The"Crap, it didn't happen..but it was awesome to think of" thread

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Popeye

Bynum's not a superstar and at $16mm/year he's not a bargain. Anthony Davis is the more valuable player at $4 million a year.

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

Davis is a 4 so I'd pick Bynum if I had an entrenched 4 that didn't have enough bulk to be the man defender at the 5. Davis isn't a center, but he blocks shots like one.

The situation you describe doesn't fit every GM looking to win over the next 4 years. Plus salary cap situations would change the answer if choosing Davis gave you an extra 12million to spend on another player.

I'm asserting that most GMs in the situation they currently are in (some in win-now mode and some in rebuild mode) would pick Davis over Bynum.

Sorry about the 10% raise instead of the 7.5%. I wasn't trying to make it look worse by lying. I looked up Coon's FAQ and you are correct.

Bynum's 4 years should be
16.4 17.7 19.0 20.4

My point in all this is that more valuable != better. Yes Davis is a good bet to be a better value over the next four seasons, but what if the team can't find a star to give that left over money to?

Bynum's one of best centers in the NBA. You can say that Davis might be a steal at 4Mil a season, but what if you can't get a center even half as good a Bynum for that left over 12Mil?

I know for damn sure if I'm the Mavs, I take Bynum over Davis. Without even thinking.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by Scott McGuire

Bynum's 4 years should be
16.4 17.7 19.0 20.4

Thats the ridiculousness of the NBA. Players very rarely take pay cuts, and yet guys that can't single-handedly will their team to victory are getting that kind of money. He'd be 1/3 of the salary of any given team and yet he is no superstar. He's a star, sure-- but no superstar.

I think the logical number range for Bynum would be 8mill, 9mill, 10mill but there is so much salary inflation in the league that its silly. There are a lot of guys earning 8-20mill that don't deserve it and a lot of min guys that are only earning min because teams are strapped for cash after overpaying others.

But thats the power many GMs have-- to overspend. It's what we did. We were a young team that no one wanted to play for so we overspent to secure a talented team and Cuban would pay the luxury tax. Under the new CBA that is going to have to change. Teams are absolutely destroyed if they stay in the luxury tax threshold. Any team that overpays one player will suffer by not being able to pay for another.

I like it hypothetically, but I think there are a few teams that have shown to be desperate that will keep inflation high and at the end of the day its really about the $$$$s for 95% of players with agents in play. I worry that we'll lose out on some free agents because other teams will knee jerk and offer way more than reasonable in order to secure a freeagent.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by jthig32

My point in all this is that more valuable != better. Yes Davis is a good bet to be a better value over the next four seasons, but what if the team can't find a star to give that left over money to?

Bynum's one of best centers in the NBA. You can say that Davis might be a steal at 4Mil a season, but what if you can't get a center even half as good a Bynum for that left over 12Mil?

I know for damn sure if I'm the Mavs, I take Bynum over Davis. Without even thinking.

I think this also implies a broader point--which is 100% correct--that a contending team can only worry about "value" contracts once they have the high-dollar horses required to escalate the team into potential contending status in the first place.

[mavs777]

The best contracts in relative to value is the elite of elite max deal (The Lebron/Wade/CP3s of the world), and the rookie contracts like anthony davis will have.

[CapitanObvious]

(Deron) Williams fired back later in the day on his Twitter account, saying, “I would love to know who (Yahoo’s) Adrian Wojnarowski’s source is, (because) he knows more about what I’m thinking (than) I do. Maybe he can help me decide?” Asked about the report, King refused to comment, referring to Williams’ tweet. “(Williams) responded to that, so I don’t need to respond,” King said. “He gave you a statement, I think, in his tweets, correct? So why should I comment on that if he directly commented?” Newark Star-Ledger

“His source is chuck norris! Chuck norris can create a fire rubbing 2 ice cubes together!” Williams retweeted. “Better check your bank account too because if he knows your thoughts then he knows those bank codes,” read another tweet from Williams. New York Daily News

Sign this guy now Cuban. Just do it.

