John Hollinger has this right. When you think about the Dallas-Golden State series, they key thing has been Golden State's defense even more than the brilliance of Baron Davis. Since both Utah and (especially) Houston have real low-post big men, Golden State's success arguably may not carry forward into the second round. On the other hand, the Mavericks are a much better offensive team than either the Rockets or the Jazz so even middling schemes may be enough to beat them.
« Evolution | Main | Romney Versus The Muslim Brotherhood »
Big D
04 May 2007 11:18 am
Comments (58)
It's a very good point. Of course, part of the problem is that Dallas never really went to an offense that could exploit the type of defense GS was playing. I and others remarked on this after Game 1 - Avery should be pounding the ball down low over and over. Neither Houston nor Utah will make the mistake Dallas did. Of course, this brings up the point that Dirk is not a very good low post player, despite his height and fairly bulky build (um, why can't he work on that???).
And the key to Warriors defense was the physical strength and speed of the players.
All in all, they're a better team than Utah, but it's much easier to see the Warriors beating Houston. Apart from TMac, the Rockets are s l o w.
I dunno. Who do the Jazz have that can't be defended by the Warriors in much the same way that the Mavs were defended?
It's one thing to make a stupid, careless typo, but a whole 'nother level of inept to italicize that typo. Wow. You're lucky I'm still 10 feet high and rising from last nights big little miracle at Oracle or I would actually care...
Yes, I would rather face the Rockets, but mostly because my neighbor is a huge Yao/Rockets fan...from Houston...who loves Jesus. I just want to knock down the Chinese Goliath and Christianity with one little leatherbound stone... though fucking over the mormons would be nice too. But frankly, anything the Warriors do is love gravy at this point. Big D went DDDDOWN! Though I rooted for them last year, this time it was POISonal. Nelly has his sweet revenge— hope it's low carb.
"On the other hand, the Mavericks are a much better offensive team than either the Rockets or the Jazz so even middling schemes may be enough to beat them."
I put the Dallas failure down to coaching.
I think both Houston and Utah have the coaching and personnel to deal with Nelson's gimmickry and make GS pay for his schemes.
Of course, I believe I've forfeited my credibility on the topic of Golden State for as long as they last this year.
Of course, this brings up the point that Dirk is not a very good low post player, despite his height and fairly bulky build (um, why can't he work on that???).
Steve Kerr mentioned a week or so ago that he's not sure Dwight Howard is gonna be the kind of beast everyone thinks he'll develop into: a wrecking ball on defense, sure, an able crasher of the offensive boards, good for 20 or so points a game, but he's not going to get much better offensively unless he develops a real post game, and Kerr was theorizing that maybe that requires a built-in knack which just can't be instilled or acquired. Kerr compared Howard to Zach Randolph, who whatever his (many) flaws is just money with the ball when he gets it close to the basket. A better comparison, without all the psych baggage, is Al Jefferson, who's the same age as Howard and over the last few months of the regular season played him to a draw - but it's not like Big Al suddenly developed intelligence in the post, he always had that, he just didn't put it together with confidence, conditioning, smarter defense, better integration into the offense, etc., until this year. And tutoring has helped, but Big Al had the seeds of his post game when he was dropping 60 on high schoolers, and Howard...doesn't.
Maybe Nowitzki just doesn't have that kind of instinctive savvy in him (as would appear, when all is said and done, to be the case with KG, but I've run my KG / McHale spiel way too many times on Yglesias' webspace). I go back and forth on what I think about him and what kind of game I think would best suit *him*, but the *Mavs* as constructed need a real post player, and he's just not the guy.
And count me in with the people who think Dallas lost the series when the lineups were announced for the first game.
The Rockets role players (Battier, Head, Hayes) have been much worse in Utah than at home, but I expect that they will show up again in Game 7.
The Rockets are a much tougher match up for Golden State, who doesn't really have anyone (including Biedrins) to slow down Yao. If Head and the Rockets other 3-point shooters are hitting, they'll move on. Plus, the odds of Davis getting through the next round are iffy at best.
Right now, I'd put my money on the winner of the Suns/Spurs contest, which will pretty much come down to how well the Suns execute in the half court, since the Spurs transition D will neutralize the Suns break to some extent. Barring Nash's back flaring up, I think the Suns will come through this year.
