DB.com: The Mavs’ Yen For ‘10 (aka, calling "the emperor has no clothes" on 2010 plan

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

What about our draft pick this year? How would that fit into the plan?

I believe it's tradable once the pick has been made, so either a prearranged deal to draft for another team, or simply picking the best available and then trading after the fact but before the contract has been signed would work.

Edit: I'm thinking in terms of a Stack trade, btw. You could always hang on to whomever you pick.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

I believe it's tradable once the pick has been made, so either a prearranged deal to draft for another team, or simply picking the best available and then trading after the fact but before the contract has been signed would work.

Edit: I'm thinking in terms of a Stack trade, btw. You could always hang on to whomever you pick.

Yeah, I just didn't know if this falls into the pick up as much talent as you can on the bargain price (not so sure about the price), of if you use the player/pick as an added bonus in the a larger deal.

[grndmstr_c]

All depends on who you get, doesn't it? If the Mavs make the playoffs the chances of them getting anybody worth a damn wouldn't be real great, though the contract would be cheap. Honestly, though, whether with Stack or in a separate deal, I'm wondering if there wouldn't be an opportunity to trade up and take a chance on a high-probability all-star whose rookie salary would be larger than the team who got him (e.g., Washington) wanted to pay. I'm pretty damn ignorant when it comes to college bball, though, so whether or not that'd be worth it in any given situation is something I wouldn't want to opine on. And given the ages of some of the Mavs core guys, you've got to be careful about gambling on youth when there are proven guys available.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

All depends on who you get, doesn't it? If the Mavs make the playoffs the chances of them getting anybody worth a damn wouldn't be real great, though the contract would be cheap. Honestly, though, whether with Stack or in a separate deal, I'm wondering if there wouldn't be an opportunity to trade up and take a chance on a high-probability all-star whose rookie salary would be larger than the team who got him (e.g., Washington) wanted to pay. I'm pretty damn ignorant when it comes to college bball, though, so whether or not that'd be worth it in any given situation is something I wouldn't want to opine on. And given the ages of some of the Mavs core guys, you've got to be careful about gambling on youth when there are proven guys available.

Washington is the team I thought about because they probably don't want to take on a salary for that caliber of a player they'd get. Actually, any of those bottom teams (Sacramento, Clippers, etc) probably won't WANT to, but Washington has let it be known in the open that they don't want it.

I don't think Stack alone would get that pick, and I don't think adding our #1 would do anything for that so it'd take a different route but i would think that would be one option towards getting a talented player and taking advantage of a team that wants to shed salary. If you were able to get that high of a pick that helps start to build a foundation for the future, so that would help as well. I'm not too in the know either about who would obviously be out there across the board on draft night.

[Dirkenstien]

This Hollinger article on ESPN is in line with DLord's thinking that this summer could be advantageous for those teams willing to take on salaries. He mentions possibilities such as the Mavs trading Stackhouse and Wright+Barea or Stackhouse + Carroll for the Buck's Richard Jefferson or the Sun's Jason Richardson.

Interesting.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...PERDiem-090223

Updated: February 23, 2009, 1:34 PM ET
PER Diem: Feb. 23, 2009The Hornets, Wizards and Bucks could feel the economic crunch next seasonComment Email Print Share By John Hollinger
ESPN.com
Archive

A lower cap may leave some teams scrambling to get under next season's luxury tax.

Thursday's trade deadline has come and gone, and what stood out was not the players who were dealt, but rather the players who were not.

Amare Stoudemire? Staying.

Shaquille O'Neal? Staying.

Vince Carter? Staying.

Richard Jefferson, Caron Butler, Antawn Jamison and David Lee? Staying.

Tyson Chandler? Close, but no cigar.

Instead we were treated to a lot of lower-level deals and had the shocking sight of several large expiring contracts not changing hands. Wally Szczerbiak, Raef LaFrentz, Bobby Jackson and Jason Collins, among others, had huge expiring deals that were thrown into virtually every trade discussion but ultimately never moved.

As a result, some teams are heading into a sticky summer.

