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

[Scott McGuire]

Originally Posted by Underdog

So if a team could stretch Haywood's contract out over a decade to only owe $2M/season, and Odom can be bought-out for $2.4M, then hypothetically we could trade a package centered around Haywood/Odom (plus Roddy/DoJo/picks/cash or whatever else it would take) to get Dwight Howard, and Orlando could waive both players and save enough money to actually get back under the cap.

Not that it'll happen - I'm just finally remembering what this thread is all about, that's all...

I just read where DLord said that the stretch provision only changes when the money is given, but not when the cap hit happens.

This pretty much nullifies the entire article that was written. No one wants to trade for Haywood to then wave him without any cap benefit.

[grndmstr_c]

Interesting about Wood. I'm guessing that would hold under the amnesty clause, in which case you'd have to think that makes the option of cutting him loose to clear cap space a more palatable option than it would otherwise be for the Mavs (though I still think the only way they do it is if they feel like they have a concrete opportunity to make a high value investment in another player). Can't imagine any other team wanting to commit 2 mil per for more than a decade by waiving him this summer, but it does sound like something another team might feel was worth something in a couple years if the contractual provision generalizes in an straightforward way.

Edit: Just saw the clarification in post #2681, which would seem to support the notion that the spread provision in Haywood's contract is something that would be maximally valuable when paired up with the amnesty clause; i.e., it's probably worth more to the Mavs than it is to any potential trade partner.

[jthig32]

Sefko, as usual, gets a story half right and leads a ton of people astray in the process.

I am intrigued by _c's idea of combining this spread provision with the amnesty clause, but it still feels unlikely to me.

[Wang Zhi Zhi]

But wow, what a horrible provision from BHs perspective. This cuts the true economic value of his deal by at least half, if not more. Could be of value to someone who has cap space and wants to rent a decent center for a year and then save big (financially, not cap wise) by waiving him and spreading out those pmts. Portland? Pacers if they lose Hibbert? Bucks? Any other "decent" team with cap space and a center need?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Wang Zhi Zhi

But wow, what a horrible provision from BHs perspective. This cuts the true economic value of his deal by at least half, if not more. Could be of value to someone who has cap space and wants to rent a decent center for a year and then save big (financially, not cap wise) by waiving him and spreading out those pmts. Portland? Pacers if they lose Hibbert? Bucks? Any other "decent" team with cap space and a center need?

No one is going to acquire Haywood with the intention of cutting, or even playing him for a season and then cutting him. There's just no reason to tie up your cap like that.

This is a complete non-story, the possibility of amnestying him, which is still a big, big longshot, imo.

[Popeye]

Originally Posted by jthig32

No one is going to acquire Haywood with the intention of cutting, or even playing him for a season and then cutting him. There's just no reason to tie up your cap like that.

This is a complete non-story, the possibility of amnestying him, which is still a big, big longshot, imo.

Agree on the first point but not the second. I think amnestying Haywood is more likely than not. I definitely don't think it's a "big, big longshot".

[CaseyJones]

I'm worried that Haywood will be here next season. I mean, how did he last in Dallas this long?

[grndmstr_c]

I clearly have no reservations when it comes to speculating about the possibility that Haywood might get amnestied, but I agree with jthig 100% that it's not likely to happen. The simple fact of the matter is that the cost of amnestying Haywood - namely 27 million dollars plus the loss of your starting center - is enormous. Is it out of the question that he could get amnestied? No. The amnesty provision is a tool the Mavs have at their disposal, Wood is the only logical candidate for it's use at present, and in light of the recent revelations about Haywood's contract it would seem that the economics of the decision could be managed with some not inconsiderable flexibility. But you're kidding yourself if you think Cuban's going to absorb that kind of a financial hit just because Wood makes a million or two more per season than his play (or at least his playing time) warrants. On the contrary, if amnestying Haywood isn't a necessary step in the acquisition (through free agency or trade) of a highly desirable player on extremely friendly contractual terms, the Mavs won't even consider cutting him loose.

[Popeye]

Amnestying Haywood creates an additional $9mm in cap space, correct? Isn't that supposed to be the "holy grail" with the new CBA? That's what I've been told for the past year by Cuban and Donnie. If you support the front office decisions of last year, then you have to believe that the smart basketball decision is to amnesty Haywood in order to maximize your available cap space this off-season. I don't see how you can argue for one and against the other.

