Back around the trade deadline when a lot of Iverson speculation was
going on (and I guess still is) I suggested the trade idea of Iverson
to Dallas for Devin Harris, Marquis Daniels, and Erick Dampier. I
figured then that it would take a first-round upset for Dallas to make
such an aggressive trade but it seems that the Finals meltdown could
work just as well - especially since a lot of observations I've seen
trying to explain the loss has centered on issues of mental toughness,
experience, and a reliable scorer other than Nowitzki. Plus,
considering that Miami made just such an overhaul after a generally
successful run the year before indicates that big change does not
*necessarily* need a long adjustment period, especially when there's
still a solid base with a superstar player like Nowitzki (like Miami
with Shaq) and a coach of the year like Johnson (like Riley) in place.
Anyway, no one seemed to think much of the idea at the time, thinking
that it had the same bad odor of the Barkley trade. But I'm curious to
know what people now think after, presumably, getting a better look at
the Dallas players in the finals.

Keep in mind my main arguments at the time:

1) As the Sixers' own meltdown this year proved, their current
construction is flawed and dysfunctional. With their extremely poor
cap situation, particularly with Webber's contract, there is virtually
no possibility to significantly improve the roster in the forseeable
future. Iverson probably has three or four star-level years left.
They will not see him being anywhere close to a championship series if
he stays in Philadelphia. I don't necessarily think that the Sixers
*should* trade Iverson. In relation to point #2 below, the Sixers will
not get 'equal value'. And even if the team could manage to trade
Webber instead, he would only bring on even more mediocre talent and
probably longer contracts (no one is going to give up good prospects
anymore for old Webber - we'd be talking about the Malik Roses of the
world). If an Iverson trade is to happen, now is the time to do it.

2) With Iverson's age to go along with the usual criticisms of him and
his game (both deserved and undeserved), there is no way that the
Sixers will be able to acquire a single player who has proven to be as
singlehandedly influential to wins than Iverson. In the entire league,
the only players I would think of equal or greater quality in that
respect are O'Neal, James, Nash, Nowitzki, and Wade. The star-level
players rumoured to be on the block--particularly Garnett, Pierce, and
J. O'Neal--have never led their teams as far as Iverson has with such
limited surrounding talent. As such, the best scenario is to acquire
some young talent, who can potentially be solid starters and hopefully
bubble all-star talents (assuming that those with perennial all-star
potential like, say, Chris Bosh, are off limits). Of course, cap
flexibility is highly desireable as well. If a superstar (or even 2)
can be added later when Webber's $20M+ contract finally expires, a
contender could be made in as little as 3 years, while, hopefully, the
transition wouldn't fall into mid-90s levels of misery.

3) I had observed in the original post that Devin Harris, then
considered something of a draft bust, still had some solid star
potential. Over the course of the playoffs, Harris seems to have
proven me correct. Though I still wouldn't say he'll get to all-star
level, he certainly looks like he can be a starting point guard for
years to come on a contending team. Daniels didn't have as much
opportunity behind Terry, Stackhouse, and Howard, but he has shown
himself to be an exceptional athlete, and was arguably the best
shooting guard for the Mavericks in the last few games of the finals,
particularly in defending Wade. I think he would definitely be a solid
rotation player/6th man for the Sixers as a swingman (infinitely better
than stiffs like Salmons) and can be a competent starter at the 2 until
someone better might come along. In sum, I think that a group of
Harris, Daniels, and Iguodala would make a fine young and athletic
group at the 1-3 positions - perhaps suspect as far as 3pt shooting,
but what else is new for the Sixers? If Iguodala improves his spot-up
shooting and Korver stays around, the perimeter shooting might not be
such a liability.

As far as Dampier goes, sure he's expensive and often doesn't play
particularly well, but he's still consistently shown himself to be a
capable option at center who can contribute to a contending team,
especially in rebounding - the Sixers most deficient area last year.
Somebody has to make up the salary on Iverson's contract, and a true
center who a lot of teams would still like to have isn't a bad way to
do it. Getting Dampier would also allow some flexibility as far as
Dalembert goes. If Dalembert continues to be useless for long
stretches or if some team offered a really good trade for him, he could
be expendable. As the Sixers proved many times this year, for all of
Dalembert's faults, the team was usually pitiful when he wasn't on the
floor. It was often mentioned this year how Marc Jackson--in a way the
poor man's Dampier (even slower and seemingly unmotivated)--seemed to
be missed as a backup presence. Dampier would at least provide a solid
interior presence, which was wholly lacking in the frequent times when
Dalembert was out with injuries or fouls.

