Caron Butler

[Mel_13]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 le makes this a bad trade. In fact, he's saying quite the opposite: that a le automatically makes this a hands-down, no-discussion-needed great trade for the Mavs.

Short of a le, 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]

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

Short of a le, 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]

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 le, 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 le making any discussion of lost opportunities moot.

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

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]

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]

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

Then what the 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]

then what the 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]

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.

[Mel_13]

Again, rif

[Phillip]

mel_13 is a got

[Mel_13]

Now the debating skills of certain Mavfans are on display.

Name calling and cats.

Brilliant.

[Phillip]

krofl butthurtedness of spurfans on display once again

krofl easily trolled

krofl fail

[mavsfan1000]

Now the debating skills of certain Mavfans are on display.

Name calling and cats.

Brilliant.

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

[monosylab1k]

Now the debating skills of certain Mavfans are on display.

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 we already know.

[Mel_13]

You've been owned in this thread.

Once again, rif.

[badfish22]

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]

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]

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.