Are the Mavericks any better now than they were a year ago? - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Rhylan · 04-10-2003, 03:37 PM

<< How can getting down to $37M not be a good thing? For example, wouldn't that have made Cuban more willing to offer Redd more money this summer? >>

$37M isn't a good thing because we'd only be a few million under the cap. That would mean that the most we could offer to any player whose Bird Rights we didn't own would be that few million. If you're under the cap, you don't get any exceptions, either.

This past summer, we'd have still had Juwan and still been well over the cap. We would have had our MLE and Cuban probably would have been more willing to give it all to Redd, because we wouldn't have as many long term deals on the books. I think you're right about that one.

But that $4.5m to Redd would have given us a cap number of over $42m this summer AFTER renouncing Juwan's $20m. $42m is just over the cap, so we'd have an MLE, and be able to sign Juwan or sign and trade. But Juwan's value makes him a difficult player to sign and trade.

We'd have less money committed long term, but we would not be players in the free agent market, and we would also have less tradeable assets.

Murphy3 · 04-10-2003, 03:38 PM

Rhylan, I completely understand your side. I'm saying that the trade COULD have worked if the Mavs wouldn't have given Raef a horrible contract..and if they could have/can turn NVE into a SF or PF/C of consequence.

On this, trying to give both points of view..I think the trade could have worked but didn't because of poor GM/Owner decisions afterwards.

Get what i'm saying?

mavsfanforever · 04-10-2003, 03:40 PM

<< The sky's the limit, so to speak, for what we could've gotten for Juwan and his expiring contract this year. With so many teams totally desperate to clear cap space... sigh...

You know, it's really LaFrentz's contract that's the most bothersome. $77M... We make any more miss-steps like that (and we've already made a few), and we end up like the Knicks. Salary cap hell and no talent to show for it. Yikes.

Hopefully we can shed some of them in the off-season... >>

POPOVICH has done an outstanding job of not only developing a good team but also staying below the cap. I think we need to get something good from the Draft and let him develop.

Rhylan · 04-10-2003, 03:44 PM

Essentially, if you've got an owner who doesn't mind paying the luxury tax, it's always advantageous to be over the cap with a lot of contracts in the $4-$9m range, because those players are tradeable assets when their contracts are about to expire. I believe, even more so, with the leveling of salaries that we're now seeing, than are contracts >$10m like NVE's. The problem with contracts of that size, even when they're about to expire, is finding a taker that can give you decent value in return for the cap space you're giving him, without giving you too many players.

Of course.. Cuban's free spending attitude seemed to go away this summer.. which kinda puts the whole philosophy in danger. In principle, it works. But you have to be willing to go and pay for a Redd, or a Harpring, and you CAN'T outbid yourself for Raef or anybody else.

Don't count Cuban out, though.. he's made very accurate financial prognostications thus far. He may forsee a change in the salary landscape that we haven't thought about yet.

Murphy3 · 04-10-2003, 03:45 PM

Possibly, or more likely, he just might have screwed the pooch in not signing Redd to a bigger offer..and for overpaying Raef.

Rhylan · 04-10-2003, 03:46 PM

<< Rhylan, I completely understand your side. I'm saying that the trade COULD have worked if the Mavs wouldn't have given Raef a horrible contract..and if they could have/can turn NVE into a SF or PF/C of consequence.

On this, trying to give both points of view..I think the trade could have worked but didn't because of poor GM/Owner decisions afterwards.

Get what i'm saying? >>

Bingo, I almost said this. Remember how well we played against Sacramento, right after the trade? NVE going 100mph and Raef running the floor and sticking jumpers?

I believe that over time, this team has bogged down offensively and lost the "Greatest O on Earth" swagger that they had in last year's playoffs, and it's mostly a result of coaching. As much as I like Nellie, who else do you blame it on?

Murphy3 · 04-10-2003, 03:49 PM

Yep, on the J-ho trade, I can honestly say that I can see both points of view..
and it's possible that either way could have worked for the Mavs.

Unfortunately, so far, the Mavs have found a way to screw it up by the previously mentioned reasons in our last couple of posts.

So, whether you were for the trade or against it then or even now, I don't know how you could look at the end result and be happy because of the moves that the GM/Owner have made since.

SpursFan72 · 04-10-2003, 05:47 PM

MavsFan, I think you're right on about your approach to improving the Dallas team through the draft. There are always hidden gems in every draft. Guys who are not taken very high and go under radar. Since our teams have gotten used to winning 50+ games every year, I think both teams will have to continue to find a hidden gem, each season. Doing so, has helped the Spurs stay under the salary cap. For example, the Spurs took Tony Parker with the 28th pick in the 2001 draft and Emmanuel Ginobili with the 57th pick in the 1999 draft. Now look at how well these two young guys are playing for us. They are a big reason behind the Spurs' success this season. Not just Tim's MVP like year, like most people think.

