-
Mav optimistic about Cousins
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sting
I mean, it's not impossible.
But I wouldn't bet on it. Mavs have found it impossible to get good free agents 90% of the time. They've also spent a lot of money in some sketchy places (not that we haven't) and they can't offer him the money we can.
-
They are going to throw a full 4 yr max at him. It's why anyone talking about getting Cousins on a cheap deal is crazy. Maybe he is willing to do a 3 year max deal from us since we can offer more money per year due to raises if he wants to sign an even bigger deal in 3 years otherwise, we are going to have to beat a 4 yr max deal.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mythrol
They are going to throw a full 4 yr max at him. It's why anyone talking about getting Cousins on a cheap deal is crazy. Maybe he is willing to do a 3 year max deal from us since we can offer more money per year due to raises if he wants to sign an even bigger deal in 3 years otherwise, we are going to have to beat a 4 yr max deal.
This horse has been beaten to death. The Pells have to offer BOOGIE the MAX of his choice. Not only because we obviously can't afford to lose his talent, but also to reassure AD by our actions that we are committed to doing whatever it takes including supermax for him next summer. Dallas only gets Cousins if he just wants to go there. Money can't/won't be the reason.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver Nail
This horse has been beaten to death. The Pells have to offer BOOGIE the MAX of his choice. Not only because we obviously can't afford to lose his talent, but also to reassure AD by our actions that we are committed to doing whatever it takes including supermax for him next summer. Dallas only gets Cousins if he just wants to go there. Money can't/won't be the reason.
I do not see the Pelicans offering a full 5 year max. I would suspect a 2+1 max will get it done. I cannot see him going to Dallas to wallow at the bottom of the standings.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PELICANSFAN
I do not see the Pelicans offering a full 5 year max. I would suspect a 2+1 max will get it done. I cannot see him going to Dallas to wallow at the bottom of the standings.
I shared the idea of not offering max in previous discussion, but now believe because we are tax team anyway going forward, no point in poking the Bear. Max of his CHOICE.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver Nail
This horse has been beaten to death. The Pells have to offer BOOGIE the MAX of his choice. Not only because we obviously can't afford to lose his talent, but also to reassure AD by our actions that we are committed to doing whatever it takes including supermax for him next summer. Dallas only gets Cousins if he just wants to go there. Money can't/won't be the reason.
If $$$$ WONT be the reason, then why do we offer him 5yr Max. That seems like specious logic. If it's NOT about the $$$, then he should axiomatically have No problem coming here for 1yr less for similar $$$. We are WIN ready. Dallas is NOT.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tinman
If $$$$ WONT be the reason, then why do we offer him 5yr Max. That seems like specious logic. If it's NOT about the $$$, then he should axiomatically have No problem coming here for 1yr less for similar $$$. We are WIN ready. Dallas is NOT.
Not arguing the point, in fact I ORIGINALLY posted that max shouldn't be automatically assumed. But with supermax for AD next summer, don't feel we should play games. I say have 10 different MAX type documents ready, from 1 plus 1, to 5yr increments and let him choose. Again, my primary or secondary reasoning if you will is the AD supermax of next summer. Any moves we make going forward pretty much assure we are a tax team going forward. Don't even want AD to start thinking like Kawhi, not for a second.
-
The Mavs and their fans should be tired of this. They always strike out on the big time free agents. Now if they're willing to give Boggie a crazy contract, and they're the only team that's offering that much, then I can see them landing Boogie.
I was listening to the local radio here in DFW and they say he won't play til January. Which is about right for an Achilles. Then he may take a month or so to get into playing shape. I'd say Boogie would be somewhat useless until the all star break.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tinman
If $$$$ WONT be the reason, then why do we offer him 5yr Max. That seems like specious logic. If it's NOT about the $$$, then he should axiomatically have No problem coming here for 1yr less for similar $$$. We are WIN ready. Dallas is NOT.
