UPDATE: Now it looks like Orlando is involved due to Toronto looking for a sign & trade with Hedu Turkoglu. Look for the smoke to clear on Thursday.

Both the Associated Press and ESPN are reporting that the trade sending Toronto Raptors forward Shawn Marion to the Mavericks has been agreed to by Toronto and the Memphis Grizzlies. The three team trade sends Jerry Stackhouse and cash to the Grizzlies, while Toronto gets Devean George and Antoine Wright and their expiring contracts. Dallas receives Shawn Marion and forward Kris Humphries.

Earlier this week, Dallasbasketball.com's David Lord took a look at Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed contract for 2010 and realized that it was a huge asset for acquiring one of the players amongst the amazing free agent class of next year. I can't believe that the story hasn't received significant national attention as it has spectacular implications.

There are a lot of questions about this situation, so I'll provide you with two scenarios below to illustrate how it could work. But first to answer two questions I've seen:

• Can't another team do this? No, no other team has a non-guaranteed contract remotely close to the size of Dampier's.
• Couldn't the Mavs trade Dampier this year for something so another team could use this chip  next year? The Mavs could, but the one element of this that no one discusses is the absolutely massive impact this will have on the team's payroll. Teams willing to use this chip have to theoretically be willing to take on upwards of $30 million a year in extra payroll if you include the luxury tax. Very very few teams would be willing to swallow that much of a commitment for one player.

Let's use Dwyane Wade as an example as to how this could go:

• The Knicks with a better roster than Miami and lots of cap space go to Wade and offer him the max they can.
• Wade goes to Riley and says, "Look, I have a better chance of winning in New York. I'm not taking the extra year from you, I'm going to New York."
• Riley, having already talked to Donnie Nelson, replies, "How about this: We'll sign you for more than you can make in New York AND you can go play in Dallas with Jason Kidd and their 50 win team."
• Wade goes, "Shucks, I'm adding Cuban to my fave five right now!"
• Riley goes to Cuban and says, "I want max cash and some draft picks, and you can have Wade."
• Cuban looks at his payroll, slaps his forehead and swallows hard, and then sends Dampier and a second filler contract and the other stuff to Miami.

Some comments on this scenario:

• New York is powerless here. They can't offer more money than Dallas, and their team simply isn't as good as the Mavericks.
  
• Miami can nix this whole scenario, but why would they? They would be facing what Dallas did when Steve Nash left--nothing in return for losing a star player.
  

The results:

• Wade joins Dallas.
• Dallas' payroll goes into the stratosphere.
  
• Dampier and a scrub joins Miami and both are cut.
• Miami gets cash and draft picks and the same cap room they would have had if Wade left for nothing.
  
• New York gets nothing.
  

Now, how realistic is this scenario? What exactly needs to happen for it to become a reality? Isn't this just a pipe dream? Answers after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Trade scenarios. Draft picks. Outline our weaknesses and holes that need filled. Leave your comments below.

Practically every piece of commentary on the Mavs exit from the playoffs and their season comes to the feel-good conclusion that the Mavs were "beaten by a better team," "should be proud of themselves," or "had a great season." Such an attitude is an insult to a team that won 67 games two years ago and whose core went to the NBA Finals. We're proud of a team that gave up 124 points in a must win game to Denver? To hell with that, I'm disgusted with them.

At least I have some good company. Dirk said in his exit interview: "It's only a successful season if you win a title." Exactly. This is an unsuccessful team. Bottom line. What are we, Hawks fans, who are happy just to have made it past the first round?

I'd feel differently if this team's gaping hole wasn't fixable. It's defense, and the fact is that this team had a top ten defense in the league last year, and it's now in the land of mediocrity. Heck, our defense is closer to the Oklahoma City Thunder than it is to the Denver Nuggets. How could such a thing happen? We upgraded our defense at the 2 spot for a good chunk of the minutes this year. Was Diop and Devin Harris the linchpin of our defense?Yikes.

I'd be willing to pin this on personnel changes or injuries if I hadn't seen embarassing game after embarassing game of little effort on the defensive end. It's like Carlisle took all year to make sure his offense was prepped for the post-season (which he did), but--oops--he forgot about the defense.

So, no, I'm not willing to admit we lost to a better team. I'm not happy about getting past the first round, and I'm definitely not on the "Let's just get some new names on the roster, and we'll be fine" bandwagon. The defensive issues this team has are core to everyone, from top to bottom, and that will not be fixed by simply trading a Barea for an Artest. It will help, but it won't get you where you need to be on the defensive end. That takes commitment and a total buy-in from the entire team. And I haven't seen that all year.

That is the story of these playoffs: A team unwilling (not unable, unwilling) to play defense, and that is not worth celebrating in any form or fashion.

In my Denver series preview I stated that the Mavericks had to push the pace to win. I went so far as to say:

(DMN writer David) Moore thinks that if the scores edge over 105 this game is a quick exit for the Mavs, I think the opposite: If the Mavs can get the scores over 110, they are in the driver seat.

Clearly I was right and Moore was wrong, as our one victory was the one where the teams scored over 110. :)

Actually, it's not so much the scores that I thought were important so much as the pace. My perception was that for the Mavs to counter Denver's much better half court defense they had to create a chaotic very fast pace to minimize it, as the Denver transition defense is much weaker. That absolutely happened in game four, where the pace was a scorching 101. However, the Mavs also "won" game three, where the pace was a moderate 92. What happened there?

