| 0 |
Subject: OT: NBA real salary cap numbers
Posted by: F GUMP
- [352161623] Tue, Aug 19, 2003, 05:52
Does anyone know a site where the current cap numbers for each player in the NBA can be seen?
Lots of times I see in the news that trades are being considered for "cap" reasons. And when a trade goes down (such as Mavs-Warriors), contract numbers are then tossed into the sports report. But is this just side info that the trading teams toss to reporters? or is there some way where a fan can look these things up for themselves?
Are there any reliable sites that list the contract cap numbers/salaries of NBA players one by one? or list the numbers on a team roster page? or whatever? Any URL addy's for online info would be much appreciated.
Thanks. |
| 1 | samuli
ID: 8510276
Tue, Aug 19, 2003, 09:48
|
Lo and behold.
|
| 2 | JerryLewis
ID: 37750191
Tue, Aug 19, 2003, 11:43
|
Interesting site. And they already have it updated for that Mavs, Golden State trade.
The Mavs are in cap hell and I bet they never win a championship.
|
| 3 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Tue, Aug 19, 2003, 15:49
|
Great site, Samuli. Thanks much!!
|
| 4 | culdeus
Donor
ID: 4171112
Tue, Aug 19, 2003, 17:10
|
Pgunn, the site isn't updated for the individual salaries just the total. You are quite the Mavs hater I'll give you that. I'd say they have a better shot than the Knicks or Blazers and for sure your TWolves.
|
| 5 | JerryLewis
ID: 137251916
Tue, Aug 19, 2003, 17:30
|
I don't know why you keep calling me PGUNN bud?
Well, I'm not a MAVS hater but I looked at the cap situations on that website and the MAVS have a 77 million payroll for the next 5 years. If that's not CAP hell I don't know what is.
As far as their chances go, they didn't win last year and I don't think they have improved themselves this offseason so why do you think they have a shot all of the sudden? Don't tell me you think Antawn Jamison and Danny Fortson puts them over the top. LOL. Talk about overrated, those two are the definition of the word.
|
| 6 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Tue, Aug 19, 2003, 23:47
|
JLewis, I followed up on your comments and spent time looking at the Mavs cap numbers in upcoming years, and the ramifications. I also spent time looking at the CBA itself (the entire 241 page document is online), and also reviewed the cap number status of the other top-tier teams, as well as the real-life practices of how teams work the cap these days (as opposed to the mythical concept of "staying under the cap", which is neither required nor done by most teams).
The question your comment raises is this: must a team stay close to the cap, and even get under it periodically, in order to keep from gagging themselves and being stuck with a bad roster?
The answer seems to be: not necessarily. In the old CBA, such was definitely the case, because once you were over the cap, you couldnt make trades until and unless you got below it. However, the new rules allow trades for teams over the cap, and if they are willing to take on the extra salary, they can even take the bigger end of a 115% for 100% trade in cap salaries. Thus a team like the MAVS, even though eaten up in salary, is really only limited by Cuban's willingness to add payroll. As long as he says "go ahead", there is no such thing as "cap hell." Teams over the cap can even do sign-and-trades of players they dont want, to make a trade: Dallas really didnt plan to bring back Popeye Jones, who was a Free Agent, but included him in the trade with GS by signing-and-trading him at a salary that evened out the cap numbers on the trade. (And Popeye won, cause he got a year of Free Money, just to be a throw in on a trade and play sparingly for a year.)
There are indeed dangers. One is an owner getting cold feet: fortunately for the Mavs, Cuban is still gung-ho all the way. The other big danger is getting a roster full of players who cant play. But as shown by their best-in-NBA record last year, the Mavs are far from that problem.
Does this trade hurt the Mavs? Only time will tell. From what I can see, the Mavs traded small-and-good (Van Exel) for big-n-good (Jamison and maybe Fortson), with the rest being spares. Mavs needed to be bigger: Van Exel and Nash on the floor at the same time, with Finley at the 3, left them exposed size-wise in a significant way. None of the players on either side of the trade can play a lick of D, but the bigger players can Rebound much better than Van Exel, which was a major struggle for the Mavs last year.
Additionally, Van Exel is 31, while Jamison/Fortson are both 27. The younger players give Mavs chance for longer continuity. Thats a Plus to the Mavs on that score.
