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

[DLord]

http://www.dallasbasketball.com/fullColumn.php?id=1361

The Mavs’ Yen For ‘10
Part 1: The Public Gameplan That Cannot Work
By David Lord -- DB.com

The Mavs have openly and publicly discussed bits and pieces of an apparent gameplan to benefit from The Summer of 2010. When we assemble those bits and pieces, the gameplan seems to come together thusly: Allow most of their contracts to expire to create cap room, sign a free agent superstar to play alongside Dirk-and-company, and then sail into the future buoyed by that added talent.

There are some problems with all this. Problems of rules, logic and finance. So instead, I assume the Mavs have a real gameplan, a non-public gameplan … a “secret’’ gameplan, if you will, that makes sense.

Read on for Part 1 of “The Mavs’ Yen For ’10: The Public Gameplan That Cannot Work.’’ (On Monday, Part 2: “The Mavs’ Yen For ’10: Building A Better Blueprint.’’)

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE PUBLIC 2010 GAMEPLAN

Without going into too much nitpicking detail, the fact is that the Mavs' 2010 on-the-record media statements have regularly been littered with airy pronouncements full of rosy misdirection and fanciful non-reality. I’ll work on the assumption, of course, that given their intellect, work ethic, commitment and creativity, the Triangle of Trust knows the rules -- and knows that some of the things its members have said to the media about the future are (to put it nicely) “generalizations’’ ... and not “misinformation.’’

Because here’s the thing: Some of the quotes that have come out regarding 2010 are nonsensical. The statements simply ignore existing commitments the team will have to honor, fail to provide a logical explanation of how they can keep a contending roster intact in the interim without impinging on 2010, and make the incorrect claim that in 2010 they can honor their existing contracts that extend beyond that point, go out and sign that superstar free agent, and then come back and freely add on their players whose contracts have run out.

That is not realistic. That does not comply with the rules.

There's an additional issue. Because of the economy, NBA revenues have been falling, and as a result the league is anticipating a salary cap that will stay the same or may even go down from now to 2010. That will make it even harder to fit all those pieces onto one roster. At this point, if the Mavs keep allowing us to believe they honestly think they have a 2010 plan to add a superstar to their talent core of Dirk, Kidd, Jet, and so on (like GM Donnie Nelson did this week after the trade deadline) … well, it just doesn't add up – not using real-world NBA math.

HOW THE CURRENT PUBLIC 2010 PLAN LOOKS

Let's break it down.

We'll assume a cap that stays level for the next two years (which might be optimistic) at $58M. We'll assume they don't add anyone in the interim with a contract past that point. And we'll have them waive Dampier's last season (not guaranteed) and decline their team options on J-Ho and Barea. Dirk opts out with an eager desire to stay in Dallas. The contracts of Wright and the other members of the roster all expire. We'll have them keep Kidd and Bass (and maybe others) on one-year deals this summer, which will also expire by then.

What they have left is Jason Terry, Matt Carroll, their No. 1 pick in 2009, lots of empty roster slots, and a cap total of about $16M.

Next, Cuban and Donnie and Rick go out and -- with an existing roster of Jet/Carroll/2009 draftee -- they attract and sign LeBron. Or Wade. Or Bosh. Come to Dallas, enjoy the weather and the no-state-tax and play for titles! (An easy sell, yes? No? Just play along, OK?) That major-coup signing puts the Mavs at about $34M, with $24M left to spend.

At this point, can they spend the $24M on more outside talent and then go back and freely resign their own players whose contracts ran out?

Nope.

If they are using cap room to sign other teams' free agents, they lose Bird Rights to go over the cap to sign their own. That means once they sign that superstar and have $24M left, they'd have to do ALL of the following within that remaining limit:

· Re-sign Dirk

· Re-sign Kidd

· Get a quality center or re-sign Dampier

· Re-sign or replace J-Ho and Bass and Wright

· Add enough role players to be competitive

Maybe they try to entice Dirk and Kidd to play for massively discounted one-year deals in a quest for a title (by hinting at but not promising a max deal to follow in 2011, in order to stay within the rules). Say for example Dirk takes only $12M and Kidd $8M, which are probably pie-in-the-sky assumptions. That leaves them with the following result:

· C - none (a key vacancy, given Dirk's style)

· PF - Dirk

· SF - Wade or LeBron or Bosh

· SG - Jet, Carroll

· PG - Kidd

· backup – No. 1 pick in 2009

· $4M in cap room to fill seven roster slots

How far will that remaining $4M go? Not far. With that little, they can't even afford to pay for seven veterans on minimum-salary deals! The best they could do would be to get two veterans at the minimum, and the rest would have to be rookie free agents.

