Mavs could waive Finley, sources say

[LRB]

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.

It does make a difference, because on a % basis it's still not a given that the Money Cubes saves by cutting Fin will be greater that that lost in revenues by cutting Fin. It's a highly complex formula to calculate what a player gives to a team in terms of increased revenues. I find it as almost incomprehensible that Fin losing Fin's talent with no recompensation would not have a negative affect on the overall bottom line. Even replacing Fin with likely vet minimum players, which would reduce luxary tax savings further, it is unlikely to approach anywhere close to Fin's level of talent not to mention his popularity with the Fans. Add to the Fact that we just lost Nash for no talent compensation (although the money saved was substantially more) it would be naive that this would not have a negative affect on fans of the Mavs and consequentially the overall bottom line. For example, say 1,000 less households tune in to locally televised Mavs game, that will have an effect on the amount that the Mavs can negotiate their next local television contract.

With a fixed level of salary mentality, the effects on the overall bottom line wouldn't come into play. Cubes would only consider overall salary. I've know a few managers like that, but they weren't anywhere near being smart. Cubes may have needed some luck to get his billion + dollars, but he damn sure didn't do it being dumbass stupid. I'm quite sure that he has some mathematical formula that approximates the probably impact a player has on the bottom line. I know my company has these formula's for all kinds of activities down ot the color that we use on our website.

So if Cubes figures that the probability of saving a substantial amount of money (who knows what he considers substantial, but I'm bet money that it's at least in the mid 6 figures and probably a good deal more) by cutting Finely then he might make the decision to cut Fin. But I believe that he considers a lot more factors than the probability of the luxary tax cutting in for each year remaining in Fin's contract and how much that will leave room in some set figure for salary that he has in his mind.

[Big Boy Laroux]

nash went back to phoenix... why not fin?

i honestly don't think anything will happen out of this. This new rule is causing everyone in sports talk to go crazy. honestly, the only candidate we have for this would be finley, but it ain't gonna happen.

[madape]

Originally posted by: Big Boy Laroux
honestly, the only candidate we have for this would be finley

Well, Erick Dampier's contract is the longest. We owe him more money than anyone else on the team. He gave us nothing in the playoffs.

He SHOULD be the guy we buy out. Cuban could save about $60M by waiving him. It would be the logical thing to do.

Of course, pride rules here. Dumping the Dump now would be admitting his mistake. Cuban won't do that. Not this early.

[grndmstr_c]

Waiving Damp makes no more sense than waiving Finley, which is to say it doesn't make any sense at all (at least not from the perspective of trying to win a championship).

[SeriousSummer]

Last year we lost Nash for no talent, and the team played better anyway (I'm not saying because) and presumably that loss didn't affect the Mavs bottom line.

Donald Sterling is infamous for being cheap and letting talent get away--but he makes money with the Clippers while many other teams lose money.

I'm not saying that I want or expect Cuban to act anything like Sterling, but to say that cutting Finley would be bad financially is probably wrong.

[LRB]

Honestly I can't see waving any starter on a team who made the playoffs last year unless that player has a serious debilitating injury, and not even then because there is already a clause for that as well.

Both Fin and Damp were starters on a team that not only made the playoffs, but won 58 regular season games and 6 playoff games. You count on the fingers of one hand with digits left over the number of teams who did as well or better.

And then there is the old axiom that you have to spend money to make money.

[EricaLubarsky]

I was thinking the same thing, madape. I dont want Damp to be bought out but I was thinking that Daniels/Dampier were more likely to be waived. Both have 4 years left (plus options). Both of them were dissapointments in their own right. Its not a smart move from a basketball point of view, but Cuban might not want to pay Dampier twice his salary. Maybe Pavel is coming along and he's satisfied having a young team or maybe he has some ideas. Who knows.

I personally think that Sefko got most of his ammo from Donnie's statement that "Under the new CBA, a player could be released and you would save that money off the tax...every team in the NBA has a player who fits that mode" Every other source is just that, an anonymous source that Sefko doesnt even claim is an internal source.

[Big Boy Laroux]

true, damp could be a candidate because of the salary. i'm saying fin is the only candidate because people just love to rip on fin.

the guy needs his minutes reduced. we don't need to waive him.

