The redesign

[kriD]

The redesign

Change is inevitable, but Mavs are planning only minor moves

By ART GARCIA
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

LAS VEGAS - Training camp is more than 2 1/2 months away. Tack on another month for the start of the regular season.

Summer league is only days old and teams can't even sign free agents for another 12 days.

To say for sure what the Mavericks will look like when they tip off in November is very premature. Even for the man in charge.

"It's still a little foggy because we still have a lot of unanswered questions," Mavs coach Avery Johnson said Saturday after the Mavs' summer league team practiced at the Thomas & Mack Center on the campus of UNLV.

And some of those questions are?

"I've got to see what my team is going to look like," Johnson continued. "I don't know who's going to be in uniform. We have our core guys, and I'm not sure what's going to happen with trades, player movement, I'm just not sure.

"I love my team. But can we get better? Is there another piece out there that would fit in well? Yes. Every coach feels that way."

All is relatively quiet on the free-agent front for the Mavs. Johnson and president of basketball operations Donnie Nelson are monitoring the market closely, but aren't in serious negotiations with anyone after losing out on Robert Horry last week.

That figures to change with the fate of Michael Finley, who likely will be waived or traded in the near future.

"That doesn't make me sleep good at night," Johnson admitted. "It'll be something to deal with if and when that happens."

The Mavs want to get more athletic, both inside and out. That's why forward Alan Henderson isn't in the plans for next season. That's also why summer league hopefuls such as forwards Darius Rice and Josh Powell and point guard Filiberto Rivera have a chance for training-camp invites.

The plan is to have a few new agile bodies to back up Dirk Nowitzki and Erick Dampier down low, and more versatility on the perimeter. Johnson used the San Antonio Spurs as an example to point out that athleticism is key in today's NBA.

"You look at what [Manu] Ginobili and [Tony] Parker are doing," Johnson explained. "You've got to be athletic in the backcourt. You've got to be able to run pick-and-rolls, and guard pick-and-rolls.

"You can talk all you want about the Duncans of the world and the Garnetts and the Shaqs, but the perimeter guys are dominating our game right now. They're only as good as their perimeter guys because they need somebody to give them the ball. We have to get to a point where we're more flexible on the perimeter and more creative."

So what will the Mavs look like next season?

"It will be a combination of the old Mavericks on offense and the Spurs on defense," owner Mark Cuban said. "We're going to try to do the best of both and have a deep team. We're looking for the guys to do it.

"Defense and running will be the focus. We want to score 100 to 105 and give up 45."

Exaggeration aside, point taken. A massive overhaul, however, isn't in the works. Former coach and general manager Don Nelson did that eight years ago and the tinkering never ended.

Changes will come again this off-season and in the years to come. Finley's expected loss, coupled with Steve Nash leaving last year, represents a quantum shift in what was considered the heart of the team.

"It's not like Avery doesn't like our roster," Cuban said. "When Nellie came to the Mavericks, he turned everything upside down. We're not going to have that. We like the roster. It's more about adding pieces where we have a need and making sure we have young guys that can continue to develop."

And having the financial wherewithal to be proactive. If the Mavs can trade Finley, it's actually possible for the team to get near the permanent luxury-tax threshold. Cuban has seldom been shy about spending money, but he wants to be in a position where future deals won't send the payroll spiraling out of control.

"It's not about making money, it's flexibility," he said. "We can make trades. We can do things. We're not saddled with guys on the roster who don't want to come to practice. That's a problem. That's a disadvantage."

The new core group will be built around Nowitzki, Dampier and Josh Howard. Varying degrees of uncertainty surround the rest of the roster.

Starting point guard Jason Terry is entering the last year of his contract, though the Mavs may enter in talks for an extension before the start of the season. Nowitzki's backup, Keith Van Horn, is also in his last year. Sixth man Jerry Stackhouse has two seasons left and could vie for starting shooting guard.

Last season's trio of rookies -- point guard Devin Harris and centers DJ Mbenga and Pavel Podkolzin -- are little more than promise so far, though Harris is easily the furthest along.

"A team that wants to win the championship needs to play together for more than just one season," Nowitzki said last week in Germany. "So far we have always changed a lot in between the seasons and had to start all over again every year.

"If you look at the best teams in the league, like the Spurs, you can see how important it is to know each other well."

Johnson is a firm believer of getting better from within. He left his players with specific instructions for the summer. Johnson and his assistants also plan to meet with players in the coming months to monitor their progress.

