Amnesty Day redux

[chumdawg]

I'm posting it here rather than Around the NBA because it includes an inevitable subplot to this series upcoming for the Mavs, and because I have strong feelings about it, and because I want to put this out there in advance of the results of the upcoming games (whichever way it turns out).

Much was made of the amnesty cuts a summer ago, but only now--with the benefit of hindsight--can we make analyses about what moves helped what teams the most. Herein, then, an analysis of Amnesty Day 2005 with respect to the season that transpired in its wake.

Eighteen teams took advantage of the amnesty provision last summer. Six of these teams relieved themselves of the contractual burdens of players they no longer owned:

Toronto - Alonzo Mourning
Boston - Vin Baker
Detroit - Derrick Coleman
Miami - Wesley Person
Chicago - Eddie Robinson
Phoenix - Howard Eisley

Another team, Indiana, scratched the contract of a retiring player, Reggie Miller, who was still on the books.

Eleven teams, then, availed themselves of the provision in order to release players still on their active rosters. Of those eleven cuts, five of the players did not play in the NBA this year:

New York - Jerome Williams
Memphis - Troy Bell
New Jersey - Ron Mercer
Minnesota - Fred Hoiberg
Houston - Clarence Weatherspoon

That leaves us with "the six." The six teams who cut players who still could play in this league. Perhaps. Those six teams, and players cut, were:

Orlando - Doug Christie
Milwaukee - Calvin Booth
Philadelphia - Aaron McKie
LA Lakers - Brian Grant
Portland - Derek Anderson
Dallas - Michael Finley

As you would expect, each and every one of these players signed with what would end up being playoff teams. But not all of them had a great deal of productivity. Herewith, then, a study of the contributions each player made to his new team:

Doug Christie

Played seven games for the Mavericks, starting all seven. Logged 185 minutes and scored 26 points. Did not play in the playoffs, as he was released by the team.

Calvin Booth

Played 33 games for the Wizards, and started two. Logged 252 minutes. Scored 46 points. Did not play in the playoffs.

Aaron McKie

Played 14 games for the Lakers, logging 121 minutes. Scored seven points. Played one game in the playoffs, logging eight minutes and no other stats.

Brian Grant

Played 21 games in Phoenix, starting two, for 248 minutes. Scored 61 points. Played three games thus far in the playoffs, notching five minutes and recording no stats other than two missed free-throw attempts and three personal fouls.

Derek Anderson

Played 43 games for the Rockets and Heat, starting 11. Logged 1048 minutes and scored 349 points. Played four playoff games thus far, logging 38 minutes and scoring 14 points.

Michael Finley

Played 77 games for the Spurs, starting 18. Logged 2037 minutes and scored 780 points. Played six playoff games thus far, logging 152 minutes and scoring 62 points.

Bottom line:

Of the "usable" players who were released on Amnesty Day, Michael Finley has more production than all the rest of them COMBINED. Two of them, Christie and Booth, proved to be not usable at all. Two more, McKie and Grant, proved to be too fragile to contribute anything anymore.

That leaves only Anderson and Finley as the valuable players who were released on Amnesty Day. Anderson was released by an owner who is cutting costs at every corner. That we know. Finley is several times more productive than Anderson, and in fact he is filling a key role on a contending team.

Was his team's owner cutting costs in the mode of Paul Allen, yet trying to do so quietly? Or was his team playing a risky addition-by-subtraction game? And if so, what does that mean for the Mavericks?

We will find out in this series. Just like last year, the Mavs are facing an individual in the second round who may have a chip on his shoulder. Nash last year played the postseason of his life. The general concensus is that he found motivation from somewhere else.

If the same happens to Finley this year, and he plays a role in ushering the Mavs out of the Western Conference Playoffs, I can only hope for Mark Cuban's sake that the profit he gained was worth it.

[Dtownsfinest]

I haven't shyed away about the way I feel about Finley and his departure from this team. Its going to be interesting to see how he performs this series. He's already made a huge impact with the Spurs and had Ginobilli not coughed up the ball in Game 3 Finley would've been the hero of that game. I'll admit that it does hurt that everytime Finley contributes for the Spurs we are paying him to do so. The Spurs are a horrible free throw shooting team and it gets even worse in the clutch. That's where Mike can really contribute to the Spurs. I'm going to be looking at the 6th man matchup very closely. I think Stackhouse will have a little fire under his ass because I think he knows what a lot of fans are thinking in the back of their heads. While both play 6th man roles for their teams we need Stackhouse to give us positive productivity. None of that relying on 3 pointers to make his mark in the game nonsense.

[dirno2000]

Was his team's owner cutting costs in the mode of Paul Allen, yet trying to do so quietly? Or was his team playing a risky addition-by-subtraction game? And if so, what does that mean for the Mavericks?

I don't think he's doing it quietly. He's on record that he wants to avoid the luxury tax.

