Mavs could waive Finley, sources say

[grndmstr_c]

Dirno, if he is in full-on cost cutting mode, that's one thing. The scenario I'm working from is one in which the Mavs are looking at cutting Fin to save money in anticipation of being able to redistribute some of that money to see that the quality of the team does not suffer. Regardless of which position(s) you redistribute the money to, I think the MLE is a fair, and perhaps even conservative (depending on Fin's health, among other things) estimate of what it would cost to make up for what you lose on the court by cutting Fin.

[#1MavsFan]

There’s no way I think Cuban would waive Fin, he's arguably our best SG and he did have the best +/- on the team at SG. Also I'm sure Fin will emerge with a much better season next year, since when your playing with a severely rolled ankle, you lose a lot of your quickness and can't jump nearly as high which greatly affects your jump shot and kills your chances at grabbing boards. Using this clause on Fin makes no sense for the Mavs since they lose a whole lot talent wise, and they still don't gain enough $$$ as to where they could get out of luxury tax hell. If for some reason they did use this clause on him, this would be a disgrace to Michael and the Mavs organization since this would show they have no loyalty at all.

Also does anyone know that if we don't use the clause this year if we can use it next year.... or the year after that?

[Stressboy]

I think what Cuban is saying is that Fin would be moved for value to a team that is not in salary hell for shorter contracts. These are not in any preference.

1) Fin for Antonio Davis\Eric Piatowski

Chicago gets the guy they want, we cut 30mil in real salary thus saving 60mil total with tax. Maybe they don't do this, but given that they have to pay all of their own players they are not going to be in the Free Agent market and Fin would be a hell of a guy to have for them.

2)Fin\Danials for Rose\Rafer\#7

We shorten Fin's deal by a year so saving 18.5 mil in salary and 18.5 in tax so 36mil total. We could just cut Rose for another 30 mil in tax savings and use the #7 on A. Wright to be our future SG. Rafer we just have to suffer with. They do the deal because they get rid of Rose and Rafer to get a quality guy in Fin and a young talent in Danials. They take on some extra salary but they can trade fin before the 3rd year.

3) Fin for Raef\Rickey Davis\#18

They do it because they are going with youth and this gets rid or 2 of their worst 3 contracts and opens up space for all those rookies to play. They save 13mil over the life of the deals. We cut Raef to save 45mil tax over 4 years instead of 3. Don't really know how to caculate Davis' tax input on the deal. And We have a SG to plug in.

4) Fin for Lorenzen Wright\Mike Miller -

this is wishful thinking but the money actually comes out the same for them over the contracts. we cut miller for about 41mil in tax savings and get our backup big man at least for a year.

5) Fin for Eddie Jones\#29

Save 36mil again by shortening the contract. Miami gets a better player than E Jones to go around Shaq.

6) Fin for Bender\Croshere\#17

Fin replaces Reggie as the shooter off the bench and they can trade him in the last year of the contract so they are not really out any extra money but if they don't trade him they keep him for 17mil extra. Cut Bender and save 15mil in tax and save the 36mil in shortening the contract by a year.

7) Fin for Newble\Luke Jackson\Diop big ole trade exception

save about 80 mil, Cleveland gets another scorer to go with Lebron, but only if Ray Allen or Redd don't come play for them. This is a later in the summer trade if at all.

That's all I can come up with right now, I'm sure things will be in flux. I think if I had to choose from all of these, I would go with the Boston or the Indiana trade. The Indiana trade would allow us to move KVH to aquire more talent because Croshere is KVH light.

If Indiana has not already sold Bender\#17, I think I would approach them on this now but I think the Lakers have already done that deal.

Stressboy

[The Miles]

2)Fin\Danials for Rose\Rafer\#7

Why would Toronto do that? Take a lesser player with one year longer on his contract and throw us the #7 pick on top of it? We wish. I don't see why the Raps would want to "get rid of" Rose when he just put up 19 ppg on 46% shooting and flourished in a leadership role. Dallas would be a lot, A LOT, better if this trade went down. Imagine being able to grab Danny Granger, wow.

