Lakers trade

[cmorioles]

Here is some idea of why this is bad from the Hornets. In it, Mark Cuban explains why he isn't signing free agents. It sheds some light on why the NBA nixed this deal and how it wasn't that great for the Hornets:

December, 8, 2011

By Tim MacMahon

I emailed Mark Cuban with one question: What am I missing?

It took a while to get to the question. The email started with my take on his Mavericks’ recent moves, or lack thereof: It appears that their logic is that the team’s long-term outlook is better if they attempt to reload next summer instead of bringing a championship team back intact to defend its title. The likely low odds of landing a superstar, given the landscape in the league and contract rules, makes this difficult to understand.

Then again, I didn’t think trading for Tyson Chandler last summer was a last-piece-in-a-championship-puzzle kind of move … so there’s no doubt Cuban and Donnie Nelson have earned benefit of the doubt. Or at least the opportunity to fully explain their decision-making process.

Still, it seemed that with the harsher luxury tax penalties not kicking in for a couple of years, the Mavs could have kept Chandler and sparkplug guard J.J. Barea and tried to maximize at least the next two seasons. What am I missing?

Here is the explanation straight from the keyboard of the Mavs’ owner on the first night he is free to speak again about the team's roster:
If this were the old CBA rules, we probably would have kept everyone together. But the rules changed.

If we were able to sign everyone to two-year deals, that would have possibly changed things as well, but that wasn’t in the cards either.

What you are missing is that it’s not about the luxury tax. It’s about the ability to improve our team going forward.

The reality is that in the new system, cap room will have far more value than it had in the past. I realize that everyone is all freaked out about how and where free agents and future free agents are going, but it’s not just about getting one guy.

We are not saving cap room in hope of that one super special free agent being there. It’s about being in the position to improve every year and possibly add some significant, younger players next year and in future years.

What I don’t think people understand is that once a team hits the tax level the ability to improve our team is reduced dramatically. In addition, your ability to make trades is reduced. So basically, if we made the move to keep everyone together with five-year deals, the team we have today is going to be the team we have for the next five years. If we were a young team it would be one thing. But we are not a young team.

In the past, it was different. If we had a problem, I could fix any mistake by having Donnie find a trade and just taking on more money. That is how we got Jet, the Matrix, JKidd, Tyson. It was always about taking on more money. That trick doesn’t work any more for teams over the tax. So we have to change our approach. By getting back under the cap, we have a ton of flexibility not only for free agent signings but also trades. If we can get the right guy(s) via free agency, great. if we do it via trade, great. We have that much more flexibility to make moves.

Again, I know this is tough for all of us after winning a championship. But we still believe as much as last year we are in a position to compete for a championship.

The difference is that with this approach, we can be in a position to compete for a championship this year and to reload and continue to compete in future years.

By just signing everyone to long-term deals, there is no chance of that happening.

We won last year because we put ourselves in a position to create opportunities that brought us the right players at the right time.

We structured contracts in ways that gave us upside. The rules are different now, and while it makes it tougher this year because of the affection we have for many of the guys that are leaving, if we want the Mavs to be able to compete for championships in future years as well, it’s a hard decision, but I believe the right decision.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Here is some idea of why this is bad from the Hornets. In it, Mark Cuban explains why he isn't signing free agents. It sheds some light on why the NBA nixed this deal and how it wasn't that great for the Hornets:

December, 8, 2011

By Tim MacMahon

I emailed Mark Cuban with one question: What am I missing?

It took a while to get to the question. The email started with my take on his Mavericks’ recent moves, or lack thereof: It appears that their logic is that the team’s long-term outlook is better if they attempt to reload next summer instead of bringing a championship team back intact to defend its title. The likely low odds of landing a superstar, given the landscape in the league and contract rules, makes this difficult to understand.

Then again, I didn’t think trading for Tyson Chandler last summer was a last-piece-in-a-championship-puzzle kind of move … so there’s no doubt Cuban and Donnie Nelson have earned benefit of the doubt. Or at least the opportunity to fully explain their decision-making process.

Still, it seemed that with the harsher luxury tax penalties not kicking in for a couple of years, the Mavs could have kept Chandler and sparkplug guard J.J. Barea and tried to maximize at least the next two seasons. What am I missing?

Here is the explanation straight from the keyboard of the Mavs’ owner on the first night he is free to speak again about the team's roster:
If this were the old CBA rules, we probably would have kept everyone together. But the rules changed.

If we were able to sign everyone to two-year deals, that would have possibly changed things as well, but that wasn’t in the cards either.