Ah, I'm glad you asked, because it reveals the razor thin opportunties that the Mavs have to win this series. What happened in game three was basically what happened in San Antonio, and it is, indeed, a way for the Mavs to win, but it's also very risky. What is it? Well, as I outlined in my series preview:

Dallas got past San Antonio by basically using the Phoenix strategy:  Don't worry about defense, just outperform them on the offensive end so much that it won't matter. This is obviously much harder against a Denver team with a formidable offense, but the Dallas offense is so good that it is still possible.

So the optimist in me looks at tonight and sees two possibilities for victory:

1. The Mavs offense plays at an exceptional level, while containing the Nuggets to an average to slightly above average performance.
2. The pace of the game is high enough that the much better Denver half court defense is minimized.

Of course, the two work hand-in-hand. Negating a Denver defensive advantage allows our offense to perform better.

There's an easy way to assess the game as it goes along: If the Mavs are scoring between 25-30 points per quarter, then they are in the zone where a win is distinctly possible. Bump that up to 30-35 and then you can do your happy dance. Of course it also requires the defense to at least do a decent job of holding Denver back. If the defense falls on its face like they did in game two, then all bets are off and the Mavs have no hope.

Some notes:

• I expect Denver to continue to have foul trouble. Dirk is on a mission, and he appears to be single-handedly removing Denver players from the floor due to foul trouble.
• Josh Howard is the wildcard. You can no longer scoff at his importance to the team. If he is too hurt to be effective, everything I outlined above becomes that much harder, if not impossible. Yes, I'm basically saying that we have no hope without Howard being effective.
• I'm curious if we'll see Carlisle toss the small ball team out there more often, with Bass playing in place of Dampier. I'm guessing yes after what we saw in game four. This also dovetails with my thoughts above in regards to offense. Quite simply, a Dirk/Bass frontline is harder to guard than a Damp/Dirk frontline--with the amount of isolations being given to Dirk, Damp's role has become less important. Of course, that crazy Birdman character can screw everything up by scoring instead of fouling.

I haven't had time to put together a comprehensive post like I would have liked, but I definitely have some strong feelings about game one, some of them perhaps unexpected. Suffice to say that the rule-of-thumb that the Mavs should do the opposite of what the Dallas Morning News' Jean-Jacques Taylor recommends is in effect here.

Taylor recommends the Mavs get physical and unleash some hard fouls on the Nuggets. This is absolute stupidity, as it was a lack of discipline and a huge foul discrepency that killed the Mavs in the first game. What the Mavs need to do is foul less not more. One of the reasons the Mavs fouled a lot is due to their weak defense--when you can't stop a person with your defense, the last gasp is to foul him. The good news is that this actually worked for the Mavs in a sense, since the Nuggets were well below their normal offensive performance of late. Still, you don't want to make a habit of using the free throw line as your core defense. Ultimately, it will start taking your players off the floor.

The real story of the game to my view was the 20 turnovers. Further down the page in my game preview I recommended that the Mavs play fast and with discipline. This strategy undercuts Denver's best defense, which is aggressive and gambling in nature. In short, if you make good judgments on the court, Denver's defense can be frustrated. Unfortunately, the Mavs fell right into the Nuggets trap and played a horrible offensive game thanks to their lack of discipline.

The interesting thing for me is that I'm more optimistic about this series after the game one loss than I was heading into the series. Our defense did an admirable job against a first-rate offense, and our offense showed that it was missing one piece: Discipline. If you were to tell me that the critical adjustment heading into game two for the Mavs was to show better control and judgment on the offensive side of the ball three days ago, I'd be quite happy about the Mavs chances, and that's where I'm at today.

So let's not fall into Jean-Jacques Taylor's knee jerk reactionism. All the Mavs need to do is show more discipline, and they very well may steal home court advantage.

This is a complex series to assess due to both teams taking their performances to a new level at the end of the season and into the  playoffs. As a result, looking at past performances is not as big an indicator as we would perhaps expect. Quite the contrary: The past performances can be misleading. The best example being that there is the undeniable perception that Denver is clearly a better team based on their final standings and the head-to-head results between them and Dallas.

Dallasbasketball.com's Mike Fisher does an excellent job of dismantling the perceptual argument over a series of columns. In this one, he notes that the average margin of victory for Denver in three of the wins was fewer than 3 points. And the fourth loss, a  ten pointer in December hardly qualified as a dominant win. As to the final standings, in another article Fisher observed: "The real difference  between Denver and Dallas is four games. Dallas won 50, Denver won 54. The two teams played remarkably close games (as we all  know). Give Dallas a win in one or two of those. Give Dallas a healthy Josh for some of those 35-odd games missed. Give Dallas  something better than a 2-7 start. Let Denver miss one of their dramatic game-winning shots... And both Denver and Dallas are damn  close to being … what? … 52-win clubs?" So there is definitely more here than meets the eye.

We've already seen that the two teams played close to even during the regular season (despite the win totals) and that both teams  have turned it up a notch during the final few weeks and into the playoffs. So with this in mind, let's take a look at the bigger picture trends that may shed light on how this series will go.

A simplistic way to look at this series is to say, "Who's playing better now?" and there would be a lot of relevance to this. So let's  take a look, comparing how they've done during the regular season to the end of the season to the playoffs.

Continue reading this post »

While I’m as excited as anyone about the Mavs win over the Spurs on Saturday, I certainly don’t think there is any justification for thinking this series is over or that the Spurs will be easily handled. That said, I should note that my comments from Friday are still in effect: The Mavs offense is so deadly, the team could realistically get to the Conference Finals while playing mediocre defense.