1) Fin for Antonio Davis\Eric Piatowski

Probably the most realistic idea.

3) Fin for Raef\Rickey Davis\#18

We wish. We get the best player in the deal, solve our backup C problem, and get the 1st that we all want. I would love it.

5) Fin for Eddie Jones\#29

Eddie is better than Finley at this point. Very, very good defender that would fit in here very, very well.

6) Fin for Bender\Croshere\#17

I don't see why the Pacers would want to do this with Fred Jones and Stephen Jackson already at the SG. Reportedly the Lakers are offering expirers for Bender and #17, a much better deal for the Pacers.

4) Fin for Lorenzen Wright\Mike Miller -

Probably your 2nd most realistic option, I would love it. Just keep Miller as the backup SF, have Quis/Stack @ SG and Josh/Miller @ SF. Also solves our backup C problem. I doubt Memphis would do it but with Lo' wanting out, who knows.

[madape]

I wouldn't put it past this organization to stab Finley in the back... not for a second.

[cripple balls]

Bradley and Finley both gone next year... happy happy, joy joy. That would be a kick to the crotch if Phoenix picked him up for 1mil though.

[Stressboy]

Miles,

First off Fin is way better than Eddie Jones at this point in their careers. Miami needs scoring and 3 pt shooters and Fin is much better at that than Jones. Besides with Shaq's 2 year extension, his contract would be up with Shaqs.

Indiana does it becaues they lost their vetran off the bench scorer in Reggie Miller. Yes with Artest back that is not as much of a concern, but Fin as 6th man puts them right back at the top. Who the hell cares about Fred Jones.

As for the Toronto thing, that is probably a stretch, but Rose has wanted out a long time and they get Danials also. Could happen, but probably for the #16 not the #7.

Madape,

This is not stabbing Fin in the back. Hell he won't take it personal(well Fin might). If my boss told me that he had to fire me to save 500k I would not take it personal. Now think about 51million. I'm sure Fin hopes that he is just cut, so that he could earn an extra 15mil over the next 3 years. Also if we trade him to Indiana, Miami or Chicago, he would be going to a contender and I would like us to try hard to make that happen as he does deserve that much.

[grbh]

What nobody has mentioned is whether the luxery tax will even be in effect in the next 3 years. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong it isn't going to kick in this year. If it doesn't in the next 3 or even 2 of the next 3, then the saving isn't there.

Anyone have a take on that? Capologists?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: grbh
What nobody has mentioned is whether the luxery tax will even be in effect in the next 3 years. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong it isn't going to kick in this year. If it doesn't in the next 3 or even 2 of the next 3, then the saving isn't there.

Anyone have a take on that? Capologists?

I think that it's been mentioned a few times, but it certainly bares repeating.

It's amazing how many people think that Finley is a negative to the Mavs and that they'd be better off talentwise just firing Fin and getting nothing in return. Fortunately Cubes and the Mavs don't see it that way. And as you point out, there might not be any savings at all.

Seems like this is just another excuse people are using to bash Fin, or in some cases Cubes and the Mavs management.

[Bayliss]

It's amazing how many people think that Finley is a negative to the Mavs and that they'd be better off talentwise just firing Fin and getting nothing in return. Fortunately Cubes and the Mavs don't see it that way. And as you point out, there might not be any savings at all.

Seems like this is just another excuse people are using to bash Fin, or in some cases Cubes and the Mavs management.

The problem comes in because of his contract. At the time of Fin signing the deal, it wasn't bad. But now Fin is the highest paid player on the Mavs and he is (at best) the 3rd best player. And to top off that, the only way Fin does well is if he plays huge minutes. And even then it's hit or miss. And he doesn't want to reduce his minutes.

