Mavs: Chandler, Felton to the mavs for Calderon, dalembert and larkin

[Chinook]

7? I am counting 9:

Dirk: 10M
Tyson:
Monta:
Felton:
Wright:
Crowder:
James:
Ledo:
Mekel:

=============
Total Salary: 44M
Total Cap Est: 63M

Why would Sham have James' salary count against Dallas if he was released?

He doesn't. Do the math yourself and you'll see. James is not under contract next year. That's his QO. If Dallas picks it up, their cap space goes down even more.

But yes, it's eight, not seven. You're right that I miscounted. That's only $400k or so, though.

[ElNono]

Mavs *are* paying for Chandler like he is a hot commodity, because that's exactly who he was in Dallas, under the same coach and system.

To Cubes, the "center market in two weeks" is immaterial, because the center they want is Chandler.

He is a known quan y to them. They already know how to maximize his game, how he complements the team's star, etc.

Obviously, this move doesn't guarantee anything.

There's also another spin here: Tyson was a teammate of Melo for a couple years, it wouldn't be surprising if he starts pitching the Mavs to him.

[rogues]

@ all the armchair GM's ITT

[DPG21920]

Because Dallas apparently saw something in him they liked. They passed over much more highly rated prospects for him. One year is not enough time to know it was a mistake (as it wasn't with Plumlee). It's one thing to know he has a price (not like they did with Beaubois), but it's another to just throw him in like it was nothing.

The Oden example is poor. He's been in the league for eight years now. He's not a draft pick anymore (even if a lot of people were acting like he was last year).

Who cares what one team (dallas) saw in him? Drafting is very difficult and more teams miss than not. Having a person who hasn't shown much (Larkin) even if it's one year, is no where near as valuable as having an actual draft pick equivalent to where he was taken.

I fully understand the difference in the Oden/Larkin example - it was to prove a broader point. Either your logic holds up or it doesn't. In the event of this, even though one has had more time to "prove" himself, it doesn't hold up. I agree it's too little time to "tell" but do you think anyone, anyone in the NBA would give up a near lottery pick for Larkin having seen what they have seen? Of course not.

[TheGoldStandard]

Mavs desperate to try to wrangle some FA to Dallas

[DPG21920]

He doesn't. Do the math yourself and you'll see. James is not under contract next year. That's his QO. If Dallas picks it up, their cap space goes down even more.

But yes, it's eight, not seven. You're right that I miscounted. That's only $400k or so, though.

I was counting that salary - so with the 8 players (assuming Dirk takes 10M) that leaves Dallas with 44M in payroll and 63M total cap (so 19M in cap space less the roster holds). Still a significant amount. I'm not arguing the 3M lost in cap space was a good thing. I am saying it was more than worth it considering the cap space they would still have and what it means to get Tyson now and gain cap space in the future.

[Chinook]

Mavs *are* paying for Chandler like he is a hot commodity, because that's exactly who he was in Dallas, under the same coach and system.

To Cubes, the "center market in two weeks" is immaterial, because the center they want is Chandler.

He is a known quan y to them. They already know how to maximize his game, how he complements the team's star, etc.

Obviously, this move doesn't guarantee anything.

There's also another spin here: Tyson was a teammate of Melo for a couple years, it wouldn't be surprising if he starts pitching the Mavs to him.

The problem isn't that Chandler isn't worth the price to the Mavs. That's debatable, but I pretty much agree that he is. I like them getting him and have been saying that here for weeks.

The problem is that that wasn't Chandler's market value. They bid against themselves (as far as we know). It's like finding a rare coin at a garage sale and paying ten times what the seller wants for it because you know it may be worth 15-20 times at an auction. You can get good value if things work out, but you still spent a lot more money than you needed to without any guarantee you'll get rewarded for it.

[RD2191]

As a German French Spanish African I'm not sure how I feel about this.

[m>s]

what does it matter if tyson is overpaid? we got rid of some bad contracts to get him..

[DPG21920]

We just disagree that they overpaid. The gave up a player who doesn't look great (Larkin) and two 2nd rounders (losing the cap space doesn't go to the Knicks) to get the Center they want and more long term flexibility while still having a ton of cap space.

Also, assuming Dirk takes 10M, I count 9 players on the roster and ~18M in cap space even with the 3 other cap holds.

You are adding in "a first rounder" which IMO is very intellectually dishonest and changes the trade drastically.

Giving Larkin vs giving up an actual top 20 pick in the upcoming draft(s) is way different.