With that in mind, I thought I’d bring a much needed reality check to the proceedings by providing a short theft of homage to Mike Fisher over at Dallasbasketball.com with my Sunday Donut Holes:

Donut Hole 1: The Spurs dictated the pace of the game. The Spurs entered the playoffs as the fourth-slowest team in the league, and a big part of their game plan is working within those confines. This provides a real comfort level for San Antonio when they can make the other team play their game, and that was exactly the case on Saturday. The Mavs are an average-paced team but look like the roadrunner when compared to the Spurs. In terms of specifics, the Mavs average 91.6 possessions per game, and the pace of Saturday’s game was a glacial 82.4 possessions, which as Wes mentioned was the second slowest game of the season for Dallas. The Mavs only had 4 fast break points, as well.

It would be foolish to say that being forced to play slow is a fatal problem for the Mavs, but make no mistake about it—the Mavericks would much prefer to be playing a faster game with more fast break points.

Donut Hole 2: The Mavs defense stunk. Sure, the Mavs played some great defense during stretches of the game, but that can’t hide the fact that we gave up nearly 100 points in a game played at a snail’s pace.  To put this game in perspective, the Mavs had a defensive efficiency of 119.8. This is very similar to the defensive efficiency they had in the Utah game on February 5, which was actually a slightly better 118.6. The result of that game where the Mavs played better defense? Well, you may remember it—the Mavs lost by 28, 115-87.

And this, in a nutshell, is the scary part of the Mavs this post-season: Their offense has become so spectacularly good that they can play worse defense than in a game they lost by 28 earlier in the season and still win.

The frustrating part is that if the Mavs defense improved just slightly, this game would have been a double digit blowout. In terms of efficiency, the Spurs were helped a lot by some good offensive rebounding and a tremendous night beyond the arc. Think of it this way, if the Mavs perimeter defense had led to just two more missed threes, the Mavs win this game by 14 points. And even then the Spurs would have shot lights out from three point range.

Donut Hole 3: Tony Parker doesn’t need to solve J.J. Barea, he simply needs to remember this is a team game. This was a game of two halves for Parker, and the tale of the second half was Parker’s misguided attempt to single-handedly win the game by finishing at the rim. As a result, he turned the ball over and missed layups. Certainly some of that was due to Barea, but a bigger part was simply Parker’s pig-headedness. What makes this especially mind-boggling is how well his guards were shooting from the perimeter.

Don’t expect this to go unnoticed. In fact, I expect Popovich to look for more mid-range solutions to exploit the openings that Parker creates. My guess is that Finley’s minutes get dramatically reduced and Ime Udoka gets much more burn. Udoka is badly needed on the defensive side of the ball, and he can knock down a mid-range jumper if he’s wide open—which he will presumably be if his man is helping contain Parker. Also, I expect Duncan to have at least one or more 30+ point games.

“The Mavs are peaking at the right time.” It’s a phrase you’ve heard practically everywhere in one form or another, from our friends over at Dallasbasketball.com to the Eddie Sefko in the Dallas Morning News to the national press. And, truth be told, there’s a lot to be said for the sentiment—the Mavs are 7-3 in their past ten, including victories over five playoff teams and one team that had everything to play for before missing the playoffs. In “must win” games, the Mavs delivered as well, taking out Phoenix to practically guarantee a playoff spot and then closing out the season with a win against Houston, which led to the Mavs moving up to the sixth seed.

Continue reading this post »

As we head into the home stretch of the season I think a lot can be learned by looking at our hated rivals to the south. The Spurs are being heralded by many as a legitimate contender in the west, while the Mavs are being given little more than lower seed odds. What is interesting is that both teams started out the season in similar fashion: The Mavs started out 2-7, while the Spurs started out 2-5, including a loss to Dallas. As the season has progressed we've seen one significant trend, however, that has led to the divergent opinions on each team's fortunes: The Spurs return to defensive dominance, while the Mavs have continued to be little more than mediocre on the defensive end.

Take a look at the graph after the jump, which outlines the game-by-game defensive efficiency of the Spurs and Mavs over the season. Defensive efficiency breaks down how many points a team gives up during each possession, which accounts not just for how well a team contests shots, but also how good they are at forcing turnovers and stopping offensive rebounds. No other stat is better at showing how a team is performing on defense. In the graph below, I use a seven game rolling average, which takes away some of the "noise" you see in exceptionally good and bad games and gives you a very good idea as to how the team is trending over time. This chart looks at points given up per 100 possessions and lower numbers are obviously better.

Continue reading this post »

Just last week I had resigned myself that the Mavericks were a mediocre team and had to immediately start assessing the season from the perspective of rebuilding, rather than fighting for a title. I made this assessment based on the team's average performances all season long on both ends of the floor, and--perhaps more than anything else--it's inability to be consistent.  But here we are four games and four wins later, including wins over quality teams, and it looks like the Mavs have turned it around. But have they? Is the window to a championship still open, even if slightly? And how the heck did this happen?

Continue reading this post »

First of all, let's not get all lost in the glow of beating up on the Warriors. The Mavericks have proven nothing beyond the fact that they can be inconsistent at this point. My last article I even said the the Mavs were at a crossroads--the Mavs shared their halfway point record with an NBA champion and a team that missed the playoffs. The implication was pretty clear: As a team the Mavs could go in one of two directions and which way was yet to be determined. Well, I'm willing to state right now that they are emphatically heading in one direction, and it isn't the one that ends with a trophy.

