[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by jthig32

You're comparing him against guys that are in the last year of their contract of the next to last. Not really comparative.

Sure it's comparative because I'm not talking about the future or the present, I'm talking about history here. I'm talking about the Mavericks' pattern of behavior; the pattern of taking on very expensive long-term contracts. Is Iggy's contract now worse than Jason Terry's was when he signed it? (Ok, Butler doesn't really apply in this situation because we haven't had him for very long, but Erick Dampier, then? Gana Diop? Jerry Stackhouse? Raef LaFrentz? Eddie Najera? Shawn Bradley? Antawn Jamison?) All I'm saying is that the Mavs of the past decade have taken on contracts much, much worse than Iggy's.

I'm not saying it's prohibitive. I'm just saying that it is indeed a bad contract. I'm confused why you don't think it's a bad contract, you think he's a good player, and yet you don't think he'll cost a ton. Seems like a weird conclusion.

We're really just mincing words here. I'm not at all implying that it's a "good" contract. You're saying bad but not horrible. I'm saying not good but not bad. What's the difference and who cares? We're not really even disagreeing on much of anything.

And I also never said he wouldn't cost a ton, but guess what? This is the NBA. Good players generally do cost a ton. And teams over the salary cap with an aging veteran roster desperately clinging onto the increasingly fading hope of a championship with a 2-3 year window generally do have to overpay to upgrade their rosters even slightly. All I mean when I say it's not "bad" is that Iggy brings enough to the table that he would be well worth the money and the years. It doesn't strike me as the kind of contract we would eventually regret taking on. The way I think of it, a "bad" contract is the kind of contract that you wish you could get rid of. Iggy is productive enough and young enough that if he were to come here, he would pretty much be the guy for us at small forward for the remainder of his contract. It's not likely that before the three years were up, we would be eager to get rid of him but would be stuck with him because of his contract. He'll still be valuable when the contract expires.

Hell, you said yourself it's not "prohibitive." That's essentially all I'm saying too. In fact, isn't that what a "bad" contract is? A contract that prohibits a team from making other transactions that would be beneficial? A contract that in the long run does the franchise more harm than good? At least that's my definition. I'm just saying it's an acceptable drawback for a better shot at a championship. I never meant to imply he wouldn't cost a ton. I'm saying that he doesn't cost so much that it should deter the Mavs from pursuing him.

(although I still think he might cost more than we're willing to offer).

Unfortunately, you are almost certainly correct about that.