(07-27-2023, 11:02 AM)mvossman Wrote: Could it also mean they are looking for a third team for Timmy?  I am really not interested in overpaying for Capela.

(07-27-2023, 11:35 AM)SleepingHero Wrote:


You're pretty much on the nail here. The slight overpay is the cost of getting McGee off the team. I wonder why the Mavs don't just eat the salary in a waive and retain the other assets at this point.

(07-27-2023, 11:38 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: Maybe. It's possible that ATL wants McGee and not THJ (I doubt it) but that doesn't change the equation from the Mavs' perspective. Everything we've heard this summer points to them thinking Hardaway is expendable, but trying to use him to create a package that gets McGee's contract off of the roster. To me, this reads like ATL/Dalllas have an idea of what could work, but that ATL (who we also know is trying to lower their payroll, from several sources) doesn't want to be left with some/all of the salary Dallas would send out. 

"Third team", to me, is Dallas having to search for a place to park that portion of what they're sending out, probably with the onus on them to add whatever sweetener needed to make that happen. 

"Slightly overpay" could just be referring to that, but when added by an ATL guy on an ATL board, I'd assume he's referring to what Dallas is willing to pay FOR Capela, as in TO Atlanta. 

I don't like where I think this might be headed, personally.

---

Cool, this makes me feel a bit better. This is only a 2nd or two, I hope. Not '27, not Hardy, not Green. 

...although if Green/#10 was the ask on draft night, I'm a little worried that the "talked down" post -draft price to ATL might be Green (and THJ) without the pick.

(07-27-2023, 11:47 AM)Smitty Wrote: I would not be happy if we’re sending Green in a trade for a stopgap center.

(07-27-2023, 11:51 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: Neither would I, but I can't rule it out. 

Put yourself in the mind of Mark Cuban, and try to imagine really, really not wanting to pay tax next year, not just this year.

(07-27-2023, 11:51 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: Not only are the Mavs hard-capped at 172 mil right now, I think they're capping themselves at 165 mil due to tax. In a THJ for Capela swap, the Mavs roster goes from 161.7 to 163.9. So about 1.4 mil from the tax line and about 8.5 mil from the 1st apron. I don't think there is any realistic scenario where the Mavs can toe the tax line and try and improve. So with that in mind, its time for Mark to prove he's willing to spend up to the 1st apron.

What team has a distressed player that is making around 14.1 mil AND would either need a backup center in McGee at a lower contract, OR needs to shed the difference of McGee's contract to get below the tax line/1st apron?

If the Mavs are really intent at staying below the tax, the above rules apply except they need to find a player making 7.1mil which I think is highly unrealistic as the difference between 7 and 5 mil aren't that great.

(07-27-2023, 11:56 AM)Smitty Wrote: I think they’re projected around ~7M over the tax line next year, depending on Green’s extension number. I can see them moving an expiring Holmes to get under the tax by years end. I sure hope Cuban isn’t so cheap to lose young promising players to avoid a possible tax bill. Luka should demand a trade the second he’s eligible, after signing his super max.

(07-27-2023, 12:01 PM)Smitty Wrote: Tyler suggested this in discord. Could make sense for Atlanta if the Siakam deal is dead. PJ and McGee would be backup centers to OO. CHA gets a veteran wing and a tip from Dallas.

(07-27-2023, 12:09 PM)loki Wrote: I wouldn't be shocked if the Mavs end up giving Hardy for Capela. It would make sense of all the guard related rumors (players that look redundant to us). I think Green is off-limits.

(07-27-2023, 11:51 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: What team has a distressed player that is making around 14.1 mil AND would either need a backup center in McGee at a lower contract, OR needs to shed the difference of McGee's contract to get below the tax line/1st apron?

(07-27-2023, 12:09 PM)loki Wrote: I wouldn't be shocked if the Mavs end up giving Hardy for Capela. It would make sense of all the guard related rumors (players that look redundant to us). I think Green is off-limits.

(07-27-2023, 02:56 PM)F Gump Wrote: Two comments

1 The ATL "insider" has one piece of "inside information" after another that turns out to be false. Then he kicks the can down the road with new "information." While it's fun, it's not wise to put ANY stock into the implications of each new proclamation he comes up with. That's my main opinion.

2 As for how this could fit with what I have been thinking of a Capela deal, if we take it at face value -- I've been of the belief ATL wants Capela gone right away, to open up minutes for Okongwu and to reduce payroll, and DAL is the rare duck that might be interested in helping. I think that's the bottom line with any talks.