So where does that lead us? Well, to my mind it is acceptable for a team to live in one of two positions: Elite or rebuilding. Certainly us fans have lived with the team as Elite for quite some time. The idea of rebuilding is painful, but we can accept it. However, anything in between is just spinning wheels and indefensible. Think of the Los Angeles Clippers or, if that's to noxious, the Indiana Pacers. Up until these last few losses, I was willing to say that the Mavs had a window to being elite. No more. It is time to prepare for rebuilding. So, let's not live under illusions. The Mavs are operating under a new set of rules--the rebuilding rules, not the win at all cost rules.

With this in mind, we need to think of how to rebuild. The Mavericks are actually in decent shape in terms of contracts heading into the really big free agent season that is approaching. That said, the team should also consider trades that make sense. You know those trades that sometimes come by that look good for the future but would hurt us in the short term? The Mavs would pass on those in the past, but let's jump on those now.

I rather like David Lord's recommendation at DallasBasketball.com of trading for Shaquille O'Neal. He fits well with the offense the Mavs have now and would be an incredible complement to Dirk Nowitzki. Losing Josh Howard to get it done at this point isn't even objectionable. This almost fits two categories: It could actually make the Mavs better while securing us extraordinary cap room. David mentions that Josh and Shaq's contracts expire at the same time, but Patricia's contract resource page has Shaq's contract ending after next year and Josh's ending a year later. With Jason Kidd (coming off the books this year), Shaq's contract creates two massive deals coming off the books for a year featuring an extraordinary amount of free agent talent.

Regardless of what happens, something needs to be done. Young players need to be groomed, plans for future dominance put in place over immediate wins. Free agents need to be realistically targeted and trades for high draft picks made. The Mavs organization needs to understand that they are not making a playoff run, they're making a championship run. The only difference is that it's in 2010 or 2011.

Here we are at the halfway point in the season, and the Mavericks have provided little glimpse as to who they really are other than horribly inconsistent. A look for any kind of season-long trends is a recipe for frustration. Just when you think the defense has come around, it falls apart. Just when the offense is starting to look like a weapon from both inside and outside of the paint, the team falls into jumpshot after jumpshot. It is possible that this is who the Mavs really are: A collection of players that simply can't mesh into a cohesive group and play dominant basketball for any extended period of time. However, there is also the possibility that the team simply hasn't found itself and that much better things are ahead. So, with no further ado, let's look at the best case/worst case scenarios for the Mavs as we head into the final half of the season.

Continue reading this post »

The Good

While the Mavs offense and defense are both not nearly as good as they have been in years past in terms of efficiency, they are still above average. Currently, Knickerblogger's stats page has the Mavs with the No. 12 offense and the No. 10 defense in the league. As a point of comparison, the Suns, which are often mentioned in the same sentence as the Mavs due to their blockbuster trade for Shaq and subsequent decline, have the No. 4 offense and the No. 22 defense.

Statistical history has taught us that it's better to be very good at both offense and defense than be awesome at one and awful at the other. So the Mavs are in a good position to build from. The question remains, however, will they build from here?

The Bad

I call it the "see saw" effect. The Mavs seem to be fundamentally unable to put together a complete game. When they are good on defense, they tend to be bad on offense. When they are good on offense, they tend to be bad on defense. You need to look no further than the Clippers game, where the Mavs posted a good offensive efficiency of 115.1 and a poor defensive efficiency of 109.7. (Although to be honest, a 115.1 offensive efficiency against the Clippers isn't that good).

We are seeing this in the league-wide offensive and defensive rankings, too. For a few weeks the Mavs offense has been improving while its defense was starting to fall. Now that the defense has started to right itself (at least in part), the offense is struggling. I mentioned this before, but the Mavs seem content on playing just good enough to win, whether it's on defense or offense. There seems to be no real passion to completely dominate an opponent.

The Ugly

The recent play of the team. It's been ugly. I doubt there was a worse defensive performance this season than the egg that was laid in Memphis. On offense, the team is playing horribly off-the-ball. There are too many players standing around, waiting for someone to shoot or for the ball to be passed to them.

I like how the offense has been being developed over the season, including the early experiment in a motion offense that generated the 2-7 record. All of the experiments--the motion, the three guard set, the high pick and roll, etc.--are creating a foundation upon which the Mavs will be extremely difficult to defend in a playoff series (unlike in previous years), and we're getting a sense of that in how the Mavs are dominating in fourth quarters. But for those experiments to develop into something the players have to treat them all as equally effective and play with intensity. They simply aren't.

As to the defense, the less said the better. Allowing the Clippers to do what they did was inexcusable. As to Memphis, did the Mavs even bother to play defense?

The Conclusion

I'm far from giving up on the Mavericks, and I think that Hollinger's recent prediction that they don't make the playoffs as foolish (he does realize they started out 2-7 doesn't he?). However, in terms of moving beyond the first round, the Mavs need to up their intensity level considerably, especially on defense. They need to play like they are clinging to a playoff spot because the reality is, they are.

I don't know what was more disturbing this morning, seeing the Dallas Morning News' Eddie Sefko use the phrase "getting in the opposing player's grill" or his overall point that the Mavs defense is improving. Wes nailed the truth earlier on this very blog: The Mavs defense has been incredibly inconsistent all year. In fact, compared to the rest of the league, it's actually gotten worse.

Continue reading this post »

John Hollinger compares Devin Harris to Kevin Johnson in his Per Diem piece today. I don't think that's accurate. With his drive and dish, drive and score, and drive and pop range of moves, I think he's much closer to Allen Iverson. He's certainly not a point guard like Chris Paul or even Tony Parker.

Wes and I both lamented the loss of Devin and weren't big fans of the trade for Jason Kidd, but I think the jury is still out. It is distinctly possible that the Mavs didn't need an Allen Iverson... they needed a playmaker like Jason Kidd.

