(08-26-2025, 12:37 AM)F Gump Wrote: Your comments said: "Do you think Kyrie at age 34 will still be in his prime? ... I don't think he will ever be what he was." -- and similar.

Why did I take from such comments the thought that you feel Kyrie will certainly have an extreme decline at age 34? Or that he will fall off the cliff at age 34? Or that he must be injured for life, then? 

Well, how about considering what your words imply are definitely coming for Kyrie. And then consider his baseline, and compare it -- in 2024-25 up to the injury, he was playing at an All-NBA level at age 33. And when we do that, my responses did speak squarely to your assertions.

If Kyrie's age 34 is bringing a player who is clearly NOT possibly going to be a prime-caliber player (the clear assertion of your question), and who will not EVER be what he was (your very words), how does he get there without his game falling off a cliff, since he was just as good as a player can be at 33? You have him going from All-NBA level of play, to a guy "out of his prime" (which is the common terminology for a guy whose game has taken a big step backwards and is fading), in just one year. That's not a small step. Nor is it a minor development for a player to NEVER get back to what he was (your words) after an injury break, and either that's falling off a cliff due to "age related decline" as you word it, or due to the idea he will never really recover from the injury ("injured for life"). 

Or else, of course, you might want to walk back what you said in the first place -- if you don't mean that, say something else. But if you meant it, then own the implications that come with it. 

I can go back and show the same thing on the rest of the things you raised. You make the claim, then when I run with it and speak to the idea and its clear implications, you claim you never said "that" and go even further to claim I am putting words in your mouth - even though "that" was exactly what your words conveyed. I would have dropped this a long time ago, but you keep pushing the claim I am putting things in your mouth, and nope not true at all.

(08-26-2025, 01:26 AM)mvossman Wrote: I don't find your arguments convincing.  I don't think people equate "not in their prime" to "falling off a cliff".

You also made a completely false statement: "and who will not EVER be what he was (your very words)".  These are not my words.  I said it was not likely.  You can't seem to make a response without doing something like this.

And you keep making the assertion that Kyrie was "just as good as a player can be at 33", and "playing at an All-NBA level".  What is that based on?  His numbers are down from previous years.  His TS% is down, his points, assists and assist rate is down and his turnovers and turnover rate is up.  Its not by a lot, but I don't see anything to suggest your two statements are accurate.

(08-26-2025, 02:29 AM)F Gump Wrote: Sorry, but 
1 A player going from an All-NBA level to out of their prime is indeed a major drop. Yes, I think Kyrie objectively played at that level last season until he was injured, and would have been selected had he not been injured. Why? He carried the Mavs all season, he was selected to the All-Star game, and he elevated his game even further after the trade. The fluctuations in the numbers were minor, he was one of the most clutch players in the league, and his efficiency shooting numbers were 48/40/92 which are stellar.
2 Nothing false at all in what I said. Or altering. Of course. Here you go again. I quoted you verbatim with quotation marks to lead off the post you are answering. It was cut-and-paste from your own post, which said "I don't think he will ever be what he was." I later below alluded to that comment of yours (this time without quotation marks) by using who will not EVER be what he was (your exact words) [which yes, those words in bold are exact word for word from the quote and convey its sense accurately] and now you want to claim that's not accurate? Good grief, what nonsense.

(08-26-2025, 10:03 AM)Jym Wrote: Maybe I'm just underestimating modern medicine but id fully accepted we'd never see pre-injury Kyrie ever again
Flashes of the past here and there but overall a noticeable drop off
Hopefully I'm wrong on that

(08-26-2025, 10:23 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: This is kind of where I am with it, too, but for me it's just as much about his age (and the fact that he's just gotten his golden parachute) as the injury. I guess the question is: to what extent will we notice a drop-off, and how quickly? Hopefully it will be a mild, slowly progressing drop-off, but I think it's only prudent to plan for the idea that he's about to begin a decline of some kind. 

Even without the age or injury, I don't think he's right for the role of "primary playmaker," nor was he ever, imho. His legend was born from an era in which he played next to LeBron James, and his strong play here came while playing with Luka. I'm skeptical about him as a PG, basically. I think he's much, much better as a secondary playmaker (his off-ball movement skills and IQ are his most underrated skill) and as an iso player in situations where his matchup is favorable (which will be far less frequent if he's the primary ball-handler).

If I KNEW Flagg was on a trajectory to play on-ball a lot, like Luka (but differently, of course), then I might have more hope for "window 1," and even without that knowledge I'm more hopeful than some, but I won't truly take this team seriously until we see that reality on the court or until a replacement for Luka is added. Part of me still thinks the best version of Flagg will end up being almost exclusively off-ball, and while that's more than ok with me, it does leave a sizable hole in how this roster is built.

(08-26-2025, 10:23 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: This is kind of where I am with it, too, but for me it's just as much about his age (and the fact that he's just gotten his golden parachute) as the injury. I guess the question is: to what extent will we notice a drop-off, and how quickly? Hopefully it will be a mild, slowly progressing drop-off, but I think it's only prudent to plan for the idea that he's about to begin a decline of some kind. 

Even without the age or injury, I don't think he's right for the role of "primary playmaker," nor was he ever, imho. His legend was born from an era in which he played next to LeBron James, and his strong play here came while playing with Luka. I'm skeptical about him as a PG, basically. I think he's much, much better as a secondary playmaker (his off-ball movement skills and IQ are his most underrated skill) and as an iso player in situations where his matchup is favorable (which will be far less frequent if he's the primary ball-handler).