"Everybody has something I want them to work on," Johnson said. "Whether it's Dirk on his post-up game and even getting on his perimeter defense because I want him to play some [small forward] next year.

"Josh has to be more consistent playing on the road, that's more mental, continue to work on his shot and ballhandling. I want to use Josh at the point forward so I can get Terry off the ball a little bit. Jason has marching orders. Devin has stuff to do. We won't rest."

[V]

If Nowitzki is going to play some three, who is going to play the four?

[Arne]

Keith Van Horn?

[dude1394]

Avery (as many coaches have) are giving dirk multiple signals imo. I want you to be able to post up more (that would translate into getting bigger to me) but also want him to play some 3 which seems to translate into getting smaller/quicker. Maybe dirk can become a better post up player without more bulk, but I don't see it to be honest. Avery (and the mavs) seem confused to me.

I would also argue that the 02-03 change was a pretty dang fundamental overahaul as well. Lost two starters, sixth man and many role players to add walker/jamison. If they had stopped at the first overhaul I would have been much happier.

[GP]

I think it means that Avery wants to play Dirk and a PF (probably Van Horn) at the same time while also having a center in the game. In that case, if Dirk is guarded by a true 3 then he can post that guy up & take advantage of his size. It's a good idea in theory. Unfortunately, it can take away from Dirks strength as a great outside shooter. Teams would probably rather take their chances on Dirk shooting a two point field goal as opposed to raining 3's like he used to. If that is the way it works out then the Mavs will not be as effective as a team.

[Bayliss]

Dede, you don't need more mass to be effective in the post. All Dirk needs to learn is positioning. Dirk can stay at 240 and be a good low post player.

[dude1394]

Bealess. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

I think you do need more mass when you can't move a guy to get position who weighs as much as you. Even though I hate the way that players back other players down, it's a fact. I dont' think dirk can get and keep his position well enough. I mean he should have killed smaller guys like mcgrady and marion, but he wasn't getting position close enough to the basket imo.

[grndmstr_c]

you don't need more mass to be effective in the post.

Especially not when you're a 7 footer being guarded by SF's. I don't see any inconsistency or problem with Avery expecting Dirk to refine his post-game and work on his lateral mobility. They're not mutually exclusive abilities.

[DubOverdose]

Dirk's problem in the first round: He was guarded by a SF and couldn't post up and use his size advantage. He also needs to better defend on the perimeter. Remember TMac dunking on Bradley? That was all due to Dirk's poor D on the perimeter. He didn't stop TMac from going baseline, then Shawn had to slide over to try to stop TMacs drive, but was obviously not effective.

[poohrichardson]

As long as Stack still comes in off the bench, they can make all of the small moves they want..

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: DubOverdose
Dirk's problem in the first round: He was guarded by a SF and couldn't post up and use his size advantage. .

Why couldn't he post up and use his "height" and it seems "weight" advantage?

Just for reference.

McGrady - 210
Marion - 228
Dirk - 245

[DevinHarriswillstart]

"All is relatively quiet on the free-agent front for the Mavs."

Shocker

[MavsFanFinley]

[dude1394]

Well we (the fans) have been hollering for dirk to step up and take the leadership role. Maybe cubes/donnie are genius's and have realized there is only one way for that to happen.

Nah...(if they did they would have gotten somethign for both of them)..

But as in life, there are silver linings always.

[SeriousSummer]

Why couldn't he post up and use his "height" and it seems "weight" advantage?

Dirk is heavier than McGrady or Marion, but I think you need to look at his build. Dirk has broad shoulders and reasonable upper body strength, but he's light in the lower body. No Mark Aguirre butt to hold position in the low post.

He's going to need either more weight and size in the lower body to post more effectively--or else he's going to need better footwork and some new moves. Right now, he's lucky to get as close as 12' and, without dribbling, he relies for the most part on his fade away jumpshot (although he has a nice up and under he uses once in awhile). He can score in the post that way, but he can't really punish a slightly smaller player.

[dude1394]

I happen to agree with you serious. That would support my theory of a bigger heavier dirkster.

But if he can't get closer than 12 feet all of the "post" moves won't help will they? Maybe he needs more moves to get more space for his fallaway. Some sort of push-off move. Aguirre seemed to score the majority of his points on turnarounds didn't he? I really can't remember.