That said, I still miss the kid.

I've watched the games, and I've examined the stats. I've waited and waited for some kind of trend to show itself, but I can't wait any longer. We're 16 games into the season, and I still don't have a handle on what kind of team the Mavericks have become under Rick Carlisle. Part of me is thinking (hoping) that this is a good thing.

Continue reading this post »

Denver Nuggets
Jeremy: Pickaxe and Roll
Nick Sclafani: The Nugg Doctor

Minnesota Timberwolves
Derek Hanson & Staff: TWolves Blog
Andrew Thell: Empty the Bench
wyn: Canis Hoopus

Oklahoma City
xphoenix87: BallerBlogger
Zorgon: Blue Blitz
Royce: The Thunderworld  

Portland Trail Blazers
Mookie: ...a stern warning
Benjamin Golliver: Blazers Edge
Coup and SJ: Rip City Project

Utah Jazz
UtesFan89: The Utah Jazz
Basketball John: SLC Dunk

Also see links to all the previews at CelticsBlog.com

Chicago Bulls
Nels: Give Me The Rock
Matt: Blog-a-Bull

Cleveland Cavaliers
Rock: Waiting For Next Year
FTS: Fear The Sword
David Friedman: 20 Second Timeout
Amar Panchmatia: Cavalier Attitude

Detroit Pistons
Brian Spencer: Empty the Bench
Natalie Sitto: Need4Sheed.com
Matt Watson: Detroit Bad Boys

Indiana Pacers
Tom: Indy Cornrows

Milwaukee Bucks
Jeramey Jannene: The Bratwurst
Frank Madden: BrewHoop

Let's get this out right away: The Mavs are much better than just about anyone is giving them credit for. While they aren't a lock to win the Southwest Division, let alone the Western Conference, make no mistake about it--they are an elite team. And the reason that people can't see it is due entirely to what I call the "great smokescreen of 2007-2008."

Continue reading this post »

Dallas Mavericks
Jake Kerr: Mavs Moneyball

Houston Rockets
grungedave and UofTOrange: The Dream Shake  

Memphis Grizzlies
Joshua Coleman: 3 Shades of Blue

New Orleans Hornets
Rohan: At the Hive
ticktock6 & mW: Hornets Hype
Ryan Schwan & Ron Hitley: Hornets247.com

San Antonio Spurs
Graydon Gordian: 48 Minutes of Hell

Also see links to all the previews at CelticsBlog.com

As mentioned in an earlier post, Jeff over at Celticsblog has gathered together bloggers from across the country to write previews of their teams. We are all using the same format, and here is my contribution:

Team: Dallas Mavericks
Last Years Record: 51-32
Key Losses: Avery Johnson
Key Additions: DaSagana Diop, Gerald Green, Rick Carlisle

1. What significant moves were made during the offseason?

The single biggest move made in the offseason was the dismissal of head coach Avery Johnson and the hiring of Rick Carlisle. The Mavs have the luxury (or curse) of having their core team signed for some time. This continuity will certainly help the team transition under a new coach, as they only need to adapt to him rather than a bunch of new faces. Carlisle has impressed so far, and his biggest challenge is creating a more flexible offense for what is still a potent group of weapons, from Jason Terry's dead eye shooting to the unique assets that Dirk Nowitzki brings. Avery Johnson could never figure this out, and his reliance on isolation plays was a major factor in the Mavs playoff woes over the past few years.

That said, Carlisle has some big shoes to fill on defense, as Avery Johnson took a mediocre defensive team and honed them into a very strong one. Carlisle, whose defensive reputation is top notch, shouldn't have too much of a problem here. Still, if Johnson excelled anywhere, it was in his ability to consistently get the team to overperform on defense, and that will be missed.

The other big move was the return of center DaSagana Diop, whose new face is actually one the Mavs are quite familiar with, as he was only away from the team for the second half of last season. The goal for the Mavs is to have Erick Dampier and Diop return to their very good platoon performance of the 67 win season.

2. What are the team's biggest strengths?

An excellent forward tandem in all-stars Dirk Nowitzki and Josh Howard and also steadily improving Brandon Bass. If Diop and Dampier return to form, the Mavs will be incredibly versatile and potent at the forward and center positions.

3. What are the team's biggest weaknesses?

Shooting guard, where aging veteran Jerry Stackhouse and erratic youngster Antoine Wright will fight it out for playing time. Jason Terry may also spend some time at shooting guard, pairing with Jason Kidd. Although that will be a difficult pairing against the elite point guards in the western conference. Raw Gerald Green may make an impact at some point, but we haven't seen too much of an indication of that so far in training camp.

Also, age is a looming weakness. Jason Kidd can still pass the ball better than anyone in the league, but his abilities on defense and his weakening offensive skillset will be a problem. With Jerry Stackhouse and Devean George also pegged to be getting big minutes, the Mavs are certainly not getting any younger.

4. What are the goals for this team?

While the perception is that the Mavs have fallen from elite status, a look at the roster shows that this is more perception than reality. The Mavs core group of players is still the same, with the glaring exception of Jason Kidd, and it is distinctly possible that Carlisle can find a way to utilize Kidd's court vision and size on offense in a way that Johnson could not. Still the team is one year older and still have playoff demons in their past. The goal of the team is certainly to win the championship this year, although I believe that they feel that the fight to do so will be harder than in the past, a past where they failed to reach the top any way. 

5. Will Dirk Nowitzki's game finally start to decline?

Dirk's efficiency has been stunningly strong for a long time now. He said emphatically that he felt his game was much stronger with Jason Kidd at the point than Devin Harris. If that's the case, then it is distinctly possible that Dirk will have another strong year, although improving on his already spectacular offensive efficiency will be practically impossible.