I do think it's fair to ask if the decision was purely financial or was it perceived to be addition by subtraction. I tend to lean towards the former but only those in the organization truly know.

Fin has hit a number of huge shots this year and he'll probably continue to do so. I think the difference between this year and last is that last year it was clear that PXH wouldn't have been there without Nash. This year you could make the argument that Finley and Barry are redundant and any big shots that Fin hits is a shot that Barry won't.

[chumdawg]

Dtown -- I'm watching that matchup, too. It's probably the most intriguing matchup of the series.

D2K -- Interesting point about the redundancy. But you may be giving Barry just a little too much credit there. Maybe.

[Dtownsfinest]

From what i've seen of Brent Barry he's starting to come along in the post season. I think the Spurs were about sick of Barry which is why they tried to pull the JR Smith for Barry deal.

[kriD]

Spurs' Finley must put friendship aside for now

By GERRY FRALEY / The Dallas Morning News

Composed as always, Michael Finley showed little emotion after San Antonio finished off Sacramento. He has been here before.

For the fifth time in the last six seasons, Finley's team has reached the second round of the NBA playoffs. This story line is much different.

In the previous four occasions, Finley played for the Mavericks. Now, the Mavericks are an obstacle.

Dumped by the Mavericks last summer, Finley signed on with the Spurs. His current and past employers meet in a second-round series that opens today at San Antonio.

Those who know Finley best understand how much this means to him.

None labels it revenge. Finley has too much respect for his former team to dabble in that.

Call it the natural response of a competitive person after being shunned.

"Of course he's getting excited, but he's never going to show it," Spurs guard Nick Van Exel said after the series-clinching 105-83 win at Sacramento on Friday night. "He'll be cool. But who wouldn't get excited playing against the team that let you go?"

Finley, who helped turn the Mavericks from a laughingstock to a power in 8 1/2 seasons with the club, said he settled those issues during the regular-season reunion games. The key words there are "regular season."

It is possible to be gentlemanly and deferential during the regular season. That does not apply in the playoffs, when the stakes change.

Even long-standing friendships, such as the relationship Finley has with Mavericks forward Dirk Nowitzki, must be put aside. They can talk and hang out at some other time.

The lovefest stops today.

"For me, it's all about business," said Finley, who had 10 points in Friday's win against Sacramento. "There won't be any kissing and hugging during the games."

Finley's role has changed as much as the uniform.

The Mavericks counted on him to play a major postseason role. There were good moments, such as the 33-point performance Finley had against Utah in 2001 to give the Mavericks their first playoff-series win since 1988.

It did not end well. In his last 18 playoff games with the Mavericks, Finley averaged 13.1 points with a 41.4 shooting percentage. He became a focal point for disappointments.

The Spurs use Finley off the bench for offense and long-range shooting. He scored in double figures in five of the six games of the Sacramento series and was a tick above his regular-season average with 10.3 points per game.

Finley had a career-low 41.2 shooting percentage in the regular season, but he did make 10-of-25 3-pointers in the Sacramento series. Finley will keep firing against the Mavericks. The Spurs like the long ball.

Before Saturday night's Phoenix-Los Angeles Lakers meeting, the Spurs had the best 3-point percentage in the playoffs at 43.2. San Antonio made eight of its last 13 3-point attempts against Sacramento.

Finley wholeheartedly accepts the specialized role.

"These guys are very professional," Finley said. "They've been to places a lot of teams want to go. I'm just riding their coattails. They're showing me the ropes."

The next step is to get past the second round. The Mavericks did that only once in the Finley era and lost to San Antonio in the 2003 conference finals.

The Spurs are competition-hardened. They have won the league title three times in the last seven seasons, going 65-36 in playoff games during that span.

That is why Finley picked San Antonio after the Mavs cast him aside. He wanted the team that gave him the best chance at a championship. He puts aside the notion that four wins over the Mavericks put him halfway to that goal.

"I can't think like that," Finley said. "This has been about jelling with a team and getting better."

And getting a ring. The Mavericks stand in Michael Finley's way.

[dirno2000]

D2K -- Interesting point about the redundancy. But you may be giving Barry just a little too much credit there. Maybe.

I'd probably take Finley but I've read some Spurs fans who said the exact opposite. Their roles are the same in that offense: stand at the 3-point line and wait for Duncan or Parker to kick it out for an open shot.

Like I said, Fin has made some huge shots for them this year but so has Barry. And don't forget last year when he iced game 1 against the Suns with a couple of big 3's.

That being said, I wish he would have signed with the Heat.

[chumdawg]

Barry can't play the extended minutes Finley does, though. At least not without getting exposed in other phases. To characterize Mike's role as simply hanging out beyond the arc, like Kobe did tonight in the second half, is not quite correct. Mike still gets rebounds, and Mike still makes good passes. On occasion, Mike will even play some good defense.