[chumdawg]

Inasmuch as last year's playoffs were concerned, I will agree wtih Avery that guard play was critical in terms of judging Dirk's post game. Franky, he just didn't very often get the ball in a good position to score down low. Too often we simply isolated him on one side of the floor and gave him the ball at the elbow. In my opinion, Dirk didn't look very comfortable when he tried to take it from there to the basket. There was far too much hesitation, which more often than not resulted in an effective double team against him. And once in the double team, there wasn't much good passing out of it, or reposting of the ball.

To me, this is as big as a reason as any why our half-court offense sucked at critical times during the playoffs. We were trying to force Dirk to be an effective post player, but either we were asking too much of him or we weren't giving him the things he needed. At the very least we need to get him working some kind of two-man game, with a perimeter threat like Terry or with a slasher like Howard playing the point forward. I hope I never again have to see Dirk flailing--I can't think of a better way to describe it--toward the basket several times a game in a desperate attempt to get a foul called.

On another note...Josh at point forward, eh? The ghost of Nellie lives on.

On another another note, I think Cubes is full of shit for implying that Nellie was the one continually remaking the team. I'll have to go try to find it, but I know there is an article somewhere where Cubes talk about being the impetus behind a lot of deals, and running them by Nellie for approval. I think the Laettner deal was one examples.

[grndmstr_c]

CD, I'm pretty sure Mark's talking about the changes Nellie made before he bought the team.

Edit - which is to say he's not talking about protracted roster changes but the initial changes that often come in the wake of the hiring of a new head coach.

[grndmstr_c]

And just one other thing re: all the Cuban bashing. I for one don't see what the cause for offense is in his efforts at salesmanship. If he can't sell the team to the consumers then he won't have the money to spend on players to help the team win. I'm prefectly willing to endure even the most patronizing efforts to drum up dollars if it means the product on the court will be better for it. And say what you will about the ultimate motives behind some of the cost-conscious moves the Mavs have made the past couple years, Mark has been far more willing than most owners to invest in basketball related payroll. Only the Knicks, who play in a market far larger and wealthier than Dallas, are set to spend more money on their players this year than Mark is on his. Keep a little friggin' perspective. If you're a Mavs fan you've got it pretty damn good.

[chumdawg]

I don't think I've got it "pretty damn good" when my team loses two multiple-time All-Stars and a Hall of Fame coach in the span of one year thanks to financial issues. In fact, I don't call that good at all! As a Mavs fan I've got it pretty damn shitty these days, bro.

I also think it's blown way out of proportion, this idea that Cuban spends way more than everyone else but the Knicks. Dallas isn't a small market, no matter how you want to try to portray it. It far outdistances a Portland or Milwaukee. Probably even a Phoenix. The AAC is among the highest revenue-generating buildings in the NBA. The Mavs have sold out a couple hundred games in a row, right? More than anyone else in the NBA? The Mavericks SHOULD have one of the highest payrolls in the league.

When you consider that, you recognize that in relative terms there are many other franchises--not just the Knicks--who spend money like Dallas does. Look at the contracts Milwaukee and Cleveland apparently agreed upon this week. Look at what Seattle is going to pay Ray Allen. Look at what Miami took on when they traded for Shaq, and keep an eye on whether they extend him. Witness Phoenix opening the bank for Raja Bell. Raja Bell! If they do match any offer for Joe Johnson, you can count them as another team that is spending at least as freely, if not more so, than the Mavericks.

That's the perspective I'm looking at things from.

Do me a favor and reconcile the Nash and Finley decisions with the quote above that says "It's not about making money, it's about flexibility." The way I see it, Nash could have brought a nice haul this summer in trade to one of the point-guard-starved teams. And I don't understand how jettisoning Finley does anything but hamper flexibility. Before we had a swingman to spare, but now? Where's the flexibility gained by these decisions, if it doesn't have to do with the balance sheet?

[grndmstr_c]

I don't think I've got it "pretty damn good" when my team loses two multiple-time All-Stars and a Hall of Fame coach in the span of one year thanks to financial issues. In fact, I don't call that good at all! As a Mavs fan I've got it pretty damn shitty these days, bro.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I tend to look back at five straight trips to the Western Conference Playoffs with only one year in which the team didn't make it past the first round and feel like I've got it pretty good. There are a lot of fans around North America who only wish they'd had it so good. And don't you think it's more than a little silly to suggest that the Mavs lost a HOF coach because of financial issues when that same HOF coach is still getting his full, very large salary in spite of the fact that he retired? Give me a break, CD.

Dallas isn't a small market, no matter how you want to try to portray it. It far outdistances a Portland or Milwaukee. Probably even a Phoenix.

