Wanted to discuss this now since there's a tiny chance I won't be allowed to post after the Spurs-Mavs game tonight.
Bill Simmons and Marc Stein did a podcast yesterday that is all things NBA-related:
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/player?...090&########=1
Erick Dampier's expiring contract came up. So for the uninitiated, Damp has a partially-guaranteed team option for next year for $13 million. At some point it becomes fully guaranteed. Whoever is holding his rights will have the option to decline it, and instantly save themselves $13 million in cap room. If that team is in lux tax territory and declining his team option puts them under the cap, then they save even more money.
In theory, the Mavs can trade his rights to Team X for a contract of a player that runs past the 2010/11 season. Team X gets to save money if that's something that they're looking to do and unburden themselves of a long-term contract that they don't want to pay, whereas the Mavs would get talent back.
It has been theorized that since the Mavs are way over the cap and cannot offer free agents anything except the MLE, the Dampier contract, along with the contracts of Caron Butler and DeShawn Stevenson (they have 1 year left on their deals that total about $15 million), would be a useful way for the Mavs to enter the Bron/Wade/Amare/Bosh/Joe Johnson sweepstakes. So if the Mavs put together a package of Damp/Butler/Stevenson to trade to Team X, Team X would be taking back $15 million in salary cap obligations while Dallas would be taking back $28 million. Dallas could also throw in cash, draft picks and a young promising player (Roddy Beaubois) to acquire a superstar, since conventional wisdom holds that you only trade superstars for cap space, picks and young players.
My question is, how on earth do the Mavericks and Superstar Free Agent X have the leverage to force their old teams to take on the Dampier contract package? Say LeBron or Wade decide for whatever reason that they want to play in Dallas for Mark Cuban, an organization that spares no expense for winning, and would be willing to play 8 or 9 regular season games at Cowboys Stadium in front of 80,000 people. Dallas can't sign them outright to a max contract because they are way over the cap. So LeBron's agent and Mark Cuban approach Danny Ferry and say "LeBron wants to come to Dallas. We'll give you Erick Dampier's contract, Caron Butler, DeShawn Stevenson, Roddy Beaubois, three first-round picks and some cash." Why do the Cavs do that deal? LeBron can't come to Dallas without Cleveland's cooperation. If LeBron tries that, can't Ferry say "Fine. You don't want to play for us, you can go sign with the Knicks and play with that garbage supporting cast." Same with Wade/Miami, Johnson/Atlanta, etc.
Isn't it more likely that the Dampier contract isn't enough of a tool to land one of the premier FAs, and they will have to focus on players like Andre Iguodala that are already under contract with their current teams?
Thats the same podcast where Simmons at the end says Andrew Bynum for Chris Bosh is a done deal.
I agree Dallas don't have what it takes to get one of the best FA's available but it'll be interesting to see what goes on....definitely need another big though and guards that want to penetrate in the lane and can make up for Kidd's slow legs on defense.
Andrew Bynum for Chris Bosh?!?
As for Dallas they need to make a package for a slasher, the main core of guys are all jump shooters and you're not getting very far like that.
FinDog,
You get around
I say if they can get Wade, cool. But if not, they need to try to do what they can to get Bosh, and keep Roddy. That way they have a really good, young, versatile, athletic guard/big-man duo.
Agree that the more likely scenario is getting someone already under contract. Miami is going to have a boatload of cap room, even more so if Wade bolts. So Miami wouldn't be in a situation of having to accept Dallas' S&T deal or get nothing in return. If Wade says "I don't want to be here I want to go to Dallas" Miami could just say "take a hike Wade we'll go offer two max contracts to Bosh & Lebron".
Another thing to keep in mind is that 2010-2011 is the last year on Butler's contract, so the fact that he could end up being just a 1 year rental could reduce his value in some team's eyes.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 04-29-2010 at 01:19 PM.
Yeah there is no way the Lakers would do thatAndrew Bynum for Chris Bosh?!?
1. We wouldn't have to give up all that you said.
2. If the choices for the Cavs were between getting nothing (Lebron to the Knicks or Heat) or getting Butler they would probably choose Butler imho.
3. No young star wants to go to a team assembled with players in their 30's anyway so its a moot point imho.
Dirk opts out. Use that money to sign someone else young so that Lebron/ect signs. Dirk resigns because he now has a superstar + decent young 3rd scorer and is already sitting on $100,000,000+ and now has a chance at a ring all while playing for the MLE or vet min.
If the Lakers want to trade an emerging superstar for some jump shooting pussy be my guest. Raptors 2011 Champs.
Doesn't work that way. Unsigned FAs, like Dirk would be in your scenario, have a ACIOUS cap hold figure (to prevent just the shennanigans you propose) until they are either renounced or re-signed. If you renounce him, you can't pay him anything but the minimum.
The NBA front office has been tweaking the salary cap for like 20+ years. It would be pretty tough to run one by them at this point.
That's what I said. You don't trade a center with a post up game for a power forward that shoots jump shots and can't play in the post.Andrew Bynum for Chris Bosh?!?
I may not be able to post for awhile after tonight's game, so I wanted to make this point. The original team can offer the max money + 1 extra year. If LeBron decides to leave Cleveland, he will ask the Cavs to S'n'T him no matter what - so he gets that extra year. Since he has the leverage to walk to the Knicks, Bulls or Heat with the Cavs getting nothing in return, at this point the Cavs would sift through the best S'n'T offers. If they decide that Dallas' offer trumps that of New York, Chicago or Miami, then I think that they would do that.
I guess the bottom line is that the more I war-game this, the more I think that LeBron is going to go where he wants, and if it's not Cleveland, then the Cavs have very little say in the matter. I still think they win the le and he resigns to defend it, though.
The only hole I would shoot in that logic is that Lebron has another fat contract coming up after the one he's about to sign. One thing for a guy who's 30 to get that extra year. Not as big a deal to the guy who's only 25. I'm sure Lebron would take the extra year, but I don't see him choosing to accept an S&T to Dallas when he likes New York better solely because the S&T to Dallas could get him another year.
Findog forgot something. No only can you offer an extra year to your free agent, you can also offer a higher percentage increase in pay every season. (something like 10% to an otherwise 8%). That is the real kicker, not the extra year. Lebron wouldn't leave unless through a sign and trade.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
