another question - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

aexchange · 06-11-2002, 11:58 AM

hypothetically...

since the cavs arent wanting to pay andre miller the max.

and nash has a very friendly contract for a top flight point guard.

could you see us packaging nash and filler for miller + tyrone hill or zydrunas ilguaskas?

and would you do it?

i dont see why the mavs would turn this down other than not wanting to ruin team chemistry. especially if you can get a big man albeit one who is injury prone to man the middle.

TheKid · 06-11-2002, 12:43 PM

That's interesting Aexchange. The thing with that is, I think immediately we take a step back. HOWEVER, over the course of 2 to 3 years I think that would be in the best interest of the Mavericks. However I don't think I would be willing to do it personally only because I'm SO OPPOSED to trading ANY ONE of the big three. However that's pretty interesting..

Hoopsmeister · 06-11-2002, 12:48 PM

Ilguaskas has a huge contract. To get Miller+Ilgauskas would cost us significantly more than Nash. I don't know Hill's contract but that one might be more reasonable.

And much as I love Nash, I'd have to do it. The Kid is right that we would take a step or 2 back right now, but we do so by adding an all-star level point who is seemingly more durable than Nash and is close in age to Dirk. Dirk-Miller would be a tandem that we could rely on for the next decade whereas Nash probably only has about 5 years left.

Base Line Guy · 06-11-2002, 02:25 PM

I like Miller, but no way am I moving Steve. Nash, is a solid PG, 27 and a fan favorite. This IS Dirk's team, but Steve helped make Dirk who he is today with his drive and dish.

BLG

TheKid · 06-11-2002, 02:34 PM

I know it's a touchy subject, and it's probably offensive to some people, but I'm sorry I had to laugh at the signature BLG... LOL

MavKikiNYC · 06-11-2002, 03:31 PM

No deal.

This topic got a couple of posts a few weeks ago, and the sense was any move would depend on other players involved. Big Z or THill don't offset the risk of upsetting team chemistry, espeically given the financial considerations.

Plus, wasn't there some animosity between Nellie and Hill back in GState?

Bayliss · 06-11-2002, 03:42 PM

I'm on the side of Hoops and TheKid. Nash is a very good player and is great for the team, but for the Mavs' future the deal would be a very wise move. Nash is 28, and the way he plays he is going to break down. I will disagree with Hoops on one thing: I don't think he has 5 years left. If you meant of "very good level" play. I think he has 3 years left of being a good all star type point guard, then he will drop off drastically.

Andre Miller is the anti-Nash. Not a great shooter/scorer, doesn't run and gun, doesn't show flashes of brillance (the Minnesota series where Nash made tremedous "I can't believe he frickin' did that!" plays), but Miller is steady. Out of all the point guards, he has a pretty good shot of getting close to Stockton's assist record. He is a pass first/shoot second point guard a la Stockton, but he's built like a Mac truck for his size.

Drbio · 06-11-2002, 04:24 PM

Your reasoning is sound...but I don't trade Nash.

Nellie · 06-11-2002, 04:35 PM

Not only do I not like this deal from the Mavs view but I don't like it from Cleveland's either. Dallas would have to throw in more.

Stressboy91 · 06-11-2002, 05:27 PM

MavKiki,

I was the one that threw this out a few weeks ago and I still think it is a smart move in the long run. Nellie, if the Mavs take big Z they would have to throw in Manning, and bradley or eshmeyer to make the money work and I think it is a really fair deal given the risk ilguaskas is and how his big contract is screwing up Clevelands cap.

How about 3 way with Nash in Chicago, #2 in Cleveland and Miller + person(another bad contract) in Dallas. If you took on enough salary, they might even throw the #6 into the mix. The reason I think Chicago might do that is because Nash has charisma and will help pump up the image. All these scenarios are incumbant on Cuban willing to pay massive tax.

Dallas Gives: Nash, Raef, Extra
Dallas Gets: #6, Miller, Z
Cleveland Gives: Miller, Z and #6
Cleveland Gets: #2, Fizer and ????Crawford
Chicago Gives: #2, Fizer, ????
Chicago Gets: Nash, Raef

I think this works because Chicago is under the cap. They can take in a lot more than they give out. Cleveland would do this because it gets them way under the cap and gives them Jay Williams, Fizer and Hassell/Crawford to build the team. Chicago does it because for essential #2 they get an allstar guard and a starting center.