[EricaLubarsky]

Woj got pwned

[spreedom]

Thy Kingdom Come, Chuck's will be done.

[EricaLubarsky]

In Brooklyn as it is in Texas.

[Underdog]

“His source is chuck norris! Chuck norris can create a fire rubbing 2 ice cubes together!” Williams retweeted. “Better check your bank account too because if he knows your thoughts then he knows those bank codes,” read another tweet from Williams. New York Daily News

Deron Williams has obviously been lurking this board if "Chuck Norris" is the first thing that pops into his mind!

[EricaLubarsky]

Boo, Underdog you ruined our "Deron's Prayer"

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Boo, Underdog you ruined our "Deron's Prayer"

A man sporting two Roy Tarpley skulls has little need for prayer...

[Popeye]

Originally Posted by jthig32

My point in all this is that more valuable != better. Yes Davis is a good bet to be a better value over the next four seasons, but what if the team can't find a star to give that left over money to?

Bynum's one of best centers in the NBA. You can say that Davis might be a steal at 4Mil a season, but what if you can't get a center even half as good a Bynum for that left over 12Mil?

I know for damn sure if I'm the Mavs, I take Bynum over Davis. Without even thinking.

The Mavs would let Bynum walk as a free agent rather than sign him to that contract. Okay maybe not but I think they'd prefer Davis at $4mm so they could go after other free agents.

And I've never thought Davis was anything but a center in the NBA.

[Rick41]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Deron Williams has obviously been lurking this board if "Chuck Norris" is the first thing that pops into his mind!

I thought this.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Deron Williams has obviously been lurking this board if "Chuck Norris" is the first thing that pops into his mind!

If Williams mentioning Chuck Norris isn't a good sign, then I don't know what is.

[Thomas86]

Ok so lets say the Mavs are able to sign D-Will would the Mavs still have enuff cap space to trade for Rudy Gay who might on the trade block?

[Budapest Maverick]

I don't think so. In the best case scenario (if i'm not mistaken) we would have around 9-10 million after we signed Deron and amnestied Haywood. Gay's salary is around 14 million i think.

[Rick41]

Why would the Grizzlies trade Gay to a team in the SW Division?

[Thomas86]

Originally Posted by Rick41

Why would the Grizzlies trade Gay to a team in the SW Division?

Why would the Grizz help the Mavs out by talking Stackhouse contract so the Mavs could get Marion?...anything can happen in the NBA and the Mavs and Grizz have worked together in the past.

[sefant77]

Originally Posted by Thomas86

Why would the Grizz help the Mavs out by talking Stackhouse contract so the Mavs could get Marion?...anything can happen in the NBA and the Mavs and Grizz have worked together in the past.

Because with the cash and Stacks buyout clause they made like 600k profit with it. Grizzlies were super cheap back those days.

[mavs777]

The grizzlies aren't going to pay tax but they won't trade gay for scrubs.

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I think this also implies a broader point--which is 100% correct--that a contending team can only worry about "value" contracts once they have the high-dollar horses required to escalate the team into potential contending status in the first place.

I agree that superstars are required to win championships. The 04 Pistons are the exceptions.

BUT
Don't you think that if you only had great value contracts without a superstar that you'd
A) have excellent trade pieces to make a deal for a superstar
B) have a great cap situation to sign a superstar

If you aren't lucky enough to have a superstar then this needs to be the path.

[sefant77]

Originally Posted by mavs777

The grizzlies aren't going to pay tax but they won't trade gay for scrubs.

they will let Mayo walk

[BGMaverick9]

I'm sure Memphis doesn't mind hearing Dallas on the end of the phone.

"Hey Memphis, we want to get Dominique Jones in the draft."
"Okay."
"We'll give you three million dollars so we can go get him."
"So you'll give us $3M so you can get...Dominique Jones?"
"Yes."
"You've got yourself a goddamn deal."