First, nobody's calling Dallas a small market. I'm calling New York a much larger one. Second, Portland, Milwaukee and Phoenix are none of them in any real danger of having to pay luxury taxes next year.

The Mavs have sold out a couple hundred games in a row, right? More than anyone else in the NBA?

And I suppose that Mark's demonstrated willingness to invest money in the team and "bullshit" efforts to sell the team's future to the buying public don't have anything to do with that?

Look at the contracts Milwaukee and Cleveland apparently agreed upon this week. Look at what Seattle is going to pay Ray Allen.

Yet for all those impressive sounding big contracts they're throwing around, again, not one of those teams is likely to be paying luxury taxes next year. The Mavs will.

Look at what Miami took on when they traded for Shaq,

That was a trade, not a free agent signing. Or is it also acceptable to say: "look at what Dallas took on when they traded for Keith Van Horn"? None of these accusations hold any water. Show me a team that's on the books to pay 30 million or so in luxury taxes on top of a 90 million dollar payroll that's throwing money around this summer and then you'll have something.

Do me a favor and reconcile the Nash and Finley decisions with the quote above that says "It's not about making money, it's about flexibility." The way I see it, Nash could have brought a nice haul this summer in trade to one of the point-guard-starved teams. And I don't understand how jettisoning Finley does anything but hamper flexibility. Before we had a swingman to spare, but now? Where's the flexibility gained by these decisions, if it doesn't have to do with the balance sheet?

I don't feel all that compelled to reconcile personnel decisions with statements made to the press when it makes much more sense to reconcile personnel decisions with other personnel decisions. And since we haven't even seen exactly what the first round of personnel decisions is going to be this offseason and in response to the significant financial changes included in the new CBA it's more than a little premature to start screaming every chance you get that everything's f*cked.

[chumdawg]

In regard to Nellie, I obviously didn't mean his own contract situation. I meant that the financial decision with Nash led to the less of the Hall of Fame coach.

I don't need to see what the first round of personnel decisions looks like to "start" criticizing the ownership. I've been criticizing ownership since last offseason. A lot of people apparently want to think that the Nash decision is water under the bridge and it has no bearing on the present. They want to start from scratch, if you will, this offseason. And after Fin is cut, they will want to start from scratch again. But you don't keep to keep starting from scratch. You don't get a free pass on all your bad decisions. They are on the record, in the books. They aren't going away, regardless how much you would like to look at this year alone, out of context.

I've said this before, in regard to the last five years. You see five series wins, and you are happy with that. I see four series wins in three years, and only one in the two years since, and I lament what could have been. I see the window closing, GMC, and none too slowly. There are a lot of teams that have a Devin Harris or a Marquis Daniels or a Pavel Podkolzine that they can hang their future on. Having a little youth on board doesn't do anything to differentiate the Mavs. I see us right now as very much a second-tier team, at a time when that second-tier is getting bigger. I watch us completely shut out of the draft, because we've already spent those resources and we have very little to offer to get any back. I see us shut out of free agency because we are miles from cap room and the MLE won't get us what we really need and we don't have anything of real value to offer in a sign-and-trade. I see a team that has stagnated. Or more to the point, that took a step back and then stagnated.

[dude1394]

good stuff. Obviously my take is limited. To be honest I didn't lose any sleep over the mavericks before cubes. Mainly because I thought the game was a joke the way it was played with big rear ends like barkley/shaq just constantly fouling people to bull their way into the paint and then throw it out for a three. It was a whip, it wasn't enjoyable.

Now, cubes comes on board, dirk/fin/stevie come on board. Hey now, this is some fun stuff. Excitement, woo hoo. I who had never purchased more than 2 tickets to an nba game in my life got psyched.

We win 60 games and go to the finals. Man I am psyched, I've got posters of my fav players, I'm counting the days until training camp. Then what? Well all hell breaks loose. The team gets damn near completely dismantled and when fin leaves it will pretty much have been complete. Two years ago was completely ridiculous and this year was close to the same. Only dirks superhuman efforts saved this season at all. Now if they wanted to build around dirk then hell, do it, quit playing some sort of excuse game left and right evertime they make a move for financial reasons.

I understand that marks a salesman, but sooner or later you tune anyone out who's blowing smoke up your skirts. And you just say "whatever". The ONLY reason that my bucks are on season tickets this year is because of dirk. That's the only saving grace cubes has with me right now.

