Trade & Free Agency 2026/2027

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

Holland is a forward, a better defender, three years younger and less than half the cost of Kuminga.  Neither of them can shoot (although Holland is particularly bad).  I also worry Kuminga has some attitude issues.  If I were going to take a flyer on one of them, it would probably be Holland due to age and contract.  I do like Risacher better than both.

I think the one v. one comp is Holland vs. Risacher (considering they were both from 2024 and are, essentially, the same age), not Holland vs. Kuminga.

Edit: At the end of the day, the basic root of basketball is putting the ball in the basket. In other words, if you can't really do that, you really have to be pretty bad ass at other things. I just don't see that with Holland to see him like a McDaniels or, a Robert Covington.

[loki]

As much as I'd hate to help the Spurs, it would make a ton of sense for them to pursue PJ. They could probably beat OKC this year if he was their starting 4. They also have plenty of assets that would interest the Mavs.

Keldon Johnson works for salary matching, and Dallas could try to get their 2030 pick swap back. San Antonio also has picks like #20 in this draft and Atlanta's unprotected 27 FRP.

[F Gump]

I don’t see much ‘never-trade-Kyrie’ sentiment here.  I may be wrong, but the critique of the Kyrie ideas that have been thrown around seems more about the timing not being right (wait for a better return near the TDL).  But, more often, the criticism has been about the compensation not being enough.  I don’t want to argue pick equity.  Some teams can add picks to the frameworks mentioned…for instance, Detroit.  They have all sorts of pick equity.  But at some level the actual players matter more as many of the picks coming from Kyrie destinations are likely to be late firsts.

So, my question is, who is good enough in terms of the players coming back?  I feel like the goal is something that makes you better now (just not Kyrie ‘better’) and something that makes you better later (like a young unproven player or a likely lottery pick).  You can dress it up with some pick, but again, those aren’t likely to be huge difference making picks.  So, here is what I’ve seen at various places:

The Houston ideas probably have either Jabari/FVV or Jabari/R. Shepherd
The Detroit idea was Stewart, Holland, Filler
Any Minnesota idea is built around either McDaniels or Naz Reid with Beringer and Filler
There was an idea on another thread that added Garland and swapped 5 for 9

Who else?  I’ve seen Milwaukee mentioned, but I’m not sure that makes sense for either side.  

Miami?  Herro plus Ware?  
Orlando?  Suggs plus what?  
Phoenix?  Green plus Maluach?  
Toronto?  Quickly plus CMB?

There aren’t that many teams that are good enough to be a Kyrie destination who are also missing someone like Kyrie.  Who did I miss?  Who on that list moves the needle for those who haven’t liked the Houston, Detroit, LAC and Minnesota based ideas that have been mentioned?

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.

" I don’t see much ‘never-trade-Kyrie’ sentiment here.  I may be wrong, but the critique of the Kyrie ideas that have been thrown around seems more about the timing not being right (wait for a better return near the TDL).  But, more often, the criticism has been about the compensation not being enough" ---  True. And I would offer one more point about a potential Kyrie trade.

It's easy to forget, but when Kyrie got hurt, he was playing at an all-NBA level, without Luka for almost 2 months and carrying the offense. If he comes back fully healthy and 100%, he's going to have tremendous value to the Mavs, and also to teams who need THE FINAL PIECE to perhaps get them to the top. 

He also has a contract that is a tremendous bargain - like gold in a hard cap world - for an all-NBA contribution. 

The problem in the NBA is that windows to get to the top close quickly, so if you are fairly close but DON'T get the pieces you need to go up that final rung, you fall by the wayside. The payroll mushrooms, you have to shed talent, and you have to find someone else. If Kyrie's offense is what you need, he probably offers a 3 year window, maybe a bit more. 

The point being, I think some team who is on the next rung down from the top, might go all-in, with high value picks and future-value players (who aren't quite ready to help them now), to get Kyrie once he has shown he's at full speed again. That's the offer to hold out for. With some patience, I think the offers and the perception of value will go way up.

