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

[mavsfan1000]

Will Jim Carey put up with Felton's at ude and fatness?

He might pull a Diop and lose a bunch of weight during the summer.

[DPG21920]

eh chandler Is a past prime monkeyballer and felton is trash, this move merely moves the mavs from 8 to 6 seed imo

That's the point. This move likely moves them up (even if it doesn't, no real loss IMO), but it has a lot of upside because of the cap space they still have AFTER the move. NY has very little upside after this move (they might do good things, but their path just got a little harder IMO) and they gave up their best asset. If they wouldn't have taken on Calderon and been able to dump Felton, fine, but in order to dump Felton's small contract, they took on longer term salary and gave up their most tradeable asset who is likely their best player too.

every take I've seen from him is bad.

What? He has way more good takes than most posters on here.

[ElNono]

Again, it's not the 3 years of Chandler that is so debilitating it is the tragedy of giving away the 3 from Dirk. Dirk didn't have 3 to put in the piss pot. Grim business.

Completely agree. That's why I'm saying Donnie couldn't look Dirk in the face and tell him they didn't get Chandler because they didn't want to give up a rookie and a couple of 2nd round picks...

[Killakobe81]

I believe they'll push hard to sign Deng. Felton, Ellis, Deng, Dirk, Chandler starting. Devin Harris, Carter, Blair off the bench. I think they would be contenders if they stay healthy. They have one of the best coaches, too.

Said the same

[sook]

great move imo.

[Killakobe81]

Doubt Dirk takes 10 he said deal he takes will be fair to both sides.

[Chinook]

Chandler's value in Dallas was worth a championship. I don't know how you really 'measure' that.

They gave up whatever it took to get what they feel is an integral piece to make them contenders again, after wasting the last 3 years trying to find a similar fit.

I'm sure they're going to keep wheeling and dealing, they still have some other positions to fill out and I don't think Felton is going to stay... we'll see.

I don't see Dallas as being big dealers for a while, since they blew their load overpaying for Chandler. There's a difference between paying whatever it takes and paying more than it takes. They'll have to depend on free agency to finish their roster. But again, Chandler's actual value is not part of my argument. His market value is. It would be like if Sacramento could go back to the 2011 draft (without any other team being able to), and they pick Isaiah Thomas at 10 instead of at 60. Yes, Thomas is better than Freddette and perhaps deserved to be a lottery pick, but they still would be overdrafting Thomas, since no other team was going to pick him.

[DPG21920]

Doubt Dirk takes 10 he said deal he takes will be fair to both sides.

That's the big what if. What will Dirk take. Might be a chicken and the egg type deal where Dirk see's who they can sign and takes a contract accordingly (less if it's Bron/Melo, more if it's Deng).

[IrisHockey]

3 years/36 mil is my guess

[DPG21920]

I don't see Dallas as being big dealers for a while, since they blew their load overpaying for Chandler. There's a difference between paying whatever it takes and paying more than it takes. They'll have to depend on free agency to finish their roster. But again, Chandler's actual value is not part of my argument. His market value is. It would be like if Sacramento could go back to the 2011 draft (without any other team being able to), and they pick Isaiah Thomas at 10 instead of at 60. Yes, Thomas is better than Freddette and perhaps deserved to be a lottery pick, but they still would be overdrafting Thomas, since no other team was going to pick him.

I get your argument, but your analogies are wayyyyyyyyy different. An underwhelming Shane Larkin, 2 2nd rounders and 2 average to below average players (especially considering the longer term $ for Calderon) is no where near the same as the difference in your analogy (60th pick vs 10th pick). None of those assets (outside of maybe Dalemberts non-guaranteed deal and the 34th pick) where going to net you anything of great value. They were average to below average assets.

[DPG21920]

It's like saying that a 100% return on two investments is the same worth when one person invested $1 and the other $1,000,000. Sure, in principle they got the same rate of return, but one is clearly more valuable. I believe that to be the case in the Mavs deal. They might have "overpaid" (which I don't agree with given my stance on Tyson's likely market value) but even if they did it was a non-issue.

[Chinook]

Obviously, there may be more moves and that could change perspectives, but as of now, I just don't see why NY did this. In a bubble, they got decent value I guess, but I truly feel they could have gotten at least that much (mediocre prospect, 2 2nd rounders) especially if they were willing to give longer term salary relief (taking on Calderon-esque contract).

