Dirk Nowitzki for Kobe?

Why does it have to be the players getting pay cuts? Why can't it come out of the owners pocket?

As X said, you can't really compare a potential trade that would see two top players in the league changing teams to a trade involving a largely unproven player being dealt for a star who's aging but is still one of the top five at his position. Whatever criticisms one might lob at Kobe or Dirk, both teams would be receiving a world class player in return.

The Mavericks' preference not to trade Nowitzki, for Kobe or anyone else, makes sense. They already have a strong roster that is capable of competing with the Western Conference's other top teams and their most valuable players aren't on the verge of retirement. They still have time to fine tune and tinker. Last year's upset is no reason to push the panic button. They're not the first elite team to bow out early in the Playoffs and they won't be the last. No disrespect to the Golden State Warriors, but their Cindarella run doesn't mean the Mavericks need to make drastic changes.

Why does it have to be the players getting pay cuts? Why can't it come out of the owners pocket?

I wish it would come out of the owner's pockets, but they wouldn't stand for that....and the players wouldn't stand for a pay cut, which means one word, lockout, which is not good for the league....

so whilst I think the idea of a shortened regular season has a lot of positives, I really don't see it ever happening....

Well if it is not Kobe´s fault when the Lakers miss to go further than the 1st round, why is it Dirk´s fault when the Mavs cant do so ? I mean you all say that Dirk has the way better team mates, but where have they been in the Playoffs .....

I hate this "player xy is choking in Playoffs" especially when it comes to Dirk who totally dominated in the Playoffs two years ago (remember the Spurs and Suns series ?)

I dont think that it would be a good deal for both teams.
While the Lakers should try to get a 2nd scoring option next to Kobe (and I mean a real scoring threat .. Odom is too unselfish although I love him playing), the Mavs do not need any trade right now ... especially not an All Star PF for an All Star SG .. since they have Terry and Howard.

Do you really want to compare the differences in expectations of Kobe and Dirk?

Lets compare last seasons playoff exit of the Mavs to the exit of the Lakers in 2006:

Kobe scored 24 points in game 7 (in Phoenix), and that was considered a choke.
Dirk scored 8 in game 6 in Golden state.

You tell me what was worse.

The Mavericks were coming off a 65 + win season.
The Lakers won 45 games in 06.

The season before, the Mavericks made the finals and Dirk choked in them as well. He made one big basket the entire series in game 4. That was it.

The season before 06, the Lakers didn't even make the playoffs.

The Mavericks supporting cast of Terry, Howard, Stackhouse played better then Dirk against the Warriors.

The lakers supporting cast played well the first 4 games of the suns series, but they fell apart.

Are you going to sit here and tell me that Odom, Smush Parker and Kwame Brown are equal to Josh Howard, Jason Terry and Jerry Stackhouse?

There is a huge difference between the playoff careers of Dirk and Kobe, and that's how they'll be remembered.

Why does it have to be the players getting pay cuts? Why can't it come out of the owners pocket?

I wish it would come out of the owner's pockets, but they wouldn't stand for that....and the players wouldn't stand for a pay cut, which means one word, lockout, which is not good for the league....

so whilst I think the idea of a shortened regular season has a lot of positives, I really don't see it ever happening....

I don't mind the season the way it is. More basketball the better. If play began to decline in the playoffs, then I would agree with you. But the playoffs is always of a higher intensity.

Well if it is not Kobe´s fault when the Lakers miss to go further than the 1st round, why is it Dirk´s fault when the Mavs cant do so ? I mean you all say that Dirk has the way better team mates, but where have they been in the Playoffs .....

I hate this "player xy is choking in Playoffs" especially when it comes to Dirk who totally dominated in the Playoffs two years ago (remember the Spurs and Suns series ?)

I dont think that it would be a good deal for both teams.
While the Lakers should try to get a 2nd scoring option next to Kobe (and I mean a real scoring threat .. Odom is too unselfish although I love him playing), the Mavs do not need any trade right now ... especially not an All Star PF for an All Star SG .. since they have Terry and Howard.