And you know what, in 3 years I will NOT be surprised to see dirk leave as well. Because I don't think cubes knows the meaning of loyalty. Yea I know it's a rant and probably not rational, but this is one fan that feels like I've been taken on a ride.

[alby]

tmac beat finley for the baseline poster of bradley btw..

[dude1394]

Funny isn't it, if bradley would have just ole'd mcgrady nothing would have been made of it, but because he went ahead and contested the shot even though he wasn't in position to do so, he gets humiliated.

Worse off Avery adds to it by yanking him, never to be seen again even though he knew it wasn't shawns man, but Avery got embarressed. If I was shawn I wouldn't want to play for the sob either.

[grndmstr_c]

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with you on exactly what were and what weren't the bad decisions of the past. I won't turn this into a debate about which moves turned out worst and which ones turned out best in hindsight, but suffice it to say, I feel reasonably okay with some of the decisions that likely bother you the most. We may just have to agree to disagree in those respects.

I just don't see how you can proclaim that the Mavs have stagnated when they just improved their regular season win total by 6 games, and went 8 games deeper into the playoffs than they had the year before, when their best player just came off a 1st team all-NBA season and is just entering his prime, when they have one of the better centers in the league starting for them for the first time in forever, when they have expiring and short contracts attached to skilled veterans like Terry, Stack, and KVH that absolutely have trade value, when Josh Howard is looking like a guy who'll start popping up in all-star debates next year, and when most of the rest of the roster is filled out with younger guys who at least have the potential to improve. I mean, you talk about the young guys as if the mere fact that they're on the roster is dooming the team to mediocrity, but would you rather be coming off a postseason in which the team was in striking distance of the Western Conference finals and have to try to take the next step with a roster filled out by older, and truly stagnant mid to sub-mid-level veterans? I'll take the underachieving kids, thank you very much.

[grndmstr_c]

tmac beat finley for the baseline poster of bradley btw.

I'm pretty sure it was Dirk.

[mavs413]

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

I'm pretty sure it was Dirk.

Yeah, it was Dirk.

[dirno2000]

Originally posted by: alby
tmac beat finley for the baseline poster of bradley btw..

You can see Fin's head under Stack's arm...

[foglemann]

get'm grndmstr, get'm. I'm tired of the this negative garbage. I will definitly take the young kids over whatever Chum feels like filling out the roster with. Chum, I understand you want Cubes to spend the money, but when its 100M payroll, with you matching another 50M on top of that, that's just stupid.

[chumdawg]

Well, you certainly paint a pretty picture. You almost have me convinced.

Except that I'll believe JET, Stack, and KVH have significant trade value when I see it. In KVH's case, trading him would probably require taking on greater salary obligations, and I don't get the sense that such a move is likely. The other two...I just have a hard time seeing them bringing something notably better. (I like both guys, I want to add.) In fact, I have a hard time imagining ANY good trade for the Mavs that doesn't involve Josh Howard.

Of course I like Howard. But having your second-best player be on the verge of inclusion in All-Star debates doesn't necessarily inspire me when San Antonio boasts Duncan, Gonobili, and Parker; Phoenix boasts Stoudemire, Johnson, and Nash; and Houston boasts Yao and McGrady (and probably another piece this offseason).

You like Damp better than I do. You see one of the better centers in the league. I look at the front lines in Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, and Denver and worry how he stacks up. I'd feel better if he hadn't shown a tendency to disappear in the playoffs.

Of course the young guys aren't a liability. (With the possible exception of Harris, if we need him to be a major contributor immediately and he isn't ready.) I'm just saying that I don't think they give us a realistic reason to think we are heading towards a title.

If I hear one more time that we won six more games, I think I'm gonna throw up a little in my mouth. Let's use '02 and '03 as the yardsticks. Obviously, you can throw '04 out. But yes, we did have a nice regular season last year. So did a whole bunch of other teams.

[dude1394]

Howard is the one shining player in all of this mess.

[grndmstr_c]

Whether the expiring contracts get used will probably depend on what happens with Fin, I think. If Cuban decides to waive Fin, I can easily see them being turned into longer-contract talent upgrades, as I'm not at all convinced that Cuban is trying to reduce player expenditures below their previous level as much as he is trying to bring payroll under control so that player expenditures don't balloon out of control with the new, mandatory luxury tax. Because on a rough analysis it certainly looks like the CBA will have a profound effect on what Cuban's 90 million dollar-a-year player payroll will cost after taxes.

