Rumor: Mavs to waive Finley

July 2, 2005

Most of the articles I've seen require paying for a membership, but I've read at a couple of places that the Mavs could waive Michael Finley. Under the new CBA the Mavs could waive Finley and not have to pay a luxury tax on his remaining contract.

My opinion. I've been a Finley fan since the day the Mavs traded for him, back when he was the only player on the team. But his contract is too big for the production the Mavs have been getting from him, and if they can get out from under his contract it would be a wise business move. The team is getting younger and his vacated minutes would make room for more PT for the young guys, which is a good thing. It will be harder for me to see him in a different uniform than it was for Nash.

MeanGreenBuzz · July 2, 2005

Young is good but over rated in some cases. You can't forget the leadership and experience he brings the team. Its like what the Indians keep Julio Franco on the roster.

Coach · July 2, 2005

Young is good but over rated in some cases. You can't forget the leadership and experience he brings the team. Its like what the Indians keep Julio Franco on the roster.

I don't think they would release him because he is too old, it's all about his contract. He simply makes way too much for a one dimensional streaky shooting guard, which is what he has become. If he were to stay on the team, he would be a backup to Stackhouse, and it would be ridiculous to have a bench player earn that much. The Mavs won't be allowed to re-sign him, but almost every other team will cut an huge contract as well, and those guys will be on the market for much less than they would have been even last summer.

Don't feel sorry for Mike, he will get all his money plus a mid-level exception from a new team, he will be fine.

July 2, 2005

It isn't about feeling sorry for Fin. It is about loyalty as a fan ... and the dissappointment that a team won't see through a contract. If a player decided he no longer like the coach, or the owner and decided to sit out his final three years... it would make fans mad. Seeing the owner's decision to give up on a player (that is a fan favorite) is a disaapointment. Finley has showed nothing buy loyalty, hard work and professionalism. It is easy to disguise this as a business move .... but you must see those business moves through. Everyone knows that players aren't as good when they get older, why would they give him a contract to his 35th birthday?

Besides, look up the stats of Stackhouse. Look at this point production in the playoffs. Look at this shooting %. It isn't a given that Fin would back him up. He is just as old, sat out 33% of the season and proved to be more streaky than Finley. I can say that I watched *every* game last season ... Stackhouse didn't impress me too much. He had a couple good playoff games, but that was really it.

July 2, 2005

You will find no bigger Michael Finley fan than I have been since he first put on a Mavs jersey, but even I admit that he is getting paid way too much. I agree with Buzz in that he is a team leader and it will hurt to lose someone like him. He has been through it all with the Mavs and even carried the franchise on his back for a time. But if the players union passed the CBA with this stipulation in it, then it must be used to the team's advantage.

I would like to know more about this whole subject though since it would make more sense for the Mavs to waive Bradley now than to allow him to retire and still count against the cap. I wonder if it is a one time thing for one player only, or what? Being able to get rid of Tariq Abdul Wahad's $6,750,000 a year contract would be nice as well.

July 2, 2005

You will find no bigger Michael Finley fan than I have been since he first put on a Mavs jersey, but even I admit that he is getting paid way too much. I agree with Buzz in that he is a team leader and it will hurt to lose someone like him. He has been through it all with the Mavs and even carried the franchise on his back for a time. But if the players union passed the CBA with this stipulation in it, then it must be used to the team's advantage.
I would like to know more about this whole subject though since it would make more sense for the Mavs to waive Bradley now than to allow him to retire and still count against the cap. I wonder if it is a one time thing for one player only, or what? Being able to get rid of Tariq Abdul Wahad's $6,750,000 a year contract would be nice as well.

Tariq is paid by the Maverick's insurance -- since he is on the DL for medical reasons.

If Bradley retires, it will be with a medical retirement and that means his salary is covered by insurance too.

This doesn't make sense though... if you waive Finley, you will have to replace him with someone how averages 19 pts a season over his career.

