Rising in the East

by ClipperSteve on Feb 13, 2008 3:32 PM PST in News

Obviously, the East has been the weaker of the two conferences for some time now. And whereas these things tend to be cyclic (as David Stern keeps reminding us), it has gotten progressively worse and not better. And I'm not so much talking about the NBA Finals - the Pistons are formidable, the Heat grabbed a title a couple seasons ago, and the Celtics look worthy this season. It's the rank and file that's embarrassing. The West has had 6 and 8 and 10 top quality teams for years now, while the East has one or two, at most three. With seemingly no end in sight. Until now.

Pau Gasol may have saved the Eastern Conference.

After the Grizzlies gave Gasol to the Lakers, making them the favorite in the West, other Western Conference powers have overreacted with deals of their own. The Suns and the Mavs have each made a tradition of winning 60+ games the last few seasons. But by dealing for the 'All Stars of 1996' (the Suns for 35 year old Shaquille O'Neal, the Mavs in a pending trade for 34 year old Jason Kidd) they are moving dangerously close to the end of their relevancy.

The NBA is a zero sum game. If one team has a stable of good talent locked up, by definition those players aren't on any other teams. The Suns have been making moves for several years now that would eventually cause their downfall. They've given away most of their top draft picks simply because they didn't want to pay them. With O'Neal and Nash in their 30's and no young talent to pick up the slack, they may only have one more winning season in them. Amare Stoudemire is good - but Leandro Barbosa won't be able to get him the ball the way Nash does. So although they didn't lose 'young' talent in the O'Neal trade, they've lost enough in recent seasons that their fate appears sealed.

The Mavericks on the other hand are about to send their point guard of the future (24 year old Devin Harris) and 2 first round picks to New Jersey for a guy who is shooting 36% this season. I love Jason Kidd - I think he's a great player and the Mavs could well win a title this season with him. But he's almost 35, and he's arguably not as good as Harris now, let alone next season or the season after that. Nowitzki and Howard will make a great duo for some time yet, but one wonders what the team around them will look like when Kidd is gone and there are no picks left.

Not that the Eastern Conference will necessarily be the beneficiary of the decline of the Suns and the Mavs. The Lakers look set for a while. And the Jazz and Hornets and Blazers look like the young teams that may be ready to step into the upper echelon. But Miami and New Jersey are certainly happy to be rid of those mammoth contracts dragging them down, and can now start the re-building process. Maybe the Suns and Mavs can call them for some tips when they have to start in two seasons.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

interesting

how that Pau Gasol trade to the Lakers has just shook the powers western conference. I mean events happened like a chain reaction. Immediately after the Lakers acquired Gasol, the Suns then went after S. O'Neal, the Spurs signed D. Stoudemire, and now the Mavs are so desperate for Kidd that they are willing to give up their young talented point guard of the future in D. Harris. I guess the pressure of winning now while their respective franchise's superstars are still capable of producing is so important that teams like the Suns and Mavericks feel like they have to mortgage their future for the present. I wonder had Grizzlies not 'sold' Gasol to the Lakers, how would that affect the other teams in both conferences?

by laclipperfan42 on Feb 13, 2008 10:32 PM PST 0 recs

Devean George

what's up with Devean George turning down the J. Kidd trade and the issue about the early bird's rights?

by laclipperfan42 on Feb 13, 2008 10:34 PM PST 0 recs

Early Bird

From the Salary Cap FAQ...

In addition, if the player is playing under a one-year contract and will have Larry Bird or Early Bird rights at the end of the contract, he can't be traded without his consent. If consent is granted and the player is traded, then he loses his Larry Bird or Early Bird rights, and enters free agency as a Non-Bird free agent.

I'm not sure why it only applies for guys on one year contracts, but the idea is that the player gets additional rights when they're with the same team for 2 straight seasons (Early Bird) or three straight seasons (Bird). If by being traded they stand to lose out on those additional rights, the CBA gives them the authority to veto the trade. Anyway, that's why the rule exists. Devean George just likes it better in Dallas than in New Jersey.

by ClipperSteve on Feb 13, 2008 11:34 PM PST up 0 recs

I support George's decision

players have to look out for themselves.

I'm sure he will eventually back down after being booed (and going 0-11). If the Mavs are lucky, though, he will stick to his guns. This trade is proably not good for them.

by mp on Feb 14, 2008 7:55 AM PST up 0 recs

So

does that mean that a player who has the Bird or Early Bird's rights must have signed a one year contract with the same team for at least two or 3 consective seasons? And I thought Kobe was the only player in the league that has the authority to veto a trade.

by laclipperfan42 on Feb 14, 2008 6:19 AM PST 0 recs

As I understand it...

I have heard that Kobe is the only player with a no trade clause in HIS individual contract. Devean George exercised a provision in the CBA that everyone has (if they meet the criteria).