Chicago:
Nash
Rose
Chandler
Curry
LaFrentz

Dallas:
Miller/Van Exel
Finley/Buckner
#6(Caron Butler)/Griffen/Najera/Ascerbic(sp)
Dirk/Najera
BigZ/Bradley/Esch

Cleveland: (Really low)
Jay Williams
Davis
Fizer
Tyrone Hill
Diop

Maybe too crazy.

FilthyFinMavs · 06-11-2002, 05:49 PM

I think we could even get Cavs pick also. Im not gonna say this is Dirk's team because Dirk still hasnt took the role of that yet just because he averages the most points on the team doesent make it his team. I think this is more of Nash's team rather than Dirk so I don know if i would trade Nash for Miller. THe only way I would od the deal is if Cavs would give there pick adn Miller for Nash.

Drbio · 06-11-2002, 08:41 PM

there is no way that trade happens.

mick · 06-11-2002, 09:25 PM

<< hypothetically...since the cavs arent wanting to pay andre miller the max. and nash has a very friendly contract for a top flight point guard. could you see us packaging nash and filler for miller + tyrone hill or zydrunas ilguaskas? and would you do it? i dont see why the mavs would turn this down other than not wanting to ruin team chemistry. especially if you can get a big man albeit one who is injury prone to man the middle. >>

Yes, I would trade for Miller and Hill if it was possible AND if I could get another good frontline starter who can score and play defense to play with Dirk and Raef.

I would also still trade NVE & Manning if I could for that special player, sign another young backup PG, with AJ as the "veteran" PG, and do anything else I could realistically do to upgrade the depth of the team.

Stressboy91 · 06-11-2002, 10:45 PM

Drbio,

I did not say that i thought it was plausible, but I do think it helps all parties. It really depends on if Krause thinks he has to put a winner on the floor this next year, if he really covets Ming and won't be able to get him and so forth. I think that trade would save the Cavs who are now up for sell(what if they get a young billionaire to buy the team?), it would make Chicago a 40+ win team and probable playoff team and it would give the Mavs the two things we need the most: 1) A chance to win it all now (if Z is healthy during the playoffs and Miller/Pick would gel) 2)Get a younger at point without loss of talent and get another young stud to be peaking when Dirk is 28 and in his prime.

With Cuban, you never know.

Stressboy

Drbio · 06-11-2002, 10:57 PM

Stressboy- I know. Speculation is fun but it wouldn't work. Good conversation stuff though.

aexchange · 06-12-2002, 10:16 AM

don't get me wrong. im not saying this is a straight up miller for nash trade. i don't think the mavs would pull the trigger on a deal just making a horizontal move. the difference between the two players is marginal. but lets say you package miller + ilgauskas for nash + bradley. the cavs get two very cap friendly contracts, and they get some return on the investment. meanwhile, the mavs pick up a stud as a pg and get a very nice big man they can use in the post for 25-30 min a game.

Drbio · 06-12-2002, 10:58 AM

Cleveland wouldn't do that deal. Do they really need "cap-friendly" contracts? If they aren't just being killed financially (and I dont think they are) why would they essentially give up a young stud for an older one? Z's contract is something to be moved, but he plays and contributes (when that foot works). I don't think the Cavs would come close to doing this deal.

aexchange · 06-12-2002, 11:23 AM

i disagree.

trading miller for a pg like nash with a low contract is almost impossible. losing big Z does hurt them, but he has a terrible contract as well, and the cavs still have a glut of big men behind Z. Mihm, Diop, etc. i think the cavs do this in a second.

bigboymumu · 06-12-2002, 06:20 PM

Let me get this straight. Cleveland gives up Miller and #6 and basically gets back #2 and Fizer. Something is not right with that deal.

Also, NVE and parts will not return much. Not because of NVE's talent but his baggage.

Drbio · 06-12-2002, 06:56 PM

it isn't happenig anyway. there would be an imbalance.

aexchange · 06-12-2002, 10:06 PM

this scenario works.

Dallas trades:
PF Danny Manning (4.0 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 0.7 apg in 13.5 minutes)
C Shawn Bradley (4.1 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 0.4 apg in 14.3 minutes)
PG Steve Nash (17.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 7.7 apg in 34.6 minutes)

Dallas receives:
C Zydrunas Illgauskas (11.1 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 1.1 apg in 21.4 minutes)
PG Andre Miller (16.5 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 10.9 apg in 37.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +1.6 ppg, +1.1 rpg, and +3.2 apg.