[dirno2000]

It does make a difference, because on a % basis it's still not a given that the Money Cubes saves by cutting Fin will be greater that that lost in revenues by cutting Fin. It's a highly complex formula to calculate what a player gives to a team in terms of increased revenues.

It’s more then complex, it’s pretty much impossible to determine his effect on revenues. Your TV revenues are already negotiated so that won’t be affected. The Mavs will likely sell out every game this year, Fin or no Fin so again, no loss revenues there. So besides jersey and merchandise sales that can be attributed Michael Finley, you’re trying to forecast how many playoffs games he’s worth and I don’t think that can be done…there are too many other moving parts. For instance a Dirk, or even a Josh Howard injury would have a more direct effect on the number of playoff games in the AAC then Finley simple being on the team.

I don’t think you can make a case for revenues dropping though the floor if you waive Fin and make a trade for Brown and Magloire (again, just using them as an example).

I find it as almost incomprehensible that Fin losing Fin's talent with no recompensation would not have a negative affect on the overall bottom line.

If you lose him then make a deal that you otherwise wouldn’t have made, you’re not losing him without recompensation.

Again, I’m not saying cut Fin…I’m merely saying that you can’t make the blanket statement that it’s stupid to cut him…it depends on who else is available.

[SeriousSummer]

Who knows if this guys predictions as to whom will get released are any good (as far as I know he's just another one of us unemployed pundits):

Jalen Rose -- Raptors

Darius Miles or Theo Ratliff -- Blazers

Eddie Jones -- Heat?

Howard with the Rockets

J.Williams -- M.Griz

Grant Hill -- Magic

B.Grant -- Lakers

Mullin would be an idiot not to release Fisher.

but if anything like this happens (and the luxury tax is likely), then the Mavs would be foolish not to release Finley. Finley isn't $50 million better than Eddie Jones, Grant Hill or Jalen Rose, and I'd think the Mavs could get one of those guys to come here to play.

[Lebanese_Fan]

The raptors will not waive rose. THE ARE NOT OVER THE CAP. They already won't pay the luxury next season. So are the Blazers. They have 3 major expiring contract s each for 14 MILL. Next year’s salary is $49,963,572. Also, the contract will stay on the cap but the team will not pay the tax. So it is useless in the case of Toronto and Portland.

[LRB]

Your TV revenues are already negotiated so that won’t be affected.

But your future revenues are based a good bit on your ratings now, so the effect would be in the future as I stated.

it’s pretty much impossible to determine his effect on revenues.

Impossible to get an exact representation, but a ball part estimate isn't impossible. All kinds of financial modeling is possible, and while not 100% accurate, it can be done to within a reasonable approximation attached to +/- level of probability. I'd be highly surprised if Cubes wasn't using something like this.

I don’t think you can make a case for revenues dropping though the floor if you waive Fin and make a trade for Brown and Magloire (again, just using them as an example).

They don't have to "drop through the floor", just the probable difference in total net revenue with keeping Fin versus cutting him has to be bigger than the the probable net gain in luxary tax savings for cutting Fin. For example the Mavs could increase revenues whether Fin stays or whether he goes. However if the increase if bigger if Fin stays then it could be the best decision based solely on Financial information to keep Fin.

Again, I’m not saying cut Fin…I’m merely saying that you can’t make the blanket statement that it’s stupid to cut him…it depends on who else is available.

Who else that is available would certainly be factored in, but we can still acquire another player, like say Allan Houston for the vet minimum and still keep Fin. Fin does not have to be cut inorder to sign Houston.

If you lose him then make a deal that you otherwise wouldn’t have made, you’re not losing him without recompensation.

There is no definitive evidence that there is any deal that the Mavs could make without Fin that they couldn't with him.

The Bottom line is how much is Fin worth financially to the Mavs. Is he worth more or less than the probable net savings in luxary tax? Teams calculate a players worth all the time when they sign FA's, draft players, or resign players to new contracts, or refuse to do any of the former options.

It's just my opinion that Fin is worth substantially more to the Mavs that any probable savings in Luxary tax, therefore I say it's stupid to cut him.

