Fin In Indy? Our Theory: Mavs-Pacers Will Deal - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

MavsFanFinley · 08-13-2005, 11:57 AM

Fin In Indy?
Our Theory: Mavs-Pacers Will Deal

By David Lord -- DallasBasketball.com

Historically, the Mavs are very tight-lipped about personnel moves. So, like most of you, I have watched and wondered with puzzlement all summer as we have observed what I'd consider to be weird and contradictory "leaks" from the Mavs' front office regarding Finley. Now we are down to the wire prior to the amnesty deadline, and I have a theory that maybe makes sense of it all. Play along with me, as first we review the summer regarding Finley, and then we try to fit it all together into something that makes sense.

As the summer began the new CBA was signed, and shortly thereafter we got the info that "wow, the Mavs may have to waive Finley because the savings is too monstrous to bypass." Soon thereafter we heard "there are trades already on the table for expiring contracts, but they are looking for better." The waiver idea was dead, it seemed.

We heard Orlando mentioned in print - followed by a hasty denial from a Magic GM known to deceive the public. Then we heard NY speculation, followed by an angry Isiah Thomas spewing about how that idea was nuts. Then we heard "you know, they may even keep Fin." (Keep him? What happened to the trade they already had?) This week we are back to "they just might release him." Or maybe trade him? So whats going on? Is this just crude PR gamesmanship in an effort to market an unmarketable player?

I have considered that possibility. But let's be honest here - if this was PR-ing, it was so crude that it would never be effective in creating interest where none exists. These GMs didn't get where they are by being that gullible, and the Mavs are smart enough to know it and to not try something so kindergarten-ish. It has to be something else. But what else can it be, with all the contradictions? And why is the Mavs organization so vocal (via media mouthpieces, including, by the way, DB.com) with all these contradictory ideas? If they really have a deal, why would they go back to a waiver? If they are willing to keep him, why make this so public? What's going on?

There is only one conclusion that makes sense to me - and I will give the general concept first, followed by a bottom-line guess as well. My conclusion is that early on (perhaps even before the amnesty rule was created) the Mavs decided they were open to moving Finley, and received an offer from a team for Finley that was almost good enough. Maybe it was one that combined a bit of savings with a bit of talent - but not enough of either to be quite enough. Now, here is the twist: suppose that the very same team also had a different set of expendable players that would be quite desirable for the Mavs. Maybe they wanted to give the Mavs a two-year player, instead of a one-year player they also have. Maybe they wanted to offer a player the Mavs had no use for, rather than one that would help fill a need. Let's say this team really wants and needs Finley. But let's say this team would have no shot at him if he is waived. So they talk. ... but there is a stalemate. The Mavs want the one-year player, or the more desirable expendable player. The other team keeps firm on a combo that really makes it a borderline deal. So the Mavs say "we are interested, but your package just doesn't work." Then you get the news leaks. The new CBA is signed, and a source says the Mavs are likely to waive Finley (hoping to make the team that wants him squirm, and up their offer.) Next you hear the Mavs might have a trade for "all-expiring" guys, which would obviously be with some other team. Then they say they might keep him. Talk of a waiver again. All of it is a game of chicken, to try to nudge that offer over the edge. Everything we have seen in the news would make perfect sense, if all along the Mavs have been playing hardball back and forth with one specific team.

If such a team exists, it would have to meet the following criteria:
1. Needs Finley
2. Has 2-yr contract players that are expendable
3. Has 1-yr contract players that are equally as expendable
4. A package either way could be put together for Finley
5. They have NOT been mentioned prominently in the newspaper speculation

Is there such a team? Yes, there is at least one. If you are playing along, you may come up with your own ideas here. When I looked at all that, there is one team that jumped right out at me: Indiana.

The speculation has gone up and down about various trade matches for Finley with this team, but the thing that intrigues me is how there are legal trades that ALMOST work for Dallas, as well as some that work VERY well. In addition, Indy is a team that is losing a Finley-esque player to retirement, Reggie Miller, and has not yet acquired a replacement. Miller was older, of course. But the bulk of his contribution was in the areas of (a) leadership, and (b) outside shooting. Ring a bell?

Now look at the players that Indy would possibly find expendable. Miller is retiring (1 year, no help on court). Pollard is a backup center, with one year left. Croshere is a backup Keith Van Horn type, with 2 years left. Bender is a backup F with 2 years left and a spotty track record - but some potential, perhaps.

