Game 8: Toronto Raptors (4-4) vs. Dallas Mavericks (6-2) | 127-116 loss

[omahen]

How Mavs could have used the Bertans TE, if they would still have it:
- GW trade (they had to pay SA to take Bullock as matching salary)
- Strus was SnT for a salary that would match into TE
- PJ Washington would match into TE

---

Those 2 examples you mentioned:

O'Neal cost the Nets a 1st and Boston had to give 2 2nds for Fournier. The Mavs can't be liberal with their draft assets for marginal upgrades. Which if a team is literally giving away a guy for a TPE and a pick, it'd be for a marginal upgrade.

Of course they would have to pay someone. But how do you think will they trade Holmes? There is no one in the league willing to pay 25 mil for a third string centre, unless you are taking back equally bad contract. Which contract would be equally bad but interesting for Mavs?

[ItsGoTime]

Biggest problem with a TPE is it can’t be combined with other salary. Otherwise it would be the single greatest asset to have. As is, it’s tough when the guy you want and they’re willing to give’s salary is just out of range.

[omahen]

Sellers are usually teams that are starting a rebuild. Unless it is a young player with an upside, these teams prefer zero salary back than some vet on whatever contract, especially multiyear. So it is pretty much clear, that you will pay less assets (or have a better chance of actually getting the player), if you offer zero salary back.

I am fully aware about TE limitations. Still, it doesn't mean it is not a good asset.

[ItsGoTime]

How Mavs could have used the Bertans TE, if they would still have it:
- GW trade (they had to pay SA to take Bullock as matching salary)
- Strus was SnT for a salary that would match into TE
- PJ Washington would match into TE

---

Of course they would have to pay someone. But how do you think will they trade Holmes? There is no one in the league willing to pay 25 mil for a third string centre, unless you are taking back equally bad contract. Which contract would be equally bad but interesting for Mavs?

Yep, if the salary matches the TPE for the player, the TPE is a trump card that is more desirable than expiring salary.

[SleepingHero]

Of course they would have to pay someone. But how do you think will they trade Holmes? There is no one in the league willing to pay 25 mil for a third string centre, unless you are taking back equally bad contract. Which contract would be equally bad but interesting for Mavs?

Some bad, yet interesting contracts I think Holmes could be used for in matching salary:

Jerami Grant, Gordon Hayward, Julius Randle, Nikola Vucevic

Of course whether or not any of these teams are interested in turning their long term money into Holmes is another question.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

We’re gonna have to wait another year until Holmes and THJ are expiring.

[omahen]

Some bad, yet interesting contracts I think Holmes could be used for in matching salary:

Jerami Grant, Gordon Hayward, Julius Randle, Nikola Vucevic

Of course whether or not any of these teams are interested in turning their long term money into Holmes is another question.

First of all, Holmes contract is not a match for any of the players listed. Secondly, none of the teams where those guys play is urged to trade them for any reason, unless some assets are involved. Grant might be paid a lot, but he is also a very good player. Portland doesn't need to sell him for a bunch of bad salaries. Why would they do that? It will take assets. Probably not a lot, as his contract is big, but still. Hayward is expiring and way better player than Holmes. Knicks are not trading Randle for Holmes... The only way he is traded if he is in a deal for a star they look for, imho. Vucevic will be traded only, if Chicago decides to tear it up. Even then, they will not take far worse player without significant assets going their way.

[SleepingHero]

First of all, Holmes contract is not a match for any of the players listed. Secondly, none of the teams where those guys play is urged to trade them for any reason, unless some assets are involved. Grant might be paid a lot, but he is also a very good player. Portland doesn't need to sell him for a bunch of bad salaries. Why would they do that? It will take assets. Probably not a lot, as his contract is big, but still. Hayward is expiring and way better player than Holmes. Knicks are not trading Randle for Holmes... The only way he is traded if he is in a deal for a star they look for, imho. Vucevic will be traded only, if Chicago decides to tear it up. Even then, they will not take far worse player without significant assets going their way.

I understand Holmes alone could not be used in a 1 for 1 swap. I didn't say that and I'd assume you'd follow my logic. I said his salary could be used in matching purposes, meaning he can be apart of a package deal to acquire these guys.

Of course it'd take additional assets. I'm not arguing that Holmes as an asset is good enough for any of these guys by himself. That's folly. I am arguing though that Holmes+additional assets is going to bring  a greater return than if the Mavs just kept the TPE and  did a TPE+additional assets trade. Mostly because you cannot combine the TPE with anything to bring back a greater salary AND the Mavs got Omax as well. 

Whether or not any of these teams would sell on their guys remains to be seen. There were rumors that CHA wanted to buyout Hayward over the summer. Knicks and Randle are not having a good time right now. Every passing day CHI comes closer to blowing it up and their own fans don't believe they could get anything of major value for Vucevic.

[omahen]

I understand Holmes alone could not be used in a 1 for 1 swap. I didn't say that and I'd assume you'd follow my logic. I said his salary could be used in matching purposes, meaning he can be apart of a package deal to acquire these guys.

Of course it'd take additional assets. I'm not arguing that Holmes as an asset is good enough for any of these guys by himself. That's folly. I am arguing though that Holmes+additional assets is going to bring  a greater return than if the Mavs just kept the TPE and  did a TPE+additional assets trade. Mostly because you cannot combine the TPE with anything to bring back a greater salary AND the Mavs got Omax as well. 

Whether or not any of these teams would sell on their guys remains to be seen. There were rumors that CHA wanted to buyout Hayward over the summer. Knicks and Randle are not having a good time right now. Every passing day CHI comes closer to blowing it up and their own fans don't believe they could get anything of major value for Vucevic.

I am sure some of those players might become available. Hayward example - it is more beneficial for them to just cut him instead of taking long term bad salary. They trade him if someone offers asset(s). I don't see Vucevic and Randle fit here.