And you are happy that the leagues best player just won another championship? Front running can be fun!ALiveH said:I'm about 50/50 that Hellers has been elaborately trolling us for months.
And you are happy that the leagues best player just won another championship? Front running can be fun!ALiveH said:I'm about 50/50 that Hellers has been elaborately trolling us for months.
dhellers said:
Eh, that's a copout,but I agree with your conclusion.
dhellers said:While I could pick at some details, such as the implication that Green's improvement is tied to Rondo's absence (rather than getting healthy) overall Wu's counterpoints are legit. They provide a "blah" story to my "spun positively" story.
Which means (to me) that for any given player, the likelihood of either (blah or positive) are about equal.
So I repeat my core point: that proceeding under the hope that there will be a number of "spun positively" outcomes is .. a gamble. I don't see as being a worse gamble then the various kinds of blowItUp or tradeEmWhileYouCan gambles. For example: consider how one would feel right now if KG was out west and the Celts had one Demarcus Cousins in
his place.
Full disclosure: I see it as being a better gamble. And since for me the benefits of indulging in naive loyalty are greater than the tantalizations of naive newness, I conclude that it is best to keep the band together for one more year.
ALiveH said:I'm about 50/50 that Hellers has been elaborately trolling us for months.
Brickowski said:Latest draft night rumor is Pierce to Cleveland for 2 2nd rounders. I love that deal for Boston because it would generate a fat trade exception (plus give two picks with decent value, #31 and #33). But why would Cleveland do it? They are nowhere near a championship.
I think that, coupled with a veteran presence, is pretty much it. It also ensures them cap space for LeBron, too.wutang112878 said:
Whats the cap floor $50Mish? They are at $36M so perhaps they want to just add his buyout $5M to the books so they dont just have to go spend foolishly in free agency? That seems silly but beyond that, I cant think of a single reason why
Plus, Danny doesn't even have to offer guaranteed money to second round picks. It's minimal savings but could help with the cap down the road.Brickowski said:Latest draft night rumor is Pierce to Cleveland for 2 2nd rounders. I love that deal for Boston because it would generate a fat trade exception (plus give two picks with decent value, #31 and #33). But why would Cleveland do it? They are nowhere near a championship.
Brickowski said:Here's one reason Cleveland might do it: Cap is $58M, Cleveland is at $35M (according to Hoopshype). They need to get to $52M in salary to satisfy the new 90% salary floor. If they are below the floor, they pay the difference to the league. (It think the penalty gets divided up among the other teams, but I'm not sure.) Pierce for one year at $15M is probably better than overpaying for free agents, because when PP comes off the books, they will have the cap space to sign LeBron or another member of the 2014 free agent class.
Rudy Pemberton said:Pierce would actually report to Cleveland?
Jackie Mac http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9415256/los-angeles-clippers-agree-principle-doc-rivers-deal-sourcesTeam sources confirmed Ainge has also been trying to secure a first-round pick for veteran Paul Pierce, who can be bought out by June 30 for $5 million. The Celtics have been unsuccessful thus far, leaving open the possibility they keep Pierce and his $15.3 million contract on their books, and attempt to deal him again at the trade deadline next winter, when teams historically look for veteran help and are willing to overpay.
I believe the Cavs can renounce enough of their free agents to absorb PP's salary before July. Walton+Gibson+Harangody is about $12M worth of cap holds. The trade could then be PP for Alonzo Gee and picks.Burkharts Uppercut said:One barrier to a trade scenario like that happening is that it has to be done as a good faith deal because the Cavs won't officially have cap space until July 1st. So they would have to draft on our behalf, wait a week and trade the draft rights of the two picks for Pierce possibly without knowing whether he'd report. And if the trade falls apart, it will be past the date when Pierce can be waived.
Cuban's fun because he's basically a fan.I cant speak from the Celtics perspective at all, but from my perspective, culture is one of the most important things to develop as a team, Cuban said. Dirk is the continuity for our culture. So Id rather give up something when you blow it up you never know what direction your culture is going to go.
