Mavs' Tricks Could Net A Center

[arkuo]

By David Lord -- DallasBasketball.com
Jon Stefansson, who has never played a single minute in the NBA, is staying? Antoine Walker, a relatively young 3-time All-Star, is possibly going to be made available to the Bobcats in the expansion draft?
The latest developments, which include a trick that might net the Mavs a big-time center:

THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS

Because of his team-friendly long-term contract, if the opportunity were available, it has long been apparent to all that Charlotte would clearly grab Jon Stefansson from the Mavs in lieu of a more costly player in the upcoming expansion draft. But his NBA skills are far from proven, and it has been uncertain as to whether he is in the Mavs long term plans or not.
Thus, the first hint this week of something developing was a reported front office decision to include the young guard on their protected list.
It was surmised that the Mavs' rationale in so doing might be to force the Bobcats to select more expensive players for their roster; but there is nothing that would compel Charlotte to take anyone at all from the Mavs. Thus this move signaled at least to some degree a sense among the Mavs that Stefansson indeed has the potential to develop into a contributor down the road and thus would be desirable to retain.
However, this decision would leave the Mavericks in a tight squeeze regarding whom to protect, and thus there are consequences to consider. Conventional thinking (including interviews with Donnie Nelson) have consistently included Nowitzki, Howard, Daniels, Jamison, Walker, and Finley on the 8-man protected list, with Bradley, Najera, and Stefansson all under consideration to join the expected trio of Delk, Abdul-Wahad, and Fortson as unprotected players.
Moving Stefansson onto the protected list would leave 1 final slot available there, with Bradley and Najera the remaining options to fill it. However, both players are effective role players with the Mavs, and both have relatively team-friendly contracts. It has appeared the team would want to keep them both, if possible.
Then, Mark Cuban revealed news that would serve to permit the team to indeed keep both players: the Mavericks are considering leaving Antoine Walker, a 3-time All-Star, unprotected.
This would allow them to protect both Bradley and Najera (as well as Stefansson), and would result in the foursome of Delk (2 yr $6.5M), Walker (1 yr $14.6M), Fortson (3 yr $19.2M), and Abdul-Wahad (3 yr $21.9M) each being available for Charlotte to take.
The ensuing questions: Is this a message being sent to Walker to force him to opt out of his contract? Doesn't he have a ton of trade value that they would be tossing in the trash? If they don't want him, why don't they just trade him for that elusive center they need? Would Charlotte even want him? Is this an admission that they screwed up the Raef LaFrentz trade last fall? Have they found out he has no trade value at all and just need to dump him any way they can? Why would the Mavs let this be made public, because doesn't that tend to gut any value he has?

HOW IT ALL FITS TOGETHER

On first glance, I was as confused as anyone else out there regarding this whole development. However, after studying and researching a bit, it all starts to make perfect sense, and the pieces fit together nicely. In fact, the more I look at it, the more logical the whole thing becomes. Let's take a look.
First of all, it is completely obvious to everyone that Walker does not have a long-term role here in Dallas. Although he has many skills, they just don't fit on this team. He was tried in every role imaginable here, and although he was better at some roles than others, and even though he made nice contributions in some areas, he never seemed able to produce All-Star caliber production in conjunction with the other players on the Mavericks. Things just didn't mesh, probably because his best position is already taken here by Dirk Nowitzki.
Secondly, because he has a desirable expiring contract, and because he has talent, most observers assume (and rightly so, I think) that the Mavs' best use for Walker from this point is to use him to upgrade the center position via trade.
But, you ask, doesn't this current spate of events tend to lessen or even ruin that possibility? The more I consider it, the more I am convinced that, to the contrary, the Mavs have effectively increased their ability to market Walker for a center, by these current moves.
Let's look at the new set of possibilities.
Has anything changed yet? Not really. As I see it, so far the Mavs have merely made it clear to all that Walker might be on the move, and that if you want to make a deal with Dallas for his expiring contract (rather than letting it be grabbed by the Bobcats), you need to step up with an offer.
Should it come as any surprise to the NBA world that Walker is now available? No. However, now a degree of urgency has been injected into the equation for certain teams. If you have a center you want to send us, perhaps with a contract you want to get off your books somehow, you better step up, because there is no way that Charlotte (with their limited starting cap) can send you Walker's expiring contract for a bloated contract. Or, if you want talent this year followed by a cap decrease next year ala Rasheed Wallace, you need to move quickly.
Now this may indeed spur a team to make a deal with the Mavs right away, or it may not. But in any event, it creates urgency in teams where there is already residual interest. Urgency makes things happen.
Note also that the protected list must be submitted in a week (June 12). Since players traded will have to be protected, the effective deadline for some sort of decision is only about a week away.
What if no one steps up? Do the Mavericks go ahead and leave Walker unprotected? Unless they have a deal in place for Walker that can't occur til later for some reason (which is possible), then it would seem pretty cut and dried that Walker will be made available to Charlotte.