Cleveland trades:
C Zydrunas Illgauskas (11.1 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 1.1 apg in 21.4 minutes)
PG Andre Miller (16.5 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 10.9 apg in 37.3 minutes)
Cleveland receives:
PF Danny Manning (4.0 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 0.7 apg in 41 games)
C Shawn Bradley (4.1 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 0.4 apg in 53 games)
PG Steve Nash (17.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 7.7 apg in 82 games)
Change in team outlook: -1.6 ppg, -1.1 rpg, and -3.2 apg.

Drbio · 06-12-2002, 10:07 PM

It may work on realgm but I just do not trade Nash.

TheKid · 06-13-2002, 10:34 AM

Believe it or not, the way Cleveland fans and management sees it, it would be a step backwards trading Miller for Nash and the way Mavs fans and management sees it as taking a step backwards. So that's why the deal would never fly.

Hoopsmeister · 06-13-2002, 10:36 AM

<< Believe it or not, the way Cleveland fans and management sees it, it would be a step backwards trading Miller for Nash and the way Mavs fans and management sees it as taking a step backwards. >>

And in both cases, they would be right.

Bayliss · 06-13-2002, 10:40 AM

In the short term, Hoops. But it works out long term for both teams.

Hoopsmeister · 06-13-2002, 10:47 AM

<< In the short term, Hoops. But it works out long term for both teams. >>

I already noted thinking it was a good deal for the Mavs, Bayliss. But I'm not sure its good for the Cavs in the long term.

TheKid · 06-13-2002, 10:49 AM

I already noted thinking it was a good deal for the Mavs, Bayliss. But I'm not sure its good for the Cavs in the long term.

I agree, I think in the short term it makes the Cavs better but in the long run it hurts them and does the exact opposite for the Mavs.

Bayliss · 06-13-2002, 10:50 AM

Well, long term it is because they are getting value for Miller. After all, they could lose w/o any compensation.

Hoopsmeister · 06-13-2002, 10:54 AM

<< Well, long term it is because they are getting value for Miller. After all, they could lose w/o any compensation. >>

That really seems to be up to them. They could lock him up with a long-term max extension this summer if they want to. The rest of the league thinks they are crazy for even hesitating.

Bayliss · 06-13-2002, 11:04 AM

Hoops, it will be up to them but do you think Cleveland is going to max him out when they said they wouldn't?

If they don't max him out then they've essentially lost him w/o compensation. That is why a trade works for Cleveland for the long term if they can't (or don't want to) pay him the max.

TheKid · 06-13-2002, 11:06 AM

I think they're down right STUPID for hesitating, this guy can flat out play... Since I'm partly a Knicks fan, I HOPE they Knicks trade away ALL their point guards for Miller. Send all of those GARBAGE PG's including Eisley OUT OF THERE..

I REALLY want to know what Cuban was thinking when he signed Eisley to that ridiculous contract? You know I could justify him trading for Howard because he didn't sign him for that contract BUT he gave Eisley that money.. That's crazy.

Drbio · 06-13-2002, 11:18 AM

Kid- maybe it was because that was Cubes way of showing he could spend the money?

TheKid · 06-13-2002, 11:21 AM

I guess so, but boy did he pick the wrong person to spend it on...

Hoopsmeister · 06-13-2002, 11:51 AM

<< Hoops, it will be up to them but do you think Cleveland is going to max him out when they said they wouldn't? >>

Okay, I'm going by what I've David Aldridge report since he usually seems to know his stuff and doesn't get caught up in rumors. And per him, Cleveland is willing to give Miller max money--the problem is they don't want to give it to him as an extension now, but would rather wait and do it after his 4th year. The reason being (as I understand it) that if they sign him to an extension, his raise kicks in in terms of counting against their cap at the start of the 2003 free agent season. Whereas if they wait, they'll go into 2003 free agency with Miller's contract only counting at its rookie scale, giving them flexibility to sign someone and then give Miller the max later (since he's their player, they can sign him to the max at any point).

Alternatively, Cleveland may be hoping they don't have to max him out. After next year, he is a restricted free agent and Cleveland can match what anybody offers him. With purse strings tighter around the league and a particularly good crop of free agents all competing (this is the same summer that has Duncan, Kidd, McDyess, etc available), maybe they hope that no one will offer Miller the max--and if they do, then Cleveland still has the option of matching.

Murphy3 · 06-13-2002, 12:14 PM

good call hoops.

Drbio · 06-13-2002, 01:07 PM

Hoops- dead on. And Aldridge is one of the few whose words I read and feel comfortable knowing it's accurate.