• E-mail

Since D-Moore usually takes all these good topics for himself, leaving me to be more creative with less information, I'm going to pull rank this week and announce our official All-Star reserves before TNT beats us to the punch Thursday night.

Without further ado, here are the Western Conference reserves. And, by the way, if the coaches end up selecting anybody different, shame on them.

Center: Amare Stoudemire (a no-brainer).

Forwards: Dirk Nowitzki and Carlos Boozer (again, easy choices).

Guards: Chris Paul and Steve Nash (now this is where it gets tough).

At-large choices: Baron Davis and Josh Howard.

OK, we have to explain those at-large choices. Davis is a given. There are just too many top-shelf point guards in the West. To not have three of them on the team would be wrong. And anybody who has watched Howard this season knows he's deserving. The odd man out is Brandon Roy, Portland's excellent swingman who will be an All-Star many times in his career. Same for Deron Williams. And David West. And Marcus Camby. And Al Jefferson. And ... well, you get the picture. There are plenty of deserving stars.

As for the East? Ah, who cares about the East? I'll leave that for D-Moore. Let him try to do more with less for a change.

Q: I've been a Mavericks fan since 1980 and I'm prepared for another letdown and disappointing run in the playoffs. I'm convinced this team does not have what it takes to win a title. Every team knows that defending Dirk with smaller, athletic forwards will stall the Mavericks' offense in the playoffs. We still need a big-time shooting guard. Is there any chance Tracy McGrady, Dwyane Wade or Gilbert Arenas is available?

C.T., Sugar Land

SEFKO: Does C.T. stand for Clinically Tormented? You seem to have a lot of "Debbie Downer" in you.

Well, allow me to go Peyton Manning on you. It's not that bad. Really. You could be stuck rooting for Atlanta or Minnesota, with no hope in sight. What you have in Dallas is at least fun, if for no other reason than to have the conversation about whether the Mavericks have what it takes.

Hey, they made the NBA Finals in 2006 – essentially with the same team. You telling me this team has no chance of doing that again? Of course it has a chance.

And by the way, none of those players you want is available, at least not to the Mavericks unless you want to give up Josh Howard and more.

Try to have some fun watching this team in February and March. Then get really worried in April.

Q: First time e-mailer, long-time reader. I've seen several questions from fans wanting a true point guard. I don't get it. I think Devin Harris has been doing a terrific job, especially when matched up against Tony Parker or Steve Nash. And isn't that the point? Am I giving him too much credit?

Chris, Southlake

SEFKO: Are you the new member of the Mavericks' public relations staff?

Actually, we present this question as a rejoinder to the previous rip job. This, in effect, is the polar opposite of those sky-is-falling skeptics.

And, for the record, D-Moore accuses me of being too high on the Mavericks, too. But that's another story.

Harris is a terrific young point guard. His numbers have gone up every season, to the point that he's averaging better than 15 points and five assists. And he doesn't turn 25 until Feb. 27.

He's not just another dude anymore. He's a threat that other teams have to contest with every night. He's a legit point guard on a good (great?) team.

There is one concern, however. His durability is open to question. This will be the second time in four seasons he's missed double-figure games. That's not to say he'll always be injury prone. But it's something to keep in mind.

The fact that the Mavericks signed him to five seasons and more than $43 million in the summer should tell you where they fall on the durability question.

Q: What's happening with Amare Stoudemire? He's still good, but he's not the unstoppable force he was before the microfracture surgery. Did that slow him down just enough to make him mortal? Or does he still have the potential to return to that level?

Rob S., Plano

SEFKO: Wait until the playoffs. It's an absolute guarantee that, if he's healthy, he'll have a series where he averages 30-plus points and 12-plus rebounds.

By the way, his numbers still are pretty outrageous, nearly 23 and 9 while shooting 59 percent. Maybe your standards need adjusting.

Q: After the incident with Devin Harris falling into cameramen on the baseline, I'm wondering why so many people are so close to the court. Shouldn't everybody be moved back to help protect the players?

Tom

SEFKO: It's a necessary evil. If NBA teams push the cameramen further back, that means the first row of seats gets pushed back, too. The Mavericks, and all other teams, charge the highest possible price for those front-row seats. They have to be as close to the action as possible.

Plus, the league loves all those up-close videos and snapshots that the cameras on the baseline provide.

Many years ago, the league devised exit lanes under the basket, two open areas for players to use when they drive. But there's still not enough space for players to land, which is why players find out early in their career how to fall in such a way as to best avoid injury.

Frankly, it's amazing that there aren't more sideline and baseline problems for players. For every Dennis Rodman kick to a cameraman, there are hundreds of players who fall into the fans or working media without incident.

