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.

More photos » by Matt Slocum - AP

Dallas' 2008-2009 defense proudly on display.

Browse more photos »

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 »

More photos » by Darren Abate - AP

Browse more photos »

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 »