confirmed: raef signed, russell to dallas, buckner gone - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

NYMavFan · 07-17-2002, 09:13 AM

<< Posted on Wed, Jul. 17, 2002

Mavs keep their big man
LaFrentz, Mavs' top priority, agrees to 7-year, $60 million deal
By DWAIN PRICE
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

DALLAS - The Mavericks have agreed to terms with restricted free-agent center Raef LaFrentz on a seven-year contract worth approximately $60 million, owner Mark Cuban said.

NBA free agents can begin signing contracts today. Mavericks officials are hoping LaFrentz will return from his off-season home in Iowa and sign the contract by the end of the week.

Don Nelson, the Mavericks' coach and general manager, is at his off-season home in Maui, Hawaii, and could not be reached for comment.

Nelson and Cuban had called signing LaFrentz their No. 1 off-season priority. Acquired Feb. 21 in a trade with Denver, LaFrentz averaged 10.8 points, 7.4 rebounds and 2.22 blocked shots per game in 27 games with the Mavericks last season.

He also played 29.1 minutes per game and shot 43.7 percent from the field.

Though LaFrentz didn't receive the $90 million contract he was seeking while with the Nuggets, he will receive $7 million next season.

"I can't talk about specifics," Cuban said, citing league rules.

The 6-foot-11 LaFrentz mostly played center for the Mavericks last season. However, Nelson said he plans to move him to power forward, shift 7-foot power forward Dirk Nowitzki to small forward and alternate 7-6 Shawn Bradley and 6-11 Evan Eschmeyer at center.

That would give the Mavericks, one of the NBA's poorest rebounding teams last season, a taller front line and possibly increase their chances at grabbing more rebounds.

With LaFrentz in the fold, the Mavericks now shift their attention to re-signing restricted free-agent forward Eduardo Najera. They also expect to re-sign restricted free-agent center Wang Zhizhi but anticipate losing restricted free-agent swingman Greg Buckner.

Mavs court Russell

Jazz swingman Bryon Russell may be on the verge of signing a multiyear contract with the Mavericks.

Owner Mark Cuban has talked to Russell's agent, Dwight Manley, about acquiring the nine-year veteran. The Russell negotiations could be completed as soon as today.

Cuban would not disclose what type of contract Russell is seeking. Last season, Russell, the 45th pick of the 1993 NBA Draft, earned $5,142,856 with the Jazz.

"I can't talk about contracts or specific players yet," Cuban said. "But we have talked to his agent about several things."

Last season was one of the roughest of Russell's career, as he averaged only 9.6 points per game and shot a career-low 38 percent. He reportedly rushed back too early after missing 16 games with a pelvic injury.

With Tariq Abdul-Wahad playing well in the summer league, and the Mavericks also expected to re-sign restricted free agent Eduardo Najera, the signing of Russell would effectively end the Mavericks' pursuit of one of their other restricted free agents, Greg Buckner.

>>

NYMavFan · 07-17-2002, 09:15 AM

the only good news is that it looks like buckner is going to philly instead of LA. everyone is reporting that devean george is re-signing with so they can't afford him anymore.

don't like the russell signing one bit. especially considering the luck we've had with utah signing/trading for utah players in the past

MavKikiNYC · 07-17-2002, 09:27 AM

This isn't a confirmation of the Russell signing, is it?

If Buckner is going to Philly, might that not make Harpring more available?

Run, Matt. Run toward the light.

Harpring and Oakley. And re-sign Wang.

Nellie · 07-17-2002, 09:27 AM

<< the only good news is that it looks like buckner is going to philly instead of LA. everyone is reporting that devean george is re-signing with so they can't afford him anymore.

don't like the russell signing one bit. especially considering the luck we've had with utah signing/trading for utah players in the past >>

I'm not sure yet if I like it or not. I know Russel had a bad year last season, but on the other hand, he has been a pesky defender and a decent enough shooter through most of his career that he could be a decent signing. It just depends on which Bryon we are going to get.

Worst Case Scenario - if he does suck, his time can be given to the Tariq/Griffin/Najera/Mladen(?) comitee and I am 100% sure that his contract will have a buy-out option similar to Hardaway and Manning's contracts. It's realy a low-risk signing.

MavsFanFinley · 07-17-2002, 09:59 AM

Nothing is a done deal. We already knew about LaFrentz's situation, now we're just waiting on his signature.

Russell to Dallas just confirms that there was truth to those radio reports out of Utah. I really don't know what I think about this paticular addition. I liked Russell and maybe I'm basing my reaction on the less than stellar year he had last season at this point. I think he'd fit into our style of play better than Eisley or Manning did, but still, another Utah player just doesn't sound right. And I agree with Nellie about this having to be a similiar deal to those Hardaway and Manning signed.