Hopefully next season, we'll bring in our remaining 2002 draft pick, Luis Scola, whose still playing overseas and having a good season. I hear he's supposed to be an up and coming post player. http://www.nba.com/draft2002/profiles/luis_scola.html

Speedy · 04-10-2003, 06:11 PM

<< Yeah Murph, but having Howard to move at the deadline vs. being able to have $13m to get our pick of the free-agent litter are two completely different things.

Who was out there looking to clear space this year that would have made good trading partners? Don't say the Clippers, because in order to trade $20m of salary, you have to take back +/- 15% of $20m in salary. It would take 8 Clippers to make that trade work. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Raef's contract sucks, no doubt. We outbid ourselves. All things considered, and his current production being what it is, the fact that he's got the big money now pushes the trade over the line from successful to unsuccessful in my mind, too. But, Raef CAN get better, so it's not totally gloom and doom just yet. I still don't know how much better off we would be as a basketball team right this second, because Harvey would still be getting ass-sores from the cushy chairs, and Nash would be six feet underground. >>

Atlanta was looking to clear space. I read somewhere that they didn't make a trade based on the fact they were not willing to trade good players for trash players just to go under the cap. The Hawks were looking at Coleman for Ratliff, but the trade would not have placed them under the cap. In very realistic terms I believe Dallas could have virtually made the same trade this year-(Howard, Harvey, Hardaway, 1 mil cash, 1st round pick)+ Bradley, 1 mil cash-and received thes players in return Abdur-Rahim, Ratliff, Henderson, Terry.

As bad as Atlanta wanted to clear cap space, there was no team even remotely close to offering them that kind of talent, including over 20 mil in cap relief, in return. Ultimately, no one knows how players are going to perform after being traded, be it psychological/different conference/different system. That said, can anyone honestly say that you would prefer a line up of LaFrentz/Nowitzki/Najera/Finley/Nash/Back up pg Van Exel over Ratliff/Nowitzki/Abdur-Rahim/Finley/Nash/Back up pg Terry to compete in the west?

MFFL · 04-10-2003, 07:06 PM

<< I believe that over time, this team has bogged down offensively and lost the "Greatest O on Earth" swagger that they had in last year's playoffs, and it's mostly a result of coaching. As much as I like Nellie, who else do you blame it on? >>

I think a lot of the problem came from the Mavs changing their philosophy without adding new players. Taking great offensive players and asking them to adopt a defense philosophy is stupid when you don't give them role-models. The Kings were successful in their transition to having a defensive presence because they added Christie as a defensive stud. The offense-first players can now see how to play defense and the bonuses that it brings.

The Mavs brought in ZERO defensive players this year and their best defensive players are average at best by NBA standards.

FilthyFinMavs · 04-10-2003, 07:27 PM

<<

<< I believe that over time, this team has bogged down offensively and lost the "Greatest O on Earth" swagger that they had in last year's playoffs, and it's mostly a result of coaching. As much as I like Nellie, who else do you blame it on? >>

I think a lot of the problem came from the Mavs changing their philosophy without adding new players. Taking great offensive players and asking them to adopt a defense philosophy is stupid when you don't give them role-models. The Kings were successful in their transition to having a defensive presence because they added Christie as a defensive stud. The offense-first players can now see how to play defense and the bonuses that it brings.

The Mavs brought in ZERO defensive players this year and their best defensive players are average at best by NBA standards. >>

I think it's fine to label Bell, Najera and TAW all average defensive players but you have to give Griff his props. I'm only going to say one word. Kobe.

Murphy3 · 04-10-2003, 08:18 PM

How many players in the NBA have been more effective at guarding kobe over the past two years?

i'm willing to bet you can probably count them on one or two fingers

Rhylan · 04-10-2003, 08:27 PM

Griff has made me shake my head a lot this season with his decision making, but I love his quick hands. Plus, other than his inconsistent shooting, he's been way better since coming off the IR that time. But, he's an 8th guy at best.

He'd be great if we didn't have to start him. Same with TAW and Bell. They each have things in their games that I like. But none of them is an NBA-caliber starter at this point.

Murphy3 · 04-10-2003, 08:29 PM

you're right..the mavs have alot of guys that fit into the 8-11 spot on the roster..and not many that fit into the 4-5 spot..

griff has looked better shooting the ball since he got that metal contraption that was sticking out of his jersey removed.