Barry, it's true. He's got one job and one job only. Let's just hope he doesn't fall victim the criticism I heard from my high-school football coach, which always cracked me up: "You've got one job. One job! And you fu**ed that up, too!"

Or, wait. let's hope he DOES fall victim to that criticism. Geez. I have to stop to remember who is playing who.

[TwoDeep3]

And yet in all this Fin-love, have we forgotten the horrid defense he plays?

Hitting clutch threes doesn't take away his ability to watch his defensive assignment have a season high game.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

And yet in all this Fin-love, have we forgotten the horrid defense he plays?

Hitting clutch threes doesn't take away his ability to watch his defensive assignment have a season high game.

Obviously Pop has a different view on the situation because Finley closes out most games for SA. And I think Pop's opinion on basketball is SLIGHTLY more informed than yours.

[sike]

Originally Posted by MFFL

Obviously Pop has a different view on the situation because Finley closes out most games for SA. And I think Pop's opinion on basketball is SLIGHTLY more informed than yours.

and one must ask...why is he in the game??? oh...its to stand at the line and wait....yeah...he can do that with the best shooters in the league. Because that is what Mike is: a great shooter.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by sike

and one must ask...why is he in the game??? oh...its to stand at the line and wait....yeah...he can do that with the best shooters in the league. Because that is what Mike is: a great shooter.

And yet the Spurs still get stops.

If Mike was SUCH a horrible defender then the opposing team would funnel all their offense to the man than Finley was guarding. Since they don't that would indicate that Finley is at least average on defense. Otherwise the Spurs would do more situational substitutions with him like they do with Bowen and Barry. In the last series, late in games, those two switched for each other based on whether Pop wanted offense or defense. Finley stayed in the game.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by sike

Because that is what Mike is: a great shooter.

I think some folks are vastly over-rating and over-valuing Finley, and that's why I disagree on the question of whether Cuban's move last august was a good move...

here are some 2005 figures on a handful of guards and shooting forwards to consider....

Ricky Davis 33mpg 16ppg 3Rbd $5.5 mm
Cuttino Mobley 36mpg 17ppg 4rbd $5.5 mm
Eddie Jones 36mpg 13ppg 5rbd $14.5 mm
Latrell Sprewell 31mpg 13ppg 3rbd $14.6 mm
Jalen Rose 27mpg 13ppg 3rbd $14.5 mm
Raja Bell 28mpg 12ppg 3rbd $1.3 mm
Michael Finley 37mpg 16ppg 4rbd $14.6 mm

This is who Michael Finley is -- he's Eddie Jones, Latrell Sprewell, or Jalen Rose. A past-his-prime player under a really big long-term contract. That's not an asset, that's a liability. The prudent thing to do is to get rid of the liability as quickly and painlessly as possible.


Regards,

[mavsplayball]

Originally Posted by MFFL

Obviously Pop has a different view on the situation because Finley closes out most games for SA. And I think Pop's opinion on basketball is SLIGHTLY more informed than yours.

Pop has faith in all his players. I dont believe that Finley closes out most games. He seems to miss alot of shots.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Barry can't play the extended minutes Finley does, though. At least not without getting exposed in other phases. To characterize Mike's role as simply hanging out beyond the arc, like Kobe did tonight in the second half, is not quite correct. Mike still gets rebounds, and Mike still makes good passes. On occasion, Mike will even play some good defense.

Barry, it's true. He's got one job and one job only. Let's just hope he doesn't fall victim the criticism I heard from my high-school football coach, which always cracked me up: "You've got one job. One job! And you fu**ed that up, too!"

Or, wait. let's hope he DOES fall victim to that criticism. Geez. I have to stop to remember who is playing who.

I don't know how to quantify their respective defensive impacts but Barry rebounded at a slightly higher rate and picked up assists at a much higher rate than Finley. He has a nice feel for the game and he won the dunk contest one year so he's more athletic than he looks. I think they're interchangable.

[sike]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

I don't know how to quantify their respective defensive impacts but Barry rebounded at a slightly higher rate and picked up assists at a much higher rate than Finley. He has a nice feel for the game and he won the dunk contest one year so he's more athletic than he looks. I think they're interchangable.

totally agree...

