Dameris and Followill on the Presser

[Kammrath]

RE: Cuban's Role

Let's not forget that Cuban had Donnie in place as "President of Basketball Operations" and therefore Cuban himself (though wanting final say or check off) was not the one who was supposed to be organizing what was happening below him. Cuban was PAYING Donnie to run all that and organize all that. Cuban should have had better oversight on what Donnie was up to, but it looks like Donnie was poorly running things.

[TXBamanut]

So now we are so petty that we are deleting posts.  Yep...knew it.

---

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.

Yep... (replacement of deleted post)

[dirkfansince1998]

RE: Cuban's Role

Let's not forget that Cuban had Donnie in place as "President of Basketball Operations" and therefore Cuban himself (though wanting final say or check off) was not the one who was supposed to be organizing what was happening below him. Cuban was PAYING Donnie to run all that and organize all that. Cuban should have had better oversight on what Donnie was up to, but it looks like Donnie was poorly running things.

We had enough examples in the past to know that Cuban did a lot more than just check off. If he would have simply said yes/no to Donnie´s plans this would be a different story. There was no above/below. Just different people that advised Cuban (more often than not guys that aren´t even part of the front office...Schwartz, Fegan, Parsons, Voulgaris).
I really hope that Harrison will have the role you just described. Easy to identify the responsible person and decision maker. Easy to make adjustments. Easy to replace them if they aren´t doing a good job. That was the problem in the past. No matter how good/bad Donnie was. We cannot even judge it. According to the things we learned the Mavs rarely tried to execute Donnie´s plan. That´s also on him because he wasn´t able to convince Cuban/RC/whoever but it shows how difficult it was to work in Mavs front office.

[dynamicalVoid]

Problems:

Mavericks

Location?  

1) Is Dallas really that undesirable of a city?  I dont buy that.  Every other team seems to be able to acquire talent.

Philosophy?  

1) There is a negative stigma attached to Dallas amongst basketball players hindering the Mavs from signing players?   Mavericks are interested in chasing and employing white Europeans instead of employing black American made basketball players?  I dont buy this either.

2) Mavs are considered incompetent amongst players and agents?   Something Mavs are doing within has turned players off?  I can kind of buy this.  But what is it?  How Cubes runs the show(known dysfunction around the league)?   Plan Powder?  Not drafting and developing? Bad with managing the books/giving out bad contracts preventing team the ability to sign talent?

3) Mavs style of basketball is a turn off to players?  Analytics guys ruining the fun of the sport and not wanting to play here?  Maybe...but doubt it.  

Facilities?

1)  Mavs are built and run like a 3rd world hospital?  I dont buy this.  From all accounts Mavs have great facilities.

Mark Cuban

Personality?

1)  Mark is not liked and people/players dont want to work for/with him?  I dont buy this.  I dont hear a lot of people saying Mark is wonderful or anything...but awful and avoidable?  I doubt it.  

Mark the Manager/Businessman

1) Mark is considered a joke around the league for the way he manages and players steer clear?  Maybe but I doubt this.   If it was a big deal I suspect changes would have been made earlier. I am not saying Mark isnt the cause of some dysfunction...I am saying I dont think players would avoid Mavs over some hierarchy issues within a Front Office.  I could be wrong, though.

2) Mark made is money in a shady way and word is out on how he operates thus players avoiding him?  I doubt it but maybe.  Mark is a slave driver in other businesses?  Dont buy it?  Mark is a scam artist that takes advantage of the young and elderly for financial gain in other businesses?  Maybe but business is a dirty game.  I assume Mark would be a blind/anonymous investor in those kind of things if he was involved.   

Donnie Nelson

Personality?

1) Donnie was not liked and players did not want to come to Dallas?  Highly doubt it.  Donnie seemed to be well liked.

Donnie the Manager/Businessman?
 
1) Donnie is considered a bad roster builder, negotiator and all around manager?  Possibly.  Players look at Donnie as being a yes man to Mark's questionable decision making as a reason not to sign with Mavericks?  Maybe but doubt it.

2) Donnie didnt manage his underlings properly?  Possibly.   I dont know what Mark said Donnie's job description was.   Was Mark or Donnie in charge of implementing a proper chain of command? Who knows.  Does this prevent talent from coming to the Mavs?  I doubt it.

Rick Carlisle

Personality?

1) Rick was considered a hard ass that turned players off? Very good possibility.   Word around the League was Rick is unenjoyable to play for leading to players avoiding the Mavs when they had options?  I can definitely see this causing issues acquiring talent.