Rhylan · 04-10-2003, 08:33 PM

'cept they said last night he was 5 for his last 23 from the field. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

FilthyFinMavs · 04-10-2003, 10:29 PM

I wouldn't really call Griff a 3. I see him more of a 2 but I think on this team here he is capable of starting at the 3 with his defense. The Mavs can't have a All Star at every position what team does with the exception of the Kings? Each teams roster has that one weak spot in there lineup but with the way Griff has been playing Kobe that is a very positive weakspot. I think we need a consistent lineup if anything. Najera should not be starting at the 3 or 4 or if Nellie plans on starting small ball then the 5 spot also. I don't mind Bell starting but I think one guy on this team who is capable of starting once he gets his game back to normal. The guy is Tariq. He runs the floor well and he is a Big body. He is pretty good defense player also. But if he wants to get pt he is going to have to find his midrange jumper.

Murphy3 · 04-10-2003, 10:32 PM

the mavs just don't have alot of athleticism off of he bench.. perhaps TAW can help to provide some of that when healthy..

David · 04-10-2003, 10:32 PM

As far as Redd goes and the thought that Mark should have offered him more money, it OK to say that since we are all willing to spend Mark's money.

Being in the luxury tax area, that $3M that Mark offered was actually a $6M cost. Should Mark have offered Redd the entire exception of $4.5M, that would have been a $9M cost. Is Redd, a player who doesn't start, worth $9M? Raef probably makes money in that neighborhood but at least he's near 7'.

Redd would have been a luxury item that, if he started, would have made Fin a SF, not his best spot. That would have meant more of that dreaded small ball, something along the line of, Dirk, Fin, Redd, NVE, Nash.

Rhylan · 04-10-2003, 10:42 PM

I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it until people (including Cuban) stop insisting otherwise:

The logic that adding a $4.5m player to a team over the Luxury Tax threshhold should be worth $9m to his team to be "worth-it" is totally flawed.

That player is not the sole reason your team is paying the Luxury Tax, so why should his production have to shoulder a disproportionate load of it? Raef is making $7m this year, and we were over the LT threshhold when we signed him, but Mark didn't run around saying "This is a bargain because Raef is going to give us more than $14m worth of production."

We are over the Luxury Tax because we have three max-level players, Raef making too much, TAW making too much, and Nash, Esch and Bradley both being paid pretty handsomely (just under $6m, $4m and $3m respectively). Each player should be expected, as a part of having the privilege of playing for an owner who is willing to pay them so well, to show his worth plus a "portion" of the Luxury Tax proportionate to his share of the team's base salary number.

PERIOD.

Murphy3 · 04-10-2003, 11:11 PM

if mark wants to tie his hands by overpaying players..bidding against himself, then there's absolutely NO REASON why not to criticize him for not offering Redd more.

Personally, i think the mavs guessed wrong..they didn't expect this much from Redd.

if they had, then surely they would not have passed up on offering him more...

OzMavs · 04-11-2003, 07:35 AM

Getting back to the question, I do not think the Mavs are any better than they were a year ago. The same problems are emerging.

I don't see drafting as the answer to any problems. The Mavs greatest opportunity to take it all is in the next few seasons. They need to find a ready made solution for their rebounding/ defensive problems quickly. I simply believe it would prove far too tough to expect a draft pick to come up to scratch in the short term. Nellie also seems loathe to play these draft picks, I wonder sometimes who is really pulling the strings on draft day as against who sets the rotation on a game by game basis. I would like to see more developmental work with a player the Mavs actually require. One that has a limited shot range, for balance purposes, preferably.

Dooby · 04-11-2003, 08:42 AM

<< I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it until people (including Cuban) stop insisting otherwise:

The logic that adding a $4.5m player to a team over the Luxury Tax threshhold should be worth $9m to his team to be "worth-it" is totally flawed.

That player is not the sole reason your team is paying the Luxury Tax, so why should his production have to shoulder a disproportionate load of it? Raef is making $7m this year, and we were over the LT threshhold when we signed him, but Mark didn't run around saying "This is a bargain because Raef is going to give us more than $14m worth of production."

We are over the Luxury Tax because we have three max-level players, Raef making too much, TAW making too much, and Nash, Esch and Bradley both being paid pretty handsomely (just under $6m, $4m and $3m respectively). Each player should be expected, as a part of having the privilege of playing for an owner who is willing to pay them so well, to show his worth plus a "portion" of the Luxury Tax proportionate to his share of the team's base salary number.

PERIOD. >>

I have never heard you say this. Otherwise, I would have said it earlier. This is brilliant.

Rhylan · 04-11-2003, 09:24 AM

I think I've usually only said it on LMF because they cry about Mark more over there. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Stressboy · 04-11-2003, 10:53 AM

Wow, what a great post. It took me forever to catch up on it. There seem to be two main conversations going on so I'll try to get to both, but I want to say thanks to Rylan for the great cap breakdown. I'll get to that alittle later.

