Antawn Jamison's Trade Value Or Lack Of - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Lvubun1 · 11-22-2003, 06:51 AM

I think we all have to realize the trade value of Jamison, their are probably some teams who wouldn't take Jamison for free. If Jamison was a free agent how many teams would offer him 6 years at the max? Probably none, the teams that are willing to take on 6 years at 75 million are a small handfull. I don't think Jamison has done anything to improve his trade value since being given away by the Warriors. Its hard to imagine being able to parlay some real value from a guy who just 3 months ago was packaged with some other decent players for a 32 year old PG and some IR guys.

If Jamison was able to fetch a Vince Carter, T-Mac or some other great player like I always see in these fantasy trade ideas, why didn't the Warrior's just cut out the middle man(the Mavs) and make a Jamison package with Toronto for Carter or Orlando for Mcgrady or with another team for another impact player? Its kinda like your in a auction with 31 people and you buy a lamp for $10, you can't go back to that same auction the next day with those same 31 people and try to sell that same lamp for $100. If somebody wanted the lamp they would have bid more then $10 for it back when it was up for sale, just because you have now that doesn't mean its value has increased. Picture the people as NBA teams, the lamp as Jamison and the money as trade value, with the $10 being the package the Mavs gave to the W's, and the $100 being what we are expecting back if the Mavs trade Jamison. So when Jamison/Lamp were up for bidding, nobody but the Mavs offered more then chump change for him, now we can't expect for the same NBA teams who didn't offer more then $10, (NVE and scrubs) to all of a sudden do a 180 and give the Mavs alot more then what we paid for. Now on the bright side, the guy who purchased the Lamp(Cuban) is one hell of a sales person, he might be able to fix it, clean it up and make it sound attractive and sell it for more, but it remains to be seen.

Now did everybody follow that [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] You can do the exact same thing with Fortson just subsitute "Lamp" with "Baked Potato" "Teletubby" or "Bucket of fat"

seelenjaeger · 11-22-2003, 07:09 AM

Well, the difference is, that the Mavs took Fortson as part of the trade, so actually the Jamison trade was not about trading Jamison, but more about getting rid of Fortson while getting kinda equal value for Jamison back.

Now if you trade Jamison, add some nice talent and take another contract or lockerroom burden, you might actually increase the trade value of Jamison. As simple es that.

Well, of course it´s not as simple as that, but it´s Donns job to find takes if there´s need to move him.

For example:

packaging Howard, Delk and Jamison makes the Jamison deal himself alot cheaper and you have a pretty damn fine package of talent to ship.

LRB · 11-22-2003, 12:29 PM

1st of all, I would think that McGrady is all but untouchable. There is only a handful of players that could pry him loose and the only one on the Mavs is Dirk.

2nd of all, I don't think that Vince Carter is that untouchable, but he certainly didn't fill the need for the warriors that NVE did. Plus It's very likely that the Raptors didn't want to take the Potato.

As for Jamison contract, well teams will be willing to accept a high salary in a trade that pay one out in FA. Why? Because you have to have 100% of the salary offered to be available in cap space. Most teams don't have that. But if you trade, you lose cape dollars basically equal to those you take on. So yes a team would be taking on big dollar with Jamison, but they would be dumping fairly close to the same dollars. So if the have someone even more overpaid than you think Jamision is, and I'm sure there are at lease several players like that, then this makes sense. If a team has a need that Jamison fills but rundancy in a nother position, then they would be willing to trade their rundundant talent to fill their need.

Also be aware that circumstances change and the price teams are willing to accept for talent can change. I'm sure that Bonzi's cussing of cheeks made him cheaper, as did Kobe's alledged rape, as did TMac's recent coach and player snipings. I'm not saying that the price for these three dropped a lot, but I'm sure that each team would be willing to take a little less than they previously would have. Sometimes a little is all that was keeping a deal from being made.

Also Jamison salary can work for the Mavs as it could allow a team to dump several undesirables which in total would match Jamison's salary. The Mavs might be able to take the bad players to get a good player with a cheap contract. Many teams, including the warriors, might not have especially if these were long term contracts. Would you rather overpay one good player or several really bad players?

In other words there are many factors to be considered. But IMO it would be in the Mavs best interest not to do any more trades this year. I could only see a trade where we got a huge big man talent such as Jermaine O'Neal or KG(the player), and quite frankly I just don't see that as being a reasonable possibility.

sike · 11-22-2003, 01:08 PM

[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB
1st of all, I would think that McGrady is all but untouchable.

YOU'D be surprised how much 11 loses in a row will loosen that "untaouchability"....but no way do we need a great 2....remember, were looking for bigs!

grndmstr_c · 11-22-2003, 01:09 PM

Lvubun, you've made this argument several times, and to the extent that AJ does have a very big contract, you're right that teams are not going to be chomping at the bit to get him. But don't devalue him just because we got him so cheap. The reason that happened had no more, and probably less to do with AJ than it did with Fortson and Dunleavy. The Warriors were desparate to get rid of the former, and their evaluation of the latter made the small forward position the obvious choice to dip into for the package. Yes AJ's overpaid, but in the grand scheme of things he's overpaid by a considerably smaller amount than is Fortson, and AJ was the leading scorer on a pretty darn good offense last year.

Now, what is AJ's value? I don't think there's any way way get a talent steal for him the way we did when we got him, but a fair amount of that has to do with him being such a good player that in order to get anybody who's any better you have to start looking at guys who are in the untouchables category. Could he be traded for a guy of his caliber? If it filled a need for both teams and their contracts were equivalent (there are lots of inflated contracts around the league), I don't see why not. He's a quality guy so he doesn't come with any baggage.

I think AW's trade value *will* be higher next year. Yes, AW has baggage, but for teams looking to cut salary, his contract, once there's only a year left on it, will be an attractive one.

Dirkenstien · 11-22-2003, 01:33 PM

The Mavs are in a great position to where they have an abundant amount of talent on their roster. If another team were interested in one of the Mavs players they surely would not overlook the depth of this club, therefore attempting to correlate stats, or lack there of to talent.