That will cost you 8-10 mill a year. So the 50 mill you save on Luxury tax, you will just have to pay to someone else ... 32-40 mill for the next 4 years -- putting you just that much more into the red. You are still having to pay Finley HIS money. That is NEARLY what you will be paying with Finley still here. Instead, you get a wildcard with a new personality... The coaches now Fin, his game, the way he reacts to injuries, tight games, etc.

Waive Van Horn, he *is* the *highest* paid player on the Mavericks. Last season he made 16 mill and this year he is set to make 17 million. That gives you immediate relief salary-wise and gives you more roster room.

Edited July 2, 2005 by JohnDenver

Coach · July 2, 2005

Why would you use this *one time* exception on a player who's contract is up at the end of the year? You can suck it up for that one year, as opposed to three. That would be silly.

It isn't about feeling sorry for Fin. It is about loyalty as a fan ... and the dissappointment that a team won't see through a contract.

The Mavs will see the contract through...Finley will get all his money. It just won't count against the luxury while he is standing around the three point line. In fact, he will essentially be making more than the league max because he will have a new contract as well.

And I am a loyal fan, to the Mavericks (as far as the NBA goes), not to one player. That was tested because my favorite player was (and still is) Jason Kidd. After he was traded, the Mavs were still my team just like before, and Kidd was still my favorite player.

Releasing Finley will help the Mavs as a team. They will have less money due to the luxury tax, and move torward the kind of team AJ wants, which is a team that plays defense and takes the ball to the hole, two things Finley hasn't done in years.

Edited July 2, 2005 by Coach

July 2, 2005

Tariq is paid by the Maverick's insurance -- since he is on the DL for medical reasons.
If Bradley retires, it will be with a medical retirement and that means his salary is covered by insurance too.
This doesn't make sense though... if you waive Finley, you will have to replace him with someone how averages 19 pts a season over his career.
That will cost you 8-10 mill a year. So the 50 mill you save on Luxury tax, you will just have to pay to someone else ... 32-40 mill for the next 4 years -- putting you just that much more into the red. You are still having to pay Finley HIS money. That is NEARLY what you will be paying with Finley still here. Instead, you get a wildcard with a new personality... The coaches now Fin, his game, the way he reacts to injuries, tight games, etc.
Waive Van Horn, he *is* the *highest* paid player on the Mavericks. Last season he made 16 mill and this year he is set to make 17 million. That gives you immediate relief salary-wise and gives you more roster room.

Fact: Finley was the highest paid player on the Dallas Mavericks roster for 2004-2005. Van Horn was right there with him, making about $120,000 less. But the Mavs obviously didn't pay Van Horn his whole salary for last season either, since he wasn't a Maverick for the whole season.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/...=5&year=2004-05

Other than salary, there isn't much to compare between Finley and Van Horn. Van Horn is a 6-10 forward who creates mismatches for opposing defenses. Finley has turned into almost exclusively a 3 point shooter. Neither plays much defense. If we were talking about Michael Finley five years ago then I would be enraged that the Mavs would consider getting rid of him, but we aren't. Also, Finley has Stackhouse, Daniels, and Howard behind him who can play the same position as him and play it at a high level. So there would be really no need to go out and get another SG, or at least one who makes 8 or 10 million a season.

Personally, I would rather see the Mavs get rid of Van Horn before Finley. But I haven't heard any rumors about the Mavs waiving Van Horn.

I would also like some more information on insurance covering the salary of hurt players. Does it cover luxury tax for going over the cap? If not then it is not that huge of a factor since those players are still counting against the cap.

Greeneagle87 · July 2, 2005

I dont watch the games,but I used to be a big fan until last season,I quit watching,and even turned down free tickets, but I remember we had like 5 WAY overpaid players

Tariq

Bradley

Fin

Van Horn

VERY dissapointed when I heard about the can horn trade, Salaries suck.

July 2, 2005

I dont watch the games,but I used to be a big fan until last season,I quit watching,and even turned down free tickets, but I remember we had like 5 WAY overpaid players
Tariq
Bradley
Fin
Van Horn
VERY dissapointed when I heard about the can horn trade, Salaries suck.

Your list of the 5 players that are "WAY" overpaid contains 4 players.