I am a Mavs fan and hated to see Van Exel go. But you gotta "give to get" some times, and they certainly "sold" Van Exel when he was at the top of his value (recall they got him a year ago as a throw-in they were FORCED to take in the JHoward-LaFrentz swap, cause no one else would take on his salary). Give the Mavs a strong "A+" for such a monstrous buy-low, sell-high.
And before you go trashing the Mavs' trade as the ultimate disater, you might look back at what they have accomplished in their prior trades under Cuban. 3 years ago, they started out with Laettner-HDavis-CAlexander-EThomas, and traded that uninspiring group of spare players to Washington for Juwan Howard, then traded Howard to Denver the next year, and then some of what they got from Denver to GS just now.
So what do they have to show for essentially the original Laettner-HDavis-CAlexander-EThomas combo? They have netted (not counting the spares) LaFrentz plus Jamison plus maybe Fortson. I dont care how you look at it, that is a monstrous upgrade in talent. And as I recall, when they received Howard, all the skeptics said "wow, the Mavs have just put themselves in cap hell." That was a demonstrably wrong analysis, cause their roster has gotten BETTER not worse each step since.
Step back and wait. It may be that what used to be thought of as "cap hell" in the NBA in actuality is "more valuable chips to use in the next big trade" - in which case, the Mavs are way AHEAD of everyone else because they have more chips to play with, when they want to add talent.
|
| 7 | JerryLewis
ID: 137251916
Wed, Aug 20, 2003, 04:48
|
Nice post GUMP.
The only problem with trading is that you have to have another team who wants somebody on your team at their current salary.
Who in their right mind is going to try and acquire Michael Finley when he is making 13,14,15 million? Raef Lafrentz at close to 10 million a year? Jamison at 12,13,14 million a year? I bet you Golden State is overjoyed about losing that salary. Fortson and Chris Mills at 6 million a year? Tariq Abdul Wahid at 7 million a year?
Sure you can trade players but NOBODY is going to take these guys at what they are getting paid. About the only guy on the MAVS who is worth what he is getting paid is NOWITZKI. Other than him, Dallas is stuck with this team for the next 4 or 5 years.
Good Luck to the MAVS. I don't think this team is good enough to go all the way. Sorry.
|
| 8 | JerryLewis
ID: 137251916
Wed, Aug 20, 2003, 04:50
|
Oh, NASH is worth what he's getting paid also. Him and NOWITSKI.
|
| 9 | culdeus
Donor
ID: 36715207
Wed, Aug 20, 2003, 08:32
|
Well for arguments sake Avery had one year at 5.5 left and Mills has one year at 6 left. Not really a long term headache there.
Fin at 12 mil is the 20th highest paid player, right about where he should be IMO.
I do think someone will take on Fortson later on down the road. People said the same player hating things about Nick before he got in the friendly confines of the Cuban chartered jet.
Championship team, maybe not, looking back I'd say the first part of this decade will compare favorably with any time in NBA history as far as number of super elite teams. Never in the 80s or 90s were there a half dozen teams that could truly make a run at it and certainly never were they all stacked in one conference. For a second tier franchise like the Mavs finishing second in the NBA last year was great. Just matching that once again in the next couple years would be more than I could ask for.
|
| 10 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Wed, Aug 20, 2003, 17:20
|
JLewisYour observation that "you have to have another team who wants somebody on your team at their current salary" is a valid observation. However, I have found that there is another side to that equation, that many fans have overlooked, and that maybe Cuban is mining to his advantage.
The other side is this: at any one time, there seem to be typically more "sellers" than "buyers" in the NBA Trade Market. Part of this has to do with the cap rules and luxury tax - owners hate to pay the tax, yet 3/4 of the teams are OVER the tax threshold. Thus on the bulk of teams there is a subtle pressure to "get rid of salary". Additionally, it is essentially IMPOSSIBLE to field a competitive (for a title) team unless you ARE over the luxury cap. Currently, of the top 5-6 teams, only San Antonio is under that number.
So from a pure economics standpoint, look at it this way: if everyone wants to sell and few want to buy, where is the best "value" to be obtained? ANSWER: in a Buyers Market, you want to be the Buyer. Or, in this case, you want to be the only one ADDING salary.