For the Mavs, the best deal would have to include Pollard, since he has the short contract and fills a need. A Pollard-Miller combo, with a minimum salary scrub thrown in to fit the rules, would be ideal for Dallas financially, and would give Indy something they need (Finley) for something they don't (Pollard, Miller). Less desirable for Dallas from a money standpoint, but still feasible, would be Pollard-Croshere or Pollard-Bender; the money would be a wash almost, but the Mavs would pick up some potential oncourt help. If the offer is Pollard-Miller-Bender, the deal starts to be borderline - the Mavs pay more ($28.5M salary plus $28.5M tax, total $57M) than if they simply waived Finley and ate his remaining $52M in salary, but they gain a backup center. And without Pollard, the deal is even worse. The money is borderline and the talent is far less certain to help. Miller-Croshere or Miller-Bender are a virtual financial wash, and of questionable value in games. Croshere would be a $9M/yr player buried deep on the bench, a player whose game is like Van Horn but not as good. So to make sense of the summer, let's suppose that Indy all along has been offering Miller-Croshere or Miller-Bender. They want Finley badly. The Mavs need Pollard in the deal instead, to make it work. So the two teams have been playing hardball back and forth, waiting to see who will blink.

If this scenario is accurate, then intrigue still remains, because if Indy doesnt raise their offer, then the Mavs best move might be to waive Finley instead.

Will it be Indy? Will it come down to a deadline deal? We'll find out Monday.

TheFlyingGooseman · 08-13-2005, 12:11 PM

Stupid article written by moronic fool.
1. Finely was never a leader!
2. Indy won't take Finely unless they get Howard
I expect Finely will stay at Dallas or he will be waived.

snoop · 08-13-2005, 12:22 PM

[quote]
Originally posted by: TheFlyingGooseman
Stupid article written by moronic fool.
1. Finely was never a leader!

You are the moronic fool if you believe that. Being a leader might be the best thing Fin has left.

chumdawg · 08-13-2005, 12:23 PM

This is quite intriguing, especially due to Lord's confession that the Mavs used his site as a mouthpiece this summer. Are they doing the same now? If so, to what end? Seems odd, to me anyway.

But yeah, these two teams can make a nice match. Too bad we can't wriggle a way to get something more attractive out of Fin. But if comes to this, I guess that's okay.

Goose, it's a little early in the day to be drinking, don't you think?

echo · 08-13-2005, 12:34 PM

Yep I think it's our best and probably only chance of trading Finley. The other rumours (Orlando, New York) made absolutely zero sense to the other teams involved. Indiana has no chance of getting Finley if he's waived. He can fill the same role (3P shooting & leadership) Miller did. Because of salaries they already have (they can only amnesty one) taking on Finley's contract won't have as huge of an impact salary wise as it would for other teams. I agree no deal without Pollard (he's a backup center which we need, and expiring) but I think Pollard/Bender for Finley works for both teams. Not as much cap relief as Cuban wants, but they get some, plus the ability to move Bender perhaps for an expiring deal before the season starts.

The Miles · 08-13-2005, 12:42 PM

Pollard/Bender would be the choice that I would prefer also.

Interesting idea, sure wish they could wiggle David Harrison out of it.

dirk2003 · 08-13-2005, 12:47 PM

Larry Bird isnt an idiot.

Misfit Mav · 08-13-2005, 12:56 PM

DB.com is always very optimistic-- often overly so. This is an intriguing theory, but I don't expect things to work out this well.

Edit to add: Although, if the Mavs do have some kind of Fin deal on the table that includes a back-up center, it might explain their willingness to spend money on Christie instead of a big man.

chumdawg · 08-13-2005, 12:58 PM

You know, I've been kinda surprised that there has been very little speculation this summer that KVH might be moved. Can you see a larger DAL/IND deal that includes KVB?

SeriousSummer · 08-13-2005, 01:01 PM

Indiana takes on too much salary in a straight Pollard/Bender for Finley deal. I think somehow TAW gets added in and the Mavs take someone else back providing additional salary relief for Indiana. Then, maybe, Bender goes to Atlanta or Charlotte (are those the two teams with cap room?) for a 2nd round pick providing more monetary savings to Dallas.

