(07-05-2022, 08:25 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: Maxi is a very important glue guy.  He IS a Jack of all trades here, which makes some think he isn't as valuable as he really is.  Maxi is one of the reasons we make it to the WCF last year.  His versatility is SO important to this team.  He isn't just filler in a trade and if he goes, we won't replace what he does easily.  This team needs defense - it can't get to where we all want them to go without ADDING players who play D, while still being able to spread the floor and provide support to the offensive side of the ball.  Guys like Maxi/Bullock/DFS are proven cogs in our system.  Hopefully Green gets to that level soon.  We aren't going far without them.  That's why other teams want them and why guys like Thybulle are being shopped.

(07-06-2022, 08:13 AM)Dundalis Wrote: There's no such thing as a glue guy who can't be replaced. Successful teams do it all the time. I've never seen Mavs fans overrate their own players like I have during this off season and we didn't even win a championship or make it to the Finals.

We could replace all those players you mentioned with a bunch of other NBA role players of varying quality and still make it just as far next season as we would with them. Because of Luka. Not the glue guys. Other role players bring different strengths, they might be missing things our role players have, but bring other important things they don't have. Bottom line is pretending they are 'special' because they are ours as though they are in any way irreplaceable is blinkered thinking that's sounds more emotional based than rational. Role players that bring things that good teams (and even bad teams) all across the NBA deam important are dime a dozen common. 

(07-06-2022, 08:13 AM)Dundalis Wrote: As for the talk about Simmons, as an Australian who's followed Ben's development since he was a kid, I wouldn't touch him, maybe not even for free. His problems are myriad, highly psychological, and elements of it have clearly been there since he stepped into college at LSU. The bottom line is, IMO he's a deeply sensitive individual, who's ego is so fragile that I could very easily see him retiring from basketball the second he does something that warrants heavy criticism from fans or media if he even steps onto the court again, which isn't even certain. He doesn't have the right mentality to deal with adversity which is a shame, but it is what it is.

(07-06-2022, 08:25 AM)Smitty Wrote: Very bold opinion. Thanks for sharing! IF the Mavs were to trade for him I hope they go above and beyond behind the scenes. Another KP like swing and miss could be the beginning of the end for Luka and the Mavs.

(07-06-2022, 08:13 AM)Dundalis Wrote: There's no such thing as a glue guy who can't be replaced. Successful teams do it all the time. I've never seen Mavs fans overrate their own players like I have during this off season and we didn't even win a championship or make it to the Finals.

We could replace all those players you mentioned with a bunch of other NBA role players of varying quality and still make it just as far next season as we would with them. Because of Luka. Not the glue guys. Other role players bring different strengths, they might be missing things our role players have, but bring other important things they don't have. Bottom line is pretending they are 'special' because they are ours as though they are in any way irreplaceable is blinkered thinking that's sounds more emotional based than rational. Role players that bring things that good teams (and even bad teams) all across the NBA deam important are dime a dozen common. 

(07-06-2022, 09:09 AM)mvossman Wrote: I disagree that you can just throw random role players and they have the same impact.  We went through Delon Wright and Josh Richardson who clearly didn't fit and are currently making similar salaries to guys like Dorian, Bullock and Maxi.  I also think folks sometimes underrate roster continuity.  Its not that the guys who fit can't be replaced, its that sending them out in a trade for a player that potentially does not fit is likely to be a net loss.

(07-06-2022, 09:09 AM)mvossman Wrote: I disagree that you can just throw random role players and they have the same impact.  We went through Delon Wright and Josh Richardson who clearly didn't fit and are currently making similar salaries to guys like Dorian, Bullock and Maxi.  I also think folks sometimes underrate roster continuity.  Its not that the guys who fit can't be replaced, its that sending them out in a trade for a player that potentially does not fit is likely to be a net loss.

I also think folks overestimate how easy it is to acquire these replacement role players to begin with, especially for this FO.  Next offseason we will not have cap, our picks or the full MLE.  Its very difficult to add role players under those conditions.

(07-06-2022, 09:30 AM)Winter Wrote: I agree more with this post although I understand the Dundalis post. 