[Chinook]

I was counting that salary - so with the 8 players (assuming Dirk takes 10M) that leaves Dallas with 44M in payroll and 63M total cap (so 19M in cap space less the roster holds). Still a significant amount. I'm not arguing the 3M lost in cap space was a good thing. I am saying it was more than worth it considering the cap space they would still have and what it means to get Tyson now and gain cap space in the future.

Why do you keep missing the fact that mavs still have to deal with their roster charges? It wouldn't be $19 Million; it would be $17.5-ish Million. That, the room exception and min salaries would be the only things Dallas would have to fix fill their roster. Even with Lebron taking less, the Mavs would still be at best third in the West coming into the year.

[ElNono]

The problem isn't that Chandler isn't worth the price to the Mavs. That's debatable, but I pretty much agree that he is. I like them getting him and have been saying that here for weeks.

The problem is that that wasn't Chandler's market value. They bid against themselves (as far as we know). It's like finding a rare coin at a garage sale and paying ten times what the seller wants for it because you know it may be worth 15-20 times at an auction. You can get good value if things work out, but you still spent a lot more money than you needed to without any guarantee you'll get rewarded for it.

It's a double-edged sword. If some team shows up and enters a bidding war with the Mavs later on, then the opportunity vanishes for them.

Plus, not all teams wait to establish "market value" before making a move. Especially like in this case where the Mavs already know the kind of fit Chandler is with them.

It's like the Spurs paying perhaps a little extra to renew Manu last season, but making sure he's off the market.

[Trill Clinton]

The problem isn't that Chandler isn't worth the price to the Mavs. That's debatable, but I pretty much agree that he is. I like them getting him and have been saying that here for weeks.

The problem is that that wasn't Chandler's market value. They bid against themselves (as far as we know). It's like finding a rare coin at a garage sale and paying ten times what the seller wants for it because you know it may be worth 15-20 times at an auction. You can get good value if things work out, but you still spent a lot more money than you needed to without any guarantee you'll get rewarded for it.

great analogy

[DPG21920]

Why do you keep missing the fact that mavs still have to deal with their roster charges? It wouldn't be $19 Million; it would be $17.5-ish Million. That, the room exception and min salaries would be the only things Dallas would have to fix fill their roster. Even with Lebron taking less, the Mavs would still be at best third in the West coming into the year.

I'm not missing it. You miscounted the players. With Dirk (assumption) they have 9 players under contract which would leave them with 3 roster charges, not the 5 you said. That still leaves them with nearly a full roster and a ton of cap space. You seem to act like having 18M is a little bit and a giant gap from ~20M like I originally thought.

[Chinook]

what does it matter if tyson is overpaid? we got rid of some bad contracts to get him..

One "bad" contract. Dalembert's contract was great. And Chandler isn't overpaid (or at least wasn't when he signed the deal). The draft picks and taking Felton was the overpaying part.

We just disagree that they overpaid. The gave up a player who doesn't look great (Larkin) and two 2nd rounders (losing the cap space doesn't go to the Knicks) to get the Center they want and more long term flexibility while still having a ton of cap space.

Also, assuming Dirk takes 10M, I count 9 players on the roster and ~18M in cap space even with the 3 other cap holds.

We can agree to disagree (didn't see this post before my last response). But I just think it was a poor move. Even if Larkin and those two seconds end up sucking, Dallas traded them for nothing, in my opinion.

[Chinook]

I'm not missing it. You miscounted the players. With Dirk (assumption) they have 9 players under contract which would leave them with 3 roster charges, not the 5 you said. That still leaves them with nearly a full roster and a ton of cap space. You seem to act like having 18M is a little bit and a giant gap from ~20M like I originally thought.

I didn't see your other post before I replied. But $17 Million isn't a big jump from $20 Million. But it is a big jump from the $23 Million from what Melo can get in New York or $22 Million James can get in Miami. Don't Achillies paradox this. And their roster would be full of unknowns and bench-warmers.

[DPG21920]

It's also only Chinook setting the market value which very few seem to agree with. He's made up a scenario (which is fine, it's his opinion), but no one here seems to agree with his market value.

So the analogy doesn't hold water with me personally (nor some others) because we violently disagree on his notion of what the Mavs gave up in terms of relative value. I easily think NY could have and would have gotten 2 2nd rounders, a lame prospect for Tyson especially if it meant a team gets a better financial future and the best player/biggest expiring deal.

[ElNono]

This is a chance for the Mavs to re-establish a defensive iden y. It's huge. Obviously, every move is a gamble, and there's no guarantees. But that applies to every move more or less.

The potential upside of this move is way better than holding on to Larkin or a couple of picks, tbh.

