12-28-2023, 12:04 PM
(12-28-2023, 05:41 AM)F Gump Wrote: I'm not sure what your point is. Teams sell players, other teams buy them, part of the transaction may be a shift in cap room from one team to another, and player value may go the other way. 2nds are little pieces that get attached going this way or that. I'm not sure any of this would be an example of a salary dump that's cheaper than a single 2nd (which was the whole point, to be doing something when the prices are super low).
And just finding a deal with a 2nd going one way or the other doesn't seem really meaningful or necessarily parallel to me (much less 2, in some of those examples). Some of these teams were paying to get the player, and I don't anticipate anyone giving the Mavs some 2nds for Holmes, but if you have that lined up, I'm in.
What was that McGee deal that you keep alluding to, that you say the Mavs turned down, where it was a salary dump of his contract for a 2nd or less? Dumping McGee (or being able to do so) would be a great comp, but I don't recall any such offer being declined by Mavs at a price of a 2nd or less.
What doesn't make sense is that any team would be willing to take Holmes contract at TDL for an expiring for a 2nd rounder but they would be unwilling to do it in the summer or would charge more to eat that remaining year. Obviously no one will pay to take Holmes, neither at TDL nor in the summer. Usual value is 5 mil of salary for a SRP, so dumping Holmes would cost at least 2 SRP. Cost at TDL could be higher based on the quality of the guy coming our way.
One more move in the summer that gets you same salary saving and doesn't cost any assets. Stretch waive Holmes and not guarantee Seth.
I never alluded there was any McGee deal. I simply said Mavs were not willing to pay anyone to take his contract but rather just cut him and eat the losses. Since there were plenty of salary dumping moves in the summer around the league, you can't really claim there was no team willing to eat that contract for the assets. It was the Mavs that were not willing to pay, imho. I am glad they didn't. Not sure why they absolutely had to get rid of him, but they have more info than I do and they know what was such a pressing matter.
Not sure how many times I would need to repeat what my point is. I firmly believe Mavs are not near contending and they need a two way wing to become a contender. Based on this, they need to keep maximum flexibility for the trade for that missing two way wing. Spending assets for expiring salary is the opposite move of that.
Mavs have imho three options going forward:
1. They keep Luka and Irving core. They have likely a max 2 year window for a result with this pairing and I might even be optimistic about that, based on Kyrie recent history. They have no choice but to go all in in this scenario. Some might disagree, but I firmly think Mavs need a two way wing to be a serious contender with Luka and Kyrie. So if Mavs choose this scenario, the only way to make it successful is to make that 2-way wing trade happen. Anything less makes them unsuccessful.
2. Mavs cash in on Kyrie and build a contender around Luka and Lively. More time for them to do that and numerous possibilities how to do that. The risk is, if Luka is willing to wait for who knows how many years before they put the right pieces together.
3. Mavs keep this core and hope for so much internal development that they become a couple of levels better team in that short term 2-year window. Personally, I don't find this scenario as very likely to succeed. Closer to number two option than becoming a contender in a year or two.