Anyways, show me some teams in the league that don't have a few overpaid players. It's how things are in the NBA, and more players will get larger contracts than they should this off season too. But I don't see why you would care about this at all seeing as how you aren't a fan anymore and don't support the team.

July 4, 2005

Van Horn's contract expiring *is* the reason that you should use the CBA waiver.

1) He isn't going to around past this year (if that)

2) His contract isn't tradeable -- you will get nothing in return -- he will just walk away

3) His 17 million this next year will be for a guy coming off the bench and not allowing for our youth to be developed

4) He doesn't bring playoff experience.

5) He has been seriouslyl injured three times in two years

He is exactly what you want to waive. He isn't going to get us closer to a championship next year, and certainly not the year after when he is in another uniform.

The Mavs will still be paying the luxury tax one way or another -- that is my point. And Finley will be paid one way or another. Get the most out of your teams seconds leading scoring, two time all star, 5 seasons averaging 20+ per game, etc. etc.

Don't pay him not to play. Pay someone else who doesn't even play...

Work it out with Finley to wait until the 2006-2007 season and opt out of his contract to sign a smaller one.... in hopes of retiring a Maverick and winning a championship. Win-win.

Edited July 4, 2005 by JohnDenver

July 5, 2005

You make no sense. Expiring contracts are very easy to trade in the NBA, and I don't know why you would think otherwise. All the time players who have contracts expiring soon are traded for so after their contract is up it will free up cap space. Him just walking away is what teams want.

Since we are comparing Finley and Van Horn and you say that Van Horn's contract is not tradeable, you must believe that Finley's is more tradeable. Finley is going to be grossly overpaid for more than just one more year, unlike Van Horn. You also say that Van Horn being on the team will not allow for "our youth to be developed". And Finley getting 35-40 minutes a game will? The more playing time Finley gets, the less PT Daniels and Howard get. The more PT Van Horn gets, the less playing time Alan Henderson gets. Again, I don't understand your reasoning. You also use Van Horn's injury history against him, as if Finley's is better. Sorry, but Finley has missed 14 more games than Van Horn over the past 4 seasons. Finley used to be the NBA's Iron Man, but how you can count on him to miss 15ish games a season.

You seem to think that this is Michael Finley 5 years ago, or even 3 years ago. But he isn't. Basically all he does now is stand at the 3 point line and wait for someone to pass him the ball. Last season he posted lows in points, rebounds, and assists since he became a Maverick, and he still played 37 minutes a game.

Finley is a top 5 all time Maverick, but his long term contract, that is bigger than Van Horn's by the way, is hurting this team more than his on court play is helping it. It's hard to win championships when you can only offer mid level exceptions to free agents every year. Now if he will renogiate his contract to about half of what it is now, then great, keep him a Mav. Otherwise the team needs to do whatever it takes to take the next step, and it doesn't matter if a player is loyal or not.

July 5, 2005

You make no sense. Expiring contracts are very easy to trade in the NBA, and I don't know why you would think otherwise. All the time players who have contracts expiring soon are traded for so after their contract is up it will free up cap space. Him just walking away is what teams want.
Since we are comparing Finley and Van Horn and you say that Van Horn's contract is not tradeable, you must believe that Finley's is more tradeable. Finley is going to be grossly overpaid for more than just one more year, unlike Van Horn. You also say that Van Horn being on the team will not allow for "our youth to be developed". And Finley getting 35-40 minutes a game will? The more playing time Finley gets, the less PT Daniels and Howard get. The more PT Van Horn gets, the less playing time Alan Henderson gets. Again, I don't understand your reasoning. You also use Van Horn's injury history against him, as if Finley's is better. Sorry, but Finley has missed 14 more games than Van Horn over the past 4 seasons. Finley used to be the NBA's Iron Man, but how you can count on him to miss 15ish games a season.
You seem to think that this is Michael Finley 5 years ago, or even 3 years ago. But he isn't. Basically all he does now is stand at the 3 point line and wait for someone to pass him the ball. Last season he posted lows in points, rebounds, and assists since he became a Maverick, and he still played 37 minutes a game.
Finley is a top 5 all time Maverick, but his long term contract, that is bigger than Van Horn's by the way, is hurting this team more than his on court play is helping it. It's hard to win championships when you can only offer mid level exceptions to free agents every year. Now if he will renogiate his contract to about half of what it is now, then great, keep him a Mav. Otherwise the team needs to do whatever it takes to take the next step, and it doesn't matter if a player is loyal or not.