[auffe34]

This is like the ex-girlfriend you run into a year later. You remember most of the good things and some of the bad, but mostly good. I don't know too many people who don't look back without rose colored glasses. The facts are Adrian Griffin is a better rebounder, especially offensive, than Finley. Adrian Griffin is also a better on the ball and off the ball defender than Finley. Jerry Stackhouse can run this team into the ground when he is off by continually jacking up jumpers, same as Finley. However, Stack can penetrate and get to the line better than Finley. The pure shooting??? Well let's see, Finley shot a career low 41.2% this year from the field, while Jason Terry shot 47%. There is hardly anything that Finley could bring to this team this year that someone else on this roster isn't better at. While I admit it is tough watching Finley hit jump shots off the bench for the Spurs, knowing that the Mavericks are paying him over $18 million dollars this year (fourth highest salary in the league), cutting him this summer was for the better. Thank you Fin for being a good soldier when this franchise was one of the worst in professional sports. Thank you Fin for making "Nellie Ball" so fun to watch. Thank you Fin for a big game 5 against the Spurs back in 2003 sans Nowitzki.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by auffe34

This is like the ex-girlfriend you run into a year later. You remember most of the good things and some of the bad, but mostly good.

excellent analogy.

Originally Posted by auffe34

There is hardly anything that Finley could bring to this team this year that someone else on this roster isn't better at.

and....let's point out that Cuban saved $52 million cash by waving Finley -- that cash could come in handy when it's time to re-sign howard, and hopefully Terry.....

I believe one could easily make the case Mavs will wind up with Howard, Terry and, say, Diop because they rid themselves of Finley's bloated contract -- I'd take Howard, Terry, and Diop for a 34 year old Finley any day.

[Dtownsfinest]

Pop actually has a lot of faith in Finley. Today I saw Pop having him guard Dirk and last series he was on Ron Artest a lot.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

....Michael Finley Played 77 games for the Spurs, starting 18. Logged 2037 minutes and scored 780 points. Played six playoff games thus far, logging 152 minutes and scoring 62 points.

Bottom line:

Of the "usable" players who were released on Amnesty Day, Michael Finley has more production than all the rest of them COMBINED. ... Was his team's owner cutting costs in the mode of Paul Allen, yet trying to do so quietly? Or was his team playing a risky addition-by-subtraction game? And if so, what does that mean for the Mavericks? ... If the same happens to Finley this year, and he plays a role in ushering the Mavs out of the Western Conference Playoffs, I can only hope for Mark Cuban's sake that the profit he gained was worth it.

I think this was a no-brainer move for Cuban, from a team perspective as well from a profit motive.

It's one thing to note that Finley has averaged a little over 10 points in 25 minutes per game. That's great for a slightly more than 1-dimensional 2 guard making $2 or $3 million a year. It's quite another thing to pay $52 million over three years to get 10 ppg -- you can get that for a helluva lot less, and still have some money to spend on other players without going into luxury cap hell.

'05 Mavs with Fin -- 58 wins and a 2nd round exit....'06 Mavs without Fin -- 60 wins and ????. It's hard to make a case that the Mavs really miss the guy. As for the Spurs, they won a championship last year as I recall, and I submit that if they win another this year it'll be because of Timmy's 30 and not Fin's 7.

No matter how much you may appreciate what Finley meant to the Mavs in the late 90's and early Oughts, he's way past his prime--he's three or four seasons removed from his best ball.....

$17mm-$18mm is what you pay for players in their prime, unless you're the New York Knicks.

cheers

[Dtownsfinest]

It comes in handy for Cuban but as far as this team's salary cap goes it does nothing. The Mavs are still paying Finley. They haven't rid themselves of any thing. Its basically as if Finely is still a Mav but he plays for the Spurs. He's still under contract and will be until his contract runs out. Not debating the move or anything but I think some forget that Finley's contract wasn't erased from the cap.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

They haven't rid themselves of any thing. ... He's still under contract and will be until his contract runs out. Not debating the move or anything but I think some forget that Finley's contract wasn't erased from the cap.

as I understand it...practically speaking, it was removed from the cap -- certainly Cuban had to pony up $50-odd million to Finley, but had the Mavs not released finley under the amnesty cap provision they would have had to pay $50 odd million to finley and

a) pay another $17-18 million per year to the league in luxury tax; or
b) not pay other players $17-million per year in order to stay under the luxury tax threshold.

either way you look at it, the mavs have an extra $17 million a year to spend on other players that they wouldn't have had they kept finley. so yeah, Finley's salary may technically count against the salary cap, but if it doesn't factor into the luxury tax penalty then that doesn't mean anything.

all that said....if the mavs don't resign Howard and/or Terry next season, and they're $20 million under the luxury tax (not counting Fin's salary) then I'll be quite pissed.

regards.

[Dtownsfinest]

because they'll be able to resign Terry and Josh without going into the luxury tax -- that basically means you can sign these guys without paying twice their salary due to luxury taxes...iow, Howard at $8 million a year might look pretty good, Howard at $16 million a year ($8 to Josh, $8 to the league) doesn't make quite so much sense

What lol? The Mavs are still over the cap. Finley's contract has gone nowhere. And even if it did the Mavs would still be over the cap and will still be paying the luxury tax. From the team perspective Fin's contract means nothing. It still counts against the cap.

