Skip to content

Report: Mavericks would like to get Tyson Chandler back from Knicks

May 6, 2014, 5:38 PM EDT

New York Knicks v Brooklyn Nets Getty Images

You knew Mark Cuban was serious about breaking up the Mavericks the year after their championship when they let Tyson Chandler — the defensive anchor of their title squad — walk out the door all the way to the New York Knicks.

Now, they want him back.

Dallas’ makeshift roster won 49 games last season and showed some promise, but it also had some distinct needs. One is better rim protection on defense, Samuel Dalembert did the best he could but at this point that is only so much. So if the Knicks will talk trade the Mavericks will want in the conversation, reports Marc Stein at ESPN.

The most interesting whisper, at this early stage, is that the Mavs intend to be at the front of the line to try to reacquire Tyson Chandler should the Knicks make their defensive anchor available via trade. Letting Chandler go remains the most fiercely debated aspect of Cuban’s decision to break up the Mavs’ championship team, but word is they’ll indeed pursue what many will regard as an overdue reunion.

Chandler is owed $14.6 million next season and the Knicks, with Phil Jackson looking to retool a shaky roster, might be willing to move Chandler — but he’s going to want quality back. Jackson is not just going to dump the salary, he could hold on to Chandler all season, get good play out of him, and still save the money in the summer of 2015.

The Mavericks current roster is not filled enticing options to a rebuilding Knicks team. There could be draft picks involved but there would have to be a third team or other parts to get the Knicks to dump the salary. (Now, if you want Andrea Bargnani that salary they will dump, but Chandler still has value on the court.)

Still this is something to watch.

It’s also a sign that Dallas thinks they can win with core parts of this roster back and a few additions. Maybe. But it will not be easy in the very deep West.

  1. jamesk2465 - May 6, 2014 at 5:54 PM

    I always felt Tyson was the one guy the Mavs should of retained after that NBA Title.

    • apkyletexas - May 6, 2014 at 6:27 PM

      I did too, but he’s been injured a lot and never played up to that 2011 level again. So it probably wouldn’t have mattered.

      • mbuda732 - May 7, 2014 at 3:13 PM

        Oh, so his defensive player of the year award the next season after leaving Dallas was not playing up to that 2011 level again? Some people are brain dead that comment on here.

    • money2long - May 6, 2014 at 7:44 PM

      I’m sorry but I see this too many times and never say anything , but people all over always write should of , would of, could of . Yes that’s sounds right, but that’s not two words. It’s one. Should’ve. Could’ve. Would’ve. I want you guys to keep an eye out for how often people around you whether text or comments or social media or anything use the word of instead of the correct form. It’s not two words.

      • capya - May 6, 2014 at 8:31 PM

        You’re both wrong.

        It is actually two words: should have, could have, would have.

        The contractions should’ve, could’ve, and would’ve are, of course, acceptable.

      • money2long - May 6, 2014 at 10:13 PM

        Hahah I love you trying to be a smart a s s. Watch me turn the tables on your dumb self capya.
        What’s the reason he or anyone else writes should-OF ? Because the mistake the sound for the word should-ve. Not should-HAVE. HAHAH.

        Go ahead. Sound it out yourself and see if should-of , could-of or would-of sound like should -have or should’ve. Hahah. Ultimate smart a s s fail on your part. Nice try. Fool. Lol.

      • apkyletexas - May 6, 2014 at 10:47 PM

        Keep it up fellas. This may be the most amusingly idiotic grammar-nazi thread I’ve seen in quite awhile.

      • billtetley53 - May 7, 2014 at 8:31 AM

        I certainly hope money gives up on his ridiculous stance. He SHOULD HAVE a long time ago.
        I love it when someone puts themselves out there to make what they think is a great point, then look like a complete tool in the process,, because they are so wrong. Knowing money, he will continue ti fight the fight, whether he looks like a dope in the process or not.

      • money2long - May 7, 2014 at 11:03 AM

        Gotcha bill. I don’t like you anymore. Never knew u felt that way.

    • therealhtj - May 6, 2014 at 8:14 PM

      not at 4/60

      • lj312chicago - May 6, 2014 at 8:34 PM

        60% of the time…it works every time….

    • redbaronx - May 6, 2014 at 11:30 PM

      @jamesk2465 – Agreed. That was a real head scratcher! Out of all the guys they should have retained, Chandler was the one. Dallas might have had another title in them if they kept him.

      • bougin89 - May 7, 2014 at 9:33 AM

        I don’t think you’re giving Dirk enough credit for that title. He really propelled them to that ring. The Mavs repeat would have been improbable even if they kept Chandler but Dirk’s championship hangover was the real reason they weren’t contenders the last two years.

      • redbaronx - May 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM

        @bougin89 – I don’t think you read my post at all. I never said anything about how much credit Dirk deserved. How did you make this comment about Dirk?

        The comment was that Dallas should have kept Chandler. Period. Has nothing to do with how much recognition Dirk deserves. The point that was being made is that Cuban broke up the Mavs after their title to save money, and that out of all the people they got rid of the one they should have kept was Chandler.

        Try reading next time.

      • bougin89 - May 7, 2014 at 2:47 PM

        I did read it. The point of my comment was Chandler wouldn’t have made or break their team so why lock themselves into that roster(Chandler wouldn’t have tied up 15 millionish worth of cap space) if they were unlikely to repeat?

