+- MavsBoard (https://www.mavsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Boards (https://www.mavsboard.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Dallas Mavericks and the NBA (https://www.mavsboard.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Trade & FA 2025-26: Free Agency Starts 5pm CST/6pm EST (/showthread.php?tid=3856)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Ghost of Podkolzin - 06-18-2025
(06-18-2025, 02:37 PM)Chicagojk Wrote: I actually think I agree. Christie needs to continue to grow, but I really think sans Kyrie Mavs want to be a tall/long/physical team. For that I am not sure Sexton is a fit. Although maybe it is better evening out the roster a tad. Just not sure.
My pipedream... Dyson Daniels
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Jym - 06-18-2025
(06-18-2025, 02:44 PM)Ghost of Podkolzin Wrote: My pipedream... Dyson Daniels
need to work on finding the next Dyson for pretty much nothing
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - F Gump - 06-18-2025
(06-18-2025, 02:11 PM)Winter Wrote: Martin, Christie, and Omax for Sexton and Utah's 21st pick. I'd give that some serious thought. You might find Clayton, maybe Coward ....or someone falls through the cracks.
"Martin, Christie, and Omax for Sexton and Utah's 21st pick. " --- I doubt the Mavs would be all that interested. Not a legal trade AND pushes the Mavs payroll almost 4M higher AND they would be committing almost 20M to a player who plays no defense whatsoever (when their roster approach is to prioritize players who help on BOTH ends of the floor). Sexton's utter lack of interest on the defensive end keeps me from being excited when his name comes up.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - F Gump - 06-18-2025
(06-18-2025, 03:05 PM)Jym Wrote: need to work on finding the next Dyson for pretty much nothing
Yes that would be great ...but DD has never been acquired for next to nothing.
He was a top 10 pick in 2022.
ATL targeted him as the key piece NO had to give up to get Murray as their much-needed lead guard. There was also a veteran contract filler (Nance) and 2 "First Round Picks!!!!" but they were more about PR than an expectation of real quality.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - SleepingHero - 06-18-2025
(06-18-2025, 05:14 PM)F Gump Wrote: Yes that would be great ...but DD has never been acquired for next to nothing.
He was a top 10 pick in 2022.
ATL targeted him as the key piece NO had to give up to get Murray as their much-needed lead guard. There was also a veteran contract filler (Nance) and 2 "First Round Picks!!!!" but they were more about PR than an expectation of real quality.
I don’t think Jym meant finding THE Dyson Daniel’s for next to nothing, but rather find an up and coming unknown talent in the mold of Dyson for next to nothing.
Tre Johnson from Chicago is on my list. Way smaller, but fantastic set up guard and defender.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Chicagojk - 06-18-2025
https://x.com/andyblarsen/status/1935430536681680943?s=46
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - ACMFFL - 06-19-2025
Is it possible for incentives in a player's contract to cause their total compensation to exceed the maximum allowable extension amount?
I mean, could we legally offer something like this to PJW: 4y/88M + 15% in LBT?
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - DanSchwartzgan - 06-19-2025
(06-18-2025, 02:11 PM)Winter Wrote: Martin, Christie, and Omax for Sexton and Utah's 21st pick. I'd give that some serious thought. You might find Clayton, maybe Coward ....or someone falls through the cracks.
I tried to look around and see what others are saying. I think the most realistic deal I saw was Gafford/Hardy for Sexton/#43. Gafford would potentially go to a third team with assets coming back to Utah (though it could also be Kessler going out and Gafford staying).
I like the shooting touch of the Stanford center if he's still there at #43.
I think if we never had Gafford on the Mav's and heard that Washington traded him to Utah for Sexton that we'd think that was a good deal for Washington. In other words, we tend to assign more value to him because he's ours. He works hard and seems to be a likeable guy. But, just like Sexton, Gafford isn't closing games in the playoffs. If AD and Lively are healthy, there is probably a 14 minute backup center role on this team in the playoffs.
I think it would be difficult to play Kyrie and Sexton together (but easier than playing Gafford and Lively together). To be fair, if Kyrie is healthy, the Sexton role is probably a similar 14-16 minutes (with some possibility of a little bit of overlap in the middle of each half that might take the role to 22 minutes). But, Kyrie isn't healthy to start the season. We need the 3 point shooting and we need the steady hand creating some perimeter offense until February.
I think I would do a deal involving Gafford. I see he and Sexton as among the best backups at their positions in the league. But, I think you are not going far in the playoffs if either is your starter. We have answers without Gafford at center. Right now, we don't have answers without someone like Sexton.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Winter - 06-19-2025
(06-19-2025, 08:36 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I tried to look around and see what others are saying. I think the most realistic deal I saw was Gafford/Hardy for Sexton/#43. Gafford would potentially go to a third team with assets coming back to Utah (though it could also be Kessler going out and Gafford staying).
