Mavs - Cavs trade

[Grover]

Good luck with Moon as your starting three. I'm sure he'll replace Lebron admirably.

[Gordon Bombay]

Good luck with Moon as your starting three. I'm sure he'll replace Lebron admirably.

will do...thanks for your concern

[gflem]

Isnt Jamison still on the team? No intelligent response from Grover on the state of the Knicks, but then again it wasnt expected.

[mysticbb]

Such righteous indignation because Cavs fans don't think that a deal that has in it's linchpin the expiring contract of a 34 yr old center and some marginal talent. The Cavs traded an expiring last year and got back an overpriced undersized PF.

We are not talking about a normal expiring contract, Dampier's contract is fully unguaranteed. He can be waived and the Cavs wouldn't have to pay any cent for him. Dampier's contract is like a better version of a TPE, because Dallas can add some salary to take on bigger contracts.
And obviously Cleveland wouldn't be really interested in a S&T, if they just get Dampier's contract back. But a S&T is giving the Cavaliers opportunities rather than nothing.

Imagine following situation: James tells Ferry he wants to leave, because two teams seems to be in a better position to win a ring next season with him. He says it is either Dallas or Chicago and he would like to see a S&T. Well, Ferry for sure will hope he can find an agreement with the Mavericks rather than seeing James going to the Bulls. Dallas is in a Western Conference and they wouldn't be a threat for Cleveland for a playoff spot in the upcoming future. It is also the case that the Cavs have more leverage in a deal with Dallas than with the Bulls, because the Mavericks can't get James without doing a S&T. What will Ferry looking for? Picks? Talent? Dumping a bad contract? All those things are possible with the Mavericks, because they have the necessary assets. You might think neither of that will give the Cavs a superstar, which is absolute true, but the Cavs are getting assets back, not bad contracts.

A realistic offer would be Dampier, Butler, Beaubois, 2 1st rd picks, possible cash for James and Jamison. Dampier's contract can be used for trading, or he can just be waived, or there is also the possibility to turn that contract into a TPE via a 3rd team. These are a couple of options. Butler's contract is smaller than Jamison and he has only one year left. Butler was an All-Star in 2007 and 2008. It is also a fact that he will be in a contract year. Butler would either be a great trading chip to aquire more picks and maybe a talented player or he can just fill the SF spot. With Jamison gone the Cavaliers can now give Hickson more playing time or even can look for one of those other PF free agents like Boozer, Stoudemire, Lee and so on.
Beaubois is a really nice talented guard with long arms, he can play like a 6'3'' or 6'4'' guard at the point or as SG. An interesting fact about him: In games in which he played 20+ minutes he played as productive and efficient as in games with less minutes (that is true for all games, if the Warriors game in which he scored 40 points is excluded, otherwise his production and efficiency would be higher in 20+ minutes games).
The picks will be for sure late 1st round picks, but there are many examples which showed that with those kind of picks a team can find really nice players on rather cheap rookie scale contracts.

Additional to all that, the Mavericks even have some more assets to take on Williams or Varejao to give the Cavs more flexibility in the upcoming years. Anthony Parker for a TPE is also a possibility. The Mavericks are able to give the Cavs a lot of flexibility and assets in a S&T, something other teams can't do.

That all together gives the Cavs something to work with. You might say that James just gone would give the Cavs capspace to work with, but that would also be the case with Dampier waived. Thus that option is also there AND you get a couple of more options. And that is the way how a team should approach something like this. Look for opportunities to be in a better position for the future.

[Grover]

+1 I only got in to this post because the original post was something I had considered a while back but had not yet seen discussed. He was slammed repeatedly for probably one of the better alternatives to letting Lebron walk. He might have been a little overzealous about Beaubois' potential but maybe not. I do not expect Lebron to want to go to Dallas but they just might be able to offer the best return and the "dust chip" can be a difference maker combined with the obvious preference of moving him to the western conference. I was hoping for an expansion of the trade or alternative opportunities but the attitude was extremely close minded and when arrogance became the accusation I could not believe what I was reading. Sorry I went off the deep end yesterday

[TheOUTLAW]

The problem that you guys don't seem to understand is that we fully understand what you are saying and still don't really see it as being better than letting him walk. Not to mention the fact that right this moment Dallas is not in a better position than the Cavs (without LeBron vs the Cavs with LeBron). Sure they'd be in a better position with LeBron and heck the Cavs would be in a better position with Nowitzki. Who knows, maybe Nowitzki will demand that he goes to the Cavs. Fact is, without LeBron the Cavs are significantly under the cap and while in rebuilding mode are not actually in need to be cost cutting.

