(02-12-2023, 10:09 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Would anyone be suprised if they use the TP-MLE to bring back Powell? Could also imagine that they split the MLE among 2-3 players and reduce the amount of vet min guys they have to add to the roster if it reduces the potential luxury tax bill.

(02-12-2023, 10:32 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: Why? Just wait till Powell is sitting with no more than vet min offers (if he even gets that) and offer him the vet min. So done with the Powell blindspot.

(02-12-2023, 10:35 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Not about what I would like to happen. Just thinking about similar situations  and how they approached them in the past.

(02-12-2023, 10:09 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Would anyone be suprised if they use the TP-MLE to bring back Powell? Could also imagine that they split the MLE among 2-3 players and reduce the amount of vet min guys they have to add to the roster if it reduces the potential luxury tax bill.

(02-12-2023, 10:57 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: He has Bird Rights.  Are you saying they'll give him about that amount?

(02-12-2023, 11:33 PM)SkenfromLMF Wrote: I know Powell has not made Dirk like money, BUT Powell on a 1 yr $2.5 million contract does a couple of things.
A) it keeps his Bird Rights rolled forward
B) it gives Powell a No Trade Option

This is how Dallas operated with Dirk the last 4-6 years of his career. He would sign a near minimum contract and then get about a $10 million contract. The idea being that Dallas could create cap space every other year.
IF we keep Kyrie, this strategy could be implemented from having to endure repeater tax issues.

Just a thought

Quote:The CBA also has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a signing or trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though it is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.

Examples of conduct considered to be circumvention include:

A team owner allowing a player to invest in a business or investment fund controlled by the owner or a friend of the owner.
A team executive assisting a player in obtaining a product endorsement.
Any "under the table" promises for a future contract (see question number 30).
A team's arena renting retail space to a player on the team.
A team selling a sponsorship to a business in which a player has an interest.
A team hiring a player's relative or business partner as an employee.
A team owner allowing a player the use of his private plane.
A company affiliated with a team's owner making a home available to one of the team's players.

Whenever a contract is signed, extended, renegotiated or otherwise amended, the team, player, and player's agent must certify, under penalty of perjury, that there are no side agreements or understandings of any kind relating to:

Any future contract, or future extension, renegotiation or amendment of the player's current contract.
Any outside compensation, investment, business opportunity or anything else of value furnished to the player or any other person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting on behalf of the player.

(02-13-2023, 12:00 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: Pretty sure that's the quickest way for the Mavs to get into a load of trouble for circumventing the cap. 

Larry Coon's CBA Faq point 106.


It's a nice idea in theory, but the Mavs can't just manipulate their balance sheets like that using Powell.

(02-13-2023, 01:18 AM)loki Wrote:

(02-13-2023, 01:11 AM)F Gump Wrote: One other issue with the Powell idea is that the benefit to this is to manufacture cap room in certain years by sliding cap hits from one year to the next  -- almost 0 one year, and then 2 year's worth the next. But Powell's shouldn't be big enough to be that much of a difference maker. And do you want to have a double hit in a year when you are in the tax, maybe? And with giant contracts for both Luka and Kyrie, will you ever really have cap room years?

(02-13-2023, 04:52 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: I mean if we're going by the OP idea, creating just enough cap room to allow us to use the full MLE and/or avoid hefty repeater tax penalties, then a double hit of Powell in year 2 would pay itself no? 

(02-13-2023, 07:36 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: Another way to save money is to answer ‘none of the above’ to our UFA current centers.  If we trade for one and still have Maxi and McGee, do we need either Powell or Wood?

(02-13-2023, 09:50 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: Depends on the one they trade for, I suppose. If it’s a bonafide starter, someone who’s going to play 30-35 minutes like Turner (just an example, not who I think it would be) then no, I would think Kleber being the only higher priced backup big would make a ton of sense. In fact, in that scenario I’d STILL want to dump McGee in favor of a MINIMUM salary 3rd center.

(02-13-2023, 10:21 AM)mvossman Wrote: In your Turner example I think I would prefer to have Powell on a roughly 5 mil contract.  Both Turner and Maxi have injury histories and Maxi can play some 4 when everyone is healthy.

(02-13-2023, 07:36 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: Another question to ask in this is whether there is someone out there who is worth $11mm who can’t be had for $7mm.  Free agency gets pretty meh pretty fast this summer.  I think the value of trimming salaries (whether this idea or asking Kyrie to take a discount) would be to set yourself up to be able to go after a S&T for someone like Grant.  Even there, the players worth that kind of trouble (and being hard capped) are a pretty short list.

Another way to save money is to answer ‘none of the above’ to our UFA current centers.  If we trade for one and still have Maxi and McGee, do we need either Powell or Wood?