[Bayliss]

Haywood is only a starter in name only. He averaged 21 MPG last year. That is only 3 more minutes per game than he averaged the year Chandler was here.

And he only averaged 15 MPG against the Thunder.

Haywood probably will not get amnestied. But it aint because he is the Mavs starting center.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by Popeye

Amnestying Haywood creates an additional $9mm in cap space, correct? Isn't that supposed to be the "holy grail" with the new CBA? That's what I've been told for the past year by Cuban and Donnie. If you support the front office decisions of last year, then you have to believe that the smart basketball decision is to amnesty Haywood in order to maximize your available cap space this off-season. I don't see how you can argue for one and against the other.

I'm sorry, but that's just grossly invalid. Two points are critical:

1) The way you handle a free agent is not a template for the way you handle a player who's already under contract for three more years.

2) Why in the world Dallas would want to fire their only amnesty bullet, take a 27 million dollar hit to their financial gonads, and rob themselves of their current starting center for the sake of cap space alone?

And just in case you're sitting there defiantly thinking to yourself, "but they let Tyson go for the sake of cap space alone", read (1) again, because you clearly missed the point the first time around.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Popeye

Amnestying Haywood creates an additional $9mm in cap space, correct? Isn't that supposed to be the "holy grail" with the new CBA? That's what I've been told for the past year by Cuban and Donnie. If you support the front office decisions of last year, then you have to believe that the smart basketball decision is to amnesty Haywood in order to maximize your available cap space this off-season. I don't see how you can argue for one and against the other.

This is just a baffling point. You don't amnesty Haywood unless you have a valid reason to. They'll have a week to negotiate with free agents and figure out where they stand before making the amnesty decision. And if they don't have a better use for the space, it's not a use it or lose it situation; they can always come back and amnesty him next year if they have a use for the cap space then.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Bayliss

Haywood probably will not get amnestied. But it aint because he is the Mavs starting center.

But it will be because he's their only center, at least at this point.

[Popeye]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

I'm sorry, but that's just grossly invalid. Two points are critical:

1) The way you handle a free agent is not a template for the way you handle a player who's already under contract for three more years.

2) Why in the world Dallas would want to fire their only amnesty bullet, take a 27 million dollar hit to their financial gonads, and rob themselves of their current starting center for the sake of cap space alone?

And just in case you're sitting there defiantly thinking to yourself, "but they let Tyson go for the sake of cap space alone", read (1) again, because you clearly missed the point the first time around.

So it's an extreme long-shot that we'll amnesty Haywood because it's unlikely we'll find a better free agent to spend that $9mm/year salary on, but it was a smart move to get rid of Tyson. Makes perfect sense.

I guess I understand the "wait and see" approach, but if it turns out that we can't amnesty Haywood and get a good player in return then I think the front office grossly miscalculated. I don't think that's the case btw. I think Haywood is gone.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Popeye

So it's an extreme long-shot that we'll amnesty Haywood because it's unlikely we'll find a better free agent to spend that $9mm/year salary on, but it was a smart move to get rid of Tyson. Makes perfect sense.

I guess I understand the "wait and see" approach, but if it turns out that we can't amnesty Haywood and get a good player in return then I think the front office grossly miscalculated. I don't think that's the case btw. I think Haywood is gone.

It's not that the free agent has to be better than Haywood, it's that he has to be better ENOUGH to justify paying Haywood AND that free agent.

IMO, the number of centers that meet that criteria is VERY small, although the news of the spread provision in Haywood's contract should help a little.

Bottom line..imo, the Mavs will be looking to add a center TO Haywood, not get rid of Haywood and have to re-fill the roster of centers. You pretty much need two starting caliber centers in today's NBA unless you have one of the hosses that can play 35+ minutes a game for an entire season and playoffs (note that Tyson played under 30 minutes a game here and there were plenty of match ups where Haywood was greatly needed.)

Maybe the Mavs think Ian can take the next step, and they chop off Haywood to go sign someone. That's wouldn't shock anyone. But this idea that getting rid of Haywood is a foregone conclusion is completely false, imo. Paying a rotation-caliber player to play somewhere else is generally not good business.

