Dallas Mavs Q & A <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Q: Steve Nash was definitely a major force in Dallas during his time with the Mavericks, but the bottom line is even without him, they still won 58 regular season games and advanced to the second round of the playoffs. Even with Steve Nash, I don't think this Mavericks team could or would have done much better in the playoffs even had Mark Cuban retained him. My point? When is everyone going to quit crowing about losing Steve Nash and realize that the Mavs are just as good without him? Comments? Tom Womack, Dallas MOORE: I strongly disagree. I don't understand how anyone can argue the Mavericks are better off without Nash running the point. Drop him onto the current roster, and Dallas would have been fighting San Antonio for the right to advance to the championship round, not Phoenix. Owner Mark Cuban argues he wouldn't have had the money to restructure the team if he had paid Nash. If you want to buy that argument, fine. The Mavericks are a better team than last season. That's impossible to dispute. But they're not better because Nash is gone. ??? Q: I have been a fan of Steve Nash and still am. However, the way he has looked against San Antonio is reminiscent of his play against Sacramento for the Mavs. He was stymied and their guards ran over him and us. I think he was a great addition for Phoenix, but Cuban is trying to win the NBA championship. Bud Edmondson, Hiawassee, Ga. MOORE: I don't know about Nash being stymied. He did average 23.2 points, 10.6 assists and shoot 52.2 percent from the field in the conference finals. The Suns going out in five had more to do with Joe Johnson's injury and Shawn Marion's disappearance than it did poor play on the part of Nash. Cuban is trying to win a championship. That doesn't mean every decision he makes puts the team closer to that goal. He's said the decision to let Nash go is something he would make 100 out of 100 times. I can tell you the decision to pay Nash all that money is something the Suns would do 100 out of 100 times. We'll see how this plays out, but the early edge goes to Phoenix. ??? Q: Are agents good or bad for the player? How do you think little Stevie Nash feels today? Is it more likely that he would be a little less rich but playing in the NBA Finals if he had made a deal with the Mavericks, the team he preferred to play for? How much is the extra dough worth at that level as a substitute for the "gold ring?" MOORE: Little Stevie, as you call him, feels the same way the Mavericks did more than two weeks ago; frustrated and disappointed that his season has come to an end. You imply that if Nash had stayed, the Mavericks would have beaten the Spurs in the Western Conference Finals. Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker disagree and so do I. And we're not talking a little extra dough here. We're talking a $30 million difference between the Suns' offer and Cuban's tepid response. How often do you think Cuban's made a deal that paid him $30 million less than what he could have gotten? Bill Duffy, Nash's agent, did his job and had his client's best interests at heart. The Mavericks can spin it any way they want. The only reason Nash is no longer in Dallas is because Cuban didn't think he was worth the financial commitment. ??? Q: Michael Finley is a leader, a gentleman and shows flashes of brilliance. But is his inconsistent play worth having him on the roster for that kind of money? Josh Howard is ready. The Mavs need a new second scoring option in someone who doesn't pull the trigger from beyond the arc when they have a 3-of-1 fast break. Derek Sandler, Philadelphia MOORE: His money is so great that the Mavericks can't help but keep him on the roster. Finley is a good player and would be an asset to any team. But I can't imagine that any owner is willing to assume the contract - three years left at a staggering $51.8 million - that comes with him. But you're right. The Mavericks need to develop a more consistent, No. 2 scoring threat behind Dirk Nowitzki. Howard is a possibility, but the Mavericks like the fact that they don't have to run any plays for him and he still scores. That does a lot for team chemistry. Jason Terry or Jerry Stackhouse would be the more likely choice for that No. 2 offensive role at this stage. Finley would be the ideal sixth man for this team. It's a role he'll have to accept sooner rather than later. If he doesn't, the Mavericks will have issues moving forward. </div> Source