Fact: Don't be so brash -- not everything is a debate. There are not always RIGHT answer. You are like listening to Rush Limbaugh. Assumptions, placing words in peoples' mouths, firing from the hip about those assumptions and just being insulting.

I wasn't debating anything with you.

I was stating an opinion.

Keeping Finley is worthwhile. Getting rid of Van Horn is worthwhile -- his contract is tradeable to get more. He is worth MORE to us than letting his contract expire and leaving. Just an opinion -- don't type 500 words telling me I am wrong.

I didn't state anything beyond that. And that does make sense. I didn't say getting rid of Finley is the most terrible thing possible. I didn't say it didn't have advantages. I simply state that *I* *I* (one more time) *I* think we should keep him.

Got it?

I know highly paid players are traded when their contracts are expiring. That is *why* we got Van Horn. That is why we got Walker, that is why we have signed countless players over the years... I am well versed in that.

I don't assume Finleys contract is more tradeable -- your crazy assumptions are just that -- crazy.

I know that Finley's contract isn't very tradeable (yet). It is too long for too much money. I know that.

I don't think I said Van Horn's contract isn't tradable. Did I? I do post while drinking beer half the time...

If I want to be homer about Finley, that is my right. He should retire a Mav. His number should be in the rafters later. I didn't say he should keep playing 40+ minutes a game. I didn't say he shouldn't come off the bench as a 6th man.

However, I did say that he should play one more year at the high priced contract, opt-out and re-sign with a lesser paycheck to retire a Mav. How does that imply that I think he is still a top 20 player in the league and he is worth all that money?

I think it was shame that Emmitt was cast out of the Cowboys. I think it will be a shame when Finley is shown the door.

I hope when this does go down that he goes to the Heat and wins a ring next year.

I see your point. I hear it all the time. I have heard it for two years now. Trust me. I understand. I think there are ways around it.

Edited July 5, 2005 by JohnDenver

July 5, 2005

I don't think I said Van Horn's contract isn't tradable. Did I? I do post while drinking beer half the time...

I see. I typo'ed. Stupid suds.

He contract IS tradeable. We should get more than just letting him walk away.

July 5, 2005

JohnDenver, you need a much thicker skin if what I said got to you that badly. I posted my opinion, you quoted it stating how you thought I was wrong, and then you get defensive when someone replies to you stating how they think you are wrong. I was talking basketball and basketball only and meant nothing personal. And to say you didn't state anything beyond your opinion while trying to make me look like some kind of evil internet debater is quite funny. Usually when someone simply wants to state their opinion it doesn't take 5 posts in one thread, one of which has a numbered list in it.

Also, you get onto me by making assumptions, but what other conclusions should I have come to in a discussion that essentially was comparing Finley and Van Horn? You post things you consider to be negatives about Van Horn as a reason for waiving him before waiving Finley, when Finley's negatives are relatively higher in the same areas.

I'm sorry if I shot your argument to pieces and you had to fall back on accusing me of personal attacks. I respect your opinion that the Mavs should keep Finley over Van Horn, but I disagree with your reasoning as it can be turned around and used in favor of waiving Finlye instead of Van Horn.

Back to the basketball discussion, which I'm sad we had to take a detour from. I would also love to see Finley retire a Maverick. He is my favorite Maverick of all time. But we can't be sure that he will turn down the increasing amount of money he recieves as the Mavericks highest paid player and opt out to get paid less money. If we were 100% certain he would, which is a huge IF, then I would much rather see Van Horn cut than Finley. Otherwise the team needs to do what is necessary to free cap space in order to improve itself. Finley has been my favorite player since he joined the Mavericks, but if he has to be waived in order for the team to improve then I accept that because I am first and foremost a Mavericks fan.