No center, no J-Ho, no Bass, no Barea, no Wright, no bench. Is that thin-as-nail-soup roster -- made possible only by a plan that is fantasy-like in almost every point of its execution - a scenario that would entice a LeBron, Wade, or Bosh? Or even Dirk?

In addition, even if you love the above six-man roster list, if you need a few more million to sign Dirk/Kidd, or the cap is a few million smaller, assembling just that skeleton crew becomes impossible. Those last seven roster slots -- if all spent on minimum salary rookies -- will cost about $2.5M, and you have to set money aside for those slots before you sign the free agent, before you sign Dirk, and before you sign Kidd. Move the cap down to $55M from $58M, and now you can't fit Dirk at $12M and Kidd at $8M. Keep the cap at $58M but move the total needed for Dirk up to $15M or to $11M for Kidd, and again it can't be done. And as you are squeezing to make it all fit, you still are ending up with more than half your roster (7 of 13) manned by rookie scrubs or minimum salary fill-ins. Some of those have to be in your regular rotation. One injury here or there and you're relying on D-leaguers to do some heavy-lifting.

If the cap was rising significantly instead of falling, then the current 2010 blueprint looks way more possible. For example if the cap was $65M, then you'd have $11M to fill out that roster and could get another contributor or two (especially a center) and perhaps some usable role players. But no one expects a $65M cap for 2010 anymore.

Therefore. …

The announced bits and pieces of a Mavs’ 2010 gameplan do not come together in a logical manner. That “gameplan’’ cannot be the gameplan. Therefore, I assume the Mavs are like that swimming duck: above the water’s surface, calm and in control (and speaking confidently but vaguely in press conferences). But below the water’s surface? They are doing something completely different, paddling furiously, working to execute a gameplan that they haven’t allowed the public to see. (And that, by the way, they have no obligation to reveal, to us or to the rest of the league.)

And what could that “Yen For ‘10’’ gameplan be?

On Monday comes Part 2, “The Mavs’ Yen For ’10: Building A Better Blueprint.’’ http://www.dallasbasketball.com/home_display.php

[jthig32]

You've been bringing great stuff this week, DLord. Keep it up. I look forward to part two.

[Underdog]

I'm dying to read Part 2 - Part 1 seemed kinda obvious to me back when everyone first started talking about 2010 (but thanks for clearing up the details - it's actually worse than I thought...)

[DirkFTW]

Ohh, now I feel worse!

[dissentkid]

very interesting (and disturbing) read! props DLord!!

[SMC0007]

Well we better figure out whats gonna happen that far ahead immediately so the disappointment to come when it doesn't pan out can be noted sooner than later.

[Lestat_1795]

Originally Posted by DLord

http://www.dallasbasketball.com/fullColumn.php?id=1361

Say for example Dirk takes only $12M and Kidd $8M, which are probably pie-in-the-sky assumptions.

On Monday comes Part 2, “The Mavs’ Yen For ’10: Building A Better Blueprint.’’ http://www.dallasbasketball.com/home_display.php

I think they hope to sign Dirk and Kidd for the Vet Minimum.
It's the only way to have cap space for a max deal free agent.

[MX425]

MAYBE THE TRICK IS TO STEAL ONE OF THESE PLAYERS BEFORE THEY BOLT. iF CLEVELAND, MIAMI, ATLANTA, TORONTO FEEL AS IF THEY ARE GOING OT LOSE THAT STAR, DO WE MAKE A TRADE WITH OUR EXPIRIING GARBAGE TO GET THE PLAYER OF 10 IN 09

sorry for the all caps. forgot the lock was on and am to lazy to retype it all

[Windmill360]

Originally Posted by MX425

MAYBE THE TRICK IS TO STEAL ONE OF THESE PLAYERS BEFORE THEY BOLT. iF CLEVELAND, MIAMI, ATLANTA, TORONTO FEEL AS IF THEY ARE GOING OT LOSE THAT STAR, DO WE MAKE A TRADE WITH OUR EXPIRIING GARBAGE TO GET THE PLAYER OF 10 IN 09

sorry for the all caps. forgot the lock was on and am to lazy to retype it all

The only chance of that happening MIGHT be this summer with Bosh.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by Windmill360

The only chance of that happening MIGHT be this summer with Bosh.

Bosh is great but isn't his skill set a little close to Dirk's?

[Dirkenstien]

With all of the teams limping around out there it seems silly to be thinking about free agency after next season when we should have been doing all we can to take advantage of the situation now.


