Iguodala for Josh Howard?

by kkengvib on Aug 4, 2008 7:46 PM CDT Comment 16 comments

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Trading-Andre-Iguodala;_ylt=AqPntYrSHVZT695.x_wqlmG8vLYF?urn=nba,98268

Kelly Dwyer is proposing 76ers try to pull this deal off as they are struggling to come to terms with AI2's new contract.

I personally think this move is sort of like the one we've been discussing for Josh Smith, and possibly slightly worse. It's one for the future, and I don't really think it puts us in a better position to win it this year.

What do you guys think?

Reader Submitted

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If he cost less than Howard, than I'm doing it.

The team that continues to disappoint, the Arizona Diamondbacks.

by srdmad on Aug 4, 2008 9:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

There's no way it will...

by N41D on Aug 5, 2008 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which is why I said only if he costs less.

So, no I don’t want to do this deal basically.

The team that continues to disappoint, the Arizona Diamondbacks.

by srdmad on Aug 5, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

this is a lateral move that will provide some amazing dunks and alley oops, but not a title.

by Toddy on Aug 4, 2008 11:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Not sure I see how yall feel this is a lateral move...

At this point, if you can get someone like Iguodala or Josh Smith for Josh Howard, you’ve gotta do it…

These guys are already on Josh’s level in terms of on-court production, they’re substantially younger, and have substantially more room to grow as players both on offense and defense…

If you can get this type guy for Josh Howard, you have to do it.

by N41D on Aug 5, 2008 9:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

I believe Iggy would be a definite upgrade over Howard. I think some of you guys are starting to overvalue Josh Howard and aren’t seeing him for what he really is. I’m just curious to see who some of you think would be a move to put us in title contention? It seems like any deal that someone has proposed we’ve just been quick to call lateral without really looking into it. Maybe the Boston Celtics have got us to thinking that we can trade for an elite player and give up nothing in return.

by b3tts32 on Aug 5, 2008 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

These guys are already on Josh’s level in terms of on-court production

This is what I mean by lateral move… production wise. I’m not saying it wouldnt be an upgrade by any means. Just saying it would not be a move that makes us a contender… definitely could make us better this year and for years to come, but how does a move like this address the 2 spot on the team, which has plagued us for YEARS now?

by Toddy on Aug 5, 2008 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The production was the same to the blind eye..

but you have to remember that Iggy was the go to guy for the 76ers meanwhile Josh was playing next to the reigning mvp. So of course some of Josh’s shots are going to come a bit easier. I do believe we would be losing out on Josh’s defense though when it comes to guarding the big guards in the west, without watching more of the 76ers games I can’t speak on AI’s individual defense.

As far as the 2 guard being addressed I think that really depends on what type of offense Carlisle is planning on running. In the past with Avery it really didn’t matter who ran the point, 2, or the 3 (maybe exaggerating a bit) position because it was that same Iso offense. Honestly I’d just like to see what type of direction we’re going in.

by b3tts32 on Aug 5, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"We love our team"

Honestly I’d just like to see what type of direction we’re going in.

by Toddy on Aug 5, 2008 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're probably right about

us putting Josh too high… Its the same thing the Kings fans and even management went through with Artest also. Remember them asking for Josh in return for Artest? That didnt last, as well all knew it wouldnt, and they got desperate. I guess I just dont want to see us on the Kings, Grizzlies, and Wolves end of a deal in getting too desperate to deal Josh right now…

After all that has happened with Josh, I dont even realistically see us being able to trade Josh straight up for either smith or AI anyways, just because of Josh’s issues, and the upside that those guys have plus about the same production value those guys currently have.

by Toddy on Aug 5, 2008 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Completely Agree...

Maybe the Boston Celtics have got us to thinking that we can trade for an elite player and give up nothing in return.

Boston was in a position where they had the quality young players needed to make the deal for Garnett, and the contracts needed to provide Seattle with the cap relief they desired… Boston didn’t necessarily “give up nothing” for those guys, but they did have the pieces need to make those moves. Unfortunately, we don’t really have either of those types of pieces. The only expiring contract we’ve got is Stackhouse. The only decent young player we have is Bass. Neither of those are real quality assets on the trade market at this point.

We’ve given bad contracts to Dampier, Terry, and now Diop. We’ve traded this past draft pick and the one year after next. We traded our best young asset for a point guard that has proven to be a failure in Dallas so far… We’re stuck with the first three guys for the time being. Kidd’s contract could become a real asset if this team is floundering at the deadline, but at that point we’re out of contention anyways so it doesn’t matter…

Bottom line is, with the assets we’ve got on the roster right now, there’s not a move that’s going to put us in contention. We’re basically stuck with what we’ve got, especially if we’re simply looking at anything involving Josh Howard as a lateral move.

by N41D on Aug 5, 2008 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

there is a move out there that will put us in contention… its just a matter if the Mavs FO can pull it off.

Boston was able to do it with what they had, so were the Lakers, so were the Rockets.

by Toddy on Aug 5, 2008 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There probably is

something out there to pull. Too bad it seems like the Mavs FO are sitting around sucking their thumbs while most of the other teams trying to move up are reportedly being very active.

by Mav in Cali on Aug 5, 2008 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Problem is...

We don’t have the assets Boston had to get the Ray Allen deal done…

We don’t have the assets the Lakers had to get the Pau Gasol deal done… (It looks better now that it turned into $10 million in cap space + Crittenton + Marc Gasol + Darrell Arthur, no?)

And since we didn’t have a first rounder in this year’s draft, and can’t trade our 2009 first rounder do to CBA regulations, we don’t even have the assets the Rockets had to get their deal done…

At this point, the best the Mavericks can hope for is finding some team near the deadline who’s ready to mail it in, a couple of the new young guys on the roster blossom in this system, and they can make a deal with the expirings (Stackhouse and Jones) + one of the young guys… But since we can’t trade a draft pick, we’ll probably be outbid then, too.

by N41D on Aug 5, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

because of all those reasons

the jason kidd trade was an absolute travesty

by kumizi on Aug 6, 2008 1:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

assets

You forgot about Eddie Jones expiring contract and a Devean George sign and trade. Jones isn’t much to talk about but a George S&T (with only one guaranteed year) is pretty much the only way the Mavs will get anything of value.

Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!

by DerekSTheRed on Aug 6, 2008 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs