Mavs at the Trade Deadline ... Ideas, Rumors, Thoughts ....Where do they fit? - Page 11 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

BGMaverick9 · 02-16-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bayliss

I'm kind of leery of trading for guys putting up good stats on sh*tty teams. More times than not there is a reason why their team is sh*tty.

I'd much rather have Franscisco Garcia than John Salmons. Garcia isn't the scorer like Salmans but he is a better all around player, especially defensively.

That's the question I mentioned earlier. He isn't the primary scorer on that team, at least he shouldn't be...it should be Martin. When we play Sacramento, I think we all assume Martin is the primary weapon we need to focus on. So he is able to play off a player who should get the attention and still be a factor in the game...crappy team or no crappy team, you still have to take notice of that. That's the same situation he'll be in here, he'll be an additional option, so he has ways to operate.

If Sacramento really is asking for Beno to be involved, couldn't Dallas easily say "Ok, We can offer Carroll but it has to be in a separate deal."
Sacramento may hang up after that, but that's about the only realistic thing I see happening if Dallas isn't trading the core guys.

IMO, I wouldn't be mad at all if Salmons came.

grndmstr_c · 02-17-2009, 12:00 AM

Flirting with trade board territory, but since we're on the subject of Salmons/Udrih, just curious how this strikes people:

Stack/Carroll/JJB/Williams

for

Udrih/Moore/Salmons

You'd have to do it as two separate deals, but the salaries worked per realgm. Not a home run for the Mavs, but it provides upgrades at starting SG, backup PG, and backup C. In exchange for the talent you're absorbing an extra 24 million or so in contractual obligations by my count. Probably takes you out of the running for 2010 free agency because of Udrih and Salmons, but Moore is an expiring contract next season, so between him, Damp, Josh, and this summer's first rounder you've still got ammo for another deal.

purplefrog · 02-17-2009, 12:01 AM

Imo, if Salmons will help the Mavs be a contender, then taking on Beno's long contract is acceptable. If the Mavs are in a "Go for it now" mode with the next two years being the window then who cares if Cuban makes an ugly long-term financial committment to Beno and Carroll. I think Carroll can be traded in the off season. Hollinger's index says Salmons + Beno for Stack + Wright = +8. Weird.

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Flirting with trade board territory, but since we're on the subject of Salmons/Udrih, just curious how this strikes people:

Stack/Carroll/JJB/Williams

for

Udrih/Moore/Salmons

You'd have to do it as two separate deals, but the salaries worked per realgm. Not a home run for the Mavs, but it provides upgrades at starting SG, backup PG, and backup C. In exchange for the talent you're absorbing an extra 24 million or so in contractual obligations by my count. Probably takes you out of the running for 2010 free agency because of Udrih and Salmons, but Moore is an expiring contract next season, so between him, Damp, Josh, and this summer's first rounder you've still got ammo for another deal.

The only part I'm not thrilled about is getting hit hard with the contracts past 2010, mainly Beno's. I'd take Udrih over JJB probably, and Moore as a #2 center. Salmons is the main piece I would want. The guys coming in aren't that big of an issue, it's mainly the price-tag.

chumdawg · 02-17-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Flirting with trade board territory, but since we're on the subject of Salmons/Udrih, just curious how this strikes people:

Stack/Carroll/JJB/Williams

for

Udrih/Moore/Salmons

You'd have to do it as two separate deals, but the salaries worked per realgm. Not a home run for the Mavs, but it provides upgrades at starting SG, backup PG, and backup C. In exchange for the talent you're absorbing an extra 24 million or so in contractual obligations by my count. Probably takes you out of the running for 2010 free agency because of Udrih and Salmons, but Moore is an expiring contract next season, so between him, Damp, Josh, and this summer's first rounder you've still got ammo for another deal.

Not worth it, I'd say. JJB is a rotation player, I firmly believe. He's not just filler.

grndmstr_c · 02-17-2009, 12:42 AM

Do you think JJB would be a rotation player with Udrih on the roster?

