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

[Buddy Mignon]

Get a grip guys... you cant recapture what's lost. No Kidd... no Turtle... no Stevenson. Cuban was a jackass for breaking up that team. Hood chance they would have repeated keeping James ringless but Cuban had to short change s.

[spurraider21]

Chandler is easily the best player in the deal and many would argue that due to his contract being large/expiring that his contract was the most valuable as well.

[Chinook]

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.

You have to know when something's a good deal, though. Teams that fail to understand or ignore leverage don't usually come out on top, which is why New York screwed up on both the Melo trade and the Lowery non-trade.

[baseline bum]

You've become just about insufferable because of a in' ring. Miserable little bas .

I was a bas before 5, but you were too caught up in 5>4 to realize Kobe and the 48ers had taken the bag. Now you know better though you're still kicking and screaming because you're left there holding it. I got no sympathy. Now go get your ing shinebox.

[Chinook]

Chandler is easily the best player in the deal and many would argue that due to his contract being large/expiring that his contract was the most valuable as well.

Chandler beingan expiring hurts Dallas, because Cuban may go fool and let him go again.

[spurraider21]

Chandler beingan expiring hurts Dallas, because Cuban may go fool and let him go again.

i'm pretty sure this trade is evidence that he has learned his lesson ... not to mention that with his age, he will likely be cheaper on his next contract

[HI-FI]

not sure if this has been mentioned on ST before, but I think letting Tyson go in the first place was a bad idea, imho of course.

[Baam]

[Hoops Czar]

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.

No, it's like dipping into the MLE to pay Ayres early in free agency so the Spurs could avoid the bidding war later.

[Hoops Czar]

You have to know when something's a good deal, though. Teams that fail to understand or ignore leverage don't usually come out on top, which is why New York screwed up on both the Melo trade and the Lowery non-trade.

In two years, nobody's going to know who Shane Larkin is/was. Dallas gets a bonefied big time center, who, when healthy, is one of the best defensive bigs in the game. I'm pretty sure this deal is just a precurser of things to come. If Chandler stinks it up, he's off the books in 2015. Felton is a serviceable backup PG so if they can land a starting PG, they go from pretender to contender.

[ElNono]

You have to know when something's a good deal, though. Teams that fail to understand or ignore leverage don't usually come out on top, which is why New York screwed up on both the Melo trade and the Lowery non-trade.

Dallas feels it's a great deal, with the best-case scenario being a championship/contender. It doesn't get any better than that.

Tyson's value is, to a certain extent, relative to what situation he's in. In many ways, it's no different than Diaw. He's an absolutely amazing fit for the Spurs, but he could struggle in a different situation, and he has struggled.

[ElNono]

No, it's like dipping into the MLE to pay Ayres early in free agency so the Spurs could avoid the bidding war later.

Completely different situation. Chandler is a known commodity for Dallas, and a key ingredient in their aspirations.

Ayres was hired to replace Blair burning minutes, and burn minutes he did. Definitely the Manu comparison is much more apt.

[Hoops Czar]

Completely different situation. Chandler is a known commodity for Dallas, and a key ingredient in their aspirations.

Ayres was hired to replace Blair burning minutes, and burn minutes he did. Definitely the Manu comparison is much more apt.

I should have used blue font. Totally my fault.

[Chinook]

Dallas feels it's a great deal, with the best-case scenario being a championship/contender. It doesn't get any better than that.

Tyson's value is, to a certain extent, relative to what situation he's in. In many ways, it's no different than Diaw. He's an absolutely amazing fit for the Spurs, but he could struggle in a different situation, and he has struggled.

So should the Spurs have traded Green, Bonner and a first for Diaw in 2012?

[ElNono]

I should have used blue font. Totally my fault.

no prob

[ElNono]

So should the Spurs have traded Green, Bonner and a first for Diaw in 2012?

We didn't know anything about Diaw's fit with the Spurs in 2012...

and I'm not sure who are you equating Green to....

[ElNono]

I would've definitely done a Mason Jr, Bonner & two 2nd rounders for Nazr Mohammed in 2009...

[Chinook]

In two years, nobody's going to know who Shane Larkin is/was. Dallas gets a bonefied big time center, who, when healthy, is one of the best defensive bigs in the game. I'm pretty sure this deal is just a precurser of things to come. If Chandler stinks it up, he's off the books in 2015. Felton is a serviceable backup PG so if they can land a starting PG, they go from pretender to contender.

All speculative. Could just as easily be another Scola. The Mavs aren't near contenders yet.

[Chinook]

We didn't know anything about Diaw's fit with the Spurs in 2012...

and I'm not sure who are you equating Green to....

Danny was still pretty unknown then. He'd be somewhere between Calderon and Larkin.

[Aztecfan03]

No, you don't get to retroactively downgrade Larkin. That was like TD21 trying to tell me last year that Indiana didn't give up too much for Scola because Plumlee was pretty much a second-rounder who got picked too high.

So if a player was rookie of the year was the 30th pick in the draft, You can't get anything more than the value of a 30th pick in a trade? If you can't retroactively downgrade someone, you can't retroactively upgrade them either, right?

[Chinook]

So if a player was rookie of the year was the 30th pick in the draft, You can't get anything more than the value of a 30th pick in a trade? If you can't retroactively downgrade someone, you can't retroactively upgrade them either, right?

Bro, read the thread first. We've been through this. Larkin wasn't untradeable, but his value isn't soley determined by last season. He could be another Kendall Marshall, but he could also be another Plumlee. That's why you develop players rather than trade them in an overpayment.

[ElNono]

Danny was still pretty unknown then. He'd be somewhere between Calderon and Larkin.

Ok, I'll buy that. I mean, we've taken a bigger gamble trading Hill. In hindsight, I'm glad it all worked out.

[mavsfan1000]

We badly needed a goalie type center. We got it. Now we go after a point guard.

[Nathan89]

Why would the Knicks do this deal without a young prospect and 2nd rounders involved?

[Thread]

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.

Yep, and it could have been and should have been different. He's laid an egg wherever he's been and yet he still draws a crowd on the open market.