[BGMaverick9]

So Bill Simmons had an opinion on the Mavs' title defense. I ran with it. Here you go http://www.ballinwithbryan.com/analy...-bill-simmons/

[iella]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

So Bill Simmons had an opinion on the Mavs' title defense. I ran with it. Here you go http://www.ballinwithbryan.com/analy...-bill-simmons/

Nice piece. The part I really don't understand is how people think, "Let Tyson walk and hope to land a superstar with cap space and hope to win a championship(s)" is any more risky than, "Pay Tyson such that there is no cap space for years and hope to win a championship(s)." Like you mentioned in your article, last year was "lightning in a bottle" (which is very different than being a fluke, I should add), and bringing Tyson back was no guarantee of repeating.

I think the bottom line is, people will always find something to gripe about. If Cuban brought Tyson back with a fat contract and the Mavs didn't repeat, then everyone would be griping about how stupid it was to tie up all that salary and eliminate any chance of landing Deron Williams. I agree with your conclusion - there's a lot of upside to the Mavs' current situation.

[mavs777]

Originally Posted by sefant77

they will let Mayo walk

Even then they have 62,544,198 in guarentees next year and you would think they would bring back at least 1 of speights/arthur + the first rounder. In 2013/2014 they only have 4 contracts guarenteed (conley/gay/randolph/gasol) and between the 4 they make 63,839,228 in 13/14, eventually they will have to move one to be able to fill out there roster without going over tax threshold.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by mavs777

Even then they have 62,544,198 in guarentees next year and you would think they would bring back at least 1 of speights/arthur + the first rounder. In 2013/2014 they only have 4 contracts guarenteed (conley/gay/randolph/gasol) and between the 4 they make 63,839,228 in 13/14, eventually they will have to move one to be able to fill out there roster without going over tax threshold.

They have some really tough decisions to make. Thats a really nice young team
with good depth. They lack spot-up 3 point shooters and will miss Mayo in that regard, but also because he and Tony Allen are both+ wing defenders.

[LonghornDub]

So, here's an exercise:

If the Nets were going to swing a trade for Dwight in time to convince Deron to stay, how would they do it?

Set aside how unlikely it is, and what not. How would they do it in a way that comports with CBA restrictions and doesn't brutally offend any notion of common sense?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

So, here's an exercise:

If the Nets were going to swing a trade for Dwight in time to convince Deron to stay, how would they do it?

Set aside how unlikely it is, and what not. How would they do it in a way that comports with CBA restrictions and doesn't brutally offend any notion of common sense?

Step 1: put gasoline into paper bag.

Step 2: secure paper bag over mouth and nose.

Step 3: inhale deeply.

Step 4: repeat Step 3 until you see Dwight Howard in one of those ugly-ass throwback Brooklyn Nets uniforms.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

So, here's an exercise:

If the Nets were going to swing a trade for Dwight in time to convince Deron to stay, how would they do it?

Set aside how unlikely it is, and what not. How would they do it in a way that comports with CBA restrictions and doesn't brutally offend any notion of common sense?

They would taken on Dwight and Hedo or Davis via cap space.

They would send them three picks (Houston 2013, NJ 2013, NJ 2015).

They would send them....um....

I guess a SnT'd Gerald Wallace and/or a SnT'd Brooke Lopez.

That's all I got.

Oh, and all of that has to happen after July 1.

[Kidd Karma]

Originally Posted by iella

Nice piece. The part I really don't understand is how people think, "Let Tyson walk and hope to land a superstar with cap space and hope to win a championship(s)" is any more risky than, "Pay Tyson such that there is no cap space for years and hope to win a championship(s)." Like you mentioned in your article, last year was "lightning in a bottle" (which is very different than being a fluke, I should add), and bringing Tyson back was no guarantee of repeating.