To me the obvious trade match is Holmes for Capela, which offers ATL a 12M center making 12M, plus 8M to spend elsewhere, for their 20M center making 20M. I think they would do that -- it's exactly what they are looking for. No one is giving added assets for a $20M center they don't really want or need. I can't see the Mavs bidding against themselves, or adding more assets when one-for-one it's already a fair swap. The 8M to spend elsewhere is the evener that bridges the difference between the 2 players.

But it doesn't satisfy the trade rules. Holmes-McGee does (saving then 2.5M/year), and also satisfies the Mavs' need to lower the body count at the C position and their desire to move McGee. It also keeps the Mavs below the tax line.

So this "insider info" in my view would have ATL's stance being "find a taker for McGee where we get $8M in savings, and we'll do the deal" and now it's on the Mavs to figure out how to do that (or to say no).  Waiving McGee doesn't get it done, because the Mavs' need his salary included in order to match Capela (although the team that gets McGee could waive him if they want). I would think "McGee + cash" to a team with cap room - or one needing a really cheap backup center - should be doable.

I don't think that's hard. Which would fit with the idea that the deal could already be all lined up, but just waiting to Sept 6 because of Holmes status, while everyone speculates as they see nothing happening.

(07-27-2023, 03:05 PM)Smitty Wrote: “Portland, Brooklyn, Washington, Miami, New York, and Boston all have TPEs large enough to absorb McGee“

(07-27-2023, 02:56 PM)F Gump Wrote: Two comments

1 The ATL "insider" has one piece of "inside information" after another that turns out to be false. Then he kicks the can down the road with new "information." While it's fun, it's not wise to put ANY stock into the implications of each new proclamation he comes up with. That's my main opinion.

2 As for how this could fit with what I have been thinking of a Capela deal, if we take it at face value -- I've been of the belief ATL wants Capela gone right away, to open up minutes for Okongwu and to reduce payroll, and DAL is the rare duck that might be interested in helping. I think that's the bottom line with any talks.

To me the obvious trade match is Holmes for Capela, which offers ATL a 12M center making 12M, plus 8M to spend elsewhere, for their 20M center making 20M. I think they would do that -- it's exactly what they are looking for. No one is giving added assets for a $20M center they don't really want or need. I can't see the Mavs bidding against themselves, or adding more assets when one-for-one it's already a fair swap. The 8M to spend elsewhere is the evener that bridges the difference between the 2 players.

But it doesn't satisfy the trade rules. Holmes-McGee does (saving then 2.5M/year), and also satisfies the Mavs' need to lower the body count at the C position and their desire to move McGee. It also keeps the Mavs below the tax line.

So this "insider info" in my view would have ATL's stance being "find a taker for McGee where we get $8M in savings, and we'll do the deal" and now it's on the Mavs to figure out how to do that (or to say no).  Waiving McGee doesn't get it done, because the Mavs' need his salary included in order to match Capela (although the team that gets McGee could waive him if they want). I would think "McGee + cash" to a team with cap room - or one needing a really cheap backup center - should be doable.

I don't think that's hard. Which would fit with the idea that the deal could already be all lined up, but just waiting to Sept 6 because of Holmes status, while everyone speculates as they see nothing happening.

(07-27-2023, 02:56 PM)F Gump Wrote: To me the obvious trade match is Holmes for Capela, which offers ATL a 12M center making 12M, plus 8M to spend elsewhere, for their 20M center making 20M. I think they would do that -- it's exactly what they are looking for. No one is giving added assets for a $20M center they don't really want or need. I can't see the Mavs bidding against themselves, or adding more assets when one-for-one it's already a fair swap. The 8M to spend elsewhere is the evener that bridges the difference between the 2 players.

But it doesn't satisfy the trade rules. Holmes-McGee does (saving then 2.5M/year), and also satisfies the Mavs' need to lower the body count at the C position and their desire to move McGee. It also keeps the Mavs below the tax line.

So this "insider info" in my view would have ATL's stance being "find a taker for McGee where we get $8M in savings, and we'll do the deal" and now it's on the Mavs to figure out how to do that (or to say no).  Waiving McGee doesn't get it done, because the Mavs' need his salary included in order to match Capela (although the team that gets McGee could waive him if they want). I would think "McGee + cash" to a team with cap room - or one needing a really cheap backup center - should be doable.

I don't think that's hard. Which would fit with the idea that the deal could already be all lined up, but just waiting to Sept 6 because of Holmes status, while everyone speculates as they see nothing happening.