PDA

View Full Version : Camby trade revisited


Simon2
08-27-2003, 09:21 AM
Since a lot of people are assuming that Mills is put on the IL, why not trade him for Camby and put Camby on the IL? Let Camby rest and heal till the playoffs or just before the playoffs. It seems like Camby has a hip injury that needs time to heal. (I'm not a doctor so I'm going with what I've read.) Camby is still not the defensive stopper that can stop Duncan or Shaq but again where are those guys? Camby can rebound and block shots when healthy. That's a big if though. Adding Camby to the center mix gives Nellie a mobile center that can slash to the basket. They also have another backup PF or even SF in Camby. Going to the Mavs might revive Camby's career. Camby makes 7 mil this year and the next.

kg_veteran
08-27-2003, 09:24 AM
I'm all for it. I think most anyone would be all for that. But why would Denver do the deal?

Hitman
08-27-2003, 09:27 AM
I guess Denver would theoretically do it for cap flexibility next year. I would do it in a second. A healthy Camby would be a huge help for the Mavs.

u2sarajevo
08-27-2003, 09:30 AM
I love Camby.... when he is healthy. But that is the problem. He rarely is. I don't think Cuban is interested in paying 7 million a year for someone that will test the value of the Mavericks health care coverage.

kg_veteran
08-27-2003, 09:37 AM
Make no mistake about it -- Dallas would do this deal instantly. I just don't think that Denver needs cap flexibility. They need players.

Simon2
08-27-2003, 09:39 AM
If I were Kiki here's why I do it. Camby has been injured and they only have one other center named Nene Hilario (he isn't even a true center and Tshikishvili is a project at this point). That means they will really need Camby to play since they are lacking in the big man position. Mills makes 6.6 mil and Camby makes 7.25 this year. If Denver trades Camby to Dallas for Mills, they get an additional 650K that they use to go after a center. Stepania maybe? So, Denver gets a servicable SG/SF in Mills to backup Anthony and they get a legit center in Stepania (or whoever they trade for).

So why doesn't Dallas sign Stepania outright? He's probably asking too much money. Maybe Dallas isn't impressed with him? Maybe they are waiting to see if he falls thru and no one claims him. You have to wonder why other teams aren't at his doorstep trying to sign him? Dallas exchanges Mills for a center that will help them come playoff time. That's if he is healthy.

u2sarajevo
08-27-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Make no mistake about it -- Dallas would do this deal instantly. I just don't think that Denver needs cap flexibility. They need players.

I hope you are not right about the Mavericks doing the deal. I fear that next offseason we would have many discussions on what a waste the Mills for Camby deal would have been (well, I guess if it gives us something to talk about it couldn't be that bad. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif ). But you are right, Denver does not need cap room. And I think they could get more out of Camby than Mills.

grbh
08-27-2003, 09:56 AM
Denver doesn't do it, because Camby's contract expires after next season. So you are trading an expiring contract for a soon to be expiring contract. I think Denver could get more.

Simon2
08-27-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Make no mistake about it -- Dallas would do this deal instantly. I just don't think that Denver needs cap flexibility. They need players.

I hope you are not right about the Mavericks doing the deal. I fear that next offseason we would have many discussions on what a waste the Mills for Camby deal would have been (well, I guess if it gives us something to talk about it couldn't be that bad. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif ). But you are right, Denver does not need cap room. And I think they could get more out of Camby than Mills.

If Camby is in the injured list for a few months, how can they get more out of him than a healthy Mills?

u2sarajevo
08-27-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by: Simon2

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Make no mistake about it -- Dallas would do this deal instantly. I just don't think that Denver needs cap flexibility. They need players.

I hope you are not right about the Mavericks doing the deal. I fear that next offseason we would have many discussions on what a waste the Mills for Camby deal would have been (well, I guess if it gives us something to talk about it couldn't be that bad. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif ). But you are right, Denver does not need cap room. And I think they could get more out of Camby than Mills.

If Camby is in the injured list for a few months, how can they get more out of him than a healthy Mills?

I am talking about as far as trade value goes. Camby is a bigger name than Mills.

Simon2
08-27-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by: grbh
Denver doesn't do it, because Camby's contract expires after next season. So you are trading an expiring contract for a soon to be expiring contract. I think Denver could get more.

