The Mavs 'Big Picture': Our Specific Blueprint

   It's the Mavs’ summertime “Big Picture’’ -- and now, in Part II, it’s time to get specific.

   We’ve stumbled onto a weird NBA cap mess (“Stern’s Surprise.'') We examine some concerns about the Mavs’ own free agents. We prioritize Dallas’ assets and needs. We’ve got a pinpointed handful of targets in player acquisition.  … and while we dream of going four-for-four there, we believe that the Mavs must nail two of them for this to be a successful offseason.

  Read on for a very detailed look at the “Big Picture’’ Blueprint:

With the end of the NBA Playoffs a week ago Sunday, the league's offseason has now hit full speed. The week ahead should be quite eventful: we have the NBA Draft on Thursday, and traditionally the week surrounding the draft is also one of the league's most active for trades as teams jockey for position. Free agency starts in less than 10 days. This is where the summer really heats up.

 

Our notebook has all kinds of odds-and-ends. The league's revenues, cap, and tax are a weird mess right now, we found out from David Stern recently - and you might be surprised what that means in terms of player acquisition over the next two seasons. There are a few nuggets we have regarding the Mavs players in free agency, things you might not know. Trade rumors, draft rumors, teams talking, misinformation, and all of it layered with at times very dubious "reporting" - there's plenty out there from everyone else that we've been chronicling - so now it's time to add in what we see as the way for the Mavs to proceed amid all the uncertainty this summer.

 

In Part 1 previously, we laid the foundation for the big summer season with Mark Cuban's interview. ("An "All-Star-or-Bust Summer?'') Maybe it was very revealing, maybe it was spin to sell tickets, maybe it was disinformation for other GMs. Who knows? We now conclude with Part 2 of our notebook as the summer gets into high gear.

 

DAVID STERN'S SURPRISE - AND OUR RESULTING CAP/TAX PREDICTIONS (FOR NUMBERS GEEKS ONLY)

 

David Stern had his State of the NBA interview about a week ago. As he has since February, he tossed out more economic predictions. In some ways it was quite confusing and seemed to be contradictory: he said revenues are expected to drop quite significantly in the 2009-10 season, but the league's cap and tax numbers for 2009-10 (which per the CBA will be based on "revenue projections" for 2009-10) will probably stay about the same. Then the cap and tax will take a significant drop not in 2009-10 but rather in 2010-11.

 

How could it be possible for them to expect lower revenues, yet have a steady cap level when the cap is based on projections? Our immediate reaction was that maybe people misunderstood exactly what he was saying. But we privately got word from several, including the very reliable Marc Stein, that Stern not only made that point, but also asked for and received confirmation on the specifics from the league's numbers guru (Joel Litvin) as part of the conversation. So is the league planning to fudge the numbers, in an attempt to reduce the panic trades that would come from a huge drop in cap and tax levels this summer? We wondered, but as we dug deeper and consulted some cap cohorts like Larry Coon, we're convinced that's not the culprit here either.

 

Instead, the "problem" lies within the CBA itself - and it has some very interesting ramifications.

 

The problem is, while the cap and tax numbers are based on projections, those are projections that are (as odd as it sounds) backward-looking rather than forward looking. So instead of factoring in the big revenue drop that they see coming, the CBA forces the league's projections - on everything except the national broadcast income - to simply use last year's revenue and ADD 4.5%. When that misses the mark, they just get it back by raising or lowering the following year's cap and tax by the amount they missed.

 

The result? While the revenues will be going DOWN in 2009-10, the cap and tax levels will STAY STEADY - which means relatively easier spending than should otherwise be expected, with less tax penalties. Cutting back will be more optional than mandatory in 2009-10 for tax-averse teams.

 

But payback is coming. It all gets made up in the summer of 2010, with the result being that there will be a huge cap drop to make up for the almost-certain "cap error" that's coming in 2009-10. And that fiddles with that big free agent year in a major way.