2) Rick is some kind of weirdo that is impossible to get along with?  Doubt it.

Rick the Coach?

1) Rick was a terrible coach?  Unlikely.  Rick didnt know a thing about x and o's?  Doubt it.

2) Rick was uncompromising in his coaching ways?  I can see this being an issue with players/Front Office.

3) Rick was uncreative and behind the times with the way the modern NBA is played?  Could be but I doubt it.

Agencies

1) Player Agencies are steering players away from Mavs for some reason?  Maybe for some of the reasons above?  I dont know if I buy this as being a big deal.   Players want money.   I dont know what all Rich Paul and Lebron have going on that everyone talks about as being super unfair and shady...but maybe this is whats happening to Dallas.  I doubt its a significant reason why we cant get talent.

Luka

Luka is not desirable to play with due to personality? Doubt it but maybe.  Luka is a ball hog and no one wants to play with him?  Maybe but doubt it.

-------


Im sure I am missing the big picture and someone will point it out to me as being the obvious reason we cant get players signed.

[ItsGoTime]

Problems:

Mavericks

Location?  

1) Is Dallas really that undesirable of a city?  I dont buy that.  Every other team seems to be able to acquire talent.

Philosophy?  

1) There is a negative stigma attached to Dallas amongst basketball players hindering the Mavs from signing players?   Mavericks are interested in chasing and employing white Europeans instead of employing black American made basketball players?  I dont buy this either.

2) Mavs are considered incompetent amongst players and agents?   Something Mavs are doing within has turned players off?  I can kind of buy this.  But what is it?  How Cubes runs the show(known dysfunction around the league)?   Plan Powder?  Not drafting and developing? Bad with managing the books/giving out bad contracts preventing team the ability to sign talent?

3) Mavs style of basketball is a turn off to players?  Analytics guys ruining the fun of the sport and not wanting to play here?  Maybe...but doubt it.  

Facilities?

1)  Mavs are built and run like a 3rd world hospital?  I dont buy this.  From all accounts Mavs have great facilities.

Mark Cuban

Personality?

1)  Mark is not liked and people/players dont want to work for/with him?  I dont buy this.  I dont hear a lot of people saying Mark is wonderful or anything...but awful and avoidable?  I doubt it.  

Mark the Manager/Businessman

1) Mark is considered a joke around the league for the way he manages and players steer clear?  Maybe but I doubt this.   If it was a big deal I suspect changes would have been made earlier. I am not saying Mark isnt the cause of some dysfunction...I am saying I dont think players would avoid Mavs over some hierarchy issues within a Front Office.  I could be wrong, though.

2) Mark made is money in a shady way and word is out on how he operates thus players avoiding him?  I doubt it but maybe.  Mark is a slave driver in other businesses?  Dont buy it?  Mark is a scam artist that takes advantage of the young and elderly for financial gain in other businesses?  Maybe but business is a dirty game.  I assume Mark would be a blind/anonymous investor in those kind of things if he was involved.   

Donnie Nelson

Personality?

1) Donnie was not liked and players did not want to come to Dallas?  Highly doubt it.  Donnie seemed to be well liked.

Donnie the Manager/Businessman?
 
1) Donnie is considered a bad roster builder, negotiator and all around manager?  Possibly.  Players look at Donnie as being a yes man to Mark's questionable decision making as a reason not to sign with Mavericks?  Maybe but doubt it.

2) Donnie didnt manage his underlings properly?  Possibly.   I dont know what Mark said Donnie's job description was.   Was Mark or Donnie in charge of implementing a proper chain of command? Who knows.  Does this prevent talent from coming to the Mavs?  I doubt it.

Rick Carlisle

Personality?

1) Rick was considered a hard ass that turned players off? Very good possibility.   Word around the League was Rick is unenjoyable to play for leading to players avoiding the Mavs when they had options?  I can definitely see this causing issues acquiring talent.

2) Rick is some kind of weirdo that is impossible to get along with?  Doubt it.

Rick the Coach?

1) Rick was a terrible coach?  Unlikely.  Rick didnt know a thing about x and o's?  Doubt it.

2) Rick was uncompromising in his coaching ways?  I can see this being an issue with players/Front Office.

3) Rick was uncreative and behind the times with the way the modern NBA is played?  Could be but I doubt it.