What you are missing is that it’s not about the luxury tax. It’s about the ability to improve our team going forward.

The reality is that in the new system, cap room will have far more value than it had in the past. I realize that everyone is all freaked out about how and where free agents and future free agents are going, but it’s not just about getting one guy.

We are not saving cap room in hope of that one super special free agent being there. It’s about being in the position to improve every year and possibly add some significant, younger players next year and in future years.

What I don’t think people understand is that once a team hits the tax level the ability to improve our team is reduced dramatically. In addition, your ability to make trades is reduced. So basically, if we made the move to keep everyone together with five-year deals, the team we have today is going to be the team we have for the next five years. If we were a young team it would be one thing. But we are not a young team.

In the past, it was different. If we had a problem, I could fix any mistake by having Donnie find a trade and just taking on more money. That is how we got Jet, the Matrix, JKidd, Tyson. It was always about taking on more money. That trick doesn’t work any more for teams over the tax. So we have to change our approach. By getting back under the cap, we have a ton of flexibility not only for free agent signings but also trades. If we can get the right guy(s) via free agency, great. if we do it via trade, great. We have that much more flexibility to make moves.

Again, I know this is tough for all of us after winning a championship. But we still believe as much as last year we are in a position to compete for a championship.

The difference is that with this approach, we can be in a position to compete for a championship this year and to reload and continue to compete in future years.

By just signing everyone to long-term deals, there is no chance of that happening.

We won last year because we put ourselves in a position to create opportunities that brought us the right players at the right time.

We structured contracts in ways that gave us upside. The rules are different now, and while it makes it tougher this year because of the affection we have for many of the guys that are leaving, if we want the Mavs to be able to compete for championships in future years as well, it’s a hard decision, but I believe the right decision.

CJ that article was from before the Paul deal was made. I dont see how it pertains to NO as they are in a far different place than Dallas and were never going to pay the luxury tax even before the NBA took them over. As a matter of fact I dont see how this deal is going to help the small market teams much except force the big market teams from going too far over the cap and making them give up a little more revenue. Billionaires helping Billionaires...

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

CJ that article was from before the Paul deal was made. I dont see how it pertains to NO as they are in a far different place than Dallas and were never going to pay the luxury tax even before the NBA took them over. As a matter of fact I dont see how this deal is going to help the small market teams much except force the big market teams from going too far over the cap and making them give up a little more revenue. Billionaires helping Billionaires...

I just think it explains why it isn't as great a deal as it appears on the surface. It isn't about the players it is about the money.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I just think it explains why it isn't as great a deal as it appears on the surface. It isn't about the players it is about the money.

Perhaps from the standpoint of the other owners in regards to the Lakers purging money but as of now the Hornets have 6 players under contract and are a huge amount below the cap. Cap space is only important if you can get players to use it. Now that there is a bottom salary number in place some teams including NO may have to sign some bad deals to simply get to the min number w/o penalty. What Cuban was saying is how the new rues effect the rich teams that were willing to pay the luxury tax. Teams like NO are on the opposite side. And as much as we fret about cap space and mid level exceptions the product on the floor every night is going to dictate where the team is headed. The Paul deal was going to allow NO to compete until a owner is found. Now they are screwed. Not only do they have a hard time attracting FA's the one trade chip they have has been taken from them.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The Paul deal was going to allow NO to compete until a owner is found. Now they are screwed. Not only do they have a hard time attracting FA's the one trade chip they have has been taken from them.

The Hornets would have been an average team in the NBA. Being average in the NBA is like purgatory, you are stuck. They are much better off blowing the team up and starting over. I also like that they are sticking it to Paul. He doesn't deserve the extra salary he can get if stays with his current team if it really wasn't his current team.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The Hornets would have been an average team in the NBA. Being average in the NBA is like purgatory, you are stuck. They are much better off blowing the team up and starting over. I also like that they are sticking it to Paul. He doesn't deserve the extra salary he can get if stays with his current team if it really wasn't his current team.

I have no idea why you think that losing Paul for nothing is a better outcome. Again they have 5 players under contract one (Okafur) who may evenutally be an amnesty case. How can the NBA allow a team to just go to the level that NO is headed, you know like all time worst team? The thing is that it isnt so easy to blow a team up anymore with a salary cap floor. The players they were getting were not only going to allow the team to compete (you know to appease the 10000 season ticket holders they crow about) but could also be used as future trade bait. The fact is that NO has pretty much zero chance to get marquee players through free agency if they are a team that wins 14 games this year and 10 next and they are supposedly courting an owner. "Hello Mr new NBA owner...meet your best player, Jarret Jack" isnt going to appeal to many potential owners. They will have to overpay desperados to get to the salary floor. How is that a good option. Again what good is cap space if no one wants to play for you?