THE REST OF THE STORY

That isn't the end of the story, however.
First, it isn't a certainty that Charlotte would take him, even if they can.
The upside for Charlotte would be his contract that expires in a year, plus having a player with lots of skills that might make their team more competitive while they keep him.
But there are several downsides for the Bobcats if they select him. The obvious one is the size of Walker's contract ($14.625M) which would eat up almost half of Charlotte's expected $30M cap. They certainly wouldn't want to take him and then cut him and eat the salary, so if they select him he will use a huge chunk from their cap if they haven't traded him prior to the first game.
Furthermore, one of the big appeals regarding Walker in a trade is his expiring contract. But if they decide to trade him to another team, that team will obviously be one that is over the cap, and thus would have to send them back a similar amount of contracts (that last longer) in return, to make the expiring contract of Walker become a cap-benefit to them. Would Charlotte want back players with contracts that are the same size as Walker's, but last longer?
Yet there is one definite scenario in which Charlotte can take and make use of Walker, and Cuban's move has brilliantly made that possible. Although Charlotte cannot reveal to another team which players are unprotected around the league, teams can play "what if" with the Bobcats. Thus, now knowing that Walker is likely to be on the list of available players, a team can make a side deal with Charlotte that "if you can get Walker and trade him to us, we will give you this or that in return."
The Bobcats might not take him, even if they can. But this does open the door wider.
What's in it for Dallas, in all this?
Let's begin by noting again that the Mavs surely don't have Walker in their long-term plans. Thus, to them, it is only a matter of when he leaves and what they get in return.
As we have already noted, the Mavs in doing this have effectively created deadlines for teams to make a deal with Dallas for that expiring contract. If another team wants to work with a team that has been known to take on money for the right player, they have an opportunity now. If and when Walker gets to Charlotte, that might not be the case.
Also, this development has carved out an extra slot on the protected list for the Mavs. Since Walker is gone from this team, either now or later, the willingness to say "okay take him now if you wish" lets them protect the players they prefer to continue with. If he isn't taken, they still have him here til they work out a trade later, with someone that desires cap room via an expiring contract.

THE FINAL CRUCIAL FACTOR

Even if the Mavs lose him to Charlotte, they gain a usable upside, that in some scenarios could be preferable. If the Bobcats take Walker, the Mavs will receive an "assignment exception" (aka a "trade exception"or TE) that may assist them in obtaining a center.
The TE has been mentioned a lot lately, because of its tie-in to the expansion draft. But how are they usable? In particular, how might having one benefit the Mavs?
A TE lasts a year and then any unused portion expires. It is not a commodity that in and of itself can be traded, but rather it allows a team over the cap the ability to get players via trades without completely matching salaries, as must usually be done. This effectively gives great flexibility, and it can be used in some circumstances (if the other team is interested) like one of the desirable "expiring contracts" - only, in this case, it would effectively be one that reduces the cap amount immediately rather than later.
Note that teams cannot use a TE to sign free agents; it can be used only to acquire existing contracts from other teams.
Since it is not a "commodity," it cannot be traded to another team as such. For example, I could not trade my giant TE for your #1 Pick. It is merely a usable "exception to the cap rules."
Let's give some examples.
In general, if Charlotte takes Walker, the Mavs would get a TE in the amount of $14.625M (which is Walker's salary for 2004-05). This TE would last for a year (365 days).
If they make a trade for players making $18.625M, this TE would allow them to send as little as $4M in salary to the other team to balance the trade, thus immediately reducing the other teams payroll (and cap amount) by the difference. For a team in danger of paying luxury tax this year, that could be a huge incentive to make a deal.
Whatever amount of "exception" is unused can be retained and used in another deal. Thus if the Mavs receive $18.625M in salary but send away $10M, they will still have a $6M TE left to use on a different deal.
[Side Note: in the last example above, the other team under some circumstances would (because they were taking back less salary than they gave away in the trade) receive a TE of $8.25M. But in spite of appearances, the TE they would receive is not a trade of a TE, but rather because a new one was created by such a trade. In some circumstances though (depending on the number of players in the trade), no TE would be created in a trade with similar numbers. And for a team looking to reduce payroll, a TE is unlikely to be used anyhow, as it merely allows them at a later date to increase their payroll above the cap again.]
Here is a specific example involving the Mavs, with a player they might be interested in. Erick Dampier is expected to opt out of his contract this summer, and could be the sort of center they might want. Let's say they negotiate a deal with Dampier on a contract starting at $9.5M a year, and then want to work out a sign-and-trade with the Warriors. Rather than offering players to the Warriors that might not be totally desirable, they could perhaps offer draft choices instead. The Warriors get cap room and reduced salary, plus value, in exchange for a player they were going to lose anyhow. And the Mavs would still have more than a $5M TE left to use for a different trade.
They could do the same sort of deal with Utah for Ostertag, albeit for a far smaller contract.
A team like Boston might not want players back in a sign-and-trade for Blount, since they aren't far under luxury tax levels. But they might be amenable to draft picks. A TE would allow such a sign-and-trade to work.
With a large TE to use, you could get around Base Year hangups in a sign-and-trade for someone like Kenyon Martin.
In summary, if the Mavs are trading away Walker, they are offering some level of future cap relief, plus a player with talent to help that team in the short run. With a TE, they have to add some sort of talent into the deal, but the flexibility is greater and the cap relief to the other team is immediate.
It looks like the Mavs are focusing on making the obvious deal work: send away Walker, and get a center back in his place. However, they appear to be opening the door to perhaps use an unexpected and unusual method to accomplish their goal, and perhaps a method that not only is different but also has more potential than conventional ones.