Again with any injury comes risk of the player not coming back. Then again, if I were the Mavs, I would call Kiki to see what he thinks of this deal. Then again, could the Mavs be saving the Mills slot for cap relief to sign Nash next year?

u2sarajevo
08-27-2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by: Simon2

Originally posted by: grbh
Denver doesn't do it, because Camby's contract expires after next season. So you are trading an expiring contract for a soon to be expiring contract. I think Denver could get more.

Again with any injury comes risk of the player not coming back. Then again, if I were the Mavs, I would call Kiki to see what he thinks of this deal. Then again, could the Mavs be saving the Mills slot for cap relief to sign Nash next year?

Mavs will be over the cap without Mills.... I don't think that will play into anything.

Simon2
08-27-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Originally posted by: Simon2

Originally posted by: grbh
Denver doesn't do it, because Camby's contract expires after next season. So you are trading an expiring contract for a soon to be expiring contract. I think Denver could get more.

Again with any injury comes risk of the player not coming back. Then again, if I were the Mavs, I would call Kiki to see what he thinks of this deal. Then again, could the Mavs be saving the Mills slot for cap relief to sign Nash next year?

Mavs will be over the cap without Mills.... I don't think that will play into anything.

Yeah but 10 (Nash's new contract) * 2 = 20 mil is cheaper than
10 x 2 + 6 mil x 2 = 32 mil.

u2sarajevo
08-27-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by: Simon2
Yeah but 10 (Nash's new contract) * 2 = 20 mil is cheaper than
10 x 2 + 6 mil x 2 = 32 mil.

You lost me here. My point is that if you are going to resign Nash, it won't matter the savings you get with Mills because the bottom line still equals Mavericks over the salary cap. I think Mills is going to be traded for a role player to a team looking for cap space. Denver is not looking for cap space.

Jeremiah
08-27-2003, 10:43 AM
I think what he means, and what I would mean, is that it is true that the Mavericks will be over the luxury tax threshold next year whether Mills' 6 mill (in the form of another player) is on the books or not.

Suppose someone like Camby is traded for Mills, and Camby makes what, 6 mill? and he has a year more than Mills? So when Nash resigns, Camby at 6 mill will be there, and whatever Nash signs at will be there. The combination of nash and that other contract costs more than just Nash (when Mills comes off the books). This would be about a personal savings for Cuban. Does saving 6 mill from Mills expiring contract make it easier for him to sign nash to double what he's getting now, 10 mill? Does the existence of that extra 6 mill (in the form of Camby for argument's sake) make Cuban want to save some money, and thus use Nash's resigning to save money from what he might expect, given the salaries of the other guys on the team. Hmm, I hope that's not confusing.

Simon2
08-27-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Originally posted by: Simon2
Yeah but 10 (Nash's new contract) * 2 = 20 mil is cheaper than
10 x 2 + 6 mil x 2 = 32 mil.

You lost me here. My point is that if you are going to resign Nash, it won't matter the savings you get with Mills because the bottom line still equals Mavericks over the salary cap. I think Mills is going to be traded for a role player to a team looking for cap space. Denver is not looking for cap space.

Ok. Just talking about Nash and Mills. Let's say the Mavs traded for Camby using Mills. That means Camby will be worth 7 mil this year and 7 mil next year.

So... Assuming Nash gets 10 mil. That's 10mil + 7 mil times two since Mavs over the cap. That's 34 mil hit on the cap next year.

If Mills is not traded and 6 mil goes off the cap. That means the Mavs pay 20 mil including luxury tax. What I'm saying is that the Mavs, save some money if Mills goes off the books next year. Mavs will be over the cap but they will still pay luxury tax is they keep another contract other than Nash's

u2sarajevo
08-27-2003, 10:51 AM
Okay I follow you... and think that if Cuban needs to save money that would be a good way to accomplish some of that. But just when we think Cuban is trying to, he pulls off the Jamison trade. I don't know where Cubans mind is but think that if a team looking for cap room next year offers us good return value, Cubes pulls the trigger again. He is a rich, hopeless fan.

I am just a hopeless fan willing to spend Cubans money. i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

TheKid
08-27-2003, 11:09 AM
Why would we trade for Camby? So we can pay him to sit on the bench for 54 games a year? No thank you!!!!