http://m.metro.us/boston/sports/2014/02/13/mark-cuban-on-why-mavericks-kept-dirk-nowitzki-why-celtics-traded-paul-pierce
Let me address here the inevitable question of Dwight vs Mavs culture. We saw it as somewhat of a risk, but felt like because Dwight by all appearances and checking we did, is a good guy and with our support systems we believed we could make it work. if not, he was obviously a very trade-able asset. But, as everyone knows, we didn’t sign him. He went to the Rockets. I do have to say the meeting with Dwight was very interesting. He is a smart guy. Much smarter than people give him credit for. He is also a very, very good listener. Unlike most people, he spent far more time listening than talking. And he had the best response to an opening question that I have ever heard from a player, or anyone for that matter. When we asked him what his goal was, his response was very specific ” I want to be Epic” . Which was a perfect lead in to the video we created for him
Dirk remains a true superstrar. Yes he's old, but it's not crazy to think he can remain extremely effective for another few years, during which time the Mavs can try and acquire other pieces. Not saying they will, but Cuban is probably correct that when most rebuilding teams are tanking, going the other way, and rebuilding without bottoming out may be easier than normal.Brickowski said:The moment of reckoning is coming soon for the Mavs. If Cuban would prefer that Dirk retire as a Mav, that's an owner's prerogative, but the culture is going to change when his older players leave whether he wants it to or not.
Brickowski said:The moment of reckoning is coming soon for the Mavs. If Cuban would prefer that Dirk retire as a Mav, that's an owner's prerogative, but the culture is going to change when his older players leave whether he wants it to or not.
For all that I love the Spurs and Popovich (and I do love them so), one of their less heralded secrets to their success has been to get Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker under contract for a total of around ~$30M this year. Now that number is at a low this year, but neither Parker nor Manu, even at their peaks, ever got a max deal, and Duncan took a pretty big pay cut a couple years ago, even while he was still at an elite level.Grin&MartyBarret said:
The moment of reckoning will involve Dirk's contract negotiations this off-season. The key for Dallas will be getting him locked into a reasonable deal that allows them flexibility to build. If he wants another max deal, that's a risk they can't take. If he's willing to take 10 million a year, then it's much easier to re-sign him and treat him as your cultural ambassador, or whatever.
crystalline said:Bumping an old thread to keep the "blow it up" discussions contained.
Mark Cuban is quoted saying that he won't blow up the Mavs to acquire more talent because he thinks team culture is more important:
bowiac said:For all that I love the Spurs and Popovich (and I do love them so), one of their less heralded secrets to their success has been to get Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker under contract for a total of around ~$30M this year. Now that number is at a low this year, but neither Parker nor Manu, even at their peaks, ever got a max deal, and Duncan took a pretty big pay cut a couple years ago, even while he was still at an elite level.
Brickowski said:I'm with Wutang on this one, although I don't think Cuban is any more of a baboon than Auerbach was in 1992 or 1993.
It's not just Dirk who is getting old. The Mavs have Marion, Carter, Dalembert and Calderon, all 32 or older. Monta Ellis is Rondo's age, and Devin Harris is two years older than that. Dallas may have some cap space 1-2 years down the road, but unless the Mavs get really bad for a year or two, it is unlikely that they will have enough young talent to make better free agents come there.
And, in contrast to a team like the Spurs, there is no Danny Green, Kawhi Leonard or Patty Mills on the Mavs roster.
None of those players other than Calderon on are signed to long term deals. Insofar as they decline, it's not going to really be on the Mavericks' dime. By that point if they're still doing this, they can sign the next group of free agents nobody really wants.Brickowski said:It's not just Dirk who is getting old. The Mavs have Marion, Carter, Dalembert and Calderon, all 32 or older. Monta Ellis is Rondo's age, and Devin Harris is two years older than that. Dallas may have some cap space 1-2 years down the road, but unless the Mavs get really bad for a year or two, it is unlikely that they will have enough young talent to make better free agents come there.
bowiac said:I don't get it - why is he wrong here? Financial flexibility is an asset as much as anything else.
Devizier said:Free agency is a desert for the next two offseasons at least, so the next winning franchise will have to come via trades and the draft.
I was referencing your statement that "Cuban has gone the 'financial flexibility' route whereas we go the 'asset building' route", which seems to suggest that financial flexibility isn't an asset.wutang112878 said:
Are you asking why Cuban is wrong in focusing on culture?
I think the case for flexibility is that it allows you to sign veterans and roll them over for assets in the future.Brickowski said:It seems to me that financial flexibility per se is less of an asset under the new CBA, because now there is a de facto hard cap. As a team gets up towards the luxury tax apron, several bad things happen. You lose your MLE, you lose the ability to make certain trades, etc. And the tax itself is much worse, especially for repeat offenders. Even if Cuban is willing to spend like Prokhorov, it is very unlikely that the Mavs or any other team can effectively rebuild without young, cost controlled players who can make a significant contribution. Right now the Mavs don't have any.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Why? This offseason includes Carmelo, Pierce, Deng, Dirk, Marion, Lance Stephenson, Kyle Lowry, Pau, Zach Randolph, potentially LeBron James, Bosh and Wade, and next off-season could include Tony Parker, Danny Green, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Love, Wesley Matthews, Goran Dragic, Thaddeus Young, Arron Afflalo, Tyson Chandler, Roy Hibbert, Marc Gasol, Asik, Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap, and Brook Lopez. Oh, and Rondo.
bowiac said:I was referencing your statement that "Cuban has gone the 'financial flexibility' route whereas we go the 'asset building' route", which seems to suggest that financial flexibility isn't an asset.
