Caron Butler [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 11:38 AM

Butler is better than Howard, but that's not saying very much considering Howard's recent contributions.

Time will tell whether the Mavs got good value for Howard's contract. In the very short term, we'll see how much he can help in this year's playoffs. In the slightly longer term, we'll see how Butler at 10.5M for next season measures up against what else Howard's contract could have been traded for between the end of the season and July 1st.

John Hollinger

03-18-2010, 11:45 AM

According to the numbers, the Mavericks got worse by trading Butler for Howard. Since leaving for Washington, Howard's pantomime skills in the backseat of a Buick while kicking a gerboa is rated at 67.8958, while Butler is at a mere 62.11892, clearly the Mavericks would have been better off keeping Howard.

SpursNextRomanEmpire

03-18-2010, 11:46 AM

lol john hollabackgirl

Phillip

03-18-2010, 12:28 PM

Ghazi

03-18-2010, 12:31 PM

This was a good trade no matter what.

WE got two serviceable players for a CORPSE (literally) and a blackhole. Mavs would not have gone 14-2 since the ASB with Howard/GOoden instead of Butler/Haywood. In fact they'd arguably be battling for 6-8 slots.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 12:39 PM

typical butthurt spurfan, trying to downplay the trade to pump their own nads up

lol dick jefferson

My mistake for trying to respond reasonably in this thread.

Every trade can be evaluated at time it is made and then, later, with the benefit of hindsight. The immediate evaluation of this trade is very positive for the Mavs. How it will be viewed in July won't be known until July.

jack sommerset

03-18-2010, 12:43 PM

Phillip

03-18-2010, 12:46 PM

My mistake for trying to respond reasonably in this thread.

Every trade can be evaluated at time it is made and then, later, with the benefit of hindsight. The immediate evaluation of this trade is very positive for the Mavs. How it will be viewed in July won't be known until July.

carons contract expires next season too, just like dampiers. so down the road, its about as useful as howards. so the mavs really didnt lose anything there. if anything, they gained because Butler has a far superior rep, and is still playing well, and isnt injury prone, unlike howard on all accounts.

Cane

03-18-2010, 12:49 PM

Butler's a beast against an injury plagued CHI game playing on a tail end of a back to back.

Other than that, he's all right and definitely an improvement over Howard.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 12:54 PM

Howard sucks. Howard is out. Howard will suck even more when he returns. Mavs got a HUGE break from the Wiz.

Howard's trade value had nothing to do with his skills as a basketball player and everything to do with how his contract was structured.

He is under contract for next year with a TEAM OPTION. That contract was used in the Butler trade as an expiring contract attractive to a team looking to dump salary at the trade deadline.

Unlike other expiring contracts, it can be used from the end of the season until the option date, presumably July 1st, for the same purpose. So Washington can use his contract in that window to trade for a 10M player, or package of players, that some team looking to dump salary wants to move.

We won't know what players will fall into that category until the end of the season. At that time, we'll know what other options, aside from Butler, could have been acquired in exchange for Howard's contract.

Winning the NBA championship will make this a moot point. Any result short of that leaves it a valid point of discussion.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 12:55 PM

carons contract expires next season too, just like dampiers. so down the road, its about as useful as howards. so the mavs really didnt lose anything there. if anything, they gained because Butler has a far superior rep, and is still playing well, and isnt injury prone, unlike howard on all accounts.

See above. Howard's contract is substantially different from Butler's.

jack sommerset

03-18-2010, 12:57 PM

Howard's trade value had nothing to do with his skills as a basketball player and everything to do with how his contract was structured.

He is under contract for next year with a TEAM OPTION. That contract was used in the Butler trade as an expiring contract attractive to a team looking to dump salary at the trade deadline.

Unlike other expiring contracts, it can be used from the end of the season until the option date, presumably July 1st, for the same purpose. So Washington can use his contract in that window to trade for a 10M player, or package of players, that some team looking to dump salary wants to move.

We won't know what players will fall into that category until the end of the season. At that time, we'll know what other options, aside from Butler, could have been acquired in exchange for Howard's contract.

Winning the NBA championship will make this a moot point. Any result short of that leaves it a valid point of discussion.

Blah, blah, blah....... Howard fucking SUCKS. I say everyone of the players got in return for that piece of shit is better than Howard. You keep talking about contracts and shit. Botton line, Dallas got better players .

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 12:58 PM

Blah, blah, blah....... Howard fucking SUCKS. I say everyone of the players got in return for that piece of shit is better than Howard. You keep talking about contracts and shit. Botton line, Dallas got better players .