After looking at it, Finley/TAW for Croshere/Bender/Pollard works. Maybe Indiana then uses its amnesty on Reggie Miller and Dallas does on Shawn Bradley. Indiana buys out TAW and Dallas sends Bender to Indiana for a 2nd or an unsigned player. Everybody, more or less, wins.

dude1394 · 08-13-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: TheFlyingGooseman
Stupid article written by moronic fool.
1. Finely was never a leader!
2. Indy won't take Finely unless they get Howard
I expect Finely will stay at Dallas or he will be waived.

Dang...I guess all of those players and all of evidence to the otherwise is wrong.

Calling david lords work "moronic fool" sounds more like this post.

The Miles · 08-13-2005, 01:17 PM

Eh, I really don't want Croshere here.

snoop · 08-13-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: The Miles
Eh, I really don't want Croshere here.

agreed

The Miles · 08-13-2005, 01:23 PM

Donnie Nelson would reach God-like status in this household if he could turn Michael Finley into Theo Ratliff.

chumdawg · 08-13-2005, 02:38 PM

Some kind of two-for-one or three-for-one is ideal for Indiana, as they desperately need to trim their roster down, particularly if they are interested in re-signing their free agents Dale Davis and James Jones. They also have four point guards on the roster once they sign Sarunas (Tinsley, Johnson, and Gill). Johnson has mentioned as a trade possibility, and this would makes sense given that he has three years and $9MM left on his contract.

That might help with another little problem, which is: Dallas can't afford to be adding many extra bodies, either. The only spots left on the roster, it would seem, are at PG and C. Croshere is just not a good fit for Dallas at all, assuming they keep Van Horn aboard. Bender isn't a whole lot better, particular given the concerns with his knee.

It almost has to be Pollard, Miller, and Johnson for it to make sense from Dallas's persepective.

Or there are other deals that make sense, which involved KVH instead of Finley. Then we could take Croshere back.

The more I think about the deals that make sense from Indy's perspective, the less I like it. I certainly don't want Croshere and/or Bender eating up salary, roster spots, and flexibility when Finley could do the same thing and offer a whole lot more to the franchise.

madape · 08-13-2005, 02:45 PM

well, according to Art Garcia, the Mavericks already have "one deal on the table"

of course, Art Garcia is a nothing but a shill for the organization.. apparently, just like David Lord

grndmstr_c · 08-13-2005, 02:49 PM

Bottom line, regardless of what Bender/Croshere are eating up in terms of salary, if it doesn't amount to more than what an amnesty-casualty Fin would eat up and the Mavs can get something useful like Pollard in return, it's worth doing. If you're concerned about roster spots just waive somebody (for example, Croshere or TAW). Or don't sign DA and let Quis be your third pg.

chumdawg · 08-13-2005, 02:58 PM

Boy, with Pollard and Christie we can be Sacramento East!

The Miles · 08-13-2005, 03:00 PM

And Bender is 24 years old. A change might do him good, but I have always been a fan of his so I am probably too bias to comment. He certainly has the talent to be a big time player but that knee could have done him in. Interesting scenarios though, that is for sure, Pollard/Bender would be nice. Bender's contract is friendly enough that if he doesn't do anything again this season then you have an expirer in two years and are done with the whole situation. Low risk/high reward even if the odds of JB ever living up to his talent are around 1%.

Can Pollard stay healthy though, that is the question I have. He is the real reason you do this trade.

MavsFanFinley · 08-13-2005, 03:09 PM

Bender/Pollard for Finley doesn't work anyway according to realgm. They'd have to throw in Gill to make the numbers work.

chumdawg · 08-13-2005, 03:12 PM

I can't understand why it wouldn't. I have 7.25 for Bender and 6.275 for Pollard. That should make for over $16MM in trade value...

The Miles · 08-13-2005, 03:15 PM

EDIT: Yeah, I get the same thing as Chum.

MavsFanFinley · 08-13-2005, 03:16 PM

Dallas Trade Breakdown

Outgoing
Michael Finley
6-7 SG from Wisconsin
15.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.6 apg in 36.8 minutes

Incoming
Jonathan Bender
7-0 SF from Picayune HS (MS)
5.1 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 0.6 apg in 13.3 minutes
Scot Pollard
6-11 C from Kansas
3.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 0.4 apg in 17.6 minutes
Change in team outlook: -6.7 ppg, +2.1 rpg, and -1.6 apg.

Indiana Trade Breakdown

Outgoing
onathan Bender
7-0 SF from Picayune HS (MS)
5.1 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 0.6 apg in 13.3 minutes
Scot Pollard
6-11 C from Kansas
3.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 0.4 apg in 17.6 minutes

Incoming
Michael Finley
6-7 SG from Wisconsin
15.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.6 apg in 36.8 minutes
Change in team outlook: +6.7 ppg, -2.1 rpg, and +1.6 apg.