1st, the question was posed as to weather the Mavs are better now than last year. I think if you look at the games against the big 3 only, you will be really deceived. Last year we faired about the same, I think we were 1-3 vs. Lakers, 1-3 vs. Spurs and 3-1 vs. Sac (If I'm wrong about that let me know). This year the numbers are about the same, with the main difference being that last year, I don't remember any of the big 3 or 4 for that matter being out for any of those games. This year, of 11 games played, we have had 3 Finley missed, 1 Dirk missed, and we have had 3 overtime losses when healthy. Also, at least 1 or 2 of those Sac wins last year were without Peja and one was one of the last games when Sac had already secured home court. This tells me that 5-7 vs. 3-8 given that 7 of those losses could have swung our way with a little luck(Maybe more confidence) and health is a push. The first Sac blowout was the only game where we just sucked the whole game. Thus, I think we are about the same if not more competitive against all those teams this year. I also think all of those teams give us more respect this year as opposed to last year, thus we always get their best shot.

Against the lower teams, we are much more consistant than last year, I think this is due to Dirks dominance of lesser teams, and even though we have 2 inconsistent players in Raef and Van Excel, one of them tends to show up more often than Howard did over the long haul.

Where I think the Mavs have slipped and I can't put my finger on it is against teams 5-12 in the league. Losing to the Sonics, Bucks, Orlando, Portland, Minnie, is where I think they have not played to their potential.

Someone said that when fin was out last year they did better, but if I remember correctly that 10-1 run without Fin was against the lessor teams. This year we played the Spurs, Lakers, and Portland 4 games of the 10 and we lost them all without Fin. I don't think you can compare the two streaks.

Now to the Howard trade. I am just as torn as most, but I want to throw in 5 things.

1. Howard was in is own way just as inconsistant as Raef/VanExcel as a duo and it cost us consistancy against lower teams. How does everyone forget hating his soft rebounding and flat inconsistant shot?
2. We might have been able to pull a trade at the deadline this year, but why take that risk given the numbers break down that Rylan gave us? Also, there is no way that Atlanta completely blows up their team for Howard and cap space. They might have done that deal if Glenn Robinson was the big piece instead of Rahim, but would you want that?
3. I did not like Cubans bidding on Lewis because it cost us Harping or Marshall, but there are other reasons he does what he does. In the Redd situation, he had a team that could match his offer and had to pay the lux tax, or they not and we got Redd cheap. 1.5 or 3 mill was not the issue at all it was the Bucks willingness to pay the tax or not to pay the tax (remember, the teams that don't get a kickback I believe. If that is correct, the bucks paid a lot more than 6 mil for Redd). Also, in the case of Lewis and Redd, he put two more teams into tax positions they tried to stay out of. As far as Cuban is concerned the more other teams have to pony up, the less likely they become as players in the future. I think the strategy is sound and he will continue to do it where possible especially to other west teams.
4. Raef is not that overpaid. There I said it. I know it looks like we got jobbed, but really the guy is playing out of position most nights and could be more consistant with a more consistant rotation (is that a Nellie dig?). He gets 1.3 mil more than Kandi this year. Even that report about overpaying and such said he was getting paid what he is worth even at his fallen numbers.
5. AJ is a very tradeable asset this summer. Nick is tradeable in the right combo as is Raef once his BYC comes off the books. Until I see how the offseason goes, I will not finalize the grade on the Howard trade.

Sorry for the long rant,

Stressboy

kg_veteran · 04-11-2003, 02:21 PM

<< I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it until people (including Cuban) stop insisting otherwise:

The logic that adding a $4.5m player to a team over the Luxury Tax threshhold should be worth $9m to his team to be "worth-it" is totally flawed.

That player is not the sole reason your team is paying the Luxury Tax, so why should his production have to shoulder a disproportionate load of it? Raef is making $7m this year, and we were over the LT threshhold when we signed him, but Mark didn't run around saying "This is a bargain because Raef is going to give us more than $14m worth of production."

We are over the Luxury Tax because we have three max-level players, Raef making too much, TAW making too much, and Nash, Esch and Bradley both being paid pretty handsomely (just under $6m, $4m and $3m respectively). Each player should be expected, as a part of having the privilege of playing for an owner who is willing to pay them so well, to show his worth plus a "portion" of the Luxury Tax proportionate to his share of the team's base salary number.

PERIOD. >>

Excellent post.

Murphy3 · 04-11-2003, 02:25 PM

something's gotten into him..he's been on fire with solid posts the past couple of days

Dooby · 04-11-2003, 02:31 PM

1. Why does Stressboy have "new member" next to his name. Hasn't he been here a while?

2. Excellent post, Stressboy.

Rhylan · 04-11-2003, 07:06 PM

<< something's gotten into him..he's been on fire with solid posts the past couple of days >>

been pissed off at the Mavs mainly. and allergies giving me headaches to the point where it's easier to think about the Mavs junk that's already in my brain rather than burn energy trying to think about work stuff [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

shoot Dooby, it took me like a year to get rid of my New Member status. Stressboy's just saving his bullets.