[Cannon Shell]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/73...ow-sources-say

NBA may allow the 3 teams to "rework" the trade. Seriously? Who exactly is going to be added/subtracted to not make this look like a massive retreat if it goes through. Not to mention all the spin they have been applying will look even more pathetic.

I just wish Cuban, Gilbert and the rest of these assholes would stop insulting us. The lockout wasnt so small market teams could keep their players and there is no scenario where Paul is resigning with NO. Just stop with the nonsense.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have no idea why you think that losing Paul for nothing is a better outcome. Again they have 5 players under contract one (Okafur) who may evenutally be an amnesty case. How can the NBA allow a team to just go to the level that NO is headed, you know like all time worst team? The thing is that it isnt so easy to blow a team up anymore with a salary cap floor. The players they were getting were not only going to allow the team to compete (you know to appease the 10000 season ticket holders they crow about) but could also be used as future trade bait. The fact is that NO has pretty much zero chance to get marquee players through free agency if they are a team that wins 14 games this year and 10 next and they are supposedly courting an owner. "Hello Mr new NBA owner...meet your best player, Jarret Jack" isnt going to appeal to many potential owners. They will have to overpay desperados to get to the salary floor. How is that a good option. Again what good is cap space if no one wants to play for you?

Well, that is what we would find out. Lets look at who New Orleans was actually getting:

Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, Goran Dragic, and a 1st rounder in 2012. That core is not a 500 team. Scola can't guard anyone, Odom is pretty good, but he is more a sidekick guy, not a leader, Martin is a black hole that improved Sacramento by leaving, and Dragic a servicaeble backup PG. How are you going to market that team to a prospective new owner?

I would contend that any new owner would rather come in not saddled with some of those contracts. I wouldn't pay Kevin Martin 10 million for the next two years, let alone 25 million. Luis Scola is signed for 10 million per through 2015. Who would want that? I'd rather sign a bunch of scrubs for a year and get the lottery balls. There is a reason Houston is dumping Martin after a partial season and Scola to get only Gasol...they are bad investments at the price.

[Dahoss]

Chuck you were so right about how bad the PR has been for the NBA now. Stern has been getting slammed by journalists. Usually that is a good thing, but I can't remember ever seeing so many people in agreement that what Stern did was ridiculous.

Ironically, not allowing this trade probably does more to stick the final nail in the Hornets coffin than allowing it would have. Another blackeye for the NBA and Stern.

[RockHardTen1985]

Looks like Dwight Howard to NJ is very likely at this point.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Looks like Dwight Howard to NJ is very likely at this point.

Not after they got caught tampering it isn't.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Chuck you were so right about how bad the PR has been for the NBA now. Stern has been getting slammed by journalists. Usually that is a good thing, but I can't remember ever seeing so many people in agreement that what Stern did was ridiculous.

Ironically, not allowing this trade probably does more to stick the final nail in the Hornets coffin than allowing it would have. Another blackeye for the NBA and Stern.

The "basketball reasons" thing was embarrasing.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Here is some idea of why this is bad from the Hornets. In it, Mark Cuban explains why he isn't signing free agents. It sheds some light on why the NBA nixed this deal and how it wasn't that great for the Hornets:

December, 8, 2011

By Tim MacMahon

I emailed Mark Cuban with one question: What am I missing?

It took a while to get to the question. The email started with my take on his Mavericks’ recent moves, or lack thereof: It appears that their logic is that the team’s long-term outlook is better if they attempt to reload next summer instead of bringing a championship team back intact to defend its title. The likely low odds of landing a superstar, given the landscape in the league and contract rules, makes this difficult to understand.

Then again, I didn’t think trading for Tyson Chandler last summer was a last-piece-in-a-championship-puzzle kind of move … so there’s no doubt Cuban and Donnie Nelson have earned benefit of the doubt. Or at least the opportunity to fully explain their decision-making process.

Still, it seemed that with the harsher luxury tax penalties not kicking in for a couple of years, the Mavs could have kept Chandler and sparkplug guard J.J. Barea and tried to maximize at least the next two seasons. What am I missing?

Here is the explanation straight from the keyboard of the Mavs’ owner on the first night he is free to speak again about the team's roster:
If this were the old CBA rules, we probably would have kept everyone together. But the rules changed.