Howard sucks. His contract is awesome.

Phillip

03-18-2010, 12:58 PM

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 12:59 PM

:tu

Mel_13 = butthurt

fact

krofl

Terrible mistake to try to engage Mavfan in a reasonable discussion.

greensborohill

03-18-2010, 01:00 PM

Butler's a beast against an injury plagued CHI game playing on a tail end of a back to back.

Other than that, he's all right and definitely an improvement over Howard.

He was also great against the Magic when the Mavs beat them by 10 on the road.

Phillip

03-18-2010, 01:35 PM

Terrible mistake to try to engage Mavfan in a reasonable discussion.

terrible mistake to think that spurfan could be anything other than butthurt and trollable

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 01:40 PM

terrible mistake to think that spurfan could be anything other than butthurt and trollable

proving my point

TheRealCB

03-18-2010, 01:41 PM

Terrible mistake to try to engage Mavfan in a reasonable discussion.

It's your fault my friends...It's not their fault they are blind and stupid..

No,to reply to you..

Yes,he had an excellent contract but this Mavericks team needed a boost NOW, Kidd is 36,Terry is 32,Damp 34 and Marion 31 I think...And of course Dirk is 31 himself...You can't just let the time pass with these guys...They are on the decline...You don't waste a year on a what if opportunity..

Can you understand why is this a great trade now?

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 01:52 PM

It's your fault my friends...It's not their fault they are blind and stupid..

No,to reply to you..

Yes,he had an excellent contract but this Mavericks team needed a boost NOW, Kidd is 36,Terry is 32,Damp 34 and Marion 31 I think...And of course Dirk is 31 himself...You can't just let the time pass with these guys...They are on the decline...You don't waste a year on a what if opportunity..

Can you understand why is this a great trade now?

I stated clearly that the immediate evaluation of the trade is that it is excellent for the Mavs.

Whether it will be viewed as such in July will not be known until July.

In any trade assets are given up. Once given up those assets cannot be used in any future trade. Howard's contract was an asset. It was used in a trade to immediately improve the team. If I were the Mavs GM, I would have made the trade. FO's operate in the here and now, as they should. The longer term impact of the trade will not be known for some time. Not sure how that is being read as criticism of the trade.

AmareloomsLOOMS

03-18-2010, 01:54 PM

He's doing okay but need him to do more...more driving to the rim and helping out when Dirk is off. Also he can play solid D and needs to step-up along with Marion come playoff time to shut down SG/SF's :elephant:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant
You tell them brohan!
:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

Phillip

03-18-2010, 01:59 PM

I stated clearly that the immediate evaluation of the trade is that it is excellent for the Mavs.

Whether it will be viewed as such in July will not be known until July.

In any trade assets are given up. Once given up those assets cannot be used in any future trade. Howard's contract was an asset. It was used in a trade to immediately improve the team. If I were the Mavs GM, I would have made the trade. FO's operate in the here and now, as they should. The longer term impact of the trade will not be known for some time. Not sure how that is being read as criticism of the trade.

Truth is, there is no guarantee that they would have gotten anything for Howard's contract. For all we know, nothing could have ended up on the table, and the Mavs may just have ended up stuck with Howard for another awful year. At least with this trade, we got something good for him, and although maybe not as good of a contract as howards, still a guy who has appealing trade value. He also seems to have a skill-set and mentality that, if he stayed as a Maverick, would likely allow him to play at a high level for several more years, and still be a desirable trade piece down the road, whereas this was bascially it for Howard, now and likely forever, as he was doing nothing but regressing rapidly in numerous areas.

Ghazi

03-18-2010, 02:06 PM

:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant
You tell them brohan!
:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

:lol

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 02:10 PM

Truth is, there is no guarantee that they would have gotten anything for Howard's contract. For all we know, nothing could have ended up on the table, and the Mavs may just have ended up stuck with Howard for another awful year. At least with this trade, we got something good for him, and although maybe not as good of a contract as howards, still a guy who has appealing trade value. He also seems to have a skill-set and mentality that, if he stayed as a Maverick, would likely allow him to play at a high level for several more years, and still be a desirable trade piece down the road, whereas this was bascially it for Howard, now and likely forever, as he was doing nothing but regressing rapidly in numerous areas.

If I were GM of the Mavs, I would have made the trade. I can't say it any more clearly.

Most of what you said is correct. The part about potentially being stuck with Howard's contract is incorrect. The Mavs were never going to exercise that team option. He was either going to be traded at the deadline or after the season. In the unlikely event that the Mavs couldn't find a good trade, they would just cut him.