You raise a valid objection: what if the MAVS end up with no tradable commodities? However, only time will tell if your feeling that "NOBODY is going to take these guys at what they are getting paid" is accurate. I suspect you are wrong - based on the fact that everyone said the same thing about Juwan Howard (traded twice), Van Exel (traded 3 times), Jamison (traded once), etc. You see, where the logic falls apart is this: when SOMEONE is "desperate to sell" (and, as I outlined above, there are a ton of sellers, and few buyers, so there will always be someone who is desperate in such a market), the desperate seller will accept a swap that otherwise they would never consider.
Furthermore, you have said that the players the MAVS have are "not worth" their salaries. Maybe, maybe not. Are many of them somewhat overpaid? Perhaps yes. But it only takes one good year for that perception to change (ex: Van Exel). Additionally, the bulk of them are not WAYYYYYY over the line.
Lets use LaFrentz who (at 8 Million, not 10) is paid about the same as Brad Miller. LaFrentz is a valid big man who is mobile, can shoot the 3, block shots, and is young. Is he the best C in the NBA? Of course not. Is he a banger and a board monster? No. Would someone overpay LaFrentz a bit to get him, and be glad to use him as a building block on their team, if by getting him they could get rid of someone they were DESPERATE to sell? Yes, definitely. Of the players you listed in your post, the only one who doesnt have close enough value to trade would be Abdul-Wahad - - yet he COULD be tradable in the right circumstance. Thats because in many cases the commodity that is being traded (in the eyes of owners/GMs) is "contracts" rather than players.
A trade that opened up my eyes was when Minnesota traded Terrell Brandon in that big 4-way this summer. Brandon is injured, no court value at all. His contract, a monstrous $11-12 Million!!! So no one wants him? Au contraire, EVERYONE wanted him (ie, all the "sellers" wanted him) - cause he will lower their cap number in a year. Nutty? Yes. But when sellers compete and some get desperate, they will do desperate things.
Now the other factor is this, and it is a key to understand. The GM/owners who are Sellers, after they dump salary, have a shell of a team. So they start paying big numbers to their best players, to get competitive again. (Examples: Jamison with GS, Brand with Clips, etc). However, they build up the roster, and before they have time and talent to get really competitive, they hit the luxury tax number. (Remember, even after a team gets some talent, they have to play together a few years to get some cohesiveness. It takes patience.) And in some cases, the owner looks at a team winning about half their games, sees he is paying for a "luxury team" (in his mind), and starts thinking that his players are overpaid and salary needs to be dumped. So those best players - or maybe the 2nd or 3rd best ones on a team - get tossed into the "gotta sell" mix. So you end up with a constant set of new teams, year after year, jumping into the "gotta sell" mode.
So, as i see it, if you have the cojones to be a Buyer, and you have the patience to wait and look for the deals, you can make your talent base better and better.
(continued below, with a trade analysis that will blow your mind.....)
|
| 11 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Wed, Aug 20, 2003, 18:44
|
JLewis, take a look at how the Mavs trade unfolded, and you will be amazed. I am using info I have gleaned from press conferences, local interviews, a few logical assumptions therefrom, and from statements earlier in the year, to evaluate and analyze what went down. I am analyzing from the Mavs point of view.
To be fair and accurate, I am going to leave the "this guy has the talent the Mavs need" decisions up to the Mavs, rather than trying to say who will help them on the court and who wont. So using the Mavs evaluations, here is who they got, and who was a throw-in.
WHO THE MAVS WERE TRADING FOR:
At the core, the Mavs were originally trading for 2 players that they felt would improve their team. The 2 players they wanted were Fortson and Welsch!
Fortson was on their Short List of players a month ago that they were targeting for rebound/big man help. (August 7 Star-Telegram: according to Nelson, the team is looking at Dale Davis, Antonio Davis, Kurt Thomas, Vitaly Potapenko, Brian Grant, Erick Dampier, Danny Fortson and Marcus Camby as possible trade targets.)
Welsch is a Euro that the Mavs have coveted and tried to pry loose from GS before. http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/story?id=1599372 The Mavs tried to trade up and take the 6-7 guard in the 2002 draft and have been trying to trade for him since. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/basketball/6574952.htm
GS apparently asked for Van Exel for the 2 desired players, adding Mills as a cap balancer who the Mavs could then send along in another trade (his $6M comes off the books in a year, so - like Terell Brandon was - Mills is a desirable commodity to many). At this point, it was a potential 3-way, with "Mills-for-someone" to be included from a Team 3.