To your other question, I think the answer is Yes, which is probably why it doesn't come up a lot. Seems like it applies in the second of two consecutive one year contracts (which is George's case), the third of three consecutive, or probably a one year contract following a two year contract.

The stuff about the one year contract doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would think that the same safeguards should apply to a player in the second year of a two year contract from a logical standpoint. But it does not seem to.

by ClipperSteve on Feb 14, 2008 8:11 AM PST up 0 recs

but what exactly...

does a player get with those early bird or bird's rights? Is it just rights and incentives that are stated specifically in the player's individual contract?

As for my understanding about the Early Bird/Bird's rights, according to a quote from ESPN, there's no mention that a player has to be on consective one year contracts in order to have those early bird/bird's rights. They just have to be on a current one year contract with their current team and had also spent the end of the previous season with the same team, which is Devean George's case. Here's the quote from Marc Stein on ESPN.com:

"Although Kobe Bryant is the only player in the league with a specific no-trade clause in his contract, league rules dictate that players on a one-year contract -- but who also ended last season with the same team and are thus eligible for Early Bird or full Larry Bird free-agent rights at the end of the contract -- cannot be traded without their consent. George, who earns $2.4 million this season, is one of 18 such players in the league at present, afforded the right to either approve or veto trades because those Bird rights are lost if they do get traded."

ClipperSteve, since you were so fascinated by the Pau Gasol trade to the Lakers that involved the supposedly retired Aaron McKie, ESPN.com is stating that even if the Mavs can't get George to waive his early bird's rights, Dallas can still make a trade by signing the supposedly but never officially retired Keith Van Horn and include him in a trade to the Nets for Kidd instead of Devean George. Here's the quote from ESPN:

"The fallback scenario is Dallas agreeing to sign-and-trade Keith Van Horn in George's place, capitalizing on the fact that the Mavericks still hold Van Horn's rights and the fact that Van Horn has not submitted official retirement papers to the league office since he last played in 2005-06. Players who are signed-and-traded are required to receive a three-year contract, but only the first year must be guaranteed. Dallas could thus create an expiring-contract effect with Van Horn to match George's expiring contract, which is the main reason New Jersey is so adamant about having George in the deal."

However, it sounds like Mark Cuban won't considered a sign and trade with Van Horn cuz he feels that it would increase his luxury tax problems. But it's just interesting how that sign and trade of Aaron McKie can change things around.

by laclipperfan42 on Feb 14, 2008 8:13 PM PST 0 recs

Just when I think I know everything...

The Collective Bargaining Agreement is crazy complex. I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff, and I'm a pretty bright guy, but this is twice now in about two weeks that something has caught me by surprise.

Bird rights first - what Stein is saying and my reading of the clause I excerpted above appear to be in sync. The key is the one year contact, and the potential for Bird or early Bird rights at the end. I'm actually not clear on why though. It would seem that the purpose of the rule (to allow a player to obtain/retain Bird or Early Bird status) would apply to any player in the final year of any length deal - which of course happens all the time. So I'm not sure why the CBA wants to give this special protection to players on one year deals, but I'm sure there's a reason.

Why would a player want it? Well, Bird and Early Bird are exceptions to the Salary Cap allowing a team to sign their own free agents without being constrained by the cap. So in theory, Devean can be paid more in his next contract with Early Bird rights. In practice, given that he will not be offered anywhere near the mid-level exception which any team could choose to pay him with or without early Bird status, this is pretty much a bullshit explanation. Devean just thinks he'll get more minutes in Dallas, or maybe he wants another ring. At any rate, it's not about Early Bird rights. Only Dallas would be able to pay him more - or maybe he could be signed and traded to a team who wants to use their mid-level on someone else. But it's really a stretch to see how the Early Bird provision benefits Devean George in any way.

I had already thought about the Van Horn angle. In fact, given the value of KVH's last contract (which determines how much they could trade him for in a sign and trade because of base year compensation) they could have done this trade with just Devin Harris and a KVH sign and trade. BUT... he's not on the payroll now, and Dallas is already over the luxury tax threshold - so double every dollar that they pay to KVH to get this done.

Given the money we're talking about here, that would seem to be the least of Cuban's concerns, but it ain't my toilet seat dough.

There's also the question of circumventing the rules. McKie actually left his coaching job in Philly and went to Memphis to make the Lakers trade look semi-legit. KVH, on the other hand, has had many, many offers to play this season. I have no idea what the league would do if Dallas tried this - but KVH has basically said he's not playing to anyone who has asked, so it would be an even more obvious example of circumvention of the cap. I'd love for it to happen, just to see how the league office handles it.

by ClipperSteve on Feb 14, 2008 9:25 PM PST 0 recs

so basically

a player with the early bird/bird's rights after his one year contract expires can re-sign with the same team for more money without the salary cap restriction? Thanks ClipperSteve, I think I have better understanding about this Early Bird/Bird's right issue.

