06-26-2021, 08:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2021, 08:07 PM by dynamicalVoid.)
(06-26-2021, 06:52 PM)F Gump Wrote: "does the Mavs MBT (maybe former MBT at this point) ideology about young players and winning in the NBA conflict with developing youngsters? "
1 This is a very reasonable idea, that for the most part, they just don't think developing GL players into NBA players is important.
2 If that's it, and if it permeates throughout every level, then it's not that they don't want to develop players, but rather that they think there's a better way to amass talent.
3 As a side note, if what you theorize is true, then wouldn't it have some relation to their miserable draft results over the years, especially when drafting outside the top 10 - ie, they don't want to spend the time and resources there.
4 If this is the how and why, it has to be the philosophy of someone at or near the top of the food chain. But some of that has top level has now been changed.
So if you think this has been the cause for the Legends inability to help the Mavs, then with these leadership changes, do you think
a) it's been a problem but has now been fixed,
b) it's been a problem but these changes didn't fix or improve anything, or
c) it has not been changed but it was the right approach all along, and doesn't need fixing.
a) From what I read, Nico is the go to guy at Nike. He is all about finding talent...probably as early as middle school...he should know some basketball players that people are talking about/he personally has gone and watched play. I would assume he knows of undrafted talent to bring to our G-League team or that he talks to players that know of good players that have for whatever reason not been offered G-League contracts. Not educated enough to know if its been a problem and no clue if its been fixed.
b) How can we tell if new guys have fixed anything? Not enough time has passed.
c) I read this board to try and learn. I have no clue if the "all about vets" ideology is the right one for a contender...or lottery team. I understand the contender argument...but I dont know if trading all draft assets for vets when contending is the right path or not. It certainly makes sense...but can it backfire? And if so...how far back can it put a franchise? I dont know if its been changed or not, if it was the right approach or if it needs fixing...Im not an insider with enough information. The contender argument is pretty strong...along with trading non-lottery picks for proven talent. But...how far back can it set a franchise? Or a franchise that cant get free agents?
I asked in a previous thread about if the ball club leans too much on analytics.(I am not anti-analytics by any means) As in...do we chase numbers and percentages too heavily? I think our players have some serious flaws other than Luka. Pretty much every team I watch has guys that can dribble the ball/create for them selves...we lack this. Were we looking at numbers first instead of seeing if they are basketball players first? Should we chase basketball players that also check all the numbers boxes? IMO, you cant have a bunch of non-offensive players...players that cant play basketball other than shoot. Is the ideology flawed?
Maybe we need to find basketball players with good numbers and develop players in some capacity.
To answer your question:
I dont know what to think. I have no clue what they are doing.