(02-01-2022, 08:11 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: For starters, Kennard is younger, shoots better and handles better than Tim. We don't know when Tim will return or what he will look like, so there certainly is a need for now.
That is all true, but it doesn't change the fact that Tim is still here on a four year deal. This was my point. It makes sense to bring Kennard if Tim is going out. If Tim is here, Bullock makes more sense than Kennard. I don't agree about the tradeable contract part. Mavs have roster full of those "tradeable contracts", which are never considered as assets in reality. No team is trading us a "Collins" for a "Maxi". Besides, I think expiring Bullock will be much more tradeable contract than Kennard with 2 more years on his deal.
(02-01-2022, 08:11 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: But, I can't find a realistic PF that fits the parameters of this thought exercise. PF's in the financial range I'm thinking of are Kuzma, C. Wood, Covington, Warren, T. Young, Markkannen and Bertans. Bagley and Nance fit within the TPE, but are in the same zip code financially.
I think most names mentioned make more sense than another guard/wing. I think Bagley doesn't fit in the TE (TE 10.9 mil, Bagley 11.3 mil). Based on my valuation of where Mavs as a team are, I don't think it makes sense spending assets on expiring Covington, Warren and T.Young. At least RoCo and Young would be likely great on this team, but I doubt they bring enough. Bertans is useless. I doubt Markkanen and Kuzma are available (certainly not cheaply). Wood is the only one that would make me wonder if Mavs could make a step further by getting him.
(02-01-2022, 08:11 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: Any BIG deal requires KP going out or unlocking picks (which probably means Brunson going out)
What is BIG? Imho Mavs don't have ammo for top talent and I doubt that will change in the summer. But they might have ammo for the likes of Grant. The question of course is, if he is good enough for an all in move.