The players we have fit well into the system we've created, but most of our players can't create their own shot. Our players may not be as valued in another team's system because of that. We are a team of specialists (outside of maybe Doncic and Dinwiddie).

Roster continuity is one of those things the fan base values the least. All the imaginary trades are a by-product of that thinking.

(07-06-2022, 07:51 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: Tyler Dorsey?  Thoughts?   I am not very familiar with him.  He is a good shooter who played for a short term in the NBA for a while.   Do you think this is agent driven or is something there?

I would imagine this would possibly be an option if the Mavs did a 3 for 1 trade and in need of a shooter.   I have no idea if he can defend.


https://twitter.com/MavsFilmRoom/status/1544352668138831873

(07-06-2022, 10:05 AM)Dundalis Wrote: No one throws random role players in. You always target specific role players in trades or FA. There are going to be role players that don't fit. We literally had some on our roster last season. Every team has them. It's also possible that Wright and Richardson work a lot better under Kidd than Carlisle. There are plenty of things that the likes of Bullock, DFS and Kleber DON'T do that people are just straight up overlooking in favor of what they do well. IMO things they don't do contributed heavily to us losing to GSW just as much as things they do well helped get us there.

Roster continuity is important, but it's not nearly important as having the best players. It's not about one thing is important and the other isn't, it's a matter of how much relative value they have. Our role players and the chemistry they have are not more important than trying acquire better players if possible to put out on the court.


See to me this is one of the primary reasons we lost to Golden State. They had shot creators all over the place. Our team of 'specialists' got exposed, because the likes of Bullock DFS and Kleber have to have every shot they take handed to them on a silver platter or they are close to useless offensively. That's why Luka has to be so ball dominant, and also had to have someone like Brunson step into the starting lineup to take pressure off him having to be responsible for hand feeding all the guys he plays with that have zero shot creation ability. You can say we are just built that way, but I say we are that way by necessity and it's a sub optimal solution. On offense it's like Luka is playing with a bunch of hungry infants. Might be good to have some more adults to take the pressure off.

I think you could take role players with less defense but more shot creation and not lose a beat in terms of overall on court performance as just an example, though I understand not wanting to compromise on defense and I would agree with that. In fact having more shot creators could have the knock on effect of reducing Luka's usage AND not requiring that he have another primary ball handler on the court with him so he isn't completely gassed and playing on fumes in the 4th quarter all the time helping him be all round more efficient, even on defense (yeah he needs to get in better shape, but having a lineup full of spot up only shooters doesn't help, his usage is not a recipe for long term success or his long term health and longevity). Fans seem to be locked into the mindset of this is how our game style is setup around Luka and it requires the very specific set of skills the role players we have on the team possess or it might/will fall apart. Don't agree with that at all. There is a lot that is being currently compensated for in our game style and usage of players due to the inadequacies of the role players we have.

(07-05-2022, 11:58 PM)RDB Wrote: Edit:  I left the board because of the snarky comments of some posters, some of which are still here.  Having a dissenting opinion didn’t seem welcomed and I didn’t have the time or energy to mess with it.  I have remained a silent lurker and only chose to speak out now because I was getting frustrated that I wasn’t getting any value in following because iMO, it was becoming a non-creative echo chamber of hopelessness.  Which is a shame because there are so many knowledgeable folks here.  I don’t mean this to be harsh…just being honest with my opinion.

(07-06-2022, 11:50 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: I just want to say I'm glad you started posting and breaking up the homogeny of opinions. 

We need more of that and especially if it's harsh. I'm sorry you didn't feel like the vibe welcomed a variety of opinions, which is why I wanted to make a post to adamantly say you are 100000% welcome to say whatever you like regarding the Mavs. Seriously, just throw your stuff out there. I LOVE that there's been a new conversation because like you said it gets to the point where we can have a non-creative echo chamber running around in circles (*cough* Brunson debacle).

So thank you and hope you post more.

