good move for amare,he wont be asked to do much and can get easy open dunks with rondo in PnR = B

solid move for the Mavs - they really needed a front court player that could defend to take the load off of tyson chandler = B- 


i still thought that the Spurs would be a better fit considering he wouldnt have to play much minutes and they could hide him better defensively

I don't think Amare will help Dallas. Another large negative on defensive end alongside two large negatives in Dirk and Villanueva. Dallas desperately need a big man who can play defense while Tyson Chandler rests. Amare is not that player.

Their interior defense is shambolic without Tyson. I hope Dallas is planning on Amare backing up Dirk at PF and are continuing to look for a shot-blocking backup center to play alongside Amare.

I don't think Amare will help Dallas. Another large negative on defensive end alongside two large negatives in Dirk and Villanueva. Dallas desperately need a big man who can play defense while Tyson Chandler rests. Amare is not that player.

Their interior defense is shambolic without Tyson. I hope Dallas is planning on Amare backing up Dirk at PF and are continuing to look for a shot-blocking backup center to play alongside Amare.

It's not a bad move either. They got him for a yr w/ the vet min. Their bench needs any type of help it can get. I don't think this was suppose to be a homerun move.

I never liked the system of buy-outs and then contenders getting quality players at the minimum. It a cheapens the league.

I never liked the system of buy-outs and then contenders getting quality players at the minimum. It a cheapens the league.

I guess I can see where you're coming from if you value roster-building as the most important aspect of the league.

I like armchair GMing as much as the next guy, but personally I think that the real competition is between the 10 guys on the court at any given moment, and if you're a fan of good basketball, the ideal scenario should be that the best 240 players make the playoffs (16 teams, 15 players each).  Obviously this isn't possible because of the cap, but veteran buyouts get us closer to that ideal and that can only be a good thing for the basketball on the court.

Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on February 17, 2015, 09:30:30 AM

I never liked the system of buy-outs and then contenders getting quality players at the minimum. It a cheapens the league.

I guess I can see where you're coming from if you value roster-building as the most important aspect of the league.

I like armchair GMing as much as the next guy, but personally I think that the real competition is between the 10 guys on the court at any given moment, and if you're a fan of good basketball, the ideal scenario should be that the best 240 players make the playoffs (16 teams, 15 players each).  Obviously this isn't possible because of the cap, but veteran buyouts get us closer to that ideal and that can only be a good thing for the basketball on the court.

Unless you have the best team in the league acquiring premiere talent in the league at the cheap and in-season. Thankfully, Dallas is not that.

These buyouts all they do is circumvent player value and salary cap. Player has the money from the buyout, so he can go to a team on the cheap, circumventing the salary cap in all but in name.


There should be some rules in place for a real salary cap hit and also reduce the freedom of a player after he's bought out, at least when it occurs during the season. Let him become  a free-agent during the next off-season.

Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on February 17, 2015, 11:02:55 AM

Quote from: e4e5sesame on February 17, 2015, 10:47:41 AM

Quote from: BudweiserCeltic on February 17, 2015, 09:30:30 AM

I never liked the system of buy-outs and then contenders getting quality players at the minimum. It a cheapens the league.

I guess I can see where you're coming from if you value roster-building as the most important aspect of the league.

I like armchair GMing as much as the next guy, but personally I think that the real competition is between the 10 guys on the court at any given moment, and if you're a fan of good basketball, the ideal scenario should be that the best 240 players make the playoffs (16 teams, 15 players each).  Obviously this isn't possible because of the cap, but veteran buyouts get us closer to that ideal and that can only be a good thing for the basketball on the court.

Unless you have the best team in the league acquiring premiere talent in the league at the cheap and in-season. Thankfully, Dallas is not that.

These buyouts all they do is circumvent player value and salary cap. Player has the money from the buyout, so he can go to a team on the cheap, circumventing the salary cap in all but in name.


There should be some rules in place for a real salary cap hit and also reduce the freedom of a player after he's bought out, at least when it occurs during the season. Let him become  a free-agent during the next off-season.

I get that it's not particularly fair.  What I'm asking is why should that matter?  I think that sometimes people get too caught up in the "meta-game" - the game behind the game that takes place in front offices - instead of the actual game itself.

I'm not taking aim at you personally, but it just saddens me that people don't want to see the best possible talent on the court in the postseason.

How is it not fair?  A player being bought out still has to clear waivers.  So lesser teams have a chance to claim the player assuming they have cap space and are willing to take on the player's contract.  Once a player is bought out, they are a free agents and can sign with any team.  So a lesser team still has a chance to get the player if they are willing to pay enough.