Failed Scenario

Due to Dallas and Indiana being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Dallas and Indiana had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did not happen here (only Dallas met the condition). This trade does not satisfy the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Trade ID
Every trade made by fans is allocated a unique Trade ID which you can share with friends and fellow basketball fans to allow them to see your trade scenario. The Trade ID for this scenario is 2540209.

The Miles · 08-13-2005, 03:19 PM

Eh, I trust Chum and my Casio fx-300MS more than RealGM.

MavsFanFinley · 08-13-2005, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Eh, I trust Chum and my Casio fx-300MS more than RealGM.

That's fine. I've never had a problem with realgm so thought I'd post it says this scenerio doesn't work. I'm not swearing by it just throwing it out there.

DubOverdose · 08-13-2005, 03:30 PM

Bender is my best player in NBA Live 2K5...I always rack up 40pts and a triple double. This would be ideal so when 2K6 comes out I won't have to trade for Bender since he will already be a Maverick. Basically, if Finley is going to be gone and we're not getting an impact player in real life, then all I care about is NBA Live. But, I still like Bender's potential as an athletic big man.

VoteForBen · 08-13-2005, 03:42 PM

I do Bender and Pollard for Finley eight days a week.

Bender is the athletic four that wee need who doesn't command many minutes behind Dirk, but still has upside and can explode on occasion.

Pollard is the consummate backup 5.

If we pulled off this trade, sign Van Exel and call it an offseason, I'd be happy.

aexchange · 08-13-2005, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: VoteForBen
I do Bender and Pollard for Finley eight days a week.

Bender is the athletic four that wee need who doesn't command many minutes behind Dirk, but still has upside and can explode on occasion.

Pollard is the consummate backup 5.

If we pulled off this trade, sign Van Exel and call it an offseason, I'd be happy.

agreed. lets get the deal done. pollard is a nice backup for damp.

kg_veteran · 08-13-2005, 04:03 PM

IF Indiana is interested in obtaining Finley (I say IF, because I don't know) and they don't want to give up Pollard, there seems to be a rather obvious solution.

I've read all of the following in the last week or so:

1. Dale Davis is interested in coming to Dallas;
2. Dale Davis wants a salary starting out at more than the MLE; and
3. Donnie Nelson said they were interested in Dale Davis but couldn't afford him (because he wants more than the MLE).

Looking around the league, it seems to me that if Davis wants to play for a contender AND earn more than the MLE, his options are pretty limited. Indiana has non-Bird rights on him and can offer him 120% of last year's salary, which was around $10 million if I remember correctly.

So, let's say Dallas gives Davis a 2 year deal starting out at $6 million per with a 10.5% raise. That's 2 years, $12.63 million. A D. Davis/A. Johnson/R. Miller package would cost Cuban a total of $57.2 million or so over 3 years, meaning he'd save around $46.4 million. Not quite as much as the $51.8 million he saves by simply waiving Finley, but it allows him to add a legit veteran backup center and a third PG in exchange for Finley. Even if you had to pay Davis a 2 year deal starting at $7 million per, Cuban saves $44.3 million.

Dampier - Davis - M'Benga
Nowitzki - KVH
Howard - Daniels
Stackhouse - Christie
Terry - Harris - A. Johnson

NBDL: Pavel, Powell
Inactive: Marshall

That has the makings of a very good defensive team.

My two cents.

chumdawg · 08-13-2005, 04:20 PM

KG, to clarify what I said over on the other board:

Davis played for the minimum last season with the Pacers, after being waived by the Hornets. So the $6MM is out. They can offer him only the LLE or what is left of the MLE after they sign Sarus.

LRB · 08-13-2005, 04:22 PM

Nice observation KG, I was just thinking about Davis.

kg_veteran · 08-13-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: chumdawg
KG, to clarify what I said over on the other board:

Davis played for the minimum last season with the Pacers, after being waived by the Hornets. So the $6MM is out. They can offer him only the LLE or what is left of the MLE after they sign Sarus.

chum - I responded over there, too. Although it's unclear from the CBA and the FAQ, my reading is the same as yours after I looked at it -- that they can only offer him 120% of the minimum, so my scenario doesn't work.