[grndmstr_c]

SS, I'm skeptical any of those guys (the 2/3's you mentioned) would get released. Their respective teams aren't nearly as far (or as long) over the cap as the Mavs are. If someone like Eddie Jones did get released and were interested in signing with the Mavs for the vet minimum, though, that would be about the only situation where I can imagine it would make sense from a basetkball perspective to cut Fin.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
Who knows if this guys predictions as to whom will get released are any good (as far as I know he's just another one of us unemployed pundits):

but if anything like this happens (and the luxury tax is likely), then the Mavs would be foolish not to release Finley. Finley isn't $50 million better than Eddie Jones, Grant Hill or Jalen Rose, and I'd think the Mavs could get one of those guys to come here to play.

A, the net savings will almost assuredly be substantially below $50 million with all the reductions in the luxary tax, and it's far from given that the luxary tax will be in effect for all 3 years.

B, it's not an either or. We could sign one of those potential FA's and still keep Finley.

Again, it's a judgement call on whether Fin's value to the Mavs is more or less than any PROBABLE savings in luxary tax.

[aexchange]

Don't know if anyone noticed this, but Sefko's changed the headline to:
"Is Finley next to go?"

instead of

"Mavs could waive Finley, sources say"

[dirno2000]

But your future revenues are based a good bit on your ratings now, so the effect would be in the future as I stated.

If you’re saying that Michael Finley not being on the Mavs is going to have a tangible effect on the next negotiation of the local media contract You’re reaching.

Impossible to get an exact representation, but a ball part estimate isn't impossible. All kinds of financial modeling is possible, and while not 100% accurate, it can be done to within a reasonable approximation attached to +/- level of probability. I'd be highly surprised if Cubes wasn't using something like this.

I work in finance and I’m aware of how complex models can get, but you’re suggesting there’s a model that can accurately determine how many game the Mavs can win and how far they can go in the playoffs with and without Fin. If this model exited then gamblers would be rich. There are too many variables to accurately predict the effect of a player on team’s fortunes. You may have a chance if the player is head and shoulders above everybody else on the team like Dirk, otherwise it’s useless. Say you cut Fin and add Larry Hughes (just throwing a name out there), how many more game will you win? There is no model that can accurately predict that.

They don't have to "drop through the floor", just the probable difference in total net revenue with keeping Fin versus cutting him has to be bigger than the the probable net gain in luxary tax savings for cutting Fin. For example the Mavs could increase revenues whether Fin stays or whether he goes. However if the increase if bigger if Fin stays then it could be the best decision based solely on Financial information to keep Fin.

Again, I think you’re reaching by trying to tie fin to a discernable difference in net revenues…this thing is bigger then him.

Who else that is available would certainly be factored in, but we can still acquire another player, like say Allan Houston for the vet minimum and still keep Fin. Fin does not have to be cut inorder to sign Houston.

What would be the point of keeping Fin and acquiring yet another 2-guard. You’re not getting a decent backup big man for the vet min.

There is no definitive evidence that there is any deal that the Mavs could make without Fin that they couldn't with him.

The Bottom line is how much is Fin worth financially to the Mavs. Is he worth more or less than the probable net savings in luxary tax? Teams calculate a players worth all the time when they sign FA's, draft players, or resign players to new contracts, or refuse to do any of the former options.

It's just my opinion that Fin is worth substantially more to the Mavs that any probable savings in Luxary tax, therefore I say it's stupid to cut him.

I think the disconnect is that you seem to think we can keep Fin and do everything else we need to do to improve the team. If Cuban is willing to do this then I agree with you…don’t even think about cutting him. If he’s not then he has a decision to make: who will make the team better; Fin or a player we could pick up with his luxury tax save. If Cuban improves the team, the revenues will follow.

[grndmstr_c]

Don't know if anyone noticed this, but Sefko's changed the headline to:
"Is Finley next to go?"

instead of

"Mavs could waive Finley, sources say"

Sefko is the suck.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: aexchange
Don't know if anyone noticed this, but Sefko's changed the headline to:
"Is Finley next to go?"

instead of

"Mavs could waive Finley, sources say"

There are these guys, see. They call them editors. Editors write the headlines for newspapers, not the writers. It has been that way for years and always will be.