I like the shooting touch of the Stanford center if he's still there at #43.
I think if we never had Gafford on the Mav's and heard that Washington traded him to Utah for Sexton that we'd think that was a good deal for Washington. In other words, we tend to assign more value to him because he's ours. He works hard and seems to be a likeable guy. But, just like Sexton, Gafford isn't closing games in the playoffs. If AD and Lively are healthy, there is probably a 14 minute backup center role on this team in the playoffs.
I think it would be difficult to play Kyrie and Sexton together (but easier than playing Gafford and Lively together). To be fair, if Kyrie is healthy, the Sexton role is probably a similar 14-16 minutes (with some possibility of a little bit of overlap in the middle of each half that might take the role to 22 minutes). But, Kyrie isn't healthy to start the season. We need the 3 point shooting and we need the steady hand creating some perimeter offense until February.
I think I would do a deal involving Gafford. I see he and Sexton as among the best backups at their positions in the league. But, I think you are not going far in the playoffs if either is your starter. We have answers without Gafford at center. Right now, we don't have answers without someone like Sexton.
You point out a couple of things I haven't thought about concerning the rotation. I do generally agree that Sexton's assets outweigh his weaknesses for me (at least on this Mavs team as constructed). That's why I find him more useful here. Probably more usefull than Gafford as long as he is not forced into too many minutes. It seems to me both Gafford and Sexton suffer from a similar problem - the more minutes they play, the more their weaknesses are exposed.
I still have difficulty giving up Gafford for Sexton and #43. I wish it were some other configuration of a trade, but I suspect that's fair if I'm being honest. The only problem with the trade for me is that it has the feeling of something very short term.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Smitty - 06-19-2025
For me, trading Gafford for any of the better guards we've talked about is almost less about Gafford, and more about the AD frontcourt problem. IF Lively and Gafford are on this team, it makes AD the full time "PF", and he's just not a good enough shooter from the mid-range or three to be next to another non-shooting Big. I get that he thinks he's best with another Big in the lineup, but he really needs to get over that. Adding the number 1 pick changes things.
Some think Lively is too good to bring off the bench, but I don't really care if he starts or not. AD is a better Big than he is, period. Lively will get his ~20 MPG regardless.
One thing to keep in mind, in the Kidd era the starting 5 usually only plays 10-12 MPG together. It's a tone setter though, and I just think starting the game with a Flagg/PJW/AD frontcourt is the best way to go. Trading Gafford ultimately signals to me that the FO and coaching staff would move that way.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - FireNicoHarrison - 06-19-2025
Like i said months ago AD has a mediocre midrange game and he is a bad 3points shooter, if he plays full time PF we can win at high level. That's it.
At this point trade Gafford& Lively for a couple of good PG&SG, sign a Jaavale McGee for 15minutes a game and our bigs rotation is ok.
Otherwise trade AD. I prefer this option of course.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Ghost of Podkolzin - 06-19-2025
Oh, we definitely need a PG more than a C. That doesn't mean that you take less for Gaff. IMO Gaff >>> Sexton
OK, let's brainstorm. Who's the next Dyson Daniels?
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - myconsumerclub - 06-19-2025
https://www.tankathon.com/players/ryan-nembhard Kid gets lots of assists and hits 40% on 3 pointers.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Ghost of Podkolzin - 06-19-2025
(06-19-2025, 03:39 PM)myconsumerclub Wrote: https://www.tankathon.com/players/ryan-nembhard Kid gets lots of assists and hits 40% on 3 pointers.
Nembhart reminds me a bit of Brunson.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - KillerLeft - 06-19-2025
(06-19-2025, 09:43 AM)Winter Wrote: I still have difficulty giving up Gafford for Sexton and #43. I wish it were some other configuration of a trade, but I suspect that's fair if I'm being honest. The only problem with the trade for me is that it has the feeling of something very short term.
I actually think there's a world in which Sexton could play here much longer than Gafford. It's not guaranteed that they'd keep him after this season, but AD, Lively AND Gafford are not ALL going to be on this team much longer. I feel like I can guarantee that. Keeping Gafford is the short-term play, from my POV, unless you think they're likely to wake up at some point in the near future and decide to move one of those other two guys.
Hell, I'm not even sure they'll be able to pay Lively when the time comes, even if Gafford is gone by then. They have WAY too high a percentage of their resources tied into one position. I know AD can play the 4, but less so in the playoffs, and speaking of playoffs, I don't even know if Gafford literally GETS INTO those games as the roster stands. For me, it's easy to connect the dots from there to "he needs to be on a team that needs him more."
Meanwhile, The Mavs literally have two rotation-worthy guards on the roster, and one of them is going to miss 2/3 of the season, maybe more.
