quote:

---

Ganondorf is a Spurs fan which means he is likely a Cowboys fan as well.

---

This is very correct. My dad was a cowboys fan and I naturally became one as well. As I lived in SA I would become a Spurs fan.

Since Staubach was before my time I rank Aikman and gang above him because I never saw him play.

That's why I agreed that sports Mt Rushmores are generational.

I did like the Warren Moon Oilers but never caught on with the Texans.

quote:

---

Ganondorf is a Spurs fan which means he is likely a Cowboys fan as well.

---

Ah. That would explain his ignorance.

And, of course a Spurs/Cowboy fan is going to rate a Maverick lower than Cowboy players.

We are talking about how popular Dirk is in the Metroplex. Who cares what the churro-eating Spurs fans think?

DP

[This message has been edited by Cdhaggie07 (edited 7/16/2014 12:34p).]

Question for mavs fans:

What would you have preferred:

Parsons at 3 years/$46M, or
Stephenson at 2 years/$20M

That was apparently worked out and he would have gone to Dallas had houston matched.

Parsons and it's not even really close. He's more of a true 3 and certainly the better overall player.

Also, and this has probably been mentioned 117 times, but they're paying Dirk 8 mill a year so they can pay Parsons 15 mill. Both expire in 3 years. Having both at a 23 mill per year figure is HUGE value.

quote:

---

Parsons and it's not even really close. He's more of a true 3 and certainly the better overall player.

---

Parsons is not "certainly better", and I suspect that the majority of basketball fans would tag Stephenson as better without too much debate. Similar scorers, but Stephenson brings better passing, rebounding, and defense. He also brings the crazy, so I guess it depends on whether your team needs a little of that and whether you think Stephenson has an overabundance.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 7/16/2014 1:16p).]

...and I don't know why people insist on bringing Nowitzki's contract into a discussion of whether Parsons contract is any good. It's not. Leonard + Parsons at 19 is a steal, but they didn't sign the same contract.

quote:

---

...and I don't know why people insist on bringing Nowitzki's contract into a discussion of whether Parsons contract is any good. It's not. Leonard + Parsons at 19 is a steal, but they didn't sign the same contract.

---

Because it's how the Mavs approached the deal as stated by Donnie.

Which doesn't make Parsons contract any better.

Stephenson led all guards in rebounding last year and put up a very impressive 14/7/5 and shot 49/35 with much better defense than Parsons.

If he wasn't so crazy, he likely would have gotten a max offer or close to it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Parsons and it's not even really close. He's more of a true 3 and certainly the better overall player.

---

Parsons is not "certainly better", and I suspect that the majority of basketball fans would tag Stephenson as better without too much debate. Similar scorers, but Stephenson brings better passing, rebounding, and defense. He also brings the crazy, so I guess it depends on whether your team needs a little of that and whether you think Stephenson has an overabundance.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 7/16/2014 1:16p).]

---

Well then I guess a majority of fans are smarter than the Mavs FO.

Lance's only plus over Parsons is his D; other than that they are comparable or Parsons is better.

And, as you say, Lance is one step away from Artest crazy.

Stevenson cost himself a shatload of money in the Eastern Conference Finals.

quote:

---

Which doesn't make Parsons contract any better.

---

Sure it does. Cause and effect.

quote:

---

Lance's only plus over Parsons is his D

---

Lance is a better rebounder and a better passer, too.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Lance's only plus over Parsons is his D

---

Lance is a better rebounder and a better passer, too.

---

Based on your breakdown of film of stats or what?

Watched a lot of games with each player.

There is also that tricky thing about how Lance played less MPG but had more rebounds and more assists than Chandsome.

Given the Mavs roster and glaring hole at SF, I'd rather have Parsons. All things equal, give me Stephenson.

quote:

---

Watched a lot of games with each player.

There is also that tricky thing about how Lance played less MPG but had more rebounds and more assists than Chandsome.

---

That's not really that tricky?

Oh...you were being smarter than me. Got it.

We disagree on the film. I see them as comparable passers and Parsons played with one of the best volume boarders in the league. Lance played with Roy Hibbert. I'm more concerned with their skill at passing or blocking out and getting the board versus averages per game.

Context matters.

Again, if your analysis is correct then Donnie Nelson did a horrible job this offseason. Guess we'll see who was right

[This message has been edited by Corleoneag99 (edited 7/16/2014 1:42p).]

quote:

---

I'd agree with you on Smith, but Aikman is definitely a solid community guy.

---

Aikman is a solid fan/community guy now, but I think he became much more fan/community friendly after he retired and was a little standoffish when he was a player. It seems that way to me, and I've heard several people comment on it. But he has always been better than Smith (anyone would be).

I think of Dirk as much more fan/community friendly than Aikman when you consider them both in their playing days. Some of that may be his personality, which is a lot more entertaining and friendly than Aikman, but I also think he tries harder than Aikman did when he played.