That is scary. He may be a leader in the lockerroom but he has become Dell Curry paid like Michael Jordan.

[steponhens]

I think they should do this. Not only can it save you money, but I don't think Finley would accept a bench role, and he wouldn't even be the sixth man anyway. I believe he would cause a problem within the team and with the opportunity to dump him you have to take it. Stackhouse will be starting and Daniels coming off the bench along with possible JT minutes at the two I don't see why you keep him. Sure I don't want to see him on the competition, but if you were watching the same Finley I was this year, then that doesn't scare me too much.

[SeriousSummer]

The trades aren't realistic--they're way too one sided in favor of the Mavs with the exception of the Finley for A. Davis/Piatkowski deal. But that trade doesn't really make much sense either. If you want to do that, then Chicago cuts Davis (taking the one time exception) and Piatkowski (whose contract isn't that much anyway) and Dallas cuts Finley. They then would each be free to sign the other's waived players, unless they were outbid by the market and everybody saves money. There isn't any chance that either Finley or Davis would be picked up on waivers, although Piatkowski conceivably could be.

[Eman]

I've got a question?, Idea.........What if we traded Finley to someone that wanted Serious cap relief for a better player. Then the team that Finley went to could cut him and be well under the salary cap so they could go for free agents/save money!!!!!!

Maybe we could get a decent big power forward or someone a little younger (or two players----we now have a roster spot with Bradley retiring)!!!!!!

What do y'all think????

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Yeah isn't Q Rich going to the Knicks or something? God help us if Finley went to Phoenix.

[alby]

if we lose fin, we will need a proven spot up shooter / 3pt threat. so we would definitely have to replace him with someone. if you expect josh airball a wideopen three howard or marquis i cant shoot outside 15 feet daniels to be able to have fin's range by next year, then you are very wrong.. lol

yeah fin going to phoenix or houston would definitely killl us

[grndmstr_c]

grbh - I went over the monetary implications of cutting Finley and then realocating the money saved via the MLE to another player or players as a function of how many out of the next three years the luxury tax kicks in (see page 1 of this thread). By my read on the situation, you're dead right. It's profitable to cut Fin and then spend the MLE to replace him if the tax kicks in all three years. If there's only a tax 2 out of the next three the savings dwindle considerably down to a few million, and if there are two years without tax it would actually cost the Mavs more to go that route.

Cutting him could turn into near-guaranteed savings, but only if the Mavs fill his slot on the roster with a player making the vet minimum, ie., a pure cost-cutting, who gives a crap if the team gets worse move. When you consider that Cuban is probably going to be saving money on Shawn because of an injury clause in the CBA, figure that the cap is going up by a larger than normal amount this year, thereby reducing the precentage of Dallas' payroll that would be taxed, and figure that Cuban will now receive an equal share of redistributed tax monies instead of all of it going to Donald Sterling, I'm pretty sure Cuban's already saving some money without having to go into cost cutting mode, so I'm very hopeful he won't see this as a viable alternative.

[grndmstr_c]

eman - cutting Fin doesn't provide any cap relief. Just luxury tax relief. The team that cut him would still be on the hook for his entire salary.

[LRB]

What I don't get is how everyone thinks that Cuban is willing to do anything to cut payroll for the Mavs no matter how much talent it costs them. I can't figure how one of the biggest spending owners in the NBA has suddenly become Donald Sterling. Cubes has balked at paying what looked like a potential $100+ million to a PG who had previously shown signs of wearing down. Cuban has become a little more salary conscious, but I just don't see where people are getting that Cuban will cut Fin to POSSIBLY save some money, and also possibly not, and isn't willing to use the MLE any longer. I guess you think Cubes won't resign Dirk unless Dirk agrees to pay for the vet minimum as well.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Money or not, I think Finley was gonna go anyway. Money is just a smoke screen for the fact that we can't have a 50 million dollar player coming off of the bench. If you think about all of the complications that comes with that, I think its the right move anyways. I love Finley and have been a fan ever since he has been here so it would be heart breaking to see him go. However, I think it's a good time to part ways.

[grndmstr_c]

Money or not, I think Finley was gonna go anyway. Money is just a smoke screen for the fact that we can't have a 50 million dollar player coming off of the bench. If you think about all of the complications that comes with that, I think its the right move anyways. I love Finley and have been a fan ever since he has been here so it would be heart breaking to see him go. However, I think it's a good time to part ways.

We can't have a 50 million dollar player coming off the bench, but it's alright to pay 50 million to guy who's playing for one of the Mavs' rivals?

[Pirate]

"We can't have a 50 million dollar player coming off the bench, but it's alright to pay 50 million to guy who's playing for one of the Mavs' rivals? "

Excellent point.

[SeriousSummer]

Dallas without Finley, Bradley, TAW (assumed buyout), Armstrong or Henderson (both assumed not resigned):

Dampier/Pavel/DJ
Dirk
Howard/KVH
Daniels/Stackhouse
Terry/Harris

Since Van Horn can play PF, Stackhouse can swing down to the SF and Terry could play SG, the Mavs should be in pretty good shape with a roster. I think Dallas would be just as good as they were this year if they didn't suffer many injuries. They'd probably want to sign another big with some experience--a reserve C and PF. That would mean signing an additional three players to fill out the required 14 man roster. And Cuban would be in line to save serious money over the next three years.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Risk is the name of the game grndmstr

[grndmstr_c]

SS - I totally disagree. Fin's +/- last year was clearly superior to both Stack's and Quis'. Furthermore, Stack's a SG, not a SF (Fin is too, IMO, but is more capable of playing the 3), and if you're relying on Terry to step up in weight class and play significant minutes at SG, especially with Stack at the 3, your defense and rebounding are going to suffer for it.

[Eman]

grnd master,

They would be on the hook for the salary, true, but if another team traded for and then cut Finley, they could be under the cap and sign a solid young free agent that they needed. So a trade of finley would be good for another team if....they wanted to make a run at a free agent, and/or if they didn't want to pay luxury tax. Remember....the other team is giving us a lot of salary in the trade.

[grndmstr_c]

Risk is the name of the game grndmstr

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's even remotely relevant.

[grndmstr_c]

eman - you're missing the point. The team that cuts Fin would still be on the hook to pay him his full salary due, and the full amount of that salary would count against that teams cap figure. They would not free up any room to sign free agents.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart
Risk is the name of the game grndmstr

There is risk and then there is abject stupidity. Cutting Fin would be an excellent example of the latter.

1. If we cut Fin, then we can't resign him according to the new CBA.
2. Fin will allmost certainly (99 times out of 100) want to play for a contender.
3. Fin won't care about money, because we're footing his $50 million paychecks, so he would likely sign for the vet minimum inorder to allow his team to use the MLE or any caproom to sign more help and increase his chances of getting a ring.
4. The MLE is not enough to replace Fin's talent AND get the backup center that we need
5. It's far from a sure thing that Cubes would save any money by this move, especially once you figure in fan reaction.
6. There is no law against having a $50 million player come off the bench. We had Jamison, a max contract player coming off the bench.
7. I see lots of risk in cutting Fin, but very little reward in comparison. It's sort of like buying a lottery ticket for $10 with 1 chance in 1000 of winning $15.

[SeriousSummer]

The real problem with this new rule, as I see it, is that there doesn't seem to be any incentive to sign a waived player for more than the vets minimum.

If, in some way, a waived player's compensation depended on what he was signed for, then the system would work much better. As I understand it, Finley gets his salary from the Mavs the same no matter what he signs for, i.e.

Miami signs Finley for the vets minimum, that's deducted from what the Mavs have to pay and Finley gets the same amount.

Miami signs Finley for the MLE, that's deducted from what the Mavs have to pay and Finley gets the same amount.

