VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:BTW the only way to get Collison at the 5mm dollar level right now would've been to renounce Carmelo Anthony's rights and thus give up any opportunity of getting any compensation back in a sign and trade. So you'd have Darren Collison locked up for 5 yrs, no Carmelo, no draft picks. Just doesn't make any sense.

The Calderon move was likely the best move given the resources this team had. The only other option was trying to sign a lower level PG with the 3.3mm Mini-MLE, which we're trying to use to somehow lure Pau Gasol.

...OR, we could've dumped Chandler and Felton on a team with cap space which would've given us the flexibility to pursue Collision AND keep Melo. You don't think that would've been a better option?

I don't think that this scenario had any realistic probability attached to it.

Because....

nixluva wrote:In what strange world would we find a team with cap space that would just take Felton and Tyson??? When will some of us realize this deal was about the best end result we could hope for under the circumstances? Phil has to make deals that remove underperforming or poor fits for this team while getting assets and he did that. It ended with us getting picks and useful players that better fit what we're doing.

The strange world where Hardnation plays GM. People that don't know crap think they know everything. Always something better in their world. Blah Blah Blah

VDesai wrote:Because there's not one team in the NBA that is giving up their cap space to take on Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton. This is just not a thing.

I wish the Knicks realized the Felton part during the Teague trade rumors. It's too early, pun unintended, to call the trade a success or failure. We got some young guys, a maddeningly inconsistent center and a solid, but old playmaker on a bad deal. It's exciting because it shows our front office has a vision. At the same time, a lot more things need to fall into a place for us. And coaching staff and front office is going to have to think of a way to hide Calderon's weaknesses enough to keep him on the court.

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:Because there's not one team in the NBA that is giving up their cap space to take on Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton. This is just not a thing.

The Mavericks literally did the same exact thing when they traded Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed contract to the Bobcats for Tyson Chandler. You could make the argument that Chandler's value is low because of recently poor play BUT it was also low when he got traded their the first time, which is why the Bobcats only got back a non-guaranteed deal. The only thing that might have given my proposed deal pause was the total salary ($18 million) the Mavs would have to digest but if we took back Samuel Dalembert's $4 million deal, is it that unrealistic to see them assuming a net total of $14 million in cap space when they have some $30 million to work with?

In a word, yes.

NardDogNation wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Calderon is more than likely a temporary fix. Don't like the contract either but Calderon is only part of what we got back in return. We will have the cap room to upgrade the position in 2015. Hopefully he will help Bargs fit in better with the offense. Tyson and Felton are gone, thats a big plus.

I can't expect anyone to seriously contemplate him being a mainstay on the roster BUT who is going to take him for that kind of money? Is he really $6 million better than a Darren Collision? Trading him is going to be a much bigger problem than has been let on. I just hope he doesn't lose a step in the immediate future because I could easily see him morphing into our new Raymond Felton but with a longer contract. I would've preferred that we dump Chandler and Felton for nothing (with the opportunity to get Collision at his figure) than what we did.

Calderon might be moved to the bench in favor of another PG we acquire because he plays better D. Doesn't necessarily have to be moved. Felton and Chandler gone, our starting center and PG lets Fisher put his own stamp on the team.

Jackson might have tried to move them somewhere else, we don't know for sure. We got draft picks, a better PG, hopefully a better big who might do better with a change of scenery, and some young guns. Too much good news in there for me to be bothered at this point in Calderon's deal.

GustavBahler wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Calderon is more than likely a temporary fix. Don't like the contract either but Calderon is only part of what we got back in return. We will have the cap room to upgrade the position in 2015. Hopefully he will help Bargs fit in better with the offense. Tyson and Felton are gone, thats a big plus.

I can't expect anyone to seriously contemplate him being a mainstay on the roster BUT who is going to take him for that kind of money? Is he really $6 million better than a Darren Collision? Trading him is going to be a much bigger problem than has been let on. I just hope he doesn't lose a step in the immediate future because I could easily see him morphing into our new Raymond Felton but with a longer contract. I would've preferred that we dump Chandler and Felton for nothing (with the opportunity to get Collision at his figure) than what we did.