Warriors are 2-2 versus Utah. Totally befuddled them with a zone in their first victory, and crushed them by 20 during their late season run with the current lineup. Nevertheless as a Warrior fan, I fear Utah more. They have more athletic players than Houston, can pound on the board, and Boozer is too strong to be guarded one on one, and may be fast enough to beat the double team.
Warriors are 1-2 versus Houston. But the last victory was with their current line-up, and they completely took Yao out of the game by their double teaming (I think he only scored 8 pts). Yao and most of the Houston team is too slow if the warriors play at their pace. Plus who on their team can guard Baron? Battier maybe, but is he fast enough.
If Baron is healthy, this will be a great series especially against Houston.
I think both Houston and Utah have the coaching and personnel to deal with Nelson's gimmickry and make GS pay for his schemes.
This is plausible. JVG and Sloan are two of the very best coaches out there. That said, I remain baffled as to where this defeat came from. Avery seemed like a good coach until this series started. Indeed, he specifically seemed to be better than Don Nelson as a coach.
"Avery seemed like a good coach until this series started."
Disagree. I thought Avery was singlehandedly responsible for losing the Finals last year by double-teaming Shaq and thus letting Wade roam free.
It was stupid for the first two games, but it worked because Wade was too sick to make them pay.
It was really stupid in the third game once Wade was back at full strength.
And it was insane in the fourth game once it was obvious to the entire basketball world that it wasn't working.
By the fifth game, he was still doubling some of the time, which was Iraq war level stupid.
If you're dealing with a post player who can pass out of the double team, don't double the post if you've got the personnel to avoid it. And with Dampier and Diop as a backup, Avery had the personnel.
-----
When folks say Avery is a good coach, I think they're talking about his motivational gifts, not his strategery.
-----
"Indeed, he specifically seemed to be better than Don Nelson as a coach."
Nellie is a very smart coach. The knock on him is that he's too gimmicky to handle the 4 series grind necessary to win a title.
Avery isn't gimmicky, but he seems to be strategically quite brain-dead instead.
That's plausible, Quarterican. Maybe it is a better explanation than "these guys don't work at it", I dunno. Yet something in me seems to say that a basktball player as skilled as Dirk or Garnett should be able to become pretty competent at a low post game if they had the will to do so. Green Lantern Theory?
. JVG and Sloan are two of the very best coaches out there.
People always say things like this, but I have no idea on what basis. I even agree with such opinions, but, again, with no idea why. JVG has two the best players in the league at two extraordinarily important positions. Why isn't Del Harris considered a masterful coach for failing to win a championship with the same sort of talent?
JVG may be straight NYC media-centric bias.
People always say things like this, but I have no idea on what basis.
Because he has one of the top two or three defensive teams for, like, 83 straight seasons?
Similarly, George Karl double-teamed Duncan more and more as the series wore on. And the Nuggets got less and less competitive with the Spurs as the series wore on.
In game 1, they basically didn't do any doubling of Duncan and they won. Why would you go away from that?
If you've got Nene and Camby, you play Duncan straight up and let him get his points. That way, you don't let Horry and Finley kill you from the 3 point line.
Because he has one of the top two or three defensive teams for, like, 83 straight seasons?
So what? Total championships--zero. He, like Carlisle, slows the game down to a crawl. And prior to their success this year, there was a fair bit of press wondering about whether JVG's style was limiting the number Rockets wins.
"People always say things like this, but I have no idea on what basis."
Among other things, JVG and Sloan don't do exceedingly stupid things like Avery and Karl do. Keeping it simple makes for good coaching.
Is Popavich a genius, or is he just good at not fucking up the basics?
"He, like Carlisle, slows the game down to a crawl."
Unlike Carlisle, he doesn't lose the allegiance of his players.
Is Popavich a genius, or is he just good at not fucking up the basics?
The latter, which may amount to the former. Same with Larry Brown. But, you know, actual success should factor in somehow. The Rockets have a center who is widely considered to be the best in the league, and a swingman who is just a notch below Kobe now (and well ahead of young Kobe). Add PJ and get three (should have been four) championships; add JVG and hope to get out of the first round.