Predicted Record: 55-27

Jeff over at CelticsBlog has gathered some of the leading blog writers across the country to write previews of the upcoming season. We will, of course, be taking part, but the series is starting off with a preview of Jeff's own Celtics and the Atlantic division:

Boston Celtics
Jeff Clark: CelticsBlog.com    
Jim Weeks: Green Bandwagon      
FLCeltsFan: LOY's Place
John Karalis: Red's Army
Dustin Chapman: Celtics 24/7

New Jersey Nets
Dennis Velasco: About Basketball

New York Knicks
Joey: Straight Bangin'
Seth Rosenthal: Posting and Toasting

Philadelphia 76ers
Dannie & Pete: Recliner GM
Jon Burkett: Passion and Pride

Toronto Raptors
Franchise: RaptorsHQ.com
Ryan McNeill: Hoops Addict
Cuzzy: Cuzoogle

Also see links to all the previews at CelticsBlog.com

With Rick Carlisle in the building, Bill Ingram over at Hoopsworld floated the possibility of a Mavs trade for Jermaine O'Neal of the Pacers during the summer. The centerpiece of his article was that the Mavs would trade uneven Josh Howard for oft-injured O'neal. Ingram doesn't go into details on how such a trade could work in terms of parts, but the guys over at Indy Cornrows took a whack at the possibility (with a hat tip to Caught in the Web) and found it unlikely for a few reasons.

First of all there is the salary issue of a $10 million difference in salaries. That's a large amount to fill in. Another player or players would have to be included to make it work.

Next up, and perhaps more importantly from Indy's standpoint, there is Howard's comments about smoking marijuana:

Josh Howard is a great player and no doubt a good guy, but the Pacers can't take a risk of having another player suspended for drug use and Howard would definitely constitute a risk.

These are compelling points. However, the article makes one key point that I think makes this trade distinctly possible:

...combined with Dampier, it might be as good a deal as the Pacers could find for J.O.

And that deal--Dampier and Josh for O'Neal--is a compelling one for the Mavs. It's a risk, of course. The Mavs are trading two starters for one, but there is a significant upside in that the Mavs would have an extremely strong two-way center to pair with Nowitzki and Kidd. With Kidd on the court the Mavs could certainly use Terry as a small 2 guard sniper. The real problem would be the hole that Howard leaves at small forward. Could Bass fill that position? These are the kind of intriguing questions and risks that make this deal interesting.

But there is an evern more compelling reason to make this deal: O'Neal's contract. Howard and Dampier have three more years on their deals than O'Neal, who would come off the books--guess when? Yes, the exact same year that Kidd comes off the books. That puts the Mavericks in a spectacular salary cap position, while still having a Dirk on the roster.

So Jermaine O'Neal for Erick Dampier and Josh Howard is similar to the Jason Kidd deal in that it is a "win now" risk with fantastic long-term prospects for the team to build on if it doesn't work out (and even if it does work out!).

Note what the Indy Cornrows guys said, as well: "...it might be as good a deal as the Pacers could find for J.O."

The real wild card here is the relationship between new Mavs coach Rick Carlisle and Jermaine O'Neal. O'Neal doesn't have a problem with Carlisle, but he is far from a fan. When Jim O'Brien replaced Carlisle at Indiana, O'Neal was very public how he liked O'Brien's offense more than Carlisle's (even though his production went down). O'Neal also found Carlisle aloof, a common criticism of Carlisle. All told, Carlisle here isn't going to make O'Neal enthusiastic about joining the team, although it isn't a deal breaker either. The interesting thing is that the opposite doesn't seem to be the case: Carlisle use O'Neal very effectively in Indiana, and it is quite possible that Carlisle would be enthusiastic about such a trade.

In the end, this is one of the real intriguing possibilities for the summer and one that makes a lot of sense for both teams.

While it is trendy to bash Avery Johnson, there is no doubt he is an excellent young coach. Johnson definitely has weaknesses, however, and, looking ahead, it is important to identify Avery's weaknesses and see if new head coach Rick Carlisle can improve them. The early indications make one cautiously optimistic.

Running A Fluid Offense, Empowering Point Guards

The first issue is if Carlisle has a desire to control the flow of the game on the offensive end as Johnson did. Much has been written about Carlisle's time spent at the Suns training camp, observing how D'Antoni teaches and runs his offense. Jerry Stackhouse has also said that Carlisle is the type of coach that adapts to his players. All of this is in direct cotnrast to Johnson, who held the reigns of the Dallas offense with an iron fist, from talented young point guards like Devin Harris to hall of fame point guards like Jason Kidd.

You cant' find a better first-hand observer of Carlisle's work with point guards and an offense than Chauncey Billups, the Detroit Pistons all-star point guard who blossomed on Carlisle's watch. Here is Chauncey on Carlisle :

You know what, it was great. He gave me the freedom that I hadn't got in league yet, so it was a great opportunity for me and that was really my coming out party playing under him and letting me play my game. It worked well and we got to the Eastern Conference finals and we were the number one team in the East. We did not get to go all the way but it worked. I am very grateful to him for that opportunity.

Drawing Up Plays

Another area where Johnson was often criticized was his ability to draw up plays to close out a game or quarter. In contrast, this is one area where Carlisle is roundly considered one of the best in the game.

