a killer 4 and one of the best starting fives even though Raef is over paid. I think they are pretty high up there now, they are better on paper then the Twolves 5, and even the kings 5, and maybe even the spurs 5, and not far behind the laker 5. With the lakers and mavs having the Fab 4's, depth is not a question b/c 1 or 2 of the 4 guys can always be in, which is why Dallas and the Lakers will be tough.Hopefully Jamison can get boards and put up points for my fantasy team sake 
Fantasy team-jayhawks


----------



## TheMatrix31 (May 28, 2002)

RAPE !


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> 
> 
> since when have the wolves and clippers beat the mavs?



They split their season with the wolves last year. The bottom line here is that the mavs did NOTHING to improve their defense.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

What about the salary implications? Now Dallas will have to go over the 100 million dollar threshold to resign Steve Nash next season. Even Paul Allen didn't like being THAT far over the cap and there's absolutely no way Cuban can be profitable with that level of salary.

NVE was HUGE for Dallas in the playoffs; IMO he was easily their MVP and came up HUGE in Game 7 1st Round and Game 3 2nd Round - without him, they're out in the 1st round. Can you count on Jamison to come up big in the big games? As of now, you can't. Plus, NVE was Nash's backup - now Dallas has no backup PG and Nash will wear down like he did every season before NVE's arrival.

Jamison can score, there's no doubt - but that's ALL he does well. He's not going to improve their rebounding (Najera and Griffin actually had better rebounding numbers per minute last season), he's not going to improve their defense, he can't pass the ball (AST/TO ratio less than 1), etc... Dallas already had more than enough offense. Upgrading their #4 option on offense at the expense of their playoff MVP and 2 horrible contracts - that's just not a logical move, IMO.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> 
> NVE was HUGE for Dallas in the playoffs; IMO he was easily their MVP and came up HUGE in Game 7 1st Round and Game 3 2nd Round - without him, they're out in the 1st round. Can you count on Jamison to come up big in the big games? As of now, you can't. Plus, NVE was Nash's backup - now Dallas has no backup PG and Nash will wear down like he did every season before NVE's arrival.


Good point, Nash is nearing 30 if I remember correctly, and seemed to really tire out in the last part of the season. Now the pressure on him will be even greater, especially without a good backup. Additionally I totally forgot about the way NVE used to calm down the mavs, take control and get them back on track. That quality right there should have made him invaluable to the mavs.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> What about the salary implications? Now Dallas will have to go over the 100 million dollar threshold to resign Steve Nash next season. Even Paul Allen didn't like being THAT far over the cap and there's absolutely no way Cuban can be profitable with that level of salary.
> 
> NVE was HUGE for Dallas in the playoffs; IMO he was easily their MVP and came up HUGE in Game 7 1st Round and Game 3 2nd Round - without him, they're out in the 1st round. Can you count on Jamison to come up big in the big games? As of now, you can't. Plus, NVE was Nash's backup - now Dallas has no backup PG and Nash will wear down like he did every season before NVE's arrival.
> ...


They still have the MLE to pursue a backup PG, Jiri Welsch may be able to fullfill that roll, and someone mentioned a summer league guy they were pleased with.

The past is the past, you can't bank your title hopes on NVE getting red hot in the playoffs, because he got cold against the Spurs and that didn't help things with Dirk going down in that series. So they needed to upgrade their weakest position, which they got pretty much nothing out of last season. Done. They also picked up a tough guy in Fortson. And they did all this by only losing 1 important player who was a bench player anyways. And they got Chris Mills.

Let Cuban worry about the salary cap situation. Nothing he has said before has given any indication that he won't spend the money to resign Nash if need be. Cuban just wants to put out the best team he can possibly put out.

When you look at the SF's that the other top teams have, Jamison is a pretty favorable player to have compared to Devean George, and Wally Szerbiak. Peja's the best, but at least Jamison is someone who is going to make him work on the other end, compared to Griffin and Najera.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> They still have the MLE to pursue a backup PG, Jiri Welsch may be able to fullfill that roll, and someone mentioned a summer league guy they were pleased with.
> 
> The past is the past, you can't bank your title hopes on NVE getting red hot in the playoffs, because he got cold against the Spurs and that didn't help things with Dirk going down in that series. So they needed to upgrade their weakest position, which they got pretty much nothing out of last season. Done. They also picked up a tough guy in Fortson. And they did all this by only losing 1 important player who was a bench player anyways. And they got Chris Mills.


I'd rather bank my title hopes on NVE than Antweener Jamison. As far as Dallas' SF position goes - Bell, Griffin and Najera gave them more rebounding, defense and intangibles than Jamison will provide. There's nothing wrong with having a 5th option who's limited on offense - most title teams have 3 big scorers, at most. Dallas didn't lose the last 2 years because of lack of offense at the SF spot - they lost because they had no one who could guard Duncan/Webber or rebound. This trade didn't address either of those problems. 



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> When you look at the SF's that the other top teams have, Jamison is a pretty favorable player to have compared to Devean George, and Wally Szerbiak. Peja's the best, but at least Jamison is someone who is going to make him work on the other end, compared to Griffin and Najera.


Funny you should bring up Peja. I don't think there's a single starting SF in the NBA who plays more poorly against Peja than Jamison. At least, before, they could either play Najera at SF and have him guard Webber or play Bell/Griffin at SF and have them guard Peja. Now, none of Dallas' starting frontcourt players can guard any of Sacramento's FC players - and I think most other teams will find that true as well.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> NVE was HUGE for Dallas in the playoffs; IMO he was easily their MVP and came up HUGE in Game 7 1st Round and Game 3 2nd Round - without him, they're out in the 1st round. Can you count on Jamison to come up big in the big games? As of now, you can't. Plus, NVE was Nash's backup - now Dallas has no backup PG and Nash will wear down like he did every season before NVE's arrival.
> 
> Jamison can score, there's no doubt - but that's ALL he does well. He's not going to improve their rebounding (Najera and Griffin actually had better rebounding numbers per minute last season), he's not going to improve their defense, he can't pass the ball (AST/TO ratio less than 1), etc... Dallas already had more than enough offense. Upgrading their #4 option on offense at the expense of their playoff MVP and 2 horrible contracts - that's just not a logical move, IMO.


Damn... can I give you 5 stars again?

People talk about GS getting ripped off when they gave away a guy they felt was a cancer with a big contract, a unwanted often injured player, an unproven youngster and got the best player in the deal. Granted Nick is 6 years older than Twan, but with Dunleavy, Murphy and Jamison at forward one would eventually have to be dealt. Keeping the pure 3 and the pure 4 and dealing the max contract tweener was the way to go.

Again if Dunleavy emerges as a Jamison caliber player their starting lineup is just as good as last years and they got rid of some overpaid backups in the process.


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

Wow what a great deal for Dallas. Jamison is now in a better situation and Dallas should be funner to watch next year. GS gets a great player in NVE, plus they save money for next year. I just hope Dunleavy shines next year..


----------



## carayip (Jan 15, 2003)

It's a good trade for GSW. They are going nowhere anyway with those 2 overpaid contracts. Now they have the cap flexibility and high draft picks in the next 2 years to build a true contender.


----------



## carayip (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>halfbreed</b>!
> On a talent level, it's clear that the Mavs got the better end. But you have to take in account that the Warriors were never going to be anything with Jamison. He was restricting the growth of Dunleavy (by playing the same position) and was on a max contract that he wan't worth. The Warriors, with him, were not even close to being a playoff team this year. Why not trade him, get some salary relief, develop the young players, and maybe draft a nice center with their better lotto position. Also, Fortson was a cancer to the team and had a ridiculous contract. He might be a good rebounder, but he's not the type of guy you'd want on your team (he doesn't do any of the intangible things). The Warriors did good by moving Jamison and Fortson, if only because they were going nowhere with them. Why be locked down to going nowhere for the next 5 years, when you can trade those guys who are locking you down and possibly get some hope (via free agency/draft). The Cavs and Nuggets did the same thing the last year and were rewarded with LeBron and Carmelo. That's what the Warriors need, a franchise player, and it's much more likely they'll find that in the draft than in Jamison or Fortson.