Al -
I guess the logic is that a real post-game, like real NBA level point-guarding, is much less reliant on specific measurable, practicable skills than other facets of playing offense. Anyone can become a better shooter or ballhandler with more work, but it would appear to take a *loooong* time for guards to ingest the rules of correct decisionmaking to run an offense if they don't come by it naturally, and the kind of juking, move/countermove footwork and shoulderwork, finesse off the glass thing great post players do seems like it could fall in that category. I mean, Nowitzki seems like he works hard, and I *know* KG works hard, but all that hard work hasn't made KG's game much better or much broader over the last five or six years. If Nowitzki hasn't tried to improve his post game over the last few offseasons he's a freaking idiot, and I don't think he is, but it hasn't really taken. I do tend to think that he's being put to the best use possible, or almost there, in Avery's system, but the Mavs don't quite have the personnel to make it work without asking Dirk to do more than he seems capable of; he's just *not* Tim Duncan with three point range, because he'll never have Duncan's combination of world class low post AND high post games, but there's no reason Dirk can't continue to refine and exploit his variant on the high post game he's been playing the last few years, provided the Mavs still have people who can score from the blocks.
Based on what I wrote above, now I think the evolution of Nowitzki's style and skill set could be expressed as follows: when Dallas and Sacramento had a true competitive rivalry, Dirk's game was essentially the same as Sacramento-era Peja's, but now his game is more like Sacramento-era Webber's.
All GS needs is for Don Nelson to have coached whichever team they play next for five years, and they'll be set.
The key for Dallas would have been to use Dirk like Bernard King circa 1984. Set him up twelve feet out on the baseline. If fronted, backdoor to the basket. If doubled off the ball, easy drive to the lane for the ballhandler. If covered one on one, quick 12' turnaround jumper. No one on GS could have challenged that shot, so long as Dirk caught and shot without bringing the ball low.
I dunno Petey. Avery is Pop's pupil and to the extent you think Pop is great, you have to concede that Avery is above average, if not great himself. His winning record is insane. He basically took what Nellie built, threw in a little Pop, and created a team that should have been competitive for the championship.
Part of the blame obviously has to fall on avery's shoulders. But you can't ignore Dirk's failure. He was lifeless last night. Can you imagine Kobe doing the same? Or Wade? Or Duncan? Or Nash? Or Billups? Or even LBJ? No fucking way.
I think most people's intuition would be that the Warriors can't do this against the Spurs. The reason is not Pop's genius. In the Spurs the Warriors will basically be facing a slightly modified version of the Mavs. The only reason no one believes they have a chance is Duncan. Duncan is a great defender. Duncan is a great finisher. Duncan will not put up with this shit. And most importantly, Duncan is not Nowitzki
While I agree with anon's sentiment, I have to answer the question "Can you image Kobe doing the same?" in the affirmative.
Didn't he effectively already do so against Detroit in the '04 finals?
Anon,
Agreed. Spurs match up best against the warriors. Dallas was not a good passing team, thus low assist totals. So when Warriors trapped or pressured they couldn't make them pay. During the season the Spurs could break down the Warrior defense by their movement and passing, especially Duncan down low. But the Warrior defensive intensity in the playoffs has been at a much higher level, and I don't know what sort of zones Nellie could throw at them to counter Duncan. So the Warriors would likely play better against the Spurs, but given their thin bench, the question is whether they would arrive at the finals totally depleted (assuming they get there at all).
Of course, I believe I've forfeited my credibility on the topic of Golden State for as long as they last this year.
Replace "Golden State" with "NBA Basketball"
and
replace "for as long as they last this year" with "forever".
You have 24 hours.
Ephus- I agree and I don't know why Dallas wasn't doing that. Maybe Dirk can't pass out of the double effectively. Also, instead of a quick turnaround jumper he insists on making it harder with a step and fade jumper. And I didn't see a backdoor cut to the basket all night even though he was fronted most of the time. Simply pathetic. But then I was spoiled rooting for Shaq and the Lakers 5 years ago.
Re: posting Dirk 12 ft out.
If on the baseline, bad spacing and passing angles, you can't get him the ball.
If in the post, Dirk has difficulty establishing post position and isn't comfortable turning and shooting from that position.