If I KNEW Flagg was on a trajectory to play on-ball a lot, like Luka (but differently, of course), then I might have more hope for "window 1," and even without that knowledge I'm more hopeful than some, but I won't truly take this team seriously until we see that reality on the court or until a replacement for Luka is added. Part of me still thinks the best version of Flagg will end up being almost exclusively off-ball, and while that's more than ok with me, it does leave a sizable hole in how this roster is built.

(08-26-2025, 10:23 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: If I KNEW Flagg was on a trajectory to play on-ball a lot, like Luka (but differently, of course), then I might have more hope for "window 1," and even without that knowledge I'm more hopeful than some, but I won't truly take this team seriously until we see that reality on the court or until a replacement for Luka is added. Part of me still thinks the best version of Flagg will end up being almost exclusively off-ball, and while that's more than ok with me, it does leave a sizable hole in how this roster is built.

(08-26-2025, 11:28 AM)F Gump Wrote: MV, at no time did I ever try to cherry pick quotes. All your comments were similar to each other and said the same thing afaik. NOR DID I LIE ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID - those were indeed your exact words, just as I said and also quoted. If your wording differed slightly in one post vs another, do you expect me to research every post and do a dissertation on all of the content in all of them, just to quote you, as ALL of them really conveyed the same idea? That's absurd.

You KNOW I did not lie. I not only quoted your EXACT words that you cited and claimed I made up, but I even led off the post with a quote in quotation marks of your exact words too. Please stop with the ongoing BS that I am making things up, and then trying to nitpick ways to keep making that claim, as you KNOW I'm not.

As to Flagg .... yep, the sooner he develops, the better. From all accounts, he's been an incredibly fast learner and catches up to (and then excels in) the next level incredibly quickly. That's a major part of why he's so highly regarded. It makes for a very high ceiling that can come much quicker that it takes for others. I would think he will have plenty of opportunity to shine WITH Kyrie and AD before they one are moved or retire.

(08-26-2025, 01:40 PM)F Gump Wrote: MV, I think you were expressing your views, not what everyone does or does not think.

To rewind, the conversation started with your idea (as it appeared to read to me, anyhow) that the Mavs were headed for a failed, bad, going nowhere season  -- with the rationale that there was really no way around it because this, that, and the other WILL all go wrong. My paraphrase, of course.

You were asked if you couldn't see a better outcome that was in between but you said SINCE all of A, B, C, D etc WILL happen so as to be bad, there really isnt any path to a good successful season. It was your stance on the inevitability of all the various bad outcomes that I responded to.

Are you saying that I misread you and you actually do think there ARE possibilities that any, some, most, or even all of the various possibilities in player contributions, health, lineups, coaching choices, development etc this season could turn out positively rather than bad, and lead to a surprisingly fun season for Mavs fans? Or no?

(08-24-2025, 08:39 PM)mvossman Wrote: I have a hard time seeing a trade including AD or Kyrie that makes sense for both teams while Mavs are trying to contend (or that Nico would have any interest in trading one of his guys).  

I think Kyrie will miss most of the season and will likely never be fully back to what he was.  I think AD misses 20-30 games and Lively at least 30 games.  I think we should expect more injuries in general as the medical staff has gone from a strength to a weakness.

Kyrie is an elite Robin, but never really thrived in the Batman role.  I don't expect that to change when he is 34 and returning from a significant knee injury.  AD is a really good center., too bad he will be playing a lot of minutes at the 4.  Top rookie is cool, but historically that player is generally been no more than a decent starter.  Even Lebron needed a year before he took off.  There are exceptions (Luka, Victor) but given how young Flagg is, I don't think you should expect him to be one of them.

(08-26-2025, 01:40 PM)F Gump Wrote: MV, I think you were expressing your views, not what everyone does or does not think.

To rewind, the conversation started with your idea (as it appeared to read to me, anyhow) that the Mavs were headed for a failed, bad, going nowhere season  -- with the rationale that there was really no way around it because this, that, and the other WILL all go wrong. My paraphrase, of course.

You were asked if you couldn't see a better outcome that was in between but you said SINCE all of A, B, C, D etc WILL happen so as to be bad, there really isnt any path to a good successful season. It was your stance on the inevitability of all the various bad outcomes that I responded to.

Are you saying that I misread you and you actually do think there ARE possibilities that any, some, most, or even all of the various possibilities in player contributions, health, lineups, coaching choices, development etc this season could turn out positively rather than bad, and lead to a surprisingly fun season for Mavs fans? Or no?

(08-25-2025, 11:30 PM)mvossman Wrote: Its interesting, this take is actually more negative than mine, but you get a like while I get a 10 page scolding.

I actually think Kyrie will play at a higher level in two years then he will next year.  Guys come back from that injury perfectly healthy, but they don't trust the knee.  There are a lot of guys who talk about not really feeling right for a couple of months after coming back.

We are on the same page regarding as currently constructed, but what if they made a move in the neighborhood of Gafford plus assets for Derrick White?  Does that move the needle for you from a contention standpoint?

(08-26-2025, 05:01 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: You suggested Nico would never trade them if they were still in the window.  Maybe not but my point is he could trade them or even it Nico were gone the Mavs could still have tradeable veterans at some level in the next few years if they need the flexibility to make a change.  For example if you trade an AD or a Kyrie the returning player doesn't have be purely better than the one you send out, they could be simply a better fit at the time.

(08-26-2025, 07:31 PM)Benskix2 Wrote: I would be thrilled with that trade.  I'm not sure it would be enough to make them contenders, but I would like to find out.  But that's a lot of salary to add, and I don't know how you fill out the roster and avoid the super double secret repeater probation tax in 26/27.  That's a problem for the next GM though, I think I would do it.