:yes: Not to mention the cap flexibility 3 years down the road.


----------



## CMC (Aug 14, 2003)

Good trade for both teams.

Because the mavs owner can afford to overpay average players, good trade for the mavs. Because the Warriors had a potentially better player behind their max player, good trade for them. Warriors got rid of Fortson's long-term contract and got back shorter more manageable ones in return.

Mavs starting line-up will outscore almost every team in the league, but their defense is gonna be pretty bad. Jamison provides offensive rebounding and is a great fit with Nash with his quick release shot, but he hurts the mavs overall team defense and ballhandling/playmaking ability. He fits in perfect with Nash and Dirk though, so it wouldn't surprise me if Finley were traded for a better defending 2-guard eventually. Mavs also get a prospect in Welsch who might be the replacement for Finley someday if he can get it together.

Overall I think the mavs got the slightly better end of the deal, but all things considered, it's a decent trade for both teams.

Woulda liked to see the mavs make a play at Kenyon Martin, though.


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>shazha</b>!
> 
> 
> well i thought gs got owned first as well, then i looked at this trade more closely. now gs was finally starting to win, with arenas improvement. withou arenas they are plain terrible. they even shopped around richardson.
> ...


oops error on my quote i meant DALLAS kills peoples game outside the big 3.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

How does the Dallas defense go down? I didn't feel that Nick was great defender, neither were those other guys that they lost. I think it's the same. Except now Dallas has added another big time scorer to their starting lineup, I want to watch every Mavs game next year!! They could average 115 ppg now, even if their defense sucks there are not many teams that can score that many points in a game.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd rather bank my title hopes on NVE than Antweener Jamison. As far as Dallas' SF position goes - Bell, Griffin and Najera gave them more rebounding, defense and intangibles than Jamison will provide. There's nothing wrong with having a 5th option who's limited on offense - most title teams have 3 big scorers, at most. Dallas didn't lose the last 2 years because of lack of offense at the SF spot - they lost because they had no one who could guard Duncan/Webber or rebound. This trade didn't address either of those problems.
> ...


actually the mavs lost because their LEADING SCORER AND REBOUNDER WAS HURT. remember that? or do you have amnesia? I guess fortson can't rebound? I guess you don't remember nve shooting UNDER 40 PERCENT AGAINST THE SPURS? no? well he did. He choked the next round. He's STREAKY. he was hot against the kings and in game 7 against portland. But he's NOT CONSISTENT. Jamison gives the mavs another offensive weapon. If they had that against the spurs last year when dirk went down maybe they would have won. Finley has had hamstring probs. They thinking about that as well. Bell is NOT an sf. He's too small to guard opposing sfs. najera isn't FAST ENOUGH and neither GRIFFIN NOR NAJERA are EVER HEALTHY. This was actually najeras first year suiting up for the mavs in the playoffs. griffin is ALWAYS hurt. ALWAYS. [email protected] frontcourt being good. They don't have keon clark. Vlade is getting old. WEbber is getting hurt more and more frequently and all they have is brad miller and you're telling mavs fans about THEIR FRONTCOURT TROUBLES? no one in the nba can stop shaq. Very few can stop duncan. But no one can stop DIRK EITHER. Put him side by side with jamison and he sees less double teams. How is that a bad thing? If you can't see that then you're either blind or just don't understand sports.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

if dunleavy does this and that. blah blah blah. Jamison is PROVEN. It's hilarious how this trade "sux for the mavs" when they are getting a proven 22 and 8 scorer and a monster rebounder. yet the trade is "good for gs" cause peeps think dunleavy will emerge. Yall going off potential and not FACTS. the fact is dunleavy did absolutely nothing last year. he looked like he was lost onthe court last year. Peeps keep bringing up the mavs defense but the mavs gave up less points than the wolves AND LAKERS last year and the exact same amount as the kings last year. But they suck on defense so bad *sarcasm*. Who is gonna stop the mavs on offense? peeps can't answer it cause they no the mavs are unstoppable on offense with jamison in the mix


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

INTELLECT :greatjob:

Noone has mentioned this: 

NVE will turn 32 early in the season.

Antawn just turned 27.

One is entering his prime. The other, in decline!

Who else did GS get? A 3rd string center, a near retirement PG, and a near retirement FA Popeye Jones who, much as I admire the guy, simply can't play anymore.

In other words, NOTHING.

Who else did Dallas get?

An injury-prone, overpaid, bad attitude PF who can't guard anyone. But he is one of the best rebounders in the league. Dallas is deep enough to spot him where he can help the team. Cuban is rich enough to pay his salary. But Fortson is not an integral part of this trade.

An injury-prone SF with a high salary. Chris Mills is a very useful bench vet if he can stay healthy, but he is not a big part of the trade.

And some guy named Jiri Welsch, who has PG skills in a 6-7 body, and was a near lottery pick. He has a ton of potential, is already a fine defender, and you can no more discount him than count on Dunleavy.

OK, lets look at salaries.

NVE & AJ wash. AJ is under contract for one more year, but so what? NVE is under contract until 2006, when he will be 35. AJ is also very healthy, not missing a game in 3 years. NVE misses 10 games a year, is limping for others, and misses half a season not long ago. Did I mention he is getting older?

Avery comes off the books at the end of the year, BUT SO DOES CHRIS MILLS, WHO MAKES MORE THAN AVERY!!!

Fortson & Esch both run until 2007, and Fortson does make $5.5 or so, compared to $3.5 for Esch... but Fortson is a usable player. Esch is 3rd string for Golden State!

Welsch is a $1.2 player, a non-factor now who could become a bargain. Jones will likely retire, or sign a min contract, likely not in GS...

So where is this huge salary benefit to GS???

To summarize-

GS does end up with a more balanced roster, and makes room for their younger players. They don't save much money at all. They are now relying heavily on a player (Dunleavey) who, though talented, certainly has not looked ready to shoulder any pressure. And that is being charitable. Petrus cannot score, he is strictly a defender. NVE replaces a departed FA, more or less... 

Dallas adds a great athlete/scorer at their weakest position. A player who is just entering his prime, who has scored 50+ on back to back nights, and once hauled in 24 rebounds in a game. They add a player who when he is able to play defines strong, mean rebounding machine- a great role-fit for Dallas. They pick up, at worst, a big salary coming off the books, who can help out if healthy but won't be relied upon. And they get the only prospect in the trade.

Easy, easy win for Dallas.

Even if AJ doesn't play defense. AND- I would say that AJ is more of an indifferent defender than incapable. Which pretty much describes the whole GS team, does it not? And may very well reflect coaching. Don't be surprised if Antawn becomes at least a respectable defender by the opening tip of 2004!


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Mad Viking</b>!
> INTELLECT :greatjob:
> 
> Noone has mentioned this:
> ...


You can't assume "prime" ages anymore. More and more often we're starting to see guys play until their late 30s.

In my opinion, NVE will age gracefully. He'll always have a good shot to rely upon, and I think he'll be the type of guy that will use veteran-crafty plays to be effective until late in his career.



> NVE & AJ wash. AJ is under contract for one more year, but so what? NVE is under contract until 2006, when he will be 35. AJ is also very healthy, not missing a game in 3 years. NVE misses 10 games a year, is limping for others, and misses half a season not long ago. Did I mention he is getting older?


If you're going to assume NVE picks up his player option to be under contract until after 2006, you have to assume Jamison is going to pick up his player option to be under contract until 2008. Neither of them will get anything close to max money elsewhere.

Therefore, Jamison is due to make roughly 69.2 million while NVE is due to make roughly 35.4 million (the numbers could be slightly off. I had this typed up before, but my computer shut down, so I'm trying to rely on memory)



> Fortson & Esch both run until 2007, and Fortson does make $5.5 or so, compared to $3.5 for Esch... but Fortson is a usable player. Esch is 3rd string for Golden State!


Fortson is "usable," but he'll get "used" by the guy he's trying to "defend," so it's not really a smart move. 

And again, you're misrepresenting the numbers. Esch is due 3.7 million at the max salary of his contract and just 2.8 million this year. Over the life of the contract, Fortson is owed roughly 12 million more than Eschmeyer.