[FolterKammer84]

i like our chances of acquiring a big man while getting rid of walker due to this trick . but with a trade exception of about 14.5 million bugs we should definitely net more than erik dampier

[sike]

Originally posted by: FolterKammer84
i like our chances of acquiring a big man while getting rid of walker due to this trick . but with a trade exception of about 14.5 million bugs we should definitely net more than erik dampier

my rebuttal to this last comment would go asomething.............like this: dofus!!!!..dampier is exactly what this team needs!!!....all love and respect...sike.

[bcrav4]

How are Damp's post moves? Can he post up? Also, how well can he run the floor?

[ddh33]

Originally posted by: bcrav4
How are Damp's post moves? Can he post up? Also, how well can he run the floor?

When he isn't injured, Dampier can do all of those things. His defense is solid (not spectacular). He runs the floor pretty well for a big guy. His rebounding has always been good. And his footwork and post game is also good.

But again, he's always been injured. That's what scares most people. There is a good chance that he gets a big contract and disappears until it's time for his next one. But there's also a chance that he finally blossoms. A change of scenery may do him wonders...

[LRB]

An injured and underachieving Dampier in the bush is worth more than 2 healthy Walkers in hand.

[sike]

Originally posted by: LRB
An injured and underachieving Dampier in the bush is worth more than 2 healthy Walkers in hand.

well said....

[FolterKammer84]

sike i intended on signing 2 post players. like campy and dampier. i really like both of them . but for fucks sake 14.5 for dampier alone sike? thats way too much [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: FolterKammer84
sike i intended on signing 2 post players. like campy and dampier. i really like both of them . but for fucks sake 14.5 for dampier alone sike? thats way too much [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

Im assuming that the trade exception can only be apllied to one trade, and that it basically only nullifies the CBA.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

Im assuming that the trade exception can only be apllied to one trade, and that it basically only nullifies the CBA.

The trade ememption can be split over multiple trades. It only nullifies the CBA in that it allows the Mavs to trade away more salary (up to the trade exemption) than they take back. We could split the trade exemption over 3 or 4 trades if we wanted to.

[sike]

Originally posted by: FolterKammer84
sike i intended on signing 2 post players. like campy and dampier. i really like both of them . but for fucks sake 14.5 for dampier alone sike? thats way too much [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

folter...just about anything to rid the mavs of walker and aquire a better than average big man...

[jayC]

I wouldn't. I want make the right move dampier might be, but he might be shawn bradley. Brads played great 2002-2003 but he was just average after he got his new deal. The same could happen to the Warriors Dampier. I'd be more in favor of acquiring Chandler or the third overall pick from Chicago.

[dalmations202]

If you could get the 14.5M trade exception, you might be able to get Chandler, ERob, and the #3 pick. That is, unless they wanted to pawn off a few more parts on you.

[ddh33]

Just in case I wasn't clear, I would gladly take Dampier. He's a risk, but this team has to take it - especially if Walker is the bait.

My weird fear is that the Mavs would somehow become the Dallas Warriors.

