LOL, Cuban pays Damp 7yrs/$73M

[cepstrum]

This move reminds me of when the suns lost Antonio Mcdyess and ended up signing tommy g to that long contract. But hell, Tom deserved that at the time. I mean he was an all star and a 20 10 guy.

Here we are a few years later and the mavs loose steve nash. So what do they do? They go out and sign a 30 year old center to a 7 year deal??? That future is now BS isnt why damp was signed. He was signed because Cuban realized he made a mistake by not signing nash and he wanted to try and make up for it.

 

[SirStefan32]

I don't get this. I know that Centers always get a little overpaid, but this is idiotic.

Stefan

 

[elindholm]

I value Dampier a lot more than most of the people on this board. We've argued the "contract year" question to death, so there's no point going back over that. I think he'll do quite well in Dallas if he can stay healthy.

Overall, the Mavericks are better than they were last year. They replaced two efficient scorers (Nash and Jamison) with two less efficient ones (Terry and Stackhouse, if Stackhouse even plays), so that's a step down. But they'll still score plenty of points anyway. And on defense, they are vastly improved. Of the likely core, only Nowitzki and Stackhouse are genuinely bad defenders.

I'd rate Nash's and Dampier's "longevity projection" (a stupid term I just made up for, "How many good years does each one have left?") to be about equal, with Dampier having perhaps a slight edge, since he is a bit younger (see hoopshype this morning) and his game is based less on quickness.

Barring major injuries, Dallas is certainly a top-four team in the West now.

 

[Southpaw]

I think this deal is tremendous for the Mavs. Shaq is gone from the West which basically moves Dampier into the top 3 centers in the West. Duncan is #1 and someone will have to help me find the second best.

$ 10 mill for a starting center is almost chump change. He is getting Nash's and Walker's money and I think that makes huge sense. The Jamison money is gone also. This makes me think the money aspect is moot.

 

[PhxGametime]

Ming and Magloire?

 

[Gaddabout]

If Amare would sign right now for 7/75, I'd make that offer in a heartbeat. He'd be ... what, 29? at the end of that contract, and 10.7 mil annum seems like a bargain considering what lesser veterans are getting.

 

[Southpaw]

Ming and Magloire?

I Brain farted on the Yao Ming thing. But not Magliore.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

cheese i personally dont think that nash value is for making a championship run. i think his value is to help teach the team how to play team ball and to bring a team first view to this team. in the end it will be barbosa who will be the starting point guard of this team with nash coming off the bench when this team makes a championship run.

the key parts of this team is amare 21, jj 24, marion 26, q 24, barbosa 21, and lampe 19, and maybe just maybe hunter and vroman at 22 and 23 plus our lottery pick from chicago. you bring others (aka nash and williams) in to help these guys develop the right feel for the game. at that time nash and or williams or any other vet out there including dampier would have because a bench player or an ir warmer waiting to happen. i am counting around 3 years from now before this team reachs for the stars but they should be in the playoffs this year.

i think this is an excellent point. the nash signing is important in more ways than our immediate and future record. his leadership and playoff experience may be invaluable in bringing along our youngsters.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I Brain farted on the Yao Ming thing. But not Magliore.

you're wrong on the magliore thing. he's at least damp's equal right now and has more upside. better offensively also.

 

[SweetD]

you're wrong on the magliore thing. he's at least damp's equal right now and has more upside. better offensively also.

don't forget younger and was playing in the EAst lets see how he does in the West with out Shaq.

 

[scotsman13]

If Amare would sign right now for 7/75, I'd make that offer in a heartbeat. He'd be ... what, 29? at the end of that contract, and 10.7 mil annum seems like a bargain considering what lesser veterans are getting.

yea i would give amare 7/75 right now and feel that i was getting a good deal out of it. amare is going to be a superstar, dampier never has or ever will be. dampier has bad hands and isnt a good defender (based on the review in last years sporting news basketball by the teams beat writer for the local paper).

people on this broad already have problems with marion making the money he is and he is one of the best small forwards in the nba.

 

[SweetD]

The only way to get a young good center will be though the draft next year we will have Chicago's pick and it might be very high. Start looking at NBAdraft.net and see what Centers are coming out if Hunter pans out the Suns could be in a very good postion. I can see them looking for a back up PF or C next year.

