(11-13-2023, 04:15 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Interesting. Would you want either? 

Man, there was a time I would have jumped at the thought of getting either one. Now? Not so sure.

(11-13-2023, 04:25 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Agree with both of the above statements.

Although...I'm leaving room for the idea that Kyrie is more helpful here than I anticipate (he has been, so far) and that at some point soon they get SO good that I'm won over to the "one move away" crowd. But yeah, I'd be open to moving him next summer (possibly in that one move, even) for sure. I just need to see this a while longer before I decide which direction to go, if I'm in charge, that's all. 

I definitely agree with the second statement above, I'm just not 100% sure a move MUST be made for this thing to keep moving forward at a brisker-than-expected pace, and I'm low-key aware at the same time that the WRONG move can grind this whole movement to a halt. Look at the damage of last year done by some combination of Wood/McGee entering the locker room and Brunson leaving it. Tough to quantify, but the mix of people in your locker room...the opportunity/competition quotient...these things seem to matter quite a bit.

(11-13-2023, 04:27 PM)omahen Wrote: They are certainly great 2-way players and basically exactly what Mavs need on both ends of the floor. But, they are getting old and will want another big contract. The obvious problem in past seasons was their availability and I would have far more certainty about George being available than Kawhi. It just doesn't look like his body can hold anymore. Definitely a very risky all-in move. On the other hand, Kyrie is not getting any younger either plus their role in Dallas would be quite comfortable with Luka/Kyrie handling the ball. Mavs could be selling a really good (the best?) big3 around the league as a commercial for a great option to get a ring. They would probably have a 2 year window to win it. 

I am with you that it would be a very difficult decision. It just seems like a very Cuban-like move.

(11-13-2023, 04:38 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Yeah, the thing with me lately (especially now that the Mavs seem to be both good AND young, simultaneously) is: do any of these old, household names still want to get it done? I think that's kind of a legit question. 

Are Kawhi and George still TRYING to play more games each year than they typically do, or are they just resigned to the idea that they'll use nagging injuries to get out of work a fair amount of the season and then start playing for real about two weeks before the playoffs? Because...yeah, they're great...but I'm not sure they're that great anymore. Know what I mean? 

I feel the same way about that PHX team. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't scare me. They'll probably be better than the Mavs this year, but I'd WAY rather be the MAVS than the Suns right now. Idk, maybe I'm alone in that. I just think we're witnessing a changing of the guard right now. I think that whole LeBron, KD, PG, Kawhi, Durant, Curry thing...it's kind of almost over. If I'm the Mavs I'm planning for after.

(11-13-2023, 04:38 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Yeah, the thing with me lately (especially now that the Mavs seem to be both good AND young, simultaneously) is: do any of these old, household names still want to get it done? I think that's kind of a legit question. 

Are Kawhi and George still TRYING to play more games each year than they typically do, or are they just resigned to the idea that they'll use nagging injuries to get out of work a fair amount of the season and then start playing for real about two weeks before the playoffs? Because...yeah, they're great...but I'm not sure they're that great anymore. Know what I mean? 

I feel the same way about that PHX team. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't scare me. They'll probably be better than the Mavs this year, but I'd WAY rather be the MAVS than the Suns right now. Idk, maybe I'm alone in that. I just think we're witnessing a changing of the guard right now. I think that whole LeBron, KD, PG, Kawhi, Durant, Curry thing...it's kind of almost over. If I'm the Mavs I'm planning for after.

(11-13-2023, 04:38 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Yeah, the thing with me lately (especially now that the Mavs seem to be both good AND young, simultaneously) is: do any of these old, household names still want to get it done? I think that's kind of a legit question. 

Are Kawhi and George still TRYING to play more games each year than they typically do, or are they just resigned to the idea that they'll use nagging injuries to get out of work a fair amount of the season and then start playing for real about two weeks before the playoffs? Because...yeah, they're great...but I'm not sure they're that great anymore. Know what I mean? 

I feel the same way about that PHX team. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't scare me. They'll probably be better than the Mavs this year, but I'd WAY rather be the MAVS than the Suns right now. Idk, maybe I'm alone in that. I just think we're witnessing a changing of the guard right now. I think that whole LeBron, KD, PG, Kawhi, Durant, Curry thing...it's kind of almost over. If I'm the Mavs I'm planning for after.

(11-13-2023, 12:31 PM)Jason Terry Wrote: Kelly Olynyk makes some sense with Holmes outgoing if he doesn’t prove useful

(11-13-2023, 04:05 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: I understand this point from your perspective...just not sure I share your perspective. 