4) It makes sense for Dallas. Iverson still has enough left that the
loss of Harris' long term potential doesn't necessarily amount to a
one-year gamble on Iverson, though it does present at most a 3 year
window as far as legitimately competing for a championship.
Considering how close Dallas is, it would be somewhat dumb not to go
for it. Diop makes Dampier expendable, and Dallas could probably use a
more athletic backup at center anyway. Daniels, while talented, has
been mostly redundant since Josh Howard's emergence. How does a team
guard Nowitzki and Iverson at the same time? If nothing else, it would
be quite an interesting pairing to see. I'm personally in the camp
that thinks Phoenix, if Stoudamire is healthy, will dominate the league
for the next few years, but it would be great fun to see them battle it
out against Nowitzki and Iverson in a couple of playoff series.


So again, I welcome any thoughts.

-IK

"Ian Kognitow" <covanus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150933037.553876.156200@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

From a Dallas perspective I think they would want to trade Terry and some
bench parts for Iverson. Terry is like a very poor man's version of
Iverson. It would really fill some of the perceived "holes" in the current
Mavs lineup. Iverson is mentally tougher than any player on the Mavs and
would take the burden off Dirk in clutch situations. The free throw
disparity that happened in the Finals would go away with Iverson
neutralizing the Dwayne Wade factor. It would be a bold move but one that
might very well result in a championship for Dallas...

Chris Zabel wrote:


That's probably true, though Terry is now a free agent and who knows if
he would accept a sign and trade to a rebuilding team after just being
in the finals. Even if Philadelphia would accept Terry instead of
Harris in my scenario (which I wouldn't do), he would have to take a
substantial pay cut as well for the numbers to match up to still get
Daniels and Dampier (not sure what other Dallas spare parts the Sixers
could really use). In any case, given the issue of cap
relief/flexibility for the Sixers, I don't think picking up Terry on a
new contract, probably starting around the $8m he was making this year,
is any good for the Sixers at all.

That said, I think for Dallas it would actually be better to keep Terry
over Harris with Iverson around. Terry's a much better perimeter
shooter, and it would probably be better to have Iverson initiating the
offense and working S/Rs with Nowitzki from the PG position. The other
option for Dallas would be to try and dump Harris *and* Terry on
Philadelphia while keeping Daniels, which would still give up on some
outside shooting but also make the backcourt not so short, and give
Iverson a great athlete (like he has now with AIg) to throw alley-oops
and stuff to.

-IK

On 22 Jun 2006 17:41:10 -0700, "Ian Kognitow" <covanus@gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't see the team getting better from this. AI counts for a lot of
productivity, and we don't get anywhere near that in return.

I like Daniels, and Harris would help, but they are role players more
then anything else. A team can go to the finals with players like
them, but they didn't carry Dallas there. I don't know about Dampier.
He'd help out the bench, but that's a lot of cash for a bench scrub,
which is what he is.

I don't think this move would make us worse, but I don't see making
the playoffs as a result of this. What's the point if we don't
improve? I think we need to do much better that this for AI.

Swyck

Swyck wrote:


I think you kind of said it. I took as one of my premises that there's
no chance of really getting equal value in an AI trade. The advantages
are becoming younger, more cap flexible, and filling spots. And in
this scenario, the role players, while not superstars or anything,
provide a starting-level backcourt and a solid player at backup center.
It is in the long term strategy of having a solid, talented group in
place for when Webber's contract comes off the books - that's when you
try and get the superstar talent off the free-agent market to truly
make it back to contending status. The notion that the team wouldn't
necessarily get *worse* in the interim actually is rather praiseworthy
given most rebuilding scenarios. And frankly, the Sixers are 1st round
fodder *at best* for as long as Webber and his $20m contract are still
in town.

-IK