[Popeye]

Originally Posted by jthig32

It's not that the free agent has to be better than Haywood, it's that he has to be better ENOUGH to justify paying Haywood AND that free agent.

Fair enough. There's definitely some financial reasons to keep Haywood and I understand that. But I think the correct basketball move would be to amnesty him. Do you agree?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Popeye

Fair enough. There's definitely some financial reasons to keep Haywood and I understand that. But I think the correct basketball move would be to amnesty him. Do you agree?

No, not unless there's a viable replacement available. Haywood is still a rotation-level center that has value to this team. He's not the player that we saw during the four game playoff sample a month ago.

[EricaLubarsky]

I want Haywood gone

and by that I mean I want him traded for a better player with a smaller salary and more contract options.

and by that I mean I'm crazy

[Popeye]

Well, I guess I just disagree about Haywood's value. I don't think he's a very good basketball player based on the 70 games I watched last year. My opinion is, for a team that's limited to the salary cap, it's going to be extremely difficult to put together a championship team with him taking up $9mm of that cap space.

My prediction is that he's gone this year, but I guess we'll know soon enough.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

I want Haywood gone

and by that I mean I want him traded for a better player with a smaller salary and more contract options.

and by that I mean I'm crazy

Finally, a post that makes sense...

[jthig32]

Just for the record, Haywood's making 8.3Mil next year.

Carry on.

[mavs777]

There are plenty of centers you can get in a trade/free agency that are better than haywood, haywood was just dreadful and useless after his initial injury. Not to meantion you can't pay the max with the cap holds + dirk+marion+haywood.

[|_Jeff_|]

Originally Posted by mavs777

There are plenty of centers you can get in a trade/free agency that are better than haywood, haywood was just dreadful and useless after his initial injury. Not to meantion you can't pay the max with the cap holds + dirk+marion+haywood.

That's what some people don't understand. For the Mavs to sign DWill they MUST amnesty Haywood.

Dirk+DWill+Trix+Haywood+Cap Holds exceeds the cap, can't do it unless the cap increases to ~ $61M.

[rabbitproof]

Didn't the Mavs use the previous amnesty on Finley? Wasn't he owed more than Haywood is owed? Isn't cap space more valuable now than it was then? There also wasn't a stretch clause then.

Plus, isn't some of the tab picked up by whatever team signs Haywood for?

I wouldn't say it's clear gone conclusion in either direction but Haywood being amnestied makes a lot of sense and is something that's more in the 30-60% happening range.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Didn't the Mavs use the previous amnesty on Finley? Wasn't he owed more than Haywood is owed? Isn't cap space more valuable now than it was then? There also wasn't a stretch clause then.

Plus, isn't some of the tab picked up by whatever team signs Haywood for?

I wouldn't say it's clear gone conclusion in either direction but Haywood being amnestied makes a lot of sense and is something that's more in the 30-60% happening range.

I thought the same thing, in response to some post above about amnestying a "rotation player." I think the precedent is there.

And for the record, I think Finley also had a stretch clause.

[grndmstr_c]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Didn't the Mavs use the previous amnesty on Finley? Wasn't he owed more than Haywood is owed? Isn't cap space more valuable now than it was then? There also wasn't a stretch clause then.

Plus, isn't some of the tab picked up by whatever team signs Haywood for?

I wouldn't say it's clear gone conclusion in either direction but Haywood being amnestied makes a lot of sense and is something that's more in the 30-60% happening range.

Fin was amnestied, but in that situation amnestying him saved the Mavs a ton of money since they were living way over the tax threshold at that time and were able to avoid guaranteed annual dollar for dollar (I think) tax penalties by cutting him loose. Also, that version of the amnesty clause was of the use it or lose it sort, so they didn't have the luxury of waiting until an ideal replacement was found like the Mavs do now.