Still, a Pollard/Bender or Pollard/Bender/A. Johnson package works just the same. It seems to me we could either offer to take Johnson off their books as a tip or somehow work TAW into the deal to give them some financial relief. Personally, I like including A. Johnson in the package because a) they have 4 PGs and would like to move him I'm sure and b) we need a 3rd PG.

Getting a Pollard/Bender/A. Johnson package fills both remaining needs on the team and saves Cuban $43.6 million or so. Not as much as $51.8 million, but he's got his backup center and 3rd PG without spending new salaries on them. Plus, when you factor in the Bradley waiver Cuban actually does save more than the $51.8 million. As I pointed out at LMF, the only problem with this package is that it gives Dallas 16 players under contract.

Get it done, Cubes.

chumdawg · 08-13-2005, 04:42 PM

Tipping one of the baby bigs gets you down to 15. Do you still do it then?

Stressboy · 08-13-2005, 05:16 PM

I wish everyone would stop saying they would save 51.8mil if they waive Fin. Maybe they would with the interest saved on the deffered payments, but in tax money and salary that is not true. 1st the tax is not $ for $. Since every team gets a rebate of tax money and player withholding now, that is much less depending on how much they take from the players. At the very least it is 97cents on the dollar. Which does not sound like much, but it does bring it down to $49.47mil total. Then there is ability to waive a different player (bradley for instance) which would be another 14.5 mil at most if you went with waiving Fin, you save 35mil. So if you are able to take on salary for 2 years and thus negate his last year, you would save 36mil in salary and tax and still save the 14.5mil from Bradley. Not to mention the intangibles which are he does not play for a competitor in the west and you get pieces that can be traded in other deals.

The other thing is I wish people would stop treating FA Finley as if he would be cheap. Unless he want's to play with Nash, he is going to get the FULL MLE which is 18-36mil for 3-5 years. If Indiana is looking at Fin they have to take the 18mil he would cost as a free agent and say hey this is just like getting a second MLE this year. 52mil - 18mil - 18mil(Croshere) - 6mil( Pollard) = 10mil they are kinda over paying for him, so that is not really that bad. I did those 2 because I can see them wanting to waive or trade Bender but that is just speculation.

The Miles · 08-13-2005, 05:22 PM

To get a backup center and a 5th pick overall at the age of 24 is not the worst deal. I know neither is a given to do anything but it does beat the heck out of releasing Finley.

DubOverdose · 08-13-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: chumdawg
Tipping one of the baby bigs gets you down to 15. Do you still do it then?

Dampier/Pollard/DJ/Pavel
Dirk/KVH/Bender
JHo/Powell/Marshall
Stack/Doug/Daniels
Terry/Harris/AJohnson

I'd say you take all players in to camp and see where they are and how they fit. The Mavs could easily be down on hope with Pavel or Daniels depending on how their game has come along, or Harris might have taken a big enough step where a 3rd true PG isn't needed. Either DC or Daniels could fill the void at PG if needed, in which case Johnson would be released. Johnson has only had two good seasons, he's aging, and doesn't rebound so for all we know he could be terrible next season. Also, does anyone know the status of Bender? He's an oft injured player, so he might not even be physically able to play this year, I really have no clue. Worst case scenario, we throw up our arms as we're between a rock and a hard place, we do a two for one, or trade a young player for a pick. If Daniels really doesn't fit in and hasn't improved, he could be traded to a team such as the Bobcats that can absorb his salary and give us a trade exception in return. Maybe this trade would open the doors for a PP trade or something, I don't know.

birdsanctuary · 08-13-2005, 06:11 PM

If pollard could be healthy he really could be a huge pick-up. He and Damp would be very solid at the 5. I like the deal and hope it gets done.

TomThaMavsFan · 08-13-2005, 06:28 PM

i like the thought of bender/pollard in a mavs uni for fin, your not getting much in point production , but you get more in terms of defense. Bender's young, lean, and athletic, he still hasn't reached his peak potential yet, with a year or two with Avery he may reach that potential everyone thought he might have. Pollard's basically a throw in , but he can contribute in terms of bench time for Damp. IF that deal's on the table, the mavs should take it and run with it.

DNNF · 08-13-2005, 07:38 PM

i;ll trade finley for a happy meal. Bender and Pollard is super sized.

TheFlyingGooseman · 08-14-2005, 09:41 AM

I wonder why some sport writers are saying that Finely's a leader when he never was.
I wonder why there are people on this forum trying to support the said statement.
HOW MUCH IS CUBAN PAYING YOU!