Therefore when the Mavs resign Howard for let's say 8 million which seems about right it will still be costing Cuban 16 million. Cuban saves on the Finley deal. That's it. No one elses.

to the best of my understanding, this statement is incorrect. The whole point of luxury tax amnesty was that teams would not have to pay a luxury tax on players released under this provision.

Yea they will have to pay the luxury tax but not for Finley. That's how Cuban benefited. He doesn't have to pay double for Fin's contract.

easier said then done...what would you have give up for a 34 year old, 30 mpg, 13 ppg 2-guard scheduled to make $15, $17, and $18 million over the next three years? perhaps I should ask, What you give up for that player if you're not Isaiah Thomas and you don't work for the Knicks?

It wouldn't be trading Finley straight up. You would've had to throw in a young prospect. Maybe a Marquis Daniels. Maybe a Devin Harris(I wouldn't do that btw). Who knows what impact Finley could've had in 2 more years when he's in the last year of his contract. I don't have the guy's coming out right in front of me but if there's a all star in his 20's out there teams will be trying to make a move. A good example is what Chum brought up. I'm sure if possible the Suns would've took on Alan Henderon and Calvin Booth's contract so they can resign Joe Johnson. They didn't let him walk. They were forced to because they couldn't afford to keep him.

Good points, Finest. And this is a particularly crucial element of the scenario, admittedly one that I have not studied in depth (yet). After the '07 season or at the trade deadline in '08, Finley would have become potential immediate salary cap relief in a trade. Now, it does seem that the league has sobered somewhat on max contracts and on spending in general, but who's to say what the landscape will look like in a year or a year-and-a-half? What players will be considered overpaid at that time? What free agents will be up in the summer of '08, that teams might want to dump salary (and talent) in order to take a run at?

Co-sign.

That was the Mavericks model in the Cuban era, up until the '04 offseason and now on into the present. It's what got the Mavs where they are today. The pursestrings tightened a couple years ago, though. There was enough talent and resources around to keep us an elite team in the short run, but what about the long term? If the halcyon days of spending are over, what happens when our current talent base runs out?

Exactly. This is what fans fail to realize. This all started with I believe our '00-01 draft where Courtney Alexander and all those other guys came out. That's where this team became successful. Juwan Howard came than Nick/Raef etc. Ultimately it turned into Devin Harris, JET and Stackhouse. Cuban always sent away a expiring contract and in return IMO always got the better value. Now Cuban has chose not to resign Nash. He let Finley go. It looks as if he's going to let KVH go. Seems we are just letting potential trade bait leave because Cuban wants to save a buck. And hey who can blame the guy? But i'm not sure if tightning your pockets is what's going to benefit your team.

I think Fin is still a Mav in more ways than just being under contract. His heart is still with Dallas. You can almost see it in his body language. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, nothing would have been more gratifying than to watch Finley hoist that trophy -- as a Maverick. Nothing.

Couldn't agree more. I wish Fin could get a ring with the Mavs. You see Fin come in here as a 1 year player than he ultimately finished his career with the Mavs sort of ala Reggie Miller but actually got the ring. But Cuban did what he had to do so I can't complain. I can't help but wonder if Cuban made the move because he felt it benefited the team or because he wanted to save money. Having a jumpshooter and good free throw shooter go to a rival is not what I have in mind as benefiting your team.

This is who Michael Finley is -- he's Eddie Jones, Latrell Sprewell, or Jalen Rose. A past-his-prime player under a really big long-term contract. That's not an asset, that's a liability. The prudent thing to do is to get rid of the liability as quickly and painlessly as possible.

That's nonsense. A liability where? In your salary? He has only 3 years left and potentially 2 if the Mavs could've traded him. He is in the clas of Eddie Jones and Jalen Rose. Sprewell isn't even in the league. Spurs passed up Spree and signed Finley so he doesn't even deserve to be in mention with those guys. No one is overrating Finley or over valuing Finley. There's more underrating going on here if anything. The only thing that went against Finley in Dallas was his contract. Its all you heard about when he had a bad game. Even last year on a bum ankle he was our best 2 guard. So if that's a liablity than so be it. We have a team full of liabilitys.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

What lol? The Mavs are still over the cap. Finley's contract has gone nowhere. And even if it did the Mavs would still be over the cap and will still be paying the luxury tax. From the team perspective Fin's contract means nothing.

I don't claim to be a salary cap expert, and no offense intended, but I'm frankly not sure you have even a small clue -- the Mavericks as an organization saved about $50 million cash by waiving Finley under the amnesty provision -- they now have $50 million cash which they would not have otherwise had that they can spend resigning players like Howard and Terry. It's as simple as that.

If you don't understand that waiving Finley effectively freed up $50 million dollars to spend on other players down the road, then naturally you're not going see the benefit of waiving a vastly over-paid and relatively easily replaceable two-guard whose production last year was very comparable to that of Eddie Jones, Latrell Sprewell, or Jalen Rose.