But the Mavs balked at Van Exel for Fortson+Welsch+trade fodder: in part, probably because they knew GS was desperate to get rid of Fortson and wanted/needed Van Exel with the loss of Arenas. So from GS view the trade was Welsch for Van Exel, and Mavs said "we want a lot more", knowing they could get it.
So GS added Jamison, their best player - justifying it as a way to "clear cap space" and feeling that Van Exel+Dunleavy (being moved to 1st team) would be better for them than Jamison. At this point, the Mavs agreed: they had a BIG hole at Small Forward last year. They added all the junk off the bottom of their bench to balance the salaries (AJohnson and Rigadeau and Eschmeyer and Popeye were basically 12th-16th man last year) and the deal was done.
So for Van Exel + Junk, the Mavs got the Big Man/Rebounder (that they really were looking for), the Prospect (that they had been trying to acquire), and the Best Player (that will fit in nicely in the Small Forward hole). In addition, they got a Trade Commodity that they can send along for more, most likely.
In summary, I have 3 points:
(1) Look at how much the Desperate Sellers gave up, just to be able to sell.
(2) Look at how much more the Mavs got than they should have, if there was not a team desperate to "get rid of contracts"
(3) Look at all that the Mavs acquired for someone who fits the "overpaid untradable" description. (Van Exel, a nice player, still is VERY overpaid: his remaining contract is 3 yrs - $35.5M)
(4) The basic trade was announced as Jamison-for-VanExel, but it was really Fortson and Welsch that the Mavs were looking for, and Jamison was an add-on. (But GS certainly cant say "we gave away Jamison as a throw in on a trade")
In light of all this, I cant criticize the Mavs deal in any way. Time will tell if the new players help them, but the Mavs have better expertise than we do as to player evaluation - and these were the players THEY think they want/need.
|
| 12 | Micheal
ID: 58748214
Thu, Aug 21, 2003, 06:46
|
I called that Brandon contract back on Jul 1. Post # 19. The only thing I was close to being right about in the off-season.
|
| 13 | Micheal
ID: 58748214
Thu, Aug 21, 2003, 08:28
|
GS apparently asked for Van Exel for the 2 desired players, adding Mills as a cap balancer - F Gump
I don't think that's true. The numbers don't add up for it to be. If all they were going to trade was Van X, then the most they could receive back in salaries is 115% + 100K of his contract, roughly 12,648,800. Mills, Welsch and Fortson total 13,355,171.
The GM/owners who are Sellers, after they dump salary, have a shell of a team. So they start paying big numbers to their best players, to get competitive again.- post #10
I don't agree there either. If they have a player under contract for 4 years, why would they give him more money for the team to get better when they already have him locked up for 4 years. If you're talking FA, then they don't pay him more to get better, they pay him more to keep him and hope he doesn't go somewhere else.
At the core, the Mavs were originally trading for 2 players that they felt would improve their team. The 2 players they wanted were Fortson and Welsch! So the players they really wanted were Fortson and Welsch.
But the Mavs balked at Van Exel for Fortson+Welsch+trade fodder: That whole paragraph doesn't make sense to me. Why would they balk when that's who they originally wanted? To acquire a player with a huge contract and who needs shots?
|
| 14 | sosa
ID: 586431312
Thu, Aug 21, 2003, 13:50
|
The Pistons have reportedly just pulled off a Cliff Robinson and Pepe Sanchez for Bob Sura deal with Golden State, looks like another brilliant move by Joe Dumars seeing as how Sura only has one year left on his contract and Uncle Cliffy has two.
|
| 15 | RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 42121814
Thu, Aug 21, 2003, 14:12
|
Was starting to wonder about all those Center/Forwards that were beginning to gather up in Det.
|
| 16 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Thu, Aug 21, 2003, 17:45
|
Michael, good questions raised. Let me clear them up, if I can.
1. The numbers don't add up ...
True the numbers dont add up EXACTLY, but they are very close to the same general ballpark. Remember Dallas had the junk on the end of their bench to toss into the mix with Van Exel. So was it Van Exel + Popeye (at some sign-n-trade number to be determined)? Van Exel + Rigadeau?