        Is that clear enough?

      • redbaronx - May 7, 2014 at 4:48 PM

        bougin89 – That still has absolutely nothing to do with your comments about “Dirk not getting enough credit”. I didn’t say anything about Dirk. That’s A.

        B) The point that you’re missing about resigning Chandler was that (as I said and others are saying on here) that Chandler is the one piece they should have kept while letting go of Jason Terry and co. so that they could have a core to reconstruct for the year after their championship while still avoiding the cap hit.

        Is that clear enough?

      • bougin89 - May 7, 2014 at 5:17 PM

        Yeah, The Mavs winning the title and talking about what they should have done after that title has nothing to do with Dirk…. my bad…

        Secondly what I’ve been trying to convey(apparently not clear enough) is that I disagree Chandler would have made much of a difference for them the last two seasons. Not resigning Tyson (in hindsight) appears to have been the right move considering Dirk’s championship hangover. The second half of last year was the first time Dirk was “back” so to speak. Without Dirk playing well the Mavs aren’t even close to contenders so he is relevant to the conversation. You do agree with that, right?

      • redbaronx - May 7, 2014 at 5:29 PM

        @bougin89 – Yes in hindsight with Dirk’s “bahamas” phase and his year injured, resigning Chandler might not have served the purpose.

        With that being said, championship teams are really hard to build. It’s been three years since Dallas won, and I think if Cuban were looking ahead he would have said to himself “Here’s the guy that I want to keep so that in two or three years I can compete for a ring again”.

        Cuban has a bad habit of clearing the roster to make room for Free Agents that are not going to sign in Dallas. (Shaq, LeBron) He’s done this twice now, and due to that he’s lost Nash previously and now Chandler.

        It’s so difficult to get the right key players in the NBA that if you don’t make the right calculation, you can ruin your team’s chances for years.

        In my humble opinion Cuban should have kept Chandler and cleared out the other high payroll players like Jason Terry and started getting young and athletic. Instead he tried to rebuild a roster full of vet household names well past their primes (Matrix, Vince Carter, etc.) with no vision and just to plug holes.

        It’s a shame that Dirk has to end his career this way. You look at the Spurs and you say to yourself “what could the Mavs have done to keep them relevant and in the hunt for rings”.

        Chandler was that move and if the Mavs did what the Spurs did they would have looked for value in the draft and taken that two year window to collect good talent just like the Spurs have done with Green, Leonard, and others.

        Cuban doesn’t believe in building through the draft as his history suggests, and again, its sad because I think Dirk should be wearing more rings.

      • bougin89 - May 8, 2014 at 9:09 AM

        I totally understand that angle and agree with it. My thing is at the time Chandler had such a deep injury history that it was tough to give him that much money. They would have had to buy high and hope he stays healthy. That’s why I don’t think Cuban kept Chandler. Reportedly he offered him a 1 year 22 million dollar contract. He’s not afraid to spend he just didn’t want to tie himself to Chandler long term.

      • redbaronx - May 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM

        @bougin89 – Either way, it’s academic. At this point I don’t think there’s anything Dallas can do to get back into contention before Dirk goes off into the sunset, and getting Chandler back from NY would be a band aid at best. Dallas was lucky to get good seasons out of Marion and Carter. I doubt that will repeat next year. They might as well just blow it up.

      • bougin89 - May 9, 2014 at 9:44 AM

        Agreed. Calderon, Marion, Carter, Ellis at this stage of their careers aren’t a good enough supporting cast to contend.

  2. saint1997 - May 6, 2014 at 6:07 PM

    Maybe a 2014 draft pick (if they have one), Calderon for the Knicks PG needs and yeah I don’t know who else could make this deal palatable. Perhaps the salary dump means Phil would pursue Greg Monroe – he could fit very well in a triangle offence

    • kinggw - May 6, 2014 at 6:14 PM

      Even if they dealt Chandler, the Knicks don’t have money to pursue anyone unless they get rid of some more bad contracts.

    • cantonb0und13 - May 6, 2014 at 6:16 PM

      I don’t see Mavs trading Calderon for Chandler. But the Knicks should take any offer that gives them flexibility for Chandler.

      • cantonbound13 - May 6, 2014 at 9:20 PM

        No one cares what you think. You don’t even have an identity.

  3. jcrileyesq - May 6, 2014 at 7:31 PM

    sign and trade:vince carter and calderon for chandler

  4. campcouch - May 6, 2014 at 8:34 PM

    Why? He’s older,more expensive and has been injured. Cuban should have thought about that before dreaming of Dwight Howard and Deron Williams…hahahaha,Deron…that’s like Derrick and Ronald mashed together.

  5. billtetley53 - May 7, 2014 at 11:12 AM

    Money, its all in fun. Dont take me too seriously. Im just messing with you.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Why can't Lakers have a player-coach?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. T. Warren (5089)
  2. L. James (4478)
  3. K. Love (4007)
  4. D. Rose (3674)
  5. C. Anthony (2813)
  1. K. Bryant (2718)
  2. R. Allen (2623)
  3. J. Nelson (2441)
  4. B. Griffin (2171)
  5. C. Boozer (2012)