Raviadso
08-27-2003, 02:48 PM
Denver would never do that. Not only would Denver trading away big for smaller, they would be doing it for cap room only, which they dont really need. Look at how much the cap room helped Utah. Not much.

Jeremiah
08-27-2003, 03:01 PM
I wouldn't say Denver would never do it, because Denver might. Mills would save them money for the year after. Sure, cap room didn't get Utah much, but it did get Denver something, not everyone they wanted, but they did acquire a significant player. Besides, kiki probably figures as much as most that camby won't play much, and on a team that doesn't just need to save him for April and the playoffs, what good does he do denver? So why not put his business in position to save money?

I'm not saying that he would, or that he will do it, but it's clear to me that saying he would never do it is an unsafe wager.

uberfan
08-27-2003, 03:08 PM
At least Denver signed a FA and had several very interested in going there. Denver also has a good young nucleus of players, so they would be more attractive to future FA than a completely rebuilding situation as in Utah, or possibly Atlanta next year.

Simon2
08-27-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by: Jeremiah
I wouldn't say Denver would never do it, because Denver might. Mills would save them money for the year after. Sure, cap room didn't get Utah much, but it did get Denver something, not everyone they wanted, but they did acquire a significant player. Besides, kiki probably figures as much as most that camby won't play much, and on a team that doesn't just need to save him for April and the playoffs, what good does he do denver? So why not put his business in position to save money?

I'm not saying that he would, or that he will do it, but it's clear to me that saying he would never do it is an unsafe wager.

You also need to take into account that Kiki likes dealing with the Nellie group.

Dooby
08-27-2003, 03:19 PM
I brought this up last time trading for Camby came up. Read it and repeat after me:

<u>CAMBY'S SALARY IS NOT GUARANTEED BEYOND THIS SEASON.</u>

Denver has a team option for Camby for the 2004-05 season. Trading for Mills gives them no additional cap flexibility. Period. End of story. In fact, because Mills makes less than Camby, Denver would have less salary cap flexibility after doing this deal.

So, now that you have that committed to memory, why would Denver do this?

EricaLubarsky
08-27-2003, 03:23 PM
ech, I thought we just got rid of our injury problems with the GS trade, I dont want to fill the IL with another load of Eschmeyers and Rigadeaus. Keep the IL for players who are training or recovering from injury. The Mavs IL should not get filled up with a bunch of bench warmers who are either chronically injured or chronically unprepared for the NBA. Besides as Dooby pointed out Camby could give Denver 7million if they opt out of next year. This is like my 4th post but I think that this stewpid trae thread material.

XERXES
08-27-2003, 03:30 PM
I don't want to overreact but anyone who wouldn't trade Mills for Camby is an IDIOT!

Yes he's injury prone - but you are investing NOTHING!

Basically Mills and Avery Johnson were thrown in to the GS trade for Salary purposes...

So, you are basically trading AJ for Camby! Duh!

If he's hurt - no big deal - you invested NOTHING!

If he's healthy YOU HIT THE JACKPOT!

FilthyFinMavs
08-27-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by: XERXES
I don't want to overreact but anyone who wouldn't trade Mills for Camby is an IDIOT!

Yes he's injury prone - but you are investing NOTHING!

Basically Mills and Avery Johnson were thrown in to the GS trade for Salary purposes...

So, you are basically trading AJ for Camby! Duh!

If he's hurt - no big deal - you invested NOTHING!

If he's healthy YOU HIT THE JACKPOT!


I don't get your logic here. There is two things you can do with Mills contract.

1). Use it to resign Nash next season.
2). Trade and get a big man who can help you downlow.


Camby, while a pretty good player (WHEN HEALTHY) he is never healthy. Sure you invest nothing but wouldn't you much rather invest in a guy who isn't injury prone? Wouldn't that make alot more sense or am I missing something?

Simon2
08-27-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by: Dooby
I brought this up last time trading for Camby came up. Read it and repeat after me:

<u>CAMBY'S SALARY IS NOT GUARANTEED BEYOND THIS SEASON.</u>

Denver has a team option for Camby for the 2004-05 season. Trading for Mills gives them no additional cap flexibility. Period. End of story. In fact, because Mills makes less than Camby, Denver would have less salary cap flexibility after doing this deal.