Also, what no one has really addressed so far is why we just assume Kidd will resign with Dallas this off season? Unless we win a championship this season why would Kidd not consider his options out there? If Kidd really wants to win a championship then what's stopping him from joining Boston or LA this offseason?

[SMC0007]

Originally Posted by Dirkenstien

With all of the teams limping around out there it seems silly to be thinking about free agency after next season when we should have been doing all we can to take advantage of the situation now.


Also, what no one has really addressed so far is why we just assume Kidd will resign with Dallas this off season? Unless we win a championship this season why would Kidd not consider his options out there? If Kidd really wants to win a championship then what's stopping him from joining Boston or LA this offseason?

He likes it here.. has been reported. But you are right, I think it's too early to be worrying about that far ahead. Are we hurting that much for news/speculation? IS there nothing else to preoccupy us? Please go on a nice win streak Mavs.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Dirkenstien

With all of the teams limping around out there it seems silly to be thinking about free agency after next season when we should have been doing all we can to take advantage of the situation now.


Also, what no one has really addressed so far is why we just assume Kidd will resign with Dallas this off season? Unless we win a championship this season why would Kidd not consider his options out there? If Kidd really wants to win a championship then what's stopping him from joining Boston or LA this offseason?

If the FO can't re-sign Kidd then the lack of moves this year become magnified. Mavs trade Devin...fail to make any roster improvements to go with Kidd and Dirk... then they lose Kidd for nothing....Wow! Oh well, maybe Donnie will give Stack a new three year contract!

[Dirkenstien]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

If the FO can't re-sign Kidd then the lack of moves this year become magnified. Mavs trade Devin...fail to make any roster improvements to go with Kidd and Dirk... then they lose Kidd for nothing....Wow! Oh well, maybe Donnie will give Stack a new three year contract!

That's what I'm saying. It will be an absolute travesty if Kidd walks and it's a very real possibility that many people are ignoring. When Nash left we were lucky we had Devin Harris to fall back on. What do we fall back on if Kidd leaves?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Dirkenstien

That's what I'm saying. It will be an absolute travesty if Kidd walks and it's a very real possibility that many people are ignoring. When Nash left we were lucky we had Devin Harris to fall back on. What do we fall back on if Kidd leaves?

JJB? JET?

This is why the lack of moves really alarms me. Tick.. tick... tick.. is the sound of Dirk's opportunity clock winding down and the FO keeps saying in essence "be patient we're looking for the right deal". Earn your money Donnie, time is running out.

[eyedentifyme]

-

[DLord]

Originally Posted by eyedentifyme

What DLord missed out on is Dirk and Kidd signing multi-year extensions with their pays in the year 2010-11 being 1 million, and years after that being 10 or more million, so that year they can sign multiple big name free agents and sign their own players.

It's called the money being backloaded in later years..

Nope, it's called "against the rules." ;-)

The NBA has a limit on raises to prevent exactly this type of cap avoidance. If a player is on a multi-year deal paying him $1M in 2010 to open up cap space, the most he can get on that deal the next year is $1.105M, the following year $1.21M, the following year $1.315M, and so on. And with a new CBA and new salary limits and rules looming in 2011, I suspect each player is going to be in some sort of "show me the money" mode.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by eyedentifyme

What DLord missed out on is Dirk and Kidd signing multi-year extensions with their pays in the year 2010-11 being 1 million, and years after that being 10 or more million, so that year they can sign multiple big name free agents and sign their own players. It's called the money being backloaded in later years. We can even bring back Josh. Green/Williams/Singleton/George/Wright haven't proved they're worth more than 2 million a year. Bass isn't worth more than 4 million a year, he's a defensive liability. Barea isn't worth more than 2 million a year.

It takes a special kind of person to write something like this as if he knows anything about the NBA salary cap rules, when in fact he's incredibly ignorant on the subject.

[BGMaverick9]

I'm interested to see part 2.

I think Stack and our #1 in 09 could really lead to something substantial if they really wanted to go that route. I guess it depends on the main course of action they're planning to take, but that was one of my bigger ideas I thought about.

[Underdog]

I don't know if this has been posted anywhere yet, but STFU and read it again if it has...

The Mavs' Post-Deadline Landscape
A 12-Point Appraisal Of Dallas' Assets, Non-Moves And Next Moves
By David Lord -- DB.com


The Mavs made no moves on Deadline Day. Where does that leave the organization as it makes decisions going forward? Here's a point-by-point appraisal of the ensuing landscape in MavsWorld.