Agencies

1) Player Agencies are steering players away from Mavs for some reason?  Maybe for some of the reasons above?  I dont know if I buy this as being a big deal.   Players want money.   I dont know what all Rich Paul and Lebron have going on that everyone talks about as being super unfair and shady...but maybe this is whats happening to Dallas.  I doubt its a significant reason why we cant get talent.

Luka

Luka is not desirable to play with due to personality? Doubt it but maybe.  Luka is a ball hog and no one wants to play with him?  Maybe but doubt it.

-------


Im sure I am missing the big picture and someone will point it out to me as being the obvious reason we cant get players signed.

Glad we got that cleared up! On to the next topic!

[Mavs2021]

We had enough examples in the past to know that Cuban did a lot more than just check off. If he would have simply said yes/no to Donnie´s plans this would be a different story. There was no above/below. Just different people that advised Cuban (more often than not guys that aren´t even part of the front office...Schwartz, Fegan, Parsons, Voulgaris).
I really hope that Harrison will have the role you just described. Easy to identify the responsible person and decision maker. Easy to make adjustments. Easy to replace them if they aren´t doing a good job. That was the problem in the past. No matter how good/bad Donnie was. We cannot even judge it. According to the things we learned the Mavs rarely tried to execute Donnie´s plan. That´s also on him because he wasn´t able to convince Cuban/RC/whoever but it shows how difficult it was to work in Mavs front office.

The more I read since the introductory presser, the more I get the sad feeling, that Cuban basically blames Donnie/Carlisle for not executing his IDEA and only correct interpretation of the new CBA.   The failure to bring in free agents and success is a result of an execution error on their part, not an approach error. It doesn´t seem like Cuban wants change, he just wants a different person successfully executing his idea, so Cuban can say he was right all along.

I don´t think our strategies will change at all. So forget about long-term planning, drafting and developing players. It will be more of 12 months Plan Powder rollovers. Only that Harrison/Kidd are supposed to be more successful recruiters than Nelson/Carlisle. BIG FISH CITY BABY.

Only curious whether Harrison will Rosas.

[mavsluvr]

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.

Kamm, I have been hesitant about responding to this, because  (1) I suspect you may not really want to know, and (2) I fear that you will interpret the answer as some sort of personal attack, which I DO NOT intend. 

However, since you asked the question, I will give it a shot. 

The basic answer is NOT that you disagree with other ideas presented. It is more that you, and every one of us, can come across as being dismissive of concerns raised by others, when our points are not supported by evidence/logical reasoning. Specifically, for example, in this case, dismissing points made about Cuban's possible mistakes by simply announcing that such points are not problems. Here are a few issues which can lead to such misunderstandings. 

Pretending we are having a meaningful discussion, when our mind is actually already made up. You have said yourself that you have made up your mind on some of  these issues (absent evidence yet to come), and that you are almost never affected by arguments made on the internet. That frame of reference can come across as not listening and trying to understand, but essentially presenting an argument advocating a certain result. 

If you in fact WERE a lawyer presenting a case, the opposing lawyer would surely point out some reasons why people may not be convinced. I will use the proposition that Cuban has or hasn't made major mistakes as an example, but it is only that -- an example. 

Binary framing of complex issues. (If things improve, that means that I am right and you are wrong.) This type of issue/forum doesn't seem to lend itself to this type of binary analysis, and it is possible to disagree without this type of antagonistic framing. 

Non sequiturs. (If [A] things improve, that means  Cuban was not a problem, Carlisle was the problem, whatever). B does not necessarily follow from A. The situation is more complex than that. 

Magical thinking. (If I declare that Cuban's behavior is not a problem, the result will be that it isn't.) Self-explanatory.

Begging the question. (Cuban does not blindside people and overrule them. He listens to all points of view and makes decisions in a rational fashion.) That statement, presented as if it were a fact, is an opinion, as we cannot possibly know that. Other credible reports from people in a better position to know than we are have been presented, and in fact this is the very question being discussed. The statement is just restating the question in answer form, without supporting evidence/reasoning. 

Emotion-based reasoning. (I want to believe that Cuban was not a problem, so that means he isn't.) This type of "reasoning" is not based on external reality, but on strongly felt emotions within the individual. But wanting a certain thing to be true doesn't make it so.

Catastrophizing. (If it turns out the Cuban was the main problem, that means the Mavs will not be a good organization going forward, and I may not be able to be a fan any more.) The fact that mistakes have been made does not mean the consequences are necessarily disastrous. 

And so forth. I don't want to pile on. 


To be clear --

I am NOT attacking you as a person, just making a few remarks regarding my impressions of some of your comments, since you asked. Specifically, why you may feel misunderstood, and other people may feel that you are summarily dismissing their concerns without really addressing them. 