 

[cepstrum]

$ 10 mill for a starting center is almost chump change. He is getting Nash's and Walker's money and I think that makes huge sense. The Jamison money is gone also. This makes me think the money aspect is moot.

It isnt the money per year that is problematic, but rather the length of the contract. 7 years??? If this was a 4 or even 5 year deal for 40, 50 mill, this would almost be a steal for the mavs, but 7 years is just plain crazy.

Im actually not sure why they didnt just offer a little more than atlanta. They are the only team that would've been able to sign him outright.

 

[George O'Brien]

I've read reports that the last year of Dampier's contract is team option. It's still a lot.

If I were to make a case for Dampier, his stats were somewhat limited by the fact that Foyle was so good and thus limited Dampier's minutes until last year. He has had a series of nagging injuries which limited his on court effectiveness, but nothing that makes someone think he will breakdown completely in a year or two. And while he may not be an elite defender, he is light years better than anyone the Mavs have had for many many years.

On the other hand, he is not going to get the stats he had with GS. This is because he was the Warriors only real rebounder, while Dirk is a very good rebounder. His scoring will be down a lot because he will never get the ball except on the offensive glass. And no one knows how well he will adapt to a running offense.

A lot will depend on health. Dampier has had a lot of nagging injuries over the years and there is no reason to believe they won't return. If he stays healthy, he will be a valuable if overpriced player in four years. If he gets hurt, he faces the same problem other aging players face of slow recuperation.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I've read reports that the last year of Dampier's contract is team option. It's still a lot.

If I were to make a case for Dampier, his stats were somewhat limited by the fact that Foyle was so good and thus limited Dampier's minutes until last year. He has had a series of nagging injuries which limited his on court effectiveness, but nothing that makes someone think he will breakdown completely in a year or two. And while he may not be an elite defender, he is light years better than anyone the Mavs have had for many many years.

On the other hand, he is not going to get the stats he had with GS. This is because he was the Warriors only real rebounder, while Dirk is a very good rebounder. His scoring will be down a lot because he will never get the ball except on the offensive glass. And no one knows how well he will adapt to a running offense.

A lot will depend on health. Dampier has had a lot of nagging injuries over the years and there is no reason to believe they won't return. If he stays healthy, he will be a valuable if overpriced player in four years. If he gets hurt, he faces the same problem other aging players face of slow recuperation.

in much the same way i am concerned that nash is overpayed for his age, i am similarly concerned about the damp contract. however, in much the same light that i think the nash signing, as a basketball-only move, is a great signing, i agree that the damp signing is a great move for dallas.

that said, george i don't agree with your assessment of golden states rebounding "woes" outside of damp. whilst there jamison was an excellent rebounder. murphy, when healthy, was also an excellent rebounder. and there was also a large cast of other bigs that chipped in with rebounding as well (foyle, fortson, and cardinal over the years).

but i agree, the "breakdown" everyone seems to be forecasting is not evident. he'll prolly remain at least somewhat healthy. barring a freak accident, he'll prolly play 70+ games. but most importantly he anchors a team that desperately needed an inside presence on defense and offense. he makes the mavs immeasurably better. losing nash was a blow, but with harris, terry, and marquis they'll just be losing a little. adding damp makes this team a contender now. a serious contender in my opinion. just depends on chemistry now.

 

[George O'Brien]

that said, george i don't agree with your assessment of golden states rebounding "woes" outside of damp. whilst there jamison was an excellent rebounder. murphy, when healthy, was also an excellent rebounder. and there was also a large cast of other bigs that chipped in with rebounding as well (foyle, fortson, and cardinal over the years).

I was trying to explain why Dampier jumped from 6.6 rpg in 2002-03 to 12 rpg in 2003-04. First, Dampier went from 24.1 minutes in 2002-03 to 32.5 minutes in 2003-04. In 2003-04, Foyle played only 44 games and Murphy only 28 games. When looking at rebounding of the remaining players, Cliff Robinson at PF averaged only 3.9 rpg and Cardinal only 4.2 rpg. Last season, the Warrior's second best rebounder was guard Jason Richardson at 6.7 rpg.

In 2002-03, the Warriors still had Fortson and Jamison who went for the non-rebounding Van Exel.