If the system were set up so that Finley's compensation depended to some extent on what he was signed for, then his salary would be bid up to his current market value and that would be deducted from the Mavs costs. As things now work, as I understand it, there's no bidding for Finley's services. Finley just chooses where he wants to play for the minimum from those teams that wanted him.

The same of course, for any player waived.

[sike]

seems to me like the real question is "Are the Mavs willing to lose Finley to save a few million dollars?"

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's even remotely relevant.

Man pretention on these boards is sickening sometimes, if you thought about it, the risk is waiving Finley knowing he may go to a contender. That is the risk part. Dost thou understand now?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sike
seems to me like the real question is "Are the Mavs willing to lose Finley to save a few million dollars?"

Your question should be more like, "Are the Mavs willing to lose Finley and quite possibly have him go to a contender of ours just for the POSSIBILITY of saving a few million dollars in luxary tax?"

Nothing is guarranteed but Fin is more likely to end up with one of our competitors for the vet minimum with us paying the rest of his salary, than we are to save money by cutting Fin.

[dirno2000]

Originally posted by: sike
seems to me like the real question is "Are the Mavs willing to lose Finley to save a few million dollars?"

Or, you could look at it like this:

1) What are the odds of the luxury tax going into effect in each of the next three years. We can only guess but since Cuban has access to the leagues forcasted revenues the only thing he has to really speculate on is overall salary growth.

2) If he thinks theres a pretty good chance that the tax will be triggered, could the Finley savings be better used elsewhere. If he's willing to use the money to bring in a spot up shooter and maybe make a trade for PJ Brown and Magloire (don't know if that's possible, just throwing it out there as an example) then you have to seriously consider it.

He probably has an all in salary number in his head that he doesn't want to go over so there's a chance that waiving Fin could free up some resources.

[grndmstr_c]

DHWS, that Finley would sign with a contender is released is hardly a risk. It's much closer to a certainty. And at any rate, saying that risk is the name of the game does nothing for either side of the argument, and was really completely orthogonal to what my point was: namely that assuming that you can accurately sum up the situation in blanket statements like "we can't have a 50 million dollar player coming off the bench", much less use the questionable insights gained from that sort of lazy thinking to make decisions in situations that are far more complex than that, is just silly.

[Stressboy]

If Cuban cuts Finley out right I will lose all respect for them man's commen sense.

First off there are only 4-5 teams in the WHOLE NBA that benifit from this new little loop hole. NYK, Dallas, Indiana, Orlando and maybe the Lakers. Why?

Well they are currently the only ones paying any serious tax money. Look at everyone's 2005 rosters. Portland is below the tax, Philly won't pay much tax at all because Mashburn and Macullough are tax free because of the injury thing. Minni is below it. No one else is a screwed as us and New York and the others are paying about 10-25 mil over (I'm assuming a 50mil cap).

If we could work out a deal with Orlando and Grant Hill and Fin would promise to resign with their respective teams, we could trade the two of them, waive them and pick them back up. We would have to do 2-3 trades, with 3mil added on to each to make up for Fins extra year. For instance we could trade TAW/3mil for Christie then trade 3mil for their second rounder(#44) and then fin 3mil for Hill.

The money works out pretty much the same and the rule to not resign with the team that cuts you would not apply so they could resign Fin and they could resign Hill. I think Grant Hill would do it because he feels that he owes Orlando a little and saving them 30mil would be a nice gesture. In the end we would save about 45mil on the possible tax.

Now that is the perfect way to handle this, but someone will say that Orlando would not trade Christie blah blah blah.

Maybe my trades were a little blind, I did them after midnight, but something could be found out there besides just cutting him which is not the way to go at all.

Stressboy

Edit:
The above does not work if the tax threshhold starts at say 58mil instead of 53mil. To tell you the truth after reading Salary Cap FAQ this is all so screwed up that it is hard to tell how much would actually be saved. With the tax money getting distributed now and with a lot of teams like portland now below the threshold, there might not be any tax next year.