[F Gump]

I do see that sentiment.  I think there are a lot of folks that would not make a Kyrie trade in the offseason unless the Mavs are blown away.  Then at the TDL if the Mavs are hovering around 500 and threatening a play-in spot many of those same folks would be mortified at trading Kyrie for assets ("we could make the playoffs!").  It's not an overt never-trade-Kyrie, but effectively it plays out that way.  Its hard to trade away a fan favorite.

Your thinking that some have a never-trade-Kyrie sentiment is way off. You want to label it that way, because it's an easy target to claim that others aren't open-minded, but it's not what you claim it is at all.  

The pushback against trading Kyrie is NOT about Kyrie being a fan favorite per se (although he is) nor about a desire to never trade him necessarily, but rather against the idea that the Mavs MUST find a Kyrie trade, and accept "the best offer anyone makes" (whatever that may be), and that Kyrie has only minor value to the Mavs themselves, and that it's kinda now or never. 

In your mind, you assume a value that will go down-down-down. Some of us reject that, with very good reason. 

The reason why I wanted Presti so much is that he clearly understood the fallacy in that now-or-never mentality. The smart GM will wait until the price is right, and when you have a valued asset, the market will come to you. Teams NEED talent, and sometimes need it desperately. Being the one desperate to make a deal (gotta do it now), that's the formula for making a horrible deal (see Harrison, N.). I would hope Masai gets it.

[F Gump]

So, what happens in the summer when he opts out and wants a new three year contract for $100mm.  Honest question, because it’s coming.  If there is any potential destination that has cap room (or can get there), the return in any deal plummets.  Or, do we want to add two more years to Kyrie’s current deal?

Haven't we been hearing these doom-and-gloom comments over Kyrie's next contract for TWO times already, and each time it turned out to be total nonsense? In fact, the general consensus each time (after lots of alarming predictions of how Kyrie's deal was about to wreck the Mavs payroll, or force him out of town) was that Kyrie left lots of money on the table. 

If Kyrie is in a place where he wants to be, I don't think future contracts will be a crisis at all.

[hakeemfaan]

Your thinking that some have a never-trade-Kyrie sentiment is way off. You want to label it that way, because it's an easy target to claim that others aren't open-minded, but it's not what you claim it is at all.  

The pushback against trading Kyrie is NOT about Kyrie being a fan favorite per se (although he is) nor about a desire to never trade him necessarily, but rather against the idea that the Mavs MUST find a Kyrie trade, and accept "the best offer anyone makes" (whatever that may be), and that Kyrie has only minor value to the Mavs themselves, and that it's kinda now or never. 

In your mind, you assume a value that will go down-down-down. Some of us reject that, with very good reason. 

The reason why I wanted Presti so much is that he clearly understood the fallacy in that now-or-never mentality. The smart GM will wait until the price is right, and when you have a valued asset, the market will come to you. Teams NEED talent, and sometimes need it desperately. Being the one desperate to make a deal (gotta do it now), that's the formula for making a horrible deal (see Harrison, N.). I would hope Masai gets it.

Agreed.

We all know that the Lakers, if they have to move on from Luka, will get much more than the Mavs did.  At least the bar is low there.

I said the day we sent AD to the Wiz, that the Wiz GM will get more for AD than what we got for him. It might change if AD refuses to suit up and forces his way out, but else, I do believe the Wiz GM will get more. 

If you have the most talented player in the deal and they are not forcing your hand, then don't force your own hand needlessly.  Everyone is talking about Coop's timeline.  Maybe Coop would love the Mavs more if he played with AD and Kyrie for a few years.   Just rushing to get some middling picks and hoping they will pan out to fit Coop's timeline might do more damage as he asks for a trade a few years from now, playing with a bunch of middling rooks, when he has played with top talent at Duke and at the pre college level. I'm not saying don't make moves, but just don't assume getting a bunch of youngsters and hoping to hit on one will make Coop stay or will definitely mean a better future around Coop.