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: mary

haha...as I scroll down to write this, I see someone has beat me to it.

So I'll just say...."yeah..what kg said" [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

I think the Mavs were seiously listening to offers for the guy. Perhaps they didn't openly shop him, but I do believe that Nellie was more than willing to get rid of him.

[uberfan]

I think everyone is missing the point of Cuban's comments on Norm's show.

There may be opportunities where another team waives a player and that player makes sense to pick up for the Mavs at vet min or something like that.

MY other comments/thoughts:

1. This one-time waiver would be wasted if used for Bradley or TAW. Better ways to handle that.
2. It makes absolutley no sense to use for Damp or Daniels. Both are tradeable players if the MAvs want to move them. Damp is not that bad. He gives us what we need. We just need a backup at PF/C. Daniels needs to stay around another year before any decisions are made on him.
3. This new provision makes Fin tradeable only IF another team has about three contracts to move equal to or exceeding Fin's salary, that team is already in LT territory and then could they waive Fin and save on tax, and they have 3 draft picks so they can get younger and cheaper and get to the 14 man roster limit.

[a.weidner]

Wouldn't it be possible to do something like trading Fin + filler for Houston. Waiving Houston. Waiting for the Knicks to waive Finley. And resigning Finley, when he clears waivers?
Maybe Marquis + Fin for Houston. Would save Cuban a ton of money (LT for Fins contract + Marquis contract + LT). Would solve our log-jam at SF/SG. Would free up a roster spot. I'm not sure I would like that deal, but I can definately see Cubes givin it a thought.

[bradleywillcrushyou44]

weidner, i've been wondering the same thing

[GP]

Why would Finley want to resign here in that case? He'd be able to go anywhere he wanted to. He'd probably want a new start. A place where he wouldn't have to look over his shoulder and wonder if today is the day I'm getting traded for a bucket of chicken, some slaw and a 2L coke.

[dude1394]

My assumption here is that if finley is waived he cannot re-sign with his old club. What would be the point of that, everyone would do it.

So...

This would be giving up something for nothing AGAIN. Waiving finley would save money but do nothing for the team. Wouldn't get them under the salary cap so that they could sign another player, wouldn't get them a draft pick..nothing...zip...nada....

It makes much more sense to attempt to trade him in the last year of his contract as salary cap relief for another team.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
I was thinking the same thing, madape. I dont want Damp to be bought out but I was thinking that Daniels/Dampier were more likely to be waived. Both have 4 years left (plus options). Both of them were dissapointments in their own right. Its not a smart move from a basketball point of view, but Cuban might not want to pay Dampier twice his salary. Maybe Pavel is coming along and he's satisfied having a young team or maybe he has some ideas. Who knows.

I personally think that Sefko got most of his ammo from Donnie's statement that "Under the new CBA, a player could be released and you would save that money off the tax...every team in the NBA has a player who fits that mode" Every other source is just that, an anonymous source that Sefko doesnt even claim is an internal source.

I also think daniels would almost make the most sense. It's certainly not certain that he will even beat out finley as starting two guard. I don't think stack will or should so dumping finley looks pretty stupid to me.

[a.weidner]

Well Fin would gain some money. He could also be sure to get his minutes, with Marquis (or Stack) gone. And I'm sure their could be something "arranged" with Fin, to be sure he'd come back. It worked with Hendu, right? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[mary]

You can't resign the player for the length of the contract.

[vjz]

Originally posted by: mary
You can't resign the player for the length of the contract.

Yes, but if NY waives him after a trade, NY can't re-sign him for the length of the contract. Nothing to stop the Mavs from signing Fin. They just traded him, not waive him.

This would then seem to be a bigger loophole than initially thought. Or there is some small print that we are missing.

[The Miles]

For instance a Dirk, or even a Josh Howard injury would have a more direct effect on the number of playoff games in the AAC then Finley simple being on the team.

I don’t think you can make a case for revenues dropping though the floor if you waive Fin and make a trade for Brown and Magloire (again, just using them as an example).