Coach · July 6, 2005

It will be interesting to see where Finley goes, and if the Mavs can pick up another team's "cap casualty".

July 6, 2005

It will be interesting to see where Finley goes, and if the Mavs can pick up another team's "cap casualty".

e-bone, i do need thicker skin with you. this is true. i will work harder -- no joke.

you didn't shatter anything. i have a job, so i tend to read quickly and respond quickly.

when i was younger (high schoo and college), i would spend all night on BBSs and research, debate, argue and troll to piss people off in the name of academic debate.

you must be my karma. i don't have have the time, nor desire. i want to express an opinion and not have it picked apart. it wasn't a debate. you can't really shot someone's opinion to pieces when it isn't up for target practice. i hate bananas, you going to tell i am wrong for that?

so that is that.

i kind of hope the mavs pick up Eddie Jones from Miami. I like his style of play. He seems to be a nice guy too.

July 6, 2005

Like I said, I respect your opinion. Your reasoning was lacking though and when you replied to me saying why the Mavs should not cut Finley and instead cut Van Horn I replied back stating why I thought the opposite. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off and did not try to do such a thing. But you seem to find issue with everything I say, so I'm not surprised. I was having a good time discussing basketball as it is the most exciting thing to happen to this board in awhile.

Coach · July 6, 2005

I like Eddie Jones, he can play defense along with a little shooting.

I wonder what the going price for Nestorovich (sp) will be from the Spurs. If he isn't too expensive, he would be an OK backup center, but I wouldn't pay starter money for him.

July 11, 2005

I went through NBA rosters at the USA Today salary database and here are some players who might get cut to save money.

Knicks - Alan Houston(04-05 salary: $17.5 mill, contract through 06-07) Will save Knicks $40 million over next two years.

Jerome Williams($6.2 mill, through 06-07) Only if Knicks decide to keep Houston for some crazy reason.

Malik Rose($5.5 mill, through 07-08) Same as above.

Mavs - Michael Finley(04-05 salary: $14.6 mill, contract through 07-08) Will save Mavs over $50 million over next three years.

Keith Van Horn($14.5, through 05-06) Mavs will either keep KVH and use the cap relief themselves when his contract expires, or trade him to another team that wants cap relief in a year.

Blazers - Derek Anderson(04-05 salary: $8.5 mill, contract through 06-07) Abdur-Rahim and Stoudamire's contracts expired so they may not go over the cap. If they do, my bet is on Anderson to get cut.

Theo Ratliff($11 mill, through 07-08) Highly unlikely considering the demand for big men who can play defense.

Lakers - Brian Grant(04-05 salary: $13.2 million, contract through 06-07) One of the most overpaid players in the league.

Sixers - Jamal Mashburn(04-05 salary: $9.3 million, contract through 06-07) Will never play a full season again.

Heat - Eddie Jones(04-05 salary: $14.5 million, contract through 06-07) Way overpaid, but Heat might decide they need him for a championship run next season.

Raptors - Jalen Rose(04-05 salary: $14.5 million, contract through 06-07) Way, way overpaid and came off the bench last season. If the Raptors go over the cap, be assured Rose will get cut.

Rockets - Juwan Howard(04-05 salary: $5.5 million, contract through 08-09) Too much money over too long a period of time.

Celtics - Raef LaFrentz(04-05 salary: $9.7 million, contract through 08-09) Another huge Cuban contract.

Mark Blount($4.9, through 09-10) He doesn't get paid as much as LaFrentz, but the SportsGuy will tell you just how bad he is.

Warriors - Derek Fisher(04-05 salary: $4.9 million, contract through 09-10) What were they thinking when they offered him this contract?

Adonal Foyle($6.5 mill, through 09-10) Another horrendous contract, but at least he is a 7 footer.

Bulls - Antonio Davis(05-06 salary: $13.9) The one old timer on this young team is by far the highest paid player. They might not go over the cap, but if they do Davis is out.

Any team who projects to pay a luxury tax next season will cut someone, but those are the ones that really stood out to me. Obviously the biggest names who are likely to be cut are Houston and Finley as their respective team owners can just save too much money to pass this opportunity by.