Here's a lengthy quote from an old article by Dr. Jack Ramsey on when Rick Carlisle was hired by the Pacers that sheds major light on Carlisle's strength in this area:

Clearly, Larry Bird has high regard for Carlisle. When I spoke with Bird last spring, we were discussing end-of-the-game situations and how coaches draw up plays. Oftentimes, the play doesn't work out the way it's drawn up, Bird interjected, "Have you ever seen Rick Carlisle draw up a play? He's superb at doing that."

Which, by the way, is no small task. Oftentimes, while sitting courtside for radio, I'm able to watch what the coaches are drawing up on special plays -- sometimes it looks like a road map in a traffic jam with lines all over the place. You can tell the players are looking, but not necessarily understanding what's in front of them.

Certainly this one aspect doesn't make a great coach, but it's a nice attribute to have and speaks to Carlisle's skill level.

Player Rotations

Most of the Mavericks players seemed to love Avery Johnson, but Johnson often seemed to generate that love by giving players playing time, whether deserved or not. One of the single biggest criticisms you can make of Johnson was his inability to commit to a specific player rotation.

Carlisle has a reputation for using his players wisely and consistently. Look at this article (via Smartmarks) from the Associate Press, which outlines one of the main reasons he was hired in Indianapolis: To improve Isiah Thomas' poor player rotations.

It obviously remains to be seen how Carlisle can adapt to the Mavericks. But in terms of shoring up weaknesses left over from the Avery Johnson era, the team looks to have found the right person for the job.

The one Mavs opinion I was interested in hearing of Rick Carlisle as coach of the Mavericks was Jerry Stackhouse, and David Moore printed that today in the Dallas Morning News.

What's so interesting about Stackhouse's opinion? Well, you hear it from every sportswriter in Dallas: Jerry Stackhouse is the one Maverick player who never talks in soundbites. He doesn't hesitate to tell you how he feels, even if he sometimes steps on some toes. It is also important to note that Stackhouse thinks Avery Johnson is a fantastic coach. Finally, Stackhouse also played for Rick Carlisle in Detroit before he was traded to Washington. Put all the above together, and you have a recipe for some dynamic Stackhouse honesty.

So what did Stack have to say?

He's the best guy available and the best coach for our team with our personalities. He's the best fit without question. There are not enough positive things I can say about him.

Stack also addressed some specifics. A few of which are eye-opening in their illustation of Carlisle's strengths:

The knowledge to devise a play that results in a wide-open shot at the end of a close game? Stackhouse said Carlisle does it consistently.

The insights to give a player a tip that will help improve his game? Two staples of the Stackhouse repertoire, the post-up move at the free throw line and the jab step that creates space for a jump shot, were taught to him by Carlisle.

In short, we have a player who has lost one of his favorite coaches of all time and is excited about the new coach who is replacing him. As players go, it's an important Carlisle endorsement.

From ESPN's coverage of Mike D'Antoni's situation in Phoenix:

Sources close to the situation have maintained for days that D'Antoni does not want to continue coaching in Phoenix if he must implement the changes suggested by his bosses, which include increasing the time spent practicing defense...

Wait, did that just say what I think it said?

It was December 6, 2007, and for a Mavs team reeling from its worst stretch of the season it was just one more blow. At home against the Denver Nuggets the Mavs were sliced and diced by Allan Iverson and dropped their second straight game in the process of losing six in nine. Dirk Nowitzki could have been speaking for head coach Avery Johnson when he described the game: "It was a layup drill out there. At no point in the game I thought we could really stop them."

Avery Johnson puts a lot of emphasis on judging his team in 20 game increments, and after what he saw in the previous 19 games, this loss to Denver was more than a symbolic close to the first 20 games of the season: It was the final straw. He had done everything he said he would do coming into the season. He had let young players like Brandon Bass and J.J. Barea get significant playing time. He had unleashed Devin Harris to control the game and the Mavs offense. He had moved Jason Terry to the bench and increased the size of his shooting guard position. For twenty games Avery Johnson had done what everyone else had told him to do, and for what... a thrashing at the hands of the Nuggets?

The result from Johnson was immediate and severe and led to his losing the season, the team, and ultimately his job.

After the Denver loss, the first thing he did was strip Devin Harris of his freedom to run the offense. Fast breaks and offensive sets built off of transition were removed, as Johnson slowed the game down so that he could call plays and run the offense. For the first 20 games the Mavs offense was clocking in at 90 pace, a significant gain over the previous year's glacial offensive pace. As we noted in a previous column, however, the pace was inconsistent. Twice in November Harris directed back-to-back-to-back games where the first game had a pace of over 95, which was followed up with a game where the pace plummeted to under 84, only to have the pace increase again to over 92. This inability to control the pace of the game clearly drove Johnson crazy, and the low point was, not coincidentally, the Denver game on December 6, where the Mavs played completely at Denver's pace, over 100.

The next five games after Denver the Mavs pace never went over 85 and averaged an almost unbelievably slow pace of 83. To put this into perspective, the slowest team in 2006-2007 was the Detroit Pistons, and they averaged a pace of 86. After Denver, Johnson put the hammer down on Harris, and he never let up.

Denver also was the moment when Johnson gave up on working to improve his bench and grow players into the rotation. He dramatically lowered the minutes of Barea, who had averaged 11.3 minutes per game in November but saw his minutes drop to 7 minutes per game in December and 4 minutes per game in January. Dasagana Diop, who averaged 23 minutes per game in November, found himself riding the pine and averaging 12 minutes per game in December. Even Brandon Bass, who showed real flashes of excellence, saw his minutes cut by over 4 a game from November to December.