My response to your question is not really only addressed to you. I am sure that some, if not most, of us (undoubtedly including myself), introduce these kinds of logical fallacies somewhat routinely. After all, this is a basketball forum, not a court of law, and as fans, we all remark on our team and its issues with passion and emotion, not as some type of legal brief.  My attempt at an answer is really just pointing out why some types of arguments by any of us can occasionally be mistaken as arrogance/dismissiveness, when that is not what we really intend. 

If you feel like you want to argue that I am oversimplifying your responses, I acknowledge doing so for purposes of illustration. With respect to the Cuban question, you have honestly acknowledged at times that the situation is not crystal clear, and your thoughts have seemingly evolved as you have continued to process information, which is a great sign of deepening your and all of our understanding. 

You frequently give convincing arguments about various issues, and support them with evidence. I deeply value your work running the forum, and respect you as an individual and a poster. If you are hurt or angered by my answer to your question, then I have failed in my presentation of it. I am not even sure if this exploration of potential misunderstandings among friends is helpful, as a general matter, but it is a good faith attempt to address your question, and I hope you will take it as such, even if you do not agree with all (or any) of it.

Peace, my brother. 

[Kammrath]

If you feel like you want to argue that I am oversimplifying your responses

I don't think you are "oversimplifying"....I think you are repeatedly misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my position.


During this whole discussion I do not think my actual position has been reflected accurately with the exception of you asking if I was in part acting as a balancing force to what I perceived as turning Cuban into a villain and losing the nuance in the discussion. 


Basically every time my position has been put forward, it is not an accurate depiction and usually not even close to my actual position (usually the exact opposite). And it has happened so often it has felt like gaslighting. 



So let me ask you this:

What do you think my actual position is? 


And if you don't actually KNOW my position (which I believe to be the case) or if I suggest that what you have offered is not my position, then why not ask clarifying questions? I would be happy to tell you more. 


One other thing: Rather than give a long generic list of things I may or may not be doing, why don't you specifically address a statement of mine? Look at my actual words and tell me where you think there is a logical fallacy being employed. Speaking generically makes this whole thing more "ad hominem" (and you don't know me at all and I don't know you at all) and not about the words we are posting to each other. If you have a problem with my words, point to those specifically, not something else. Let's keep this concrete.

[Kammrath]

So now we are so petty that we are deleting posts.  Yep...knew it.

What are you referring to? Who is deleting posts?

[david75090]

RE: Cuban's Role

Let's not forget that Cuban had Donnie in place as "President of Basketball Operations" and therefore Cuban himself (though wanting final say or check off) was not the one who was supposed to be organizing what was happening below him. Cuban was PAYING Donnie to run all that and organize all that. Cuban should have had better oversight on what Donnie was up to, but it looks like Donnie was poorly running things.

That's where the finger-pointing comes in. The winner writes the history book. Mark, as owner, can give his version. After all these years, Donnie is the problem? No problem until the guy who hires and fires says there is. Mark is the bottom line and always has been. Will Mark fire himself? Not likely. HE is not the problem, in his mind. The problem is...over there somewhere.

[dynamicalVoid]

Glad we got that cleared up! On to the next topic!

Do you think the talent issue in Dallas has to do with dysfunction? I dont.

I think the dysfunction stuff is overblown in relation to on court production(the Bob calling plays and lineups is one thing...having a roster full of one dimensional players is another) .   Are there issues with hierarchy?  Maybe.  But thats front office stuff players dont care about(to clarify...the Bob stuff if true can cause issues...Mavs bigger issues are with talent).

Is the dysfunction causing Mark to hand out bad contracts to unsatisfactory basketball player or to focus on Plan Powder?  I highly doubt it.

Too much is being made of the dysfunction.   Mavs lack talent.

[KillerLeft]

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.

This is astute.

[TXBamanut]

What are you referring to? Who is deleting posts?

I put up the post I put up at the top of this page, saw it there on page 3 and then came back this morning and it was gone.   I was there, then it was gone...I didn't delete it.

[Kammrath]

I put up the post I put up at the top of this page, saw it there on page 3 and then came back this morning and it was gone.   I was there, then it was gone...I didn't delete it.

Well no one deleted anything as far as I can see in the moderator mode. So no idea what to tell you.

[Mak]

Cuban said Nico is the first GM he’s ever hired but wasn’t Gersson Rosas technically hired as GM, albeit briefly?