 

What we had previously been expecting - based on the idea of projections combined with the NBA's prior words - was a two-year cap/tax progression something like this:

 

2009-10 ... cap $55M ... tax $67M

2010-11 ....cap $56-58M ... tax $68-71M

 

In that scenario, we might have seen some teams forced to do some quick dumping of players to avoid tax in 2009-10. Instead, here's what the league seems to be saying now (the numbers are mine, based on the specifics they have offered):

 

2009-10 ... cap $58-59M ... tax $70-71M

2010-11 ....cap $52M ... tax $64M

 

In the latter, far fewer teams will have an incentive for dumping salary immediately. And a year later, things will change even more drastically. It just got a lot more challenging for teams trying to carve out spending room for the summer of 2010 as everyone's spending room probably will be lowered by $4-5M and maybe more. It will also now be even less likely for a team to have pure cap room to entice a free agent with both plenty of money PLUS a solid core in place. For teams like the Mavs, it will be much harder this summer to straddle the fence between being a team with 2010 cap money and being a team with 2010 sign-and-trade offers and a solid core.

 

But it also opened some doors of opportunity this year. Teams who just "lost" $4-5M of spending room for that summer may be even more anxious now to find a taker for contracts running past June 2010. And will even fewer teams be willing to spend aggressively in free agency and use their MLE this summer?

 

MAVS IN FREE AGENCY (BACK TO OUR REGULARLY-SCHEDULED READER)

 

Here are a few Mavs-related contractual items that have been generally overlooked this summer but that could be revelatory.

 

Jason Kidd ...While we still think the Mavs and Kidd will find a way for him to return, it's noteworthy to us that we haven't heard any rumors of the two parties talking deal right now. Free agency doesn't begin until July 1 and teams are not allowed to begin negotiating those deals until that day, but until June 30 the Mavs still have the exclusive right to sign him to an extension. There is more-then-ample room for that extension to be as big as any free agent offer he might later receive.

 

So why aren't they getting it done? Is it Kidd unwilling to talk now, wanting to use the free agency period to find better leverage for a bigger deal? Or is it the Mavs, still unsure what direction they'll go, or hoping to find no over-MLE competitors for Kidd? In either event, we think both parties are risking a mistake they might seriously regret by not getting this deal done now.

 

James Singleton and Ryan Hollins ... The Mavs don't have Bird rights of any kind for either player (Singleton because he only has 1 year with the team, and Hollins because he had to waive his Bird rights when his contract was traded to Dallas). But the Mavs have confirmed for us that they have Restricted Free Agent rights on both players, which means they can keep them if make a qualifying offer in June and then merely match another team's offer. They don't need to set the market for either.

 

Because of the size of the former contracts and qualifying offers, both players will almost certainly get a QO,

 

Brandon Bass ... The young backup forward has earned a nice contract from someone. But if the Mavs don't sign him themselves, they have virtually no chance to get compensation in return. He's coming off a minimum salary deal, and if the Mavs wanted to use the sign-and-trade rules to get compensation if he went to another team, it would almost certainly trigger Base Year restrictions that would negate the viability of such an angle.

 

MAVS ASSETS, NEEDS, PRIORITY, AND POTENTIAL

 

This summer is an interesting one for Dallas, because they have many needs but also potentially many assets. How should they allocate those assets?

 

First, let's list the assets they'll have to work with:

• Shrinking contracts - JET and Carroll both have deals that go down in salary in 2009-10
• Instant-expiring contract - Stackhouse
• Expiring contracts at the end of the 2009-10 season - if desired, there could be no further money owed to Dampier, Howard, Wright, George, Williams, Barea
• Free agent possible to keep or sign-and-trade - Kidd
• Free agents possible to keep - Bass, Singleton, Hollins, Green

Next, there are many needs to address. Where do we start? A better big man, especially on offense. A better 2-guard. More quality depth in the middle. More athleticism. Better shooting. Maybe a replacement for Kidd, if he leaves in free agency. Better quality depth at the wing, especially if JHo is still impaired.