Edit: just to add to that, my thinking is that Sac wouldn't trade Salmons for Stack unless Dallas was saving them money somewhere else, and somewhere else means Udrih. Once you tag on the Carroll/Udrih effective swap, JJB's superfluous.

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Do you think JJB would be a rotation player with Udrih on the roster?

Edit: just to add to that, my thinking is that Sac wouldn't trade Salmons for Stack unless Dallas was saving them money somewhere else, and somewhere else means Udrih. Once you tag on the Carroll/Udrih effective swap, JJB's superfluous.

Well, Sacramento knows they're giving up the more talented player so they want us to take something back in return that helps them out long term. I think it's just being a little more greedy, to take Udrih as well. I think we are upgrading at positions...Salmons being the bigger one. They're not home run moves, but they make an impact on the rotation.

Carroll and JJB for Beno would suffice for them I think.

So it'd be Stack and JJB for Salmons and then Carroll for Beno.
I know you mentioned the other pieces, but I dunno if they'd actually go that far or not.

IMO: I think we're doing a deal with Sacramento or we're doing nothing at all with the deadline.

grndmstr_c · 02-17-2009, 01:03 AM

The problem is that even Stack straight up for Salmons doesn't work salary-wise because Salmons isn't making enough. You have to figure out some way for Sac to send out a bit more, and the Moore/Williams bit was really just a way of satisfying the CBA requirements.

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

The problem is that even Stack straight up for Salmons doesn't work salary-wise because Salmons isn't making enough. You have to figure out some way for Sac to send out a bit more, and the Moore/Williams bit was really just a way of satisfying the CBA requirements.

Ah, then yeah...your route is the way it'd have to be then. I assumed the salaries matched straight up.

chumdawg · 02-17-2009, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Do you think JJB would be a rotation player with Udrih on the roster?

Edit: just to add to that, my thinking is that Sac wouldn't trade Salmons for Stack unless Dallas was saving them money somewhere else, and somewhere else means Udrih. Once you tag on the Carroll/Udrih effective swap, JJB's superfluous.

It's not worth the swap of JJB for Udrih to take on Salmons. You're getting killed at backup PG, as far as contracts go. You would MUCH rather have JJB as your backup PG, considering the contract obligations.

TheMaverick · 02-17-2009, 01:22 AM

It's not worth it. If there is a way we can acquire Salmons without Beno's fugly contract, then it would be a clear-cut good deal in our favor.

grndmstr_c · 02-17-2009, 01:24 AM

I don't disagree that Udrih's contract sucks and that JJB is a far, far better value, CD.

I'm just more receptive to the argument that between the acquisition of Salmons and the prospect of not having a sub-6' PG when your backup SG is only 6'2", the deal could still be worth it.

TheMaverick · 02-17-2009, 01:26 AM

Another thing that should be mentioned is that Kidd pretty much gave Mikki Moore his contract after his breakout year in NJ. An athletic big that can catch lobs at the rim would be a nice thing to watch as well.

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMaverick

It's not worth it. If there is a way we can acquire Salmons without Beno's fugly contract, then it would be a clear-cut good deal in our favor.

That's going to be the sticking point. As grndmstr_c mentioned, Stack for Salmons doesn't work straight up and the Kings would have to add something else...I don't think that figures to work out without adding Beno. I'm not sure of who the cap-filling pieces could be and still make it do-able for both sides.

I'm having a hard time seeing it work out without Beno coming along.

alby · 02-17-2009, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

That's going to be the sticking point. As grndmstr_c mentioned, Stack for Salmons doesn't work straight up and the Kings would have to add something else...I don't think that figures to work out without adding Beno. I'm not sure of who the cap-filling pieces could be and still make it do-able for both sides.

I'm having a hard time seeing it work out without Beno coming along.