2. If they have a player under contract...why would they give him more money
My point was valid, but apparently I didnt express it well. What I was trying to say was, after the "sellers" strip their roster down, then after that the "sellers" become "buyers" for a period of time. During that time, they try to acquire talent or to keep talent, and are willing to offer big contracts. HOWEVER, at some point, many of them get spooked when they get into "TaxLand" unless they are winning big. And at that point, many look for a way to dump contracts of players with talent.
3. The Mavs balked ...Why would they balk when that's who they originally wanted?
My point was that the Mavs balked cause they recognized they could get MORE talent from GS for Van Exel, if they pushed - knowing that from the GS point of view, all GS was "giving up" originally (in Fortson+Mills+Welsch) was Welsch. (The others were ones that GS wanted to Give Away any way they could.)
Re Jamison: you said he is a player "with a huge contract and who needs shots". But that doesnt scare Dallas, as long as there is lots of talent and the price is right (ie, cheap). Remember, Van Exel was that exact same description ("huge contract, many shots").
Further, Jamison adds size/rebounds (a need) whereas VanExel (when they acquired him) added small (which they already had TOO much of). VanExel obviously worked well. I bet Jamison does too. If Jamison replaces Van Exel's points, plus increases the rebounds for the team, then they essentially got their BigMan that they were seeking (Fortson) and their Prospect that they were seeking (Welsch) for free.
|
| 17 | The Collenium
Sustainer
ID: 336282311
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 13:49
|
The fact that I largely agree with Gump is irrelevant to the fact that I love reading posts that thought out and deliberate. The bar for intelligent posts has really gone up. F Gump, keep'em coming.
|
| 18 | Ender
Donor
ID: 377372014
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 16:12
|
This is what has been missing lately around here (last hoops and this baseball season). Nice job, Gump.
|
| 19 | JerryLewis
ID: 217342015
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 16:34
|
Yea, he made some nice posts but he's also WRONG.
The MAVS will be out of the playoffs after 2 rounds again next year. :)
I don't think that trade improves them much and it might cause problems. JAMISON isn't used to being a role player and FORTSON is a head case who is always injured.
|
| 20 | PGunn's Number 1 Fan
ID: 6838118
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 16:52
|
PGunn, you so kah-ray-zee!!!
|
| 21 | PGunn's Number 1 Fan
ID: 6838118
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 16:52
|
I commend you as well F GUMP.
|
| 22 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 17:41
|
Wow, thanks for the compliments, guys!!!
JLewis, no where in my posts did I say that the MAVS would (or wouldnt) now win a championship. What I did say was that they upgraded their talent base by a willingness to add salary when others were ditching salary.
However, I will say a couple of things.
(1) To criticize the talent and potential of Jamison and Fortson (in comparison to Van Exel) requires a microscopic "search for a flaw" in what the Mavs have done. Jamison and Van Exel are the same type of player, similar contract, different sized bodies (ie, Jamison will replace Van Exel's offense, plus add Rebounding on the side - 7.5 a game over a career is very solid). Fortson is a Rodman type (roto-rebounder, no offense) that had a weird year at GS last year ("injuries" and "attitude" are far from the whole story) and who is still young. [IMPORTANT NOTE: The Mavs got outrebounded badly in most games last year - BUT when they won on the Boards, they beat everybody.]
Every player has flaws in their game that can be hit on. Every player has the possibility of bringing Negatives rather than Positives when they are traded. But the Mavs merely need for those players to play their "usual game" in order for the trade to be a Big Plus to the Mavs. And as to attitude: players tend to get a GREAT attitude when going from a hopeless losing situation to a winner.
(2) Will the Mavs win a championship? Who knows. I don't, and you don't. However, give them credit for (a) assembling lots of talent, and (b) making it possible for the talent to have several years to gel into the best team it can be. The fact that these players are young, already a good team, and on long-term contracts is a positive, not a negative. The best any team can hope for is "a chance to win" and "a team with the talent to compete year after year". It took Jordan 4 years or so to get to Championship 1. Shaq was in the league 6 or so years, and with the Lakers several, before he won. Olajuwon, 10 years? Pistons were together most of the 80s before they won back-to-back. Each team takes a while to get better by playing together, and "opportunity years" pop up here and there as other teams go down in talent.