I loved what Finley meant to the Mavs all those years, but the guy is next to done.
Finley had been on the market and there weren't any takers, there weren't any takers because it was a bad contract....the Mavericks got out of a bad contract while the gettin' was good.

Cuban et al had no way of knowing at the time that a) Finley would wind up with the Spurs; and b) the Mavs would meet the Spurs in the playoffs. So, you think mark cuban is wrecking the Mavericks....then who would you prefer???

Ross Perot Jr, maybe?

cheers

[MavsFanFinley]

I thought Cuban broke the news to Finley while in Mexico? I can't swear that was mentioned in his blog but it was mentioned in the stories that circulated around that time. This story says that his agent broke the news. I know it mentions that Finley knew a little bit about the amnesty deal but I wonder if that was from Cuban or from the players union?

And it also says the Mavs were not going to trade him because they weren't going to give up their leader that way. Either this story is bullshit or what the Mavs fed us during that time was.

From Mavs icon to Spurs reserve, Finley shows no bitterness

By JAIME ARON, AP Sports Writer
May 11, 2006

DALLAS (AP) -- Michael Finley happily expected to spend the rest of his career on the Dallas Mavericks. The Mavs didn't really have a choice considering the huge contract they gave him.

Then, last summer, along came the "amnesty clause," a one-time chance for teams to dump big salaries that was part of the NBA's new labor agreement.

Finley already knew a little about it when he went to Mexico for the wedding of the team's equipment manager. While there, his agent called to say Finley's days in Dallas were done.

"I was mentally prepared to see in the transactions that I was waived," Finley said.

Although it took longer than he would've liked -- from June all the way to the Aug. 15 deadline -- Finley got over the disappointment and realized how good he had it. Not only would he still get the $51 million the Mavs owed him, he'd get another paycheck from the team of his choice.

Wooed by Phoenix, Miami, Minnesota and Detroit, Finley picked Dallas' top rival, San Antonio. He gladly accepted a spot on the bench for a chance to be part of the defending champions.

This season, Finley helped the Spurs become the only Western Conference team to win more games than the Mavericks. Now, his new team and his old one are meeting in the second round of the playoffs.

Great chance to rub it in, right, Fin?

"It's easy for me to say yes," he said this week. "But there's no personal vendetta to go out and beat Dallas. I just want to be the last team standing at the end."

The series is tied 1-1 going into Game 3 Saturday night in Dallas. Finley is curious to hear the reception he gets.

"Well, I didn't do anything wrong, so I may get a few cheers," he said, smiling. "But I'm on the bad guys now, so I may get a few boos."

No longer smiling, he added: "I left because they didn't want me. Not because it was my choice."

To understand why it came to that, you have to know the whole story.

Finley was acquired the day after Christmas 1996. Fans were upset for the simple reason the Mavs traded Jason Kidd to get him.

In only his second season, Finley already was a rising star in Phoenix, but the breakup of the "Three Js" (Kidd, Jamal Mashburn and Jim Jackson) left the fans angry about another rebuilding try.

Surprise, surprise -- this one worked, at least once Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki arrived.

Together, the "Big Three" led Dallas into the second round of the playoffs in 2000, 13 years after the franchise's last postseason victory. In July 2001, with Finley coming off his second straight All-Star season, it seemed like a no-brainer when the club gave him a maximum length, maximum value contract.

But things changed quickly.

Seeing Nowitzki blossom, Finley let the German kid become the focal point of the offense, a move everyone in the organization appreciated. Still, Finley's scoring average dropped for five straight seasons and the former dunk contest participant grew way too comfortable standing around the 3-point line.

Age caught up to him another way: durability. His streak of 490 straight games, a span that included leading the league in minutes three times, ended in December '01. He then missed at least 10 games per season.

Public opinion shifted, too. The former fan favorite became an easy target, especially after coach Don Nelson took Finley to task for not rebounding -- while he was on the court.

The only way to trade him would've been to take on another bad contract, and the Mavs certainly weren't going to give up their longtime leader that way. Cutting him wasn't financially feasible.

The amnesty clause, which wiped out the contract's luxury tax burden, was the perfect solution.

So a year after the Mavs lost Nash in free agency, Finley was gone, too. Few hated it more than president of basketball operations Donnie Nelson, who was an assistant coach in Phoenix when Finley broke in and joined him in Dallas in 1998.

"Mike was one of the cornerstones of this franchise," Nelson said. "He carried us through a lot of years. What he did for this franchise and community will never be forgotten."

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich gave Finley no guarantees of playing time. Still, there obviously would be a plum role for someone who'd averaged 19 points for his career.

Backing up Manu Ginobili, Finley averaged 10.1 points and 26.5 minutes.

He scored 21 points the night he turned 33 and broke 20 six more times. San Antonio went 7-0 in those games. Finley also played in 77 games, his most since '01, and started 18.