They have to do something, fellas.
EDIT, to veer back onto topic (sorry):
Do I think Gafford is better than Sexton? Idk, maybe.
But, I think acting like it's not a comparison worth making is overrating Gafford pretty significantly, tbh.
And, what Sexton does, handle the ball and score, is objectively valued more than what Gafford does. By the market, the rules, the pace and style of the modern game, the salaries...you name it.
AND, the Mavericks do not have a healthy lead guard on the roster. THEY HAVE THREE STARTING CENTERS.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - KillerLeft - 06-19-2025
If you can find a BETTER guard than Sexton to target, I'm all for it.
But, bending over backwards to keep insanely deep front court depth on the roster just because you're scared of some injuries seems insane to me when you're in a situation WHEN HEALTHY where you OBVIOUSLY don't have enough at other positions. Like, maybe AD gets hurt, and maybe Lively misses time. And yes, if they both miss time at the same time, you're going to feel that. But, they don't have starting guards RIGHT NOW, as healthy as they can possibly be IN TRAINING CAMP.
That's not a roster situation that works.
Sorry, everyone, but either Gafford or PJW has to go. Maybe both. That's just where it is. Yes, they're good players, but the guys playing ahead of them AT THEIR POSTIONS are better.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - KillerLeft - 06-19-2025
One more thought on this topic:
I doubt Nico Harrison looks at Sexton with much longing, given his stance on defense. But, there's a difference between a guy you wish was better, defensively, and a guy who at times quite literally refuses to even try on that end, choosing instead to lay on the floor for too long trying to get a call or to spend an entire defensive possession screaming at a ref about a call he didn't get 24 seconds ago. The latter is a type of player I can actually understand why you'd want rid of, even if their offensive game is mesmerizing. The former, well...I think every team is going to have 1-4 of those in their rotation, and that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
...which kind of brings me back to the idea that Austin Reeves should have been in that deal at the deadline, somehow.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Winter - 06-19-2025
(06-19-2025, 03:49 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: EDIT, to veer back onto topic (sorry):
Do I think Gafford is better than Sexton? Idk, maybe.
But, I think acting like it's not a comparison worth making is overrating Gafford pretty significantly, tbh.
And, what Sexton does, handle the ball and score, is objectively valued more than what Gafford does. By the market, the rules, the pace, the salaries...you name it.
AND, the Mavericks do not have a healthy lead guard on the roster. THEY HAVE THREE STARTING CENTERS.
That's pretty much the sum of where I am. Plus - and no one has mentioned this - Sexton is averaging 16-20 points a night, hit 40% on 3s last season and usually averages close to that every season....even when he's coming off the bench.
But he'll be a UFA in 2025-2026. Maybe that's not a problem but certainly something to consider given the salaries here.
On the other hand, do we really expect Klay and Exum to go the entire season injury-free? I rather doubt Sexton will be a luxury on the bench. Quite likely, he'll get at least as many minutes when Kyrie returns given the health of guards in front of him.
All this considered, I really think you have to look at that trade possibility.
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - Smitty - 06-19-2025
There are a few other guards that I'd prefer over Sexton. But are they available, if so, what's the cost? I agree that Gafford and Sexton probably have "similar value" around the league, and I'd argue Sexton for this team is more valuable than Gafford. Of course, if you're someone like the Lakers, hurting for Bigs, you'd value Gafford more, but we're not the Lakers.
What if you can get the 'Mark Williams package' from the Lakers and then use that to send something to Utah for Sexton?
DAL: Sexton, '31 FRP (Lakers)
LAL: Gafford
UTAH: Vincent, Knecht, Hardy, '30 FRP Swap (Lakers)
RE: Trade & FA 2025-26: - KillerLeft - 06-19-2025
(06-19-2025, 04:22 PM)Winter Wrote: But he'll be a UFA in 2025-2026. Maybe that's not a problem but certainly something to consider given the salaries here.
Sure, but IF they're going to give another big contract out, don't we think it should be to a GUARD, and not a center?
And if they can't, meaning choice of position is irrelevant, don't we think they should get something for Gafford now, while they can, even if it is just a rental? I mean, in that scenario, one could look at Gafford himself as a rental, in a way.
Tough to know without knowing what both players' next salaries will look like, but I just can't look at this roster without feeling like moving some of the committed salary away from center and spreading it around more efficiently is the move, especially now that the log jam has spread from center to FORWARD. I mean, we can talk about Flag playing guard if we want, but that's not where he's going to be great. Him being here means more AD at 5, not less. It just does. It probably also means less PJW and Naji Marshall in general, tbh, and possibly even less Klay Thompson. These can be "good problems" as long as the Mavs aren't in denial about any of it.