I disagree. Howard is a low-IQ basketball player who actually takes bad shots much more frequently than Artest -- he just happens to be a better jumpshooter. He's a player that relies a lot more on his athleticism than his brain to be effective on the basketball court (one of the reasons the Mavericks were so hapless against Denver was that Howard became essentially useless because of his ankle problems). He's probably a more effective scorer, but he doesn't have anywhere close to Artest's passing ability, will create far fewer matchup problems for opponents, and is mediocre on defense despite his athleticism. He also happens to be a huge bonehead, and personality wise is the antithesis of what makes this Rockets team great. No thanks.
I'll join the naysayers. If it was commonplace for players to be paid under the table, you would see more players actually signing under market value. Free agents almost always take the highest offer.
On this "trade" to Dallas: 1. We really don't need Josh Howard. He has great starts and then flames out late in games. We already have those symptoms with Ron. 2. Josh Howard has never played with or off of a legit post presence. That will be some learning curve, especially with the entry passes. 3. Defensive stopper....I think not. Intangibles....I think not. Spot up shooting....I think not. The only advantage we would have with Josh over Ron would be shot selection and a little more of a slasher. He can be transparent on defense at times. That's part of the reason why Avery was let go. I do live in Dallas, so I see this firsthand. Looking at my GM's track record, he can do a lot better than this.
If we have learned one thing about Cuban over the years it's that he says a lot of things and in the end takes back half of them. He's a fiery guy who says whats on his mind but I wouldn't take everything he says to heart. Of course if he wants to overpay for Artest, that's fine too. We will miss him, but part of the reason that Dallas has been in a decline is because Cuban pays the wrong people too much money... Houston hasn't really done that since Morey took over and I wouldn't expect them to do that for Ron Ron either. ...thinking about Dallas' needs I would think they would want to make a playmaker as their top priority. That's why they look so much better when JJ Barea is in there for them because he can break down defenses to create mismatches and get guys open shots. Seems like Artest is the wrong guy to add to an already iso heavy team although he does bring them toughness(something an overpaid Dampier never really brought to the team).
i highly doubt the cuban would be dumb enough to do something like this. he is cocky and arrogant but if this were ever discovered then the mavs would be destroyed as a franchise. does anyone know what the types of penalties that the nba could enforce on the mavs if something like this were done?
I don't think Cuban's interest in Ron matters too much. He can't outbid us for Ron's services, nor we will trade him to that scumbag team. I'm sure that Cuban owes much of his success to that can-do attitude. You don't think on the downside of things. Then, if your great plan doesn't work out, be disappointed for a minute, shrug it off, then on to the next thing. Besides, Cuban is probably juggling many plans at once---A, B, C, D, E; take A, feel like a genius, if not, work you way down the list. Morey ain't gonna let Cuban do to us (Artest) what we did to San Antonio (Scola.)
Cuban isn't going to give Artest money under the table -- he's WAY too smart to pull a stunt like that. Stern already has it in for Cuban, and that kind of thing could jeopardize his being allowed to own an NBA franchise. If he were going to take THAT big a risk, it wouldn't be on a second-tier player like Ron-Ron.
I could have sworn Cuban said he doesn't make deals with teams within his Division. So that should put all these trade talks in this thread to rest.
Not sure why Dallas would to go for it. Only reasons I could think of: 1.) They really like Artest much better than Howard, and are willing to pay the 10m for him. (Howard has 1 year left at 10.9m, then a team option for 11.8m). 2.) They're cost conscious, and want to resign Kidd and stay within the luxury tax (with Cuban as the owner, unlikely) No thanks on Dampier+Terry for me. Both make about 10m next year. Dampier has 2 years, 23 million left. Terry has 3 years, 30 million left. Adding either of those guys at 10m in exchange for Artest is a tough pill to swallow. Terry is a liability -- he's a terrific scorer, but he can't guard 2s, and he's not much of a point guard -- he's basically Brooks in the LA series with less attacking, more shooting. He would look nice next to a healthy McGrady, though.
are you suggesting cuban will make a private "donation" to artest's bank account without anyone's knowledge?
Thanks. I wasn't paying attention to the salaries. You're right, probably neither would make much sense.
I think some of the complaints about Howard are a little too harsh. The deficits to his game are obvious: 1. Recent injury issues. 2. Passion But he also brings a lot to the table. He scores over 18 ppg every year, is an excellent rebounder, shoots at a decent rate (over 45% ever year of his career except his rookie season...whereas Ron's only shot over 45% once in the last four years), doesn't commit a lot of turnovers, and while clearly not a defensive stopper, if he can fit into a solid defensive team system with Battier leading the way, I don't think our defense would deteriorate that much. He's not your prototypical SG, but neither is Artest. I actually think Howard might be a better fit with Shane than Ron was. A majority of Ron's offense this year was from the 3, which is basically all Shane's offense is. Howard is more of a mid-range guy, slasher, etc. And while he's just barely younger than Ron, he's played less NBA ball. And his contract isn't horrible - only two years left, whereas Ron has three. Howard has a better EFF rating and a better PER rating I would sign and trade Ron for Howard.
I think Ron would be a bad fit for Dallas. Plus, unless they plan on adding someon else or two, the addition of Ron wouldnt even get close to putting them as title contenders. Their money could be better spent.
I would, too. I think they're pretty comparable in terms of player value. The fact that Howard only has a year left (with a team option after that) gives you flexibility, too. What doesn't make sense to me, is why the Mavs would. I don't think Artest is a huge upgrade to Howard -- why would they lock in Artest for 3+ years (as opposed to Howard's 1+let's see?), lose flexibility in 2010, and let a division rival get a pretty decent return for an exiting free agent?
If you assume this is truth, asn the current reports about kidd are true too (that even if he leaves Dallas he would want to agree on a sign a trade to thank the club for trusting him). Then lets say we resign artest starting at 9 million, and we trade him for Kidd resigned for 3 years starting at 4 millions plus a resigned brandon bass and a second round draft pick.
Agreed totally with the entire post but especially the last part. Howard for Artest is a fair offer, no doubt. I just don't like Howard enough to want a deal like this to happen. I'll take the defensive-minded, passionate bonehead over the lazy bonehead with a bad attitude that happens to be a little better offensively.
