Findog
03-13-2008, 12:26 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080310
2. What if the Mavs had re-signed Steve Nash in 2005?
I defended Dallas for passing on Nash because (A) he hadn't looked good in the previous two playoffs and (B) $60 million seemed like an obscene amount of money for a 31-year-old point guard with serious back problems. What I didn't defend was Dallas subsequently using that money (and even a little more) to spend $73 million on Erick Dampier. If you're throwing money around, throw it at Nash over a dog like Dampier, right?
To make matters worse, the Mavs made a fatal mistake by underestimating the aforementioned rule changes that transformed Nash into the two-time MVP. Had they kept Nash and Antawn Jamison (sent to Washington for Jerry Stackhouse and the rights to Devin Harris) and still made the semi-brilliant Jason Terry trade, that's suddenly a monster roster: Nash, Nowitzki, Jamison, Terry, Josh Howard, DeSagana Diop, Veteran Free Agent X and February Buyout Guy X year after year after year -- as well as the league's single-most entertaining team.
(One other note: Looking back, it's fascinating Mark Cuban played the "fiscal responsibility" card as his reason for not re-signing Nash, then quickly overpaid for Dampier and started spending more recklessly than ever. Did you know, for the 2007-08 season, Dallas is the only team to spend more than $100 million on its payroll? Incredibly, the Mavs are checking in at $105 million this season, a good $17 million more than the second-place Knicks. I have a great deal of respect for Cuban as a businessman and a thinker, but other than passing on Nash, he has spent the decade making it rain like Pacman Jones -- only coming close to a title in 2006, when the Mavericks were robbed by some incredibly poor officiating -- and now he's stuck with a nine-figure payroll and a static roster that might be quitting on its coach as we speak. We're at the point when the Mavs might need to be reinvented. And soon.)
Let's go through this, because it's so much fun to shoot sportsguy fish in a barrel:
"I defended Dallas for passing on Nash because (A) he hadn't looked good in the previous two playoffs and (B) $60 million seemed like an obscene amount of money for a 31-year-old point guard with serious back problems."
So criticizing it now would be 20/20 hindsight, right?
"What I didn't defend was Dallas subsequently using that money (and even a little more) to spend $73 million on Erick Dampier. If you're throwing money around, throw it at Nash over a dog like Dampier, right?"
Dampier is obscenely overpaid, but it was the right principle, getting size and defense in the middle. Would you rather have Steve Nash or Erick Dampier guarding Tim Duncan or Shaq? How do you explain the Mavs losing Nash and getting better?
"To make matters worse, the Mavs made a fatal mistake by underestimating the aforementioned rule changes that transformed Nash into the two-time MVP."
If the Mavs had resigned Steve Nash, they would not have been getting the player that won two MVP awards in Phoenix. Nash ran the Suns offense by getting Marion and Amare easy layups and dunks in transition. In Dallas, he would've continued to play pick and pop and the two-man game with Dirk and the other jumpshooters on the roster. Phoenix and D'Antoni's offense has been a much better fit for Nash's skills than Dallas ever was. It's the same lazy assumptions about how the Bulls made a huge mistake by getting rid of Tyson Chandler. Of course Chandler has more of an offensive impact and looks so much better when his point guard is Chris Paul instead of Kirk Hinrich. Look at how much better Dampier looks with Kidd as opposed to Jason Terry and Devin Harris. Nor have the Suns ultimately been able to overcome Nash's poor defense in the playoffs.
"Had they kept Nash and Antawn Jamison (sent to Washington for Jerry Stackhouse and the rights to Devin Harris)"
Jamison requested a trade because he did not want to continue to come off the bench in Dallas. The Mavericks wanted to open up the small forward spot for Josh Howard, while Michael Finley and his pre-amnesty contract weren't going anywhere at shooting guard. Harris was supposed to be Nash's successor and Stackhouse was the 6th man to replace Jamison. The Mavericks had no intention of playing Nash the heavy minutes he's logged in Phoenix, because they watched him break down and get outplayed every year by Tony Parker and Mike Bibby.
"and still made the semi-brilliant Jason Terry trade,"
There were no plans whatsoever to acquire Terry until Nash left and they didn't want to turn the starting PG spot over to a rookie.
This is also overlooking that the fact that if Nash had stayed, Nellie would have as well, and the Mavs would've continued to lose in the second round of the playoffs every year. And there would've been no signing of DeSagana Diop, because Nellie would've never played a center without an offensive impact.
"And now he's stuck with a nine-figure payroll and a static roster that might be quitting on its coach as we speak. We're at the point when the Mavs might need to be reinvented. And soon"
I agree that Avery is at a critical juncture in his tenure as head coach and he is going to have to alter his approach similar to what Tom Coughlin did with the Giants. And I don't think Dallas will enter the playoffs as anything more than a darkhorse due to the flaws in their roster. The Mavs currently have $81 million committed to 8 players for next year. Cuban has never shied away from playing the luxury tax, so what's the problem? Unless you're in his will, what does it matter. I'm also puzzled why the Knicks are always hammered for their exorbitant payroll. In theory, the luxury tax isn't a hindrance to them competing. The reason they suck is because those contracts are wedded to players not producing enough.