They have some nice young bigs that I would want to ask for. Thompson, Hawes, and even Williams could help us. I don't want to invest big dollar into a back up PG, we need a legitimate back up to Dampier since he plays like 25 minutes a game for us. The Bass/Dirk PF/C combination is quite possibly the worst thing to watch defensively.

grndmstr_c · 02-17-2009, 01:43 AM

I thought about those guys, alby. I'd surely take Thompson off their hands, but I don't think they'd make him available in this deal. And I figured in the short term Moore would be of more help than the other two young'ns.

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 01:49 AM

Just checking off RealGM, Salmons + any of those bigs work...minus Moore.

Thompson seems like a piece that they'd definitely want to keep around with Martin to build off of.

Hawes seems kind of eh...soft.

Williams seems like a nice enough fit for a big man, can play defense and can clog the lane. I guess I don't see why they'd want to let him go, just extra money off the table. If Dallas holds firm that they won't take Beno but Sacramento wants to shed anything they realistically can take off...then that would be it.

So...Williams would be my pick.

grndmstr_c · 02-17-2009, 01:54 AM

So you'd be looking at Stack for Salmons/Williams? Dallas would have to cut somebody to accommodate the extra body, and I doubt Sac would do it, but I sure as hell would. It probably doesn't help as much this season as the larger trade I proposed, but it still nets the guy who's the reason we're having this discussion in the first place, and doesn't saddle the Mavs with Udrih's contract.

DevinHarriswillstart · 02-17-2009, 02:01 AM

Don't know if this has been posted from Stein:

Quote:

As for O'Neal, Phoenix never held great hope of finding a trade partner, in spite of the 36-year-old's renaissance this season. It's believed that the Suns, because of their financial situation, will continue to make the All-Star Game's co-MVP with Kobe Bryant available through the deadline, but they privately acknowledge that the chances of a deal remain highly unlikely with O'Neal scheduled to earn $21 million next season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3912108

Sounds to me like he is basically available to anyone who can eat the contract.

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

So you'd be looking at Stack for Salmons/Williams? Dallas would have to cut somebody to accommodate the extra body, and I doubt Sac would do it, but I sure as hell would. It probably doesn't help as much this season as the larger trade I proposed, but it still nets the guy who's the reason we're having this discussion in the first place, and doesn't saddle the Mavs with Udrih's contract.

There are people on the roster that we could cut.
Your deal makes the most sense for Sacramento, and it makes a decent amount of sense for Dallas.
Salmons and Williams for Stack makes a ton of sense for us.

The only way I can see it working is Sacramento absolutely feels that they have to shed salary RIGHT now and no one is willing to take Beno....and we're probably one of the very teams that would even consider taking him. So if we're not going to take him, they'll have to look at another route of trimming the fat, this would be it.

I mean...they're really looking for their best interest to the max with getting Stack's deal AND making us taking Beno's deal. That's being greedy to the max, IMO. My suggestion still makes sense for them, just not in it's highest potential.

rabbitproof · 02-17-2009, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

This thread is steadily becoming more depressing/realistic...

AUGH!! WHY MUST DEPRESSION AND REALITY BE RELATED??!?!

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Don't know if this has been posted from Stein:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3912108

Sounds to me like he is basically available to anyone who can eat the contract.

There aren't that many teams that are willing to do that or fit the bill for multiple reasons:
-don't have the funds
-planning for 2010
-probably wouldn't fit Shaq's preferred destinations.

Either way you slice it...Dallas is still high on that list. The only thing you've got going to make this actually happen is that other than Fisher/DLord, you haven't really heard it get a lot of major media push. Deals like that kinda just come out of nowhere.

grndmstr_c · 02-17-2009, 02:12 AM

I think I'm going to take a break from Sac scenarios and start playing around with some unrealistic Shaq trades.

ghazi · 02-17-2009, 02:15 AM

So, yall think we'll make a deal or what?

