Mavs management and Dirk Nowitzki. The shift to defense isn't something that would not accomadate Nash if defensive players are surrounded by him such as with Terry right now. Howard and Harris are the easiest answers to guys who would take the slack up next to Nash. How hillarious, I didn't know there was another level after getting burned. When I think of burned, I mean a player who has an opposing player drive by them. Didn't know there was another to that. I mean does Nash get a player driving past him twice. Shawn Bradley wins the award by default. Whoop de do, I clearly stated swingmen. It's a common phrase used in basketball. I group them in one category because most of the time a swingman can play both positions. Even true small forwards like Howard can slide down to the 2. This current NBA is not built around true positions anymore. Overpaying Howard does not help this team in the future, this is not the Knicks management were talking about here. Cubes has a plan clearly and wants Howard at a reasonable deal. So do I, but this conversation between you and I is that you value Howard like he's a star. And that's where it will end. Because this has gone on too long. When Howard gets his contract or not, then you can bi*ch and moan. It's a dead issue now. As for Nash topic, I value Nash over Howard and you don't. Done issue. Plus the fact your reponses are so narrow minded, it's not worth discussing(Mavs not moving towards D with Nash or attaining a center are narrow minded responses imo).
You got owned so you don't want to talk about it anymore. You even said the center was one of the most important positions. Wouldn't that be even more the case on defense? This team wouldn't find defense without Dampier as Shawn Bradley is so bad defensively. There wasn't a choice of getting Nash and Dampier. Nash is about as bad of a defender as a point guard can be. Terry is slightly below average but Nash is an embarrassment. Beating the spurs was because Parker was somewhat contained. With Nash there Parker would have a field day. Terry actually did a decent job on Ginobili despite the size advantage so Nash's defense/contract was not benefitting the long term of this team. Especially against the spurs. Bibby also went off on Nash before and was a big reason the mavs couldn't beat the kings.
No, this conversation has gone no where. Have you not noticed that. And I also said pg is as well. Which Nash is, is he not? I mean am I talking to myself here or what? And I clearly noted we wouldn't have Damp with Nash here, so I ain't disagreeing with it. But I have also noted the options towards attaining a center were not out of the question. Again, your assumptions are so stupid, it's laughable. You act like the team would be the same as is now had we kept Nash. You do not realize the domino effects moves have. Teams make moves with their personel. It's so fucken clear that the Mavs would have reacted differently had Nash resigned. Do you not comprehend that? We lost Nash, went out and got Terry. Do you not see the backup plans Mavs management arrange? Such as with this year, we lost out on Mike James. Quickly recovered and signed Greg Buckner. It's naive as hell to think the Mavs would have sat on their asses and not got a center. Do I know what center, no because Nash did not resign. But I am sure we would have traded for one. It's called common sense. So where did Devin Harris go? Would he not be on the team? Wow, the season we had one of our worst defenses is put on just Nash right? Not Jamison, Bradley, Dirk, Finley or Walker. Just Nash right? You know what's funny about this conversation is you think you owned someone. What point did you own me on? Do you see me saying I owned you like a fucken 10 year old? What a joke, it's called matter of opinion. I already stated you value Howard more then I do.
So if Harris guards Parker than Nash guards Manu? I don't think so. Ginobili would have a field day on Nash. Terry might not be big but he has bulk. In some ways Terry is better at guarding 2 guards. It wouldn't work against the spurs with Nash. Dallas has been looking for a center a long time so if we kept Nash we might still not get a quality center.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So if Harris guards Parker than Nash guards Manu? I don't think so. Ginobili would have a field day on Nash.</div> Clearly Howard would take Manu as Nash takes Bowen on the defensive side. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In some ways Terry is better at guarding 2 guards.</div> Situational aspect, Terry can not take the better 2 guards in this league. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dallas has been looking for a center a long time so if we kept Nash we might still not get a quality center.</div> The quality of centers is so even among teams these days(with a few such as Shaq/Yao/Camby), I don't think it would have been hard at all for Mavs to find one. I still have yet to see your response to what you owned me on. As a matter of fact, since you post on Dallas-Mavs.com. Have you not seen the responses on there? I would believe a majority of them feel the same way I do on the Howard situation. I continually see 50 mil or less as the main contract. Anything else is not worth the time. Something you disagree with. In addition, five o-fan commented towards a poster's statement comparing this to Nash. To which he said, Howard is not even close to Nash. So I honestly want to know why you think of your opinion highly. Seriously make a topic on there. Put your thoughts that you said to me on here and mine. And ask them which they side with. Point A: (Yours)Howard deserves to be paid whatever amount it takes because he's a top 10 swingman, even if it means over 50 million. His loss would be greater then of losing Steve Nash a couple years back. Point B: (Mine)Howard is deserving of a deal at most of 50 million for 5 years. No greater because he is simply not a all star player. His loss is not close to losing Nash and with our management can be replaced as Nash was.