We pretty much knew about Buckner, too. It must have been the DMN where I read a quote about Cuban when asked what it would take to keep Buckner. Cuban's response, "him wanting to stay."

HOWEVER, what really interests me in this article, is this:

The 6-foot-11 LaFrentz mostly played center for the Mavericks last season. However, Nelson said he plans to move him to power forward, shift 7-foot power forward Dirk Nowitzki to small forward and alternate 7-6 Shawn Bradley and 6-11 Evan Eschmeyer at center.

I like the thought of a bigger lineup and hope Nelson would stick to using it more this season, but I thought the whole point was to keep Dirk at pf. Maybe I'm confusing what I like, what Nelson likes,and the opinion of some of the posters here about what Dirk's position should be. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

Murphy3 · 07-17-2002, 10:04 AM

i love the thought of the bigger lineup

mpb319 · 07-17-2002, 10:17 AM

Bigger is better!

Except when bigger makes us slower and weaker. Eschmeyer didn't show me much last season(or the year before when he was in NJ)...Bradley had an awful season....he went from just being BAD...to really really REALLY SUCKING. Neither guy rebounds that much better than a 6-7 Russell or a 6-8 Najera to make up for their overall lack of foot speed.

I think Nellie is blowing smoke....he loves small lineups....and he will continue to use them for the Offense.

NYMavFan · 07-17-2002, 10:23 AM

while nellie's at it, why doesn't he REALLY play around and just use this lineup once

PG - nash
SG - dirk
SF - wang
PF - raef
C - bradley

now THAT would fun to see

seelenjaeger · 07-17-2002, 10:28 AM

sorry, but this article is nothing more than a re-warmed summary of summer stories ... nothing really new to it

i still don´t see the point in signing Russell

Nash, Van Exel, AJ, Griffin, TAW, Russell, Sekularac, Finley

even IF we don´t give Sekularac any contract this year, it´s still 7 guys on the small positions, since none of those can be called a bulk-forward. and buckner leaving ... sigh ...

8 roster spots for biggies?

Bradley, Esch, Dirk, Raef, Najera

3 vacancies to be filled, and if nellie really plans to play

Bradley, Raef, Dirk

all those guards/swingmen make even LESS sense

either there is something in the making, or this is weird

Nellie · 07-17-2002, 10:29 AM

The 6-foot-11 LaFrentz mostly played center for the Mavericks last season. However, Nelson said he plans to move him to power forward, shift 7-foot power forward Dirk Nowitzki to small forward and alternate 7-6 Shawn Bradley and 6-11 Evan Eschmeyer at center.

I hope this is just smoke. I like the idea of a bigger line-up but I would rather stick with small ball than relying on Bradley/Esch manning the middle of a big line-up. Bradley is such a momentum killer and defensive liability that I can't see how that line-up would be a better alternative than small ball. I hope Esch does play more this year cause I think he could be a decent rebounder if given more minutes but I see him as nothing more than a decent role player. Plus, if Wang is re-signed, Nellie will play him more than Bradley or Esch which defeats the whole purpose of the big line-up anyway.

Nellie · 07-17-2002, 10:36 AM

<< sorry, but this article is nothing more than a re-warmed summary of summer stories ... nothing really new to it

i still don´t see the point in signing Russell

Nash, Van Exel, AJ, Griffin, TAW, Russell, Sekularac, Finley

even IF we don´t give Sekularac any contract this year, it´s still 7 guys on the small positions, since none of those can be called a bulk-forward. and buckner leaving ... sigh ...

8 roster spots for biggies?

Bradley, Esch, Dirk, Raef, Najera

3 vacancies to be filled, and if nellie really plans to play

Bradley, Raef, Dirk

all those guards/swingmen make even LESS sense

either there is something in the making, or this is weird >>

Have you ever known a Nellie team to have a balanced roster? As long as Nellie is the coach here, the amount of swing men will outnumber the big men. Another Nellie trademark is the token, swingman veteran. Last year it was Newman. This year, maybe Russell fills that role.

seelenjaeger · 07-17-2002, 10:56 AM

I wouldnt say we were especially short in big men last year ...

Neither our starting roster

Bradley, Esch, Dirk, Juwan, Manning, Najera, Wang

nor our after trade roster

Bradley, Esch, Dirk, Raef, Manning, Najera, Wang

can be considered short in big man ... if you plan those guys to fill 2 spots on your team.
IF Nellie wants to play 3 of them at the same time for longer stretches, I doubt the 5 current guys will be enough.

