Making an Effort

Posted by Rob Mahoney on July 29, 2009 under Commentary |

Like it or not, Tim Thomas is a Maverick.  Luckily for those that are less than enthused about Thomas making Dallas his new home, there are a few reasons to not let the Thomas signing ruin your week.

For one, Tim MacMahon noted that the deal will be a one-year bargain for the veteran’s minimum.  That turns the move from note to footnote, from grabbing a contributor to filling out the roster.  A look at the depth chart with Thomas’ salary in mind would seem to indicate that Thomas’ role on the team isn’t to spell either forward position, but provide depth in a pinch.  Tim Thomas can shoot threes, and he’ll be put on the court to do solely that.  I’m not sure he’s capable of following that mandate, but at the very least Tim has a specific skill that happens to be very useful to the Mavs.

There shouldn’t be any worry that Rick Carlisle will overplay Tim Thomas.  The roster basically has internal safeguards against that.  At forward, the Mavs already have Dirk Nowitzki, Josh Howard, and Shawn Marion eating up a bulk of that minutes.  Howard may end up starting at the 2, but a good amount of the minutes at shooting guard will be doled out to Jason Terry, Quinton Ross, and possibly J.J. Barea.  He’s going to need minutes at small forward, and that need combined with the minutes due to Marion will end up consuming most of the playing time.  With all of these players in place, not to mention the minutes that Drew Gooden could be playing behind Dirk, there just isn’t the time for Tim Thomas to play serious minutes.  He may be considered on the back-end of the rotation, but it’s highly unlikely that Thomas’ on-court fallacies would really come back to bite the Mavs in such limited playing time.

There are, of course, combustible elements.  Namely, Thomas’ reputation for being a bit of an ass.  These are rarely the types of attributes whose impacts are ready for evaluation months in advance, so it’s almost impossible to say whether or not Thomas’ usual bile will sicken the Dallas locker room.

But I’m trying here.  We’re trying here.  Tim Thomas hasn’t done anything specific to deserve a reservation in judgment, but he also hasn’t done enough to really aggravate me as a Maverick sympathizer.  If Tim Thomas turns Dallas into just another stop along his career-long journey of disinterest, it’s no big.  The Mavs face only a minimal commitment, and any character or chemistry hiccups can be remedied with a quick waive.  But if the Mavs do happen to catch a three-point shooter in a bottle, then that’s just swell.

Tags:

  • Ian
    Fair enough, I'm not in the loop too much and to be honest, a lot of the coverage of teams by the big networks is pretty spotty at best. Here's to a year of success for us.
  • Ian
    I don't mind Thomas, all that stuff is water under the bridge. But now Fabricio Oberto is a Free Agent and I know he's not amazing but from I remember when he played with SA, he's a good glue buy that can give us some decent minutes at the center spot. What aren't we going after this guy?
  • @Ian: Oberto has reportedly agreed to a deal with the Wizards, hence the Mavs lack of interest. Plus, he's declined pretty rapidly in the last two seasons, so I'm not sure exactly how much he can offer at this point; a change of scenery could do him wonders, or it could be more of the same slowed, lackluster play we've seen of late.
  • Thanks for (kind of) resolving that one on your own, guys; we think we know what influence player x or player has in the locker room, but it's all second-hand, most of the accounts are still moderated, and the whole issue is rather insular. Living with the team Jack McCallum style is one thing, but even those on the team beat or in the locker room post-game don't have an honest read on the situation. It's another view of the situation, sure, but the locker room is just another stage.
  • @craw: Fair point, although I doubt that you beat me in the boredness domain.
  • Brian D
    Crawford are you really calling the Shaq Lakers a good chemistry team? Kobe and Shaq didn't like eachother at all. McHale and Bird were also famous for their relationship being tenuous at best. On-court chemistry is all that matters. You can hate eachother off the court, it doesn't make much of a difference.
  • Crawford
    We're all amateurs. Some of us are just more bored at work.
  • Wow. You seem to have a lot of insight into team chemistry facts. And not only the Mavs, but all the important teams of the last two decades...screw my unreliable oracle bones!
  • Crawford
    Rhett, really good point about culture. Unfortunately, I'd have to agree and go even further. Mavs may have the 2nd worst leadership / locker room presence of all remote contenders. Kidd for sure is seasoned, but so nonvocal, very much like Dirk. Typically only good chemistry teams win titles (Celts 08, Shaq lakers, Pistons, Spurs, Bulls, Hakeem Rockets).