My memory is that the Warriors didn't front Dirk much, because after the first game he didn't try to establish low position. Stephen Jackson played right up on Dirk and gave him no room to move. Dirk couldn't put the ball on the floor, so was left with the long jumper.
As I saw it the guard play of the Warriors was the difference. Terry, Harris & Stackhouse couldn't do anything defensively to stop Baron, Jackson and Richardson. On the other side of the floor when the Warriors double-teamed Dirk off the ball those guys couldn't find ways to make them pay (Harris got a few layups but not much else). Everything else came because of that major Maverick deficiency.
In that case, I'd say the fault lies at Avery's feet more than Dirk. Dirk didn't play well other than the end of game 5 but, cripes, when you are double-teamed off the ball you've got to have teammates step up and make plays. The inability of Dallas to find ways to exploit Nelson's defense was the key and the prime culprit was the gulf in the level of guard play.
I hate to bring up one of those tired college ball truisms but quality guard play will make the difference in the tournament/playoffs and it was never more apparent than in this series.
Whoever Golden State gets in the semis will be in for a real dogfight and better be ready to adapt on the fly.
"Terry, Harris & Stackhouse couldn't do anything defensively to stop Baron, Jackson and Richardson."
Where the hell was Greg Buckner? He was supposed to be the perimeter defensive specialist on the Dallas payroll.
I doubt Buckner could have done much. He's not nearly as good a defender as his rep says (he a smart player which sometimes makes him look better than he is). But, yeah Avery, try SOMETHING. Did Dallas make any adjustments at all?
Whoever Golden State gets in the semis will be in for a real dogfight and better be ready to adapt on the fly
I'm starting think this is right. I'm starting to think Warriors match up OK with the Spurs as well. I don't believe Davis is much slower than Parker, and he's a bull of a man. Manu is guardable. That leaves Duncan, and he can't beat them by himself. At a minimum, he's going to lose some boards to the Warriors, because they're active as hell.
I think the Suns are best suited to play the Warriors.
"I think the Suns are best suited to play the Warriors. "
Phoenix won the season series 3-1 including 3 and 4 point wins (the other a blowout) but in the most recent matchup that started their 9-1 finish they beat them (at home) by 5 -- 36 from Richardson, 12 assists from BD.
I'd love to see that series!
"Terry, Harris & Stackhouse couldn't do anything defensively to stop Baron, Jackson and Richardson."
That's because Baron, Jackson & Richardson (& Ellis, & Barnes) are just better basketball players than Terry, Harris & Stackhouse. I'm really surprised at how much everybody is underrating the Warriors. It's not just that the Mavs sucked. The Warriors were really, really good.
"That's because Baron, Jackson & Richardson (& Ellis, & Barnes) are just better basketball players than Terry, Harris & Stackhouse."
Easy there, fanboy.
Or alternatively, take it even further. Monta Ellis is the greatest player under 6' 4" in the history of professional basketball. Matt Barnes is better than Carmelo Anthony and Shawn Marion rolled into one.
A healthy BD, S-Jax, and J-Rich are indeed formidable. Barnes is a nice poor man's glue guy.
But likely in the second round, and definitely in the third round, you're going to be moving waaaaaaay up in class from Dallas's dysfunction.
"Did Dallas make any adjustments at all?"
At first he didn't play Diop. Then he did.
Toward the end of the series, he had Devin Harris shoot jumpshots until his elbow fell off.
As the series wore on, he seemed to instruct his players to make one on one moves into the teeth of the defense, rather than actually trying to run an offense.
I think that was about it.
You're not actually denying that "Baron, Jackson & Richardson...are just better basketball players than Terry, Harris & Stackhouse," are you, Petey? (It's genuinely not clear.) Certainly the first group of players is better than the second group of players.
"Toward the end of the series, he had Devin Harris shoot jumpshots until his elbow fell off."
Isn't this saying exactly the same thing as "Avery Johnson was severly outcoached," using different words?
I agree with SCMT on the quality of players issue (I've been banging my head against legions of brick walls that think BD is an overrated gunner). I just didn't think the gap between them was so massive.
"Isn't this saying exactly the same thing as "Avery Johnson was severly outcoached," using different words?"