[LRB]

He probably has an all in salary number in his head that he doesn't want to go over so there's a chance that waiving Fin could free up some resources.

That's assuming that he isn't thinking of Salary as a % of revenues. Revenues can change a good bit by how far if at all a team goes in the playoffs. For example, I'm sure the Mavs revenues were up considerably with the much longer playoff run this past season as opposed to the year before. It's just as likely if not more so, that Cuban is only willing to increase salary based on his calculation of what the probability the increased talent the salary increase will have on revenues and how what the probable size of the effect will be.

Cubes has said repeatedly that he's willing to spend the money to get good talent, but that he's not willing to spend it on talent that is less than good. I believe that he bases what he pays in part on what positive out come it will have on the bottom line.

If this is the case, then "freeing up more money" doesn't come into the picture. Instead, Cubes is calculating if the negative impact of the loss of Fin's talent be substantially less than the probable savings in luxary tax. Having seen some of the calculations that business' rountinely use to make these kinds of decisions, it is probably a very complex model.

[Lebanese_Fan]

Solution to get rid of Finley, Trade him to Philly

Finley has 3 years left on contract for 51 Mill. (16 next year)
DJ mbenga (1 Mill)

Jamal Mashburn has 2 years left on his contract for 20 Mill. (10 next year)
Samuel Dalembert free agent. We sign him for 6 Mill a year.

Mashburn was injured last year so his contract is not subject to the luxury task.
Sammy (Dalembert) is a great ATHLETIC center that can contest Dampier for the starting spot.

Great deal for us but an average deal for Philly since Sammy was one of their best players in the playoffs against Detroit.

But they also need a veteran like Fin to be a constant outside thereat. Korver lacked consistency last year and against Detroit.

We might need to add a pick so they can accept but I think all sides will be happy.

Dallas Lineup

Terry/Harris
Daniels/Stack
Howard/Stack/KVH
Dirk/KVH
Damp/Sammy/P-Pod

Philly Lineup

Iverson/Ollie
Finley/McKie
Igudala/Korver
Webber/Rodgers
Jackson/Dj

[dirno2000]

That's assuming that he isn't thinking of Salary as a % of revenues. Revenues can change a good bit by how far if at all a team goes in the playoffs. For example, I'm sure the Mavs revenues were up considerably with the much longer playoff run this past season as opposed to the year before. It's just as likely if not more so, that Cuban is only willing to increase salary based on his calculation of what the probability the increased talent the salary increase will have on revenues and how what the probable size of the effect will be.

Weather it’s a percentage or a flat amount doesn’t change my point. Either way he probably has a ceiling and if he thinks that the luxury tax will be in effect for the next 3 years then cutting Finley creates additional room under that ceiling. If that additional room could be used on a big man that he otherwise wouldn’t be willing to acquire then he has a decision to make.

Cubes has said repeatedly that he's willing to spend the money to get good talent, but that he's not willing to spend it on talent that is less than good. I believe that he bases what he pays in part on what positive out come it will have on the bottom line.

If this is the case, then "freeing up more money" doesn't come into the picture. Instead, Cubes is calculating if the negative impact of the loss of Fin's talent be substantially less than the probable savings in luxary tax. Having seen some of the calculations that business' rountinely use to make these kinds of decisions, it is probably a very complex model.

IMO, the only time that freeing up money doesn’t’ come into the picture is if he has a chance to get a player who would without a doubt push us over the top ie. Shaq. It’s more likely that the available players will be pretty good and will make us better. In other words, if he can get a sure thing then he’d be willing to blow his budget out of the water but he’s not going to do it for Dan Gadzuric or Jamal Magloire. That’s the premise that I’m working under when I say that waiving Finely could free up resources.

