Iggy wants out if the Sixers still suck at deadline

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by mavs777

IGGY'S numbers are considerably down this year (PPG, FG %, Three point percentage, free throw percentage) at this stage I think he is just a small upgrade over Butler not really worth it

It's certainly debatable how much of an upgrade he would be, but what do you mean by "not really worth it?" Not worth what exactly? If you mean his salary, I would say his contract is quite reasonable. (3 years for roughly 44 mil, and the last year is unguaranteed if I'm not mistaken.) Given his level of production and the fact that he's only about to turn 27, that's by no means a bad contract.

If you're worried we'd have to give up too much for him, as GMC pointed out earlier, it's pretty unlikely that teams are going to break the bank for him. If the deal is say, Iggy for Butler, Ajinca/Mahinmi, Dojo and a future pick, I would do that seven days a week and twice on Sunday. Maybe that's too optimistic, but again, I honestly don't see other teams willing to offer a much more. It wouldn't be much different than the way the Mavs got Butler for Howard. Butler is a very productive player with a large expiring contract, and those are a valuable commodity indeed in today's NBA.

We also need to consider what the Mavs' plans are beyond this season. Honestly, what do you think is the best course of action here? Due to his expiring contract, Butler is clearly the odd man out here. If we don't trade him before the deadline, then we either re-sign him or simply let his contract expire. Neither of those options appeal to me much at all. (Also, I'm not clear how the salary cap/Bird rights works. Is it even possible to re-sign both Butler and Chandler in the same season?) Whatever the case, the Mavs have a bit flexibility now which they probably won't have next season. Given the fact that our championship window is probably only 2 years or so, if they have a chance to move Butler for an upgrade, even if it's only a small upgrade, I say it would be just plain stupid not to take that chance (and frankly I think Iggy is more than a small upgrade over Butler.)

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

It's certainly debatable how much of an upgrade he would be, but what do you mean by "not really worth it?" Not worth what exactly? If you mean his salary, I would say his contract is quite reasonable. (3 years for roughly 44 mil, and the last year is unguaranteed if I'm not mistaken.) Given his level of production and the fact that he's only about to turn 27, that's by no means a bad contract.

Yes, it absolutely is a bad contract. The final year is fully guaranteed. It's not horrendous, but it's a long contract for a lot of money for a low end second banana or high end third banana.

If you're worried we'd have to give up too much for him, as GMC pointed out earlier, it's pretty unlikely that teams are going to break the bank for him. If the deal is say, Iggy for Butler, Ajinca/Mahinmi, Dojo and a future pick, I would do that seven days a week and twice on Sunday. Maybe that's too optimistic, but again, I honestly don't see other teams willing to offer a much more. It wouldn't be much different than the way the Mavs got Butler for Howard. Butler is a very productive player with a large expiring contract, and those are a valuable commodity indeed in today's NBA.

I think it's very unclear just how valuable expiring contracts are this season. With the threat of the lockout, owners may not be as concerned with shedding salary this season if they won't have to pay it next season. And it's unclear what will happen to the salary structure with the new CBA. It might make a team like Philly more desperate to get rid of a long contract like Iggy's, but it might also take the luster off expiring contracts. I'm not sure we have enough information right now.

We also need to consider what the Mavs' plans are beyond this season. Honestly, what do you think is the best course of action here? Due to his expiring contract, Butler is clearly the odd man out here. If we don't trade him before the deadline, then we either re-sign him or simply let his contract expire. Neither of those options appeal to me much at all. (Also, I'm not clear how the salary cap/Bird rights works. Is it even possible to re-sign both Butler and Chandler in the same season?) Whatever the case, the Mavs have a bit flexibility now which they probably won't have next season. Given the fact that our championship window is probably only 2 years or so, if they have a chance to move Butler for an upgrade, even if it's only a small upgrade, I say it would be just plain stupid not to take that chance (and frankly I think Iggy is more than a small upgrade over Butler.)

Yes the Mavs can re-sign Butler and Chandler if they so choose (assuming Bird rights don't change with the new CBA, which seems like a long shot).

[sefant77]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Yes, it absolutely is a bad contract. The final year is fully guaranteed. It's not horrendous, but it's a long contract for a lot of money for a low end second banana or high end third banana.