 

[elindholm]

I agree that some of the jump in Dampier's rebounding numbers is probably due to a drop-off in the rebounding provided by his teammates. But not all of it. His effort level was a lot higher throughout the year (perhaps because it was a "contract year," perhaps not). And he made a particularly big gain in offensive rebounds -- getting nearly double his career average -- which is a statistic that tends be less teammate-dependent.

Also, no one seems to be discussing the shot-blocking aspect that Dampier will bring. That's huge, in my opinion. He is one of the better shot-blockers in the league (roughly 2 per game over the last three seasons), and having that kind of presence can make team defense a whole lot better.

 

[Dan H]

Dampier didn't really "cost" the Mavs much of anything since they signed and traded pieces of junk for him. I imagine Cuban would have re-signed Nash if he could have offloaded enough salary.

 

[Mainstreet]

Originally posted by Dan H

Dampier didn't really "cost" the Mavs much of anything since they signed and traded pieces of junk for him.

I wouldn't exactly call (2) first round draft picks and Najera as junk.

 

[NJYAJ09]

Voskuhl?

 

[elindholm]

Voskuhl?

Pomegranate?

 

[Joe Mama]

I value Dampier a lot more than most of the people on this board. We've argued the "contract year" question to death, so there's no point going back over that. I think he'll do quite well in Dallas if he can stay healthy.

Overall, the Mavericks are better than they were last year. They replaced two efficient scorers (Nash and Jamison) with two less efficient ones (Terry and Stackhouse, if Stackhouse even plays), so that's a step down. But they'll still score plenty of points anyway. And on defense, they are vastly improved. Of the likely core, only Nowitzki and Stackhouse are genuinely bad defenders.

I'd rate Nash's and Dampier's "longevity projection" (a stupid term I just made up for, "How many good years does each one have left?") to be about equal, with Dampier having perhaps a slight edge, since he is a bit younger (see hoopshype this morning) and his game is based less on quickness.

Barring major injuries, Dallas is certainly a top-four team in the West now.

I agree that Dampier improves Dallas in the middle. I'm not sure overall they are better team though. It wouldn't surprise me if they are just as it wouldn't surprise me if they get worse. They have replaced:

Najera
Walker
Jamison
Nash
Fortson

With

Stackhouse
Dampier
Terry
Henderson
Booth
Harris

That's far from a slamdunk if you ask me.

There's also no way I would say that Eric Dampier has a better "longevity projection" than Steve Nash. Dampier has been healthy the last two years, but in the three years before that he wasn't. I also wish I could find where I read that he's had multiple knee operations, and is just a matter of time before his knees go out again. But I think most importantly it's the position he plays and makes him more likely to miss time and deteriorate.

Steve Nash has not missed a game because of injury in three seasons. He's also not going to be relied on for heavy minutes because the Phoenix Suns are deep at the guard position.

Dampier didn't really "cost" the Mavs much of anything since they signed and traded pieces of junk for him. I imagine Cuban would have re-signed Nash if he could have offloaded enough salary.

Originally I was thinking the same way, but when you consider that they traded Christian Laettner's expiring contract, two first-round draft picks, and swapped Najera for Eschmeyer I would say they paid big for him.

Joe

 

[F-Dog]

So what's the final score on the Dampier/Okur salary comparison? What figure does each player start at?

I don't think we have exact numbers, but it looks like Okur starts at maybe $7 million and Dampier at maybe $9 million.

F-Dog, do you want call our bet a draw?

I think the contracts boil down to 6 yrs, $50m for Okur and 6 yrs, $59m for Dampier. Close enough.


I think Dallas got Dampier at market value, and I can certainly understand their view that centers are harder to come by than point guards. If I have a problem with Dallas' decision here, it's the same problem I had with Denver signing K-Mart: since you're paying the market price anyway, does it make sense to give up so many assets to make the deal work?


Golden State made out on the trade IMO. Najera is one of those bench players who really makes the team better when he's out there, and they needed somebody like that since they lost Brian Cardinal to Memphis. The Warriors also sent Eschmeyer's contract back to Dallas, which would really mean something if they hadn't signed Derek Fisher.

The trade is going to be very expensive for the Warriors if there's a luxury tax this year, but nobody cares about that besides the owner, right?