I like Aikman, so I'm not trying to say he's a bad guy or doesn't do stuff. It's more of just a compliment about how great Dirk is in this regard.

I follow you now.

Does the fact that Aikman is gay play into this at all? Or does the community accept him for being gay by now?

quote:

---

Again, if your analysis is correct then Donnie Nelson did a horrible job this offseason. Guess we'll see who was right

---

If your analysis of my analysis is this, then you did a poor job in your analysis.

SF was a need, SG wasn't. Parsons fits better.

quote:

---

We disagree on the film. I see them as comparable passers and Parsons played with one of the best volume boarders in the league. Lance played with Roy Hibbert.

---

Howard is a good rebounder. However, Parsons' rebounding numbers were virtually identical to the previous year before Howard was there. Not sure that had a tremendous effect on his rebounding.

Lance still collected over 7 rpg while playing SG. That is good no matter how you twist it.

Everybody knows Troy is gay.

quote:

---

I think of Dirk as much more fan/community friendly than Aikman when you consider them both in their playing days. Some of that may be his personality, which is a lot more entertaining and friendly than Aikman, but I also think he tries harder than Aikman did when he played.

---

this could have been a result of Aikman feeling more pressure as the Cowboys starting QB than Dirk did/does as the Mavs starting gangly German. Nobody expected much of the Mavs/Dirk in the early days, so it was a lot easier to be involved in the community. I imagine it was pretty rough for Aikman those first couple seasons in Dallas

quote:

---

Parsons is not "certainly better", and I suspect that the majority of basketball fans would tag Stephenson as better without too much debate.

---

This isn't even close to true. If you aren't talking about character/locker room aspect, then I'll give you that some people would rate Stephenson as better than Parsons. But the character/locker room aspect of it is huge. He single handedly destroyed the Pacers season last year, and I'm guessing there is a ton of stuff that we don't even know about, evidenced by the fact that no one would pay him this year. If Parson was an UFA, there would be teams lining up to give him 10-14 million per year for a long term deal. The best offers Lance got was 5/44 and 3/27. That proves that GMs would rather have Parsons...I don't really care what most "fans" think bc most of them don't know what they are talking about (but I still doubt that most of them would rate Stephenson as better than Parsons all things considered). Of course, if we take character/crazy out of the picture, then things may be different....but that's not just something you can ignore (as evidenced by the contracts Lance was offered).

But even ignoring the crazy/character issues, I would still prefer Parsons. I admit that Lance is better at D, but Parsons isn't awful in that regard. The big difference comes on offense. Lance has to have the ball in his hands and gets almost all of his points/assists from isolation plays having the ball. He also is known to pound the ball and kill any ball movement you have and then drive or take a tough jump shot. He's very talented, so this can turn out ok, but I don't think he'd be a good fit for Dallas. We don't need an iso player who must have the ball in his hands. Ellis can already do that, and any time the ball would swing to Lance it would kill the ball movement, meaning the ball is going to be in Dirk's hands much less. Lance is a good fit for some teams that desperately need a creator (maybe Chicago or Charlotte), but he is not a good fit for the Mavs. I'd much rather take Parsons for our team.

Plus, Parsons wasn't able to dominate the ball at all in Houston, as Lance was allowed to in Indiana (there isn't much chance when you have Harden), so I could easily see his numbers going up if the ball is in his hands more in Dallas.

[This message has been edited by mavsfan4ever (edited 7/16/2014 1:54p).]

quote:

---

If Parson was an UFA, there would be teams lining up to give him 10-14 million per year for a long term deal . . . That proves that GMs would rather have Parsons

---

I'm not sure that your hypothetical "proves" anything. Just because one team overpaid for Parsons doesn't mean that every GM (or even multiple GMs) are willing to do the same.

I'm saying that there would be multiple teams offering Parsons 10-14 million per year if he was an unrestricted free agent. I'm not saying the fact that he got more from us than Lance did proves he is worth more to GMs. I'm saying that if he was an unrestricted free agent (like Lance), multiple teams would be offering him 10-14 million per year on long term deals. Yes, this does prove GMs think he is more valuable than Lance.

If you want to argue that GMs wouldn't actually offer Parsons 10-14 million per year on a long term contract, go ahead. But it's fairly common knowledge that a lot of teams would have offered him this next year when he became an UFA.

You making things up doesn't prove anything

quote:

---

If your analysis of my analysis is this, then you did a poor job in your analysis.

---

Not if we know that the Mavs saw Lance as the next best option after Parsons meaning they thought he was very capable of starting at the 3 and more importantly, capable of defending the other teams wing.

So if what you're saying is true, as in Lance is the better overall player than Parsons, then Donnie just paid 25 million more dollars for an inferior player.

Like I said, we'll see who was right.

quote:

---

Howard is a good rebounder. However, Parsons' rebounding numbers were virtually identical to the previous year before Howard was there. Not sure that had a tremendous effect on his rebounding.

