2026 NBA draft thread

[KillerLeft]

If the Ament stuff is true, with Presti wanting to trade up for him, does it change your opinion at all? Still completely out on Ament at #9?!

Presti's opinion holds very little weight for me. He's been exceptional at long term asset management, particularly in a small market situation, but his hit/miss rate isn't really better than the next good GM's, and in fact, he didn't draft the one truly special player currently on the OKC roster. 

But, I am not "completely out" on Ament at #9, either. For me, it depends on who else is there. I feel strongly that the Mavs need to take advantage of this opportunity to improve in the area of on-ball offensive contribution. Frankly, I think not doing so would be a huge mistake. Ament IS on that list, somewhere, and if they like him more than the other options that end up being available to them in reality, well...Ament it should be.

[mvossman]

Presti's opinion holds very little weight for me. He's been exceptional at long term asset management, particularly in a small market situation, but his hit/miss rate isn't really better than the next good GM's, and in fact, he didn't draft the one truly special player currently on the OKC roster. 

But, I am not "completely out" on Ament at #9, either. For me, it depends on who else is there. I feel strongly that the Mavs need to take advantage of this opportunity to improve in the area of on-ball offensive contribution. Frankly, I think not doing so would be a huge mistake. Ament IS on that list, somewhere, and if they like him more than the other options that end up being available to them in reality, well...Ament it should be.

Ament might be on that list, but in my mind he is pretty far down it.  He got asked to play that role at Tennessee and really struggled.  Its not going to get easier at the next level.  I really hope somebody grabs him in top 8.

I'm curious to see Gump response to your Presti views.

[Scott41theMavs]

I guess LIKELY is another word we could be talking over each other.  There are other guys who I think are more likely to be able to take on lead guard roles, but not necessarily by enough to account for the lower floor.  If I am looking for the guy most likely to become a starter on a contending team then I probably go with Burries.  Not just because he has the best defense of the group and tools to potentially make it either on ball or off, but also because of his mental makeup.  He choose a talented team and took on a limited role seamlessly because he wanted to win.

But if I were of your mindset, and wanted the guy most likely to develop into a lead guard on a contending team I would probably go with Flemings.  He has the elite first step and high BBIQ that will carry over to the next level.  He also has good enough defense (for the 1) that you won't have to build your team around him (like Acuff).  But he can't fall back to another position due to his lack of size and limited shooting.  I would be happy with either guy.

Winter was saying he hadn't been considering Wagler since he was projected to go earlier. I think Acuff is a dawg (on offense) who is going to generate lots of hype for whoever drafts him (which is why it seems like he wouldn't fall past the Kings - "Can't play defense? Who cares. Will put butts in seats."). I had not been considering him much as Winter wasn't considering Wagler, because he keeps getting mocked top 7. While I think Acuff is an offensive nuke, he doesn't seem like a Masai guy due to the shortness and lack of defense. Not sure how I'd feel if the Mavs were to get him at 9. I would assume they would do the Brunson-style build-around to accommodate him. 

The thing about Burries is that we rarely hear of him going before 8 at the earliest. Several weeks ago, I considered him a bit of a reach at 9. I have since come around that he is at least almost as good (all aspects of their games taken in consideration) as the other four, and definitely see him as the 9th-best player in the draft and a great consolation prize. As long as Masai doesn't engender the facepalm by going Mara, Lendeborg, or Ament (at 9 as opposed to in a trade-down), this should be a pretty happy 1st round for Mavs fans.

The singular other guy who I wouldn't mind seeing the Mavs "reach" on at 9 is Johnson, because if he isn't gone by 9, he's getting mocked higher and higher and higher and probably wouldn't be available in a trade-down. If that's Masai's guy, I'd be fine with that at 9 in ways I would in no way be wrt the MLA trio.

[KillerLeft]

Ament might be on that list, but in my mind he is pretty far down it.

Sure, but if all the rest of the list is gone, I'm ok with him. And, we don't know who from that list the Mavs don't like as much as the consensus would lead us to believe. 

I'm just saying, it depends on the choices available at the time for me. If it's Ament or an off-ball role player, or - even worse, a slow, stiff, drop coverage center, give me Ament, bust potential and all.

[Winter]

The singular other guy who I wouldn't mind seeing the Mavs "reach" on at 9 is Johnson, because if he isn't gone by 9, he's getting mocked higher and higher and higher and probably wouldn't be available in a trade-down. If that's Masai's guy, I'd be fine with that at 9 in ways I would in no way be wrt the MLA trio.

I am completely on board with you on that one. I know it's not the sexy pick, but he's the one player after 10 that I simply have a hard time seeing him at the end of the bench or in G League. If he's not in someone's rotation on opening day, I'll be surprised. He's just too good at what he does.

[mvossman]

Sure, but if all the rest of the list is gone, I'm ok with him. And, we don't know who from that list the Mavs don't like as much as the consensus would lead us to believe. 

I'm just saying, it depends on the choices available at the time for me. If it's Ament or an off-ball role player, or - even worse, a slow, stiff, drop coverage center, give me Ament, bust potential and all.

At this point I would give Burries (or any of the other guards) a better chance of being an on ball NBA player than Ament, so from that perspective the rest wont be gone.

[Chicagojk]

The Burries discussion is interesting.  You very rarely hear about the upside like you do with Acuff, Ament or Brown.   All three you hear that if they hit they could be one of the best prospects out of this draft.  You really don't hear that on Burries.  You hear that he is at least a solid rotation level player with some people then talking about upside.   You just don't hear people describe him much with upside.  

