A Split Could Aid Finley and Mavs - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Stew3636 · 06-25-2005, 07:16 PM

Got to play pick up ball today at the mavs practice court in the AAC. Donnie Nelson was there and gave us a tour of the lockerroom. He said that right now Mark Cuban and Mike Finley were in Mexico at a wedding and talking about the situation. Just thought it was an interesting tidbit that others would like to know.

grndmstr_c · 06-25-2005, 07:19 PM

Spiral, Damp did not figure into the decision to not match Phoenix's offer to Nash. Cuban didn't match Phoenix's offer because doing so would have entailed additional salary in the short-term (something the Mavs didn't have to take on with Damp since it was a S&T), and would have additionally required that he commit to a fairly risky long-term deal (something he ended up doing with Damp). The Damp thing didn't start to gain steam until well after Nash's defection.

dirno2000 · 06-25-2005, 07:22 PM

Fin only played 4 games before getting injured...is that even worth looking at? He can be pretty erratic so by picking various 4 game streatches during the season you could either make him look like the best or worst SG in the league.

Like most fans I hope that Fin will be rejuvinated after going under the knife but a couple of things concern me:
1) When Nelson called him out he was able to play at a pretty high level for a couple of weeks.
2) His ankle looked fine while he was chasing T-Mac around in the 1st round of the playoffs...he was the best perimeter defender we had. I'm sure he wasn't 100% but most players aren't at that time of the year.
3) Nellie ran him into the ground for about 4 or 5 years.

dude1394 · 06-25-2005, 07:44 PM

I've never had a problem with cuban trading little nicky. It's because he got something back for it. But he got NOTHING for nash. Just like we are talking about getting NOTHING for finley. That's what is driving me nuts.

The Miles · 06-25-2005, 07:47 PM

Look, I miss Nick (and Nash to a degree) as much as the next guy but why do we have to live in the past so much?

Thespiralgoeson · 06-25-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: The Miles
Look, I miss Nick (and Nash to a degree) as much as the next guy but why do we have to live in the past so much?

I agree. If Finley was traded and the team was better for it, I'd be fine. If Finley was waived, and the team was better for it, I'd be fine. I'd love to see Fin end his career here, but I'm on the same page as dude. If losing Finley means getting something better, great. If we lose Finley for nothing, and he ends up signing with the Suns or Rockets, that's not great.

dirno2000 · 06-25-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

I really can't stand when people trash Cuban for not being "loyal" because he traded our beloved Nick Van Exel

I'm as big a Cuban defender as you'll find...I wouldn't trade him for any owner in the league. That being said, he screwed Nick out of $12MM. Van Exel agreed to make the last year of his deal a team option so Cuban would bring him to Dallas then Mark ships him out after one full season. As a Mavs fan I liked the trade but if I were Nick I'd have been pissed too.

grndmstr_c · 06-25-2005, 07:59 PM

It's an unfortunately small sample, but the selection of those 5 games was far from arbitrary, the numbers were very much within the range you'd expect based on his career standard, and it's all we've got to go on. We could go back and look at how he was playing right when he came back from the injury (he was playing well, I believe), as that might have been a decent indicator of healthy playing capabilities as well given that the coaching staff was very cautious about bringing him back and he was well rested, but selecting a cutoff date for the analysis becomes arbitrary and quite likely to be determined by the preconceptions of whoever's doing the selection, so I stayed out of that.

But he wasn't just putting up good numbers at the start of the year. He looked like he was playing well and moving well in putting up those numbers. People want to say that we should trust that Quis would make up for Fin based on a handful of games he played in 03/04 (not including you in that group, dirno, but a lot of the people who seem to think losing Fin wouldn't matter are in that group), and the argument has to cut both ways.

