Mavs Donuts: Why Josh Akognon Matters
DONUT 1: Crunching Double-Pipedream Numbers ...
There are ways for the Dallas Mavericks to do the highly improbable. It is their job to explore those ways. It is DB.com's job, too.
An example for Summer-of-2013 Free Agency:
Let's say Chris Paul (Dallas' top choice) and Dwight Howard both like the idea of joining up with the Mavs. But ... both players insist on max salaries only.
The first step is getting both LA teams to be amenable to a pair sign-and-trades. How would that work?
David Lord is on the case.
Doing a sign-and-trade for both Howard and Paul would provide the most cap flexibility of all for the Mavs, because that could be done no matter how low the cap is set. In that scenario, the Mavs would trade to the Lakers every player (other than Dirk) they have under contract, and use Dallas free agents to send $13.7 million in players to the Clippers in sign-and-trades. There would be assets left over.
But our research, and then the ensuing conventional wisdom, left us with one snag in that ultra-flexible plan. ...
The one hangup in doing a sign-and-trade with the Lakers: It seemed the Mavs currently don't have enough existing contracts to do such a deal and ink Howard to his max of $20,513,178.
Beginning July 1, as a virtually-certain over-the-apron taxpayer (player payroll over "tax line plus $4 million"), the Lakers (as the Mavs recently reminded us) will only be able to take players in trade who are already under contract; they cannot accept a player being sign-and-traded. Acquiring Howard at his max salary would require $15,513,178 or more in 2013-14 outgoing salary (using the 150% rule, with its plus-$5M limit), but the total salary in Mavs' non-Dirk contracts for 2013-14 is only $15,282,940 (Marion, Carter, Cunningham, Crowder, James).
But ... what about Josh Akognon? Is there a tricky card to be played here? Yes, it seems absurd. But if you are a Mavs "Asset Management'' Geek who wants to know how the CBA, trades and free agency works for the Mavs (and how, incredibly, Josh Akognon is suddenly a player in all of this) you've come to the right place.
Want more of the very best Mavs coverage available? To be fully informed, you need David Lord's one-of-a-kind exploration of the Mavs' options when it comes to pursuing Paul AND Dwight. Go Mavs and Go Premium!
DONUT 2: Dirk's "Heroes'' Game ...
A long-standing event. A great cause. Tons of fun. DB.com covers it like a blanket and we -- and Dirk -- would love to see you there!
DONUT 3: Rambling Nilly-Willy ...
You are free to ramble nilly-willy about Chris and Dwight and Dallas and injuries and maturity and odds ... or you can get educated first ... and THEN ramble away.
The education can begin here, with Our "Thinking Man's Guide To The Double-Pipedream.
And again ... when you are ready to earn your Mavs Masters Degree, dig into David Lord's brilliant exploration of the Mavs' options when it comes to pursuing Paul AND Dwight.
This is the Premium goods. Well worth your free seven-day trial, well worth your dime-a-day. And it's just the beginning ...
DONUT 4: Follow the Mavs on Twitter ...
Follow the Mavs on Twitter: Mike Fisher, David Lord and Michael Dugat keep you up-to-the-minute informed on all things Mavs!
DONUT 5: What's B-Wright's future? ...
With Brandan Wright's help -- and with info from inside Mavs HQ -- we analyze B-Wright's future in Dallas by looking back and forward. What does our Jonathan Auping find?
That showcase for his skills in late March, Celtics in Dallas:
And more than that ... a few random game logs of B-Wright from the last five weeks of the season that in the end, demonstrate how pivotal it was to have him in the pivot:
March 8th: 14 points, 70% shooting, 6 rebounds, 3 blocks, 19 minutes
March 10th: 13 points, 86% shooting, 7 rebounds, 27 minutes
March 14th: 10 points, 56% shooting, 8 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 blocks, 24 minutes
March 15th: 13 points, 75% shooting, 5 rebounds 26 minutes
March 18th: 12 points, 56% shooting, 8 rebounds, 2 assists, 21 minutes
March 22nd: 23 points, 69% shooting, 8 rebounds, 30 minutes
March 26th: 11 points, 63% shooting, 7 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 blocks, 31 minutes
March 30th: 17 points, 88% shooting, 13 rebounds, 2 assists, 23 minutes
April 5th: 20 points, 64% shooting, 6 rebounds, 2 blocks, 26 minutes
April 7th: 12 points, 60% shooting, 9 rebounds, 2 blocks, 23 minutes
April 14th: 16 points, 62% shooting, 4 rebounds, 23 minutes
That looks like the work of someone who is doing a lot with a little bit of opportunity. Oh yeah, and in those 11 games the Mavs went 10-1.
He's not Dwight. But he's an asset at least as worthy as Ian Mahinmi once was -- and last summer The Ianimal got four years and $16 mil from Indy.
Premium Mavs has the goods on B-Wright's future.
