The funny thing is that talent-wise, this wasn't really all that lopsided of a trade Gooden for Haywood is about equal, and Butler for Howard is somewhat equal (except for Howard's spotty health the past year and a half). It's a big move, but I'm not sure the Mavs really got all that stronger. (well, they probably did get a bit better if only because they now have two fairly decent centers they can rotate come playoff time.
A wise team doesn't depend on a player who in his contract year finally puts up good numbers. Also, Steve Blake had career #'s last year..how's that working out this year?
Josh Howard career: 15.3 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 45.4% fg (but all of those numbers are down this season) Caron Butler career: 16.7 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 44.1% fg (this season he's around his career average, except for fg%, which is down) With Brendan Haywood for Drew Gooden, the Mavericks improved their defensive depth and gave up some scoring punch. But as Minstrel suggested - is Haywood that much better than Dampier? No. Overall, I'd say it makes the Mavericks slightly better on paper. But we'll see how these players actually work out, once they're on the floor with Dirk and company. As a Blazer fan, I'm not suddenly more worried about Dallas.
The key here is if Butler fits in well and takes shots at a more efficient rate. Playing off of Dirk may come in handy for Butler and if he doesn't necessairly try to be the man, but be a key second guy behind Dirk, then I become worried about Dallas when they come to town.
You can say that about any trade. "If he just happens to be a much better fit and somehow gives more production than their respective careers suggest, Dallas is better." There's no particular reason to believe that that will be the case. Howard is just as much of a complementary near-star as Butler. It's not like Howard was an alpha dog that couldn't play well alongside Nowitzki. And Howard's defensive rep (granted, defensive rep and defensive ability are not always well-connected) is better than Butler's. I think this is largely shuffling deck chairs. Large deck chairs, granted, but I think the gains for Dallas, if any exist, are marginal rather than significant. Now, if Butler gets back to career norms and Howard doesn't...win for Dallas. But it could as easily go the other way.
The only way this could have worked is if it were for Butler and Heywood alone The Blazers could have sent Blake, Travis, Howard and Joel. Joel would have had to agree to a wink, wink deal that would have had him opt out and the Blazers re-sign him next season for the mid level. Can you go multi years with that contract? Either way, I think if KP had been aggressive last season when he had the "best trade chip in the history of the league" we could have easily had both. Another Taurean Green for Von Wafer, or Ike Diogu for Michael Ruffin deal will be a real letdown
You can feel free to think that, but Washington supposedly wanted Batum/Fernandez and, in actual fact, got Josh Howard, a player just as good as Butler, back. Your claim that it would have taken nothing but cap space to get both is not supported by anything.
I love how because those salaries matched up that it's obviously something that had to have been offered and we refused. If you were Washington, who would you rather have? A crappy PG, a player who might not play this year, an old player (albeit, solid) and potentially someone who might never play again or what Dallas offered you?
Washington got expiring contracts. Howard and Gooden won't be on that team next season. It was a pure salary dump.
By the way, the wink-wink you mentioned with Joel: Washington would have had to be included in it, since the logical thing to do for Joel is to opt in to his final year, and there goes 7(?) million back on the books for the Wiz for next year. No way they do that. And I bet the Blazers wouldn't wanna lose 3 first round picks for pulling shit like that.
Haywood is an actual 7 foot center who averages 10/10/2 while Gooden is a PF playing out of position who averages 9/7/1. It's an upgrade. This trade has made the Mavericks a better team.
But the thing is, you are assuming that the Wizards would've been ok with just trading Haywood and Butler, and not (as they did with the Mavs) including Stevenson. Plus, if I'm Joel, I don't opt out of 7 million guaranteed, even if there's some magical "wink wink" deal (which is stupid to do on both Portland and Joel's case, especially considering he's not healthy yet and it could cost them both huge fines). It's doubtful that Joel, at his age and coming off of this injury, will get anything close to the 7 million he is owed next year. I doubt he'd get much more than a 3 year, 10 million dollar deal. I'd take my 1 year 7 million, and test the waters next year. And while he's not the end all be all, I'm not sure trading Howard and his vet presence is such a smart thing. For a rent-a-center who is finally producing in his contract year (why isn't that sending up red flags to anyone else?) and a player who is having arguably his worst year (and worse per 36, or barely better than the players we have now). I'd do the trade if it was Blake and Outlaw and maybe Webster, but Washington wouldn't. People have to remember that just because we can come up with trade ideas on trade checker, doesn't mean they were actually trade offers or that it makes sense (financially and team wise) for both sides.
washington got rid of 15 million dollars from next years salary. we could not have done that for them. what they SHOULD do is now swing howard and/or gooden for MORE savings/picks, since they are both expiring. and they likely will.
Haywood is putting up a 16.3 PER (compared to a 15.5 PER for his career). Gooden is putting up a 16.4 PER (compared to a 16.5 PER for his career). Their positions aren't that relevant because Haywood's value will mostly be aiding depth (he's only slightly better than Dampier) just as Gooden was mostly just depth. It's a bit of an upgrade on defense, which may or may not be neutralized by dealing the better defender Howard for Butler. If the Mavericks are a better team, it's only marginally better.