[BGMaverick9]

The only way someone would pick up the tab on Haywood's deal if he's amnestied is if someone claims him off waivers. At that point, whatever bid was put in for Haywood would be deducted from the Mavs' remained funds owed to Haywood. I believe if no one claims him, he becomes a free agent and the Mavs are still on the hook for the funds. Again, if I'm correct, Gilbert Arenas would be a good example: Orlando used the amnesty provision on him but no one claimed him. Memphis signed him late in the season for whatever figure they wanted to go with.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

Fin was amnestied, but in that situation amnestying him saved the Mavs a ton of money since they were living way over the tax threshold at that time and were able to avoid guaranteed annual dollar for dollar (I think) tax penalties by cutting him loose. Also, that version of the amnesty clause was of the use it or lose it sort, so they didn't have the luxury of waiting until an ideal replacement was found like the Mavs do now.

If last time they did it without even that luxury, why would one believe that they are less likely to do it this time, when they do have the luxury?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by |_Jeff_|

That's what some people don't understand. For the Mavs to sign DWill they MUST amnesty Haywood.

Dirk+DWill+Trix+Haywood+Cap Holds exceeds the cap, can't do it unless the cap increases to ~ $61M.

*sigh*

So the only way for the Mavs to reduce their salary is to amnesty someone? Are they somehow not allowed to make trades that reduce their salary?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If last time they did it without even that luxury, why would one believe that they are less likely to do it this time, when they do have the luxury?

Because that luxury allows them to put the clause in their back pocket and use it next year, or the year after that.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Didn't the Mavs use the previous amnesty on Finley? Wasn't he owed more than Haywood is owed? Isn't cap space more valuable now than it was then? There also wasn't a stretch clause then,.

If amnestying Haywood would save the Mavs over 50Mil, as it did with Fin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be a foregone conclusion.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Because that luxury allows them to put the clause in their back pocket and use it next year, or the year after that.

But if you want it off your cap, you might want it off your cap like now.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

If amnestying Haywood would save the Mavs over 50Mil, as it did with Fin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be a foregone conclusion.

..

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by jthig32

No, not unless there's a viable replacement available. Haywood is still a rotation-level center that has value to this team. He's not the player that we saw during the four game playoff sample a month ago.

Ok, I can now safely ignore anything you say LOL. He unfortunately IS the center we saw in the playoffs. Unless someone was wearing a Haywood mask? That's like saying Odom wasn't the guy we saw this year either. Haywood looked about the same last year, we just had a better center paired with him that covered up for the fact that Haywood isn't all that great. He's an inconsistent rotation guy we overpaid for. He's not Dampier bad, but he's darn close. He has moments of WOW followed by complete disaster. There are times when I see him literally look over at the bench for help when they pass him the ball down low on offense.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by ibivibiv

That's like saying Odom wasn't the guy we saw this year either.

I would say that's a huge possibility...

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by ibivibiv

Ok, I can now safely ignore anything you say LOL. He unfortunately IS the center we saw in the playoffs. Unless someone was wearing a Haywood mask? That's like saying Odom wasn't the guy we saw this year either. Haywood looked about the same last year, we just had a better center paired with him that covered up for the fact that Haywood isn't all that great. He's an inconsistent rotation guy we overpaid for. He's not Dampier bad, but he's darn close. He has moments of WOW followed by complete disaster. There are times when I see him literally look over at the bench for help when they pass him the ball down low on offense.

Haywood absolutely did NOT look the same as he did in last year's playoff run. No on that paid any attention to their 2011 run could seriously say that.

[dude1394]

Damn chandler even made Haywood better!

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

I would say that's a huge possibility...

Missed the point. A player is who they are now... not who they could be, not who they might be etc. We traded for the 6th man of the year. We GOT a lazy prima donna who just wanted to play Dorothy, click his heals and go home.

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Damn chandler even made Haywood better!

Come on now, you know what I mean. We had an OPTION to go to when Haywood had his "Haywood moments". This year we had Ian who isn't bad but really can't be trusted either. At least Chandler started most times and when you put in Haywood, if he was acting goofy you could just swap him back out.

[ibivibiv]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Haywood absolutely did NOT look the same as he did in last year's playoff run. No on that paid any attention to their 2011 run could seriously say that.

Wrong, he was exactly the same player. He was just the second option last year. This year we had to count on him and we didn't have a great second option for when he started to check out on us. I plainly said the guy has "Wow" moments. The problem is that he follows them up with "Oh shit what was that?" as well. He has that Josh Howard factor where you marvel at him sometimes and then cringe 10 minutes later. Last year we had an option to swap out to when he started having issues. That was the only difference.