Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
These deals got wiped out in the server meltdown, so I'm offering them up again:

Curry/Davis/ERob/Fizer/Blount/Gill for
Walker/Jamison/Howard/Bradley/Stefansson

or

Curry/Davis/ERob/Crawford/Gill for
Walker/Jamison/Howard/Delk/Best

or

Davis/Blount/Crawford for
Jamison/Howard/Delk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
I wouldn't do any of those. That simply isn't enough in return for Dallas. I wouldn't give up Howard already...But at the same time it might turn things around. Just don't give up Walker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Originally posted by <b>A.W.#8</b>!
I wouldn't do any of those. That simply isn't enough in return for Dallas. I wouldn't give up Howard already...But at the same time it might turn things around. Just don't give up Walker
Fair enough, but isn't there a lot of feeling that by adding the guys they added, the Mavs kind of "jumped the shark" and ruined the chemistry they had over the last couple of years? And of course, there's still the complaint that they don't have enough bigs to take on the stronger teams once they get to the playoffs.

This deal would seem to help them on both fronts. It'd put the focus back on the heart of the team- Dirk, Nash, Finley, while at the same time giving them 3 big guys (and a potential franchise center in Curry) to, for the first time, be able to go toe to toe with the big guys out west.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Well I would say give up Jamison in that case. I would say Walker only helps. The focus is basically on the big 3 now+walker. He's not really demanding too many shots or anything, he finds the open man, and handles the ball well. I think the Mavs are finally getting back into the groove they should be in.

They do need a few pieces, but I wouldn't push anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,919 Posts
I'd do the third one, but I don't understand why we'd want to do the other two. Why would we want both Walker and Jamison when they play essentially the same position?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
I'd do the third one, but I don't understand why we'd want to do the other two. Why would we want both Walker and Jamison when they play essentially the same position?
I actually think they complement each other. Walker's a 3 on offense who can distribute the ball and shoot from anywhere, but more of a 4 on defense. Jamison's a better match up on 3s defensively due to his superior quickness and athleticism, but doesn't have the range on his shot that Walker does. He is, however, a better slash to the hoop/play in the post scorer... more of a 4 on offense.

The problem is that while they're both adequate defenders, neither is more than that. But offensively, I think they'd work together pretty well. With Tyson in the post, Tyson and Kirk in the backcourt, and Howard coming off the bench, we ought to be able to outscore anyone though :)
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top