Well i said it allready, we have to resign Butler to a marion type contract until he is like 35, so i definatly prefer to have 27year old Iggy with 44mio left than 31year old Butler with ~35....

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Yes, it absolutely is a bad contract. The final year is fully guaranteed. It's not horrendous, but it's a long contract for a lot of money for a low end second banana or high end third banana.

We're just gonna have to disagree on that one. 3 years is really not that long (relatively speaking), and you know as well as I do that the Mavs have had PLENTY of much worse contracts in the Marc Cuban era. Brendan Haywood. Now that's a bad contract. Iggy? Middle of the road. Is he overpaid? Sure. Is he really much more overpaid than say, Jason Terry? Or Butler himself for that matter? Or 90% of all NBA players?

Yes the Mavs can re-sign Butler and Chandler if they so choose (assuming Bird rights don't change with the new CBA, which seems like a long shot).

Good to know. It's still a bad idea and I hope it doesn't happen.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

We're just gonna have to disagree on that one. 3 years is really not that long (relatively speaking), and you know as well as I do that the Mavs have had PLENTY of much worse contracts in the Marc Cuban era. Brendan Haywood. Now that's a bad contract. Iggy? Middle of the road. Is he overpaid? Sure. Is he really much more overpaid than say, Jason Terry? Or Butler himself for that matter? Or 90% of all NBA players? .

You're comparing him against guys that are in the last year of their contract of the next to last. Not really comparative.

I'm not saying it's prohibitive. I'm just saying that it is indeed a bad contract. I'm confused why you don't think it's a bad contract, you think he's a good player, and yet you don't think he'll cost a ton. Seems like a weird conclusion.

The conclusion is that he's a pretty good player, with a bad but not horrible contract, and that's why he won't cost a premium (although I still think he might cost more than we're willing to offer).

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by jthig32

You're comparing him against guys that are in the last year of their contract of the next to last. Not really comparative.

Sure it's comparative because I'm not talking about the future or the present, I'm talking about history here. I'm talking about the Mavericks' pattern of behavior; the pattern of taking on very expensive long-term contracts. Is Iggy's contract now worse than Jason Terry's was when he signed it? (Ok, Butler doesn't really apply in this situation because we haven't had him for very long, but Erick Dampier, then? Gana Diop? Jerry Stackhouse? Raef LaFrentz? Eddie Najera? Shawn Bradley? Antawn Jamison?) All I'm saying is that the Mavs of the past decade have taken on contracts much, much worse than Iggy's.

I'm not saying it's prohibitive. I'm just saying that it is indeed a bad contract. I'm confused why you don't think it's a bad contract, you think he's a good player, and yet you don't think he'll cost a ton. Seems like a weird conclusion.

We're really just mincing words here. I'm not at all implying that it's a "good" contract. You're saying bad but not horrible. I'm saying not good but not bad. What's the difference and who cares? We're not really even disagreeing on much of anything.

And I also never said he wouldn't cost a ton, but guess what? This is the NBA. Good players generally do cost a ton. And teams over the salary cap with an aging veteran roster desperately clinging onto the increasingly fading hope of a championship with a 2-3 year window generally do have to overpay to upgrade their rosters even slightly. All I mean when I say it's not "bad" is that Iggy brings enough to the table that he would be well worth the money and the years. It doesn't strike me as the kind of contract we would eventually regret taking on. The way I think of it, a "bad" contract is the kind of contract that you wish you could get rid of. Iggy is productive enough and young enough that if he were to come here, he would pretty much be the guy for us at small forward for the remainder of his contract. It's not likely that before the three years were up, we would be eager to get rid of him but would be stuck with him because of his contract. He'll still be valuable when the contract expires.

Hell, you said yourself it's not "prohibitive." That's essentially all I'm saying too. In fact, isn't that what a "bad" contract is? A contract that prohibits a team from making other transactions that would be beneficial? A contract that in the long run does the franchise more harm than good? At least that's my definition. I'm just saying it's an acceptable drawback for a better shot at a championship. I never meant to imply he wouldn't cost a ton. I'm saying that he doesn't cost so much that it should deter the Mavs from pursuing him.

(although I still think he might cost more than we're willing to offer).

Unfortunately, you are almost certainly correct about that.