I think Cousins has been very clear it is about the money. He was willing to resign in Sac with no hope of winning and maybe not even making playoffs because they could offer him the Supermax. I don't fault him for that but I also don't see him taking a big team discount to play here. Maybe he is willing to take a years discount but I'm not even sure about that. It depends if he wants the max money he can get guaranteed this summer or not.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mythrol
I think Cousins has been very clear it is about the money. He was willing to resign in Sac with no hope of winning and maybe not even making playoffs because they could offer him the Supermax. I don't fault him for that but I also don't see him taking a big team discount to play here. Maybe he is willing to take a years discount but I'm not even sure about that. It depends if he wants the max money he can get guaranteed this summer or not.
The shorter deal makes him a FA when he has the ability to sign the large contract for 10 year vets (and ties him to AD through his contract).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PELICANSFAN
The shorter deal makes him a FA when he has the ability to sign the large contract for 10 year vets (and ties him to AD through his contract).
I think it depends on Boogie. You might be able to sell him on that, but it's more risky: if he signs for the smaller contract, and then comes back less than optimally, he could be setting himself up for less money later, whereas just taking the max from us now might result in less, but it's guaranteed regardless of how well he's recovered.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PELICANSFAN
The shorter deal makes him a FA when he has the ability to sign the large contract for 10 year vets (and ties him to AD through his contract).
Yeah that's how I'd try to sell it to him. It really depends on if he wants the most years guaranteed coming off his injury or if he wants to score the most money while risking possibly not coming back full healthy.
-
I don’t know, if Boogie goes to Dallas that wouldn’t be a bad team. Boogie/Barnes/Smith/Bazmore/Doncic/Dirk (as a reserve). Maybe they are the 8th or 9th best team in the West, but if they go back into the lottery next year then they will have more talent in that pick as well.
-
So? I’m optimistic about LeBron. Don’t mean a thing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
UNO Gracias
I don’t know, if Boogie goes to Dallas that wouldn’t be a bad team. Boogie/Barnes/Smith/Bazmore/Doncic/Dirk (as a reserve). Maybe they are the 8th or 9th best team in the West, but if they go back into the lottery next year then they will have more talent in that pick as well.
Bazemore wasn’t part of the deal. Just Mavs 2019 protected 1st
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rheem654
Bazemore wasn’t part of the deal. Just Mavs 2019 protected 1st
So they get to keep Wes Matthews? That’s not bad for them.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
UNO Gracias
So they get to keep Wes Matthews? That’s not bad for them.
Yea the Mavs 2019 1st must be very lightly protected for ATL to agree to that
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rheem654
Yea the Mavs 2019 1st must be very lightly protected for ATL to agree to that
Top 5 protected
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mythrol
Top 5 protected
I think I saw it is top 5 next year and top 3 for the following 2 seasons.
Assuming they don't land Cousins, that is honestly a good deal for Dallas. Good chance they are in the top 5 next season and a moderate chance they could end up in the top 3 the following season.
On the bad news front, them getting Luka means they have every incentive to throw major money at Cousins.
-
I honestly think Capela or Jordan will be on the Mav's before Cousins
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AUSSIE_PELICAN
I honestly think Capella or Jordan will be on the Mav's before Cousins
I hope you are right and my own speculation is wrong.
My thinking on that front is the Rockets are going to go all in to bring James in, and they are probably willing to do whatever it takes to keep Cappella, and I think Cappella will probably play ball to make it work if they pay him. I honestly think James ends up in Houston and I wouldn't be surprised if there is some hard feelings with the Mavs and Jordan and that puts Cousins as their 1A.
Again, hope I am wrong, but I think the Pels are going to have to pay close to a max if they want to bring Cousins back.