 

And it takes assets to get assets. That means in filling one need, if it's via trade, it's important to avoid creating another need in its place. 

 

So where is the best place to start? What's the priority? How do you get from "where we are" to "where we wanna be"? Is it even possible?

 

As I've analyzed, I've found two vital things I think are true about this team:

 

1. The Priority: "If the goal for the Mavs is a title, the problem is size." 

 

In comparing this Mavs team to the ones who advanced farther in the playoffs, I noticed one consistent truth: the teams that kept advancing were the teams that were better in the middle. It's something we've known forever, and yet we always seem to forget - you win titles by winning the middle. In the NBA, size matters.

 

And yet recently the Mavs have gradually morphed into a relatively small team, when you look at the minutes and lineups being played.

 

Dampier is the center, he plays 25-30 minutes, and then behind him anchoring the middle there's ummm well there's not really a center, there's Dirk (who is tall but who isn't really a center) and Bass (a 6-6 combo forward who is strong but can't lock down the middle) and ummmm well that's it. So the team played a ton of SmallBall in the middle.

 

Then they played a ton of small ball on the perimeter too, often a Kidd-JET-Barea combo using those three combo-PGs as the PG and two wings. That was regularly combined with a "middle" that used two of the following forwards: Dirk, Bass, Singleton, JHo, George.

 

That lineup  - and all the more traditional permutations that flowed from it - was effective at times, but also highly challenged because it just was so undersized. They fought, they worked, they won a lot, but at the end of the day, it's not a big enough CORE to march through the playoffs. Denver overwhelmed them at times because they could match the athleticism of the Mavs' littler guys with bigger ones who were just as athletic. 

 

The cure? It's size of course. But in so doing, the goal also must aim for size without sacrificing ability. If you replace a little guy, get a guy who can have the same impact but who is bigger.

 

So that would be my guiding priority this summer as I looked at the various options: I want to get bigger players able to do the same things. And this team has to get much better in the middle if they intend to win a title.

 

2. The Potential: "They are closer to the top than we realize."

 

It's easy to see the flaws in a team. But it's often much harder to see the potential.

 

What is often overlooked about the 2008-09 Mavs is how much they did with so little. Dirk and JET carried this team offensively game after game. Kidd was a huge factor in other ways. And the rest was filled by role players.

 

One more very good player who could play both ends would have made a huge difference. Indeed, when JHo returned at the end of the year, it was a completely new dynamic. The reason? Every role player moved one rung down the pecking order, and received a few less minutes. That made each of those role players a comparatively better player at a lower level in the competition.

 

And once Josh was re-injured in the Denver series and fell back to his yearlong injured form, the Mavs were again way less competitive.

 

Did anyone see that big jump coming with a healthier JHo at the season's end? Nope. It's hard to comprehend in advance how one player can make such a difference. But basketball has such intertwined dynamics between players that one really good player can change everything.

 

Sooooooooooo.......What if, for all of next season, the Mavs had a completely healthy JHo? And then what if they could add just one more piece of that caliber to the mix, and nothing more?

 

With nothing more than that, every role player is now TWO rungs down the ladder. The depth is better, because the top of the lineup is better. 

 

In addition, think back to the Finals year. When that season began, did anyone see that on the horizon? Nope. By contrast, most observers thought they were looking at a middle-of-the-pack playoff team. Yet over the next two seasons, that was one of the premier teams in the league, and a very legit contender.

 

I'm hoping for a big summer. But if you give me nothing more than a healthy JHo, and somehow get another strong two-way player who can be inserted into the core of the lineup, I think the difference will surprise a ton of people.

 

THE SPECIFICS - WHAT I'D RECOMMEND FOR THE MAVS SUMMER

 

So let's get specific. What kind of plan makes sense to me?

 

First, I'd maximize the existing talent base. That means conserve what's on hand by bringing back Kidd and Bass. Since Kidd can be signed using Bird rights and Bass can be signed using Early Bird rights, neither will eat up any assets that can be used other places.