2. What if the Mavs had re-signed Steve Nash in 2005?
I defended Dallas for passing on Nash because (A) he hadn't looked good in the previous two playoffs and (B) $60 million seemed like an obscene amount of money for a 31-year-old point guard with serious back problems. What I didn't defend was Dallas subsequently using that money (and even a little more) to spend $73 million on Erick Dampier. If you're throwing money around, throw it at Nash over a dog like Dampier, right?
To make matters worse, the Mavs made a fatal mistake by underestimating the aforementioned rule changes that transformed Nash into the two-time MVP. Had they kept Nash and Antawn Jamison (sent to Washington for Jerry Stackhouse and the rights to Devin Harris) and still made the semi-brilliant Jason Terry trade, that's suddenly a monster roster: Nash, Nowitzki, Jamison, Terry, Josh Howard, DeSagana Diop, Veteran Free Agent X and February Buyout Guy X year after year after year -- as well as the league's single-most entertaining team.
(One other note: Looking back, it's fascinating Mark Cuban played the "fiscal responsibility" card as his reason for not re-signing Nash, then quickly overpaid for Dampier and started spending more recklessly than ever. Did you know, for the 2007-08 season, Dallas is the only team to spend more than $100 million on its payroll? Incredibly, the Mavs are checking in at $105 million this season, a good $17 million more than the second-place Knicks. I have a great deal of respect for Cuban as a businessman and a thinker, but other than passing on Nash, he has spent the decade making it rain like Pacman Jones -- only coming close to a title in 2006, when the Mavericks were robbed by some incredibly poor officiating -- and now he's stuck with a nine-figure payroll and a static roster that might be quitting on its coach as we speak. We're at the point when the Mavs might need to be reinvented. And soon.)
Let's go through this, because it's so much fun to shoot sportsguy fish in a barrel:
"I defended Dallas for passing on Nash because (A) he hadn't looked good in the previous two playoffs and (B) $60 million seemed like an obscene amount of money for a 31-year-old point guard with serious back problems."
So criticizing it now would be 20/20 hindsight, right?
"What I didn't defend was Dallas subsequently using that money (and even a little more) to spend $73 million on Erick Dampier. If you're throwing money around, throw it at Nash over a dog like Dampier, right?"
Dampier is obscenely overpaid, but it was the right principle, getting size and defense in the middle. Would you rather have Steve Nash or Erick Dampier guarding Tim Duncan or Shaq? How do you explain the Mavs losing Nash and getting better?
"To make matters worse, the Mavs made a fatal mistake by underestimating the aforementioned rule changes that transformed Nash into the two-time MVP."
If the Mavs had resigned Steve Nash, they would not have been getting the player that won two MVP awards in Phoenix. Nash ran the Suns offense by getting Marion and Amare easy layups and dunks in transition. In Dallas, he would've continued to play pick and pop and the two-man game with Dirk and the other jumpshooters on the roster. Phoenix and D'Antoni's offense has been a much better fit for Nash's skills than Dallas ever was. It's the same lazy assumptions about how the Bulls made a huge mistake by getting rid of Tyson Chandler. Of course Chandler has more of an offensive impact and looks so much better when his point guard is Chris Paul instead of Kirk Hinrich. Look at how much better Dampier looks with Kidd as opposed to Jason Terry and Devin Harris. Nor have the Suns ultimately been able to overcome Nash's poor defense in the playoffs.
"Had they kept Nash and Antawn Jamison (sent to Washington for Jerry Stackhouse and the rights to Devin Harris)"
Jamison requested a trade because he did not want to continue to come off the bench in Dallas. The Mavericks wanted to open up the small forward spot for Josh Howard, while Michael Finley and his pre-amnesty contract weren't going anywhere at shooting guard. Harris was supposed to be Nash's successor and Stackhouse was the 6th man to replace Jamison. The Mavericks had no intention of playing Nash the heavy minutes he's logged in Phoenix, because they watched him break down and get outplayed every year by Tony Parker and Mike Bibby.
"and still made the semi-brilliant Jason Terry trade,"
There were no plans whatsoever to acquire Terry until Nash left and they didn't want to turn the starting PG spot over to a rookie.
This is also overlooking that the fact that if Nash had stayed, Nellie would have as well, and the Mavs would've continued to lose in the second round of the playoffs every year. And there would've been no signing of DeSagana Diop, because Nellie would've never played a center without an offensive impact.
"And now he's stuck with a nine-figure payroll and a static roster that might be quitting on its coach as we speak. We're at the point when the Mavs might need to be reinvented. And soon"
I agree that Avery is at a critical juncture in his tenure as head coach and he is going to have to alter his approach similar to what Tom Coughlin did with the Giants. And I don't think Dallas will enter the playoffs as anything more than a darkhorse due to the flaws in their roster. The Mavs currently have $81 million committed to 8 players for next year. Cuban has never shied away from playing the luxury tax, so what's the problem? Unless you're in his will, what does it matter. I'm also puzzled why the Knicks are always hammered for their exorbitant payroll. In theory, the luxury tax isn't a hindrance to them competing. The reason they suck is because those contracts are wedded to players not producing enough.