DONUT 6: Graduation time! ...
A tip of the cap of appreciation to Frisco Party Station, your neighborhood headquarters for all your graduation party needs! All the neighborhood schools represented -- college and even high school! -- and the party is on!
DONUT 7: Staying in Sacramento ...
D-Lord with what's up on the NBA vote that figures to keep the Kings in Sacramento:
The NBA's "Relocation Committee" recommended 7-0 against a Kings move to Seattle. But that wasn't the final say in the matter.
It now goes to the full 30 owners on May 15 for the actual Board of Governors vote on whether to allow a sale of the franchise to the Seattle group. That vote will be strongly influenced by the Relocation Committee's vote. An approval to sell requires 75 percent (or 23) yes votes.
That means only eight "no" votes would kill the possibility of a sale to the group in Seattle, and if the relocation vote is any indication, there are 7 already on record as being against that. So it's almost impossible to imagine the votes for approval to sell to the Seattle contingent.
In theory the league could approve the sale to the Seattle group, with the idea that they were buying with no guarantee of leaving Sacramento. But stopping relocation is harder when the existing owner is the one pushing to move the team. The league learned that lesson when Clay Bennett bought the Sonics and then made a mess of things in Seattle until the league gave him the okay to move to OKC, and they undoubtedly won't want to make the same tactical error again.
Throughout the evaluation of the relocation issue, the committee examined not only the relocation issue itself, but also the "what if" that would happen if they said no. The Maloofs clearly want out and need to find a buyer; if the league eliminates this buyer's interest, what are they doing to an owner? So within their process, they looked very closely at the viability and desirability of the interested group in Sacramento, trying to determine whether the Maloofs can get a satisfactory offer from those who would keep the Kings in Sacramento. That unanimous vote was a strong indication of their reaction to what they were seeing, and subsequent league actions indicate that the Seattle group is unlikely to get enough owner support to approve their offer to buy the team.
At this point, it appears that the Sacramento group has the inside track, with only three ways the team wouldn't be sold to them (none of which seem very likely):
*The 30 owners could surprise and approve a sale to the Seattle group. It takes 23 yes votes. Keep in mind that the existing owners have a vested interest in seeing that every other franchise is sold for the most money, with the strongest chance of adding to NBA league revenues and enhancing franchise values for everyone, so the strength of Seattle's bid matters. The existing owners have to partner with the new owners, so although the unanimous committee vote should be a great guide, ya never know.
*The Maloofs could decide that they don't want to sell to the Sacramento group, and take the team off the market if the Seattle offer is rejected. But the Maloofs have undoubtedly been made aware that as long as the league sees a viable buyer in Sacramento making a valid market-value offer, they will have a rough go getting permission to sell to anyone outside Sacramento.
*The Sacramento group could fail to perform on their preliminary purchase promises. In the event one of those unlikely possibilities comes to pass after all, the Maloofs and the Seattle group could come back and try again, but assuming there is no sale-and-relocation to Seattle approved in the May 15 vote, the Kings will be in Sacramento for at least another year. So Sacramento, pending the May 15 vote, is keeping its team. Now, does all of this make a Sacramento trade of Demarcus Cousins to a place like Dallas more likely?
DONUT 8: What's the secret on Collison's QO? ...
Is it "the Mavs will let Collison go'' vs. "Dallas' qualifying offer on Collison is only $3.3 mil, so this is an easy decision''?
Nope. Both assumptions are wrong.
DB.com has learned exclusively that the actual QO on RFA Darren Collison is exactly $4,531,459 - a QO he'll never get. And yet the Mavs want to juggle Collison back onto the roster using a formula that includes the likes of Dwight Howard.
What's the secret on Darren Collison's QO and how does it involve Dwight? You've got to read our exclusive!
DONUT 9: Jumping The Shark ...
I know this applies to the Cowboys and the Mavs. I assume it applies to the Lakers and the Yankees and the Celtics and the Patriots ... but I KNOW it applies to the Cowboys and the Mavs:
By the time Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless get around to providing "insight'' into your teams' "issues,'' it's a signal that the topics have become jump-the-shark non-issues.
We do all realize this, right?
DONUT 10: Thanks to Red Rock! ...
Our North Dallas hangout for sports and live music? It's Red Rock Bar & Grill! They help make DB.com what it is ... thanks, guys!
DONUT 11: Bynum's Flamenco ...
Given that Andrew Bynum if flamenco dancing in Spain, I assume maybe his knees are going to be OK?
DONUT 12: The Final Word ...
The lone voter who opted for Melo on his MVP ballot rather than LeBron have every right to do so. But when he explains his selection by saying that Melo "made the Knicks relevant,'' he exposes the truth about East-Coast Bias. Using the sudden "relevance'' of a team as the basis of voting for a Mav or a King or a Hornet wouldn't work.
Why should it work for voting for a Knick?