The question I hope he’s asking is “is it possible to improve the team and stay cost neural by waiving Fin”. If the answer is yes then cut him…if it’s no then keep him. Like most of us though, I’m not in favor of cutting Finley just to put money back in Mark’s pocket.

[SeriousSummer]

Instead, Cubes is calculating if the negative impact of the loss of Fin's talent be substantially less than the probable savings in luxary tax. Having seen some of the calculations that business' rountinely use to make these kinds of decisions, it is probably a very complex model.

This is really to the point. Unlike us, Mark Cuban will have an excellent idea whether the luxury tax will be in effect for each of the next three years and what his salary numbers would look like with and without Finley being waived.

If he "knows" that the luxury tax will be in effect, then he may decide one way. If it won't, then another. He'll also be able to calculate the effect of other moves--Bradley's retirement, waiving TAW, etc. before making a decision.

Finally, he'll have AJ's advice on how he expects to use Finley next year. If Finley is still the starter, that's one thing. If Finley is no better than the second swingman off the bench (behind both Stackhouse and Daniels in the rotation), that might be another thing entirely. Other decisions might also effect the decision--like how KVH is used for example. If KVH and Dirk will mostly play together with no "real" center, then Finley might be needed to play the three some. If KVH is going to used at the three along with Dirk and a center, then the Mavs may not need Finley at the three at all--Howard and KVH may take up all the minutes.

There may also be timing questions. If the Mavs don't have to decide until the end of the summer, then they can see how Daniels looks in the summer league before making a decision. If Daniels lights it up, then Finley goes. If he still plays hurt, then Finley stays.

The Mavs may also have knowledge of what other teams are going to do. For example, if the Mavs know that Miami is going to waive Eddie Jones (and they know the luxury tax is likely to be in effect), then maybe they think they can save $50 million by cutting Finley and picking up Jones--with minimal effect on the team's quality of play.

In any event, the factors Cuban will look at, both as to business and basketball, are more and more complicated than we're tossing around here.

[vjz]

Originally posted by: SeriousSummer

This is really to the point. Unlike us, Mark Cuban will have an excellent idea whether the luxury tax will be in effect for each of the next three years and what his salary numbers would look like with and without Finley being waived.

If he "knows" that the luxury tax will be in effect, then he may decide one way. If it won't, then another. He'll also be able to calculate the effect of other moves--Bradley's retirement, waiving TAW, etc. before making a decision.

Finally, he'll have AJ's advice on how he expects to use Finley next year. If Finley is still the starter, that's one thing. If Finley is no better than the second swingman off the bench (behind both Stackhouse and Daniels in the rotation), that might be another thing entirely. Other decisions might also effect the decision--like how KVH is used for example. If KVH and Dirk will mostly play together with no "real" center, then Finley might be needed to play the three some. If KVH is going to used at the three along with Dirk and a center, then the Mavs may not need Finley at the three at all--Howard and KVH may take up all the minutes.

There may also be timing questions. If the Mavs don't have to decide until the end of the summer, then they can see how Daniels looks in the summer league before making a decision. If Daniels lights it up, then Finley goes. If he still plays hurt, then Finley stays.

The Mavs may also have knowledge of what other teams are going to do. For example, if the Mavs know that Miami is going to waive Eddie Jones (and they know the luxury tax is likely to be in effect), then maybe they think they can save $50 million by cutting Finley and picking up Jones--with minimal effect on the team's quality of play.

In any event, the factors Cuban will look at, both as to business and basketball, are more and more complicated than we're tossing around here.

SeriousSummer, you make an excellent point here. I think AJ will have a big say if this happens. What plans does he have for Finley? Does he believe Marquis or Stack can completely replace him?

My biggest fear, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, is Finley ending up in Pheonix, Minnesota or even San Antonio. As Bob Ortegal once said, Finley will make sure we'll pay dearly for letting him go. I'll quit watching basketball if the Suns lineup next year is something like Nash-Finley-JJ-Marion-Amare.