Almost anything you can possible say about this series means "Avery was seriously outcoached" using different words.
For example, saying the beers were overpriced at the Oakland Colosseum means "Avery was seriously outcoached" using different words.
See how easy the analysis is?
Isn't it great when analysis is easy AND right?
Well, Petey, are you really going to argue that Dallas has a better backcourt than Golden State? I'd like to hear that one.
"Well, Petey, are you really going to argue that Dallas has a better backcourt than Golden State?"
Dallas had an overall higher talent level spread out among their active rotation. And Dallas had overall deeper talent on the bench.
But they weren't able to leverage that talent surplus into affecting the games in a positive way.
BD and S-Jax are both fun guys, and I'll be rooting for them in the next round, but they're moving from a series conducted in the NBDL to a series conducted in the NBA.
In likely the next round, and definitely in the second round, opposing coaches will find ways to exert their superior talent and schemes to frustrate the the Warrior's backcourt on the offensive end, and slice up the weak interior defense on the other end.
Much like Chicago did in the East, the Warriors killed a deeply wounded dragon. Seems like a big deal, but it ain't. The next beast to be slayed won't be one/tenth as fucked up as Dallas was.
That ain't no kinda answer (although it's all pretty true). Who do you want for your team: Davis, Jackson and J-Rich (& Monta), or Terry, Stack and Harris (& Buckner)?
Whomever above said that passing was the culprit in the dallas-gs series was absolutely correct. only 53% of made baskets are assisted for dallas this season. to me, the way they were guarding dirk, a decent passing team should've been able to put up tons of points. they mega-shaded--sometimes three guys were looking at dirk. that and the doubles, they were begging for someone other than dirk to beat them...and no one did. now, given that you're unlikely to magically make the mavs a better passing team overnight, i think you have to move to an iso offense starting with dirk on the right or left elbow, with the rest of the offense on the opposite side of the floor, if a team is going to try and duplicate golden state. which would be foolish--no team is mega-small ball like gs is, with every player interchangeably fast.
as to gs' potential matchups. to be brutally reductionist, i think gs has a very good shot against houston and almost none against utah for this reason: the point-guard gap. now, rafer alston is supposed to be guarding monta, baron or someone? inconceivable. deron williams, though? cool, collected, calm. he can definitely match-up with gs. yao, on the other hand. his conditioning still looks suspect, and even if it weren't, it's tough to imagine him running all the time in a 6, 7 game series. on the other hand, utah's got a deep frontcourt rotation and ak-47 might accumulate 15+ combined steals and blocks in a game in a hypothetical gs series.
for dallas: they might try and blow this thing up, but that seems kinda stupid. they need: an athletic bench player (maybe promote ager from within), and some sort of distributing, aggressive passing player--god knows terry isn't it.
go chicago.
All GS needs is for Don Nelson to have coached whichever team they play next for five years, and they'll be set.
Tom Scudder's comment above is the most incisive in this thread.
GS posed a matchup problem for the Mavs even before Nelson switched teams, and the combination of Nelson's in-depth knowledge of the Mavs' players (and coaches!) and the addition of Jackson/Barnes made matters worse (especially since S. Jackson is the physical 6'8" type of player who has given Dirk problems before).
But the core of the problem is the construction of the Mavs' roster. Dallas has big guys (Dirk, Damp, Diop) and small guys (Terry, Harris) who couldn't match up with a lineup of 4 or even 5 strong, athletic mid-size guards.
If the Mavs go without a center, though, it exposes Dirk as a poor defender/inside presence, and if they play a bigger guard instead of Harris, it exposes Terry's lack of PG skills. The reason Dallas won 67 games despite these flaws is that it took the unorthodox GS lineup (and Nellie's detailed knowledge) to make them obvious.
This was all revealed when the Warriors blew out the Mavs in Oakland two months ago. The Dallas coaches (not only Avery but Del Harris, known as an outstanding tactitian) didn't lose their ability to make adjustments; they just didn't have the personnel to make them.
A couple more notes... in the last offseason, the Mavs did bring in Buckner and Devean George to improve their ability to defend strong, athletic guards (after Wade ripped the Mavs up), and Avery started them in the last regular-season game against GS to try to get them some firsthand experience.