I feel that was Tyson Chandler's floor. Talented big man (even with health issues) that is an expiring deal is usually a pretty valuable asset (like an actual first round pick that has been unused on someone that has underwhelmed) especially for teams trying to shed future money (can get more talented guys on longer deals) and/or contenders needing that final piece (even though it's conjuncture at this point, I am sure many teams are very high on Tyson and blame the level of play on the crappy situation. Right or wrong).

New York did it because they know they aren't really going to be able to reload. They got back three pretty good trade assets in addition to a starting PG. Provided Melo walks, they'll probably get a couple more. After that, it's just suffering through a terrible season, probably finding a taker for Shumpert, giving them another asset or two. Then, they can start again in 2015, hoping that some big name doesn't get traded/extended and would be willing to come to the Knicks.

Chandler didn't really have value on the market; the Knicks killed it. There was no reason to keep him, since the team as constructed wasn't going to be good enough to keep Melo unless the Knicks made some trades, and the team minus Melo wasn't good enough to keep Chandler on it. With Asik going to the bayou, Jackson better hope the Bulls come calling for a S&T.

Instead of the analogy that Chinook used, I equate it to the %'s vs real $ argument. If someone tells you that paying 100% more than something is worth is a bad deal, but then you find out that really only equates to one dollar, it has no impact despite the principle. I don't really agree the paid too much even with some leverage they may or may not have had, but even if that is true, when you look at the price for a known quantiy in Tyson/Dirk, who cares? It was not egregious at all and outside of the 3M in cap space lost, no real loss at all.

To me, that's an old-CBA view. Rookie deals are extremely important to filling out rosters, especially for older teams. Rather than signing some ring-chasers (the ones who can't latch onto a better contender at that) to fill their final spots, Dallas could have had some players with upside and who could be valuable trade pieces down the line. It would be one thing if the Mavs traded those young players away for cap space, like the Heat did in 2010. But they traded them away to add cap space, hurting their free-agency and their draft at the same time. That's hardly something of little consequence.

[Chinook]

I get your argument, but your analogies are wayyyyyyyyy different. An underwhelming Shane Larkin, 2 2nd rounders and 2 average to below average players (especially considering the longer term $ for Calderon) is no where near the same as the difference in your analogy (60th pick vs 10th pick). None of those assets (outside of maybe Dalemberts non-guaranteed deal and the 34th pick) where going to net you anything of great value. They were average to below average assets.

And now their value ended up being zero since the Mavericks threw them in a trade they could have completed without them. That's the kind of thing the Spurs used to do.

The Thomas analogy holds, even if it is extreme. What if I said the 35th pick instead of the 60th pick? It still wouldn't be any more logical on the Kings part.

[DAF86]

As long as they have Monta as a key player I won't be able to take them seriously.

[ElNono]

I don't see Dallas as being big dealers for a while, since they blew their load overpaying for Chandler. There's a difference between paying whatever it takes and paying more than it takes. They'll have to depend on free agency to finish their roster. But again, Chandler's actual value is not part of my argument. His market value is. It would be like if Sacramento could go back to the 2011 draft (without any other team being able to), and they pick Isaiah Thomas at 10 instead of at 60. Yes, Thomas is better than Freddette and perhaps deserved to be a lottery pick, but they still would be overdrafting Thomas, since no other team was going to pick him.

I'll just agree to disagree. I don't think "market value" even enters the picture here. After 3 years of trying to find a replacement, they have not been able to, and now they have the urgency of Dirk's career coming to an end. He was obviously a priority, and they got that done, whatever the cost.

Whether they overpaid or not, time will tell. There's obviously the expectation that he can be again that defensive presence he was on a championship team (and IMO, he was the 2nd best player on that Mavs team). I also don't buy that if they waited two weeks, they get him for cheaper. I think there would be suitors for a well regarded player, former DPOY.

[Chinook]

I'll just agree to disagree. I don't think "market value" even enters the picture here. After 3 years of trying to find a replacement, they have not been able to, and now they have the urgency of Dirk's career coming to an end. He was obviously a priority, and they got that done, whatever the cost.