The reason names like Stoudemire, O'Neal, Chandler, Jefferson and Butler were tossed out there is the luxury-tax whipsaw appears to have caught several teams unaware. The salary cap is likely to go down next year, not up, as the league recently warned teams, and that takes the luxury-tax level with it.

Teams had done their planning on a steadily increasing cap/tax level, rising at about 4 percent a year. That put their projected tax number in the $75-76 million range; unfortunately for them, the real number is likely to be more in the $70 million area.

So teams with projected payrolls in the mid-70s -- like Phoenix, New Orleans, Washington and, if they want to keep their young guys, Milwaukee -- were motivated sellers at the trade deadline. This was their last chance to deal for expiring contracts that would put them under the tax line.

And yet none of those teams made any deals, mostly because the asking price from other parties was simply too high, though in Chandler's case because Oklahoma City nuked the deal because of concerns about his toe.

If those teams are serious about getting under the tax, their lack of activity is going to leave them in an even worse position this summer. They'll be forced to trade with teams that are already under the salary cap (not the tax, the cap), teams that own a large trade exception or teams with a large non-guaranteed contract that can be released. Between those three categories, there figures to be only a handful of trading partners. And a couple of those teams -- Sacramento and Memphis, for instance -- appear averse to taking on too much money, further crimping options.

The most interesting case by far is Washington. It appears that its best route to getting under the tax would be to trade its first-round pick -- which could be first or second overall -- to a contender along with a handful of bad contracts, and get back a productive player on a good contract. Just to create one completely hypothetical (I emphasize hypothetical) scenario, they could send the pick along with Darius Songaila and Etan Thomas to Memphis for Marc Gasol and get under the line.

That would allow the Wizards to keep together their nucleus of Gilbert Arenas, Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison, plus they'd have Marc Gasol, Brendan Haywood, Andray Blatche and JaVale McGee up front. Since the Wizards are firmly in win-now mode anyway based on their recent salary decisions, trading a high pick in a weak draft seems a reasonable strategy.

Milwaukee is in an even tighter spot. The Bucks have two high-quality restricted free agents -- Charlie Villanueva and Ramon Sessions -- that they won't be able to afford unless they can either pay somebody to take Luke Ridnour off their hands or move Richard Jefferson; they almost certainly would need to give up their first-round pick in the former scenario, and might in the latter.

Even then they aren't assured of being under the tax, especially since teams with cap space know money is tight in Milwaukee, and thus will come after their restricted free agents hard. That's why trading Jefferson seemed so palatable for the Bucks; from here on out it's going to be much harder to put together deals that get them under the tax without great pain. One possibility to file away in your back pocket: They could trade Jefferson to Dallas for Jerry Stackhouse (only partially guaranteed at $2 million), Antoine Wright and Jose Juan Barea; replacing the latter two players with Matt Carroll would also work.

The Hornets are also in a bind after the Chandler deal blew up on them. It seems all but certain that they'll sell or trade their first-round pick, since the cap hold alone could end up pushing them over the tax line, and they probably need to add promising forward Julian Wright along with another fairly sizable deal (Mo Peterson or James Posey, for instance), in order to get under the tax. Trading Chandler would get the most in return, of course, and could allow them to keep the kids, but it would leave a gaping hole in the middle, and it will be tough to find a partner with $12 million in cap space.

As for Phoenix, we've already heard the various permutations of potential Amare Stoudemire deals, but now the possibilities have narrowed because expiring contracts are no longer part of the picture. Also, teams will want to be convinced he's recovered from his detached retina before paying such a high price. The Suns could also take the shocking step of not picking up Steve Nash's team option for next year, or, in a less-often-discussed maneuver, move Jason Richardson in the same kind of Stackhouse trade I mentioned above with the Bucks.

All told, it portends a very interesting summer. I can't imagine any of these teams exceeding next year's tax line, except perhaps Phoenix, and they all just missed a great opportunity to get themselves under it. Which means they're going to have to do some very creative dealing in the coming months in order to sidestep the tax man.


John Hollinger writes for ESPN Insider. To e-mail him, click here.