> Welsch is a $1.2 player, a non-factor now who could become a bargain. Jones will likely retire, or sign a min contract, likely not in GS...


Welsch was added to entice the Mavs to actually take some horrible contracts, and since he'd be crowded out of the Warrior 1/2/3 rotation anyways (NVE/Claxton/JRich/Pietrus/Dunleavy).

As for Popeye Jones... he must have been added as a sign and trade to balance the salaries, since they don't balance otherwise. It's possible he might not even have a guaranteed contract, and even if it is... I'm sure his contract is the smallest possible contract he can have to make the trade balance, ie the Warriors save at least 2 million for the upcoming season.



> GS does end up with a more balanced roster, and makes room for their younger players. They don't save much money at all. They are now relying heavily on a player (Dunleavey) who, though talented, certainly has not looked ready to shoulder any pressure. And that is being charitable. Petrus cannot score, he is strictly a defender. NVE replaces a departed FA, more or less...


Without this trade, the Warriors don't win 20 games next year. You cannot rely on Speedy Claxton (who proved to be injury prone even when given minor bench minutes) and Jiri Welsch (who has barely gotten off the bench, yet alone proved he's anywhere deserving of being in a PG rotation) as the only PGs on the roster.

Although even with this trade, barring Dunleavy or JRich really blossoming this year, they have no chance of making the playoffs... but at least they won't be painful to watch.

and hopefully I cleared up the money issue for you. They save roughly 50-million in this trade.



> Dallas adds a great athlete/scorer at their weakest position.


Repeat after me: Just because someone doesn't fill up the box-score, doesn't make them a bad player.

Najera is one of the best hustle/glue players in the league. Anyone else remember that article about the statisticians that Cuban hired, that showed that Najera had a tremendous impact on the teams +/-? Anyone else realize that the Mavs were 12-2 (including the playoffs) when Najera got 30+ minutes?

They're pushing a valuable player out of more minutes that he should be getting, and they're blocking a spot in the rotation for a free-agent defensive-roleplayer that they should be picking up.

Nash, Nowitzki and Finley (and Van Exel before the trade) could all score 20+ in a game. They didn't need more offense.



> A player who is just entering his prime, who has scored 50+ on back to back nights, and once hauled in 24 rebounds in a game. They add a player who when he is able to play defines strong, mean rebounding machine- a great role-fit for Dallas.


Jamison is not a good rebounder, and Fortson is a very overrated rebounder.

"BUT LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!!!!"

Jamison averaged 7 rebounds per game for a bad rebounding team. %-wise, they were the worst defensive rebounding team in the league last year, even with a big frontline of Jamison/Murphy/Dampier(Foyle). While all the blame can't go on Jamison, obviously, if he was a good rebounder he'd either: A) Rebound more than 7 times per game for a bad rebounding team or B) Help make them a better rebounding team. 

And if Fortson is such a great rebounder, why were they still the 4th worst defensive-rebounding team in 2001-2002, when Fortson was healthy for almost the entire year?

They are both pretty good offensive-rebounders however... although Jamison isn't as good of one as Najera is, and Fortson probably won't (or at least shouldn't) be part of the rotation



> Even if AJ doesn't play defense. AND- I would say that AJ is more of an indifferent defender than incapable. Which pretty much describes the whole GS team, does it not? And may very well reflect coaching. Don't be surprised if Antawn becomes at least a respectable defender by the opening tip of 2004!


Possible.

But I believe defense is as much a matter of effort and intensity as it is coaching. Unless Nelson is willing to bench Jamison for not playing defense (which he won't do), it's unlikely he can make Jamison "want it" on the defensive end.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

If you think that AJ being 5 years younger than NVE is irrelevant, you are dreaming. Certainly at 32 he may be just as good as he was at 29, but with very few exceptions, players start to decline after 32. At 35, NVE will be worse than he is today. At 30, AJ can be expected to be perform at an equivalent level as 27. These are simply facts.

Regarding Fortson and players of his like- if you have a deep roster, you can spot him where he can defend a guy. Fortson can probably do as good a job on Karl Malone as anybody else the Mavs have- and keep the rest of the team from getting fouls. He can't guard 6-11 PFs, and he cant guard quick guys. But YOU DON'T HAVE TO PLAY HIM AGAINST THOSE GUYS.

OK, you apparently have different (& better) salary information than I do. However, I am pretty sure Esch made $3.104 LAST YEAR, so I doubt he is making less this season.

My info has NVE & AJ making almost identical salaries last year, a little over 10mil; and NVE will certainly take his option at his age. AJ might or might not. But while noone would want to pay 15mil for a 35 year old NVE, I don't see teams being too upset about paying near max money to an AJ in his prime.

You seem to be going to great lengths to prove AJ is a bad rebounder. He is pretty good on the offensive glass, IMO, and average under his own. He was 33rd in the league as a SF; NVE as a PG was 35th in assists. (AJ outscored him by 10 ppg) My point is not that AJ is the best player in the league or that NVE sucks. My point is that even if they are about equal TODAY, and you cannot really prove that NVE is BETTER today, even if you LIKE him more; they will not be EQUAL in three years. Finally, Dallas got useful players in additions, and GS did not.

I presume you are not talking about AJ pushing out Najera, as AJ is pushing out Griffin and Bell, who started 80 games between them; Fortson & Najera will have to split time, but Najera, who I like better than Fortson, missed 34 games last year. Their splits may be based on health.

You did not "CLEAR UP" salaries. The extra salary you say Dallas pays starts in 2007, due to having a premier player in their lineup. Maybe AJ is only worth 2mil less then max per year. It still cannot be considered a horrendous contract.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> Jamison is not a good rebounder, and Fortson is a very overrated rebounder.
> 
> "BUT LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!!!!"
> ...


Clearly, you are mistaken. GSW were the best rebounding team in the league last year.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/sortable_team_statistics/42002.html

Heck, Nash and NVE played together nearly 1/2 the game in the playoffs so eliminate small ball and have AJ on the floor and, poof, a lot of Dallas rebounding problems go away.


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Clearly, you are mistaken. GSW were the best rebounding team in the league last year.
> ...


Clearly you are mistaken. They had the "most rebounds" last year, a product of a fast-paced game.

When the opposing team shot the ball, the Warriors got the defensive rebound 67.8% of the time, the worst in the league. To me, that makes it seem like they are the worst rebounding team in the league. Do you disagree?



> Originally posted by <b>The Mad Viking</b>!
> If you think that AJ being 5 years younger than NVE is irrelevant, you are dreaming. Certainly at 32 he may be just as good as he was at 29, but with very few exceptions, players start to decline after 32. At 35, NVE will be worse than he is today. At 30, AJ can be expected to be perform at an equivalent level as 27. These are simply facts.


I guess we just disagree on the rate of decline. In my opinion, PGs like Nick Van Exel and Sam Cassell are going to age very gracefully, and shouldn't have a problem playing into their mid/early-late 30s (if they want to).



> Regarding Fortson and players of his like- if you have a deep roster, you can spot him where he can defend a guy. Fortson can probably do as good a job on Karl Malone as anybody else the Mavs have- and keep the rest of the team from getting fouls. He can't guard 6-11 PFs, and he cant guard quick guys. But YOU DON'T HAVE TO PLAY HIM AGAINST THOSE GUYS.


Play him as what? A designated rebounder? There's no point in having a liability on offense and on defense, only to get a rebounder who might not even be as good as his numbers indicated.

And if I was in charge of the Mavs, I'd rather have Najera on Malone as much as possible, or on any good player. At least Najera will make his man work for his points.



> You seem to be going to great lengths to prove AJ is a bad rebounder. He is pretty good on the offensive glass, IMO, and average under his own. He was 33rd in the league as a SF; NVE as a PG was 35th in assists. (AJ outscored him by 10 ppg) My point is not that AJ is the best player in the league or that NVE sucks. My point is that even if they are about equal TODAY, and you cannot really prove that NVE is BETTER today, even if you LIKE him more; they will not be EQUAL in three years. Finally, Dallas got useful players in additions, and GS did not.