1. Right off the top, let's be brutally honest here. While we think this team could get a break here, could respond to Kidd's leadership there, could look unexpectedly strong when they all get healthy, could develop some depth while JET is hurt, and could see other teams could fall back via injury or other problems and so on, the more candid statement is that as they came to the trade deadline they were more than "one small upgrade" from winning a title. They would have needed a homerun of a trade at the deadline, and nothing less. Would an addition of Salmons or Miller or the like have qualified as a homerun, a Gasol-like deal, or have moved them considerably up the ladder? No way.

So while I'm disappointed that there wasn't a homerun, I'm not bothered that they didn't use up assets that could yield a homerun in the summer just to do something minor or to make a lateral move for this season. "A move any move, just do something" wasn't enough for me. And for those who might look at the lack of a move and question whether the Mavs really are committed to win a title, the unwillingness to spend everything on something minor does NOT indicate anything of the sort. You can't swing for the fences without the needed assets. They swung, they missed, but they kept what was needed to allow them to swing again later. That's a plus, not a minus.

2. After the deadline passed, Donnie Nelson gave out the typical non-move mantra: ""We like our boys in blue, and we're going to war with 'em." My reaction? As a fan hoping for packages to unwrap on Christmas morn, kinda threw up in my mouth when I heard it. For a fan, it's trite. Predictable. Unsatisfying. While we understand their need to pat the existing roster on the head here and there and claim ”Golly gee oh wow they are our favorite players in the whole wide world!’’ … I wouldn't mind a more frank exchange between management and fans in which we all admit, “We know this team isn't as good as we want it to be, we hope you know it, too, and we all are in this together to make it better.’’

3. For all the apocalyptical warnings that multiple teams are in severe trouble financially due to the economy, only one (Sacramento) actually was active in shedding 2009-10 payroll. Is the crisis overstated? Does one even exist? You have to think the clouds are ominous, but if they are real, they were mostly ignored. That's not our fault or the Mavs fault; the others are teams making choices they consider to be in their best interest, and they are free to act rashly if they wish. But if we are right, sooner or later they'll be paying the piper.

4. Of the teams that were thought to be in prime position to make a big score in the trade market, Dallas and perhaps Chicago were the only ones who are moving forward in better position than they started.
Dallas: When the season is over, the place to shop for immediate salary savings will be Dallas with Stackhouse's instant payroll/cap reducer. They also will be able to combine Matt Carroll's shrinking contract to make an even bigger deal, an asset the rules didn't allow them to include in a multi-player package this time around. (We'll expand on the details below.)
Chicago: They used up their expiring assets, and while they didn't hit a homerun, they at least came out somewhat ahead talent-wise than they started. I'm not sure how much better they'll be and how those players will fit, but on paper you'd think they're somehow better.

5. How about Kidd's expiring contract? Didn't that go to waste? For those who believe Kidd has to be on this team for it to go anywhere, that was never an option. We think he'll be resigned this summer to a 2010-friendly deal. But even if he isn't, then they will still have a shot to yield something valuable in return in a sign-and-trade. (Side note, and back to the recurring NBA theme these days: this summer, will anyone even have money/desire to pay him big enough dollars to lure him from the Mavs?)

6. That having been said, if big expiring contracts were being offered and they were NOT yielding big talents (and the absolute fact is, not a single All-Star-caliber player changed teams), how much could the Mavs have netted even if they had been offering Kidd?

7. Let's look closer at those "great salary-reducing expiring contracts" out there that were being shopped to find a difference maker. How did that work out? The end result is none of them yielded much of anything. LaFrentz's $13M contract? It will expire unused. Wally Z's $13M one? It will expire unused. (Marc Stein said on local radio this afternoon that Cleveland could have had Shaq if they would have included Wally in the offer, and said no.) Iverson ($21M) and Rasheed ($14M)? They will expire unused. What happened to all those Gasol-like deals we thought might be coming? There wasn't a single one. If you as a Mavs fan are disappointed while the Mavs move forward with their ammo still intact, how would you be feeling in Portland or Cleveland right now as those assets just went in the dumper?

There were a ton of minor deals that moved secondary players for minor cap room or tax savings or future payroll reduction. But that was about it.

8. We thought when push came to shove, big money issues would trump competitive barriers, and boy did we whiff on that one. Shaq to Dallas? We are confident the Mavs poked around, but Donnie indicates the Suns weren't interested, primarily due to the fact that the Mavs are a Western Conference rival. How about Chandler, after his trade to OKC was cancelled? The Mavs tried to deal there as well, and the Hornets weren't interested in letting him go to a contending division foe despite their nasty financial issues. With all of our calls for the Mavs to make a great trade, we can't forget that it takes two to tango.