[TXBamanut]

Cuban said Nico is the first GM he’s ever hired but wasn’t Gersson Rosas technically hired as GM, albeit briefly?

I'm sure there is some verbal gymnastics "technically" "probationary" somewhere that lets him wiggle out....

[Dahlsim]

Thanks ML, good stuff in there and great work as always.   

Kidd really looks like a great post-Carlisle move in terms of bring something different to the team.  Rick's style had a long and successful run which has to be said when you bring the franchise it's only ever championship even if it was a decade ago.  

Kidd brings a high profile and untouchable HoF PG credentials.  You have to love the bbiq of Kidd + Luka potential.   .  Handling refs and relations is a skill that maybe flies under the radar compared to how important it can be.  Be interesting to see if the relationships around the league thing with Kidd / Nico really produces tangible results on the roster and the coaching staff. 

Kidd's x's and o's will be under scrutiny, especially on offense since Rick always was thought of highly that way although for me the teams penchant for losing big leads became exasperating. 

Glad to hear them saying they want to work with a refresh on KP.  Of course they have to say it but it also makes sense if his trade value is down that they would actually rethink the Unicorn + Luka Magic dynamic. 

The Cuban dynamic, the buck stops with me, I like overall because he's a passionate and involved owner.  

The franchise management if worth its salt should be able to make their case effectively and logically to an owner that cares that much about the franchise as opposed to mainly being locked into a bottom line with an exit strategy.

[ClutchDirk]

Well no one deleted anything as far as I can see in the moderator mode. So no idea what to tell you.

Just verified that there is no evidence of a post being deleted in the Mod Control Panel...

[meistermatze]

I don't think you are "oversimplifying"....I think you are repeatedly misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my position.


During this whole discussion I do not think my actual position has been reflected accurately with the exception of you asking if I was in part acting as a balancing force to what I perceived as turning Cuban into a villain and losing the nuance in the discussion. 


Basically every time my position has been put forward, it is not an accurate depiction and usually not even close to my actual position (usually the exact opposite). And it has happened so often it has felt like gaslighting. 



So let me ask you this:

What do you think my actual position is? 


And if you don't actually KNOW my position (which I believe to be the case) or if I suggest that what you have offered is not my position, then why not ask clarifying questions? I would be happy to tell you more. 


One other thing: Rather than give a long generic list of things I may or may not be doing, why don't you specifically address a statement of mine? Look at my actual words and tell me where you think there is a logical fallacy being employed. Speaking generically makes this whole thing more "ad hominem" (and you don't know me at all and I don't know you at all) and not about the words we are posting to each other. If you have a problem with my words, point to those specifically, not something else. Let's keep this concrete.

 
Fascinating back and forth. Let me quickly chime in:

I think it is always a good idea to steelman your opponent's position before going forward in a discussion. If you don't know, what steelmanning is, you guys should look it up. Essentially it is the opposite of a strawman-argument, where you intentionally or unintentionally attack a weaker (or wrong) version of the position the opposite sides hold, in order to discredit them.

Start with the steelman and go from there. In this case, I fear like it is too late for that but it could be a good way to get this discussion back on the right track.

I don't know if anyone cares, but IMHO, mavsluvr provided good examples, proposed in a perfectly genuine and nice way, to make you see where you went wrong, kamm. From my perspective, it reads very concrete. I would suggest some more introspection and although it might hurt a bit in the beginning, you will benefit a lot from reckognizing your slipups. Don't get me wrong, you are for sure on of the best and smartest posters around here and learning from probably THE best to keep improving is a win, not a loss.

I don't intend this to be some advertising, but I just wanted it to be known that I spend A LOT of time on these matters on my youtube channel that I recently launched (it is, at least so far, in german though) and that's why I feel confident by saying that I was also able to identify some of those logical fallcies you fell victim to here in this thread as well (we all do, at times and, like I said, you seldomly do because you obviously know how to reason and express your mostly well though-out and valid opinions. I have a great deal of respect for you and would not want to discuss you on basketball haha (because I wouldn't stand a chance, to be clear)).

[Kammrath]

I think it is always a good idea to steelman your opponent's position before going forward in a discussion

AMEN.

I don't know if anyone cares, but IMHO, mavsluvr provided good examples, proposed in a perfectly genuine and nice way, to make you see where you went wrong, kamm. From my perspective, it reads very concrete.

I care. I genuinely want to know. 

Can you give me one concrete example of my words and position being used faithfully and then where they "went wrong"?