Q: Have you noticed that this is a heck of a defensive team? The Mavericks kept Memphis under 50 points until the middle of the third quarter and gave up only 85 total. They held Denver, the highest-scoring team in the NBA, to 90 points. This is the first time I've seen that kind of defensive capability out of the Mavericks.

SEFKO: It may surprise you to find out that Avery Johnson is not as exuberant as you are about the Mavericks' defense.

Not to say that he isn't happy with the improvement over the last month. Johnson saw the Mavericks give up about 100 points per game in the first month of the season. Since then, they've been surrendering barely 92 points per game. That's a huge improvement that deserves respect.

But these are not the '89 Pistons. Or even the '07 Spurs.

The Mavericks have lots of room to grow on defense. But the good news is they have more than two months to get there. They want to be at their defensive best in April and May.

Q: Could you give me a salary-cap education? Some people have referred to Keith Van Horn's expiring $14 million or so as a valuable asset. Is it valuable because once it's gone, the Mavericks can sign someone to a contract worth that amount?

John, Clearwater, Fla., and Brad. W., Dallas

SEFKO: We've gotten several inquiries about this pie-in-the-sky idea.

The Mavericks cleared Van Horn's salary off their cap last year. His contract was done after 2005-06. All the Mavericks got out of that was $14 million less on their payroll. It didn't drop them below the cap, or even the luxury tax. So it didn't allow them to go sign anybody with that money. It just went away.

Van Horn remains an asset – at least to some folks – because he never officially retired and the Mavericks never renounced his rights. That means if they wanted to sign him to, say, a one-year contract for $10 million, then immediately trade him, they could.

Van Horn would never report to his new team, and that team would get the salary relief at the end of the season.

There's one key reason why this is very unlikely to happen. Teams would only do that to dump a hefty, long-term salary on the Mavericks, and Dallas already has enough of those. It's the equivalent of letting a team off the hook for signing a bad contract.

You don't see teams doing that for the Mavericks with Erick Dampier, do you?

Q: What's the deal with Moe Ager? When do we admit he's pretty much a bust and move on?

Jim C.

SEFKO: Right now would be a good time, it seems to me.

Really, I like Ager. He just hasn't improved as a player fast enough to move up the NBA's food chain.

He's what you normally expect from a late first-round draft pick. Same goes for Nick Fazekas, although as a big guy, he probably deserves another year to see if he makes progress.

We were spoiled by the gold nugget that was Josh Howard.

Q: Three things I don't understand about the Mavericks: First, Avery cut down Dirk's 3-pointers dramatically and had him develop a post presence. He's never going to be a low-post player. So taking the 3 out of his arsenal doesn't make any sense, does it? Second, Josh Howard has developed into a multifaceted player and yet, as his shot has developed, he seems to have stopped slashing to the basket. Why? And last, why doesn't Avery Johnson embrace the two-for-one strategy with 35 or 40 seconds left in a quarter?

Marc K., Fort Worth

SEFKO: This is the kind of bonus information you get every other week in this newsletter. Three questions for the price of one. And to think, D-Moore can't even answer one at a time.

First, Avery doesn't want Dirk to spend his whole life on the low block. The 3-pointer is, and always will be, a weapon for him. But versatility is the key. He wants his superstar to be able to score in a variety of ways, and Nowitzki has seen the value in that. When he has guards hanging all over him on the 3-point line, it makes more sense to try to make those players pay by posting them up. But he's still a jump shooter at heart.

Second, I don't think Howard has slipped into Michael Finley mode yet. He's still very active when he has the ball. He's excellent at those 15-foot pull-ups. Just because he doesn't go all the way to the rim doesn't mean he's settling for jump shots. When you have the reputation as a slasher, as he still does, the defense is going to lay off you. To his credit, he has become a great midrange shooter and has good 3-point range, too.

Finally, I find Johnson's coaching strategies to be annoying, too, sometimes, but not for the reason you cite.

Johnson leaves Nowitzki and Howard in the game far too long when the outcome is (or should be) decided. If the deep reserves can't protect a 20-point fourth-quarter lead, maybe it's worth a lesson if they blow a game like that.

As for two-for-one, I think most teams try to pull that trick too often.

I have no facts to back it up, but it seems like teams that rush a quick shot, just so they know they will get the last possession of a quarter, usually blow that shot and end up giving the opponent a full 24 seconds to work on a good shot. If the opponent scores, the Mavericks have scant seconds left and too often don't get a good shot.

I'd take my chances just running the offense and if you don't get the final possession, so what? Unless it's the fourth quarter, it's not going to kill you.