[sike]

Originally posted by: ddh33
Just in case I wasn't clear, I would gladly take Dampier. He's a risk, but this team has to take it - especially if Walker is the bait.
My weird fear is that the Mavs would somehow become the Dallas Warriors.

I dont think the league takes to kinkly to name changes ddh [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] , but Dampier is all i would show real interest in....

which would you take? the #3 pick and others or Dampier?....if Walker is the.....how did you put it.....*oh yeah* bait!

[ddh33]

Originally posted by: sike

I dont think the league takes to kinkly to name changes ddh [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] , but Dampier is all i would show real interest in....

which would you take? the #3 pick and others or Dampier?....if Walker is the.....how did you put it.....*oh yeah* bait!

Honestly, it really might depend on who the "others" were.

All things being equal, I would kind of like to see this team take a chance on a young, unproven big guy - especially considering how well this franchise has done recently with rookies. I just keep thinking that you've seen all the warts these other guys have. Now, maybe these young kids have the same kind of problems, but I would take a shot there. The rookies are certainly much cheaper, but I just hate paying that inflation for a guy 6'11 or bigger.

I'll tell you my favorite scenario though is getting Ostertag and one of Utah's picks for Walker in a sign and trade. That way, you get the immediate help from a big guy, you get a young kid you can develop who will hopefully play sooner than later, and you get some cap relief.

[sike]

Originally posted by: ddh33

Honestly, it really might depend on who the "others" were.

All things being equal, I would kind of like to see this team take a chance on a young, unproven big guy - especially considering how well this franchise has done recently with rookies. I just keep thinking that you've seen all the warts these other guys have. Now, maybe these young kids have the same kind of problems, but I would take a shot there. The rookies are certainly much cheaper, but I just hate paying that inflation for a guy 6'11 or bigger.

I'll tell you my favorite scenario though is getting Ostertag and one of Utah's picks for Walker in a sign and trade. That way, you get the immediate help from a big guy, you get a young kid you can develop who will hopefully play sooner than later, and you get some cap relief.

not very sexy....but logical...i just wonder if Tag is enough of an inside influence..... if he and bradley each played 20 a game that would an interesting combo....

[Poindexter Einstein]

"I'll tell you my favorite scenario though is getting Ostertag and one of Utah's picks for Walker in a sign and trade. That way, you get the immediate help from a big guy, you get a young kid you can develop who will hopefully play sooner than later, and you get some cap relief."

You make the assumption that the Mavs need or want "cap relief" instead of talent.

Your exact scenario with Utah could work a different way also. Suppose you offer Ostertag $4M per year, the exact same thing as Bradley. That would seem to be a fair contract, wouldnt it? You make the trade as you outlined, and get Ostertag and a pick, for Walker. Obviously this deal would happen in late July (due to the sign-and-trade aspect) so its a pick in 2005.

Now, here is the slick part. YOU WOULD ALSO GET A TRADE EXEMPTION OF $10.625M. That would allow you to chase just about any free agent (via sign-and-trade) you wanted to, for both the rest of 2004 summer and also through the trade deadline and early part of the 2005 summer. You get incredible flexibility. You can target a team and offer almost instant cap relief of over $10.6M (if you send them a pick for the player you want). The viable options they would gain (if they want to be aggressive) would be many.

[dalmations202]

which would you take? the #3 pick and others or Dampier?....if Walker is the.....how did you put it.....*oh yeah* bait!

Without question, the #3 pick and others, as long as the others included either Chandler, Curry, or ADavis. I might even do it with the #3 pick, ERob, and JWilliams.

Without Chandler, Curry or AD included; I would have to know if I had an option of moving Jamison with Cleveland, or NO before I considered moving Walker.

Dampier would be about choice "E" in my books, and I would look at it, but not up front.

[chumdawg]

When it comes to trading picks, we are probably hampered by not being able to deal our first-round pick next year. Who wants to wait until 2006 for a high draft choice? And who wants a late second next year? We just don't have a whole lot to offer in the draft right now.

[sike]

Originally posted by: dalmations202

Without question, the #3 pick and others, as long as the others included either Chandler, Curry, or ADavis. I might even do it with the #3 pick, ERob, and JWilliams.

Without Chandler, Curry or AD included; I would have to know if I had an option of moving Jamison with Cleveland, or NO before I considered moving Walker.

Dampier would be about choice "E" in my books, and I would look at it, but not up front.

forget Curry...waste of talent....but Chandler is one guy I really like...of course the question is the back...will it hold up...cuz the game is there...not a huge fan of Erob or Jwilliams...just a more atheletic EddieN if you ask me....If Chandler is the guy then I would go with the BUlls trade...if not, I go after Dampier...