He's tied for 23rd in the league in offense-rebounds, but it's misleading because he plays 39+ mpg. I think these are the rare times that per 48 minute stats are relevant, to compare a starter that plays 30-33 minutes, to a starter that plays 37-40. I don't feel like checking the stats, but i"d say it's safe to say he's average on the offensive glass.

As for under his own glass? Again, I think that if he can only pull down 4.7 defensiverebounds per game, on a team that has enormous difficulties getting defensive rebounds, he's, being kind, a below average defensive rebounder.

Bringing up NVE's stats? Sure, he didn't score much as he was counted on just being a spark off of the bench, and not the #1 option. Sure, he didn' get many assists, because Nash was their main-PG, not NVE. But NVE can still rack up good stats on bad teams as well as Jamison can.



> I presume you are not talking about AJ pushing out Najera, as AJ is pushing out Griffin and Bell, who started 80 games between them; Fortson & Najera will have to split time, but Najera, who I like better than Fortson, missed 34 games last year. Their splits may be based on health.


My point was more that Najera deserves more than the 20mpg he's been getting, and now it's even a stretch that he's going to get 20mpg in a forward rotation behind Nowitzki and Jamison.

I think they'd be much better off without making this trade, giving Najera 25-30mins, and filling the rest of the rotation with roleplayers that don't need the basketball to be effective (ie not Jamison).



> You did not "CLEAR UP" salaries. The extra salary you say Dallas pays starts in 2007, due to having a premier player in their lineup. Maybe AJ is only worth 2mil less then max per year. It still cannot be considered a horrendous contract.


Jamison is not a premier player, and it is a very horrendous contract.


----------



## Pistolballer (May 9, 2003)

player skill wise, the Mavs just schysted the Warriors
but team positioning wise, the Warriors are making a move to clear up some team issues and develope some young talent


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> Clearly you are mistaken. They had the "most rebounds" last year, a product of a fast-paced game.
> 
> When the opposing team shot the ball, the Warriors got the defensive rebound 67.8% of the time, the worst in the league. To me, that makes it seem like they are the worst rebounding team in the league. Do you disagree?


Yes, I disagree - clearly GSW were not the worst rebounding team in the league. Here the stats.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statistics?stat=teamstatreb&season=2003&seasontype=5

Any minor defeciency on the defensive side % is more than made up for on their superiority on the offense side. 

And the bottom line is they outrebounded their opponents significantly.


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Any minor defeciency on the defensive side % is more than made up for on their superiority on the offense side.


I don't agree, but even still... they're a good offensive rebounding team because of Dampier (3 offensive rebounds in 24.1 minutes), Foyle (2.1 in 21.8), and Murphy (2.9 in 31.8). Jamison (2.4 in 39.3)doesn't have that much to do with their offensive-rebounding %.



> And the bottom line is they outrebounded their opponents significantly.


Raw numbers are misleading. The Pistons had one of the lowest rebounding totals in the league, and were actually outrebounded by their opponents. Are they a bad rebounding team?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> 
> Raw numbers are misleading. The Pistons had one of the lowest rebounding totals in the league, and were actually outrebounded by their opponents. Are they a bad rebounding team?


So what you are contending is that getting outrebounded by your opponents doesn't make you a bad rebounding team--but outrebounding your opponents does?


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't agree, but even still... they're a good offensive rebounding team because of Dampier (3 offensive rebounds in 24.1 minutes), Foyle (2.1 in 21.8), and Murphy (2.9 in 31.8). Jamison (2.4 in 39.3)doesn't have that much to do with their offensive-rebounding %.
> ...


Jeez. You're really clinging to an _impression._

Yes the Pistons were a weak rebounding team, who happen to have the premier rebounder in the league. Everybody else, pretty much, sucks.

Look, scoring is overrated. But the guy was 13th in the league in an off year. He scored 50 in back to back games. He is a heck of a player. I'd take him over Antoine Walker any day.


----------



## TrailofDead (Jul 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> 
> 
> The Pistons had one of the lowest rebounding totals in the league, and were actually outrebounded by their opponents. Are they a bad rebounding team?


I would think that if you are outrebounded by your opponents, and are ranked 25th in the league in that catagory, then you are a bad rebounding team.




> Jamison averaged 7 rebounds per game for a bad rebounding team.


It's funny. You say Golden State is a bad rebounding team, but Detroit isn't???[


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> So what you are contending is that getting outrebounded by your opponents doesn't make you a bad rebounding team--but outrebounding your opponents does?


I'm saying it's all based on %s. Detroit has the highest defensive rebounding %, which I think makes them a good rebounding team. Raw rebounding stats are influenced by many other factors than pure rebounding ability.

Given a sample of an equal 1000 missed shots by their opponents, and going by %s from last year... Golden State would get 678 rebounds while Detroit would get 740. Does it matter that Golden State outrebounded its opponents in the game, and Detroit didn't? You can't outrebound a team if you get less opportunity to do so.



> Originally posted by <b>The Mad Viking</b> !
> Yes the Pistons were a weak rebounding team, who happen to have the premier rebounder in the league. Everybody else, pretty much, sucks.


It doesn't matter that everyone else sucks at rebounding: With Ben Wallace, an elite rebounder, Detroit grabs the highest % of its defensive rebounding opportunities.

With Danny Fortson, a supposed "very good" rebounder, the Warriors were not a good rebounding team. See what I'm getting at? A great rebounder will make a team good at rebounding. Replace Danny Fortson with Ben Wallace on the 2001-2002 Warriors, and they're a good rebounding team.



> Look, scoring is overrated. But the guy was 13th in the league in an off year. He scored 50 in back to back games. He is a heck of a player. I'd take him over Antoine Walker any day


He's a terrific scorer, I never denied that. I just said it was a very poor move on the Mavs part, since scoring isn't a problem. I think they'd be much better off giving Jamison's 35 minutes a game to roleplayers that will concentrate more on defending than scoring. Jamison's not a star player. He's a one-dimensional player, that can pour in points and not do much else. On a team with Nowitzki, Finely, Nash, and previously NVE.... they don't need that.



> Originally posted by <b>TrailofDead</b>!
> I would think that if you are outrebounded by your opponents, and are ranked 25th in the league in that catagory, then you are a bad rebounding team.


Hopefully I cleared up why I think rebounds per game is misleading, but in case not, I'll do an exagerrated example.

Team A shoots the ball 50 times, missing 30. They get just 1 offensive rebound, wheras Team B gets 29 defensive rebounds.

Team B shoots the ball 75 times, missing 45. They get 5 offensive rebounds, wheras Team A gets 40 defensive rebounds.

Which team do you think rebounded better? Team B got 34 rebounds, and Team A got 41 rebounds.

In my opinion, I think a good rebounding team is the team that does the best job of getting its opponents missed shots (ie Detroit) and not a team that has had more opportunities to get rebounds (ie Golden State)


----------



## bananas (Apr 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm saying it's all based on %s. Detroit has the highest defensive rebounding %, which I think makes them a good rebounding team. Raw rebounding stats are influenced by many other factors than pure rebounding ability.
> ...


Percentage rebounding stats are influenced by the same things. A top defensive team like the Pistons are going to hold teams to fewer shots. So you can argue that against them being a strong defensive rebounding team since they didn't have as many 'opportunities' as other teams who had more overall rebounds. I am not in favor of those kind of stats with this being a good reason. Detroit is a horrible rebounding team if you watch them. Their starting center (Robinson) averaged 4 rpg along with Curry's average of 1.6 rpg. The majority of the game, Ben Wallace is the only Piston to go for a rebound that ends up turning against them - it's frustrating to watch as a Piston fan.

Anyways, as far as the G.S and Dallas trade it does look very one sided towards the Mavs on paper. Who knows until the season starts, there are afew key factors that will help decide this trade's winner. 

Can the young Warrior players step up their game and progress into reliable players (IE. Dunleavy, Richardson, Murphy and Pietrus) on both sides of the court. Nick V. does a great job of creating for himself and others (Same as Arenas last year). So I think the transition from Arenas to NVE will be a smooth one. However can Dunleavy and Richardson carry the scoring load along with Nick? I expect Van Exel to be their go to guy like he was in last years play offs, for this year atleast (Or maybe sooner if Richardson, Dunleavy or Pietrus emerge).