I don't see the revenue problem with letting Fin go. Losing the MVP didn't seem to bother it much, I am sure the emergance of Josh Howard, Marquis Daniels, and Devin Harris makes up for any loss.

Josh is ready to step into Fins shoes right now, today, so I just don't worry about it. The fans come to see Dirk Nowitzki and a 58 win team, not Finley.

[grndmstr_c]

The fans come to see Dirk Nowitzki and a 58 win team, not Finley.

The fans come to see a 58 win team. Waive Finley and you're probably hurting your chances of getting 58 wins. Think that could hurt revenue?

[birdsanctuary]

Grandmaster C you seriously believe Finley is that critical to the Mavs at this juncture in his career?

I would have agreed with you in 02-03, but definitely not now, not with Josh Howard's year last year, not with Stack and Daniels waiting in the wing. In my estimation Fin would singlehandly win 1 game in 10 with his streaky shooting. This figure was higher two years ago.

[dude1394]

Josh Howard, Marquis Daniels, Jerry Stackhouse can't hit an outside shot to save their neck. To think that finley brings nothing to the team is naive imo. I still don't see Daniels beating anyone out for a starting position. I don't see stackhouse as a starter either. So imo finley is (although overpaid) a very nice piece of the puzzle.

The assumption I'm making is that he comes back and shoots a better percentage than he did after getting hurt. If not, I'm wrong. But even then the mavs will need to pick up an outside shooter.

[grndmstr_c]

There's a reason Stack and Marquis have been waiting in the wings. The guy ahead of them on the depth chart is a superior player. It's not just about losing Finley, though. While there would be a drop-off from that in and of itself, more problems come from the fact that with Finley on the roster Stack and Quis are expendable and could potentially be used in trades that improve the frontcourt depth. Waive Fin, though, and those guys are no longer expendable. You're not only taking a step back in terms of the team that you can put out on the court without any additions, you're also hampering your ability to acquire players who can even get you back up to the level you were at before you decided to pay your starting shooting guard 50 million to play for a rival contender.

[chumdawg]

Just saw an interview with Fin on Fox Sports Southwest. Well, not an interview, per se. Just a clip of him answering an unknown question. He said something like this:

I don't know what people want from me. They asked me to take a lesser role, and I did. And then people complain that I don't have the numbers I used to. They talk about me coming off the bench, but we won 58 games with me as a starter. It would be a different if we were a lottery team, or something like that. But we were two shots away from going to the next round, the way I see it. But I can take the criticism like a man and just keep doing what I can do.

Pretty classy, he came off. I've always loved Michael Finley. I'm hoping that indeed he was hampered by physical limitations last year, and that those go away next season. I'd like to see a lot more of the flying tiger rising and ripping the cords (as Pinto would have it).

[dude1394]

Fin...give the media and the critics the bird. That would include myself if I start that crude.

[dirno2000]

But we were two shots away from going to the next round, the way I see it.

Which two shots is he talking about?

[Bayliss]

Which two shots is he talking about?

Tequila shots?

[dude1394]

Jello shots.

[dude1394]

Body shots.

[The Miles]

The fans come to see a 58 win team. Waive Finley and you're probably hurting your chances of getting 58 wins. Think that could hurt revenue?

Most thought it would be impossible to go from 52 wins and 1 playoff win to 58 wins and 6 playoff wins with Steve Nash being gone for nothing.

The team is loaded with young talent. Josh Howard got his shot this year and the rest is history. Marquis Daniels had his shot his rookie year and he was fantastic, our 2nd best player in the playoffs that year. His #s as a starter this year were better than Finleys were, the team won 11 of the 17 games he started this year, so he doesn't hurt us winning I like Fin, I wish he would be a gun off of the bench ala Brent Barry, but a big reason that he starts is because he won't accept being off of the bench. Nellie asked him if he would come off of the bench, he declined, so don't give me the stuff about him being better than Marquis just because he starts, that was Fins choice not the coaching staffs.

Just my $.02, I don't see Finley being gone causing us to lose games. Detroit doesn't have an outside threat either and they seem to be doing just fine. Many in Detroit thought they were crazy when they traded Stack for Rip and gave him the job, that worked out extremely well. I think Marquis would be similar here, just my opinion.