A Logical Proposal To Trade Josh For Shaq

  “What would you do if you were the Mavs?’’ I’m often asked. “Who would you target? What would be your plan?’’ And up until now, I’ve usually bailed on answering, because I didn't see a) obvious targets that b) might be available where c) the Mavs could offer a win-win trade and d) get where they want to go. 

   But now I do.

    This is DallasBasketball.com Law, and let’s put down this groundwork first: We always differentiate between trade notions that we present that are the result of conversations with the Mavs and other teams, and trade notions that are of our own creation. This is the latter. And, of course, our body or work speaks for itself in regard to creating our own notions that actually make sense according to the CBA and the like.

   Having said that. …

   There is talk from the desert that the Suns might be thinking of changing course again. Their self-admitted problem is that the mix of Shaq and Amare hasn't been good for either Amare or Nash. It seems clear (and logical) that the Suns long-term preference is to keep Nash and build around the younger Amare (26) rather than continue to rely on O’Neal as a future foundation piece.  

   “We are splintering,’’ says team leader Steve Nash, adding that he thinks it’s “50-50’’ whether Phoenix management will break up its team.

   If that's true, could Shaq possibly be available in trade? It would seem so. It would seem “50-50’’ so. What other intelligent way would there be for that franchise to restructure itself?

   Given his high salary and age, the Suns might have a tough time finding teams with the right mix of contracts and talent to make an attractive trade match. But if I'm Mavs owner Mark Cuban, the Big Cactus (who will have to come up with yet another nickname) goes right to the top of my target list. And I may have just what the Suns want.

   Can the Mavs make a deal that fits the trade rules? Absolutely. The deal that makes the most sense to me would be to offer Josh Howard, with Jerry Stackhouse's contract as filler, and get back Shaq and reserve wing Matt Barnes. No picks. No cash. A simple two-for-two.

   Wouldn't the Suns want more? Won't the Mavs have to add in some younger players? While the Mavs could certainly do that, I'm not sure the Suns would want it. The more players you send means the more salary they'll be getting back. That’s not owner Robert Sarver’s bag.

   What's in it for Dallas? The Mavs' need for interior offense would be addressed.(Yay! Easy baskets!)  Shaq’s ability as a game-changing defender (at least in spurts) would be welcomed. Barnes would help fill the hole left by the departure of Howard, and he would also fill that “energy gap’’ that is being discussed in-house as a Mavs need. And I think overall, that need for additional scoring would be met by the two acquisitions. In fact, Shaq -- who is playing 31 minutes per and pulling down nine rebounds per -- is also averaging 18 ppg. Isn't that the target number for what Dallas wants of Josh to be its "second scorer''?

   For that matter, the addition of Shaq would fill the energy/excitement gap as well.

   A starting lineup led by Dirk, Kidd and Shaq? Compelling.

   Bethlehem Shoals notes accurately that O'Neal is on his "last hurrah.'' But could is just be his second-to-last hurrah?

   What's in it for Phoenix? They immediately can return to the free-flowing offense that is more natural for their two main talents (Amare and Nash), and Josh can help fill the role of defender/shooter/rebounder that Shawn Marion excelled in.

   But there's another benefit to the Suns that may make them even more eager to do this deal. This trade would IMMEDIATELY lower the Suns' team salary by almost $5M, which would put them below the tax threshold. That would not only save them some payroll but would also save them an additional $5M in tax they otherwise would have been forced to pay, plus it would qualify them for a share of the league welfare that goes to the tax-free teams (this year probably $2-3M). In addition, the Suns' team salary for 2009-10 would be reduced by about $10M, which would take them from tax payer to tax free in that year as well.

    The Suns get younger and faster and they save money. The Mavs get value for what we at DB.com have termed Josh’s “60-cents-on-the-dollar’’ situation and they yet another “home-run swing’’ in the KIDDIRK Era.

   And the Mavs get something else.

   The one final issue that needs to be addressed – and one that looms as the most important thing this side of immediate championship contention -- is the summer of 2010. How would this deal impact the prospects of both teams in regards to their options that year? It wouldn't. None of the contracts carry any team obligations past June of 2010. 

109pm jan 29 2009