As to your list of concerns:
1) you could just as easily count that as encouraging. Good players respond to adversity. Not saying either interpretation is right, just that neither is particularly conclusive.
2) Fin's athleticism and movement looked to me to be impaired late in the season relative to his normal level, irrespective of his very game effort against McGrady. And my own opinion is that Fin was successful against Tracy mainly because he approached playing defense the right way, like a veteran, rather than because he was physically outstanding.
3) but never when he was nursing a nagging ankle injury that was going to require offseason surgery. And he is older now. His minutes do need to be cut if he's going to continue to play at a high level.

DubOverdose · 06-25-2005, 08:13 PM

Waiving Fin does nothing good for this team. Finley is still leadership, shooting, etc. We don't gain cap room to sign FAs. If we want to get rid of him to get a good player, wait til his contract is expiring. I doubt Cuban would cut Finley in order to save money. I think Cuban is set on Finley retiring a Maverick, and that's what I hope happens. Just because the Mavericks have the option of waiving a player doesn't mean we should. Besides, how much money would Cuban really save from waiving Finley?

DubOverdose · 06-25-2005, 08:17 PM

Shouldn't we really see what level Finley can play at after his surgery and having his minutes cut? Look at Stackhouse for example. A year ago he was purely trade filler, this season he really brought value back to his name and everybody loves him again.

dude1394 · 06-25-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: The Miles
Look, I miss Nick (and Nash to a degree) as much as the next guy but why do we have to live in the past so much?

Never understand these posts telling other posters what should be interesting to them.

Thespiralgoeson · 06-25-2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: dude1394

Quote:

Originally posted by: The Miles
Look, I miss Nick (and Nash to a degree) as much as the next guy but why do we have to live in the past so much?

Never understand these posts telling other posters what should be interesting to them.

I'm interested in the Dallas Mavericks winning a championship.

dude1394 · 06-25-2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: dirno2000

Quote:

I really can't stand when people trash Cuban for not being "loyal" because he traded our beloved Nick Van Exel

I'm as big a Cuban defender as you'll find...I wouldn't trade him for any owner in the league. That being said, he screwed Nick out of $12MM. Van Exel agreed to make the last year of his deal a team option so Cuban would bring him to Dallas then Mark ships him out after one full season. As a Mavs fan I liked the trade but if I were Nick I'd have been pissed too.

How so? I'd be shocked if that were true. If nick did that he was a complete knucklehead, I have a hard time believing that he would sign or agree to anything that would cheat him out of 12million.

Link please.

SeriousSummer · 06-25-2005, 09:20 PM

The option to waive a player tax-free is only good from the time the new CBA goes into effect until the season starts--about July 20 through the end of October. I don't know how much chance there will be to see how Finley does after the surgery.

Daniels, however, will have a chance to see what he can do in the summer league.

I remember when Dirk (after his second year?) led the summer league in both scoring and rebounding. At that point you had to know he was a player.

dirno2000 · 06-25-2005, 09:25 PM

Here's the link from the trade article...it's not very specific but it does allude to the fact that Nick gave up some of his guaranteed money to make the trade work. I'm almost sure that his contract didn't contain a team option when he signed it...I'll try to find something on that.

To you point that he was stupid if he did that, you may be right but he wanted to win and he was doing more then just paying it lip service.

Quote:

"He's ecstatic," said Van Exel's agent, Tony Dutt. "I think it couldn't have worked out any better."

Dutt said Van Exel agreed to some deferrals in his current contract. He declined to provide details. Van Exel had said he was willing to forego some of the guaranteed $26.5 million in the final two years of his contract.

link

Pirate · 06-25-2005, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Stew3636
Got to play pick up ball today at the mavs practice court in the AAC.

Wow. How did you get to do that?

dude1394 · 06-25-2005, 09:47 PM

It sounds like you may be right dirno. If true no wonder nick was pissed at cubes. And if so no wonder nash wouldn't take less money to stay, his instincts that cubes would screw him would have been well founded.