[dirkfansince1998]

Haven't we been hearing these doom-and-gloom comments over Kyrie's next contract for TWO times already, and each time it turned out to be total nonsense? In fact, the general consensus each time (after lots of alarming predictions of how Kyrie's deal was about to wreck the Mavs payroll, or force him out of town) was that Kyrie left lots of money on the table. 

If Kyrie is in a place where he wants to be, I don't think future contracts will be a crisis at all.

Considering that every time someone mentions a potential trade target you bring up their future contracts it's fair to do the same when it comes to Kyrie's future in Dallas. You mentioned that you wouldn't be comfortable paying someone like Garland near max money. Why aren't we applying the same logic to Kyrie?
How about some numbers instead of vibes and nostalgia. What would you be willing to pay Kyrie? How many years?

[dirkfansince1998]

Your thinking that some have a never-trade-Kyrie sentiment is way off. You want to label it that way, because it's an easy target to claim that others aren't open-minded, but it's not what you claim it is at all.  

The pushback against trading Kyrie is NOT about Kyrie being a fan favorite per se (although he is) nor about a desire to never trade him necessarily, but rather against the idea that the Mavs MUST find a Kyrie trade, and accept "the best offer anyone makes" (whatever that may be), and that Kyrie has only minor value to the Mavs themselves, and that it's kinda now or never. 

In your mind, you assume a value that will go down-down-down. Some of us reject that, with very good reason. 

The reason why I wanted Presti so much is that he clearly understood the fallacy in that now-or-never mentality. The smart GM will wait until the price is right, and when you have a valued asset, the market will come to you. Teams NEED talent, and sometimes need it desperately. Being the one desperate to make a deal (gotta do it now), that's the formula for making a horrible deal (see Harrison, N.). I would hope Masai gets it.

Holding on to a player for too long is also going to result in a horrible deal. That's the Masai special. Bottom line is that mvossman's take when it comes to Kyrie's value is more in line with the one that we are seeing outside the Mavs bubble. He would trade him for what seems to be a realistic offer if we compare it to recent trades (KD, Harden, Kyrie to the Mavs). That's not about making a trade just for the sake of it. That's simply him not being as high on Kyrie as you are.  
If you don't want to trade him that's fine. The Mavs don't have to trade him in the offseason but the decision has to happen sooner than later. Only one more year of team control left.

[F Gump]

Considering that every time someone mentions a potential trade target you bring up their future contracts it's fair to do the same when it comes to Kyrie's future in Dallas. You mentioned that you wouldn't be comfortable paying someone like Garland near max money. Why aren't we applying the same logic to Kyrie?

LOL who is ignoring K's contract? Not me!

I agree that G and K future deals impact value. I would not want to be forced to pay max to either. I think G would demand it or walk, and K will not.

Previously (both times) with K the doomsayers told us it was a dire situation, as K was in position to hold the Mavs hostage for 5 yr max deal. Did he? No. He took far less each time. The last time (he was playing great), he even agreed to a decrease and only 3 years, to help the payroll and roster building.   

As long as he is in a place he wants to be, I don't expect his contract to be an issue. And right now it's a very reasonable contract at well below the max, one that any team would love to have.

[F Gump]

Holding on to a player for too long is also going to result in a horrible deal. That's the Masai special. Bottom line is that mvossman's take when it comes to Kyrie's value is more in line with the one that we are seeing outside the Mavs bubble. He would trade him for what seems to be a realistic offer if we compare it to recent trades (KD, Harden, Kyrie to the Mavs). That's not about making a trade just for the sake of it. That's simply him not being as high on Kyrie as you are.  

If you don't want to trade him that's fine. The Mavs don't have to trade him in the offseason but the decision has to happen sooner than later. Only one more year of team control left.