[dalmations202]

forget Curry...waste of talent....but Chandler is one guy I really like...of course the question is the back...will it hold up...cuz the game is there...not a huge fan of Erob or Jwilliams...just a more atheletic EddieN if you ask me....If Chandler is the guy then I would go with the BUlls trade...if not, I go after Dampier...

I can understand that one. For me though, the #3 for Walker is a good deal, as long as I have a second Center in the process. Any of those three (Chandler, Curry, ADavis) are going to improve the position in Dallas. Getting the Big with the #3 allows time for the Big gotten with the #3 to develop. Damp is a good option, but even if I got ADavis and the #3 for Walker, it would improve the team IMO more than just Dampier.

I like the idea of Chandler better than any other Chicago plan, but I don't know if they could get the #3 and Chandler in a deal.

ADavis and #3 for Walker, and then draft Livingston, and trade Fortson or Delk/2nd Rounder to Utah for Ostertag (SNT 4M) --- they have the cap space to eat the couple Mill difference would make me happy enough about the offseason.

Not my first choice, but definately a good one.
LIneup:
ADavis, Bradley, Ostertag
Nowitzki, Najera
Jamison, Howard
Finley, Daniels
Nash, Livingston, Stefansson

TAW, Delk/Fortson, or Stefansson on IR.

Old Center rotation, but better than the non-rotation we have currently.

[sike]

i agree that just removing Walker will help the mavs regain their identity(which would be the best part of your proposition) and I could see where Davis could help....tough strong..but old and gettind older....do you think they would go after a guard with the #3 instead of one of the big men??....I go for a big man...cause Bradley, Tag, Davis..only have 2-3 more decent seasons...most likely

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: sike
i agree that just removing Walker will help the mavs regain their identity(which would be the best part of your proposition) and I could see where Davis could help....tough strong..but old and gettind older....do you think they would go after a guard with the #3 instead of one of the big men??....I go for a big man...cause Bradley, Tag, Davis..only have 2-3 more decent seasons...most likely

I agree, and would have a hard time turning down either Pavel or Andriuskevicius. I just don't know if they truly believe that Livingston can be the next Magic. He is said to be a true PG at 6'7" with the vision, hands, quickness, and defensive ability. He has been compared as a taller Jason Kidd with several items I have read (unfortunately including his shooting). Hard to turn down that person that can be "special" no matter what position he plays. Look at the Sam Bowie/Michael Jordan debate.

All the Bigs have their downside, and may not pan out. I have a gut feeling that Pavel won't (no good reasons though). Andriuskevicius is going to be an awesome PF, IMO, in about 4 years.....but really not a Center either at 7'3". I would love to see the situation where they could end up with both Livingston and Andriuskevicius, with Dirk, Daniels, and Howard in about 4 years. That would be one run and gun team.

Who knows how they will develop though.

[MightyToine]

Originally posted by: LRB
An injured and underachieving Dampier in the bush is worth more than 2 healthy Walkers in hand.

[img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img] oooooookaaaayyyyy...... [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]




I'd rather have a Healthy and I-give-a-crap-about-playing-basketball Dampier than the typical play-hard-for-a-contract-then-relax-and-collect-my-check Dampier.

But....like the possibility of the Mavs acquiring Damp, that isn't going to happen.

[MightyToine]

Originally posted by: sike
i agree that just removing Walker will help the mavs regain their identity

And what identity would that be?


They've still managed to keep up their image as an all-offense/no defense team. *smirks*



Personally, I think removing NELLIE would help the mavs gain an identity of a team that can score *AND* Play Defense.

[Murphy3]

On a side note, Lord has shown some pretty decent improvement in his writing as of late. Fish must be pissed that one of his guest writers or whatever is soooo much better a writer than he is.

[sike]

[quote]
Originally posted by: MightyToine

Originally posted by: sike
i agree that just removing Walker will help the mavs regain their identity

And what identity would that be?

the winning close knit kind....for an example just see the 02-03 mavs MT.

[Poindexter Einstein]

"the winning close knit kind....for an example just see the 02-03 mavs MT. "

The Mavs were actually a pretty tight-knit team this past year. The only problem was they werent as successful on the court as they hoped to be. But in practices and locker room, that was and is a team that really got along well.

[MightyToine]

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
"the winning close knit kind....for an example just see the 02-03 mavs MT. "

The Mavs were actually a pretty tight-knit team this past year. The only problem was they werent as successful on the court as they hoped to be. But in practices and locker room, that was and is a team that really got along well.

TAKE *THAT*, sike! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]