I think the bottom line is, people will always find something to gripe about. If Cuban brought Tyson back with a fat contract and the Mavs didn't repeat, then everyone would be griping about how stupid it was to tie up all that salary and eliminate any chance of landing Deron Williams. I agree with your conclusion - there's a lot of upside to the Mavs' current situation.

Its a gamble either way, sign Tyson, or let him walk. A lot of ifs leaves me wondering about Simmons' point of view, I mean if we have no lockout and business as usual, does Dirk come in, in better shape, does Odom have time to reflect on the deal and make things work. with more time to determine if they want to make the move, would Cuban have decided against Odom? Or because Odom's one year deal was an attraction. With a full training camp and what 6 new players, do we build a well oiled machine long before the new year's arrive? Lots of what ifs that Simmon's does not explore. Cuban was dealt the cards(CBA) and he played with the hand he was dealt the best he could.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by Kidd Karma

Its a gamble either way, sign Tyson, or let him walk. A lot of ifs leaves me wondering about Simmons' point of view, I mean if we have no lockout and business as usual, does Dirk come in, in better shape, does Odom have time to reflect on the deal and make things work. with more time to determine if they want to make the move, would Cuban have decided against Odom? Or because Odom's one year deal was an attraction. With a full training camp and what 6 new players, do we build a well oiled machine long before the new year's arrive? Lots of what ifs that Simmon's does not explore. Cuban was dealt the cards(CBA) and he played with the hand he was dealt the best he could.

Again, that's a BIG if that you're bringing into the fold and that's something that wasn't going to be solved this summer. For lack of a better choice of words, the lockout was destined to happen. You heard about stuff for least 2 years that this was happening. Stuff I've heard from people is that there's a fairly good chance we're headed towards another one once the opt-out time is available.

But in dealing with your theory, Dirk probably does come in better shape, but it's hard to imagine he can keep the torrid pace he had over last season and especially the playoffs. I think some of Dirk's zeal took a hit over the year and the playoffs and he still finished All-NBA 3rd team and finished 8th in scoring. He was pretty damn good for an off year but people are using the playoffs as the new standard for him. He played out of his f'n mind during that stretch. It was the best version of Dirk you could almost hope for. It's awfully hard to expect that level for the course of a full year.

Odom might never even come here based on the fact there isn't a lockout. One of the reasons there was a lockout was the revenue sharing and the tax implications/hits. If those aren't in play, maybe the Lakers keep him another year, because Brown was looking forward to having him in the mix.

You're right, it is a gamble either way. The problem is if you stick with what you had and you fail, you're pretty stuck. You give yourself a hell of a lot more wiggle room and trap doors to work out of if you come close to failing in this scenario they are in now.

[GermanDunk]

I agree with Simmons here. A b2b championship i highly unprobable. It would have been better to stay with a willing - to - stay Tyson on the one hand. On the other $ is $. Tyson should have accepted less money and build a legacy instead of jumping on the NBA circus yet again. Tyson turns 30 this year.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

So, here's an exercise:

If the Nets were going to swing a trade for Dwight in time to convince Deron to stay, how would they do it?

Set aside how unlikely it is, and what not. How would they do it in a way that comports with CBA restrictions and doesn't brutally offend any notion of common sense?

The first thing they would try is spend some goodwill to convince Williams to wait.

That part is really not all that far fetched, I don't think, since players can't sign deals until seven days or so pass. Unless that has changed and I don't know about it.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

So Bill Simmons had an opinion on the Mavs' title defense. I ran with it. Here you go http://www.ballinwithbryan.com/analy...-bill-simmons/

Appreciate the thoughtful analysis, as always. But there are some things that may need to be reconciled.

On the one hand we have:

There is no disputing that Tyson had a huge influence on the 2011 roster due to his infectious personality. He quickly emerged as the new vocal, spiritual and emotional leader for the Mavericks, replacing Terry. If you’re able to replace your leader in one aspect, keep the incumbent and become better off for it, that will help in the end result

and:

Was Tyson Chandler the missing piece for the Mavericks? Yes, but that doesn’t automatically put him in position to be the second most important player. He was just the piece that put everything into place.