" If you don't want to trade him..." --Keep him? Good. Trade him? Good. Just looking for the BEST path forward.

But I do reject the alarmist assumption that it's now or never, sooner not later, "only one more year" to get the best value for him, and that such value is via a trade that needs to happen this summer to be any good. 

Some team will likely come along EVENTUALLY with an offer that's too good to refuse, but I don't think we are on a short-term countdown and I think he will be very valuable to have on this team for as long as they can keep him (which I see as ending on the day they get the offer that's too good to refuse). If his contract runs out, I don't see a problem. Sign him again. I think his skills will be valued (by the Mavs themselves, or someone in desperate need of offense) for quite a few more years.

[dirkfansince1998]

LOL who is ignoring K's contract? Not me!

I agree that G and K future deals impact value. I would not want to be forced to pay max to either. I think G would demand it or walk, and K will not.

Previously (both times) with K the doomsayers told us it was a dire situation, as K was in position to hold the Mavs hostage for 5 yr max deal. Did he? No. He took far less each time. The last time (he was playing great), he even agreed to a decrease and only 3 years, to help the payroll and roster building.   

As long as he is in a place he wants to be, I don't expect his contract to be an issue. And right now it's a very reasonable contract at well below the max, one that any team would love to have.

Can you respond to my actual post instead of whoever these big bad doomsayers are. I wasn't even back on the board when he signed the new contract.  
And I asked for contract numbers/years. You once again responded with vibes. Kyrie can be a great guy and still hurt the Mavs because he isn't playing or isn't as good as he used to be. Not playing at all was the story of the first year of his new contract. Not sure how that is a good outcome that teams would love to have on the payroll.
Harsh reality is that year one of his contract can be summed up as 36m in dead salary. Now we have to hope that in the next two (maybe only one, player option) seasons he lives up to his contract.

[dirkfansince1998]

" If you don't want to trade him..." --Keep him? Good. Trade him? Good. Just looking for the BEST path forward.

But I do reject the alarmist assumption that it's now or never, sooner not later, "only one more year" to get the best value for him, and that such value is via a trade that needs to happen this summer to be any good. 

Some team will likely come along EVENTUALLY with an offer that's too good to refuse, but I don't think we are on a short-term countdown and I think he will be very valuable to have on this team for as long as they can keep him (which I see as ending on the day they get the offer that's too good to refuse). If his contract runs out, I don't see a problem. Sign him again. I think his skills will be valued (by the Mavs themselves, or someone in desperate need of offense) for quite a few more years.

I absolutely think the Mavs have a deadline when it comes to Kyrie's future. Kyrie can be a great guy. Once the Mavs lose team control he is going to do what's best for him and that might not be in the best interest of the Mavs. If there is one thing that teams simply shouldn't do it's giving up team control. That's how you lose assets for nothing. That's why free agency is "kinds dead" these days. Thankfully Ujiri seems to be aware of this.

[F Gump]

Can you respond to my actual post instead of whoever these big bad doomsayers are. I wasn't even back on the board when he signed the new contract.  

I did.  You wanted to frame it to compare to my DG comments, and I responded to your targeted observations.

They are very different situations, and I don't want either player here on a max deal. I think that comes with G but not with K -- so give me K and please avoid G.

And I asked for contract numbers/years. You once again responded with vibes.

Nope. I gave you HISTORY of what has happened 2 times in a row, which offers us the most insight on what is most likely ahead when we face a similar crossroads. As for specific numbers, pffft that's a silly question at this point, because who knows what might happen between now and then. We don't even know what year that next deal will happen, or who K's current team will be that's re-signing him.

Kyrie can be a great guy and still hurt the Mavs ...

I get it. You don't want K on the team and think he's too high risk.

I disagree. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on what is smart to do.

I think he's been great value and a significant asset, and will continue to be. Whether he gets traded or stays should depend on what the offers look like. I think time is on the Mavs side here, because imo demand will be huge at some point.