[jthig32]

This just reinforces why the Mavs were smart to hang on to Stackhouse instead of moving him for just anything.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by jthig32

This just reinforces why the Mavs were smart to hang on to Stackhouse instead of moving him for just anything.

I agree. It appeared that the deadline could've been a great opportunity but it was all talk or people got scared. The numbers/figures will really scare people in the offseason and they'll have to dump where they can. They just need to take on an opportunistic role this summer and beyond. DLord mentioned August 9th as the drop-off date for Stack. That's past the draft date and I believe it's definitely past the opening stages of FA...I just dunno the exact date.

RJ or J-Rich for Stack and Carroll, who wouldn't like that?

[tcat075]

Good stuff. I just favorited DB.com.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

The real question is, who else has similar and/or better expirings this summer than the Mavs?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

The real question is, who else has similar and/or better expirings this summer than the Mavs?

...AND are willing to take on money.

That list is very, very small. Contracts like Stack's are not real common. Remember, just a normal expiring is not the same thing.

[Kidd Karma]

One wrench in this is that Kidd's been pretty public about wanting a contract until he retires, one contract 3 years. Hopefully he sees the 2010 plan.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by Kidd Karma

One wrench in this is that Kidd's been pretty public about wanting a contract until he retires, one contract 3 years. Hopefully he sees the 2010 plan.

That's true but as DLord mentioned, you could easily make a deal that is front-loaded and decreases like Carroll's does, just a higher salary. On top of that you could do that and make the 3rd year a team option or a quasi-guaranteed deal like Stack's deal. It's a speed-bump, but it's one that can be addressed where both sides are happy.

[Bayliss]

Yall have more faith in the FO getting something done this summer than most. The Mavs were supposed to be very active players at the deadline too.

After the free agent period is over, Donnie will probably say a variation of we love our team. He already said that right after the deadline with the "we love our boys in blue" line.

They apparently have struck out on getting Mikki Moore off of waivers, and getting Joe Smith is far less likely than Moore considering Moore's play with Kidd.

If the Mavs make a good move over the summer I will be shocked. Not just regularly shocked but Savlovic shocked.

[Nowitzki4President]

Since the 2006 Finals debacle against the Heat, our beloved Mav's are getting worse and worse each year...

What's your take on moves that the Front Office should make to not waste Dirk's prime and win a championship within the next 3 years or so?

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

They apparently have struck out on getting Mikki Moore off of waivers, and getting Joe Smith is far less likely than Moore considering Moore's play with Kidd.

I don't think anyone on here had very high optimism for Mikki actually coming to Dallas. That was the only major thing we had as a "chip" for Moore, that he had played with Kidd. If he or Joe Smith is a tier 1 big man for the waiver period, we're looking more along the lines or tier 3 or so, and then we'll have to see if that's better than what we've got (Hollins). It's just the nature of the beast when it's open to everyone on the same players and potentially the same amount of money is on the table.

[Underdog]

This thread right here

[Nowitzki4President]

Originally Posted by Underdog

This thread right here

Woooooow. Effin' noob mistake right there. My bad. Please delete someone =\ Or just let the thread die, whatever...

[Dirkenstien]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

Yall have more faith in the FO getting something done this summer than most. The Mavs were supposed to be very active players at the deadline too.

After the free agent period is over, Donnie will probably say a variation of we love our team. He already said that right after the deadline with the "we love our boys in blue" line.

They apparently have struck out on getting Mikki Moore off of waivers, and getting Joe Smith is far less likely than Moore considering Moore's play with Kidd.

If the Mavs make a good move over the summer I will be shocked. Not just regularly shocked but Savlovic shocked.

Our FO will still have to prove they're worth a damn but right now I'm just happy we still have pieces to work with. If nothing gets done then it's all on the FO and no excuses.

[Bayliss]

I don't think anyone on here had very high optimism for Mikki actually coming to Dallas. That was the only major thing we had as a "chip" for Moore, that he had played with Kidd. If he or Joe Smith is a tier 1 big man for the waiver period, we're looking more along the lines or tier 3 or so, and then we'll have to see if that's better than what we've got (Hollins). It's just the nature of the beast when it's open to everyone on the same players and potentially the same amount of money is on the table.