Whether they overpaid or not, time will tell. There's obviously the expectation that he can be again that defensive presence he was on a championship team (and IMO, he was the 2nd best player on that Mavs team). I also don't buy that if they waited two weeks, they get him for cheaper. I think there would be suitors for a well regarded player, former DPOY.

That's where we disagree. Time won't tell. There's nothing Chandler can do that will affect whether Dallas overpaid or not relative to my argument. That's what I've been trying to say. The only thing that determines that is what minimum offer it would have taken for Jackson to trade Chandler back to Dallas. If this seriously was the only way Dallas could get Chandler, then they paid market value, and I approve of the deal (but still lament the timing) even if Chandler bombs and Larkin and the picks become good players. If Jackson would have taken less, then Dallas overpaid, even if Chandler is a DPOY. And it's no small thing, as Dallas gave could have really used those assets and that cap space if they could have preserved it.

That's why the issue is murky. I believe Dallas could have gotten Chandler for a more favorable deal in terms of assets and timing. There's no way to prove that, though. But that's the case for all trades, and we still judge them based on perceived market value. I don't see why this is different. But yes, we can agree to disagree.

[The Batman]

Felton is worse than Lin.

[Baam]

Pelton graded it a C+ for the Mavs and a B+ for the Knicks :

http://bbs.hupu.com/9809664.html

[DPG21920]

Chinook, you really think, especially considering the fact NY took on long term money with Jose, that a team wouldn't have at least given a Larkin quality thrown in, 2 2nd rounders and the quality of players of Dalembert/Jose for Tyson/Cap Relief down the road?

What do you think out of what Dallas paid, that other suitors would not have paid? That would determine two things:

1) What they theoretically overpaid compared to the market

2) If it really matters.

You asked about changing your argument from the 10th to the 35th and if that would make any more sense. The point is, Dallas didn't have the leverage you say IMO because of how good of a fit Tyson has proven to be. He was more valuable to Dallas than anyone else. So with that in mind, it probably was very close to what they had to pay.

Beyond that, I explained what I thought Tyson's value was and I can't imagine it would be much less than what Dallas paid and IMO, for the right team (and it just takes one) it could have gone significantly higher. Getting back to your question about changing your argument - yes it does matter. It goes back to my analogies. While in theory/principle you are correct, sometimes even if you overpay, as long as it's not egregious who really cares.

It's the same argument that baffles me with regards to people harping on the "Jose is a huge upgrade over Felton!!". Is that true? Sure - especially last year's Felton. But who cares ? Cool, have fun with a guy owed 3x the money over longer years that while he's better than Felton will not move the needle at all on anything of note. You aren't making the playoffs with Felton all the same as you won't with Calderon and he's owed more money and eats into your cap space when you actually have it.

[HemisfairArena]

Jackson doing work,,,, already better executive decisions than Fredo and Kupchak.

[Thread]

Jackson doing work,,,, already better executive decisions than Fredo and Kupchak.

Oh, yeah, Kerr smacked him in the face and there is nary a murmur from the peanut gallery.

[ElNono]

That's where we disagree. Time won't tell. There's nothing Chandler can do that will affect whether Dallas overpaid or not relative to my argument. That's what I've been trying to say. The only thing that determines that is what minimum offer it would have taken for Jackson to trade Chandler back to Dallas. If this seriously was the only way Dallas could get Chandler, then they paid market value, and I approve of the deal (but still lament the timing) even if Chandler bombs and Larkin and the picks become good players. If Jackson would have taken less, then Dallas overpaid, even if Chandler is a DPOY. And it's no small thing, as Dallas gave could have really used those assets and that cap space if they could have preserved it.

That's why the issue is murky. I believe Dallas could have gotten Chandler for a more favorable deal in terms of assets and timing. There's no way to prove that, though. But that's the case for all trades, and we still judge them based on perceived market value. I don't see why this is different. But yes, we can agree to disagree.

Absolutely not true, and for a number of reasons.

First reason is that nobody is privy to the negotiation that took place. While you feel (might even feel certain) that perhaps the Mavs might've been able to get it done for less, you don't really know that at all. You don't really know if the Knicks have already been approached by other teams about Chandler, you just don't know that. What we're all definitely certain about, is that this is the package that allowed Dallas to get it done.