But it was too little, too late because (1) both had been hurt and didn't have a lot of familiarity playing with the Dallas system & starters and (2) neither was really athletic enough to hang with GS. (I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mavs chase Pietrus in the offseason this time around.)
Also, on the system point -- because they lack a Nash/Kidd-type playmaker, the Mavs relied on their offensive system to generate open looks, an important part of which was Dampier setting screens. Which is why, counterintuitively, the Mavs' offense suddenly became disjointed when they adjusted their lineup to match up with GS's small-ball.
Petey said:
"Seems like a big deal, but it ain't. The next beast to be slayed won't be one/tenth as fucked up as Dallas was."
Didn't you pick the Mavs to close out the Warriors even after the Warriors took the first game?
Dallas "fucked up"? Maybe only in 20/20 hindsight. But more likely, the Warriors had the match up advantage, AND 20,000 intensely insane fans to enforce that advantage. Dallas was/is still the most capable team to beat the Spurs or Suns.
Swopa,
"GS posed a matchup problem for the Mavs even before Nelson switched teams"
Not quite correct. Warriors beat the Mavs last year even when they were starting Dunleavy, Murphy and Adonal Foyle (my favorite Warrior) at the 3,4 and 5 spots, a much slower and less athletic team. I can't explain why they dominated the Mavs with that lineup.
"If the Mavs go without a center, though, it exposes Dirk as a poor defender/inside presence, and if they play a bigger guard instead of Harris, it exposes Terry's lack of PG skills. The reason Dallas won 67 games despite these flaws is that it took the unorthodox GS lineup (and Nellie's detailed knowledge) to make them obvious."
Agreed. Plus the Dallas jump shooters are pretty good, but not with the pressure those insane Warrior fans put on them. They bricked some open jump shots.
Warriors beat the Mavs last year even when they were starting Dunleavy, Murphy and Adonal Foyle (my favorite Warrior) at the 3,4 and 5 spots, a much slower and less athletic team. I can't explain why they dominated the Mavs with that lineup.
Because of the problems Baron Davis' and Jason Richardson's size/athleticism (combined with unusually hot outside shooting) posed for Terry and Devin Harris.
You raise a good point about the psychological pressure on the Dallas shooters, too -- it starts with the system being disrupted and not getting their shots the same way they're used to, but when opponents neutralize Dirk (as vs. Miami last year), you can imagine them starting to think, "Damn, if I don't hit shots, we're in trouble," which is of course the beginning of disaster.
End of Nets game. Memo to self: EXHALE.
if they play a bigger guard instead of Harris, it exposes Terry's lack of PG skills.
The problem is that even Harris doesn't have great classic PG skills. Harris is a good penetrator and a decent defender usually, but he is not good at the classic PG distributor role. Ironically, Dallas used to have a classic PG on the roster this season - Anthony Johnson - and traded him away for a six pack and and some used towels.
Harris was so good last year in the playoffs, but obviously wasn't cut out for this series.
Ironically, Dallas used to have a classic PG a few seasons ago - Steve Nash - but chose to let him go in order to pursue Dampier. . . who didn't even play this series.
Actually, since Nash left at the beginning of July and Dampier wasn't acquired until nearly two months later, I think the link between the two is vastly overstated.
You have to remember that when Nash left, Dallas had just been bounced in the first round and Nash had just turned 30.
If Cuban had known Nash would play even better over the next three years, I'm sure he would have agreed to a max deal. But he undoubtedly expected Nash to decline as Finley had, and was planning to rebuild with a young core of Dirk, Howard, and Harris.
By the end of the summer, though, when they had traded for Terry, Stackhouse seemed healthy enough to contribute, and Avery Johnson came on board, Cuban either lost his nerve for rebuilding or was convinced by Avery they could still compete and should sign Dampier at C.
If Cuban had known in early July that he could get Dampier for the package Mullin eventually took (Laettner, Eschmeyer, and Najera), he probably would have kept Nash as well.
"The problem is that even Harris doesn't have great classic PG skills. Harris is a good penetrator and a decent defender usually, but he is not good at the classic PG distributor role."
Yup. He's the poor man's Tony Parker.
"Ironically, Dallas used to have a classic PG on the roster this season - Anthony Johnson - and traded him away for a six pack and and some used towels."