But who exactly is in Tier 3? And will that Tier 3 guy be any better than whomever the Mavs will have to cut to get him.

And holding out on Stack is fine if you know 100% you can get a deal done in the summer to improve the team. But not trading Stackhouse means this team is "as is" foer this year. And this team doesn't have a shot to win a championship.

I hate to sound like Richard, but the Mavs waste another year of Dirk + next year is not a guarantee of improving the team. That is a scary future.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally Posted by Kidd Karma

One wrench in this is that Kidd's been pretty public about wanting a contract until he retires, one contract 3 years. Hopefully he sees the 2010 plan.

I think a big part of bringing Kidd back and for a reasonable contract is hitting the off season (trade season) early and hard. If we can convince him we're serious about being title contenders then there's no doubt in my mind he'll come back to Dallas for reasonable money.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

But who exactly is in Tier 3? And will that Tier 3 guy be any better than whomever the Mavs will have to cut to get him.

And holding out on Stack is fine if you know 100% you can get a deal done in the summer to improve the team. But not trading Stackhouse means this team is "as is" foer this year. And this team doesn't have a shot to win a championship.

I hate to sound like Richard, but the Mavs waste another year of Dirk + next year is not a guarantee of improving the team. That is a scary future.

I agree. It's extremely risky and our FO is going to have to hope like hell the move pays off.

[BGMaverick9]

That's the question I made myself, is that person in Tier 3 going to be an improvement? I keep thinking the name Chris Mihm or maybe even Foyle from Memphis.

If the market is stronger or more active than it was at the deadline, it won't be hard to beat that, then that makes the chances even better to ship out Stack. When people outside of Dallas are mentioning Stack as a pretty valuable chip in a trading move in the offseason, then that validates he has the value and can bring in something relatively good.

[Bayliss]

Foyle is horrid. Diop has more offensive game.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

Foyle is horrid. Diop has more offensive game.

They're not going to be stud players by any means, remember.

We're talking Tier 3 of what's available, where these guys would fall pretty much near in the bottom level if you took everyone into account.

[Bayliss]

Then if the Mavs are scraping the bottom of the barrel, then what's the point? A tier 3 isn't going to improve your team. And the Mavs still have major flaws that become exposed against the top teams in the league.

No sure if trading Stack would have fixed those flaws. But I'd take action any day of the week over inaction. Inaction will render you nowhere. Action will at least get you somewherem albiet he may not b the plce you want to be a la the Suns.

To me it's like playing the pickup game with your friends, do you choose to shoot to see who getts to pick first or do you allow your opponent to shoot and see who goes first. I may not be the greatest shooter, but I'll be damned if I'm allowing another to decide my role in the game. I'll take the shot every time.

The Mavs on the other hand are allowing others to shoot.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

Then if the Mavs are scraping the bottom of the barrel, then what's the point? A tier 3 isn't going to improve your team. And the Mavs still have major flaws that become exposed against the top teams in the league.

No sure if trading Stack would have fixed those flaws. But I'd take action any day of the week over inaction. Inaction will render you nowhere. Action will at least get you somewherem albiet he may not b the plce you want to be a la the Suns.

To me it's like playing the pickup game with your friends, do you choose to shoot to see who getts to pick first or do you allow your opponent to shoot and see who goes first. I may not be the greatest shooter, but I'll be damned if I'm allowing another to decide my role in the game. I'll take the shot every time.

The Mavs on the other hand are allowing others to shoot.

Four things:
1) you go after a tier 3 FA center if there's nothing better (at pg, for example) so that you have another ~7 foot body to throw out against a Shaq, Duncan, Yao, Howard, etc. No, it's not an ideal scenario, but the reasoning is still obvious enough that I'm puzzled as to why anyone would have to ask, even if the question was rhetorical. As long as it doesn't cost you a youngster that you're wanting to keep around, it's a no-brainer to at least try to get a little extra help.
2) Waterloo was action, but that didn't turn out so well for the guy who decided to take it.
3) You are aware that by dismissing the notion of going after a waived backup center you're advocating inaction, aren't you?
4) Not sure if you actually paid attention to what happened at the trade deadline, but nobody shot. That was kind of the story of the whole thing.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

Then if the Mavs are scraping the bottom of the barrel, then what's the point? A tier 3 isn't going to improve your team. And the Mavs still have major flaws that become exposed against the top teams in the league.