This team has gotten better and better every year, you cant deny the history. They may not ever have the ability to beat Shaq or Duncan (although, who else can???). But if you cant be better at Center, do you give up? (Last I recall, there were no Shaqs or Duncans on the Trading Block!) or do you upgrade other positions, get better, and hope for the best? Time will tell if they are ever good enough to win it all - but even if this isnt "The Final Piece", it is definitely a Step in the Right Direction, in my opinion.
|
| 23 | JerryLewis
ID: 217342015
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 17:49
|
I nominate F GUMP for "HOMER" OF THE YEAR.
Your support of the MAVS and positive outlook is admirable, but it may be blinding you to REALITY. Don't get me wrong their a good team and the trade might improve them but I see 3 or 4 teams who are better in the WEST.
|
| 24 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 20:16
|
Hmmm, you make 2 points: (1) "3 or 4 teams are better in the WEST" and (2) "the trade might improve them".
So they are not the best, you say - and they make a move that even YOU admit "might improve them". And that is somehow a BAD thing????
Yes I am a Mavs fan. If it makes me a "homer" to applaud my team for making a move that virtually EVERY expert thinks has upgraded their talent level, and for continuing to be aggressive in trying to add talent, then call me a
HOMER!!!!.
Call me Homer and Jethro. Homer Bush. Winslow Homer. Epic poet Homer. City of Homer (in Alaska or Georgia or Illinois). A Homer crushed by the Babe or by Barry Bonds. Or even Homer Simpson. D'oh!
PS - By the way, what is YOUR affiliation, that has you so agitated over the Mavs getting better? Are you a Spurs, Lakers, or Kings fan, and worried about the Mavs train that has been gaining steam in the rear view mirror? Are you a fan of a team mired in mediocrity, that the Mavs have zoomed past in the last few years? Are you a fan of a borderline playoff team that squeaks into the playoffs then makes a quick exit every year? Is your team in constant "rebuilding" but making no progress? 'Fess up!
|
| 25 | JerryLewis
ID: 217342015
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 20:21
|
I'm a BUCKS fan. They have no chance for the next 10 years. LOL.
You're just overly excited about that trade. You can't make an unbiased assessment of the team. Don't worry about it. It happens.
That's why the say to never make BETS on your favorite teams. You're love for the team clouds reality. PEACE.
|
| 26 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 21:21
|
Yes I like the trade. Nope I havent made a wrong assessment of the team as a result though: all I have said is that the trade improves their talent level, which is accurate. If saying that is biased, then virtually EVERY expert on the NBA is also a biased fan of the Mavs, cause thats what they all are saying: "the Mavs received way more talent in this trade than they gave up".
Sorry about the Bucks. Two years ago they were the Eastern Conference version of the Mavs, with a Big 3 and all offense. But the Bucks were scared by the mythical concept of "cap hell", didnt have any patience to let their team play together for a few years and get better, and went backwards, didnt they? At the same time the Mavs ignored it, and chose to keep their core and ADD talent and cap numbers. Want to trade teams right now, after all the supposedly cap-unfriendly trades the Mavs made???? The Mavs and Bucks comparison pretty well demonstrate my points about the Cap.
It is better to be in "Cap Hell" (if there is such a thing) than in "Lack of Talent Hell". You keep the Bucks, I'll take the Mavs - even if they are (supposedly) making bad trades. LOL
|
| 27 | SmackDown
Donor
ID: 36731232
Sun, Aug 24, 2003, 01:47
|
B Grant and Eddie Jones almost make as much as TD in a season? What am I missing here?
|
| 28 | Memphis Fan
ID: 36851518
Sun, Aug 24, 2003, 03:06
|
Except the difference between the Bucks and Mavs was coaching in my opinion. Karl lost control of the team and everything fell apart. Players were fighting, ego's clashing.. something the Mavs never had to deal with.
I would have built a team around Thomas, Ray and maybe Redd. But I can't fault them for picking up D. Mason. They have some good young talent. They're down but I wouldn't count them out. They'll get back up.
|
| 29 | havenbros
Donor
ID: 58729257
Mon, Aug 25, 2003, 09:04
|
Nice job, Gump -- hope you find the inspiration to give that kind of quality analysis to matters that don't involve the Mavs.