Bradley - even if he sucked badly last year - is the only momentum killer we have at the moment - but he´s not killing the Mavs momentum but usually the opponents. Take a look at the games when Bradley played. He really sucked ass most of the time, but opponents had a harder time than they had with him on the bench.

Playing Bradley all the time vs. Sac-to would have significantly cut down the number of Layups and Dunks we´d received ...

Nellie · 07-17-2002, 11:05 AM

<< Playing Bradley all the time vs. Sac-to would have significantly cut down the number of Layups and Dunks we´d received ... >>

This is debatable. The Kings may have less lay-ups if Bradley was in there but our scoring would have gone down too to cancel it out. When Bradley is in there, the offense does not run smoothly. How many times have you seen Bradley end up with the ball and have to be the one to shoot it as the shotclock is running down? Sometimes he will surprise us but most of the time, it's a missed opportunity.

seelenjaeger · 07-17-2002, 11:08 AM

well, my statement was well chosen ... i don´t wanna pretend we would have won with bradley getting more pt - nobody knows ... we just wouldn´t have received as many layups/dunks

FilthyFinMavs · 07-17-2002, 11:11 AM

I like the thought of a Bigger lineup but I dont like the thought of it when ur big men are Esch and Bradely. Im with u Nellie I would rather go small ball then have them rather then have to run slow with Bradely and ESCH. The BRadely of two seasons ago makes us more effective of this Big lineup but the Bradely who lets everyone in the NBA dunk on him isnt the one I would like to see. I hear Bradely is working in the gym everyday but I would still love to see him at the camp for Big Men.

Murphy3 · 07-17-2002, 11:14 AM

i love the idea of going big...
but, like i've begged for all summer.. let's bring in a guy that can bang so going big will be a bit more effective.. just my thoughts

Nellie · 07-17-2002, 11:16 AM

<< well, my statement was well chosen ... i don´t wanna pretend we would have won with bradley getting more pt - nobody knows ... we just wouldn´t have received as many layups/dunks >>

Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to your entire Bradley segment even though one sentence made it to the post.

mpb319 · 07-17-2002, 11:20 AM

Amen Murph!

Bigger is better if the Big people have the ability to defend and rebound and when they get the ball at the rim to slam it once in a while.

Murphy3 · 07-17-2002, 11:28 AM

hopefully bradley can get back to his form of a couple of years ago...

mpb319 · 07-17-2002, 11:54 AM

Yeah it would be great if Bradley got back to just sucking and not REALLY REALLY REALLY SUCKING![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]
That would be fantastic![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

MavsFanFinley · 07-17-2002, 04:13 PM

I've given up on what to expect from Bradley. He can be in there for 5 minutes doing ok, he makes one mistake, and Nelson yanks him and gives him an earful. Other times he comes in for 2 minutes and looks absolutely lost. If he could get back to the way he was 2 years ago (even half that), I like the idea of a big lineup, obviously depending on matchups, etc.

BUT, I don't know why people are soo against the idea of Esch being capable of filling that role. He was playing well for us before he sprained his ankle in that Chicago game (same one Finley injured his hamstring). I don't know if he just never recovered or Nelson fell out of love with using him, but he could NEVER get off the bench after that. He had a nice short showing against Minne in the playoffs when Raef seemed to nervous. He did well, then Raef came in and took care of business. I know it was only one game, but you could see that he could be useful in certain situations. Did he ever play again?

Having said all that, I'm not saying these 2 guys are the answer and lets roll with it, epecially if we could find an upgrade for that position using one or both of them. I don't think Bradley is capable of banging around, but he will cut the layups down some. Esch is a little more for the banging around (some of it anyway), if Nelson could only find a way to use both their strengths, they could be usable.

But, we're talking Nelson here, so I won't be surprised if we see them at the end of the bench again.

Nellie · 07-17-2002, 04:39 PM

We should have never re-signed him last summer. I knew then when we did it that we would end up regreting it.

dude1394 · 07-17-2002, 05:56 PM

<< I've given up on what to expect from Bradley. He can be in there for 5 minutes doing ok, he makes one mistake, and Nelson yanks him and gives him an earful. Other times he comes in for 2 minutes and looks absolutely lost. If he could get back to the way he was 2 years ago (even half that), I like the idea of a big lineup, obviously depending on matchups, etc.

BUT, I don't know why people are soo against the idea of Esch being capable of filling that role. He was playing well for us before he sprained his ankle in that Chicago game (same one Finley injured his hamstring). I don't know if he just never recovered or Nelson fell out of love with using him, but he could NEVER get off the bench after that. He had a nice short showing against Minne in the playoffs when Raef seemed to nervous. He did well, then Raef came in and took care of business. I know it was only one game, but you could see that he could be useful in certain situations. Did he ever play again?