And the second reason is that if Chandlers turns out to be THAT guy for the Mavs again, did they really overpay? What was his value when he walked off from Dallas as a champ? Was he worth more than a decent PG, a project and a couple of picks? yeah, he was worth more than that. All these trades are a gamble. A leap of faith. In due time, all these deals always look different. RJ now looks like a terrible pickup and doubling down on extending him looks completely stupid. When the Kawhi/Hill trade was made, the consensus was that it was an even trade. Most people don't buy that anymore. Getting Diaw looks like a steal now, but if he stays fat and unmotivated, we would probably be singing a different tune.

[Chinook]

Chinook, you really think, especially considering the fact NY took on long term money with Jose, that a team wouldn't have at least given a Larkin quality thrown in, 2 2nd rounders and the quality of players of Dalembert/Jose for Tyson/Cap Relief down the road?

Down the road? You mean, in like two weeks? No. I don't think anyone would have outbid Dallas in two weeks. I don't think any team would have outbid Dallas at all. That's the point.

What do you think out of what Dallas paid, that other suitors would not have paid? That would determine two things:

1) What they theoretically overpaid compared to the market

2) If it really matters.

I think another team would have just taken Felton off New York's hands. Assuming Calderon has a bad contract (which you seem to be doing but of which I am not sure), perhaps an asset would be in order. Which is why I don't know why people think that I care about Larkin in particular. I don't care about him at all; I just don't think he's a throw-in. I think he and Dalembert's contract could have been shopped for a decent asset, like New York is trying to do with him now. If Larkin were the absolute lynch-pin, that's all right. But why both him and the picks (which I don't think are to be dismissed in this draft)? Dallas needs players, too. They are in a precarious cap situation and could use an almost-first-rounder who doesn't count against the cap.

The biggest problem is the fact that they completely capitulated to New York, especially if they are finalizing the deal this season. After the moritorium would be much more defensible, since, Dallas would at least not be losing cap space over this. But no, they gave that up too. I don't think any other team would have even thought of offering so much before seeing how the market shook out.

You asked about changing your argument from the 10th to the 35th and if that would make any more sense. The point is, Dallas didn't have the leverage you say IMO because of how good of a fit Tyson has proven to be. He was more valuable to Dallas than anyone else. So with that in mind, it probably was very close to what they had to pay.

Beyond that, I explained what I thought Tyson's value was and I can't imagine it would be much less than what Dallas paid and IMO, for the right team (and it just takes one) it could have gone significantly higher. Getting back to your question about changing your argument - yes it does matter. It goes back to my analogies. While in theory/principle you are correct, sometimes even if you overpay, as long as it's not egregious who really cares.

It's the same argument that baffles me with regards to people harping on the "Jose is a huge upgrade over Felton!!". Is that true? Sure - especially last year's Felton. But who cares ? Cool, have fun with a guy owed 3x the money over longer years that while he's better than Felton will not move the needle at all on anything of note. You aren't making the playoffs with Felton all the same as you won't with Calderon and he's owed more money and eats into your cap space when you actually have it.

That doesn't make sense, unless Jackson drove up the price for Dallas specifically because he knew they would become a legit compe or to New York if they made the trade. Would Phil have taken a smaller offer from Orlando, since Tyson doesn't fit the Magic's system as well? That seems crazy to me. Jackson can't afford to think about how his trade affects the eight-seed in the opposite conference. He has to get the best deal for his team that he can. This isn't like free agency, where a team will overpay to keep a critical player. Dallas is giving up every trade asset they have when they were the only team confirmed to be in the running. They could have had their cake an eaten it too.

And, no, picking Thomas at 35 instead of 60 is still dumb, since the Kings would know they could get Thomas at 60 in addition to and, say, Parsons at 35.

As I said, the Knicks are rebuilding, even if they are holding out hope that they aren't Calderon still has a market if they want to move him. He's been traded while making this much before.

[DPG21920]

Sure he has a market, but it's probably not very big without having to give something up. You aren't getting anything of note for him.

My point about Dallas was with regards to leverage. You said Dallas had it. My point was to refute that because Dallas and NY knew Chandler was more important to Dallas than anyone else.

[DPG21920]

Also, getting Tyson with their cap space would mean in order to get the cap space they have now, Dallas would be forced to find takers for Dalembert/Calderon/Larkin/Ellington which IMO is not that easy as none of them are really great assets at all. They would have been forced to give up their picks anyways, so this just takes the suspense out of it while getting their man.