While we're on that topic, let's note how stupid we think that taboo is, where you pass up the best trade in order to keep from sending talent to someone you see as a competitor. Sometimes that policy helps, but it can just as easily backfire. I'm convinced one of the reasons Dallas didn't match the Nash contract offer from Phoenix in 2005 was that the Mavs figured Nash was going to a team that wouldn't be that good. Boy, did that go wrong, as the Suns became a major rival instead. In recent years Phoenix has repeatedly dumped assets on the non-threatening Blazers -- and now have been passed by them in the standings due to that talent. Phoenix sent a draft-pick giveaway to downtrodden the Celtics -- who are thriving in part because the pick became young emerging talent Rondo.

9. What's next? There may be some veterans released and available to sign for the stretch. These players always seem to sign for the minimum due to tax and rules issues, so every team can try to recruit them. That release window is from now until March 1, if you want to have a player that can be used in the playoffs. Mikki Moore (who we liked as a trade target partly because of his ability to be a backup center contributor and just as much for his contract that's like Stack's) is reportedly being bought out by the Kings and might be a feasible target (however, that advantageous contract would no longer come with him). Joe Smith - returned from NO to OKC when the Chandler deal got scrubbed - might even be a better choice if he's released. If the Mavs get a player like this, they would have to release someone from the end of the bench, but we'd be in favor of either of those if available. How about Stephon Marbury, if he's released? Cuban likes him, but I'd pass on the idea.

10. Summer trade issues? Once the season (including playoffs) is over, Stackhouse's contract can be traded and with the 25% cushion they can instantly erase as much as $7.1M off of another team's cap and payroll for 2009-10. But you'd want to do something by Aug 9, because the contract picks up additional guarantees (reducing its attractiveness) on August 10. In addition, after this season is over Carroll's shrinking contract would also be able to be packaged.

How much financial impact (and trade value) could that kind of player package provide? It could be huge. Used together, if done before June 30 (and therefore using 2008-09 numbers), the Mavs could accept a 2008-09 contract or package as big as $15.1M (which with a max raise on it could be as much as $16.685M in 2009-10) while sending back $6.7M in 2009-10 payroll. That's potentially $10M in INSTANT CAP/PAYROLL SAVINGS they can offer to a financially strapped team around draft time when trade lines are active. (If done after July 1, the ceiling is a tad smaller but still incredibly attractive - the max 2009-10 contract would be $15.0375M and the max savings for the other team would be $8.3375M on a perfectly sized deal.) And more importantly, at that time no one else will have similar savings to offer a team desperate for financial relief.

11. So will there be a homerun available in that summer trade window? I'd think so. But my optimism is tempered by the fact that there were teams with similar savings to offer this week (particularly Portland, Cleveland, and maybe Detroit), and none of them were able to hit that homerun I'm hoping for.

Season ticket sales for next season start heating up in the spring. If they lag, maybe that will light a major fire under someone's behind.

12. One caveat: In order to cash in that Stack trade chip, the Mavs might have to accept back a longer term deal that intrudes on their 2010 blueprint. For the right player in a Gasol-like deal, will they change course? While it's been overlooked, they've repeatedly said they will. Let's hope they mean it. What if all they can get is something short of Gasol-like? In that case, for $10M in savings, they should still be able to get a player who will help them in 2009-10 and then expire.

[bobatundi]

Originally Posted by jthig32

It takes a special kind of person to write something like this as if he knows anything about the NBA salary cap rules, when in fact he's incredibly ignorant on the subject.

special like the olympics

[SMC0007]

It's called "THE MONEY BEING BACKLOADED IN LATER YEARS"

Surprised you guys didn't know this, rule book page 411 section 1.b

[eyedentifyme]

Thanks for the info DLord. And yes, I got pwned. I do apologize for being ignorant on the subject.

[bobatundi]

My plan for the offseason:

Let's assume the Clippers are going to remain horrible, so they resort to their old tactics--being horrible with a small payroll. We help them achieve that by trading them Stackhouse, Williams and our #1 for Kaman. They do it to dump long-term, large salary commitment to Kaman.

Step 2, full MLE for 5 years offered to Ron Artest.

Step 3, resign Kidd, Bass

Lineup:

Kidd/Barea/Terry
Howard/Wright/Terry
Artest/Singleton
Dirk/Bass
Kaman/Damp

That team wins a ring in 2009-2010.

[TheMaverick]

We really don't like draft picks in the city of Dallas, do we

[eyedentifyme]

I second what boba said. Sean Singletary may also be available if Charlotte doesn't pick up his option since they already have Felton and Augustin. Also convince Wizards to dump salary by giving us Butler while we give them Gerald Green and Josh Howard (convince the Wizards management that J-Ho's disappearing act in 4th quarter all along is because of his lack of shot attempts in the 4th).

