That's a bad move by all three teams I think. Raptors - you have to get more than Mutombo and Thomas for Vince
Mavs - Cuban looked pretty smart forming the of Nash, Finley, NOwitzki, Van Exel, etc. Now he's making stupid movies giving up your best playoff player (Van Exel) for Jamison, and then not even starting Jamison. Then trading Jamison for a worse Stackhouse. A team with Vince and Stackhouse is just going to be a team of overrated ballhogs.
Knicks - Walker is another good player, but Walker and Houston's contracts? Ouch. I guess it makes them a better team though and would get the most of the deal.
Man, I knew that Mark Cuban thinks he's playing fantasy basketball in an office pool, but jeez!
I remember reading in a CNNSI.com article that a contributing factor to Steve Nash's free-agent departure to Phoenix was because he was tired of the Mavericks being a damned revolving door of players every year.
The Mavericks are not going to contend for the NBA Championship anytime soon if every year they start out with five new guys on the team. There's something to be said for team chemistry and consistency, you know.
The Knicks get Antoine Walker, and only give up Kurt Thomas and Dikembe Mutombo? Not bad, I suppose-- although I think that Walker's the damn streakiest player who's ever been consistently named to All-Star team after All-Star team. He'll score 35 points one night and go 1-for-16 the next night. With him you never know what you're gonna get, so I'd be cautious if I were Isiah Thomas.
In the end, though, I'd end up pulling the trigger, because Walker's still a very good player, and if you can add him to your team while only losing Mutombo (who doesn't play consistently anyway) and Thomas, then ya gotta do it.
Are you guys outta your fuckin' minds? Giving up your best player and getting Dikembe Mutombo and Kurt Thomas in exchange? True, V.C. hasn't been the same since his first knee injury, but Mutombo's about 63 years old. He's got to retire soon, right? And Thomas is a hard-nosed player, but he ain't gonna make up Vince's 15-20 points a game, you can forget about that.
On the other hand... hmm... the Raptors are in the Pacers' division... so I'm all for it! Throw caution to the wind, boys, and see if you can't set a new all-time record for NBA futility (currently held by the 1972-73 Philadelphia 76ers, who went 9-73.)
Granted, the Raptors don't have much farther down to go, but I think there's definite potential for downward mobility that hasn't yet been explored.
So, my analysis, then. Good for the Knicks, neutral for the Mavericks, bad for the Raptors.
“Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?” “Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.”
--Janine and Winston, Ghostbusters
Two-Time Wiener of the Day (5/27/02; 7/3/02)
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
The Mavs will never get past a team like San Antonio until they bring in some guys who like to play D, rebound and just plain mix it up.
As far as Jerry Stackhouse, I don't have a clue what Cuban was thinking. Stackhouse isn't a winner, isn't a team player and really isn't that tough. Jerry Stackhouse is the type of guy a crappy team tries to get to have some sort of marquee name.
Good God, potentially Stackhouse, Dirk and Carter on the floor at the same time? If they add the "play with two basketballs at once" rule to the NBA, then and only then do they contend.
Otherwise, not that they don't need to get rid of Walker, but they don't need to replace him with another scorer who doesn't play defense, and in this case an injury-prone, soft, me-first player like Carter.
Originally posted by Tony StewartToronto would be best off getting Finley, while the Knicks somehow get Walker for next to nothing and Dallas really doesn't get a whole lot at all.
Toronto would win in the second proposal
Get Walker for next to nothing? They have to give up Kurt Thomas to get him. That's hardly nothing. And while Shandon Anderson is overpaid, he is still a decent player off the bench to have on your team.
Right now the Knicks payroll is $91M for 2005/2006. If they do that trade their payroll will be around $78M, still way above the luxury tax. All I see the Knicks doing in that situation is swapping overpriced players for more overpriced players, but with shorter contracts.
If you're gonna give up talent to get an expiring deal, why do it if it doesn't get you at least out of tax range? Never mind under the cap.
"Once you've seen a woman's cum face, you've seen her soul."