The truly amazing thing in this thread is that a post by P Gunn resulted in something useful being said.
|
| 30 | JerryLewis
ID: 2971259
Mon, Aug 25, 2003, 10:42
|
Havenbros, is analysis done by a HOMER quality?
Doubtful.
It's like getting Chicago sports analysis from those 4 Chicago fans on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE. Think they called them the "SuperFans"
Yea, I would like to see him do some posts like that about teams he's not CRAZY about.
This is the last time I'm gonna say this I'M NOT PGUNN.
|
| 31 | F GUMP
ID: 2712715
Wed, Aug 27, 2003, 16:42
|
Havenbros ... Thank you for the compliments. It is BECAUSE OF the fact that I have followed the Mavs closely, and have access to in-town info and interviews, that I can offer analysis on them in depth. I don't follow other teams well enough to have the same insights. Sorry.
As to you, JLewis -
I have been off of these boards for about 2 years now, but have reviewed the back threads to get the scoop on PGUNN - and I see why most assume that JerryLewis is one and the same. Mr Lewis, you have continually attacked and vilified me Personally as if I am inherently stupid, because of the fact that I disagree with your OPINION. [Interestingly enough, most of the NBA experts across the country see things MY way rather than yours (FORD, who writes in the NBA Insider on ESPN, termed it this way: the Mavs "strip mined" the Warriors roster for talent).] But instead of replying in kind when you try to infer that I am some dumb "homer", I instead have replied to your opinions, and given reasons for agreeing and/or disagreeing - but never in there have I made any statements about YOU. I have refrained from making any kind of written assumptions here on YOUR personal intelligence and/or bias - and would appreciate you limit your tone to expressing your opinions and stating where you agree or disagree with mine, if you must reply. In the manner you use the term, I am far from a "Homer" (since apparently you fail to recognize sarcasm, let me assure you that Post 24 was sarcastic and NOT an actual agreement of your nonsensical "you are a homer, and thus too blind to have a clue" type of attitude).
Although I admittedly like the Mavs, I am far from a wide-eyed "Mavs can do no wrong" kinda person, and they are as open to criticism as to credit in my book. That does not Disqualify Me from stating an honest and well-reasoned opinion on the Mavs - and in fact, being closer to the scene, it may even make me MORE able to offer insight.
I refuse to rachet up the rhetoric, and ask you to stop the nonsense. Thank you.
|
| 32 | JerryLewis
ID: 2971259
Thu, Aug 28, 2003, 00:07
|
I don't follow other teams well enough to have the same insights, Sorry
That's pretty much the DEFINITION of a HOMER isn't it?
I didn't say you're posts were bad. But, I could tell you were a MAVS fan from the beginning.
|
| 34 | JerryLewis
ID: 2971259
Thu, Aug 28, 2003, 12:24
|
Guess we'll have to let the season play out and see what happens.
FYI, I bet their is plenty of GURUPIES who could give you in depth analysis of every team in the NBA all the way down to the 12th player sitting on every bench. Don't undersestimate some of these guys. I could probably do it myself.
And their is guys who know Football, Hockey, and Baseball just as well. To do well in Fantasy Leagues you have to know the players. It's as simple as that.
|
| 35 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Thu, Aug 28, 2003, 13:16
|
You may be correct, there may be plenty of Gurupies who have insight across the Board. I know many who play here are incredibly knowledgeable. However, I admit I dont know ALL the players on all the teams in Basketball - I havent ever played Fantasy Basketball, because I havent been willing to invest the time yet. I do follow the NBA in general as a fan, though, and have a pretty decent GENERAL knowledge of teams and players.
Yes I know all about people who know all the "Valuable" Players in a sport from Fantasy homework. (When I play, I have always done quite well: you can look up my past results: the Guru Registry has my final standings for every online fantasy sports game I ever played.) I also suspect, however, that in a Fantasy Basketball World you would tend to know "players to have" rather than focusing on the Talent and Needs of each NBA Team in particular. There is more to an NBA Team than "do they have desirable fantasy players?" (In the same fashion, in baseball I would know ARod is a monster SS to have on my Fantasy Team, but I might or might not know what holes as a team the Rangers need to fill)
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|