"Michael has been beyond a pleasure," Popovich said. "He's obviously done well as a player, but his leadership -- his quiet leadership -- and example, his work ethic, his class in the locker room, they've all been great additions."

Finley said his biggest adjustment was figuring out when to speak up. Coaches told him to be more vocal, but with two years left on his contract, he's taken it slowly.

"I don't want to override the foundation that's already been set," he said.

Bruce Bowen says Finley's fitting in just fine, and that's saying something considering the source.

In March 2004, the pair had an on-court skirmish that resulted in Finley getting ejected. After Finley signed with the Spurs, they went to dinner; by dessert, they were happy to be on the same side.

"I think he's accepted (his role) and done a great job with it," Bowen said. "He has a lot of valuable knowledge to give to a lot of the younger players, as well as the older players."

The Spurs will arrive in Dallas on Friday afternoon. Finley still has a house in the area, but he won't be staying there.

"I'm staying with the team," he said. "I'm with the Spurs now."

[jleefilled]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

It comes in handy for Cuban but as far as this team's salary cap goes it does nothing. The Mavs are still paying Finley. They haven't rid themselves of any thing. Its basically as if Finely is still a Mav but he plays for the Spurs. He's still under contract and will be until his contract runs out. Not debating the move or anything but I think some forget that Finley's contract wasn't erased from the cap.

I think Fin is still a Mav in more ways than just being under contract. His heart is still with Dallas. You can almost see it in his body language. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, nothing would have been more gratifying than to watch Finley hoist that trophy -- as a Maverick. Nothing.

[Dtownsfinest]

I don't see Finley having anything to do with us resigning Terry, Josh or Diop. He still counts against the cap so the Mavs will stay have to pay luxary tax. They just don't have to pay it on Finley's contract and for Mark Cuban that was a good move. Not denying it. But as far as the Mavs go I don't see it benefiting or hurting them. He's still on the cap. Hell you could argue that had you traded Finley you would be rid of his contract all together. Whether it be last offseason or the last year of his contract when he could be valuable to a team who wants to clear cap space.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

He still counts against the cap so the Mavs will stay have to pay luxary tax.

to the best of my understanding, this statement is incorrect. The whole point of luxury tax amnesty was that teams would not have to pay a luxury tax on players released under this provision.

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

I don't see Finley having anything to do with us resigning Terry, Josh or Diop.

because they'll be able to resign Terry and Josh without going into the luxury tax -- that basically means you can sign these guys without paying twice their salary due to luxury taxes...iow, Howard at $8 million a year might look pretty good, Howard at $16 million a year ($8 to Josh, $8 to the league) doesn't make quite so much sense.

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

Hell you could argue that had you traded Finley you would be rid of his contract all together.

easier said then done...what would you have give up for a 34 year old, 30 mpg, 13 ppg 2-guard scheduled to make $15, $17, and $18 million over the next three years? perhaps I should ask, What you give up for that player if you're not Isaiah Thomas and you don't work for the Knicks?

regards

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

Hell you could argue that had you traded Finley you would be rid of his contract all together. Whether it be last offseason or the last year of his contract when he could be valuable to a team who wants to clear cap space.

Good points, Finest. And this is a particularly crucial element of the scenario, admittedly one that I have not studied in depth (yet). After the '07 season or at the trade deadline in '08, Finley would have become potential immediate salary cap relief in a trade. Now, it does seem that the league has sobered somewhat on max contracts and on spending in general, but who's to say what the landscape will look like in a year or a year-and-a-half? What players will be considered overpaid at that time? What free agents will be up in the summer of '08, that teams might want to dump salary (and talent) in order to take a run at?

That was the Mavericks model in the Cuban era, up until the '04 offseason and now on into the present. It's what got the Mavs where they are today. The pursestrings tightened a couple years ago, though. There was enough talent and resources around to keep us an elite team in the short run, but what about the long term? If the halcyon days of spending are over, what happens when our current talent base runs out?

I also find it interesting to consider the what-if scenarios. Not matching Nash and not keeping Finley were not purely financial decisions nor purely basketball decisions, but a combination of the two. Well, when it comes to the financial end of things, Cuban pointed out in his latest blog entry that the playoffs are where the NBA--teams and league alike--makes its money. It is interesting to consider whether saving the money on Nash cost the team some money last season.

I've heard estimates that have playoff games as being worth about a million dollars each to the team. I believe it is reasonable to assume that if Nash had been a Maverick (and not a Sun), the Mavs would have advanced to at least the conference finals last year--and possibly to the NBA Finals. In that respect, their abbreviated playoff run last season cost the company some dough. But then again, they did manage to squeeze seven games out of the Houston series, which doubtless would not have gone near as long had Nash still been here.