Do you really want to compare the differences in expectations of Kobe and Dirk?

Lets compare last seasons playoff exit of the Mavs to the exit of the Lakers in 2006:

Kobe scored 24 points in game 7 (in Phoenix), and that was considered a choke.
Dirk scored 8 in game 6 in Golden state.

You tell me what was worse.

The Mavericks were coming off a 65 + win season.
The Lakers won 45 games in 06.

The season before, the Mavericks made the finals and Dirk choked in them as well. He made one big basket the entire series in game 4. That was it.

The season before 06, the Lakers didn't even make the playoffs.

The Mavericks supporting cast of Terry, Howard, Stackhouse played better then Dirk against the Warriors.

The lakers supporting cast played well the first 4 games of the suns series, but they fell apart.

Are you going to sit here and tell me that Odom, Smush Parker and Kwame Brown are equal to Josh Howard, Jason Terry and Jerry Stackhouse?

There is a huge difference between the playoff careers of Dirk and Kobe, and that's how they'll be remembered.

I dont know why you say that ... did I talk about the expectations of Dirk and Kobe ? Did I say Dirk was better than Kobe ? Did I even mention any comparison ?? The only thing I compared at least a bit was their teammates.
So I dont get the point of your post ...

I dont need to argue about which player is better ... cuz basketball is a team sport and guess what ? The Mavs are currently better than the Lakers. That is why Dirk got the MVP award. I dont know if whether your a Kobe fanboy or a Dirk hater, but actually both is pretty weak.

Did Jordan ever not share the ball with Randy brown, kerr and longley?

To pin the Lakers faults on Kobe for not passing the ball is ridiculous.

jordan, alot more than kobe, has given the ball up during a game winning shot and trusted teammates like kerr, paxon, and the rest of the scraps they surrounded around jordan. jordan clearly made his teammates better which is something kobe has yet to do. i wont say its cause he had all the faith in the world in his teammates, hell its well known he rode his teammates asses more than most. personally i think it just comes down to, players were willing to bust thier ass for jordan, they are not willing to do that for kobe

here we go again.

here we go again.

damn you beat me to it.

I can't join in the Jordan/Kobe argument, you really can't compare a retired player's career against another player who still play. Still, I think Jordan's teammates are far superior than Kobe's.

As for the Dirk and Kobe thing, I agree with Andrew, why would the Mavericks make a major superstar deal when their team is one of the best right now? It doesn't make sense.

you really can't compare a retired player's career against another player who still play.

Why not?

all that being said, it will never happen as those 23 games are big money earners & players wouldn't want to take pay cuts for shorter seasons

Why would they have to take a pay cut? They are paid per season, not per game.

you really can't compare a retired player's career against another player who still play.

Why not?

all that being said, it will never happen as those 23 games are big money earners & players wouldn't want to take pay cuts for shorter seasons

Why would they have to take a pay cut? They are paid per season, not per game.

Well with 23 games less I think that the money usually coming from the attendance will be lost - and so the franchises will have to recalculate.
And the media is surely not willed to pay the same amount of money for less games they can broadcast.
Same with the NBA partners that will not be seen as often as they used to.

Well with 23 games less I think that the money usually coming from the attendance will be lost - and so the franchises will have to recalculate.
And the media is surely not willed to pay the same amount of money for less games they can broadcast.
Same with the NBA partners that will not be seen as often as they used to.

Attendance wont necessariy be lost, with 82 games about the first 20-30 are look at as unimportant (just like no one watches baseball till playoffs). If you factor in the games matter more and the attendance spike that could make...it could actually even out quite nicely. The media aspect is another story and part of the reason shortened seasons wont happen.

As for Kobe/Dirk: Its a pretty standard rule; dont trade your best player for a position your pretty stacked in. i dont even understand what the issue is here. It'd be a dumb move on both teams account regardless of choking/teammates etc.