    My only consolation is the worst chemistry team perhaps in the league won the 2009 title. Maybe we can follow. Kobe sucks.
  • rhett
    Any group of people brought together for an extended period of time will develop a 'culture'. That culture reflects the group standards for things like work ethic, intensity, and level of commitment to the team goals.
    I understand a lot of our teams moves basketball wise. However, Marion, Gooden, and Thomas all bring with them culture baggage- complaints about their intensity, ego, or focus all falling well short of a successful team dynamic.
    We are obviously banking on the leadership ability of our coach, point guard, and organization to make these players seamless parts of a good team 'culture'.
    Its important, I think, to remember that the 11th guy down the bench can be the first guy on the soap box in the locker room.
  • john
    great move! simple hes a proven player who can come in and knock down shots....everyone is being very hush about the mavericks offseason...this is now a very deep team who has howard/kidd/dirk all wanting a championship you will never question there effort...then you plug in a very good defender in Marion not to mention very hard to guard...there alot better than last year as is...then you had much needed depth with gooden(who is balls to the wall always) Tim Thomas who wont back down from anyone come in a hit the much needed three, throw the 6th man terry in there the change of speed barea and we have the most talented TEAM...maybe not the most talented 5 but no one will be able to guard us....coach of the year goes to carlisle...jump on the boat fast! this could be the year
  • Robs
    It's not that the Mavs are too old, it's that Kidd is too old, five years for Marion is too long, and years of haphazardly trading away draft picks just indicates, to me, that we'll continue to see Drew Gooden/Tim Thomas-esque moves for the next 3-5 years as Cuban and Nelson try to prop up the Dirk era. It's a frustrating situation for the fans.
  • wacc_Attack
    people have been calling the spurs old for years, and it took them unti 2009 (plus a few key injuries) to start playing like they're old. clearly, younger great players > older great players. but a great player is still a great player. we've got more depth and size now, some interior defense improvements, and more firepower; all factors which limited us against denver. if roddy can contribute this season, im feeling pretty good about our chances to stir it up.
  • benway37
    It seems that everyone feels like the mavs are collecting these guys on whims. I don't see it that way. Thomas is just another (cheap) piece of the puzzle that signals HQ thinking: everyone agrees that what makes the Lakers so tough is the quality bigs they have. But Odom is not a 5. Gasol is effective at the 5 but is not a banger. Bynum is the only prototypical "big" 5, and (to this point) he is the most inconsistent (read: least threatening.)
    Replacing carroll with thomas upgrades the bottom of the roatation with yet another big flexible wing/post player who can keep a defense honest. It's not like he's gonna get ass loads of time, and you could do a lot worse than having his versatility so far down in the rotation.
    Yeah, after the whole 50 spot game he's not my "favorite" player, but clamoring for what Hakeem Warrick brings and crying about Thomas' shortcomings is sort of hypocritical. Keep in mind Thomas was bought out of a $6 million deal. We're getting him for 1 year at $1.3. Chances are that Warrick signs for more than that. So basically, when you crunch the numbers, we get a player somewhat similar to what Warrick brings, who is a better shooter, and probably more suited to handle defensive duties in the post. (I know, I already hear the Tim Thomas defense jokes), but Warrick is listed as being slightly heavier than Josh Howard.
    I see Thomas as being a poor man's Lamar Odom. I mean a really poor man. But still, remind yrself of the diminished role he will play for us, and the minimal commitment he poses, and it really is a pretty good move, one that I see paying dividends on at least a sporadic basis.
  • Brian D
    Great point Crawford. I keep hearing people complain about how old the Mavs roster is, but other than Kidd, everyone is still close to 30. When did that become too old for the NBA?!

    For a quick history review, the 1998 Chicago Bulls ages:
    MJ was 35, Rodman was 37, Pippen was 33, Kerr was 33, Kukoc was 30, Harper was 34. Longley was their youngest contributor at 29.

    I know it was well over a decade ago, but I certainly don't remember that team being called "too old to win".

    When did having stud 24 year olds who are inexperienced become THE recipe for championship success? Did I miss a memo?
  • kerri
    don't lose singleton for thomas
  • Crawford
    A small note to Kirk... It is one thing to rely on 2 old guys to carry you (Duncan / Ginobli...not old in age, but old in games played due to int'l play). It is another to have a BUNCH of old guys. It may not seem intuitive, but the issue with the old folk, is that they are more likely to get injured and fatigued. Having an old folk as a backup / rotation player is fine, because chances are...ALL 8 of our 30 year olds won't get hurt. I guess what I'm trying to say is having old guys on your bench doesn't hurt you at all. Relying on old guys to be your bread and butter is more problematic.

    What I'm doing a really bad job trying to say is... it is riskier for us to have Dirk / Marion / Kidd be our core, than it is to have Thomas, JET, and Damp rounding out our rotation.
  • Crawford
    I think this is a good take. Noone loves the guy, but he probably offers more than James Singleton in a skills-type way. I hate to say that, bc I love James's energy.

    David Thorpe on ESPN talks a lot about "shooting bigs" in the playoffs, I've noticed. He knows a heck of a lot more than I do, so this could be an interesting dynamic for 8 minutes / game in a series against the Western elite.
  • Kirk
    My concern is mainly that our roster is turning into a legion of old men. Yeah, Gooden is 27 and has the basketball IQ of a rising 13 year old, but the rest of our roster that will regularly contribute is above the 30 mark. 82 games plus at least one playoff series is bad for the back, knees, and ankles.

    It's one thing to sign a rather untested young player about whom you might have questions concerning production. It's quite another to sign a 'veteran' who reliable for his unreliability. Sure, we are trying and I hope it pans out (above all else the Mavs will be fun to watch, so that has to count for something).

    I just can't shake the feeling that we are cruising towards an iceberg full steam ahead. One thing is for sure; this summer has been very exciting.
blog comments powered by Disqus
home top