As for Dallas I think this was a good trade for the present (1-2 years) and future (3-4 years). Jamison will obviously be contributing to Dallas from a different way NVE did - but I'm wondering if what Antawn brings to the team is better for Dallas than what Nick brought to them especially in last years play offs. The offensive post game will be welcomed with the Mavs but I think they'll miss Van Exels ability to create especially if Nash if having an off game. So as of now Dallas hasn't moved up or down on my current power rankings though once again they also got the better player for the long run. They still have Dirk so Jamison shouldn't have that much pressure on him and I think he will be the third strongest contributor to the team outside of Nowitzki and Nash.


----------



## 8 (Aug 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> jamison can score on the blocks plus he can hit the three. The mavs have not had a good sf for a long time. That's always been the weak link. Mavs now have alot of SIZE as well
> 
> Raef is 6 11
> ...


How can you call yourself "INTELLECT" when you cant even
get your info right ?? tabuse is not a chinese, hes japanese, you can tell from his last name and he is not 5-10, hes 5-6.
wahad is not 6-7, hes 6-4.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>8</b>!
> 
> 
> How can you call yourself "INTELLECT" when you cant even
> ...


Wahad is 6-6 http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3181 and Tabuse is 5-8 http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/players/playerpage/402908 and don't give me that "the NBA adds two inches to every player" crap cause I don't buy it. *If* they do it I think it's because they expect the player to grow another 2 inches after he comes into the NBA.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> 
> 
> They were only a slightly below-average defensive team last year, while this year they'll be bad.
> ...


Oh, yeah because NVE was such an excellent defensive player.
Give me a break. You are obviously a Mavs hater. I see that the
Mavs got much more athletic with Jamison and Josh Howard.
They got some inside rebounding and toughness with Fortson.
They got a nice player in Welsh. 

Just what defensive greatness did the Mavs give up here.
Popeye who never saw the court or maybe Eshmeyer, he was
real stopper. NVE or Avery...

Just what the heck are you talking about anyway.


----------



## 8 (Aug 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> 
> 
> Wahad is 6-6 http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3181 and Tabuse is 5-8 http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/players/playerpage/402908 and don't give me that "the NBA adds two inches to every player" crap cause I don't buy it. *If* they do it I think it's because they expect the player to grow another 2 inches after he comes into the NBA.


I do not like to convince people who doesnt like to believe the truth, makes no sense to convince someone who believe the wrongs as rights and rights as wrongs.
If you think every player in the nba is as tall as they are listed then you are sadly mistaken, if you think Ben Wallace is a full fledge 6-9 then i really have nothing else to say, he added not only 2 but "4" inches, hes 6-5 in reality with a big afro, and most nba players exeggerate their height everywhere from 1 to 4 inch.
J Rich is more like 6-3 than 6-6 

The only guys in the nba listed at their realistic height i think
are Yao Ming and KG, Yao is a full fledge 7-5 flat footed
KG is 6-11 flat footed if not taller.
 

I have seen tabuse in an asian tournament and he is nowhere
near 5-8, i have a friend whos also 5-8 and did got an autograph from him and i saw him face to face in a closer range, hes 5-6 i am sure of that.


----------



## TrailofDead (Jul 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>8</b>!
> 
> If you think every player in the nba is as tall as they are listed then you are sadly mistaken, if you think Ben Wallace is a full fledge 6-9 then i really have nothing else to say, he added not only 2 but "4" inches, hes 6-5 in reality with a big afro, and most nba players exeggerate their height everywhere from 1 to 4 inch.


Ben Wallace is 6-5? Do you look at him next to other players? When he stands next to Kmart does he look 4 inches shorter? Or is Kmart 6'5 as well? Please stop with these laughable statements.


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mavsman</b>!
> Just what defensive greatness did the Mavs give up here.
> Popeye who never saw the court or maybe Eshmeyer, he was
> real stopper. NVE or Avery...
> ...


They didn't give up a good defensive player, but they filled a spot in their rotation which could have been a good defensive player.

I think they'd be better off giving Raja Bell (or brought in another high-energy defensive player) bench minutes and Najera starters minutes than they'd be giving Jamison his 35 minutes per game, and Najera 20ish. Jamison can score, but they don't need much more offense.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

IMO the Mavs have compounded their problems. Yes they added a scorer but unless Dirk gets hurt, everything that Jamison does is done better by Dirk. 

Their best playoff lineup was Nash, NVE, Finley, Dirk, and Najera. Oh and yes the Mavs did struggle to score in the playoffs UNLESS NVE was going off or Dirk was going off. This team is dead if Nash gets injured. They have ZERO on the roster capable of playing even 25 minutes of playoff level PG in the NBA.

It is funny how Jamison is such a steal now when just last week GS was considered a low lottery team with this 'great' low post scorer on the roster. Jamison is a numbers factory who complains about minutes and shots, add to that the most overrated player in the NBA (Danny Fortson) and Dallas might experience some chemistry problems. Fortson has a very reasonable contract for a player who seems capable of averaging a double double. Why do you people think GS had to bend over and grease up to get rid of him? He sucks. Most of his boards come off his pathetic shot attempts, he can't defend his position at all, and he has a poor work habits.

Dallas will be able to score but they could do that already. Now they have put themselves in a position where they are gong to have to spend even more money on a backup PG or risk playing Steve nash 40+ minutes. Steve Nash will be in traction come playoff time if asked to log those minutes.

Now this was not an ideal contract for Golden State but you can bet only the desperate Mavs were willing to swallow Jamison's contract. How are they not going to have to MAX out Steve Nash next season? Utah will have plenty of cap room to throw the MAX his way and Dallas can't afford to let him go w/o another PG on the roster. That means that after next year, Dallas will have a $100 million dollar roster + about $60 million in luxury tax payments due. All this for some players who make them no better than they were before the trade.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Unless my math is wrong or I am missing somehing there is a chance there will not be a luxury tax after next season. The average pay roll right now is about 54 million (where I added the payrolls up I rounded up so it could be a little less then that) so if the NBA makes at least 2.6 billion that is only about 60% so even if 20 million worth of contracts where given out to free agents left the total salary would still be under 61% of the total NBA revenue.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

jamison and dirks games are not the same. Jamison has a great midrange game. he can play the perimter as well but him playing on the blocks is what is gonna open up everything else for the mavs. And to the cat saying oh tabuse is japanese and such n such is this height? My apologies for not knowing his race. That is gonna be such a huge factor in whether or not he can be the mavs backup pg.


----------



## MightyReds2020 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> jamison and dirks games are not the same. Jamison has a great midrange game. he can play the perimter as well but him playing on the blocks is what is gonna open up everything else for the mavs.


Jamison is an inside-version of dirk, I think that's what the other poster meant. Jamison DOES NOT have a great midrange game. Jamison DOES have a great inside game however. I am not sure Jamison's low-post game will open up 'everything else' as much as you envisioned. For one, he won't get many touches. He's probably their 3rd/4th option behind Dirk and Nash and right on par with Finley; Two, Nash's niche is penetrating and kicking and he's kicking the ball to perimeter guys, Jamison's midrange game is improving, but still not consistent. Overall, I just failed to see how the Mavs can distribute the ball evenly. Finley might be the guy that gives up the most shooting opportunity but that might threw his rhythm out the whole season.


----------



## RunTMC (May 11, 2003)

> I'm saying it's all based on %s. Detroit has the highest defensive rebounding %, which I think makes them a good rebounding team. Raw rebounding stats are influenced by many other factors than pure rebounding ability.
> 
> Given a sample of an equal 1000 missed shots by their opponents, and going by %s from last year... Golden State would get 678 rebounds while Detroit would get 740. Does it matter that Golden State outrebounded its opponents in the game, and Detroit didn't? You can't outrebound a team if you get less opportunity to do so.