Okay so, while you think that this is going to be the Cavs best offer for LeBron given the ENORMOUS caveat that LeBron demands to go to Dallas. I disagree that it is really offering the Cavs anything that would really help them.

[mysticbb]

The problem that you guys don't seem to understand is that we fully understand what you are saying and still don't really see it as being better than letting him walk.

Well, you think the Cavs aren't in a better position, if they can switch Jamison for Butler, adding two 1st round picks (each of those is usually worth $3+m), getting Beaubois and probably can cut salary further more, if they like it? Really? Please explain me why?

Not to mention the fact that right this moment Dallas is not in a better position than the Cavs (without LeBron vs the Cavs with LeBron).

Uh, well, for sure, but that is NOT the point. James will look at it this way: Cavs without James vs. Mavericks without James. In that case the Mavericks are better.

Who knows, maybe Nowitzki will demand that he goes to the Cavs.

If the Cavs would have a fully unguaranteed contract and expiring All-Star player to take on Terry for example, they would be in the same position for Nowitzki as the Mavericks are in terms of James. But the Cavs don't have such assets.

Fact is, without LeBron the Cavs are significantly under the cap

No, they are not. The Cavs without James need to renounce their rights to players and the MLE to even have more capspace than the MLE.

and while in rebuilding mode are not actually in need to be cost cutting.

Rebuilding mode? Around whom? It is much more likely that the Cavs are trying to put themself into a position for the 2011 free agency. Thus they are interested in cutting FUTURE costs. And Butler and his expiring contract is a way better option for that than Jamison for $28.5m.

I disagree that it is really offering the Cavs anything that would really help them.

I guess you aren't looking at the whole picture here. The only thing you are aware off is that James isn't in Cleveland anymore. And yes, it sucks, but that doesn't change the fact that doing a S&T with the Mavericks will put the Cavs in a better position than getting nothing in return for James. Heck, even a 2nd rounder would be better than NOTHING!

[Grover]

I'm curious about what Cav's fans see as the blueprint if Lebron signs elsewhere? I've been searching for trade proposals that do not include James that improve the team enough to seal his return and most of them come from fans of another team and are way off base. You will have significant cap space and many question marks. Is there some kind of consensus or is it a wait and see? I'm of the opinion that drastic measures draft night or in July just before Lebron makes his decision could be of help in convincing him to stay.

[TheOUTLAW]

I'm not going to go over this again, so feel free to argue amongst yourselves. I do however believe you are beginning with a flawed premise and are really only viewing you own side of it. I am however trying to figure out how 44 mil isn't significantly under the cap.

[mysticbb]

I am however trying to figure out how 44 mil isn't significantly under the cap.

Cap holds? You know that this kind of stuff exists? Even if you renounce every single right to the players and not picking up any options it would be $46.6m due to the cap holds for the open roster spots. And? What kind of player do you want to add with those $9.4m capspace? Heck, with Dampier's contract alone you can take on up to $16.5m. Thus Dampier's contract is better than the possible capspace, let alone that this means that the Cavs can keep the rights to their players and are able to use the MLE.

[TheOUTLAW]

The Cavs would be in rebuild mode, they need high draft picks which they won't be able to get until 2011. It's not an attractive place for free agents so they'll never get someone without overpaying. So the Cavs would need time. Trading LeBron for a couple mediocre players and high draft picks does nothing but give the illusion of a quick rebuild which has never and likely will never happen for the Cavs. If anything, I am being more pragmatic than you guys and have a much better understanding of things both Cleveland and Cavalier. Oh and Dampiers contract only makes up for the cap room that'd have to be used in order to sign LeBron. It really is a net 0 for the Cavs. Way more people would need to be included for it to actually cut salary for the Cavs. The only advantage is if the Cavs really wanted the MLE for this year which really doesn't help because of their previously mentioned inability to lure free agents.

[mysticbb]

The Cavs would be in rebuild mode, they need high draft picks which they won't be able to get until 2011. It's not an attractive place for free agents so they'll never get someone without overpaying. So the Cavs would need time. Trading LeBron for a couple mediocre players and high draft picks does nothing but give the illusion of a quick rebuild which has never and likely will never happen for the Cavs. If anything, I am being more pragmatic than you guys and have a much better understanding of things both Cleveland and Cavalier.