So, now that you have that committed to memory, why would Denver do this?

Its not a team option. Its a player option. Camby can opt out of his contract not he other way around.

XERXES
08-27-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by: FilthyFinMavs

Originally posted by: XERXES
I don't want to overreact but anyone who wouldn't trade Mills for Camby is an IDIOT!

Yes he's injury prone - but you are investing NOTHING!

Basically Mills and Avery Johnson were thrown in to the GS trade for Salary purposes...

So, you are basically trading AJ for Camby! Duh!

If he's hurt - no big deal - you invested NOTHING!

If he's healthy YOU HIT THE JACKPOT!


I don't get your logic here. There is two things you can do with Mills contract.

1). Use it to resign Nash next season.
2). Trade and get a big man who can help you downlow.


Camby, while a pretty good player (WHEN HEALTHY) he is never healthy. Sure you invest nothing but wouldn't you much rather invest in a guy who isn't injury prone? Wouldn't that make alot more sense or am I missing something?

1. Nash will be re-signed regardless. There has never been any indication by the Mavs -whatsoever- that re-signing Nash is contingent on anything else!
2. I agree. If you can get Ratliff or someone else noteworthy: Do it! But, acquiring Camby for AJ would be a coup de'tat!!!

EricaLubarsky
08-27-2003, 04:09 PM
Is Camby a team or player option in 2004?

Mandyahl
08-27-2003, 04:11 PM
according to patricia's, he has a player option...i am not sure though.

Dooby
08-27-2003, 04:20 PM
I know I have read articles listing it as a team option. However, Patricia and Hoopshype list it as a player option.

If I am wrong, I am wrong.

"Not always right, but never uncertain."

Jeremiah
08-27-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by: Dooby
I brought this up last time trading for Camby came up. Read it and repeat after me:

<u>CAMBY'S SALARY IS NOT GUARANTEED BEYOND THIS SEASON.</u>

Denver has a team option for Camby for the 2004-05 season. Trading for Mills gives them no additional cap flexibility. Period. End of story. In fact, because Mills makes less than Camby, Denver would have less salary cap flexibility after doing this deal.

So, now that you have that committed to memory, why would Denver do this?

Ok, didn't know. though someone has countered that it is a player option. Regardless of that, I've a question: Given that the nuggets have a team option on camby's contract for the season after this one, and given that Camby earns 7 million, while Mills earns 6 million, you suggest that Denver would have less salary cap flexibility after this deal.

I can see how that would be true if Denver were over the cap, but they are under the cap, aren't they? Hoopshype.com lists them at ~29 million for 03-04. So after this deal, they'd be at what, ~28 million? Then Mills' contract expires, and they'd be at what, ~22 million? 7mill from 29mill is 22 mill, so that would put them at the same number, wouldn't it?


However, if we are to go by Hoopshype.com, which I am inclined to do, it appears that trading Camby for Mill's gives Denver significant caproom for 04-05.
Now, according to Hoopshype.com, Denver is at ~29 mill for 03-04, Camby earns 7.25 this year, and has a PLAYER OPTION for 7.75 next year, which, from the limited info I've provided, would suggest Denver would be at ~36 or37 mill next year. Of course, they also report that Denver has ~5.5 mill coming off the cap for 04-05, and a ~2.2 mill TEAM OPTION on Rodney White, which, assuming Camby stays, and assuming they do not exercise that team option for rodney, before resigning any of thie FAs that total ~5.5 mill, would put them at ~22 mill.
Denver's cap situation (http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/denver.htm)

Mill's, on the other hand, is at 6.6 mill, and in the last year of his contract. So, if Denver traded for Mills, according to Hoopshype.com, if they decided not to exercise Rodney's option, before resigning any of their own FA's, would put them at ~16 mill? So, that would save Denver money, right? Dallas' cap situation (http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/dallas.htm)


Edit: Was posting while Dooby's second post had been posted...so, I had not seen it.

jayC
08-27-2003, 10:34 PM
Keep in mind camby has only played in 58 games the past two seasons and he has never played in more then 67 games. Camby is just a neme at this point nothing more, a great college player but thats it. really.

inter1488
06-27-2004, 02:23 PM
we wont get camby

aexchange
06-27-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by: inter1488
we wont get camby


you've been dismissed. BYE!