(07-05-2022, 11:58 PM)RDB Wrote: Edit:  I left the board because of the snarky comments of some posters, some of which are still here.  Having a dissenting opinion didn’t seem welcomed and I didn’t have the time or energy to mess with it.  I have remained a silent lurker and only chose to speak out now because I was getting frustrated that I wasn’t getting any value in following because iMO, it was becoming a non-creative echo chamber of hopelessness.  Which is a shame because there are so many knowledgeable folks here.  I don’t mean this to be harsh…just being honest with my opinion.

(07-06-2022, 12:46 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: I'm having a hard time remembering you from before, so maybe your first stint happened before I found this place (@Kammrath and the others tried to keep this version of the board secret from me forever - it worked for months, but I finally crashed the party). 

via GIPHY

(07-06-2022, 12:52 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Next time we will have to move the domain to a different country. Remove all traces on the old boards. Block search engines. And it probably still wouldn´t be enough...

(07-06-2022, 09:30 AM)Winter Wrote: Roster continuity is one of those things the fan base values the least. All the imaginary trades are a by-product of that thinking.

(07-06-2022, 10:41 AM)mvossman Wrote: My issue with all of this line of thinking is that guys that can create their own shot are wildly more expensive in FA and trades than guys that cant.  There are no trades where you can send out a Maxi or Bullock and get back somebody who can create.  Dorian is an elite 3&D player but only making 12 mil a year.  Your average bad defense shot creator is making closer to 20.  Brunson (who's on court value is not that much higher than DFS) is making over 25 mil.  I understand the desire to get more creators.  Its why I can't understand letting Brunson walk and not getting Dragic (if he was willing).  You just are not going to get it sending out 3&D guys.

(07-06-2022, 03:05 PM)Dundalis Wrote: Except... we literally just got one in Christian Wood for peanuts. Apparently if you believe the talk, there is no market for Collin Sexton, who is a far more gifted offensive player than Brunson IMO. I get he's a much more selfish type of scorer, but the talent is not really questionable. There are teams who actually have an overabundance of shot creators, which is in fact something you don't want too much of, and would prefer off ball shooters to balance it out. I get that shot creation is more valuable and therefore more expensive, but there are absolutely cases where you can even acquire players for under value, due to the roster makeup of other teams, or their need to shed contracts depending on their cap situation etc, so there will be opportunities to acquire what we need if we are smart enough. I fully expect that's what we are waiting for right now in terms of making more moves before the season starts.

It's not like Im saying our guys aren't valuable to us on court, but I'm just responding to all the invaluable talk in relation to our role players. No one is saying they should be traded for garbage. But saying it needs to be a slam dunk trade them for a superstar or they should be off limits in trade talk is just silly.

(07-06-2022, 04:36 PM)mvossman Wrote: Guys like Wood and Sexton are not available because of roster construction.  They are available due to red flags.  Don't think that is apples to apples comparison.  I'm curious how often two competing teams trade a 3&D player for a creator when said creator does not have red flags or is wildly overpriced?  Maybe it happens more than I realize?

I'm not saying our role players are untouchable, its simply that any trade proposed where I think "yeah, I would send him out for that" I look at it from the other team's perspective and don't think they would pull the trigger.

As an aside, hard disagree on Sexton vs Brunson.  They are different players offensively, but Sexton does not have Brunson elite mid range creation.  He is a higher volume scorer, but less efficient and much worse playmaker.  Add to that his almost Trae Young level defensively and selfish red flags, and I have no interest going after him.

(07-06-2022, 04:54 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: Sexton = Russell Westbrook starter kit

(07-06-2022, 04:36 PM)mvossman Wrote: Guys like Wood and Sexton are not available because of roster construction.  They are available due to red flags.  Don't think that is apples to apples comparison.  I'm curious how often two competing teams trade a 3&D player for a creator when said creator does not have red flags or is wildly overpriced?  Maybe it happens more than I realize?

I'm not saying our role players are untouchable, its simply that any trade proposed where I think "yeah, I would send him out for that" I look at it from the other team's perspective and don't think they would pull the trigger.

As an aside, hard disagree on Sexton vs Brunson.  They are different players offensively, but Sexton does not have Brunson elite mid range creation.  He is a higher volume scorer, but less efficient and much worse playmaker.  Add to that his almost Trae Young level defensively and selfish red flags, and I have no interest going after him.