 

Singleton and Hollins are a bit stickier issues. If both can be retained by using either the minimum or the lower exception, count me in. If not, I'd prefer to keep my MLE to use elsewhere.

 

Second, I wouldn't be looking to trade Josh Howard this summer. Why not? Because I think the Mavs will get more value from keeping him after surgery than they would get in trade, since the other team's offer would be for a player who has just undergone surgery and might be damaged goods.

 

How about Dampier? Won't he be better to keep because he'll have one of those valuable "instant expiring" contracts for the summer of 2010 that might bring a big return then? Yes, Dampier has that sort of a contract. But if you can get the proper return NOW for an upgrade in the middle considering he has an expiring, then in my world you always make the deal while it's there.

 

Third, my key move would be to try to make a deal with Milwaukee. Why the Bucks? Because even with the juggle in the cap space as outlined previously, they are still in dire need of reducing payroll.

 

But the deal would be a subtle move. I'd offer SOME payroll savings for SOME size - the core of the deal being JET for Richard Jefferson.

 

Yes, I know the Mavs love JET and he's been a key part of the core here, but they just can't continue to be based on a 3-PG lineup. Milwaukee would be able to take advantage of JET's shrinking contract to expand the savings in the deal, and he'd provide them a bit of cushion in the event they either lose Sessions in free agency and/or Redd is at less than full speed in 2009-10. JET's fan-friendly approach would be big for the Bucks and help salve any sense of a salary dump, especially with him coming off a Sixth-Man-of-the-Year season.

 

In return, the Mavs would get Jefferson who played for years alongside Kidd, and he's a significantly bigger wing than JET. He has a good reputation as a defender, and he can score. He's a two-way player.

 

The contracts run similar years but JET's is notably smaller. The deal would be JET and George (assuming he exercises his option) for Jefferson and it only works prior to June 30. Milwaukee saves more than $3.5M in salary in 2009-10 (and even more in later years) by making the deal. It doesn't solve all their financial problems, but it helps a lot, and doesn't make a huge dent in their talent base to do so.

 

My alternative target would be JET for Vince Carter. The numbers would be different, but the concept and rationale would be the same.

 

Fourth, I'd focus on getting bigger/better in the middle. Stackhouse-Dampier for Shaq gives the team a scorer in the middle. Have the Mavs soured on that, as Fish has suggested? Fine. The Clippers are reportedly looking to move payroll from the middle, which means Kaman or Camby is available and the offer there would be a trade for Stackhouse or Dampier. Tyson Chandler? Maybe. But given his injury issues, I'd have to be convinced he's 100% healthy - and then I'm still not sure that if he’d not caddying for Chris Paul that he’s much superior to the likes of Damp. There are others who will probably sign with someone for the MLE and who make sense to me as the third part of a PF/C triangle with Dampier and Dirk: Rasheed Wallace, Chris Andersen, Antonio McDyess, and Anderson Varejao are on my list there.

 

I'm leery of ...

...Orlando's Gortat as merely a flavor-of-the-day guy from a nice playoff run who will get massively overpaid by someone.

...David Lee as one whose stats are inflated by the D'Antoni system.

...Villanueva as a tall guy who doesn't like to be a big man.

 

But this team simply MUST get better in the middle if they hope to win a title. It's mandatory. So that's where you start.

 

Fifth, after JET-for-Jefferson and a trade for a center, there should be either the MLE or the Stackhouse contract left. Stackhouse's contract combined with $3M would make a cheap sign-and-trade option for the other team, so either way this would allow the Mavs to look for a deal in free agency.

 

Who makes sense here? My list (not including the big men noted above) includes Trevor Ariza, Josh Childress, Matt Barnes, Shawn Marion, Lamar Odom. My list would also include Ramon Sessions and Raymond Felton if (and only if) the JET-for-Jefferson trade got made, because you can't afford to make your core even smaller.

 

In summary, that's my blueprint. It envisions adding TWO more significant upgrades (using a trade for one and the MLE for the other). One of those brings a center, it also increases size in the JET-for-Jefferson deal, and it adds one more player who can help significantly.