The lockout season of 98/99 gave us a taste of what a shorter regular season might be like, the tighter schedule and months of inactivity aside. I guess it's easy for me to say since I'm not enduring the travelling or the physical toll but I don't think a shorter regular season would necessarily be better.

Granted, it might make a difference in players feeling fatigued after a long season or battling nagging injuries but on the flipside there's less time to recover before the Playoffs, meaning a return in time for the postseason might not be possible. Likewise, some of the exciting late season pushes to make the Playoffs might not come to fruition if teams don't have the time to rebound from sluggish starts and rough road trips where their win/loss record takes a hit.

Andrew, it might just mean a little bit longer training camp & practice work as a team, so that all the teams are ready to go at opening night....I never get the feeling that all players are ready to go (I'm not meaning injuries) & some players play themselves into shape....but yep, there are pro's & con's....I still think you will get late season runs for postseasons as teams get on rolls at different points in the season, so I wouldn't imagine it to be any different....the only thing would be you couldn't let yourself get 10 games under .500 & expect to make playoffs like currently....

I think it would be different if that 50 game season was spread out over the normal November-April schedule instead of jammed into February-April schedule in a desperate attempt to save the playoffs.

As for Kobe/Dirk: Its a pretty standard rule; dont trade your best player for a position your pretty stacked in. i dont even understand what the issue is here. It'd be a dumb move on both teams account regardless of choking/teammates etc.

Agreed. I don't know why anyone is talking about this. The entire point of a trade for Kobe would be to have both Dirk and Kobe. Why would you swap one superstar for another just because one was potentially a hair better? The goal would be to trade some non-superstars to get a bonafide second one. For either team.

If they were sick of Dirks consistent choking in the playoffs maybe they would pull the trigger for Kobe.

kobe for dirk, and sign webber would make sense. The Mavs do have more talent than the lakers and could take this risk. But dirk is a special type of player so not wanting to trade him is understandable. If they could land Kobe and have Dirk still, that might be something a bit scary for the rest of the league.

if the question is "would you trade dirk for kobe straight up?", then i say you have to and anyone in thier right mind would. yeah you would be left thin down low but with the remaining players you could easily snag a big man, or 2.

Andrew, it might just mean a little bit longer training camp & practice work as a team, so that all the teams are ready to go at opening night....I never get the feeling that all players are ready to go (I'm not meaning injuries) & some players play themselves into shape....but yep, there are pro's & con's....I still think you will get late season runs for postseasons as teams get on rolls at different points in the season, so I wouldn't imagine it to be any different....the only thing would be you couldn't let yourself get 10 games under .500 & expect to make playoffs like currently....

I think it would be different if that 50 game season was spread out over the normal November-April schedule instead of jammed into February-April schedule in a desperate attempt to save the playoffs.

That's true, a 50 game schedule over a longer period of time wouldn't play out exactly like the lockout season but I still don't think it would be better than having the 82 game season. I realise it's easy for me to say that as a fan and not someone who has to endure the travelling, preparation and physical grind of an NBA season but it seems to me that the 82 game season seems to work fairly well. There's enough time for teams to rise and fall and make Cindarella runs; the best teams will stay on top and the truly awful teams will stay at the bottom. No matter how long the season is, injuries are an inevitable part of the game. Traditionally the Playoffs have featured quality basketball, even after a lengthy regular season.

To me it just seems like another one of those things that has worked fine for a long time but when a couple of things go wrong suddenly the whole system is flawed, has always been flawed and needs to be changed immediately. The Playoff seeding comes to mind; one year a matchup worthy of being the Conference Finals series happens in the second round and there's a mad scramble to rectify the situation, looking utterly ridiculous when the matchup never happens because of one of the teams falls victim to an upset the following year. Sometimes the situation is not going to be ideal and short of rigging the whole league, no amount of changes to the format are going to prevent that.

I was only suggesting dropping season to 59 games, not 50 extra 9 games for you was only a left field suggestion anyways....