If we were able to sign everyone to two-year deals, that would have possibly changed things as well, but that wasn’t in the cards either.

What you are missing is that it’s not about the luxury tax. It’s about the ability to improve our team going forward.

The reality is that in the new system, cap room will have far more value than it had in the past. I realize that everyone is all freaked out about how and where free agents and future free agents are going, but it’s not just about getting one guy.

We are not saving cap room in hope of that one super special free agent being there. It’s about being in the position to improve every year and possibly add some significant, younger players next year and in future years.

What I don’t think people understand is that once a team hits the tax level the ability to improve our team is reduced dramatically. In addition, your ability to make trades is reduced. So basically, if we made the move to keep everyone together with five-year deals, the team we have today is going to be the team we have for the next five years. If we were a young team it would be one thing. But we are not a young team.

In the past, it was different. If we had a problem, I could fix any mistake by having Donnie find a trade and just taking on more money. That is how we got Jet, the Matrix, JKidd, Tyson. It was always about taking on more money. That trick doesn’t work any more for teams over the tax. So we have to change our approach. By getting back under the cap, we have a ton of flexibility not only for free agent signings but also trades. If we can get the right guy(s) via free agency, great. if we do it via trade, great. We have that much more flexibility to make moves.

Again, I know this is tough for all of us after winning a championship. But we still believe as much as last year we are in a position to compete for a championship.

The difference is that with this approach, we can be in a position to compete for a championship this year and to reload and continue to compete in future years.

By just signing everyone to long-term deals, there is no chance of that happening.

We won last year because we put ourselves in a position to create opportunities that brought us the right players at the right time.

We structured contracts in ways that gave us upside. The rules are different now, and while it makes it tougher this year because of the affection we have for many of the guys that are leaving, if we want the Mavs to be able to compete for championships in future years as well, it’s a hard decision, but I believe the right decision.

I actually like Mark Cuban but what he says here looks a little silly based on reports they are close to signing Vince Carter. Vince Carter?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I actually like Mark Cuban but what he says here looks a little silly based on reports they are close to signing Vince Carter. Vince Carter?

I dont think Vinsanity is commanding much dough at this point. Cuban is bitter because he knows his team is one and done and there isnt much he can do about it.

[Cannon Shell]

David Stern has gotten blown up a lot lately but this one might be the harshest

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...rn_veto_120911

[Cannon Shell]

Dan Gilbert!

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/73...gilbert-letter

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dan Gilbert!

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/73...gilbert-letter

I think Dan is just jealous teams are now starting to do what he should have, trade your superstar before he leaves for nothing. Anthony, Deron Williams, Paul. It's also a case of you have a buffoon so keep making him a buffoon for the league and EVPN to keep pumping up LeBron, witness his recent interview there. I think to insinuate this letter by Gilbert is the main reason this trade was turned back is pretty convenient and shoddy reporting.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I think Dan is just jealous teams are now starting to do what he should have, trade your superstar before he leaves for nothing. Anthony, Deron Williams, Paul. It's also a case of you have a buffoon so keep making him a buffoon for the league and EVPN to keep pumping up LeBron, witness his recent interview there. I think to insinuate this letter by Gilbert is the main reason this trade was turned back is pretty convenient and shoddy reporting.

I'm sure you are right. However, how exactly has that worked out for those teams?

You never really get close to fair value. You get average players and stuck in the middle of the league going nowhere. Cleveland will be better for not trading Lebron. What exactly were they going to get from Miami?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont think Vinsanity is commanding much dough at this point. Cuban is bitter because he knows his team is one and done and there isnt much he can do about it.

True, but whatever money they are using to sign him could have been used in an effort to keep Chandler or even Barea, who was a real difference maker in the playoffs. No one had an answer for him.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

True, but whatever money they are using to sign him could have been used in an effort to keep Chandler or even Barea, who was a real difference maker in the playoffs. No one had an answer for him.

I dont think they could resign Chandler w/o serious luxury tax issues. He supposedly got 15 million a year for 4. Barea is now overvalued at 6 or 7 million a year. That is more or less what Cuban was complaining about, he couldnt just go over the cap and pay the luxury tax on these guys like he nomally would because the new deal cripples teams too far over.

I'm guessing Carter comes in at something like 2.5 million a year (I guess they are calling it the mini-exception?). Hard to believe but he is more or less playing the DeShawn Stevenson role now...with less defensive intensity and no beard.