Lineup:

Kidd/Barea/Singletary
Butler/Wright/Terry
Artest/Singleton
Dirk/Bass
Kaman/Damp

[ghazi]

If Im not mistaken dont Howard and Stack gain a lot of trading value this offseason?

Howard/Stack and the 2009 #1 if need be, along with perhaps Carroll / Williams as fillers can be nice trading chips this summer. Maybe we should gun for the 2009-2010 season instead of beyond that... who knows how much Kidd/Dirk have in 2010-2011 anyway (assuming we even resign Kidd).

[Louis]

Originally Posted by ghazi

If Im not mistaken dont Howard and Stack gain a lot of trading value this offseason?

Howard/Stack and the 2009 #1 if need be, along with perhaps Carroll / Williams as fillers can be nice trading chips this summer. Maybe we should gun for the 2009-2010 season instead of beyond that... who knows how much Kidd/Dirk have in 2010-2011 anyway (assuming we even resign Kidd).

we don't have so many contracts as other teams do that expire in 10, they have beening acting for 10 plan since lebron and wade signed their max contract, obviously our team is left far behind. instead, we will not be hunter but gray then, as Dirk will also become a free agent and will probably be targeted by many teams. Dampier's garbage contract will expire one season later than 09-10, though he has player option in 10. who thinks he'll opt out his contract? the dollars his current contract brings him one year are more considerable than all he will earn after it expires. George is a bad guy but isn't as poisonous than dampier, george's contract is not as huge as dampier's at least.

[DLord]

"Dampier's garbage contract will expire one season later than 09-10, though he has player option in 10. who thinks he'll opt out his contract?"

Dampier does NOT have a player option. In fact there's not an option of any kind, it's a contract already in place through 2011. But the 2010-11 year is non-guaranteed (not a penny).

For more details, Part 2 of the article (coming Mon.) contains a couple of paragraphs on Dampier's contract and some of the advantageous ways it can be used at that time.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by mac222b

Bosh is great but isn't his skill set a little close to Dirk's?

If you have a Dirk and a Bosh, you're pretty ok with them having similar skillsets.. They're two unselfish superstars.. They would co-exist fine...and both would make it a little easier for the other to do what they do best..and to do some of the things that they don't do best as well.

[BGMaverick9]

Am I way out of line to suggest DLord is kind of a big deal and he's shown a great deal of intelligence and him being a GM in the future isn't that far out of the realm of possibilities?

[alby]

Yes you are.

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by alby

Yes you are.

Boo

[DLord]

BG I'm flattered by your receptiveness to my ideas, but I imagine that the actual GM-ing is done on a way higher plane than anything I write. That is to say, I think I'm writing elementary school level stuff in this field (a good logical grasp of basic possibilities) while they are operating at graduate school level.

But if that's not so, have some team call me, I'm available for hire !! :-D

[alexamenos]

i have severe mavs induced depression.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by DLord

BG I'm flattered by your receptiveness to my ideas, but I imagine that the actual GM-ing is done on a way higher plane than anything I write. That is to say, I think I'm writing elementary school level stuff in this field (a good logical grasp of basic possibilities) while they are operating at graduate school level.

But if that's not so, have some team call me, I'm available for hire !! :-D

I think DLord just referenced Basketball501......

[jthig32]

Here's part two.

Link

The Mavs' 'Yen For '10'
Part 2: Building A Better Blueprint
By David Lord -- DB.com

The Mavs’ open-to-the-public talk of a 2010 gameplan comes with problems. Problems of rules, logic and finance. (See Part 1 of "The Yen For '10.") Instead of assuming they are unknowingly headed in the wrong direction, we figure the Mavs have another plan they are working on, a real gameplan, a non-public gameplan … a "secret" gameplan, if you will, that makes sense.
In the second of our two-part look at the issues, I offer what might be that alternative: a workable, detailed and logical Mavs 2010 Blueprint.

Here’s Part 2: "The Mavs’ Yen For '10: Building A Better Blueprint."


WHY?


The publicized 2010 plan has been to strip the roster down to bare bones, sign a superstar, and then re-add Dirk-and-company and go win titles. In Part 1, I've explained how and why that plan just won't work. But given the fact that the Mavs have been repeatedly pointing to that course, we are left with some other "whys'' to answer as well before we discuss the alternative.