For example, I think at this point, the choice in the road is: should we (the Mavs) care about getting something done before Kyrie turns 34? My answer would be no, I think. 

Look how much better this all looked RIGHT AWAY, the second they stopped making (their version of) short-sighted moves. It's a little ironic, but them stepping back and playing for the future just a bit has actually made the team better RIGHT NOW. I would keep going that direction, not change course, but I admit it gets a little tougher to sell when it's possible to delude ourselves into the idea that this team could compete this year. I still don't believe that will be the case, but I'm sure that camp has more people joining as time goes by. 

I just think I'd want to get to the bottom of Lively, Green, Hardy and O-Max before I SPEND ASSETS and burden my cap for players similar to them. That's all. I'm in no hurry, and in fact, I think hurry is the surest way to mess this up.

(11-13-2023, 04:05 PM)KillerLeft Wrote:  
Look how much better this all looked RIGHT AWAY, the second they stopped making (their version of) short-sighted moves. It's a little ironic, but them stepping back and playing for the future just a bit has actually made the team better RIGHT NOW. I would keep going that direction, not change course, but I admit it gets a little tougher to sell when it's possible to delude ourselves into the idea that this team could compete this year. I still don't believe that will be the case, but I'm sure that camp has more people joining as time goes by. 

(11-13-2023, 06:22 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I'm enjoying this conversation.  I do want to challenge the bolded statement.  Being better this season is probably mostly the result of trading for Kyrie.  It feels really good that they turned the #10 pick into two younger assets (and didn't trade it for some over-the-hill star).  It feels good that our MLE level signing isn't some 30 year old.  But, Kyrie is the biggest difference and he probably falls in the win-now category more than he does "playing for the future" catagory...no?

Not directed at you necessarily as many people throw these terms around, but could someone come up with a definition for terms like "true contender" and "Championship Caliber" and the like.  Where do we need to finish to be a true contender?  We got to the final four a few years ago and people then said "yeah, but...".  Would final four this year with two stars be enough to warrant true contention.  Do you have to make the NBA finals to make a win-now trade worthwhile?  This kind of matters to these conversations IMHO.  If one thinks we are a 9 seed and a good trade might get us to 6, that is far different than someone who thinks we are a 4/5 seed and a good trade might get us to 2.

I think we end up vying for 4th/5th seed as constructed.  Making the West Finals would be dependent on matchup.  So, similar to 21-22.  If we made a trade (call it Grant) and it cost us 2027 unprotected, but that probably ensured a WCF appearance.  Is that good enough to be "true"?  What is the line where it is OK to give up a pick and an asset?  What is the line where it is pick, but not one of the kids?

(11-13-2023, 06:22 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I'm enjoying this conversation.  I do want to challenge the bolded statement.  Being better this season is probably mostly the result of trading for Kyrie.  It feels really good that they turned the #10 pick into two younger assets (and didn't trade it for some over-the-hill star).  It feels good that our MLE level signing isn't some 30 year old.  But, Kyrie is the biggest difference and he probably falls in the win-now category more than he does "playing for the future" catagory...no?

Not directed at you necessarily as many people throw these terms around, but could someone come up with a definition for terms like "true contender" and "Championship Caliber" and the like.  Where do we need to finish to be a true contender?  We got to the final four a few years ago and people then said "yeah, but...".  Would final four this year with two stars be enough to warrant true contention.  Do you have to make the NBA finals to make a win-now trade worthwhile?  This kind of matters to these conversations IMHO.  If one thinks we are a 9 seed and a good trade might get us to 6, that is far different than someone who thinks we are a 4/5 seed and a good trade might get us to 2.

I think we end up vying for 4th/5th seed as constructed.  Making the West Finals would be dependent on matchup.  So, similar to 21-22.  If we made a trade (call it Grant) and it cost us 2027 unprotected, but that probably ensured a WCF appearance.  Is that good enough to be "true"?  What is the line where it is OK to give up a pick and an asset?  What is the line where it is pick, but not one of the kids?

(11-13-2023, 06:22 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I'm enjoying this conversation.  I do want to challenge the bolded statement.  Being better this season is probably mostly the result of trading for Kyrie.  It feels really good that they turned the #10 pick into two younger assets (and didn't trade it for some over-the-hill star).  It feels good that our MLE level signing isn't some 30 year old.  But, Kyrie is the biggest difference and he probably falls in the win-now category more than he does "playing for the future" catagory...no?