Lance still collected over 7 rpg while playing SG. That is good no matter how you twist it.

---

I can't say I watched a lot of Parsons until last year when he was with Howard. He's a fine rebounder but wasn't asked to be a volume rebounder in that system. Lance seemed to be asked to do more of that for IND which makes sense because Hibbert was pretty awful.

As for boards based on his designation as a SG, that's pretty superficial. The more important thing to understand is where he was asked to be on the floor in the teams system. Lance was clearly asked to be around the basket more.

quote:

---

You making things up doesn't prove anything

---

I'm sorry you don't agree, but it's not making things up. I follow NBA free agency very closely (I'm not just talking about reading/watching ESPN), and it's common knowledge that Parsons would be offered much more than 3/27 from multiple teams around the league.

Plus, Lance's deal is 3/27 with a team option for the third year. So this is even much worse than a normal 3/27 deal. If you are saying that you don't think multiple GMs would have offered Parsons more than 3/27 with a team option on the final year, then I don't know what to tell you. It's not even debatable.

[This message has been edited by mavsfan4ever (edited 7/16/2014 2:24p).]

quote:

---

But even ignoring the crazy/character issues, I would still prefer Parsons. I admit that Lance is better at D, but Parsons isn't awful in that regard. The big difference comes on offense. Lance has to have the ball in his hands and gets almost all of his points/assists from isolation plays having the ball.

---

I can't find a stat for iso plays per possession, but they have the same usage percent. 42% of Stephenson's shots are assisted while 64% of Parsons shots are assisted.

quote:

---

He also is known to pound the ball and kill any ball movement you have and then drive or take a tough jump shot.

---

I can't find the iso stats, but Stephenson has a significantly higher assist% (assists per possession where he touches the ball) than Parsons. They also have identical usages but Parsons takes more shots per possession, which means that more of Parsons touches end in shots. And if Stephenson is taking tougher shots, it's pretty impressive that he has a higher 2PT% and the same eFG% and tFG%.

quote:

---

He's very talented, so this can turn out ok, but I don't think he'd be a good fit for Dallas. We don't need an iso player who must have the ball in his hands. Ellis can already do that, and any time the ball would swing to Lance it would kill the ball movement, meaning the ball is going to be in Dirk's hands much less. Lance is a good fit for some teams that desperately need a creator (maybe Chicago or Charlotte), but he is not a good fit for the Mavs. I'd much rather take Parsons for our team.

Plus, Parsons wasn't able to dominate the ball at all in Houston, as Lance was allowed to in Indiana (there isn't much chance when you have Harden), so I could easily see his numbers going up if the ball is in his hands more in Dallas.

---

Stephenson may have dominated the ball more, although it's hard to tell until someone starts keeping a stat for how long a player was in possession of the ball, but they had similar usages and shooting percents while Parsons got to play in a much more efficient offense. Stephenson pretty much had to, so it's a little hard to tell what he would do for a team that has an actual offense.



Stephenson's craziness and Parsons getting caught up in an artificial situation altered their respective contracts, but Parsons is not a substantially better basketball player than Stephenson and may actually be worse. I realize that Rockets and Mavs fans both having hometown feeling for him will inflate his perceived value on this board, but come on. The guy is solid but he's primarily a scorer who ranked 43rd in scoring. He's got some work to do before he gets a free pass as being better than other good players.

quote:

---

Parsons is not "certainly better", and I suspect that the majority of basketball fans would tag Stephenson as better without too much debate. Similar scorers, but Stephenson brings better passing, rebounding, and defense. He also brings the crazy, so I guess it depends on whether your team needs a little of that and whether you think Stephenson has an overabundance.

---

For what the Mavs were looking for he is. He is a true 3, as opposed to Stephenson who is a 2 that can play the 3.

Yes, Stephenson can play great perimeter D, obviously better than Parsons. However, at 6'5" he creates a height issue alongside the wings with Ellis, since Ellis is only 6'3". With Parsons at 6'9" you don't have that issue. And with Parsons, you have a front court that has serious length with him at 6'9" and a couple of 7 footers in Dirk and Chandler. That will cause match up problems and will definitely help with the interior D.

Yes, Stephenson has slightly better stats on rebounding (averaged 7 a game versus 6 a game for Parsons) and slightly better stats on assists (5 a game versus 4 a game for Parsons), but Parsons is a better scorer (averaged 19 against the Blazers) and he did average 7 boards in the series.

There is also the matter of chemistry. Parsons is much more mature obviously than Stephenson. With Lance, you are getting a great talent but a headache at the same time. With Parsons you are getting great talent and no distractions. Reports from Indiana are that he was weighing other players down emotionally. You can't have that if you want to make a deep playoff run.

[This message has been edited by AgBeliever (edited 7/16/2014 3:12p).]

But I agree, if you were drafting these players as part of a new franchise, and not looking at a specific position of need, Stephenson would be considered the more talented of the two. However, obviously he would be considered the one with the biggest negatives (being a head case).