Even if that all is true, that doesn't change the fact that getting what I wrote from the Mavericks will help the Cavs more than getting nothing. Dampier's contract doesn't hurt in any way, not the slightest. Waive him and he is off the payroll without any costs. Or, like you said, the Cavaliers aren't a good destination for a FA, Dampier's contract can be used to aquire a better player which isn't needed on a nother team anymore.
Getting a young talented player on a rookie scale contract for 3 more years will help. Getting first round draft picks will help. Getting Jamison off the books for 2011/12 will help (at least opens up playing time for Hickson). Butler can be traded most likely for talent and/or picks in addition to a rather useless expiring contract (something which is higly unlikely in case of Jamison). That all is better than nothing. I actually don't see how you can say it is not.

[TheOUTLAW]

Okay, so the trade while a hugely net negative isn't horrible. Oh wait, it is horrible. But lets say instead of LeBron the Cavs were actually making the trade for absolutely 0. This trade is marginally better than 0 (of course, that is not including the negative impact of trading Lebron at all). I still think there will be better deals out there

[Gordon Bombay]

at this point, lebron can walk for all i care as these trades really don't do anything for me. roddy is a good prospect but lebron is a once in a generation type of talent and he's just someone you don't trade. if he wants to leave, fine, but i'd rather not have the blood on our hands of trading a future hall of famer and potential top 10 player ever in the prime of his career.

[#1 pick]

+1 I only got in to this post because the original post was something I had considered a while back but had not yet seen discussed. He was slammed repeatedly for probably one of the better alternatives to letting Lebron walk. He might have been a little overzealous about Beaubois' potential but maybe not. I do not expect Lebron to want to go to Dallas but they just might be able to offer the best return and the "dust chip" can be a difference maker combined with the obvious preference of moving him to the western conference. I was hoping for an expansion of the trade or alternative opportunities but the attitude was extremely close minded and when arrogance became the accusation I could not believe what I was reading. Sorry I went off the deep end yesterday

What about Atlanta, would you guys be interested in that?

[FGump]

at this point, lebron can walk for all i care as these trades really don't do anything for me.

The concept that if Lebron was going to leave anyhow, the Cavs as a franchise would need to get something positive and helpful (rather than a random pile of useless pieces) if they're gonna do a s-and-t is logical ...

roddy is a good prospect but lebron is a once in a generation type of talent and he's just someone you don't trade. if he wants to leave, fine, but i'd rather not have the blood on our hands of trading a future hall of famer and potential top 10 player ever in the prime of his career.

...but this ^^ part makes no sense ...

I think you (and others in this thread as well) are looking at a s-and-t as some sort of volitional act to get rid of Lebron, rather than what it really is - which is, the avenue to keep "a future hall of famer and potential top 10 player ever" from walking away without getting anything back at all. All of this is predicated on the concept he's leaving anyhow - because we all recognize the Cavs are certainly better to keep him if they can.

But once he's decided he's leaving (if it comes to that), it becomes irrational to say, "Watch this, we'll make sure we don't get anything back for him, look how we're teaching the NBA a lesson." That's just goofy. Instead, it only makes sense for the Cavs to try to find the best avenue for assets, or to retain cap room, or get some kids or picks, or maybe even they look at ways to add something or another where they can still be a playoff team with a more creative style under a new coach.

Furthermore, how does "We got nothing" attract new fans? I don't see anyone coming to games because of elation that there was no value received when he went ...whereas I can see scenarios where fans come to games to see new and different talent added that might be fun to watch. The team does better the faster the recovery is over, and "We got nothing" isn't the way to speed the recovery.

Even if the Cavs fans don't recognize these truths, I have to believe the Cavs ownership didn't get where they are by being so short-sighted when a business takes an undesired direction, and I believe they'll AGGRESSIVELY pursue a s-and-t angle trying to do the best they can for their future fans and success if he's leaving.

This s-and-t isn't something that actually can add value? Reasonable objection and discussion. Obviously there won't be an equal value trade if he's walking anyhow, but "how much is enough" is a sensible debate. But, We'd never consider any sign-and-trade should we know he's not coming back to the Cavs? Absurd. And almost certainly not an approach the Cavs would ever adopt.

[Gordon Bombay]

no trading of lebron. if he wants to stay, cool, let's get to work at fixing this thing. if he doesn't, then **** him. we're not going to appease him just so we can pennies on the million dollar bill. a return of the likes of roddy f'n beaubois is nowhere near worth trading a once in a generalization talent like lebron

[TheOUTLAW]

This is just going in a circle and it's dumb to begin with. From now on, any discussion about this goes into the trade thread.

One last thing, I do still find it amusing when people say that the Cavs have nothing that'll lure Bosh except LeBron but other folks think that they can get LeBron without giving up anything. That "it's better than nothing argument is idiotic especially when it really just adds up to nothing.