I by and large agree the Celtics are in better shape going forward than the Mavericks, but I think it's closer than it might look. The Celtics are in okay shape mostly because they got an amazing offer on KG & Pierce from a team that looks to be a trainwreck. Even if Cuban wanted to move Dirk, there's no guarantee they could have gotten anywhere near as much. Regardless, the Celtics aren't like the 76ers - I don't think their stockpile of assets is so large really.
When you add in how much more fun it is watching the Mavericks in the interim, I'm not sure I'd rather be a Celtics fan.
Devizier said:
1) the Celtics have a little cap space this offseason, assuming they can free up the non-guaranteed money before the free agency period, although at least $3M of that will be eaten up by draft picks. So let's generously give them $10M in cap space, assuming they don't retain Bradley. This offseason, that leaves Stephenson as pretty much their only real target and I would put the odds at really long for that happening.
2) Barring a great run in the draft this year, I don't see premier free agents like Love, Hibbert, Gasol, or Aldridge signing with the Celtics next year unless their respective teams trade them to Boston (i.e. not free agency acquisition). Secondary pieces might fall in, but again I think that depends more on the Celtics fielding a competitive team first.
this is where the "desert" statement comes from. Unless you somehow see a reason for Lebron to sign with Boston.
wutang112878 said:
I'm not saying his approach is wrong, its his criticism that misses the mark. He is wrong to critique us losing our 'culture' because with our approach of 'flip assets for young assets and develop' there is no way to avoid losing your culture. Its if RC Buford said 'well I think stability, provided by long term contracts, is the most important thing for an organization, so I wouldnt do what the Mavs are doing'. With every approach there are gives and takes.
As for the Mavs, lets look at their situations because they are different. Dirk is 35 and amazingly he doesnt seem to be slowing down. Dirk needs to be resigned, say thats at $10M, now next year they have $41M in cap commitments and they can go add a max guy. But to go on a run you need a guy who can start taking the torch from Dirk. They have a chance for a smooth transition, and they can try to figure out how to replace Dirk later but they need a real difference maker in free agency. The Mavs are better off for the next 3 years, they can add to the Dirk core. But then they will have a team thats probably at its peak while Dirk declines/retires and will have difficulty replacing him. If, and its a big if, they get the FAs they really need they can have a decent run for 3 years.
Contrast that with the Celts where PP & KG were aging, and thats a big fundamental difference. Adding pieces wasnt going to get it done, and then once that Nets possibility came around they couldnt pass that up. But now the Celts are paying the piper for all the old adding pieces during the KG/PP days. At the start of the year they had Lee, Green, Bass and Wallace on the books, so the didnt have the financial flexibility to add pieces, so realistically what are your other options to add talent than to add via the draft? You cant make 5 flip moves and turn Bass into Kevin Love. When you dont have a fundamental building block like Dirk or Duncan, then you lose your best pieces and dont have financial flexibility then you are going to have a dip down. But in 2 years the Celts financially could be a clean, blank slate with young pieces on the roster, and with a few moves and luck could be setup for a legit 5 year run in years 3 - 8.
So when we think of better, its probably about which one you want one more focused on the long-term vs short-term.
bowiac said:I personally don't think cleaning house and tanking has all that much better a track record than the alternatives, so given where the Mavericks were with Dirk, that doesn't seem to be a huge concern to me. The Mavericks, like most teams that aren't quite good enough, are in a tough boat. They're gonna need to get lucky a bunch of times to field a true contender again. But that doesn't make them so different than the teams like the Celtics, who also need a series of good strokes of luck to get back.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you'd give up some chance of winning a title (2% vs. 1% here) in order to experience the highs and lows of the NBA?wutang112878 said:
Its sort of a game theory thing. On one hand you can go the Mavs route and have maybe a 2% chance to win for 5 years. Or you go the Danny building the Big3 route where you have a 1% chance of putting that team together but you have an amazing high probability window for 3-4 years. The Heat Lebron scenario is another example. I'd prefer the later because I'd rather ride the roller coaster than the teacups
bowiac said:I agree with respect to your first point (the true superstars in the NBA are badly underpaid). I'm not sure how it follows however that the Philly/Orlando strategy (whatever that is) is the correct solution to this issue.