« Mavs Lose the Chance at Kevin Garnett | Home | Dallas Stocking Up on NBA Vets »
Are the Mavericks Over-Thinking or NOT Thinking?
By Aaron Phillips | August 3, 2007
Eddie Jones, the newest addition to the Dallas Mavericks, will be announced on Monday. But why Eddie Jones - a 35 year old has been? I don’t have a clue and I don’t think the Mavs’ front office does either.
Why don’t these formally usable and talented NBA vets retire with some dignity? Austin Croshere signed with the Golden State Warriors today. I personally thought he was a good solid backup for Dirk. I am not mad we didn’t re-sign him, but it is obvious our bench, which is known for its depth, seems to be getting younger and less experienced or way too old.
I guess their thinking is to keep the core together. I am on board with that if the core is Dirk, Josh, Devin, Jerry and Diop. It just seems they could make wiser decisions for the role players. Why not sign Chris Webber if you’re going to go the “washed up/has been vet” route? At least he can pass the ball a bit and hit some 20’ jumpers.
Maybe Avery wants to transition Eddie into an Assistant Coach position. The Mavs need a big perimeter defender. Why not take a chance on Ron Artest? Off the court bs aside, he would put them over the top. I would like to see Baron Davis, Dwayne Wade, Tony Parker, Steve Nash or Kobe Bryant have their way w/ Ron Artest defending them in a Mavs uniform. Ron has an offensive game too.
Trade Terry to Sacramento for Artest - the dollars couldn’t be that different to make a trade. If that option is too much for the average cookie cutter hyper sensitive Mavs fan. Try this one on for size: Ruben Patterson. A ruthless defender and free agent, Ruben has also been known to be a head case and has had a problem with coaches before regarding his offensive game and complaining about not getting the ball enough.
Avery can’t handle players like Artest and Patterson? I bet he can. Is it about chemistry? I wonder if Pat Riley or Phil Jackson ever really worried about chemistry. Good coaches get their players to play their hearts out 40 minutes a night. The whole chemistry argument is played out.
The Mavs need to do something better than Eddie Jones. Matt Barnes, one of the guys that killed the Mavs in the playoffs, is a free agent. This guy is only 26 years old and definitely more productive than Eddie Jones would be.
Look at the roster this way:
1. Devin Harris/bench Barea
2. Patterson or Artest / bench Stackhouse
3. Josh Howard / bench George
4. Dirk Nowitzki/ bench Webber/Bass
5. Diop/ Bench Dampier
And you still have Buckner and Ager - a pretty deep bench.
Topics: News |
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Aaron, it is difficult to call Eddie Jones a has-been when his recent numbers have been nearly identical to his career percentages. Heck, his shooting in Miami were actually better than his career as a whole. The biggest difference was the role he played: He simply isn’t the go-to guy on offense that he was back when he scored 20 points per game.
Offense is not even really a question with Jones. His consistency tells us a lot. The real question is his ability to guard shooting guards in a much stronger fashion than our current shooting guards, and–while it isn’t saying much–he is probably an upgrade there.
For the bi-annual exception, pulling in Eddie Jones was a really good pick-up.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:37 am
The Problem I have w/ the deal is not necessarily Eddie Jones- Who in all fairness stepped up last year when Dwayne Wade went down. This is the question what are we doing at the 1 and 2 gaurd positions? When we are pretty solid at the 3-4-5 spots good starters and good solid back ups. Are we going to be inconsistent all season. Because this what we have. Small back court if its Harris at the 1 and Terry at the 2 not very effective defensively and not against big gaurd teams. Your other option Terry at the 1 and Buckner at the 2 now you loose a pass first point gaurd to get some offense in the back court and no offense at the 2 but a little defense w/ Buckner. The third option now will be Harris at the 1 good on both sides of the ball when he is not making bone headed passes and getting into foul trouble and then eddie jones at the 2 also good on both sides of the ball but he is 35 and wont be able to do more than 20 minutes 82 games its just not going to happen. You might ask what about Stackhouse he is a 3 why put him in the back court when you can be so overwhelming at the 3 w/ Stack and Howard. So this is the dilema Why not bring in a solid 2 like patterson or artest who can play both sides of the ball atleast 35 minutes a game
and have Ager or Buckner come in behind one of them off the bench. Have Harris as your true point w/ Barea off the bench. And if your going to bring in a vet to come off the bench Replace dirks back up now that Croshere is gone. With Webber or Pj Brown they can handle 10 minutes a game the idea is to be solid 10 deep isnt it ? We are are deep w/ inconsistent gaurds.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Something i left out on the above about stackhouse- i am not saying stack house should only sub in at the 3 behind Josh - because he can definitley cause mismatch problems at the 2 i just dont think we should look at stack as are main sub at the 2 unless we have so much at the 3- Stack is are offensive safety net who can play 2 or 3, something alot of teams dont have.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Oh, I agree that we have problems at the 2. Jones is absolutely a band aid in a sense.
My best guess is that the Mavs are using the “band aid” to give the younger players Ager (and possibly Seibutis and Terry) time to prove whether they got it or not.
That said, Harris/Terry are more than serviceable against most teams, but boy would I love a longer term solution.