To put it in context, if we assume that the LT threshold is 60 million, and that the probability of the LT kicking in any given year is 33% (I read somewhere it's taken effect 2 out of 6 years, in case you're wondering if I just pulled that figure out of my middle rear pocket) then under the old CBA the expected post-tax cost of a 90 million dollar payroll is 100 million. Under the new CBA with mandatory LT penalties, though, that figure instantly expands to 120 million. Now, I know its fashionable to call Cuban a cheap bastard right now for wanting to reduce LT liabilities, but what you have to take into account is that even if Finley's entire contract amount were taken off the LT ledger, an owner with a 90 million dollar payroll under these circumstances is still going to be out MORE money AFTER waiving a player making 16 million than he would have been had the old CBA rules regarding the LT remained in place and the player's full salary remained taxable. Hence, I think we need to admit that as much as it appears that Mark is looking to reduce his tax liability, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he's looking to reduce his expenditures, per se.

[jopimokeeluvimanysl]

This totally sucks. I was wishing avery was going to rebuild the team. I don't see how the mavs are going to compete with the other teams.

[chumdawg]

I don't follow, GMC. You are saying that reducing tax liability and reducing expenditures are not one and the same? I don't get it. More tax liability equals more expenditures. Less equals less. I'm lost.

All I know is that waiving Fin says that $16 million next year is more valuable to the Mavs than Fin is. If we say that salary expenditures next year will be in the area of $105MM, tax and all, then cutting expenditures by 15% or so is more valauble than Fin is. That doesn't sit well with me.

The main reason it doesn't sit well with me is that I don't think Fin is the kind of player that the league had in mind when they allowed the teams "amnesty" from bad contracts. I don't think any other teams are going to be cutting starters and cornerstones of their franchises. Maybe I'm wrong. But I doubt it. I don't any fans outside of Dallas are going to more sorry to see their "amnesty" guys go than Mavs fans are going to be to see Fin go.

[grndmstr_c]

I don't follow, GMC. You are saying that reducing tax liability and reducing expenditures are not one and the same?

When comparing the financial ramifications of the new CBA and the old one, that's exactly what I'm saying. If the probablity of the LT kicking in under the old CBA was an average of 33% across the life of the CBA, then this new CBA effectively increases LT penalties by 200% in an average year. That's an incredible added financial burden for a team that's as far over the cap as the Mavs, and a team in that position can (assuming the 33% LT probability I stipulated above) easily cut a large chunk of payroll (33 cents for every dollar over the LT threshold to be precise) without saving a single penny over what they would they would have had to pay BEFORE shaving the payroll under the old CBA.

[chumdawg]

Oh, I see what you are getting at. You are saying that expenditures were going up regardless. That's true. But the fact remains that cutting Finley is cutting expenditures. No way around that. It is what it is. So I really don't get your point, unless it's to suggest that Fin would have never received the contract he did if Cuban could have seen into the future. I'm sure that may be the case.

Are you suggesting that the Mavs have no choice BUT to cut Finley? Because I'm only looking at the things they have control over. If expenditures are going up due to circumstances beyond their control, that doesn't have anything to do with Fin.

[jopimokeeluvimanysl]

Why would other teams help CUBAN/Mavs out? It is a business you know. It makes absolutely makes no sense esp for finely cuz fin ain't worth it and their are other better sg contracts to trade. I bet other GM's would rather laugh in Cuban's face for having to blow money on the LUX tax. Believe me I would. Why would a team spend 50mill/or however much fin is worth not to save DAllas Mavs from being laught at than not spend any money at all and getting to laugh everytime the mavs play them.
allen houston didn't get traded. I am not sure finely could get T.

[jopimokeeluvimanysl]

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

When comparing the financial ramifications of the new CBA and the old one, that's exactly what I'm saying. If the probablity of the LT kicking in under the old CBA was an average of 33% across the life of the CBA, then this new CBA effectively increases LT penalties by 200% in an average year. That's an incredible added financial burden for a team that's as far over the cap as the Mavs, and a team in that position can (assuming the 33% LT probability I stipulated above) easily cut a large chunk of payroll (33 cents for every dollar over the LT threshold to be precise) without saving a single penny over what they would they would have had to pay BEFORE shaving the payroll under the old CBA.

Does the Cba not announce policy ahead like the IRS does? Or is cuban stupid.

[dude1394]

Sounds to me like the new CBA added the permanent luxury tax provision but also added the one-time huge contract exemption to help folks get out of it.

Folks who are getting max'd out this year are pretty lucky, I would imagine there will certainly be a some salary compression.