I would of course go with Howard not getting as much money. I'm sure everyone agrees that resigning Howard is very important though. We don't have a backup SF like Terry or Harris to backup Howard like we did with Nash. I've never said Howard was the better player but that he means more to the needs of the mavs. Also so you are saying there's not much difference between the spurs centers and the mavs? We would probably where the spurs centers are at right now.
Huh? If your referring to my quote about the even playing field among centers after Yao, Shaq, and Camby. I'm referring to all the centers after them are basically average or decent centers and I don't think Mavs would find it hard to find a average decent center. Are there centers among those average that are better then another one. Of course but talent wise, I would group them as average/decent. That's been my stance the whole time, your implications brought on earlier in this topic is your willingness to pay him whatever it takes. We didn't have Terry at the time. Harris was a rookie. I already stated, trading Howard or using the draft next year as means to land another swingman in case Howard wants more then he's worth. You clearly stated losing Howard is far worse then when we lost Nash. And I disagree with it. Mavs need for a pg went up, as will Howard if he leaves at small forward. Nash's talent makes him a far worse loss. Also, don't understand your reasoning, I mean losing a more talented player is losing a pretty good need is it not? We were left with a hole at pg when we lost Nash. Mavs fans were on the fence for the next month in a half before landing Terry. Then even at that point, still upset.
Mavs need for a point guard as in they went from the best scoring team in the league to the 6th best or something like that. Scoring is great for regular season but in the playoffs it is your DEFENSE that will decide how far you go. Every team at one point in the playoffs will struggle with offense except teams like Miami who are pretty consistant with Wade and Shaq. Maybe I exaggerated about Howard being way more important but he is more important. Unless Dallas picks up another quality sf or 2 like with Terry and Harris. Dallas already got to the finals with this lineup so why risk the chance of not having the same chemistry with another SF. If it comes down to overpaying Howard and letting him go I would overpay for him. We have one more year with Howard to see if he continues to play as fiercly as last year or he lets up.
Your still blind to the fact even with Nash here, the Mavs would have moved on towards defense with Avery. Thank you. I have faith in the management here and they always have backup plans to these types of situations. I rather not overpay Howard and see what else we can get on the market/draft/trade that's cheaper and more reasonable. Same reason mosts team make changes after a season. It's obvious chemistry will be lost but like the Nash situation, this is a team that can quickly come together and make the best of it. More like before Oct. 31 if Mavs want to extend him before the season. Which is where the debate comes in, as whether or not Howard is deserving of a large contract. I say no, despite his positives, he has negatives as well. His positives outweight his negatives but those negatives such as weak ball handling, tunnel vision, weak passing, inconsistent jumper, erratic play, injuries, and last his head stop him from being more then he can be. You have to agree Howard has a temper and so far I have not seem him improve it. He recently got into a ref for hanging on the rim and would not stop. Stuff like that is negative to a team in a pressure situation.
Well, looks like Howard will get his 4 for 40 and now the Suns will probably have to offer Diaw 10 mil per year with Howard and Kaman signing for that much.
It's about 4 years, 40 million supposedly. A year and 10 mil short of what I thought it would be. Good thing Howard accepted a reasonable deal instead of the past free agents this offseason who overvalued themselves.