It's just...kinda weird. It's like saying on the one hand, "Man, he was everything we were lacking" and then saying on the other hand, "Well, he's certainly not the reason we did what we did."

I just can't figure it all out.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The first thing they would try is spend some goodwill to convince Williams to wait.

That part is really not all that far fetched, I don't think, since players can't sign deals until seven days or so pass. Unless that has changed and I don't know about it.

I could be wrong, but I think it's actually 10 days. They can start talking to teams on July 1, but if I understand it correctly, they can't sign until July 11.

Good post, in any event.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I could be wrong, but I think it's actually 10 days. They can start talking to teams on July 1, but if I understand it correctly, they can't sign until July 11.

Good post, in any event.

I think they shortened it, in this last CBA. For some reason seven days is popping into the mind.

It's neither here nor there, though. The idea is whether Williams would be willing to wait them out a while if they asked. If it were me in his shoes, I'd be out there on Day One doing my best. But then again, that's because I'd have no loyalty to Them.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

So Bill Simmons had an opinion on the Mavs' title defense. I ran with it. Here you go http://www.ballinwithbryan.com/analy...-bill-simmons/

I found this portion particularly compelling:

First of all, I’d love to see anyone compile a list of credible front offices that have been able to accomplish what he makes out to be as a simple task. Being able to convince a player that is primed to make a strong impact in the free agency market to take less money seems like something that isn’t truly the norm. After the Mavericks won their championship, Chandler established the fact that he wasn’t going to be able to do the Mavericks any favors.

...

So the fact that Tyson wasn’t going to take a discount made the only choice for Dallas to let him walk or essentially match the offer the New York Knicks gave him.



Correct me if I'm wrong, BG, but a major premise in your defense of the MBT's decision is that Chandler was unlikely to take a pay cut to remain with the Mavericks. If that is indeed your argument, then I must respectfully disagree. Given the fact that Chandler did indeed have a more lucrative offer on the table from the Warriors when he opted to play for the Knicks, Simmon's assertion that Chandler was likely to forego money in order to remain with the Mavericks is far from inconceivable and, imhmfo, likely.

Additionally, do you believe the arguments put forth by the likes of Orange Fisher and David Lord of Dallasbasketball.com, Zach Lowe of Sports Illustrated, and Jeff Caplan of BSPN that the MBT once planned to unite Dirk, Deron, and Dwight to form a trifecta? If that were fiscally possible, how was a triforce of Dirk, Tyson, and Deron the impossibility your words seem to suggest?

[mavs777]

It is 10 days after but plenty of FA announce their intentions before they can officially sign.

[grndmstr_c]

First off, from an espn article last June:

Chandler's response Tuesday when reminded that Dirk Nowitzki gave the Mavs a discount, delivered with a smile: "Dirk's got a lot more money than me."

Second, Tyson signed to play in the biggest media market in the United States. His contract with the Knicks might have been a little smaller than what GS offered him, but that doesn't mean he took a pay cut.

Third, and this is something that I really feel has gotten lost in all of this, when Dallas elected to pass on making a long-term offer to Tyson that would be competitive with the long-term offers other teams were making, the prevailing wisdom was that Dwight Howard would be a free agent this summer, and that for any team other than the Lakers to have a shot at either he or Deron, that team would need to have enough cap space to make offers to both of them. Dwight's situation obviously took a bizarre and unexpected turn, but that doesn't change the fact that at the time the decision was made, there was a very good reason to think that re-signing Tyson to a long-term deal would not only require Dallas to overpay for his services (and he is overpaid), but that it might also take them out of the running for both of this summer's presumed big free agent prizes.

Finally, regardless of everything else, the bottom line is that the Mavs did what they did to clear cap space. Acting like it's set in stone that they made the wrong decision because they didn't repeat when they haven't even gotten the chance to use the cap space that they angled for is just stupid.