Why have the Mavs been publicizing a plan that isn't possible? And if it's not workable, why are we just now talking about it? Here's how we see it.
1. Let's start with the plan itself. Did we somehow misunderstand what they've been saying? Is that why we're discussing an unworkable plan?
I don't think so. The plan has been conveyed in very simple (maybe too simple) terms. Mark Cuban himself stated it, in the fall of 2008 before the trade with Charlotte: "We can do whatever we want to do [in 2010]. We'll basically have Dirk and Jet on the books. Other guys can opt out and we can sign them after the fact [i.e., after signing a major free agent]."
We heard it again on Thursday, this time from Donnie Nelson after the trade deadline had passed. On local radio he spoke of the positive direction of the franchise despite the lack of a trade, noting that by turning down long contracts being offered to them, they had preserved their room to add a top free agent in 2010 to a core of Dirk, Jet, and Kidd.
I believe it is obvious that we've accurately understood what they're selling.
2. How about the general viability of the original plan? When we first heard about it, while it wasn't a given that they could make it work, at least it looked "possible." That assumed a continued rate of growth in NBA revenues that would raise the cap by 2010 to around $65M, which was a reasonable assumption at the time. And at those numbers, it could have been feasible.
But now? With the economic meltdown of 2008, those future cap projections have changed considerably. And the numbers just don't work anymore.
So maybe all we have is a plan that needs to be revised because times have changed.
3. That having been said, it's also a fact that from the start the Mavs' statements about this plan have included inaccuracies or missing details. That has led me to wonder all along about how serious they were regarding this quest.
At times they've talked proudly about the minimal number of contractual commitments they expect to have ... while failing to acknowledge some of them. At other times, they've talked about adding their own players whose contracts have expired back onto the roster after signing that super free agent, with the implication that they can do so without any limits ... and that's not allowed. The issue of what are they going to do when player contracts expire in 2009 is a key one but generally ignored. And if 2010 was such a priority, why did they give all those dollars to Diop in 2008 on a contract extending well past 2010? It's all these little details here and there that just haven't added up.
4. While we lean to the good-faith explanation that "good honestly conveyed intentions sometimes have to change, and people make mistakes when they talk," I'd be foolish not to note the darker possibilities as well. Do they have any merit? I doubt it. But for the record, the darker possibilities:

• the Mavs have been saying the things a business would say to its customers in order to inspire hope
• the Mavs think the original 2010 plan will work, but they are wrong because the rules and details bar them from executing big chunks of that apparent plan
• the Mavs are publicizing something they don't intend to do, to poker-face other franchises and gain an advantage. While the Mavs have been dropping the 2010 concept into conversations (especially when it's a PR plus), "techsan'' at DB.com Boards reminds us "Cuban has made public statements that he would go against the grain. Getting into the `10 market is with the grain, not against it"
• the Mavs don't exactly have a "plan,'' especially as it relates to the PR-type releases. It's "fluid''
• the talk of a 2010 plan is merely cover for a franchise facing the inevitable departure of stars a looming slide into years of mediocrity
  

5. If we've been noticing the flaws in the plan, why didn't we mention it long ago? And why bring it up now?
Up until the trade deadline on Thursday, there had always been the possibility that things in MavsWorld could change significantly due to a trade. In the fall, they were shopping Diop. In the spring, it was Stackhouse.
At the same time, while we had our own estimations of the effect the economic downturn might have on the NBA, we hadn't seen any confirmation.
Then came Stern's recent warnings that the league's future revenues were very likely to be soft, followed by the trade deadline passing without a change and Donnie still repeating the same 2010 plan. All of that combined made it the right time to address this issue.


AN ALTERNATIVE (AND WORKABLE) 2010 BLUEPRINT

So if that previous 2010 blueprint is unworkable, what's the alternative? We think the new blueprint should look like this:

Try to trade for the added star or superstar via Stack this summer, in 2009, with the alternate option being to shoot for that major free agent in 2010 via sign-and-trade.
Or do both.
As we know, a sign-and-trade requires no cap room whatsoever, but it does take the cooperation not only of the free agent but also from his former team. Isn't that pie-in-the-sky? Why would a team like Cleveland or Miami or Toronto go along with such a deal? Wouldn't they refuse? It depends on a number of factors. But this time the odds are greatly increased by the fact that there will be so many teams with more-than-max money to spend, and each of them provides the potential for that former team to lose their player for nothing. When a team sees their top player about to leave, they typically want something in return if they can get it. And once he's decided to leave, he would also prefer a team that can create a sign-and-trade, because it offers him the potential to get a contract with bigger raises and more years. Coming to a fully loaded team in 2010, rather than one stripped to the bones to create cap room, also is far more appealing.
To increase their odds, what should the Mavs be doing in the interim? A lot:

• get as much bargain-priced talent as possible
  
• use their MLE and LLE this summer to get a bargain or two ...while others are selling to clear room for 2010 or to cut payroll, they need to scoop up some talent being ignored
• use Stack's contract this summer to get something valuable and bargain-priced
• keep the up-and-coming Bass
• keep the up-and-coming Wright
• maybe keep Singleton and Hollins and Green too, on inexpensive deals
• work the trade deadline in 2010, when everyone is going to try to dump contracts at the last minute, for even more cap room in that summer, and look for steals of talent for expiring
• help other teams get 2010 cap space ...the more teams that have max cap room, the more it will create even more suitors where the former team can be out-bargained and then be open to a sign-and-trade deal from Dallas
• exercise their options and keep J-Ho and Barea for 2010-11
• get Kidd to stay this summer on a three-year extension where his salary decreases each year and the last season has a Stack-like non-guaranteed clause, in case his age catches up to him sooner than expected
• try to build a stockpile of extra No. 1 picks in 2011 and beyond
• keep Dampier on the books for 2010-11, and because he has a contract that is fully non-guaranteed in 10-11 use him as a HUGE vanishing contract (like Stack's this summer) for that sign-and-trade for the superstar ... All by himself, Damp will be able to absorb $16.44M in trade salary without the other team being obligated for a nickel to him. Using this tool, the Mavs can send the player's former team some young cheap talent, a pick or two, and Dampier's vanishing contract and end up with virtually no salary for that max-salary trade, giving his old team a "way better than losing him for nothing" option. While they might instead prefer to get back talent that will require taking salary, if economic times are tough this will be a great tool to have available
• an alternate plan for Dampier would be to trade him for significant talent in June-July 2010 as an instant vanishing contract, for the team looking to scarf up some last minute cap space or payroll reduction for 2010-11

That's still a 2010 plan - but I think it's far better than the one the Mavs are offering up in their on-the-record media discussions. Why is it better? Look at the advantages:

• It can be used even if the Mavs get that hoped-for Gasol-like deal in the interim via Stack's contract.
  
• It allows them to keep the kids they've been developing such as Bass, Wright, and Barea, plus anyone else they can find this summer.
  
• It provides a much more enticing destination to a star looking for a place to win titles.
  
• Even if you don't score the superstar, you've been adding talent at bargain prices to improve your team.
  
• It works whether the economy gets better or even if it worsens.
  
• And at the end of the day, it's far more plausible than the 2010 blueprint that’s being disseminated in airy and rosy bits and pieces.
  

My hope: That the Mavs’ Triangle of Trust already knows all this. That Cuban and Donnie and staff are all over the wide-ranging advantages of this Better Blueprint. And maybe that this has really been the Mavs' "top-secret'' 2009/2010 gameplan all along.

The information that Damp's final year is 100% non-guaranteed and not an option is HUGE. That is a MASSIVE piece of information when discussing what the Mavs' options are during the 2010-2011 season.

So Damp can be your expiring ammo starting at next season's trade deadline and extending all the way 2011's trade deadline.

Only drawback is that you really don't want your starting (and only, right now) center to be your big trade bait unless you're bringing back a big guy that can control the paint. Which is why, as DLord pointed out, it's much more attractive to send him out during the summer of 2010 in a sign and trade for a huge signing. Then you could bring him back with part of the MLE if you wanted.

Very interesting stuff DLord.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Very interesting stuff DLord.

No crap - I've read this article 3 times and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the possibilities... He pretty much covered every angle in broad strokes so my mind is all over the place (what was that part about Stack and a goat and a ball-gag? I think I broke my brain...)

Anyway, there's this:

-work the trade deadline in 2010, when everyone is going to try to dump contracts at the last minute, for even more cap room in that summer, and look for steals of talent for expiring

I think that's the best strategy in the bunch - take advantage of every owner who has 2010 stars in their eyes rather than being one of the poor fools who comes up short...

[BGMaverick9]

Originally Posted by Underdog

No crap - I've read this article 3 times and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the possibilities... He pretty much covered every angle in broad strokes so my mind is all over the place (what was that part about Stack and a goat and a ball-gag? I think I broke my brain...)

Anyway, there's this:



I think that's the best strategy in the bunch - take advantage of every owner who has 2010 stars in their eyes rather than being one of the poor fools who come up short...

Yeah, after the first read I was like "WHAT????" There is definitely a lot to digest in that article but it pretty much makes sense. I agree that feasting on the 2010-minded teams is a route that seems the most logical, teams would love to have deals like Josh or Damp's come off the books, but if we keep them, there are ways to still use them.

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

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

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

I hope we don't become the Suns by throwing it away again (I'm 100% behind Kidd, but that's still the worst rub of that poorly-executed deal...)