# Spree/Van Exel compare



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Both are 32 years old cancers
Both have big contracts
Both are former all-stars

Knicks need a good PG and Mavs need a good SG.

is this a good trade?


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

what basketball league have you been watching. Nick has been anything but a cancer to the Mavs.


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

you said mavs need a sg?
2 words 1 name

Micheal Finley.

Great sg, no need to go out and get a cancer. Plus Nick hasnt been a cancer


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jmac910</b>!
> you said mavs need a sg?
> 2 words 1 name
> 
> ...


dont forget Raja Bell. excellent back up


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

He has been on the bench, and hasn't said too much, and I think he is comfortable with it, shockingly... He didn't even get major minutes in the blowout vs. the Pistons to jack his stats, and still not a word.

Besides, the Mavs do have Finley, why do they "need" a sg as noted above... ?

It's harder to replace Nash then Finley, but with Nick, he can do both... can Spree? Yes to an extent, but not backing up pg as well.

-Petey


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Nick is out 3-6 weeks with a Knee injury


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

*it works*

if Finley plays SG, then Spree plays SF. that is not the big issue.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: it works*



> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> if Finley plays SG, then Spree plays SF. that is not the big issue.


no it doesnt you lose the quality pg off the bench. The mavs dont need another sf. they have a pg who can play the sg position also. Do you even watch basketball?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Finley plays SG. Who plays better than Spree in SF?


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> 
> 
> dont forget Raja Bell. excellent back up


he is not "Excellant" I would consider him more as "servicable" Bell plays good defense but is too inconsistant at everything else...


and Van Exel for Sprewell won't happen, I just think Sprewell is way better than Van Exel IMO


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> who plays better than Spree in SF


I really hope you're not suggesting that Latrell Sprewell is the best small forward in the NBA...

But, if you're suggesting that Sprewell would be the best small forward on the Mavericks, you're right. But, Sprewell isn't really a small forward in my opinion. He only plays small forward to allow Houston to play shooting guard. That's not the issue, though. The Mavericks, if they did this, would lose probably the best backup point guard in the NBA. Point guards are much harder to come by than shooting guards, so why trade a point guard away for an equally skilled shooting guard, especially when it would hurt the Mavericks depth?


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Spree/Bell are in the same level?


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

lets face it nobody wants sprewell,not even his own team,but there has been bigger clowns than him given chances again and again so who knows,who cares would be my question.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

I was sure NVE wouldn't be happy as a backup in Dallas, but I was completely wrong. I guess he understands at this point in his career he can either be the 6th man on a team like Dallas or start and star for a team like Denver. If the team was losing or NVE was getting less than 25 minutes, I'm sure he'd be griping (he only plays a few minutes per game less than Nash).

As far as the NVE for Sprewell trade, the Mavs would be stupid to go for it. NVE, besides being a much better player than Spree (who is extremely overrated by virtue of playing for a high profile team) is far more valuable since he plays a position of scarcity (PG). Dallas is much better off either using one of their defense/glue players (Griffin/Najera) at SF or sliding Fin to SF with NVE and Nash in the backcourt than going with Spree there, and there's no way Spree will beat out a far better player in Mike Finley at SG. There's was a trade rumored in the offseason sending NVE to NY for Kurt Thomas and filler - something like that is far more likely to happen (Thomas actually would have some value on the Mavs playing PF and C, while Spree would be completely redundant).


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

With Spree, Mavs are much better because his strength & Scoring & defense.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Two things -

1) Nick Van Exel out 6 weeks with knee surgery..

2) Why the hell would Dallas do _anything_ to jeopardize their uncanny team chemistry?


----------



## XYRYX (Jul 29, 2002)

I don’t think that the mavs need ANY more(other) players at this moment. All of their players are a good or even a perfect fit in dallas. 
In the offseason there was the rumor to bring KG to dallas for finley and others. I don’t think that the mavs would be as good as now or even close if this trade had happened. 
I don’t see a player right now, who could make the mavs even better in exchange for one of the mavs.
Everybody of the mavs knows his roll on the team and that’s what makes the mavs so strong. 
And Van Exel IMO is recognizing that he has a real shot for the title at dallas. Why he should give that up and to have a starting job anywhere else? He’s still putting up big numbers and in crunch time, he sometimes has a chance to show how good he still is.
I don’t think that sprewells trade value is as low as many posters are telling here, but he definitely is not a good fit for dallas in exchange for NVE or somebody else.

The only positions, the mavs need better players is the 4/5 position.
BUT reef will come back and bradly seems to me right now as the best player he could be.