Actually, this isn't true, and it's very mis-leading. You give only defensive rebounding numbers and don't include offensive, which you obviously left out intentionally because it hurt your argument that Detroit is a better rebounding team, when even by %s, they are a terrible offensive rebounding team and GS is a great one. Percents are also very misleading and influenced by many factors, just as raw numbers are. Specifically, GS tried to get out and run constantly on offense, and because of this, GS often left few players under the basket to get defensive rebounds, which led to a much lower percent. The only number that REALLY means anything is rebounding differential. It's a number that's not biased by style of play like percents and raw numbers are, and, GS is one of the top teams in rebounding differential. If you sort by percents, or raw numbers, you get a lot of misleading statistics. But when you look at differential, the worst rebounding teams are obvious: NY, Milwaukee, Boston, Dallas, Memphis etc. All weak/soft teams inside.


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MightyReds2020</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamison is an inside-version of dirk, I think that's what the other poster meant. Jamison DOES NOT have a great midrange game. Jamison DOES have a great inside game however. I am not sure Jamison's low-post game will open up 'everything else' as much as you envisioned. For one, he won't get many touches. He's probably their 3rd/4th option behind Dirk and Nash and right on par with Finley; Two, Nash's niche is penetrating and kicking and he's kicking the ball to perimeter guys, Jamison's midrange game is improving, but still not consistent. Overall, I just failed to see how the Mavs can distribute the ball evenly. Finley might be the guy that gives up the most shooting opportunity but that might threw his rhythm out the whole season.



it's not great? how is that. name another player in the league with back to back 50 point games the past few seasons. *hears crickets chirping* Jamison can score at will. They can run the offense through him. Did the mavs not have success with this with juwan howard? yes they did. They posted howard up and dirk, nash and fin made teams pay when they collapsed on howard and howard is NO WHERE NEAR THE OFFENSIVE PLAYER JAMISON. it's hilarious how everyone else but the mavs made "great moves" I mean really did the other teams in the west get better defensively? no they didn't. yet teams always mention that whenever the mavs make a deal.


----------



## MightyReds2020 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>INTELLECT</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> it's not great? how is that. name another player in the league with back to back 50 point games the past few seasons. *hears crickets chirping* Jamison can score at will. They can run the offense through him. Did the mavs not have success with this with juwan howard? yes they did. They posted howard up and dirk, nash and fin made teams pay when they collapsed on howard and howard is NO WHERE NEAR THE OFFENSIVE PLAYER JAMISON. it's hilarious how everyone else but the mavs made "great moves" I mean really did the other teams in the west get better defensively? no they didn't. yet teams always mention that whenever the mavs make a deal.


Once again, in different thread, PLEASE READ MY POSTS PROPERLY. I said Jamison does not have the best midrange game but he DOES have a great inside game. He has a bunch of moves within 5-feet around the basket. He scores a lot using his floppers and quickness. His jumpshots were average at best, although it's coming along last year. You know midrange games means those jumpshots right? So he once scored back-to-back 50s? Tony Delk once scored 50+ coming off the bench mind you. The season Jamison averaged 24 PPG, the Warriors lost a ton. Last season, when Jamison shared the scoring duties with teammates, namely Gilbert Arenas, had the Warriors started winning again.

Most people critisized this trade because this didn't address their most pressing needs. Again, scoring was never a problem, defense is. If you seriously think Juwon Howard worked well, then why he was traded? He was traded because he didn't fit in. Jamison is very similar in style with Howard with maybe a little bit better talents and less ego. I am sure there's something up on Nellie's sleeve since he's very good at exploring the mismatches but at this moment, this deal just looks like a desperation move for Mavs.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

It's a done. the Mavs throw in Antoine Rigadeau to make it a 9 player deal.

Jamison to Mavs highlights nine-player trade with Warriors


----------



## INTELLECT (Nov 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MightyReds2020</b>!
> 
> 
> Once again, in different thread, PLEASE READ MY POSTS PROPERLY. I said Jamison does not have the best midrange game but he DOES have a great inside game. He has a bunch of moves within 5-feet around the basket. He scores a lot using his floppers and quickness. His jumpshots were average at best, although it's coming along last year. You know midrange games means those jumpshots right? So he once scored back-to-back 50s? Tony Delk once scored 50+ coming off the bench mind you. The season Jamison averaged 24 PPG, the Warriors lost a ton. Last season, when Jamison shared the scoring duties with teammates, namely Gilbert Arenas, had the Warriors started winning again.
> ...


dog the mavs got rid of four players who won't play for them and added 3 players who will. jamison frees up fin to play sg. Small ball just don't work in the playoffs. Nash and nve play well together but it got the mavs killed on the boards. adding fortson and jamison should help the mavs with that problem.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

This thread should be preserved in amber like a dead insect. I can't believe all of the purportedly sophisticated basketball analysis of a straight salary dump.

Dallas got a starting forward who is a pretty good offensive rebounder and inside scorer. The Mavs play zone most of the time so his deficiencies as a one-on-one defender will be hidden. They also got an enforcer in Fortson. If Danny is good for nothing else, he is at least good for a class 1 flagrant every so often to protect LaFrenz and others from being pushed around. Dallas needed a player like that.

GS got a 32 year-old scorer who makes their earlier signing of Claxton superfluous, plus trash. So Dunleavy is going to shine now that Jamison is gone? Unless Musselman buys him some shoe polish and a rag, I think that is a highly unlikely outcome.
GS will now vie with Utah for the Western Conference cellar, and all the rationalizations in this thread won't change that one bit.

Will this deal vault Dallas into the Western Conference elite? That remains to be seen, but the Mavs certainly didn't get any worse by making this deal.


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RunTMC</b>!
> Actually, this isn't true, and it's very mis-leading. You give only defensive rebounding numbers and don't include offensive, which you obviously left out intentionally because it hurt your argument that Detroit is a better rebounding team, when even by %s, they are a terrible offensive rebounding team and GS is a great one. .


I didn't go by offensive numbers because they'll ALWAYS be set by the type of offense a team plays. A perimeter team (which Detroit is, with the exception of Ben Wallace) will never get the offensive rebounds of a team that plays inside more often.

Defensive rebounds get balanced out due to the fact that they play against other teams, and over the course of the season they'll have gone against all different sorts of offense.



> Specifically, GS tried to get out and run constantly on offense, and because of this, GS often left few players under the basket to get defensive rebounds, which led to a much lower percent.


And if they get out and try to run without boxing out, they're a bad rebounding team. NJ runs with everyone, and still posts a very good defensive rebounding %.



> The only number that REALLY means anything is rebounding differential. It's a number that's not biased by style of play like percents and raw numbers are, and, GS is one of the top teams in rebounding differential. If you sort by percents, or raw numbers, you get a lot of misleading statistics. But when you look at differential, the worst rebounding teams are obvious: NY, Milwaukee, Boston, Dallas, Memphis etc. All weak/soft teams inside.


Looking at the teams with the best rebounding differential, all of them have pretty good defensive rebounding %s besides Golden State. They're an anomaly, and I think that their rebounding differential is caused by style of play, not rebounding talent.



> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>
> GS got a 32 year-old scorer who makes their earlier signing of Claxton superfluous, plus trash.


Speedy Claxton has never proved he can stay healthy for a full season yet, even when only being counted on for reserve minutes. Golden State *needed* a starting PG.


----------



## Red_Bandit (Apr 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> It's a done. the Mavs throw in Antoine Rigadeau to make it a 9 player deal.
> 
> Jamison to Mavs highlights nine-player trade with Warriors



Hasnt Antoine Rigadeau already signed a contract with Pamesa Valencia of the spanish league?? or are his rights traded to GS ??


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> Speedy Claxton has never proved he can stay healthy for a full season yet, even when only being counted on for reserve minutes. Golden State *needed* a starting PG.


Then why did they pay him starter's money?


----------



## RunTMC (May 11, 2003)

> I didn't go by offensive numbers because they'll ALWAYS be set by the type of offense a team plays. A perimeter team (which Detroit is, with the exception of Ben Wallace) will never get the offensive rebounds of a team that plays inside more often.