-
What if WE convince DeAndre to go the Chris Paul opt in and trade route?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You are assuming his "talent" will be back at 100% prior to the injury condition. That is not a certainty at all considering the severity of his injury. If he were healthy than it would
be a no-brainer but that is not the case. It amazes me people keep on looking past that when talking about offering max deals. I bet if it were your money you'd think twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silver Nail
This horse has been beaten to death. The Pells have to offer BOOGIE the MAX of his choice. Not only because we obviously can't afford to lose his talent, but also to reassure AD by our actions that we are committed to doing whatever it takes including supermax for him next summer. Dallas only gets Cousins if he just wants to go there. Money can't/won't be the reason.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stormcenter
You are assuming his "talent" will be back at 100% prior to the injury condition. That is not a certainty at all considering the severity of his injury. If he were healthy than it would
be a no-brainer but that is not the case. It amazes me people keep on looking past that when talking about offering max deals. I bet if it were your money you'd think twice.
Ah, but in fairness, it's not his money. It's a billionaires money. So I'm not too worried about their frugality. All I care about is how the cash they spend goes towards my favourite team winning more games next year than they did this year. And given our cap situation, resigning Boogie seems by far the safest and easiest way to do that. Nobody expects him to come back 100%, especially not in the first year. But reduced efficacy doesn't mean that his skillset isn't still versatile, useful, and helpful. So we offer him what it takes to keep him. If that's the max, then who cares. The billionaire, somehow, will survive.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stormcenter
You are assuming his "talent" will be back at 100% prior to the injury condition. That is not a certainty at all considering the severity of his injury. If he were healthy than it would
be a no-brainer but that is not the case. It amazes me people keep on looking past that when talking about offering max deals. I bet if it were your money you'd think twice.
Even if his "talent" is at 90%of what it was before, Boogie is still worth the max. With our cap situation its:
A:Boogie and MLE player with min contracts and trades to fill roster
Or
B: MLE player with trades and min contracts to fill the roster
Tell me which team would be better? Definitely the one with Boogie
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stormcenter
You are assuming his "talent" will be back at 100% prior to the injury condition. That is not a certainty at all considering the severity of his injury. If he were healthy than it would
be a no-brainer but that is not the case. It amazes me people keep on looking past that when talking about offering max deals. I bet if it were your money you'd think twice.
If it were my money I'd already have a wink wink deal in place because talent draws customers and customers make me more money. The Pelicans have doubled in value if not more since Mr B bought them. Stars win and make you even more money. Cousins is a superstar.
When you combine that with the risk of upsetting AD and then losing him its not even close to worth it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mythrol
If it were my money I'd already have a wink wink deal in place because talent draws customers and customers make me more money. The Pelicans have doubled in value if not more since Mr B bought them. Stars win and make you even more money. Cousins is a superstar.
When you combine that with the risk of upsetting AD and then losing him its not even close to worth it.
If we are gonna re-sign Boogie, a wink wink would be good, because it would bohoove us to sign a BIG FISH, if possible, before we officially re-signing Boogie.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mythrol
If it were my money I'd already have a wink wink deal in place because talent draws customers and customers make me more money. The Pelicans have doubled in value if not more since Mr B bought them. Stars win and make you even more money. Cousins is a superstar.
When you combine that with the risk of upsetting AD and then losing him its not even close to worth it.
EXACTLY, Benson paid 338 mil in 2012 and as of last record on Forbes, all teams were worth a min. of 1 bil, with the average being 1.65 bil. That was prior to what was done (playoff sweep) this season. Therefore; it is reasonable to assume we are now in the average range. Easy to conclude the VALUE has at least tripled and more likely quintuple in six short yrs.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tinman
If we are gonna re-sign Boogie, a wink wink would be good, because it would bohoove us to sign a BIG FISH, if possible, before we officially re-signing Boogie.
If it is going to happen, (big fish or at least Nico value guy) has to be before Boogie. After which, and going forward only way would be S & T some of our own productive pieces
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tinman
If we are gonna re-sign Boogie, a wink wink would be good, because it would bohoove us to sign a BIG FISH, if possible, before we officially re-signing Boogie.