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghazi

So, yall think we'll make a deal or what?

I think we actually will...I'm just under the belief now that it won't be a blockbuster, which is fine by me. Blockbuster, nice upgrade...whatever helps this team and doesn't ruin it financially is a plus for me.

People around the league seem to believe Dallas will make a deal, and following dallasbasketball.com's suggestions, it'll be a player that can make an impact on the rotation.

If they don't make a deal, it'll simply be because it didn't make sense financially and didn't make sense for the structure of the roster.

grndmstr_c · 02-17-2009, 02:32 AM

Okay, here's my unrealistic Phoenix trade idea and then I'm going to bed because I think my computer is starting to rot my brain: Josh/Stack/Damp for Shaq/Barbosa/Hill. Peace out and don't think too unkindly of me.

alby · 02-17-2009, 02:46 AM

This is still the trade I want to see.

Incoming:
Vince Carter

Outgoing:
Josh Howard
Jerry Stackhouse
Brandon Bass

If we get Vince Carter, Wright really would be the perfect compliment as the other swingman. I know the Vince talks have died down, but I honestly feel a Kidd/Jet/Vince/Dirk lineup just fits perfectly offensively... As far as defense is concerned, just always have 2 or 3 of those main guys on the floor at all times and fill in the rest of the five with defensive minded players, similar to what we used to do with Greg Buckner and/or Adrian Griffin.

Kidd - 35 / Barea - 10 / JET - 3
Wright - 18 / JET - 24
Carter - 35 / George - 7
Dirk - 35 / Singleton - 7
Damp - 25 / Hollins - 17

TheMaverick · 02-17-2009, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alby

This is still the trade I want to see.

Incoming:
Vince Carter

Outgoing:
Josh Howard
Jerry Stackhouse
Brandon Bass

If we get Vince Carter, Wright really would be the perfect compliment as the other swingman. I know the Vince talks have died down, but I honestly feel a Kidd/Jet/Vince/Dirk lineup just fits perfectly offensively... As far as defense is concerned, just always have 2 or 3 of those main guys on the floor at all times and fill in the rest of the five with defensive minded players, similar to what we used to do with Greg Buckner and/or Adrian Griffin.

Kidd - 35 / Barea - 10 / JET - 3
Wright - 18 / JET - 24
Carter - 35 / George - 7
Dirk - 35 / Singleton - 7
Damp - 25 / Hollins - 17

Trust me, I think we would all like to see this. 2010 isn't even guaranteed. Lebron James is not coming to Dallas. This lineup would give us a real run for it this year and the next. Also, it would keep San Antonio's hands from acquiring Vince Carter.

It has been mentioned in another thread, but I would consider Caron Butler as the same type of player. I would have him on my radar as well.

rmacomic · 02-17-2009, 03:46 AM

^2010 isn't even guaranteed

I can't tell you how much I agree with this.

DevinHarriswillstart · 02-17-2009, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmacomic

^2010 isn't even guaranteed

I can't tell you how much I agree with this.

I also agree because otherwise the Kidd trade was pointless.

We got Kidd for a short-term title run. (based on his age, I can't see why else we'd have him)

Time to get some short-term, title-type of players.

TNT · 02-17-2009, 08:12 AM

last day to make trades is on thursday?

jthig32 · 02-17-2009, 08:13 AM

I think I agree with Chum on the Sacramento thing. If they're not willing to take back pure cap room for Salmons, then I'm probably not interested. Taking on Udrih's contract is just not acceptable to me unless you're acquiring someone of a greater talent than Salmons.

I really don't think Udrih is an upgrade over JJB in any way, height or no height.

MX425 · 02-17-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

I think I agree with Chum on the Sacramento thing. If they're not willing to take back pure cap room for Salmons, then I'm probably not interested. Taking on Udrih's contract is just not acceptable to me unless you're acquiring someone of a greater talent than Salmons.