Last summer, I claimed in these virtual pages that Anthony Johnson would end up playing a key role for the Mavs come playoff time. Dallas bizarrely made sure they proved me wrong on that one.
They really ended up missing him.
-----
"Actually, since Nash left at the beginning of July and Dampier wasn't acquired until nearly two months later, I think the link between the two is vastly overstated."
Strongly disagree. The money freed up by letting Nash go enabled them to get Dampier. They let go of Nash because they thought they could get Dampier.
"If Cuban had known in early July that he could get Dampier for the package Mullin eventually took (Laettner, Eschmeyer, and Najera), he probably would have kept Nash as well."
Even Mark Cuban couldn't have afforded a $150m payroll.
-----
Unlike everyone else on the planet, I actually think the Nash for Dampier "trade" was a smart move on the Mavs part.
You get a guy like Dampier or Ben Wallace specifically so you can play guys like Shaquille and other top centers without having to double team. That's a big asset if you want to win titles. Who woulda thunk that Avery would decide to double team Shaq in the Finals anyway, pissing away the whole reason for paying Dampier? And who woulda thunk that Dallas wouldn't have bothered to have a low-rent classic PG on their payroll like Anthony Johnson specifically to have the flexibility for a series like the one they just lost?
And Bill Simmons speaks the truth:
I keep getting e-mails from Bulls fans wondering why (A) I haven't written about their monumental sweep of a Miami team that could have doubled as the cast for "Cocoon 3," (B) I haven't admitted that I was wrong about Chicago declining to trade for Pau Gasol last February and (C) I haven't recanted my running argument that Chicago should have kept Tyson Chandler and not signed Ben Wallace. First of all, I picked the Bulls in five; it's not like the Miami sweep was shocking. Miami was a complete mess. Second, I still think they should have traded for Gasol, although it's clear that Luol Deng is untouchable at this point -- I'll admit it, I definitely underestimated his talents -- but still, they couldn't have gotten Memphis to bite for Thabo Sefolosha, Tyrus Thomas, expiring contracts and the Knicks' pick? And third, I still don't believe they can beat the Pistons without any low-post scoring. You're not beating the Pistons with jumpers. You're just not. That's why I'm picking the Pistons in six. So if that happens, and you think it was a good move to spend $64 million on Wallace for a second-round exit that would have happened, anyway, I don't know what to tell you.
Phoenix over San Antonio
Detroit over Chicago
Not Warriors over GS
NJ over the LeBrons
Low degree of confidence in all 4 picks.
They couldn't have gotten Memphis to bite for Thabo Sefolosha, Tyrus Thomas, expiring contracts and the Knicks' pick?
Or, hell, Chris Duhon and 1000 Scott Skiles bobblehead dolls. Jerry West hasn't been exceptional of late, but he isn't senile, either. Sometimes I wonder if Simmons even follows the NBA anymore.
And CLE will beat NJ. Sorry, Al.
"Or, hell, Chris Duhon and 1000 Scott Skiles bobblehead dolls."
I agree with you on the technicality.
Luol had to be part of the deal. But it was still the right deal for the Bulls.
Unlike Simmons and Matthew, I wasn't sleeping on Deng's potential. But Deng's goodness doesn't mean the Bulls are better off with him than with Gasol.
And weren't you the one relentlessly mocking Tyson Chandler last summer, SCMT? Wanna rethink that one yet?
-----
"And CLE will beat NJ."
Hard series to figure. The LeBrons win for sure if they get Ilgauskus involved. But, of course, they won't do that.
Mike Brown makes Avery Johnson look like a genius.
I picked NJ in part because I couldn't stomach the boringness of picking all 4 home teams. But in reality, I think this series is a pick 'em.
And weren't you the one relentlessly mocking Tyson Chandler last summer, SCMT? Wanna rethink that one yet?
Totally. OTOH, I think I made fun of the Wallace deal, too. And Chandler remains a poor offensive player, so not the post player the Bulls need.
Comments closed May 18, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Damn, I want Houston to win. All in all, they're a better team than Utah, but it's much easier to see the Warriors beating Houston. Apart from TMac, the Rockets are s l o w.
Posted by too many steves | May 4, 2007 11:36 AM