With his cap hold, we cannot really sign any big fish. It would have to be a trade.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tinman
If we are gonna re-sign Boogie, a wink wink would be good, because it would bohoove us to sign a BIG FISH, if possible, before we officially re-signing Boogie.
Even if we agree to terms he doesn't have to "sign" the paperwork until we make other moves.
-
An overlooked aspect to the Mavs scenario- one of Boogie’s most respected friends/mentors in Rondo had a terrible time with Carlisle, enough that the ultra competitive player just gave up in the playoffs. It may come down to the money, but Boogie with Carlisle seems like a high risk ticking time bomb scenario.
-
I don't see this signing as a no brainer. There should be great concern. A max to Boogie if he's a shell of his former self is disastrous for us.
Unfortunately we wouldn't have any idea about his post recovery abilities until after we to give him a contract.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
UNO Gracias
So they get to keep Wes Matthews? That’s not bad for them.
Between Matthews and Boogie, they'd have 2 functioning Achilles!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
da ThRONe
I don't see this signing as a no brainer. There should be great concern. A max to Boogie if he's a shell of his former self is disastrous for us. A
Unfortunately we wouldn't have any idea about his post recovery abilities until after we to give himna contract.
As soon as we traded for Cousins our fate was tied to him. It sucks that he got injured, but try explaining to AD that we let Cousins walk because we were afraid and see where that gets us. Next year it will be him demanding a trade in the summer.
-
Amen!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
da ThRONe
I don't see this signing as a no brainer. There should be great concern. A max to Boogie if he's a shell of his former self is disastrous for us. A
Unfortunately we wouldn't have any idea about his post recovery abilities until after we to give himna contract.
-
I'm sure AD would understand if Cousins might be instead limping up and down the court if that and not running like he once did. It's a more of gamble than many of us want to believe.
Look I'm all for resigning him to a 3 year prove it deal but not anything beyond that. Let someone else take the risk and roll the dice with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mythrol
As soon as we traded for Cousins our fate was tied to him. It sucks that he got injured, but try explaining to AD that we let Cousins walk because we were afraid and see where that gets us. Next year it will be him demanding a trade in the summer.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stormcenter
I'm sure AD would understand if Cousins might be instead limping up and down the court if that and not running like he once did. It's a more of gamble than many of us want to believe.
Look I'm all for resigning him to a 3 year prove it deal but not anything beyond that. Let someone else take the risk and roll the dice with him.
Cousins has never been a full athletic beast/running up and down the court.. Hes a big plodder with a 3 point shot that will also bang it down inside.. He has never relied on athleticism, which makes his possibility of coming back 90+% of his old self very high... We would be stupid not to re-sign him
-
Signing him at a max long term deal without knowing if he can come back at 100% (not 90% or less) would be poor move on the Pelicans behalf.
Why would you pay him or any other player a premium long term salary if you are not sure you are getting the same player prior to the injury?
It just does not make sense. Remember the Pelicans do not have a good history when it comes to rehabbing players from ANY injury. I would not
be surprised if he doesn't even play this season due to the severity of his injury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
soggymoss
Cousins has never been a full athletic beast/running up and down the court.. Hes a big plodder with a 3 point shot that will also bang it down inside.. He has never relied on athleticism, which makes his possibility of coming back 90+% of his old self very high... We would be stupid not to re-sign him
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stormcenter
Signing him at a max long term deal without knowing if he can come back at 100% (not 90% or less) would be poor move on the Pelicans behalf.
Why would you pay him or any other player a premium long term salary if you are not sure you are getting the same player prior to the injury?
It just does not make sense. Remember the Pelicans do not have a good history when it comes to rehabbing players from ANY injury. I would not
be surprised if he doesn't even play this season due to the severity of his injury.
Read my post above.. This team is better with Boogie, and our only real option since we have ZERO cap space (besides trades), not to mention, not re-signing Cousins forces us to play AD at the 5, which he doenst want, then we ******** him off and he demands a trade, then we back to square one..