 

ODD MAN OUT

 

While I wouldn't be against bringing Gerald Green back for another year of attempted development at the minimum, I suspect they may not have roster room for him.

 

Using my blueprint above for example, the roster mix could look something like this (in a fantasy world where every move is ideal, of course):

 

C - Kaman, Hollins, Singleton    [Kaman for Dampier]

PF - Dirk, R Wallace, Bass [R Wallace for MLE]

SF - JHo, Jefferson, Williams [Jefferson for JET/George]

SG - Ariza, Wright, Carroll [Ariza for Stackhouse SNT]

PG - Kidd, Barea, #1 pick

 

How about prior draftees like Shan Foster or Seibutis? It would be a nice surprise if they show up and look vastly improved, enough to force their way onto the roster. But when I'm looking to win titles now, projects like those aren't high on the priority list for roster space.

 

Again, I use the word "fantasy'' here. Yet Dallas does have the assets to accomplish such things.

 

MY ABANDONED TRADE TARGET

 

When the NBA economics turned south, I felt that Washington would be one of the teams in dire straits and that Caron Butler could make sense for the Mavs to pursue.

 

But that angle doesn't seem to be developing. There is talk that Washington may be able to unload Jamison and his huge deal if they want to, and they haven't given off signals that they're desperate at all.

 

YOU'LL NEVER GUESS THIS PLAYER I HOPE THE MAVS DON'T TRADE

 

The answer? Matt Carroll. But not for the reasons you'd expect.

 

I've outlined my ideal summer blueprint above. My worst nightmare of a summer? It would be one where the Mavs let Kidd, Bass, Hollins, and Singleton all walk because they want multi-year deals, and use their #1 pick and the Stackhouse contract to get rid of Carroll and Terry and strip down for a 2010 free agent chase.

 

Therefore for me the key move (or non-move) this summer will probably be Matt Carroll.

 

Why? Because his contract is so undesirable in relation to his production, that it will take some concessions on the Mavs' part to get someone to take it. If he gets traded, it most likely will be in a deal where the Mavs had to use some of their desirable assets to get someone to take him, rather than using them to increase their talent level. 

 

THE DRAFT - WHO'S THE BEST CHOICE FOR THE MAVS?

 

Much has already been written - and will continue to be this week - about the merits of the various players the Mavs might choose in Thursday's NBA Draft.

 

There seems to be a need for a young PG, as an eventual replacement for Kidd, and this draft is supposed to have first round PGs by the boatload. Why not grab one of those? Or how about addressing that SG position that the Mavs haven't been able to fill for ages? What about some size, a shooter, or any number of other needs? And is there a player to move up to get?

 

My feeling about their pick, the 22nd in the draft, is simple: just try to find someone, anyone, who can play and contribute in the NBA. Any position is fine. Is that a copout? Nope, it's a recognition that in a weak draft like this one, players that look attractive by comparison with the player at the same position picked a few spots ahead or after them, still may not be worth a whole lot.

 

Really, it’s as simple as B.A.A.

 

And it's also a reflection on the Mavs "draft to fill a need" approach that has left them empty over and over in recent years in this general area of the draft. They needed a young big man and chased Pavel Podkolzin. They needed a SG and grabbed Maurice Ager. They needed a backup big who could shoot and opted for Nick Fazekas. And while all of those players might have been ideally situated as the player at the primary position of need, one reality ensued with all of them: none could play worth a crap. If with each of those draft picks they had instead found a player who could actually PLAY in the NBA (regardless of position), they would have come out far better in the long run. 

 

So when it comes time to pick at 22, I don't necessarily want them picking the best PG left or the best SG left or the best big man left or the best shooter left. I simply want the best player left in the draft at that point. If they'll do that one thing, I'll be thrilled.

The best player at 22 or thereabouts. And at least TWO other veteran moves. That’s a plan.

 

Discuss this story at DB.com Boards

119pm june 22 2009

 

                                                            

---

---