Defensive rebounding numbers will be set by the style of play as well. You say yourself that if a team isn't sending all 5 players to rebound because it's running, it's a bad rebounding team. It works both ways. If a team doesn't play inside and get offensive rebounds, it's a bad rebounding team. You can't say style of game affects only the one that supports your argument. Offensive rebounds mean just as much as defensive rebounds.



> And if they get out and try to run without boxing out, they're a bad rebounding team. NJ runs with everyone, and still posts a very good defensive rebounding %.


NJ plays in the East where the best centers in the conference are Kurt Thomas and Brad Miller.



> Looking at the teams with the best rebounding differential, all of them have pretty good defensive rebounding %s besides Golden State. They're an anomaly, and I think that their rebounding differential is caused by style of play, not rebounding talent.


Not many teams got out and ran as much as GS did. Differential is the ONLY stat that matters. There's absolutely no way to say that out-rebounding your opponent by an average of about 3 rebounds a game has to do with style and not talent. There's nothing that biases differential. It's independent of style. Regardless, how do you explain how GS outrebounded their opponent not only on the offensive glass, but on the defensive glass as well? That must have something to do with style too, right?


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RunTMC</b>!
> Defensive rebounding numbers will be set by the style of play as well. You say yourself that if a team isn't sending all 5 players to rebound because it's running, it's a bad rebounding team. It works both ways. If a team doesn't play inside and get offensive rebounds, it's a bad rebounding team. You can't say style of game affects only the one that supports your argument. Offensive rebounds mean just as much as defensive rebounds.


NJ doesn't send all 5 players, and NJ is still a good % rebounding team. Do they not run, or do they just have better rebounders than Golden State? Explain why there's such a drastic different in %, if they're both running teams.



> NJ plays in the East where the best centers in the conference are Kurt Thomas and Brad Miller.


Time for the East-West center fallacy again. Besides Shaq (an argument for Yao can be made very soon), how are the "centers," not PFs, so much better than the Easts?

Yao (of last year, not for his prime), Vlade, Nesterovic, Olowokandi, Dampier, and Dale Davis are lightyears better than Illgauskas, Miller, Ratliff, Magloire, Curry (of last year), and Antonio Davis, right?

The West is filled with PFs that have more talent than the East PFs can even dream about... but the center-gap isn't any bigger than 1-man.



> Regardless, how do you explain how GS outrebounded their opponent not only on the offensive glass, but on the defensive glass as well? That must have something to do with style too, right?


They outrebounded their opponents because their defensive rebounding % was still higher than their opponents defensive rebounding %, due to the fact that they play so much around the basket offensively.

What's the reason that you think EVERY other team that has a defensive rebounding % under-70% has a terrible rebounding differential?



> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>
> Then why did they pay him starter's money?


I didn't know an average of 3.3 million a year was considered starters money.

He was probably the best-FA PG they could afford, so they signed him. But he can't be depended on for being a teams starting PG until he proves he won't miss 50 games a year.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
> This thread should be preserved in amber like a dead insect. I can't believe all of the purportedly sophisticated basketball analysis of a straight salary dump.
> 
> Dallas got a starting forward who is a pretty good offensive rebounder and inside scorer. The Mavs play zone most of the time so his deficiencies as a one-on-one defender will be hidden. They also got an enforcer in Fortson. If Danny is good for nothing else, he is at least good for a class 1 flagrant every so often to protect LaFrenz and others from being pushed around. Dallas needed a player like that.
> ...


First, Dallas won 60 games last season and Jamison is not going to help them win much more in the regular seaon.

Second, in the playoffs when he is facing either Malone, Duncan, Webber, KG, Amare (all of which will be backed by at least one 7 foot shot blocker) his 'great inside scoring' won't be that effective. *Dallas fans are going to find out what Golden State fans already know, Jamison is not a tweener, he is an undersized PF.* 

As an objective observer to the WC playoffs last season, the Mavs that were feared were Dirk Diggler and NVE. Jamison just does not have the mentality to take over (even for short stretches) like NVE. People want to act like NVE just started this last season, NVE was the last minute assasin when he was on the Lakers and Shaq was in the middle.

If Dallas is running the offense through Jamison while Dirk is roaming the perimeter, I am sure their opponents will be happy.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> Second, in the playoffs when he is facing either Malone, Duncan, Webber, KG, Amare (all of which will be backed by at least one 7 foot shot blocker) his 'great inside scoring' won't be that effective. *Dallas fans are going to find out what Golden State fans already know, Jamison is not a tweener, he is an undersized PF.*
> 
> ...


Yes Jamison is a tweener. So is Dirk. Put two tweener's together and they cancel each other's weaknesses out. Malone, Duncan, Webber, KG, Amare are all going to end up on the perimeter guarding either Dirk or Jamison, and whichever they aren't guarding is going to be abusing their team's SF in the post. So goes the thinking.

And Jamison can be just as feared as NVE. This is a guy who put up back to back 50 point games. NVE in his entire career has never thrown up more than 44. Jamison's season high last year was 41. He can put up numbers. It would be foolish to think otherwise.


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Dallas fans are going to find out what Golden State fans already know, Jamison is not a tweener, he is an undersized PF.[/B]


Jamison is just a pretty good basketball player. 22 ppg, 7-8 rpg, works on the glass. Maybe he's an oversized SF instead of an undersized PF. Either the glass is half full, or....... I'm not knocking NVE. He's a good player, but Dallas has plenty of outside shooters.

They won 60 with NVE coming off the bench. They would not have won more this year if they had kept him.

Who knows what kind of "playoff mentality" Jamison has. He has never been in a playoff game. Maybe he'll choke, but maybe he won't. He played pretty well in big games while at NC. So who knows?

The fact is that they didn't reach the conference finals with NVE and very few thought they would get there this year unless they made some changes. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.


----------



## RunTMC (May 11, 2003)

> NJ doesn't send all 5 players, and NJ is still a good % rebounding team. Do they not run, or do they just have better rebounders than Golden State? Explain why there's such a drastic different in %, if they're both running teams.


Because NJ plays in the East. They also have the best rebounding guard in the NBA in Jason Kidd, the best PF in the conference in Martin, and solid big men throughout their lineup.



> Time for the East-West center fallacy again. Besides Shaq (an argument for Yao can be made very soon), how are the "centers," not PFs, so much better than the Easts?
> 
> Yao (of last year, not for his prime), Vlade, Nesterovic, Olowokandi, Dampier, and Dale Davis are lightyears better than Illgauskas, Miller, Ratliff, Magloire, Curry (of last year), and Antonio Davis, right?
> 
> The West is filled with PFs that have more talent than the East PFs can even dream about... but the center-gap isn't any bigger than 1-man.


First, you forgot several West centers including David Robinson and Lorenzen Wright.

Second, Antonio Davis is a PF, if you want to go there we can start bringing in Duncan, Brand, and all the other F/Cs in the West.

Third, the depth of the Western conference center position alone is far greater. You have a lot of guys coming off the bench that are better than most of the Eastern starters you mentioned. Guys like Shawn Bradley, Adonal Foyle, Stromile Swift, Keon Clark.. the sheer number of solid big men isn't even close. 

Then if you want to compare quality, there is not a single East center better than Shaq, Ming or Vlade. On top of that, all of the centers you listed for the East are riddled with injuries. Ilgauskas, Ratliff, Davis all have missed lots of time the last couple years. Add in the fact that Curry couldn't rebound a beach ball, and the only solid guys you had out East were Miller and Magloire; compared to Shaq, Vlade, Ming, Robinson, Nesterovic, Dampier, and Olowakandi out West. To say the the talent gap at the center position is 1 man is ridiculous.

I mentioned "center" when I should have said big men. I was trying to point out the fact there are few rebounders in the East to compete with, and when you start taking into consideration the forwards the West has it's rather obvious the disparity is ridiculous, and it is much easier to be a decent rebounding team in the East than it is in the West.



> They outrebounded their opponents because their defensive rebounding % was still higher than their opponents defensive rebounding %, due to the fact that they play so much around the basket offensively.


I'm glad you realize that. But I suppose crashing the offensive glass and not allowing the other team defensive rebounds has nothing to do with rebounding talent, right? 