-
You pay Boogie because, as was mentioned, we are better with him. I truly think ours fans are too caught up in the Blazers series. We didn't necessarily need Boogie to win that series. But any other western conference team (look at the rosters) we need Boogie. He gives us a great advantage that very few teams can deal with.
Lets say Boogie comes back and puts up 15 pts and 8rbs. That is enough to do what we need to do. We get that production we are a guaranteed 3 seed at minimum.
-
This team needs more star power so I’m all in on doing whatever it takes to keep Boogie. Plus I don’t want him going to a division rival.
-
I hate that we're in this exact situation again like we were with Gordon. As long as his heart never appears in Dallas somehow...
We can't throw him a long term deal. I just hope we don't. Like maybe we do, but there's a team option after the 2nd season? But the actual contract would go for 5 years or whatever? Is that a thing?
What if we somehow go after a big fish in free agency, clear the cap and make the necessary room otherwise to grab someone really good...Cousins should see that team as someone worth banking on and taking a shorter term deal, right?
*sigh* I just want to have a winning team without the Sword of Damocles.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eman5805
I hate that we're in this exact situation again like we were with Gordon. As long as his heart never appears in Dallas somehow...
We can't throw him a long term deal. I just hope we don't. Like maybe we do, but there's a team option after the 2nd season? But the actual contract would go for 5 years or whatever? Is that a thing?
What if we somehow go after a big fish in free agency, clear the cap and make the necessary room otherwise to grab someone really good...Cousins should see that team as someone worth banking on and taking a shorter term deal, right?
*sigh* I just want to have a winning team without the Sword of Damocles.
Theres no way we can clear enough cap to go after a big fish.. We can only clear up about 25 million, but that would require trading Hill, Moore and Ajinca without taking any salary back at all
-
You can add in Mirotic and easily get to 30 million, just depends on the big fish.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eman5805
I hate that we're in this exact situation again like we were with Gordon. As long as his heart never appears in Dallas somehow...
We can't throw him a long term deal. I just hope we don't. Like maybe we do, but there's a team option after the 2nd season? But the actual contract would go for 5 years or whatever? Is that a thing?
What if we somehow go after a big fish in free agency, clear the cap and make the necessary room otherwise to grab someone really good...Cousins should see that team as someone worth banking on and taking a shorter term deal, right?
*sigh* I just want to have a winning team without the Sword of Damocles.
Unfortunately only the last year of a contract can have an option.
-
It's not that I'm against re-signing Cousins even if it takes a full max necessarily. I just been around this board for a while and I've seen the term "we have to" use when talking about a few signings and some of them set the franchise back. So I'm against the idea that this signing is something we must do. This has as much potential to be detrimental both short and long term as it does being beneficial. That to me is far from a no brainer.
-
When I listen to nba podcasts and read nba articles, people are always saying how disastrous this injury was for DMC because he relies so much on his explosiveness. I’m not sure if they’ve never seen him play but I’ve never watched DMC and thought he was an explosive athlete. He is effective because he is a massive human being who is very skilled at rebounding, ball handling, passing and post moves. I have a lot of faith that he will be back to at least 90% of what he was. I think he is definitely worth th 2+1 max, the 4 or 5 yr max makes me a little nervous but hey there ain’t any players I wouldn’t be nervous to give a full max to
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gdf22
When I listen to nba podcasts and read nba articles, people are always saying how disastrous this injury was for DMC because he relies so much on his explosiveness. I’m not sure if they’ve never seen him play but I’ve never watched DMC and thought he was an explosive athlete. He is effective because he is a massive human being who is very skilled at rebounding, ball handling, passing and post moves. I have a lot of faith that he will be back to at least 90% of what he was. I think he is definitely worth th 2+1 max, the 4 or 5 yr max makes me a little nervous but hey there ain’t any players I wouldn’t be nervous to give a full max to
Yea that’s true in some sense but I think some are overlooking how much he relied on a quick first step for his drives to the basket and overal footwork.