 ^^^^

[dirkfansince1998]

 ^^^^

If you could make a single post without putting words in my mouth this wouldn't be a waste of time.

[F Gump]

I absolutely think the Mavs have a deadline when it comes to Kyrie's future. Kyrie can be a great guy. Once the Mavs lose team control he is going to do what's best for him and that might not be in the best interest of the Mavs. If there is one thing that teams simply shouldn't do it's giving up team control. That's how you lose assets for nothing. That's why free agency is "kinds dead" these days. Thankfully Ujiri seems to be aware of this.

"Once the Mavs lose team control he is going to do what's best for him and..." ----  I don't agree that the next contract is a deadline of sorts, not at all.  

The theme that Kyrie will force his way out, or hold the Mavs hostage, and it's just around the corner, has ALWAYS been offered as a reason to be scared of having him. And it's always been proven false, even though he has had the control each time when it comes contract time. 

I think as long as the Mavs (or whoever) give him a fair shake and treat him with the respect he has earned, there will be no drama. 

Contracts are part of the process. They get signed. In time they end. But at that point the world does not explode - you just work out another one. Or don't. No biggie.

[dirkfansince1998]

"Once the Mavs lose team control he is going to do what's best for him and..." ----  I don't agree that the next contract is a deadline of sorts, not at all.  

The theme that Kyrie will force his way out, or hold the Mavs hostage, and it's just around the corner, has ALWAYS been offered as a reason to be scared of having him. And it's always been proven false, even though he has had the control each time when it comes contract time. 

I think as long as the Mavs (or whoever) give him a fair shake and treat him with the respect he has earned, there will be no drama. 

Contracts are part of the process. They get signed. In time they end. But at that point the world does not explode - you just work out another one. Or don't. No biggie.

Next strawman. Now it is about Kyrie forcing his way out or holding the Mavs hostage. Where is that coming from? He has a player option next summer. And that translates to losing team control. A scenario that teams are trying to avoid. Why we are seeing more high stake deadline moves these days. That's just the reality of things.

[F Gump]

If you could make a single post without putting words in my mouth this wouldn't be a waste of time.

LOL I replied to your very words. You do understand that the bold is my reply to those words?!?!

I never would intentionally misstate your meaning. I'm just discussing, and replying to what I think you are saying, not trying to change your meaning.

If you want me to understand you differently (rather than just a vague complaint), tell me what I have misunderstood or what you meant instead. I was replying directly to your exacts words to try to fairly respond. Apologies for whatever it was.

[dirkfansince1998]

LOL I replied to select words. Ignored large parts. You do understand that this is me framing things to fit my narrative !?!

FIFY

[F Gump]

Next strawman. Now it is about Kyrie forcing his way out or holding the Mavs hostage. Where is that coming from? He has a player option next summer. And that translates to losing team control. A scenario that teams are trying to avoid. Why we are seeing more high stake deadline moves these days.

NOT a strawman by any means - my words were an obvious reply to the clear meaning of what "losing team control" would be implying. And your explanation in this post ^ was along those same lines as my reply. 

When there is a loss of "team control" the team (supposedly) ends up FORCED to make a trade, or else to pay whatever contract he demands, in order to keep from losing his talent for nothing. Or, as I put it (different words, same meaning) he has the opportunity to force his way out or hold the Mavs hostage (on a contract size). You want the Mavs to avoid that, I take it. 

But a contract running out as "a scenario that teams are trying to avoid" (forcing trades, as you note) is only partly true and only sometimes an issue. It does force a trade when the team doesn't want him at the anticipated new contract price, and fear they will lose him for nothing in free agency. But other times, no issue at all. Teams don't "try to avoid" such things at all when they want him and he wants them and they have a meeting of the minds on salary size and his future value to the team.

[F Gump]

Okay. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Thanks for sharing!

Let's just agree to disagree about what needs to be done with Kyrie and move on.