In fact, they were offered a good deal for his contract at the trade deadline and they took it. It made perfect sense to take the deal in front of them rather than wait for a potentially better deal in the offseason.

That all being said, my point stands. The long-term evaluation of the trade will be made at a later date.

Phillip

03-18-2010, 02:29 PM

If I were GM of the Mavs, I would have made the trade. I can't say it any more clearly.

Most of what you said is correct. The part about potentially being stuck with Howard's contract is incorrect. The Mavs were never going to exercise that team option. He was either going to be traded at the deadline or after the season. In the unlikely event that the Mavs couldn't find a good trade, they would just cut him.

In fact, they were offered a good deal for his contract at the trade deadline and they took it. It made perfect sense to take the deal in front of them rather than wait for a potentially better deal in the offseason.

That all being said, my point stands. The long-term evaluation of the trade will be made at a later date.

Long term? As in one year? rofl okay dude.

DesignatedT

03-18-2010, 02:38 PM

well see what butler and haywood do in the playoffs... thats what matters. these bums have never seen any hard nosed grind out playoff series basketball.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 02:40 PM

Long term? As in one year? rofl okay dude.

We'll pretty much know in July whether or not any second-guessing of the trade is justified. I'd say its most likely that the trade will still be viewed favorably even with the benefit of hindsight. Even if things go badly with Butler, the Mavs still gained full Bird Rights on Haywood and that is a net positive as they can move Dampier's contract for a good player and still have coverage at the center position.

DubMcDub

03-18-2010, 02:42 PM

Winning the NBA championship will make this a moot point. Any result short of that leaves it a valid point of discussion.

Wow, that's a pretty tough barometer for a trade, don't you think?

Phillip

03-18-2010, 02:49 PM

Wow, that's a pretty tough barometer for a trade, don't you think?

exactly my point. typical spurfan, trying to discredit the mavs as much as possible. krofl

TheRealCB

03-18-2010, 02:58 PM

exactly my point. typical spurfan, trying to discredit the mavs as much as possible. krofl

He is just trying to prove his point using arguments..

SomeCallMeTim

03-18-2010, 03:01 PM

Wow, that's a pretty tough barometer for a trade, don't you think?

Good to see subtle, critical thinking is in full blossom round these parts.

Mel is not saying that anything short of a title makes this a bad trade. In fact, he's saying quite the opposite: that a title automatically makes this a hands-down, no-discussion-needed great trade for the Mavs.

Short of a title, it is up for discussion. Is there a problem with that?

BTW, he's already stated several times that he thinks it was a good trade for Dallas. I agree with this. In the short term, the team looks a lot better. We do not know the long term yet, but it sure looks promising to me.

anakha

03-18-2010, 03:12 PM

Mel is not saying that anything short of a title makes this a bad trade. In fact, he's saying quite the opposite: that a title automatically makes this a hands-down, no-discussion-needed great trade for the Mavs.

Short of a title, it is up for discussion. Is there a problem with that?

Quoting this just in case anybody hasn't quite gotten it yet.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 03:24 PM

Wow, that's a pretty tough barometer for a trade, don't you think?

That was not my point at all. If the Mavs win a title, then no discussion of "what if" will have any merit.

If they don't, people will compare the trade that was made in February to trades that could have been made in June.

For example, the Spurs gave up two first rounders in the trade to acquire Nazr at the deadline in 2005. One of those picks was used to take David Lee. Nazr helped the Spurs win a title making any discussion of lost opportunities moot.

Same with Howard's contract. If Butler/Haywood help the Mavs win a title, that's the end of any future second guessing. The title trumps everything.

If they don't win it all, then you know people will say "we could have lost just as easily without Butler and Haywood and we could have gotten Player X with Howard's contract in June".

I still would have made the trade and still believe the Mavs FO did the right thing in cashing in Howard's contract sooner rather than later.

badfish22

03-18-2010, 03:27 PM

Howard isn't our big trade piece this offseason anyway. That would be Damps instant expiring. Plus, its not like Butlers contract leaves us on the hook for a while anyway. It expires next year. Another thing your forgetting is that we swapped J-hos 1 year contract with Haywoods 1 year contract (who the Mavs will probably resign anyway)

I can't see myself ever regretting that this trade was done.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 03:57 PM

Howard isn't our big trade piece this offseason anyway. That would be Damps instant expiring.

Howard's contract is "instant expiring" as well and only slightly smaller in size.