I really don't think Udrih is an upgrade over JJB in any way, height or no height.

totally agree. These teams can't sign bad contracts and then pawn them off with a mediocore player. I think as long as it seems like the mav's can walk away from the table we will force the other team into a better deal .When all said and done, if we don't make a trade we still make the playoffs and see what we can do and we havent hamstrung ourselves to bad contracts. Udrih's contract is horrible for a backup PG, and hes not a PG of the future for us.

Imagine if we take on a bad contract, and then make it to the second round and get our doors blown off. Not only do we find out we don't have the team but now we really can't make any moves.

I don't understand the feelings that we cannot sign free agents in Dallas. They are the 5th biggest market in the league. Have a pretty strong fan base since Cubes took over and are home to the #1 most recognized sports franchise in the world, the Cowboys. Dallas is not a bad city to look at as a free agent.

Underdog · 02-17-2009, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmacomic

^2010 isn't even guaranteed

I can't tell you how much I agree with this.

2010 isn't only about acquiring LeBron, Wade or Bosh - it's also about trying to get the players teams let go to acquire those guys....

(and I'll keep saying it every time someone brings up 2010...)

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

2010 isn't only about acquiring LeBron, Wade or Bosh - it's also about trying to get the players teams let go to acquire those guys....

(and I'll keep saying it every time someone brings up 2010...)

True...but I also have my eyes set towards Joe Johnson, he's the player I think is actually obtainable and would be perfect for this team.

Underdog · 02-17-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It's not worth the swap of JJB for Udrih to take on Salmons. You're getting killed at backup PG, as far as contracts go. You would MUCH rather have JJB as your backup PG, considering the contract obligations.

I could give a damn about contracts - that's Cuban's money anyway...

What I want to know is how much better is Udrih than JJB?

And I'm not talking about a defensive stop here or an extra rebound there - I want to know that he's good enough to keep a 15-point lead from slipping away when Kidd is sitting on the bench, otherwise he really isn't better than JJB as far as this team is concerned (we need difference-makers at this point...)

MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs · 02-17-2009, 11:15 AM

On ESPN the radio they said the Suns are basically no longer trading Amare or Shaq.

Flacolaco · 02-17-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs

On ESPN the radio they said the Suns are basically no longer trading Amare or Shaq.

Is that kind of like "ESPN the Magazine"?

BGMaverick9 · 02-17-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs

On ESPN the radio they said the Suns are basically no longer trading Amare or Shaq.

I'll buy the fact they won't trade Amare, that was a flat out dumb move to even think about that, I won't buy it for Shaq though. It seems like they will try to have Gentry push it back closer to the D'Antoni ways with the tempo and etc. Guys like Amare, Nash, Richardson and maybe even Hill want to go back to that style...that's pretty much all their important people minus Shaq. They'll probably play it out this way for the rest of the season, let the chips fall where they may and work things out however they see fit in the offseason.

purplefrog · 02-17-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

I could give a damn about contracts - that's Cuban's money anyway...

What I want to know is how much better is Udrih than JJB?

And I'm not talking about a defensive stop here or an extra rebound there - I want to know that he's good enough to keep a 15-point lead from slipping away when Kidd is sitting on the bench, otherwise he really isn't better than JJB as far as this team is concerned (we need a difference-makers at this point...)

I agree with UD and I think the answer is Udrih > JJB. Why? Because he's 6'3" not 5'10' and JJB's decision-making down the stretch is suspect. Besides, I don't think you have to include JJB in the trade. If you're getting Salmons give the Kings Wright or Williams.

Imo, the most important question is are the Mavs playing for the next two years or are they still trying to position themselves for 2010? If the window is the next two years then who cares about an ugly long-term contract if it gets you another piece right now. You can likely trade Carroll or Beno later. I don't know if Salmons is enough, but I'd rather take on Beno's contract and get Salmons as opposed to doing nothing. There might be better deals out there but the status quo puts the Mavs further behind.