|
Originally Posted by V2M
Nice summary of this trade by David Lord.
==============================================
Lost 'Quis
Details On Daniels-Croshere Swap
By David Lord – DallasBasketball.com
News leaked from Mavs headquarters Tuesday that a deal is in place to trade Marquis Daniels to Indiana for Austin Croshere. Let's take a look at the deal and its ramifications.
Is the deal a simple one-for-one?
Although league rules mandate that no official pronouncement can be made by the team until July 12, apparently the deal has been agreed to and is as simple as it sounds.
I thought Croshere's salary was too big to absorb by trading only Daniels. Is there more to the deal?
Croshere's salary for 2006/07 had been listed by various sources as exceeding $9M, but those were apparently erroneous. His salary will actually be $7.3M, which is close enough to that of Daniels ($5.88M) to fit the NBA's trade requirements.
Are there limits on re-trading Croshere? How about a 3-way deal?
The trade can't be consummated until July 12 or later, so the possibility to make it a 3-way deal certainly exists. In addition, Croshere can be re-traded at any time to another team as long as he is traded alone, or in a package after 60 days.
Since the Mavs already have Van Horn, does this mean another trade is in the works? Does Toronto or someone else want Croshere or Van Horn as part of a sign-and-trade deal?
This move looks like it fits exactly into what the Mavs wanted to do this summer - find a better replacement for Van Horn. Van Horn was on this roster to be an outside force against teams like San Antonio and Miami, who have imposing big men. In the Finals, the Mavs badly needed a player with his skill set (outside shooting big man) to hit shots and force Mourning to the bench, and Van Horn didn't. One very telling stat from the Finals was that Mourning's plus-minus was +32, and Van Horn's was -31. That's your title - and that's a major reason why Croshere is coming and Van Horn is leaving.
Are the Mavs on track, or did they veer astray with this move?
The Mavs’ summer plan was to get two players (a big man and a perimeter scorer) using a trade and the MLE. This move was the trade and landed one of those targets. The perimeter target is Mike James, and Toronto reportedly wasn't interested in Daniels.
Croshere has an expiring contract. Isn’t this a short term deal to dump salary?
While money is always an issue, we think there were other factors at play that made this much more than a pure dump of Daniels' contract. Croshere is as close to a KVH clone as you can find, albeit hopefully a more productive version with a bit better defensive ability. The Mavs want the ability to have that sort of player available to play alongside Dirk at times, and also to back up Dirk. As a result, if he produces, we wouldn’t be surprised to see the Mavs offer him a new (but less expensive) deal at year's end.
Why would the Mavs give up Daniels for Croshere? Couldnt they just re-sign Van Horn and get to keep Daniels and all his potential?
In spite of his potential, Daniels just didn’t find a niche here in Avery's system. At his position, the Mavs wanted a scorer who could hit the outside shot and then slash to the basket, and Marquis could do the slashing but couldn't hit the perimeter shots needed to keep defenses honest. It made no sense to have his salary buried on the bench, and the additions of Maurice Ager and perhaps James put him deeper down the rotation. Also, it's important to understand that by trading Daniels for Croshere rather than re-signing Van Horn, the team saved several million in payroll this year - and that amount may be enough to keep them below the tax threshold. With this trade, the team has 13 players in place at about $59M in taxable payroll. The tax limit has yet to be announced but may be at about $65M.
Will this trade mess up team chemistry? Since Daniels and Josh Howard were close friends, and the Mavs are wanting to work out an extension with JHo, isn’t this the wrong time to do such a trade?
As much as Daniels fit into the team locker-room chemistry here, it wasn’t in his best interest or the team's to keep him here rotting on the bench. He will get more opportunity in Indy. This should have no detrimental effect on the team's relationship with JHo.
Couldn’t the Mavs get more for Daniels than an aging backup forward?
Obviously not. Reports said they offered him to Toronto in a sign-and-trade for James and were turned down, which means his value was less than the value of a 31-year-old player available for the MLE. Toronto preferred to keep their cap space instead. In spite of his potential, Marquis apparently just hadn't produced consistently enough to be greatly coveted by GM's around the league.
What else might happen with the Mavs this summer?
The primary target is Mike James. There may be contract talks Thursday in Las Vegas. If the team can land him, that will fill the 14th slot. If not, they will still be shopping for the perimeter scorer.
With the trade of Daniels, doesn’t that limit their options if they can’t make a deal with James?
Let's back up a bit before we start worrying too much about doomsday scenarios. When the Mavs spoke last week of looking for the two players, they spoke in a way that seemed to imply they knew exactly who they wanted and were confident they could get them. With this trade, we are now hearing that it was essentially in place a week ago and just needed a few details to be hammered out. Maybe one of those details was that the team wanted to first be sure that they could get James with the MLE. Let's give the front office the benefit of the doubt that all this is planned to work together.
But how about a hypothetical. What if the Mavs can’t get James for the MLE?
The team still has the ability to offer the MLE elsewhere. Or they could package sign-and-trade players like Van Horn and Griffin with perhaps a young player like PPod or Marshall to put together a salary match package that might work for someone, even Toronto.
If the Mavs sign James, who will be the 15th man?
We think money issues could be a major consideration, since the MLE for James may put the Mavs very close to the tax threshold. They could even leave the slot unused. But if they have room, we think the choice will be between Griffin and Armstrong. If both are available at the same price, we strongly favor keeping Griffin who lest we forget was regularly needed as the starter at SG and provides some glue-guy intangibles when he plays.
Are there longer term benefits to this trade?
Yes. By moving Daniels' contract off the books, the Mavs added spending room - essentially the amount of the MLE - for future years. When you can get players like James, Radmanovic, Thomas, Claxton, Przybilla, Mohammed, and so on with an MLE, and usable players like Piatkowski, Mbenga, Buckner, Finley, Harpring etc for even less, it is important to have some spending room to use when needed. This team will continue to make tweaks each year, and having some flexibility is a great value. Although it hurts to let go of a talent like Marquis, it has to be recognized that he had been here 3 years and still hadn't developed into what the team needed, to get him playing time. At some point, you have to cut the cord and go on your way. They did.
734am July 6 06
|