Dameris and Followill on the Presser

[Scott41theMavs]

But I also think he is a really smart guy who at least knows he doesn't know everything about basketball. 

Given what we've seen since day one of his ownership, let's just say I don't think that conjecture is at all correct.

[mavsluvr]

I don't like the board settling into what I perceive as "extreme" and "unnuanced" opinions and so I will often hop onto the side that I think is under represented to try to move things more toward what I perceive to be truth in all of its complexity.

I think where you might be a little misunderstood is that in your efforts to balance the scales, you can occasionally come across as a bit one-sided yourself. 


It is helpful to know where you are coming from. Thanks for the clarification!

[Kammrath]

Given what we've seen since day one of his ownership, let's just say I don't think that conjecture is at all correct.

Totally disagree. 

*shrug*

[cow]

Cuban had a lot of great ideas coming into the league.  Among other things, improving the locker room/arena environment for both home and away teams, improving travel accommodations among other things was a smart way to invest money and keep your own players happy and maybe help other players notice that Dallas wasn't a bad place to play.  The problem is that the rest of the league caught up to this philosophy.  You'd think with his background that he would have led the league in analytics, but everyone largely followed Moery's lead.  Further, player relationships have changed a ton in the LeBron era and the Mavs have been way behind the 8-ball.  Nico is the right step forward but it shouldn't have taken him this long to figure out why he couldn't land free agents.  It might be too late for the Luka era, sadly.  Given the shape of the team, Carlisle being gone is a good thing too (he's just not the right guy for a team in the midst of a rebuild).

[Mavs2021]

I don't thing being negative of Cuban is unfair.  He ignored the business operations portion of the Mavs and look at that scandal.  With the triangle of trust falling apart this summer, it doesn't seem like he did a much better job of having organizational structure in place on the basketball operations side.  His comments in the presser were concerning as he seemed to talk out of both sides of his mouth.  Saying the decision structure is going to stay the same but then saying he hired Nico because of

I love the Nico hire and nothing we've heard from him has changed that.  It does give me some faith in the team moving forward.

Amen.

Cuban is a horrible public speaker, when pressed. The way he answered the Voulgaris question was cringe-worthy. Then he basically said he hired Harrison, cause the team had no hierarchy, structure or plan under the previous administration. That would be acceptable, if that group (owner/GM/coach) worked together for maybe 2-3 years. You worked with these guys for over a decade and now your conclusion is: We were winging it the whole time without any rhyme or reason.

They should call it the Compassion of Dirk, instead of Jesus from now on. I can only imagine what the conversations with Lebron or Kobe would have been like.

Kobe: So any progress on that 2nd superstar?
Cuban: Ah well you know, I´m working on some comics right now.
Kobe: Comics?
Cuban: Yeah for free agency.
Kobe: Who we pitching to?
Cuban: Well maybe Deron Williams.
Kobe: DERON WILLIAMS as my 2nd star?
Cuban: Relax maybe not, I got SharkTank to film.
Kobe: Let me see the presentation.
Cuban: What presentation?
Kobe: With the plan for the acquisition, we are not just showing comics?
Cuban: Right. Right. Donnie. Show him the presentation, the power pointy thingy.
Donnie: Right the presentation. *dials* Finley do you know how to do the power point, I only use excel spreadsheets.
Finley: Donnie, it´s 2007. I´m still playing for the San Antonio Spurs.
Donnie: You don´t say.

[david75090]

He stated he still has final say, but admitted a lack of organizational structure that Nico will hopefully improve.  That could be a significant difference from business as usual.

That "lack of organizational structure" remark I took as finger-pointing. The guy he let go had the job for how many years? All those years, the guy who was fired answered to ONE person after his father left. Suddenly, all these years later, the problem is lack of organizational structure. 2011, same structure, no problem. Lose to the Clippers in the playoffs in 7 games with an inferior roster? Knee-jerk-lack-of-organizational-structure. Would Mark have blamed Donnie after he cooled off from the Mavs losing to the Clippers? Very possibly.

[ItsGoTime]

The question was asked about the current organizational structure. The answer was same as it always has been.

Hmmmm….

[Kammrath]

The question was asked about the current organizational structure. The answer was same as it always has been.

Hmmmm….

So if the structure isn't changing and the personnel is changing then if things improve we can glean that most of the issue was personnel related. If things don't improve then the issue was structural (i.e. Cuban's role at the top).

[mavsluvr]

So if the structure isn't changing and the personnel is changing then if things improve we can glean that most of the issue was personnel related. If things don't improve then the issue was structural (i.e. Cuban's role at the top).