No sure if trading Stack would have fixed those flaws. But I'd take action any day of the week over inaction. Inaction will render you nowhere. Action will at least get you somewherem albiet he may not b the plce you want to be a la the Suns.

To me it's like playing the pickup game with your friends, do you choose to shoot to see who getts to pick first or do you allow your opponent to shoot and see who goes first. I may not be the greatest shooter, but I'll be damned if I'm allowing another to decide my role in the game. I'll take the shot every time.

The Mavs on the other hand are allowing others to shoot.

The action has to make sense though, that has to be remembered. I'm sure we could've gotten something for Stack but the deal could be crippling to future moves and not be that great of an upgrade, so it's not worth it. There is a go for it mode, but that doesn't mean that there aren't rules or provisions that have to be kept in place that make sense for the structure of the team in a financial aspect.

Hollins is a backup center in terms of a title but we rarely use him b/c he is raw and he doesn't have a firm grasp of the game yet. We really don't have a defined person for that role that puts us in a position to improve the team against the major line of competition. We're basically playing with just one legit/proven Center. If you can bring another one in, I don't really see how it can hurt, low risk/high reward.

Guys like Mihm and Foyle aren't pretty but they've shown they can be of some use and have experience with the game. I'm not saying these are automatic guys who will sign with Dallas but they are far more realistic than Smith or Moore.

They'll bring different things too:
Mihm is a big body and he can bring some offense
Foyle is a big body that can clog the lane and play some defense and rebound.

If you could have a center who will clog the lane, bring some offense or bring defense/rebounding and bring stability...wouldn't that be worth doing?

[craggmac]

Well, I'm going to have myself cryogenically frozen until the summer of 2010.

[Bayliss]

Four things:
1) you go after a tier 3 FA center if there's nothing better (at pg, for example) so that you have another ~7 foot body to throw out against a Shaq, Duncan, Yao, Howard, etc. No, it's not an ideal scenario, but the reasoning is still obvious enough that I'm puzzled as to why anyone would have to ask, even if the question was rhetorical. As long as it doesn't cost you a youngster that you're wanting to keep around, it's a no-brainer to at least try to get a little extra help.

But the signing of a third center will cost the Mavs someone, presumably a youngster a la Green, Williams, Singleton, etc. So like I said, what's the point?

2) Waterloo was action, but that didn't turn out so well for the guy who decided to take it.

Perhaps, hence my Suns reference. But

3) You are aware that by dismissing the notion of going after a waived backup center you're advocating inaction, aren't you?

Um, name me a 3rd center that the Mavs have a shot at obtaining. The Mavs are forced to inaction because they have already used inaction. They have no choice. I'm not advocating inaction. But when there is no one to obtain off the waiver wire, then their hands are tied. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it.

4) Not sure if you actually paid attention to what happened at the trade deadline, but nobody shot. That was kind of the story of the whole thing.

None of the true contenders made a move. But some of the teams in the same boat as the Mavs (ie a mid level contender) a la Houston, NO, Orlando, definitely made moves. Some out of necessity. But moves nonetheless.

[Bayliss]

If you could have a center who will clog the lane, bring some offense or bring defense/rebounding and bring stability...wouldn't that be worth doing?

Sure, but the Mavs need talent. A 3rd string center isn't going to put them in the league with the Lakers, Celtics, and Cavs. And getting a 3rd center in place of a youngster doesn't help the future either. So it really does nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

But the signing of a third center will cost the Mavs someone, presumably a youngster a la Green, Williams, Singleton, etc. So like I said, what's the point?

Perhaps, hence my Suns reference. But

Um, name me a 3rd center that the Mavs have a shot at obtaining. The Mavs are forced to inaction because they have already used inaction. They have no choice. I'm not advocating inaction. But when there is no one to obtain off the waiver wire, then their hands are tied. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it.