Not directed at you necessarily as many people throw these terms around, but could someone come up with a definition for terms like "true contender" and "Championship Caliber" and the like.  Where do we need to finish to be a true contender?  We got to the final four a few years ago and people then said "yeah, but...".  Would final four this year with two stars be enough to warrant true contention.  Do you have to make the NBA finals to make a win-now trade worthwhile?  This kind of matters to these conversations IMHO.  If one thinks we are a 9 seed and a good trade might get us to 6, that is far different than someone who thinks we are a 4/5 seed and a good trade might get us to 2.

I think we end up vying for 4th/5th seed as constructed.  Making the West Finals would be dependent on matchup.  So, similar to 21-22.  If we made a trade (call it Grant) and it cost us 2027 unprotected, but that probably ensured a WCF appearance.  Is that good enough to be "true"?  What is the line where it is OK to give up a pick and an asset?  What is the line where it is pick, but not one of the kids?

(11-13-2023, 06:22 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: If one thinks we are a 9 seed and a good trade might get us to 6, that is far different than someone who thinks we are a 4/5 seed and a good trade might get us to 2.

I think we end up vying for 4th/5th seed as constructed.  Making the West Finals would be dependent on matchup.  So, similar to 21-22.  If we made a trade (call it Grant) and it cost us 2027 unprotected, but that probably ensured a WCF appearance.  Is that good enough to be "true"?  What is the line where it is OK to give up a pick and an asset?  What is the line where it is pick, but not one of the kids?

(11-14-2023, 03:19 AM)omahen Wrote: In my opinion this core with even more improved Lively (every year of experience) and very good (if not elite) 2-way wing is a contender. I think that one player would put many guys in the correct role and perhaps create even better impact from certain players. But, he has to be the right fit for this team. I can't imagine how could you put much better rotation players on the bench, other than perhaps just tinkering around the edges for perfect players for specific roles. Mavs problem in all Luka years has always been just lack of top end talent. Too many decent players instead of a couple of great ones and a little lower number of decent ones. Mavs finally have an opportunity to nicely close a top end of the roster with imho just one correct move.

In any case, Mavs have imho about 2-year window with Kyrie. If one doesn't believe they can build a contender in this window, than he should start making plans about how a contender without Irving (or Irving in a reduced capacity and role) would look like. We would be suddenly dealing with a whole different puzzle to solve. 2-way wings are always good to have, but we would need to bring in another star to replace Kyrie. And these tend to be way more difficult to get.

(11-13-2023, 06:54 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: We're debating philosophical directions here, and they're important, I suppose. But, at the end of the day what's really important is that whatever they do needs to work. Those who want to see them foster the youth will probably come around if they make a splash trade and the guy fits in right away, elevating the team, and then wants to stay here medium-long term. Those crying for this piece or that piece right now will eventually shut up if the team keeps getting better at this rate. Basically, they just need to start winning the transaction game. Look how much more fun this all is after ONE FREAKING SUMMER of them operating like a quality front office. ONE SUMMER. Imagine them not throwing picks out like prizes taped under Oprah's chairs for...idk...three straight years! How great might this team be then?! What kind of trade will they have the ammo to pull off at that point?

(11-14-2023, 09:20 AM)surfpuckmd Wrote: Which 2-way wing would you target?  Also importantly, which teams do you think will be willing to trade good players during this season?

I think we can monitor the standings over the next two months to see which teams disappoint.  A few teams generally give up on their seasons in January and February, decide to tank and are willing to give up good players for assets. 

A few important caveats:  

Teams that don't own their own first round pick in 2024 will be less likely to sell off assets as they don't benefit from losing.

2024 looks like a relatively weak draft so the incentive to tank may be lower than normal.

Which teams do you think might become sellers in a few months?  Of those teams, which players do you think could help us?

I think the Bulls and Caruso are the best bet and best fit for our roster.  Caruso is probably the best defensive guard in the NBA.  Offensively, he is what we need-  low usage with solid efficiency.  I think he would be much more affordable than Anunoby and his contract is a bargain.  I believe our 2027 1st would be a reasonable offer.  I think our ideal trade would be Jaden Hardy and Richaun Holmes for Alex Caruso and Andre Drummond.  I really like Jaden Hardy's potential but it doesn't look like he's going to get consistent minutes here.  Caruso takes DJJ's starting spot and Drummond can be the situational backup center when we need rebounding and a big body.  That would give us a really nice 11-man rotation.  It would markedly improve our defense and rebounding.