Calderon might be moved to the bench in favor of another PG we acquire because he plays better D. Doesn't necessarily have to be moved. Felton and Chandler gone, our starting center and PG lets Fisher put his own stamp on the team.

Jackson might have tried to move them somewhere else, we don't know for sure. We got draft picks, a better PG, hopefully a better big who might do better with a change of scenery, and some young guns. Too much good news in there for me to be bothered at this point in Calderon's deal.

My problem isn't Calderon; I actually like him as a player. I just don't like him at 33 years old and getting paid $7 million/yr for the next 3 years. The general consensus is that we fleeced the Mavericks...I just don't see that yet. Hopefully the other pieces of the deal live up to the hype. As much as I've got major reservations about Larkin's physicality (or lack thereof), I like his skillset and his moxy. I also think that Early can become a nice rotation player from what little I've seen of him. Time will ultimately tell.

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:Because there's not one team in the NBA that is giving up their cap space to take on Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton. This is just not a thing.

The Mavericks literally did the same exact thing when they traded Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed contract to the Bobcats for Tyson Chandler. You could make the argument that Chandler's value is low because of recently poor play BUT it was also low when he got traded their the first time, which is why the Bobcats only got back a non-guaranteed deal. The only thing that might have given my proposed deal pause was the total salary ($18 million) the Mavs would have to digest but if we took back Samuel Dalembert's $4 million deal, is it that unrealistic to see them assuming a net total of $14 million in cap space when they have some $30 million to work with?

In a word, yes.

Because...

Because cap space is at a premium and no one's just going to take on Tyson and Felton's salaries- especially Felton who is rarely in shape. The teams with cap space usually suck and are rebuilding, so they certainly aren't a home for Tyson or Felton, and the teams that are good that have space- like Dallas for example, would much rather throw some salaries back and preserve the space to re-sign their own guys and potentially add people. As you can see Dallas re-signed Dirk and they are still pursing Melo, Lebron etc. They likely will end up use that money so they can bring in 2-3 solid rotation players like Devin Harris, Luol Deng etc.

It seems that you are of the opinion that we got the better end of the deal. If that is the case, wouldn't the Mavericks have also been better off keeping the stellar package we got AND added Chandler? Had they simply done that, they would've already had the "2-3 solid rotation players" you described, plus Chandler plus $15 million to add additional free agents. That seems like a great deal for taking on Felton's contract. But you disagree...

??? How are they adding Chandler without the trade? He isn't a free agent, he still has a yr on his contract

NardDogNation wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:Because there's not one team in the NBA that is giving up their cap space to take on Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton. This is just not a thing.

The Mavericks literally did the same exact thing when they traded Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed contract to the Bobcats for Tyson Chandler. You could make the argument that Chandler's value is low because of recently poor play BUT it was also low when he got traded their the first time, which is why the Bobcats only got back a non-guaranteed deal. The only thing that might have given my proposed deal pause was the total salary ($18 million) the Mavs would have to digest but if we took back Samuel Dalembert's $4 million deal, is it that unrealistic to see them assuming a net total of $14 million in cap space when they have some $30 million to work with?

In a word, yes.

Because...

Because cap space is at a premium and no one's just going to take on Tyson and Felton's salaries- especially Felton who is rarely in shape. The teams with cap space usually suck and are rebuilding, so they certainly aren't a home for Tyson or Felton, and the teams that are good that have space- like Dallas for example, would much rather throw some salaries back and preserve the space to re-sign their own guys and potentially add people. As you can see Dallas re-signed Dirk and they are still pursing Melo, Lebron etc. They likely will end up use that money so they can bring in 2-3 solid rotation players like Devin Harris, Luol Deng etc.

It seems that you are of the opinion that we got the better end of the deal. If that is the case, wouldn't the Mavericks have also been better off keeping the stellar package we got AND added Chandler? Had they simply done that, they would've already had the "2-3 solid rotation players" you described, plus Chandler plus $15 million to add additional free agents. That seems like a great deal for taking on Felton's contract. But you disagree...

??? How are they adding Chandler without the trade? He isn't a free agent, he still has a yr on his contract

They have about $25 million in cap space.