I'm not sure why you keep insisting on these non sequiturs. 

If things aren't looking better after a while, that doesn't prove that the issue was mostly structural and that there were no substantial personnel problems. Maybe both existed to a significant degree. Or, maybe external factors intervene, like a bad Luka injury, and the team suffers a setback, even though the organization is well run. 

It also works in reverse. If the structure continues unchanged, and the team has a good season, that doesn't prove that the structure was perfect or nearly so. 

If you really want to try to identify who made the most mistakes, who made the dumbest mistakes, who made the most consequential mistakes, etc.,  I suppose we could try to have that discussion. But we don't really have enough information for that kind of analysis, and what would be served by it, anyway?

Why not just try to evaluate what structural imperfections appear to exist, what personnel issues seem to have been problems, and how/whether they're being addressed? And continue to evaluate during the season, rather than reaching a conclusion that it was mostly X's fault, and closing the books on the spirit of inquiry? 

I realize now that you are trying to make sure that we aren't knee-jerking too much in favor of Carlisle and against Cuban, and I get that. But it seems to me that this chase you are conducting after who's-the-bad-guy is not particularly useful. It is perfectly possible to point out Carlisle's shortcomings and some of Cuban's advantages without all this "you're gonna see I'm right and you're wrong" framing.

[KillerLeft]

I realize now that you are trying to make sure that we aren't knee-jerking too favor of Carlisle and against Cuban, and I get that. But it seems to me that this chase you are conducting after who's-the-bad-guy is not particularly useful. It is perfectly possible to point out Carlisle's shortcomings and some of Cuban's advantages without all this "you're gonna see I'm right and you're wrong" framing.

[Kammrath]

If you really want to try to identify who made the most mistakes, who made the dumbest mistakes, who made the most consequential mistakes, etc.,  I suppose we could try to have that discussion. But we don't really have enough information for that kind of analysis, and what would be served by it, anyway?

Why not just try to evaluate what structural imperfections appear to exist, what personnel issues seem to have been problems, and how/whether they're being addressed? And continue to evaluate during the season, rather than reaching a conclusion that it was mostly X's fault, and closing the books on the spirit of inquiry? 

These aren't mutually exclusive. 

The point of trying to understand who is responsible for the lion's share of the dysfunction is incredibly important IMO. It is how you address the ROOT of an issue and to me that is the key in all this. 


It's like if I have cancer. I can focus on treatments, which is great and has a place, but if I do not look at my environment, diet, lifestyle, genetics, etc., then I won't be able to get to the source of the issue. We can treat symptoms...but that will never be enough if we aren't exploring root causes and eliminating them. It would be like constantly taking pepto bismol for stomach issues all while constantly drinking cow's milk and not exploring the idea that I am lactose intolerant.  

I think the Mavs organization has been revealed to have a sort of "cancer." Yes, let's talk about treatments and ways forward, but if we don't understand the actual source of the problem it will make no difference. If Cuban truly is the source of the dysfunction then we are in a REALLY tough spot. If Cuban is not the main source of the dysfunction then there is hope that he is not just quieting the symptoms (grumpy employees who are exposing his dysfunction) but is actually eliminating the causal source of the dysfunction. 


And I do not care about being "right" in all this. I see you guys as fellow journeyers in fandom, not as competition (that would be a miserable). I HOPE I am right ONLY because that means I am not screwed as a fan, rooting for a team that has an owner that is the source of the "cancer." If Cuban truly is the "cancer" behind all this I might seriously rethink spending time rooting for this team. That's not fun to think about.

[mavsluvr]

These aren't mutually exclusive. 

The point of trying to understand who is responsible for the lion's share of the dysfunction is incredibly important IMO. It is how you address the ROOT of an issue and to me that is the key in all this. 


It's like if I have cancer. I can focus on treatments, which is great and has a place, but if I do not look at my environment, diet, lifestyle, genetics, etc., then I won't be able to get to the source of the issue. We can treat symptoms...but that will never be enough if we aren't exploring root causes and eliminating them. It would be like constantly taking pepto bismol for stomach issues all while constantly drinking cow's milk and not exploring the idea that I am lactose intolerant.  

I think the Mavs organization has been revealed to have a sort of "cancer." Yes, let's talk about treatments and ways forward, but if we don't understand the actual source of the problem it will make no difference. If Cuban truly is the source of the dysfunction then we are in a REALLY tough spot. If Cuban is not the main source of the dysfunction then there is hope that he is not just quieting the symptoms (grumpy employees who are exposing his dysfunction) but is actually eliminating the causal source of the dysfunction. 


