Reply With Quote
true words.
The dude is made of glass too and he's only getting older and more jump shooting happy.
Lets make it clear bro, I'm a life-long Thunders fan.monosyllabic is pretty cool most of the time.
Josh Howard is addicted to marijuana, Dampier is pretty useless.
Some Mavs fans -- well, I won't go there.
true words.
The dude is made of glass too and he's only getting older and more jump shooting happy.
everyone is getting older, and their athleticism also regress as the time elapses. The future belongs to the young players like Kevin Durant and the other players on Thunders team.
I agree with what you guys did. There was no way to know which Artest you were going to get. And at the time it was the right call.
J-Ho + Damp + Stack..all expiring contracts better bring some nice pieces back in the offseason. There is no reason why any of those guys should be on the Mavs roster in the '09-10 season
One trick pony?
Really good, mono, really good.
Was Wallace ever offered to the Mavs for Josh Howard?
the spurs could use him as well.
RJ for G Wall straight up
mono, it could be worse. You could have on you're team. Wallace is better and makes about half as much.
He was certainly available to be had, and the thinking around the NBA was that a Josh for Wallace trade would be something Charlotte would entertain.
Of course, Josh Howard is part of our Big 3 so Donnie/Cuban consider him untouchable. That's the whole problem right there. It's not that a Wallace for Josh trade was ever a real offer, it's that even if there was a Wallace for Josh trade on the table, the Mavs FO wouldn't have even considered it.
Plus the fact that for almost two years now I've been screaming for Josh to be traded, especially for Wallace, and 90% of the Mavs fans here have been telling me it's a "lateral move".
Lateral move my freaking ass.
Wallace is no more a cure-all than Howard is. Wallace teases and then goes into Casper mode. He's brittle (in game). He'll make you just as sorry as Howard.
All of that is conjecture that Wallace for Howard was a possibility. Two years ago Gerald Wallace was considered to have a career-threatening injury with all of his concussions, and Howard was considered the better player. You can't fault the Mavs for lack of 20/20 hindsight.
lateral move
Like I said, the problem isn't that they would have passed on Gerald Wallace. The problem is that they valued Josh so highly that he was virtually untouchable. They wouldn't even entertain a trade offer, assuring all Mavs fans that the "old Josh" was back and that we could all depend on him. Which has been completely false.
u ass pussy s hole ass bas ers
Yes, Wallace will play the "80 or so"---but, he'll crash during games after he's accomplished something extraordinary (you can't get him upright again---like's he's afraid to finish it). Wallace is as leaky a vessel as Howard.
When should they have known to give up on him completely? At the end of the 07/08 season, when he played the best ball of his career in the first half, then got hurt in the second half and didn't mesh with Kidd after coming back from his injury? Or at the end of the 08/09 season, when it looked like he was finally back to his old self after they brought Darrell Armstrong back in? And he promptly got ankle surgery right after the season ended, like you would want your player to do? It's easy to say now that they should've traded Howard back when they had the chance, but at what point should it have become obvious that it was time to cut their losses and move on?
His trade value was at its peak in December of 2007 when he was playing the best ball of his career and we were getting "Is it Dirk team's or Josh's team?" threads. Who would've advocated trading him then? His value plummeted from the spring of 08 to winter of 08 when the Mavs felt he was hobbled by injuries and at ude problems that other teams were aware of and didn't want to dump him for pennies on the dollar. He has in effect an expiring contract and can still be shopped. But I don't understand this 20/20 hindsight that you think the Mavs should've possessed.
Pennies on the dollar? In legit trade offers and other trade speculations that most people in or around the NBA thought were fair moves, the trades were hardly pennies on the dollar. There was a confirmed Artest for Josh offer. There was always rumored Redd for Josh offers (obviously with Redd's injury history that's a lateral move at best, but we're talking caliber of player being offered in exchange for Josh). And the rumored Josh for G-Force trades.
Hardly pennies on the dollar. But the Mavs front office didn't even bother looking into the idea of trading Josh Howard. THAT is the problem.
I'll pass. The Lakers are the only team he'll play hard and smart for.
How do you know that they didn't even consider moving Howard, or his name never was a part of trade discussions?Hardly pennies on the dollar. But the Mavs front office didn't even bother looking into the idea of trading Josh Howard. THAT is the problem.
They basically said as much. Are you really going to pretend they didn't?
Mark Cuban also told a reporter to "step away from his crackpipe" when it was suggested that they were on the verge of trading Harris for Kidd, and that "they loved their team." When am I supposed to take what they say at face value, and when am I supposed to read the tea leaves?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