Having said all that, I'm not saying these 2 guys are the answer and lets roll with it, epecially if we could find an upgrade for that position using one or both of them. I don't think Bradley is capable of banging around, but he will cut the layups down some. Esch is a little more for the banging around (some of it anyway), if Nelson could only find a way to use both their strengths, they could be usable.

But, we're talking Nelson here, so I won't be surprised if we see them at the end of the bench again. >>

I thought esch did ok for a while. If he is ONLY (and I mean ONLY) asked to rebound. But watching him take shots at the foul line or closer his shot is ridiculous. He really needs to go stronger to the hoop or work on some low-post moves. Right now he is such a detriment on offense that it is hard to put him in.

Just211 · 07-17-2002, 06:01 PM

Who else feels that if the Mavs are going to spend any money on veteranFA's it should be on big men only. If they're going to bring in SF or SG depth I'd like to see youth or a vet at minumum. Also if they are truly shopping Van Exel, I'd like to see some youth at PG

This is not to say Russell is bad , or bad to aquire, he's a great player, but if he continues to struggle and ends up at the end of the bench with BRADLEY, that's a lot of money that could have gone to a young up and comer.

MavsFanFinley · 07-18-2002, 12:24 AM

It's Vlade's version, but here is an updated article on things. Sounds like Buck is headed to Philly, not surprising with the Lakers keeping George. Nothing new on Russell and no mention of Oakley.

Mavs to offer LaFrentz $60 million
07/18/2002

By JODIE VALADE / The Dallas Morning News

The start of the NBA free agency signing period came Wednesday with the same action that has taken place all summer for the Mavericks and most of the league: nothing.

Though a contract with Raef LaFrentz is expected to be finalized soon, negotiations still are taking place, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said Wednesday.

"Nothing is agreed on," Cuban said. "[We] still have work to do on Raef."

Cuban said he would give LaFrentz the maximum seven-year deal, and compensation is expected to be in the $60-million range.

But news that the NBA salary cap has gone down for the first time in league history – to $40.271 million – combined with the threat of a luxury tax for this season, has slowed negotiations league-wide. Owners are less willing than ever to pay – even in Dallas, where Cuban has said he will be cautious with spending.

That's why Mavericks free agent Eduardo Najera probably will have to settle for less than top role players have earned in the past few years. Najera's agent, Dan Fegan, said his client is deserving of money befitting top bench contributors. Cuban declined to comment on specifics, but said negotiations with Najera are ongoing.

"We love Eddie and really want him back," Cuban said.

The Mavericks are well in luxury tax territory, with $60 million already committed for the upcoming season before the team re-signs any free agents. The luxury tax could hit teams that exceed a $50 million payroll.

Greg Buckner is expected to agree to a six-year deal with Philadelphia as the Mavericks first free-agent loss of the summer. The Mavericks still await Wang Zhizhi's selection of an agent before beginning negotiations with the restricted free agent.

Players such as Bryon Russell are lower-tier targets, Cuban said, who could be given deals if they are willing to settle for far less money than previous contracts.

"Because of the cap coming in so low, and the luxury tax hurdle looking like it could be under $50 million, there will be a bunch of great players who might become great bargains," Cuban said.

Briefly ...

The lower cap means Dirk Nowitzki's six-year contract extension signed last fall is worth less than the estimated $90 million. His contract is based on this season's salary cap, which means its value is about $79 million.

Dooby · 07-18-2002, 08:12 AM

<< The lower cap means Dirk Nowitzki's six-year contract extension signed last fall is worth less than the estimated $90 million. His contract is based on this season's salary cap, which means its value is about $79 million. >>

Anybody think about that? Dirk's salary is worth less because the cap went down. I suppose this means all max contracts and those to be signed in the future are worth less as well. So, theoretically, it might take less to sign Duncan or Kidd next year. That doesn't do the Mavs much good, though.

jacktruth · 07-18-2002, 08:38 AM

Problem last year is that Nellie didn't use Bradley until the end of the season and expected him to perform. I think if you start Bradley you make it more interesting for him, even if you pull him after 5 minutes.

I think Russell is a good addition. He plays good D and has killed us with a three here and there in the past. Good backup for Finley.

Nellie · 07-18-2002, 09:44 AM

<< Problem last year is that Nellie didn't use Bradley until the end of the season and expected him to perform. >>

Wow! I can't say I agree with you on that. The problem is that Bradley is not a good player, so Nellie didn't play him.