Now, then, we are left to consider what the possible ramifications are this year. Without question Finley contributed largely to several of the Spurs' wins this season, and I think it's fair to say--considering what other free agents were available to the Spurs last offseason--that Finley being a Spur may well have been the only thing that stood between the Mavericks and the top seed in the conference. As far as that affects how deep the team goes in the playoffs, make your own judgments.

As far as this series goes, if Finley playing for the bad guys rather than the good ultimately sends the Mavs home in the second round once again, then you are left with the reality that Mark Cuban's risky attempt at maximizing profit by cutting payroll will have splashed egg all over his face by dramatically reducing revenues instead. I mean, if the Mavs could get by the Spurs this year, they will doubtless play not only the conference finals but also the NBA Finals. That's a bunch of playoff games, at a million dollars a pop.

We'll see how it all turns out. But it's not nearly as cut and dried as some people believe.

[jleefilled]

Heh, got carried away there. By "nothing", I meant "nothing" in the basketball sense. I think there are other things in life that would be more gratifying!
Really, I do! : )

[dirno2000]

That was the Mavericks model in the Cuban era, up until the '04 offseason and now on into the present. It's what got the Mavs where they are today. The pursestrings tightened a couple years ago, though. There was enough talent and resources around to keep us an elite team in the short run, but what about the long term? If the halcyon days of spending are over, what happens when our current talent base runs out?

When Dirks level of play drops off significantly then so will the teams. Everything else is window dressing.

Also, I think you're more likely to get a flawed, overpaid player than a difference maker with an expiring contract.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

When Dirks level of play drops off significantly then so will the teams. Everything else is window dressing.

Just throw eleven guys around him, eh? Ahhh, if only it were that simple.

Also, I think you're more likely to get a flawed, overpaid player than a difference maker with an expiring contract.

Like a Joe Johnson?

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Just throw eleven guys around him, eh? Ahhh, if only it were that simple.

Of course not. Your post seemed to imply that we could keep this thing going past Dirk's prime by continuily trading expiring contracts for pseudo stars.

Like a Joe Johnson?

How does Joes Johnson apply here? He was traded for a young player and 2 first round draft picks. Expiring max contracts don't get Joe Johnson's.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

Also, I think you're more likely to get a flawed, overpaid player than a difference maker with an expiring contract.

[sarcasm] oh come on...can you name one example of a player that matches this description?

I mean, can you name one player other than the highest paid player in the DFW area who was virtually unmissed after he went down with a broken finger in Orlando? [/sarcasm]

Cuban has a pretty good bit of apologetics on transitioning from the "we're in the talent acquisition at any cost" business to the "we're in the talent scouting and development and dealing with the reality of the luxury tax" business here....


http://blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000823054644/

[chumdawg]

PHX couldn't afford Joe Johnson because they were laying their eggs in Nash's and Stoudemire's and Marion's baskets. That's how it applies. That's how it could happen with another team in '08.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

PHX couldn't afford Joe Johnson because they were laying their eggs in Nash's and Stoudemire's and Marion's baskets. That's how it applies. That's how it could happen with another team in '08.

I still don't get it. PXH couldn't afford Johnson so they're going to trade him for a Max contract player with a year left? That doesn't make sense.

Atlanta was in a unique situation because they were way under the cap and could take back more they they sent out. We'll never be that far under the cap.

[chumdawg]

The idea being that if a team wants to take a run at a Steve Nash or a Dirk or any other top-notch free agent, they may need to dump a guy or two the year before in order to do so. A team that wants to offer the max to a guy in the summer of '08 may need to shed salary to do so. So they take Finley for a year, or better yet for half a year (at the deadline).

[dirno2000]

The problem is the matching rule. To send away a contract like finley's, we have to take back a ton of salary. In other words we have to take back sombody else's mistake who has an even longer contract. They're going to keep the good young players to pair with the FA that they're going after.

[chumdawg]

Dirno, if they keep the player(s) they can't sign the free agent. They are trading the player(s) for the free agent, using the expiring contract as the conduit.

This is not new stuff.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Dirno, if they keep the player(s) they can't sign the free agent. They are trading the player(s) for the free agent, using the expiring contract as the conduit.

This is not new stuff.

No, I'm saying they're going to keep their good players and try to trade you their overpaid mistakes with longer contracts than the guy they're taking.

To use your scenario, a team that's clearing out cap room for 2008 wants trade for Finley in 2007. Using rough numbers, if Finley's making $18MM you have to take back about $14MM in contracts that run longer than his. The thing is, they want to keep their young players and their players without issues to put next to the 2008 FA. They're going to try to pawn off overpaid mistakes for your expiring contract...that's the way it works.

Again, the Joe Johnson situation was special because Atlanta was under the cap. If we were under we could go to a team and say "we'll give you Finley's contract and you give us two number ones and a young player". We can't do that we have to take back unwanted salary.