This mavs team is definitely the best TEAM in the league right now and I don’t see things changing. 
Reef and NVE will come back and they will even become better.
:yes:


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

They need to change. otherwise they can't beat Kings. With Spree, they have chances


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballscientist</b>!
> They need to change. otherwise they can't beat Kings. With Spree, they have chances


why cant they beat the Kings with the team they have now?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> why cant they beat the Kings with the team they have now?


I think they can beat the Kings right now, but I think Don Nelson needs to make a statement like Adelman did in a loss to the lowly Knicks. Everytime Peja got beat off the dribble by Lee Nailon, Adelman repeatedly motioned for NO doubleteam. He wanted Peja to defend him one-on-one. He was delivering a message early on in the season to his best offensive player. Sometimes the only way a coach can get inside the head of a great player is to force him to look within himself to find some answers.

If Don Nelson were to make Dirk do the same thing on the dominating SF's/PF's in the league night in and night out, he would learn how to play D quick. Instead, Dirk defends lesser players so he can save his energy to fill it up at the other end. This is a good strategy when he is hitting everything like he was in the Minnesota series last year, but EVERYONE is off sometimes, and it helps to have some defensive game to do some of the talking when your shots just aren't finding the twine.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RollWithEm</b>!
> 
> I think they can beat the Kings right now, but I think Don Nelson needs to make a statement like Adelman did in a loss to the lowly Knicks. Everytime Peja got beat off the dribble by Lee Nailon, Adelman repeatedly motioned for NO doubleteam. He wanted Peja to defend him one-on-one. He was delivering a message early on in the season to his best offensive player. Sometimes the only way a coach can get inside the head of a great player is to force him to look within himself to find some answers.
> 
> If Don Nelson were to make Dirk do the same thing on the dominating SF's/PF's in the league night in and night out, he would learn how to play D quick. Instead, Dirk defends lesser players so he can save his energy to fill it up at the other end. This is a good strategy when he is hitting everything like he was in the Minnesota series last year, but EVERYONE is off sometimes, and it helps to have some defensive game to do some of the talking when your shots just aren't finding the twine.


but thats just it Dirk has been playing very good defense this year and grabbing boards like theyre free.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

Van Exel is a great player. Not only does he play better, he is less trouble off the courts. His style of play fits the Mavs perfectly.


----------



## FatDaddy (Nov 13, 2002)

Hahahahaha. Mavs can beat Kings now? 

Spree is the good friend of Don Nelson, do you know? Van Exel may have unexpected nuclear weapon.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FatDaddy</b>!
> Hahahahaha. Mavs can beat Kings now?
> 
> Spree is the good friend of Don Nelson, do you know? Van Exel may have unexpected nuclear weapon.


What the hell are you talking about. Youre not making any sense.


----------



## FatDaddy (Nov 13, 2002)

Kings are still much better than Mavs. Spree have better friendship with Don Nelson than Van Exel.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FatDaddy</b>!
> Kings are still much better than Mavs. Spree have better friendship with Don Nelson than Van Exel.


what does that have to do with coaching a basketball team thats undefeated even though 2 of my top 5 players are out. yeah lets mess up that chemistry. And why do you think the kings are better tyhan the Mavs? they lost to ny. Oh I know they didnt have bibby but like I said before the mavs are undefeated missing 2 of thier top 5 players. Do some research sometimes..


----------



## FatDaddy (Nov 13, 2002)

Mavs swept the Twolves in the first round of the Playoffs. My friend said Mavs would beat Kings in 6. I said the other way around. Finally Kings won in 5. 

Divac and Webber are much, much better than Dirk and Lafrentz because they make other players better. 

BTW, I have six years' coaching experience.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FatDaddy</b>!
> Mavs swept the Twolves in the first round of the Playoffs. My friend said Mavs would beat Kings in 6. I said the other way around. Finally Kings won in 5.
> 
> Divac and Webber are much, much better than Dirk and Lafrentz because they make other players better.
> ...


of what? peewee powderpuff girls one hand touch football?


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

Save the "who's better, kings or mavs" talk till the playoffs. This is a brand new season, and it's hard to say which team is better until they play each other at least once.


----------



## FatDaddy (Nov 13, 2002)

My points: without spree/Van Exel trade, it is impossible for Mavs to defeat Kings.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FatDaddy</b>!
> My points: without spree/Van Exel trade, it is impossible for Mavs to defeat Kings.


wat to back up your statements...


----------



## FatDaddy (Nov 13, 2002)

I can only hope this trade can go down soon.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FatDaddy</b>!
> I can only hope this trade can go down soon.


It aint gonna happen you non-basketball acclimated, random thought throwing with no backing whatsoever, real gm playing, "it worked on my video game" fool!!:upset: Im done with this one.


----------