Pirate · 06-25-2005, 09:50 PM

Van Exel agreed to make the last year of his deal non-guaranteed, in order to get out of Denver. That made his bloated contract easier for Cuban to swallow, because the Mavs really didnt want him at the time. (Then again, based on his play and attitude in Denver, NO ONE wanted him at that point - he was stuck in a hell-hole of his own making.) There was no promise from the Mavs other than they would trade for him, if he accepted that change, and he did, and they did. He stayed in Dallas 1 1/2 years. I dont see anything wrong in what Cuban did - he just asked for a contract that was easier to trade on down the road, if need be, and VE eagerly complied.

dude1394 · 06-25-2005, 09:55 PM

Thanks pirate, I honestly didn't think that cubes had screwed nicky but I also don't remember the details.

Also checked his contract on realgm and it's still 35th in the NBA so still pretty high.

dude1394 · 06-25-2005, 10:01 PM

But I think my comment about nash not trusting cubes still stands. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Pirate · 06-25-2005, 10:07 PM

Nash could have asked for a no-trade and not had to worry. He went for the cash - and there is nothing wrong with that, but I think it is wormy of him to pretend there were any other issues that he couldnt have worked out, if he tried.

dirno2000 · 06-25-2005, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Also checked his contract on realgm and it's still 35th in the NBA so still pretty high.

It's over...nobody's picking up that option year. Do you guys honestly believe that Nick agrees to that if he know Mark is going to trade him to Golden State in less than two years? He came in, did everything he was asked and more only to be shipped to NBA hell...I like Cuban too but lets call a spade a spade.

dude1394 · 06-25-2005, 10:22 PM

I don't know if he would have agreed with it or not. He certainly was miserable in denver, but I just can't remember. Nor do I remember a big bro-ha-ha about him being traded at the time either.

dirno2000 · 06-25-2005, 10:32 PM

Of course you don't know, I'm asking your opinion: do you think he would have risked $12MM if he knew he would only be in Dallas for a year and a half...and before you answer, remember how upset he was with Cuban after he was traded.

alby · 06-25-2005, 10:42 PM

No NBA player would ever decide to risk 12 million dollars. I mean, just like Sprewell, Van Exel has a family to feed.

dude1394 · 06-26-2005, 12:28 AM

No I can't see any way that nicky would have risked 12million. No matter what the handshake deal was.

Pirate · 06-26-2005, 01:05 AM

Maybe. Remember, if he didnt find a way to go to Dallas, he was doomed to Denver for the rest of his career, with no hope of escape that dungeon. And he probably figured that by the time he got to that point in his contract, he would be playing so well that the final year would be a bargain and he would be kept. I am not sure it was Dallas he particularly wanted - just "anywhere but here" - and he got it.

He said why he was upset with Cuban. He felt he deserved the courtesy of a personal phone call before the trade happened, and didnt get it. In other words, his feelings were hurt. There was nothing financial about it, nothing that was reported at least.

dirno2000 · 06-26-2005, 01:41 AM

Quote:

He said why he was upset with Cuban. He felt he deserved the courtesy of a personal phone call before the trade happened, and didnt get it. In other words, his feelings were hurt. There was nothing financial about it, nothing that was reported at least.

I heard that too but I didn't think much of it. He may not have wanted to come out and say it but in my mind it was about the money...I'm reading between the lines but he made quite a sacrifice to come here because you know his agent had to warn him about the ramifications.

Like I said, as a Mavs fan I was happy to get Jamison but that pretty much dispelled any notions that may have been lingering about Cuban having any kind of loyalty to his players. I don't begrudge him for it, it’s a business.

uberfan · 06-26-2005, 09:43 AM

I still think that Stack will be the one traded, buy low sell high.

Quote:

Originally posted by: DubOverdose
Shouldn't we really see what level Finley can play at after his surgery and having his minutes cut? Look at Stackhouse for example. A year ago he was purely trade filler, this season he really brought value back to his name and everybody loves him again.

jayC · 06-28-2005, 04:11 PM

It only works if the mavs trade for Paul Pierce or Ray Allen?