And I do not care about being "right" in all this. I see you guys as fellow journeyers in fandom, not as competition (that would be a miserable). I HOPE I am right ONLY because that means I am not screwed as a fan, rooting for a team that has an owner that is the source of the "cancer." If Cuban truly is the "cancer" behind all this I might seriously rethink spending time rooting for this team. That's not fun to think about.

I'm not sure the cancer analogy really leads you where you seem to hope to be going. Most persons with cancer never know exactly how or why they got it. They can search for the cause all day, but focusing on treatment is usually far and away the most effective way to save their lives. 

Be that as it may, you seem to be consumed with trying to prove that someone (anyone!) besides Cuban was the devil or the root cause or whatever in this situation, and are not at all receptive to examining how Cuban might improve.

It seems you are now further clarifying your stance. You want to believe that someone besides Cuban is the root cause, because you don't like the potential ramifications if the answer is that Cuban was at fault. That tends to lead to the tendentious logic that you appear to be purveying. You are like a lawyer arguing a side, rather than a scholar who is in search of truth. 

I don't see why it is so terrible to admit it if it turns out that Cuban made some mistakes. If he can acknowledge them and grow from the experience, the team will be that much better off. Maybe even if he refuses to shore up a faulty structure for now, and after a season or two, the house is more rickety than ever, he gets the message. The important thing is that whatever went wrong gets fixed, no matter who made the original missteps. 

Even if we all agreed to believe wholeheartedly that none of the organization's issues are the result of Cuban's mistakes, that wouldn't change things a particle. Why be afraid to look at that?

[Kammrath]

I'm not sure the cancer analogy really leads you where you seem to hope to be going. Most persons with cancer never know exactly how or why they got it. They can search for the cause all day, but focusing on treatment is usually far and away the most effective way to save their lives. 

Be that as it may, you seem to be consumed with trying to prove that someone (anyone!) besides Cuban was the devil or the root cause or whatever in this situation, and are not at all receptive to examining how Cuban might improve.

It seems you are now further clarifying your stance. You want to believe that someone besides Cuban is the root cause, because you don't like the potential ramifications if the answer is that Cuban was at fault. That tends to lead to the tendentious logic that you appear to be purveying. You are like a lawyer arguing a side, rather than a scholar who is in search of truth. 

I don't see why it is so terrible to admit it if it turns out that Cuban made some mistakes. If he can acknowledge them and grow from the experience, the team will be that much better off. Maybe even if he refuses to shore up a faulty structure for now, and after a season or two, the house is more rickety than ever, he gets the message. The important thing is that whatever went wrong gets fixed, no matter who made the original missteps. 

Even if we all agreed to believe wholeheartedly that none of the organization's issues are the result of Cuban's mistakes, that wouldn't change things a particle. Why be afraid to look at that?

Well for many people in Western Civ they never get to the bottom of the root cause of their cancer. But there are some people who radically change environment or diet and eliminate their cancer forever. I think the analogy works, but we can use a different one if you like. I am just using it as a metaphor.

I am actually not "consumed" with proving someone is the problem other than Cuban. I am only focused on trying to parse through what might be the root cause in this DAL dysfunction. 

As I have said repeatedly: Cuban might be the root issue. I will say it again: Cuban might be the root issue. I personally don't think the data points that way at this juncture. Do I think Cuban is without fault? Hell no. Never, ever said that. I will say it again: Cuban is not my favorite and I think he carries some significant blame in this. One more time: Cuban is not my favorite and I think he carries some significant blame in this. I will say it one other way: Cuban has clearly made some mistakes. I have never argued otherwise at ANY point. 

Is part of my current stance coming from bias? YES. Part of me does not want to face the reality that Cuban is the "cancer" because of the implications it has as a fan of the Mavs. I am aware of that bias in me. But the largest part of me, when analyzing the data I have seen, is hopeful not because of "wishful thinking" but because of what has all come out about some of the inner dynamics surrounding Donnie and RC. Is it possible that those issues point back to issues with Cuban? Absolutely. But I am not convinced that is the case with the evidence I have seen. I currently GUESS that Donnie and RC were the lion's share of the issue in the recent dysfunction. 

But even if that is true, and Donnie and RC were the major source of the "cancer," Cuban still carries a LOT of blame. Why did he not have tighter oversight on them? Why did he enable the dysfunction and let them carry on for so long? The buck stops with Cuban either way. I am hopeful he is learning from his mistakes (we all make them and they are incredible growth moments) and implementing a new way forward that adjusts based on these recent failures. But Cuban making "mistakes" and Cuban being the SOURCE of the dysfunction and "cancer" are two very different things IMO.