In short, after the Denver loss, Avery Johnson lost his perspective on the team, what it needed to do, what HE needed to do, and, perhaps most importantly, the value of listening to advice from others. His response was extreme, and it reverted the Mavericks back to the team that lost in the first round of the playoffs the previous season: A one-dimensional iso-focused offensive team that was eminently beatable in a series. Even worse, it was clear as the season wore on that Avery's reversion to his system adversely affected his players, which affected their effort, especially on the defensive end.

Here were my comments at the halfway point of the season:

By now you should be seeing a pattern: The Mavericks defense is slightly worse in every single aspect other than fouling the opposition. There are two things to take from this: The first is that the Mavericks are suffering death by papercut on defense. The small declines in multiple defensive categories adds up to a significant decline overall. The second thing to take from this is that there is a reason for what we're seeing: A drop in overall defensive aggressiveness.

Make no mistake about it: Avery Johnson is a very good defensive coach, but if the players don't have their heart into it, you see what I outlined above. After Denver, Johnson's moves demoralized the team. Even if they didn't say it, you could see it in their performance on the court.

Certainly we can't blame one game for Johnson giving up on all of the important tasks that he had to tackle coming into the season, but the game was absolutely a turning point. It was after this game that Johnson gave up on all those important initiatives and adjustments that the team needed to move ahead. After twenty games of chaos and a debacle against Denver, Johnson retreated to what he was comfortable with: His system. His offense. His rotations. His plays. His way.

Home teams, so far in these playoffs, are 15-4.

Being down 0-2 after two road losses doesn't seem quite so bad when you see that the Mavs are far from alone. And when you consider that three of those losses are in the Houston-Utah series, the stat is more like this:

Excluding the wacky Utah-Houston series, home teams, so far in these playoffs, are 15-1.

Okay, maybe I'm reaching with the second one. :)

Hat tip to Truehoop

In the last week of the season, including the home finale against New Orleans, one of the real nagging concerns I had was with Dirk's ankle. Dirk showed that he can still get it done on the offensive end, but I saw some disturbingly bad defense from Dirk, even in our good games. My fear was that Dirk's ankle would turn him into a severe defensive liability. In fact, I mentioned this in my short Q&A with At The Hive before the series started.

Of course, the Mavs have also played some solid defense with Dirk on the floor during that time, so the question I posed myself was this: Were these moments where the opposing team simply didn't take advantage of Dirk's ankle or were the Mavs really stepping up as a team and working around Dirk's lack of defensive mobility?

Before I answer that question, we should look at Dirk's defense while he's healthy. Dirk isn't nearly as bad on defense as he his reputation makes him out to be, but he's not great either. He doesn't have the athleticism to truly effectively guard other power forwards in straight man-to-man defense or to explosively snuff a drive as a help side defender, although his positioning has improved, and he makes much more of an effort than he did earlier in his career. Another important thing to note about Dirk is his defensive rebounding, where he is one of the best of the league. Defensive rebounds stop possessions, and that's the goal of any defensive effort.

With this in mind, there are two things that stand out: The first is that Dirk can't really afford to lose mobility. He'll simply get abused in man-to-man defense by talented opposing forwards. The second is that where he shines on defense is his rebounding, and if that takes a hit, his effectiveness on defense plummets. The scary thing is that both of these are now in effect with Dirk's ankle injured. As Dirk said after the New Orleans season-ender, he isn't getting much lift on his ankle, and it's hurting his rebounding. And, more ominously, he doesn't see it getting better any time soon.

Back to New Orleans and my initial question: Is New Orleans abusing Dirk's bum ankle and focusing their strategy around this chink in the Mav's defensive armour? Well, it sure looks that way.

Two things make this clear: One is that Dirk Nowitzki has a spectacularly bad plus/minus of -34 in the first two games of the series, by far the worst on the team. The other is that the opposing forwards on the Hornets are the top two in terms of plus/minus for the series, with a Peja Stojakovic at +42 and David West at +41. Don't get me wrong, Chris Paul has been spectacular, but the real key to this series has been that the Hornets forwards have just dominated the Mavs forwards, especially Nowitzki.

Plus/minus is a stat I rarely use because it has serious shortcomings due to different situations (e.g. a good bench player can have a better plus/minus than a star since he's playing against the opposition's second team). However, a lot of those issues are removed when you are playing one team in a playoff series. Benches are shortened, and the quality of the opposition is consistent. In playoff circumstances, plus/minus can tell you a lot.

And Dirk's plus/minus indicates that his defense is hurting the team far worse than his offense is helping.

I'm not sure this is a solveable problem. Team defense can only go so far, and if Dampier has Dirk's back, then Tyson Chandler is left to abuse the paint. If Josh cheats over to help Dirk, then Stojakovic will just nail mid-range jumper after mid-range jumper. The Mavs could conceivably play a lot more zone defense and hope the Hornets shooters go cold. Another alternative is to sit Dirk, but let's be honest--that's just not realistic.

If the team defense can't effectively help Dirk, there may only be one way to address this problem: Employ a large number of different defenses, which individually may have weaknesses, but the weakness would change with each possession. Trap Chris Paul one possession, go matchup zone the next, go straight man the next, constantly switch man coverage at the forward spots--in short, mix up the defenses so completely that each possession provides a new challenge for how to take advantage of the Mavs defense.

The danger in this strategy is that NBA teams generally play a specific defensive scheme for a reason--they are good at it, and it works. Tossing ten schemes at New Orleans means that maybe seven of them aren't that good and have weaknesses. Desperate? Yes, but adding a touch of confusion to the mix and moving the weaknesses around the floor may be better than the alternative: Leaving Dirk alone to get abused by David West and Peja Stojakovic.