None of the true contenders made a move. But some of the teams in the same boat as the Mavs (ie a mid level contender) a la Houston, NO, Orlando, definitely made moves. Some out of necessity. But moves nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Bayliss

Sure, but the Mavs need talent. A 3rd string center isn't going to put them in the league with the Lakers, Celtics, and Cavs. And getting a 3rd center in place of a youngster doesn't help the future either. So it really does nothing in the grand scheme of things.

If it's Green or Williams, it's Williams but I won't be shocked if it's Green. It's up to the Mavs who they would cut, so if that's the case, it's really down to those two, Singleton isn't going to be in the equation. What have you seen that suggests Williams or Green are a part of the future plan?

Those teams made a move but I'm not going to advocate making a move just to make one, it's gotta make sense. They didn't see one that made sense based on their gameplan.

I've named two guys that are a lot more realistic than Moore or Smith, it's just a matter of if they would come here or not. It's not like they can say "Joe Smith, come here now!" It's a process, they'll try but they may not come out a winner.

No one is saying that a center is going to put us in the class of those teams, but it is adding talent with minimal backlash. It's a chance of getting better, that's the goal.

[grndmstr_c]

But the signing of a third center will cost the Mavs someone, presumably a youngster a la Green, Williams, Singleton, etc. So like I said, what's the point?

I addressed this specifically when I said as long as it doesn't cost you a youngster you'd want to keep around. Obviously if you're still thinking Green and Williams and the like are commodities then you don't cut them, but there are indications, at least with Green, that this year may be his only one in Mavs uniform regardless. If that's the case, why the hell bother keeping him on the roster when he's taking up a space that could be given to a guy who might actually get a few situational minutes in the playoffs.

Um, name me a 3rd center that the Mavs have a shot at obtaining.

BG has already done that. Several times in several different places. Please try to pay attention.

None of the true contenders made a move. But some of the teams in the same boat as the Mavs (ie a mid level contender) a la Houston, NO, Orlando, definitely made moves. Some out of necessity. But moves nonetheless.

Houston traded away their starting pg for a young backup. NO did NOT make trade, and the one they tried to make would have made them a weaker team. Orlando was the only relevant team to help themselves with a trade. However, I would point out that since the odds of Dwight Howard playing in the finals have now gone up, that's just one more reason for any team with championship aspirations, no matter how faint, to make sure that they have enough centers on their roster.

[kg_veteran]

DLord put together some excellent analysis, as usual, but I'm going to align myself with Bayliss. I have NO confidence that the Mavs will pull off any really good trades this summer. The Hollinger stuff about Jefferson and Richardson, while technically possible, seems realistically impossible to me -- at least based upon what I believe about Cuban's mindset.

I guess the way I look at it, even though the Mavs might potentially be positioned to make some deals, I don't think they really intend to do what it would take to make any.

[Bayliss]

No one is saying that a center is going to put us in the class of those teams, but it is adding talent with minimal backlash. It's a chance of getting better, that's the goal.

But that's the problem now isn't it? Mihm and Foyle definitely do not make the Mavs "better."

I would point out that since the odds of Dwight Howard playing in the finals have now gone up, that's just one more reason for any team with championship aspirations, no matter how faint, to make sure that they have enough centers on their roster.

And what gameplan would they changed then the one they used against Howard in Orlando? They used Hollins, Bass, and Dampier.

What lineup would they have changed then they did the other night with Houston? Against Houston Bass is a good option because Yao doesn't have the quickness to guard Bass. Hollins didn't even play. So essentially they played 1 center against Yao.

We will see if Hollins plays against SA tomorrow. But I doubt he will.

So essentially if the 2nd center on the team doesn't get minutes against those teams already what makes you think a 3rd center will play?

Please try to pay attention.

And stop being a jerk. I've already said my thoughts on Foyle. And Mihm is pretty much done. He couldn't even get minutes over Josh Powell. And was barely beating out MBenga in Laker practices.