Plus, how does Donnie faces Dirk and tells him "We didn't get Tyson because they wanted Larkin and a couple of picks"??? It's a no brainer for Dallas, IMO.

[RD2191]

[DPG21920]

I didn't see your other post before I replied. But $17 Million isn't a big jump from $20 Million. But it is a big jump from the $23 Million from what Melo can get in New York or $22 Million James can get in Miami. Don't Achillies paradox this. And their roster would be full of unknowns and bench-warmers.

Strictly financially speaking, yes, the gap between ~18M and 23M is big. But then you have to ask yourself if you think it's likely the teams that can offer more money seem appealing to those two for other basketball reasons and other variables. It seems to be generally accepted that for the right team, those guys would take a paycut and ~18M seems to be in the ball par of semi-realistic IMO.

Plus, there is the Lowry/Ariza option like you said which is also a win (and some may say better). Point is, I don't think Dallas gave up anything truly valuable (except cap space this year - but thats in a year where they still have a healthy amount so the impact is negated some) to get their man. I think the value was very fair in a bubble but in the real world I have no idea why NY did this trade and how it benefits them. They can make other moves, but IMO, it makes their path even harder than it already was.

[DPG21920]

This is a chance for the Mavs to re-establish a defensive iden y. It's huge. Obviously, every move is a gamble, and there's no guarantees. But that applies to every move more or less.

The potential upside of this move is way better than holding on to Larkin or a couple of picks, tbh.

Plus, how does Donnie faces Dirk and tells him "We didn't get Tyson because they wanted Larkin and a couple of picks"??? It's a no brainer for Dallas, IMO.

That summarizes my thoughts well. Basically, NY gave up their best trade asset/best player & their a chunk of their future cap space for things with little to no upside (Larkin and what are the statistical odds of a 2nd rounder sticking in the NBA). Dallas gave up 3M in cap space (in a year where they could realistically have ~18M after Dirk/Monta/Tyson are on the roster), a prospect that looks average to below average in Larkin and 2 2nd rounders that statistically don't have good odds at sticking for the potential of pairing a known great fit in Dirk/Tyson and getting Melo/Bron or two really solid guys.

[m>s]

One "bad" contract. Dalembert's contract was great. And Chandler isn't overpaid (or at least wasn't when he signed the deal). The draft picks and taking Felton was the overpaying part.



We can agree to disagree (didn't see this post before my last response). But I just think it was a poor move. Even if Larkin and those two seconds end up sucking, Dallas traded them for nothing, in my opinion.

no dalembert ing sucks for anything over 1-2 mil per year..dude is straight up ing garbage and slow. couldn't get minutes over even blair at times.

[Chinook]

It's also only Chinook setting the market value which very few seem to agree with. He's made up a scenario (which is fine, it's his opinion), but no one here seems to agree with his market value.

So the analogy doesn't hold water with me personally (nor some others) because we violently disagree on his notion of what the Mavs gave up in terms of relative value. I easily think NY could have and would have gotten 2 2nd rounders, a lame prospect for Tyson especially if it meant a team gets a better financial future and the best player/biggest expiring deal.

Answer the question I posed earlier, then? What was Chandler's value before this trade? I know we don't know for sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Chandler got a bigger haul than most players have recently. Only Scola, KG and Pierce had this type of price tag.

[Chinook]

no dalembert ing sucks for anything over 1-2 mil per year..dude is straight up ing garbage and slow. couldn't get minutes over even blair at times.

His contract is great. He himself is not.

[baseline bum]

7? I am counting 9:

Dirk: 10M
Tyson:
Monta:
Felton:
Wright:
Crowder:
James:
Ledo:
Mekel:

=============
Total Salary: 44M
Total Cap Est: 63M

Why would Sham have James' salary count against Dallas if he was released?

I was a little off in my numbers because I thought $400,000 for the empty roster slot and that only slots under 11 were counted, and I rounded numbers to get he $18M figure. But this is what I get from Hoopshype:


Let's say Dirk gets $10 million

1. Dirk Nowitzki: $10M
2. Monta Ellis: $8.72M
3. Brandan Wright: $5.0M
4. Jae Crowder: $0.915M
5. Ricky Ledo: $0.816M
6. Gay Mekel: $0.816M
7. Tyson Chandler: $14.597M
8. Raymond Felton: $4.46M
9. Empty Roster Spot Under 12: $0.473M
10. Empty Roster Spot Under 12: $0.473M
11. Empty Roster Spot Under 12: $0.473M
12. Empty Roster Spot Under 12: $0.473M

TOTAL: $47.216M
SALARY CAP: $63.2M
REMAINING CAPSPACE: $15.984M