That still isn't answering the question. Chandler is NOT a free agent. He has a yr left on his contract. How can Dallas acquire him without a trade???

BigRedDog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:Because there's not one team in the NBA that is giving up their cap space to take on Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton. This is just not a thing.

The Mavericks literally did the same exact thing when they traded Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed contract to the Bobcats for Tyson Chandler. You could make the argument that Chandler's value is low because of recently poor play BUT it was also low when he got traded their the first time, which is why the Bobcats only got back a non-guaranteed deal. The only thing that might have given my proposed deal pause was the total salary ($18 million) the Mavs would have to digest but if we took back Samuel Dalembert's $4 million deal, is it that unrealistic to see them assuming a net total of $14 million in cap space when they have some $30 million to work with?

In a word, yes.

Because...

Because cap space is at a premium and no one's just going to take on Tyson and Felton's salaries- especially Felton who is rarely in shape. The teams with cap space usually suck and are rebuilding, so they certainly aren't a home for Tyson or Felton, and the teams that are good that have space- like Dallas for example, would much rather throw some salaries back and preserve the space to re-sign their own guys and potentially add people. As you can see Dallas re-signed Dirk and they are still pursing Melo, Lebron etc. They likely will end up use that money so they can bring in 2-3 solid rotation players like Devin Harris, Luol Deng etc.

It seems that you are of the opinion that we got the better end of the deal. If that is the case, wouldn't the Mavericks have also been better off keeping the stellar package we got AND added Chandler? Had they simply done that, they would've already had the "2-3 solid rotation players" you described, plus Chandler plus $15 million to add additional free agents. That seems like a great deal for taking on Felton's contract. But you disagree...

??? How are they adding Chandler without the trade? He isn't a free agent, he still has a yr on his contract

They have about $25 million in cap space.

That still isn't answering the question. Chandler is NOT a free agent. He has a yr left on his contract. How can Dallas acquire him without a trade???

I believe if a team has cap space you can trade a player to them for nothing but a trade exemption.

H1AND1 wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VDesai wrote:Because there's not one team in the NBA that is giving up their cap space to take on Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton. This is just not a thing.

The Mavericks literally did the same exact thing when they traded Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed contract to the Bobcats for Tyson Chandler. You could make the argument that Chandler's value is low because of recently poor play BUT it was also low when he got traded their the first time, which is why the Bobcats only got back a non-guaranteed deal. The only thing that might have given my proposed deal pause was the total salary ($18 million) the Mavs would have to digest but if we took back Samuel Dalembert's $4 million deal, is it that unrealistic to see them assuming a net total of $14 million in cap space when they have some $30 million to work with?

In a word, yes.

Because...

Because cap space is at a premium and no one's just going to take on Tyson and Felton's salaries- especially Felton who is rarely in shape. The teams with cap space usually suck and are rebuilding, so they certainly aren't a home for Tyson or Felton, and the teams that are good that have space- like Dallas for example, would much rather throw some salaries back and preserve the space to re-sign their own guys and potentially add people. As you can see Dallas re-signed Dirk and they are still pursing Melo, Lebron etc. They likely will end up use that money so they can bring in 2-3 solid rotation players like Devin Harris, Luol Deng etc.

It seems that you are of the opinion that we got the better end of the deal. If that is the case, wouldn't the Mavericks have also been better off keeping the stellar package we got AND added Chandler? Had they simply done that, they would've already had the "2-3 solid rotation players" you described, plus Chandler plus $15 million to add additional free agents. That seems like a great deal for taking on Felton's contract. But you disagree...

??? How are they adding Chandler without the trade? He isn't a free agent, he still has a yr on his contract

They have about $25 million in cap space.

That still isn't answering the question. Chandler is NOT a free agent. He has a yr left on his contract. How can Dallas acquire him without a trade???

I believe if a team has cap space you can trade a player to them for nothing but a trade exemption.

The real question is not how could Dallas get Chandler for nothing but WHY would the Knicks trade him for just a trade exception. Hence "the trade". The Knicks weren't going to give Chandler away, they knew he had value in a trade.