You haven't answered any of the questions I've asked directly, so instead I'll ask you straight out: Please explain how rebounding differential does not equal rebounding skill or talent. Please explain why rebounding % is a better indication of skill than rebounding differential. Please explain why offensive rebounding statistics do not matter when considering rebounding skill or talent. Please explain why you think that style of play should be counted when considering offensive rebounding statistics, but not defensive rebounding statistics.


----------



## BBallFan (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RunTMC</b>!
> Because NJ plays in the East. They also have the best rebounding guard in the NBA in Jason Kidd, the best PF in the conference in Martin, and solid big men throughout their lineup.


And that makes them a good rebounding team, and explains their %, regardless of the fact that they run a lot. Do you disagree?



> First, you forgot several West centers including David Robinson and Lorenzen Wright.


I also didn't mention Brian Grant, Kurt Thomas, and Ben Wallace... who regardless of the fact that they're undersized, match up very favorable to Wright and slowed-down David Robinson.



> Second, Antonio Davis is a PF, if you want to go there we can start bringing in Duncan, Brand, and all the other F/Cs in the West.


Antonio Davis isn't the magical 7-feet tall, but he plays center, and has the past few years.



> Then if you want to compare quality, there is not a single East center better than Shaq, Ming or Vlade.


Nobody in the East is anywhere close to Shaq, everyone knows that. But, Vlade isn't the same Vlade as he used to be. He's not the clearcut 2nd best center from last year, or especially for this year. As for Yao, talentwise he should be the 2nd best, but playing for Houston last year, he wasn't. The Yao of last year wasn't any more spectacular than Big Z.




> On top of that, all of the centers you listed for the East are riddled with injuries. Ilgauskas, Ratliff, Davis all have missed lots of time the last couple years.


With Ratliff and Big Z both playing 81 games last year, it's the wrong time to call them injury prone. 



> Add in the fact that Curry couldn't rebound a beach ball, and the only solid guys you had out East were Miller and Magloire; compared to Shaq, Vlade, Ming, Robinson, Nesterovic, Dampier, and Olowakandi out West. To say the the talent gap at the center position is 1 man is ridiculous.


I already acknowledged Shaq was clear-cut the best... besides Shaq, the West's centers aren't that much better that the East. It doesn't matter that the average East center is smaller, replace a 2nd/3rd best West center with a top center from the East, and the West team doesn't miss a beat. Are the Kings with Ben Wallace/Big Z/Brad Miller any worse than the Kings with Divac?



> I mentioned "center" when I should have said big men. I was trying to point out the fact there are few rebounders in the East to compete with, and when you start taking into consideration the forwards the West has it's rather obvious the disparity is ridiculous, and it is much easier to be a decent rebounding team in the East than it is in the West.


Overall talent-wise, the East's bigmen are nowhere close the Wests. In terms of just rebounding, the gap isn't as big as you're making it out to be.



> I'm glad you realize that. But I suppose crashing the offensive glass and not allowing the other team defensive rebounds has nothing to do with rebounding talent, right?


If you don't want to see it my way, I don't care. I just don't see how you can call a team a better rebounding team if they get more offensive rebounds, because they send more people to crash the boards to get them. For defensive rebounds, a good rebounder will at least make sure the man he was guarding doesn't get them.

Perimeter teams get more less offensive rebounds than inside-teams, and that's a fact. But that's no reason for a good rebounding team to get not defensive rebounds.




> You haven't answered any of the questions I've asked directly, so instead I'll ask you straight out: Please explain how rebounding differential does not equal rebounding skill or talent. Please explain why rebounding % is a better indication of skill than rebounding differential. Please explain why offensive rebounding statistics do not matter when considering rebounding skill or talent. Please explain why you think that style of play should be counted when considering offensive rebounding statistics, but not defensive rebounding statistics.


Because no style of play excuses allowing the other team to get offensive rebounds. A hypothetical perimeter team of Nash/Allen/Pierce/Nowitzki/Wallace would get very few offensive rebounds, but they'd still be a good rebounding team because just the prescence of Ben Wallace would make it so the other team wouldn't get any offensive rebounds. See what I'm saying?


----------



## MightyReds2020 (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BBallFan</b>!
> Perimeter teams get more less offensive rebounds than inside-teams, and that's a fact. But that's no reason for a good rebounding team to get not defensive rebounds.


Not really agreed with first statement above. The longer the shooting range, the longer the ball will bounced off the board if it is a missed shot. When that happened, it became 50-50 on who will get that rebound, instead of the players who had good positions underneath (normally defensive players, and Elton Brand ). Agreed though on the second statement.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Well the Mavs are having a dissapointing season, and without Nicks clutch play they are sure to falter in the playoffs.

Can we now conclude that this trade was a mistake?


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> Well the Mavs are having a dissapointing season, and without Nicks clutch play they are sure to falter in the playoffs.
> 
> Can we now conclude that this trade was a mistake?


The reason for their worse play could also be that they don't have Mr Raef LaFrentz anymore. Although it could be just as much this trade as the other. I think we're gonna see a lot of action from Cuban in the offseason.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

woooo I was right, I cant believe how many people thought this was a good trade for the Mavs.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

It was a great trade b/c both teams would make the trade again.


----------



## froggyvk (Sep 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> Well the Mavs are having a dissapointing season, and without Nicks clutch play they are sure to falter in the playoffs.
> 
> Can we now conclude that this trade was a mistake?


Well, not this one.

I think trading for Fatoine AFTER they already had Jamison was the mistake.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> Well the Mavs are having a dissapointing season, and without Nicks clutch play they are sure to falter in the playoffs.
> 
> Can we now conclude that this trade was a mistake?


You say they're sure to falter in the postseason, but I don't think that's for sure, and I think that's the determining factor in the success/failure of the trade.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

I think the Walker trade was the bad one. Raef wasn't nearly has bad defensively as everyone makes him out to be. This year the Mavs have given players a red carpet to the rim but last year Raef would challenge everything in the paint. Unfortunately because guards got into the paint so easily, LaFrentz would get into foul trouble because he was the last line of defense.

Offensively Walker has to have the ball in his hands. In his own words he's a "volume shooter". Raef on the other hand didn't need the ball in his hands. If he was open he would take the shot and make it but he didn't take shots away from the Big 3. 

The Mavs also gave up their 1st round draft pick, a good young SG (Jiri), and a 6.6 million expiring contract which turned into another 1st round pick.

I really don't believe the Mavs can get anyone good for Walker this summer (at least not as good as they gave up) but I don't think they want Walker on their team for another half a season either. IMO they will leave him unprotected in the draft and pray the Bobcats take him.


----------



## PoorPoorSonics (Mar 20, 2004)

And where has Nick led his team to? At least Dallas is making the playoffs.


----------



## D5 (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PoorPoorSonics</b>!
> And where has Nick led his team to? At least Dallas is making the playoffs.


Nick Van Exel has never been a great 1st scoring option. He's a great clutch player but with him as a 1st scoring option, no team will do anything.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PoorPoorSonics</b>!
> And where has Nick led his team to? At least Dallas is making the playoffs.


1- the question is not if this was a good trade for GS

2- They aren't much worse off than they were with Jamison AND Arenas last year

3- People saying the Walker trade was the bad one seem to be saying indirectly that LaFrentz and Welsch are more valuable than Van Exel and A.J.'s leadership. I'm not really sure how that even is close to debatable.

I'm sure the Mavs would rather have the best backup PG in the league and use that extra forward spot on Najera or Howard getting more clock.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> 1- the question is not if this was a good trade for GS
> ...


Good things come to those who wait.... Nick will be back in Dallas sooner or later. Next season is what I'm predicting. Just watch.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jamel Irief</b>!
> 3- People saying the Walker trade was the bad one seem to be saying indirectly that LaFrentz and Welsch are more valuable than Van Exel and A.J.'s leadership. I'm not really sure how that even is close to debatable.
> 
> I'm sure the Mavs would rather have the best backup PG in the league and use that extra forward spot on Najera or Howard getting more clock.


Maybe they feel that the better fit is Jamison. Walker may not shot as much, but that doesn't mean he is not taking bad shots, or launching poorly timed 3s.

-Petey


----------