Big Boy Laroux · 07-18-2002, 09:47 AM

now, bradley played very well at times last year, and nellie pull him for no reason. bradley has been in nellie's doghouse plain and simple.

but i also think that in the nba, when you are given a chance, you have to make the most out of it, and shawn did not do that in his limited minutes last year...

but hey! he's been working out hard this offseason, just like he always does during other offseasons!

seelenjaeger · 07-18-2002, 09:47 AM

no Nellie - the problem is that Bradley will never learn how to play with his teammates if he doesnt play, and therefore he can´t contribute, no matter at what level

Nellie · 07-18-2002, 10:06 AM

<< no Nellie - the problem is that Bradley will never learn how to play with his teammates if he doesnt play, and therefore he can´t contribute, no matter at what level >>

Same ol song and dance I have heard a million times. Bradley does not have an NBA body and never will. It has nothing to do with confidence, it has nothing to do with working out, it has nothing to do with cheese cake diets. He has been in the league for 11 years and has disappointed in all most all of those seasons. There was a time when I defended Bradley, and even one of the greatest Maverick playoff moments in history is when he elbowed Malone in the face dropping him for the count in game 3 can be credited to his name. But helping this team get to the next level? No way. After 11 years you should know what you are getting. No offseason workout is going to change that.

jacktruth · 07-18-2002, 10:10 AM

Exactly seelenjaeger. Even if a player sucks and screws up a lot, you can't expect him to come off the bench and in the playoffs and produce when he hasn't played in the last 30 games.

In the 2001 playoffs, Bradley was invaluable against Utah, and stepped up his game. The difference was that he was part of the team during the regular season.

I'm not saying Bradley is great by any stretch. I'm just saying that if you want him to perform in the playoffs, you need to play him in the regular season. Notice that when little Nellie was coaching, he played Bradley and got some productive minutes out of him.

Nellie · 07-18-2002, 10:16 AM

<< In the 2001 playoffs, Bradley was invaluable against Utah, and stepped up his game. The difference was that he was part of the team during the regular season. >>

Apples and oranges, I mean, then and now. Our team is very much different and very much better than that 2001 team. There was a time when Bradley's underachieving was accepted because he was the best option we had and he had to be played. That doesn't apply anymore with this team.

Murphy3 · 07-18-2002, 10:18 AM

the team is better now than it was when it made it's initial playoff run a couple of years ago.. but they ARE NOT beyond the point to where if bradley was playing at that level that he wouldn't be significantly helping the team.

not at all... bradley at the level would be huge for this mavs team

seelenjaeger · 07-18-2002, 10:18 AM

Nellie - "after 11 years you know what you´re getting"

that´s exactly the point: I know what I get, just what you´´re expecting has nothing to do with what you can get.

Bradley is not a guy who can give you 10/10/5 over a year, but he´s a guy who can give you 10/10/5 every given night - if he´s in the game, in the team and he has all the confidence he needs.

Bradley can win u games by ripping opponents - and if you´re able to utilize him in the right way, he will ... it´s just to make sure that the 2 or three games you win because of bradley are games ni the playoffs ...

Nellie · 07-18-2002, 10:30 AM

Listen to what you are saying though...

"Bradley CAN help us if he is used right."

Translation:

"I am putting my faith in a guy that will put up respectable numbers 1 out every 5 nights if Nellie plays him more."

I just can't get on board with that at all. Small ball is a better alternative.

Let me ask you something: if we could trade Bradley and his contract right now for another position that we need right now such as a respectable back-up PG, would you do it?

Murphy3 · 07-18-2002, 10:32 AM

unless nellie and cuban plan on making a deal to bring in a banger.. bradley is the mavs best option.

seelenjaeger · 07-18-2002, 10:35 AM

huh?

Trade Bradley for a backup PG? NEVER.
Trade Bradley for a backup SG? NOPE.
Trade Bradley for a backup SF? NO.
Trade Bradley for a backup PF/C? Depends.

One trade I´d do:

Bradley + NVE for Spre + Harrington

One trade I won´t do:

stuff like

Bradley for Caffey or likewise

Nellie · 07-18-2002, 10:36 AM

<< unless nellie and cuban plan on making a deal to bring in a banger.. bradley is the mavs best option. >>

I would say small ball is.

seelenjaeger · 07-18-2002, 10:37 AM

and Nellie - just checking that we are talking about the same team?

The Mavs need a respectable backup PG ????????????????????????????????

This is summer 2002 ... we have Nash, VanExel, Avery Johnson

Don´t you think adding a backup PG now would be a little ... hmmm ... optimistic?