Mavs had two great chips. They cashed one in and kept the other.

monosylab1k

03-18-2010, 04:24 PM

If I were GM of the Mavs, I would have made the trade. I can't say it any more clearly.

Then what the fuck are you arguing about? Not like we didn't know this already, but thanks for wasting the time of anybody who bothered reading your posts.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 04:26 PM

then what the fuck are you arguing about? Not like we didn't know this already, but thanks for wasting the time of anybody who bothered reading your posts.

rif

monosylab1k

03-18-2010, 04:29 PM

Howard's contract is "instant expiring" as well and only slightly smaller in size.

Mavs had two great chips. They cashed one in and kept the other.

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/thank_you_captain_obvious_trollcat.jpg

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 04:31 PM

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/thank_you_captain_obvious_trollcat.jpg

Again, rif

Phillip

03-18-2010, 04:34 PM

mel_13 is a faggot

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 04:36 PM

Now the debating skills of certain Mavfans are on display.

Name calling and cats.

Brilliant.

Phillip

03-18-2010, 04:39 PM

krofl butthurtedness of spurfans on display once again

krofl easily trolled

krofl fail

mavsfan1000

03-18-2010, 04:39 PM

Now the debating skills of certain Mavfans are on display.

Name calling and cats.

Brilliant.
Go fuck yourself asshole. You've been owned in this thread.

monosylab1k

03-18-2010, 04:42 PM

Now the debating skills of certain Mavfans are on display.

:lol what's there to debate? All you did was state the obvious and provide zero basis for an actual argument.

"I would have done the trade"

"Butler is better than howard"

"The Mavs had two great chips and they cashed one in"

Thanks for telling us shit we already know.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 04:45 PM

You've been owned in this thread.

Once again, rif.

badfish22

03-18-2010, 04:47 PM

Howard's contract is "instant expiring" as well and only slightly smaller in size.

DUST chip >>>>>> Howards expiring. Read up on it if you wish. Damps contract is more than just an average expiring.

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 04:56 PM

DUST chip >>>>>> Howards expiring. Read up on it if you wish. Damps contract is more than just an average expiring.

I have read up on it. Howard's contract has the same unique advantage as Damp's. The only difference is that Damp's contract is worth 12.1M and Howard's is worth 10.9M.

badfish22

03-18-2010, 05:00 PM

Howard's contract has the same unique advantage as Damp's.

Are you sure about that? I have never read that before. And if that was the case (howards contract being like Damps) I'm pretty sure Mike Fisher would have devoted 15 articles and a couple t-shirts praising it.

Phillip

03-18-2010, 05:13 PM

I have read up on it. Howard's contract has the same unique advantage as Damp's. The only difference is that Damp's contract is worth 12.1M and Howard's is worth 10.9M.

research fail

Mel_13

03-18-2010, 05:15 PM

Are you sure about that? I have never read that before. And if that was the case (howards contract being like Damps) I'm pretty sure Mike Fisher would have devoted 15 threads and a couple t-shirts praising it.

The details are slightly different, but the net effect is the same. Both players are under contract for 2010-11, but the teams that hold the contracts can decide to let players go with no financial consequence.

In Damp's case, his contract is conditional based on meeting certain thresholds for games and minutes played. He has not met those thresholds. At some point after the season ends, the team holding his contract can let him go and owe him nothing. So Dallas can trade him after the season ends, but before the date specified, for approximately 10-14M in contracts from another team. The other team can cut Dampier and save a huge amount of money in 2010-11 salaries and taxes.

Howard's contract has a team option for 2010-11. Washington can use his contract in much the same way that Dallas can use Damp's.

Perhaps Fisher did not include Howard when he wrote about the DUST chip and the BUCK shot because he may have actually viewed Howard as a player worth retaining for 11M in 2010-11 at the time he wrote the pieces.

If I'm wrong about any of this, point me to better information. It's not like it never happens.

The Franchise

03-18-2010, 05:20 PM

^ It's looking like someone is going to get a bargain basement deal on Howard next season. Could be a nice one year rental.

WESTACKED

03-18-2010, 11:48 PM

Why would anyone a) pick up the team option, or b) trade for him after that? That's guaranteed money. $11.8 Million. Straight cash, homey.

:lmao you think a team can pick up an option on a contract, then trade him and the next team won't have to foot the bill on that 11.8? Sorry but his contract isn't written that way. And he can't be traded before then. Either the Wizards pick up his option, or Josh is a free agent. Josh's best value was being used as an expiring contract this season. Which the Mavericks did.

Dampier's contract, on the other hand, can be traded, and he can be dropped by his new team with no money owed to him.
shrewd deal!!!