As for the possible situation with Van Horn, if a signing and trading Van Horn would land the Dallas a championship, then I'm pretty sure Cuban wouldn't mind paying that money and the luxury tax that comes with it. But, with an improved Lakers team, the Suns getting bigger with Shaq, and the Spurs being the Spurs, there's no guarantee that the Mavericks would a championship in the immediate future even with the acquisition of Kidd.

The Aaron McKie trade seems like it has created a loophole for teams to try to use and get around to acquiring players while avoiding the salary cap restriction. I mean pretty soon you can see guys that have been out of the league for years being involved in all these trade transactions. It makes wonder how many teams know this? Can the Clippers possbily sign someone like Pooh Richardson and trade him immediately? I'm also interested to see Stern's reaction.

by laclipperfan42 on Feb 15, 2008 3:20 AM PST up 0 recs

According to TrueHoop

Henry Abbott at TrueHoop compiled a full list of players like McKie. Basically, if the team doesn't specifically waive or renounce their rights to a player, they stay around in the paperwork as a 'cap hold' but they just fade away from the team. For teams over the cap, there's no downside to having these cap holds around. The Clippers have traditionally been under the cap and so they always renounce rights to players as a matter of course. For instance, they could not have made offers to Kobe and Arenas, nor signed Mobley, if Pooh Richardson was on their books even as a cap hold.

As far as I know, the Clippers have been over the cap since they signed Mobley. Players like Ewing and Singleton could conceivably have been left as cap holds, but they weren't, probably out of habit.

by ClipperSteve on Feb 15, 2008 8:41 AM PST up 0 recs

cap hold?

but how a player that's not officially retired but is no playing in the NBA be used as a cap hold? If that particular player's contract has already expired, then doesn't that player's contract no longer count against that team's salary cap? For example, if Cassell finishes this season with the Clippers and decides to retire but does not officially file those retirement papers and the Clippers do not renounce his rights, then how can Sammy be used as a 'cap hold'? Since his contract would then expire, then doesn't that just come off the clippers salary books and would then no longer be counted against the salary cap? just wondering cuz I'm too sure how this 'cap hold' thing works. thanks.

by laclipperfan42 on Feb 15, 2008 11:03 AM PST up 0 recs

Cap Hold

A cap hold is the difference between real money and the calculation the league uses to determine where you are in relation to the salary cap. In your Cassell example (assuming he does not retire, is not renounced, and does not sign with another team), his $6.1M salary (or maybe it's a percentage of it - I'm not entirely sure) would still count in calculating whether the Clippers were far enough UNDER the cap to sign an incoming free agent without using any of the exceptions to the cap. If you're over the cap, a cap hold has no impact.

Since most NBA franchises remain above the cap pretty much constantly (using mid level exceptions, bi annual exceptions, minimum deals, sign and trades, Bird rights, etc to sign players), cap holds don't usually come into play. One reason this is all so confusing is that being under the cap is the exception, and not the rule. We forget that teams are actually supposed to stay under the cap in theory, because in practice almost no one does.

It all matters in the off-season - you can't let a bunch of contracts expire, sign a new free agent to a big contract, and then re-sign your free agents using their Bird rights. Miami would be the best example right now. If Marion opts out, they could lose Marion, Jason Williams and Ricky Davis this summer. If that happens, they could be far enough under the cap to sign Elton Brand. But they can't then turn around and use the Bird exception to re-sign Marion and Williams and Davis. They have to renounce their rights to those guys, even if the contracts are over, in order to clear the 'cap hold' associated with them and have the space to make an offer to Brand.

Make sense?

by ClipperSteve on Feb 15, 2008 11:23 AM PST up 0 recs

I see

so this 'cap hold' thing is to prevent teams from clearing cap space by allowing their own player's contracts to expire, then sign a player from another team to a maximum deal, and then use the bird's right rule to re-sign their own free agents to maximum deals. I see now. Thanks. Sounds like without this 'cap hold' rule, teams like the Lakers, Mavericks, and other big market teams would sign many players to maximum contracts without having to pay the luxury tax.

by laclipperfan42 on Feb 15, 2008 3:00 PM PST up 0 recs

They'd still pay the tax...

There's no getting around the luxury tax, if in fact you are paying that much in salary. In fact, it's the tax that has Dallas reluctant to put Van Horn into the deal. He has no salary right now... just a cap hold. If they sign and trade him, then that becomes a real salary (in the form of Kidd's matching salary coming back) and real tax dollars coming back.

But without the cap hold rich teams could easily circumvent the cap rules (or should I say more easily, since there are lots of ways around the cap already) to sign new free agents. Basketball's 'soft cap' (as opposed to the 'hard cap' in the NFL) is easy to beat. But for most teams, the luxury tax has become the 'hard cap' - most teams stay under that.

by ClipperSteve on Feb 15, 2008 5:35 PM PST up 0 recs