[Bayliss]

DLord put together some excellent analysis, as usual, but I'm going to align myself with Bayliss. I have NO confidence that the Mavs will pull off any really good trades this summer. The Hollinger stuff about Jefferson and Richardson, while technically possible, seems realistically impossible to me -- at least based upon what I believe about Cuban's mindset.

I guess the way I look at it, even though the Mavs might potentially be positioned to make some deals, I don't think they really intend to do what it would take to make any.

And that is the problem with the Mavs FO. Before the deadline they said they will be active. When the deadline passes, they said there was no one available they wanted or they will say the asking price is too high. Then they will say wait for summer.

Why whait for summer? Most Mav fans will come to know the Mavs FO won't do jack sh*t of consequence in the summer.

[jthig32]

I don't understand the idea that the Mavs are gunshy or not as committed as they say they are. They made a HUGE, earth shattering trade last year. They rolled the dice big time.

I realize people are disappointed by the inactivity at the deadline, but an objective look at what happened shows you that plenty of teams ended up eating assets instead of using them.

If you believe the reports, the Mavs had the opportunity to cash in both Stackhouse AND Bass for Salmons, but they also had to take back Udrih. People that say they should have done "something" are basically saying they woud do that deal rather than do nothing. I don't understand that mentality.

Now, I will say that if the offseason passes and the Stackhouse asset goes unused, THEN I will have lost all faith in this organization. But with the gamble the Mavs made last season, and the huge amount of money Cuban had to spend to swing that deal, the notion that the Mavs are talking a big game but not willing to pony up the cash for take the big leap just doesn't resonate with me.

[BGMaverick9]

Hollins DID play in the Houston game...fyi.
He might not have "played" in the sense of not being a factor, but he did play 10 minutes.

For Orlando, they didn't have an answer for Howard, they threw everything they had and it didn't work...another option would be pretty nice in that situation. They basically conceded Howard's numbers and worked on everyone else. That can only get you so far, you've gotta eventually try to work on shutting them down and we need another piece for that.

Hollins IS our 3rd Center, we don't have a 2nd center, that's the point in the issue. Hollins is raw and is a pretty good one trick pony on offense and he's a decent weak-side defender but he is really raw for standard defense. He is a project in ever sense. We basically use Bass and Hollins to fill in the gaps because we don't have an actual backup to go behind Damp.

If you don't like the options on the WW, well...that's too bad, that's what the options are and they're not going to change, you can stick with what you've got or you can try to do something to change what you've got and get a little bit better balance.

Dallas was active at the deadline but they didn't make a move, that can happen from time to time. It's like I said, they had a gameplan and if they didn't see what they liked, they moved on with the assets they had (Stack). It's not the end-game for Stack and his deal, there is until August to really get top value for him. Why wait for the summer? Because they can't do any deals now...that's the next available time to do so. There are more options that will be created at that time:
-Hollins and/or Carroll can be packaged in a deal
-Deals like Damp and Josh become very attractive for an owner who wants to shed salary.
-Stack still is out there as an option

More options will open up and owners will get scared, Cuban has said stuff along the lines that he'll go against the grain and be advantageous. It seems like that time would start in the summer time.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Dirkenstien

The Suns could also take the shocking step of not picking up Steve Nash's team option for next year...

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

[Bayliss]

I don't understand the idea that the Mavs are gunshy or not as committed as they say they are. They made a HUGE, earth shattering trade last year. They rolled the dice big time.

The Kidd trade should not have been the final trade. After the Kidd trade, the Mavs still needed another move. And the Kidd trade was a good move IF they don't stand pat and actually tweak a little more.

But they haven't.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

I don't really consider the Kidd trade a HUGE, earth shattering move. At that point, pg wasn't the team's issue or the team's need. Now, the trade is still basically a wash from a talent and team success standpoint but a trade or two is still needed. Considering Kidd's age, I think that making another trade hasn't been a big enough priority. Kidd will be 37 next season. He'll turn 38 the season that the Mavs supposedly will be players for 2010. I'm not saying Kidd won't be able to contribute, but it's definitely not something to overlook.