Comments on: 1 Point for Sports Media

By: kg_veteran

kg_veteran — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

I’m not sure why you’re happy with the way that Celizic responded (or the way that his editor made him respond, whichever it is). I mean, he does look like an idiot for clinging to his position that he was just offering his “opinion”, but he pretty much just blew you off. He never came back and said, “I had no basis for my opinion. I was just pulling stuff out of my butt.”

That’s the retraction that would have made me happy, if I were you.

By: Nishant

Nishant — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

Mark

The best part is that the entire column is based on the fact the the Mavs were down 0-2. Wonder what he’s thinking now? Perhaps why the Rockets didn’t trade Yao for Shaq.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

Did anyone see on, hmm, it was either during SportsCenter or one of the games last night – whoever the hell the broadcaster was was insinuating that Cuban’s ongoing dissing of officials (see, for example, that post a few days ago here – a list of FACTS about win/loss records for officials of Mavs games) had somehow led to Jeff van Gundy being forced to complain about their treatment of Yao Ming, which of course to his big-ass fine? Oh, puhlease – make the man responsible for his own dense actions. Mark, this is an amazing tool for counteracting all the sports writer BS – keep it up.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

Nowitzki is more entertaining than shaq anyway. About 10x as entertaining. Shaq is a great player, but I’d rather watch the sonic’s jerome james to be honest.
He’s just boring to watch !

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

I’m pro-Cuban on this argument, and Mark started dropping him in the early rounds, but I have to admit that the blogger did kind of make his point more clear to me after reading his thread.

When you’re talking to your friend, you say things like “Aww man, if Cuban wanted Shaq, he could have had him.”

That’s an opinion, and it’s presented in a factual way because of everyday speech tendency. Blogs are basically journal entries and often put into that format. It’s very different for this to come from a blogger, instead of a sports columnist like Sam Slime. While it should be approached in a more professional and edited manner since it bears the name of MSNBC, I can actually see where the guy is coming from.

He’s saying if Mark wanted Shaq for one or two years, all he had to do was turn over one of the best players in the league who was just approaching his prime, and maybe throw in some draft picks as well. (Hey, why not the jet too?)

And if he had overpaid Steve Nash, who has certainly improved Phoenix remarkably, but probably wouldn’t have had nearly as startling an impact on the current Mavericks, then the Mavericks would be the team to beat.

Or at least that’s his OPINION. His.. dumbass..opinion.

The only thing I’d change as a passive Mavs fan (my worthless Wolvies out early as usual) would be signing Nash to keep the Suns from being a young, combustible, nearly unstoppable offensive force.

By: bob

bob — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

I not sure why you went after the blogger, it is not like it was not reported wide spread last year that the lakers said if they trade Shaq to Dallas Dirk would have to be included in the package, and that Mark you responded in the press that you would not trade Dirk. Just because you did not have formal discussions, there has always been the implication that if you offered Dirk and 3 other players you could have got Shaq. Which I would agree with in that such an offer would be about twice what they ended up with from the Heat.

Would it have been a good move? I doubt it. Even if his assumption is correct about the trade he ignores several things 1) that the Heat have Wade, who is much better then any player the Mavs would have had left after being fleeced by the lakers. 2) the Heat play in the East, where they only really have to win the series against the Pistons to get to the finals. I doubt if they would be much better then a 50/50 bet to get by the Mavs or Rockets, not to mention the spurs and suns. 3) That at the time of the trade Shaq was hurt, and looked extremely out of shape in the Detroit finals and clearly showed he could not win a title by himself (or with Kobe) so it was a good decision not to strip the team to get him. 4) that the Nash decision was still the best long term move for the team. Maybe he will have 4 good years left but the odds are against it.

Bob

By: James

James — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

Mark,
I am with you on this one. I read his article, to me it sounded like he is attacking you personally. The funny part is the dope wrote this article when your Mavs where down 2-0, ask him how he feels know about the German ! If he would of waited, till your Mavs lost the series, then it’s a different story but now he looks like a total moron. I think if your Mavs win tonight you should send him a T-Mac jersey or wait maybe you had a deal on the table for him too, lololol.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

Two words for you Mark: Jim Grey.
These boys must’ve falled of the same tree. I have to add something to all this. reporting of trade rumours and what not in the NBA is gettig way out of control. The biggest abuser in my personal opinion: Chicago Tribune. Click o any of either Hoopshype.com or InsiderHoops.Com and read the rumor ticker and most of the material seen on it from the Chi. Tribune is garbage. What’s wrong with these boys? Slow day in the office or what?? Hell, at leat throw in a disclaimer to the effect that anything they print purely speculation and/or B.S.
It’s utterly ridiculous the way it is now. Gee, i can’t wait till summer to see what ludicrous concoction they’ll spin off this time around.
Cheers Mark and good luck with game 6 over Rockets. Yer boys need rest before next round so let’s finish’em of tomorrow night.

Richard, Toronto

By: Lindy

Lindy — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

As I wrote to Celizic, several holes exist here. Not only would the Lakers not trade Shaq to a WC team, Dirk’s salary alone wouldn’t get the deal done. Finley, Walker, etc. would have to be part of the deal. As far as foolish speculation goes, this is on par with: Why didn’t Cuban trade Tariq, Bradley, Walker, and Jamison to the Lakers for Shaq? Har Har. Keep up the good fight, MC. It’s great to have an owner that gives a damn, but looks at his team with both the long and short term views in mind.

By: T.P.

T.P. — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:02:36 +0000

Opinion: Shoulda traded Dirk and some junk for Shaq….Lakers would have absolutely jumped on it.

Signed Nash at his price. Made a couple nice little moves like Stack and the big white guy that can shoot.

Fact: NBA CHAMPIONSHIP FOR MR.CUBAN.