Wang Gone? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

mick · 06-14-2002, 03:05 PM

Rumors say that Wang wants to play elsewhere next year because he doesn't think he will get enough minutes with Dallas.

GSW, Magic and Clipps are the ones named most frequently. One rumor had him leaning toward GSW because of the large Chinese-American populations in the San Francisco area.

He is a RFA, meaning we can match, but should we? I don't really know all the ends and outs of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Salary Cap, but if we do a S&T with another team and get something back we could use, it should leave our mid-level exemption in tact, right?

GSW and Magic are already over the cap I think, so all they can work with is the mid-level exemption, I believe.

Larry Hughes is also a RFA, would you try and do a dual S&T, Wang for Hughes? I don't know who else on the Magic or GSW we would do a straight "Wang for.." trade, without adding more pieces.

Clippers always have interesting pieces, but they are under the cap. But I doubt that they would offer Wang enought to do a S&T for Olowakandi.

Anyway, the possibility of Wang signing elsewhere does pose some interesting options.

Murphy3 · 06-14-2002, 03:10 PM

well, if wang wants to go play somewhere else,that's fine... move him in a sign and trade... and no, it shouldn't effect any exceptions

Bayliss · 06-14-2002, 03:16 PM

Let him sign if he wants to. No reason to trade him, especially not for Hughes. Now if they want to get rid of Troy Murphy, I wouldn't mind.

Murphy3 · 06-14-2002, 03:18 PM

well, of course, you dont' just sign and trade to sign and trade..but if you can get a servicable part, you sign and trade wang ... if you can't and wang doesn't want to be here..then let him go

of course, this is all just speculation.

Hoopsmeister · 06-14-2002, 03:20 PM

<< He is a RFA, meaning we can match, but should we? I don't really know all the ends and outs of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Salary Cap, but if we do a S&T with another team and get something back we could use, it should leave our mid-level exemption in tact, right? >>

That's all correct. Because he's our rfa we can sign him for anything up to the mid-level exception and it doesn't affect our own exceptions. We can also match any offer no matter how much its for and it doesn't affect the availability of our exceptions.

The Clippers definitely would not offer Wang enough to make a match with Olowakandi. If they let Olowakandi go, it is completely because Sterling is not willing to pay a player more than he is already paying Olo this year.

Dooby · 06-14-2002, 03:43 PM

My opinions on this subject are pretty clear.

I really could care less.

Stay or go. Go or stay. Whatever.

Indifferent.

Sorry that I don't have more of a HSO.

Murphy3 · 06-14-2002, 03:48 PM

well, dooby..i would like to get something for him if that is possible.. otherwise, if he wants to go..

Dooby · 06-14-2002, 03:48 PM

I mean, seriously, why do we continue to spend so much time and energy discussing Wang?

Dooby · 06-14-2002, 03:52 PM

BTW, you can't sign and trade Wang for a lot of money, because BYC issues arise. Therefore, a mutual sign and trade for Larry Hughes won't work.

Chances are he leaves and we ain't getting anything for him, or he stays. Really the only option. Could package him with NVE, I suppose.

Murphy3 · 06-14-2002, 03:54 PM

of course dooby, it would have to be some sort of package deal or an exchange between relatively small contracts...
but, if he goes, it doesn't change my outlook for the mavs one bit

Dooby · 06-14-2002, 04:06 PM

He could play for the Mavericks for 10 years, he will never win a playoff game for them.

seelenjaeger · 06-14-2002, 04:10 PM

just curious - why is wang a RFA?
he was a second rounder - therefore he should be a FA

j

Hoopsmeister · 06-14-2002, 04:22 PM

<< just curious - why is wang a RFA?
he was a second rounder - therefore he should be a FA >>

I'm not sure--but Najera is also an RFA and he was also a second-round pick. I think that its simply that a second-rounder doesn't have any restrictions on his contract. Meaning that when the team and player negotiate it, they can agree to the player being an RFA after 2 years. Take my vague recollection of this as FWIW.

mick · 06-14-2002, 05:36 PM

<< just curious - why is wang a RFA?
he was a second rounder - therefore he should be a FAj >>

Not sure either. But when all the Wang missing stories broke, I read something about Cuban would be making him a qualifying offer, I think. If that's the case, you only make a QO on RFA.

But you may be right. In which case, this topic is moot.

Drbio · 06-14-2002, 06:03 PM

I wouldn't break the bank on Wang but I would match offers if it's reasonable.

TheKid · 06-17-2002, 09:01 AM

I thought they were RFA's because they're in the third year of their contracts. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but when they changed the rules about first rounders having the four years with the fourth year being the team option, I thought they did that for second rounders too. Making all second round rookie contracts three years with the third year making a player a restricted free agent. Very few second rounders stick around long enough to run into this problem so I assumed this is why we haven't heard about it. Like I said I could be VERY wrong here and if I am I would like someone to help me out, but this was my thinking.