[mavsluvr]

I am actually not "consumed" with proving someone is the problem other than Cuban. I am only focused on trying to parse through what might be the root cause in this DAL dysfunction. 

As I have said repeatedly: Cuban might be the root issue. 

Part of me does not want to face the reality that Cuban is the "cancer" because of the implications it has as a fan of the Mavs.

Cuban making "mistakes" and Cuban being the SOURCE of the dysfunction and "cancer" are two very different things IMO.

I think we might be getting somewhere in getting to the root of your point of view. 

When we get to the bottom of problematic complex situations, we often discover that the sources of the problems are multifactorial, as you mention in your disease analogy. There is not necessarily (or even usually) only one cause. 

Agree with your last sentence. If Cuban made mistakes, that may indicate that he was a root cause, but doesn't necessarily indicate that he was the root cause. However, if he was a root cause, then removing the other causes will not necessarily solve the problems that he causes. 

Even if it were somehow determined that Cuban was responsible for over 50% of the dysfunction, that doesn't at all mean that the Mavs are doomed. He is presumably able to learn from his mistakes. Unless he has a compelling emotional stake in refusing to believe that some of his decisions/managerial style were part of the problem. I do not accuse him of that type of thinking, and hope he is not employing it. I believe he has been realistic enough to publicly admit that he was wrong on a number of occasions. 

OTOH, even if we determined that Donnie and Rick accounted for 57% of the dysfunction, for example, it would still be beneficial to root out the other causes, including missteps that Cuban might be well advised to carefully consider. 

In sum, I don't follow the logic in deciding that mistakes related to Donnie and Carlisle are fair game, but looking at Cuban's contributions to the problems is off limits. Perhaps we don't disagree on this matter after all, I'm not sure at this point.

[Kammrath]

I don't follow the logic in deciding that mistakes related to Donnie and Carlisle are fair game, but looking at Cuban's contributions to the problems is off limits.

How are you getting this from what I am saying?

I am not trying to communicate anything like what you are saying here. 

Where have I said looking at Cuban's contributions are "off limits"? I literally was JUST talking about them. 

[Kammrath]

Perhaps we don't disagree on this matter after all

I don't think we do (that's my guess)....but I am struggling to understand your perception of what I am saying (I feel like my position is being repeatedly mischaracterized). I don't know what I am doing or saying that is causing so much miscommunication.

[Jommybone]

I haven’t lived in THAT many places. But this is the only one where the team owners take it on the chin regularly from the fans and media. I get the Jerry Jones thing, since he seemed to run Jimmy Johnson out of town and take credit for his success (a million years ago). But beyond that, it never made sense to me. Does it have something to do with Randy Galloway? 

Re Cuban, I guess my take is whatever. He’s an owner. The Mavs are his toy. What should we expect? It’s not like he works for us. Neither is it like the people who do work for the public perform better.

[david75090]

If Mark is going to over-rule his basketball people's basketball decisions, who should catch the blame for those failures?

[Kammrath]

If Mark is going to over-rule his basketball people's basketball decisions, who should catch the blame for those failures?

Mark should of course. 

But is this what has actually gone down? That's what I think we just don't know. In the last few years it points not to Cuban "overruling" decisions, but potentially multiple guys thinking they HAVE the decision making ability (e.g. the MIA trade debacle) and the ear of Mark. It also points to Cuban listening to MANY people (Donnie, Fin, RC, Voulgaris, who else?)....maybe TOO many people IMO.

Again, my guess is that it was somewhat "chaotic" below Mark and who he listened to below him was not always the same. But what I don't think was happening, was that Mark was just overruling everything he heard and going in a totally different direction. I think he was listening to ONE of his basketball guys at least. The problem was that it wasn't always the same voice and many of those voices had competing philosophies and agendas and visions probably. 

And yes, Mark is responsible to an extent for the chaos below him in the organization and he needs to answer for that and address that.

[david75090]

Mark is taking the input, or not, and making the decisions. He's claiming the bottom line. The Mavs are Mark's team. If I owned the Mavs, I'd probably do the same thing. A person runs the business they own to suit themselves. Some are more hands-on than others. However the Mavs get to the point where the final decision is made, that decision is Mark's.

I used to work with a guy who claimed he wanted no credit because the opposite end of that credit was "the blame". That's true of this situation. When a person is the bottom line, you get both. Mark is the bottom line. At bare minimum, he signs off on everything.