Maybe that is age.   Maybe that shouldn't matter.   I read awhile ago that he is older than every soph in this draft class.  I don't know if that is correct or not.   He will be 21 when the season starts.    Maybe that is why you don't hear the upside talk with him that you do with the younger prospects.  It is just interesting.

[Chicagojk]

I am really interesting to see what the Hornets do this offseason.  Pick #14 and #18 this year.  Not only did they get Kon right last year, I think they hit on two second rounders who look like rotation players.    They are short at PF and C.  They have some good rotation pieces at center.    Bridges may or may not be back, but they have a chance to add two more solid players to their young core.   If one is not a center, they have ways to find a center via trade.    I think they have a real chance to really become an interesting team.   I guess they are already interesting, but they are really fun.

[KillerLeft]

At this point I would give Burries (or any of the other guards) a better chance of being an on ball NBA player than Ament, so from that perspective the rest wont be gone.

So you'd have him higher on "that list." That's my point, basically. 

IF, as I've recently been led to believe, Burries is an on-ball guy, always has been, and probably will be at the next level, then he'd be higher on the list for me, too. IF he's going to be a better version of Christie, even a much better version, then give me the upside swing on Ament. And either scenario assumes Burries is still there at #9. Just because we haven't seen many (if any) mocks that don't have him available there doesn't mean it's a forgone conclusion. 

I am ok with anyone's evaluation/ranking of these guys, especially those making decisions for the Mavs. Where I'm tempted to grab my knife and start blindly stabbing is when I read opinions that suggest targeting guys who clearly don't bring overt offensive initiation value to the table. It's like we've all been watching a different Mavs team this past year and a half.

[KillerLeft]

The Burries discussion is interesting.  You very rarely hear about the upside like you do with Acuff, Ament or Brown.   All three you hear that if they hit they could be one of the best prospects out of this draft.  You really don't hear that on Burries.  You hear that he is at least a solid rotation level player with some people then talking about upside.   You just don't hear people describe him much with upside.  

I actually have heard Burries described that way quite a bit recently. I can't remember which (sorry), but I was listening to a podcast the other day that claimed he might have the MOST upside of them all. 

Not to belabor the point, but this opinion was coming from someone confident that Burries would be an ON BALL guard in the NBA. I'm tempted to say it was Vecine, but could be wrong.

[Winter]

I am ok with anyone's evaluation/ranking of these guys, especially those making decisions for the Mavs. Where I'm tempted to grab my knife and start blindly stabbing is when I read opinions that suggest targeting guys who clearly don't bring overt offensive initiation value to the table. It's like we've all been watching a different Mavs team this past year and a half.

I'm not there. 

I think you're right in pointing out the offensive need, but I also think our roster reconstruction will not happen overnight. If the FO wanted to start a rebuild our roster with the best player available - and they felt strongly that player was someone like Johnson - I would have no problem with it. 

Ideally I would want another player, but I really need to hear the vision from the FO as they make these picks in the draft.

[mvossman]

So you'd have him higher on "that list." That's my point, basically. 

IF, as I've recently been led to believe, Burries is an on-ball guy, always has been, and probably will be at the next level, then he'd be higher on the list for me, too. IF he's going to be a better version of Christie, even a much better version, then give me the upside swing on Ament. And either scenario assumes Burries is still there at #9. Just because we haven't seen many (if any) mocks that don't have him available there doesn't mean it's a forgone conclusion. 

I am ok with anyone's evaluation/ranking of these guys, especially those making decisions for the Mavs. Where I'm tempted to grab my knife and start blindly stabbing is when I read opinions that suggest targeting guys who clearly don't bring overt offensive initiation value to the table. It's like we've all been watching a different Mavs team this past year and a half.

If Burries is not there then there will be another one of the guard there instead (likely there will be multiple available at 9).

I lean more towards BPA than need.  I recognize how limited this team is on creation and I think that should be their top priority in free agency/trades regardless of who they draft.  But if these guys think Morez is the next Bam with better shooting I would rather them pull that trigger than take a risky stab because they are valuing offensive initiation above all else.

[Scott41theMavs]

So you'd have him higher on "that list." That's my point, basically. 

IF, as I've recently been led to believe, Burries is an on-ball guy, always has been, and probably will be at the next level, then he'd be higher on the list for me, too. IF he's going to be a better version of Christie, even a much better version, then give me the upside swing on Ament. And either scenario assumes Burries is still there at #9. Just because we haven't seen many (if any) mocks that don't have him available there doesn't mean it's a forgone conclusion. 

I am ok with anyone's evaluation/ranking of these guys, especially those making decisions for the Mavs. Where I'm tempted to grab my knife and start blindly stabbing is when I read opinions that suggest targeting guys who clearly don't bring overt offensive initiation value to the table. It's like we've all been watching a different Mavs team this past year and a half.

As I have said many times, I have a lot of trust in the current FO and their competence. Whatever they do in this draft may not be what I would do, but they have the skins on the wall that display their competence, and I will wait and see how things turn out. 

But in the case of them picking Ament, that will be a very tough one. It's not just that I see him as a major reach at 9 (and perhaps not the best use of this very valuable-to-the-Mavs asset if they trade down and draft him later). It's that he is a long-game pick who will take a very long time to become whatever they believe he will be, and several years of growing pains and hand-wringing by us fans until he gets there. Please, Masai and Schmitz, don't do that to us unless you truly believe he's the next Durant.

[Smitty]

As I have said many times, I have a lot of trust in the current FO and their competence. Whatever they do in this draft may not be what I would do, but they have the skins on the wall that display their competence, and I will wait and see how things turn out. 

But in the case of them picking Ament, that will be a very tough one. It's not just that I see him as a major reach at 9 (and perhaps not the best use of this very valuable-to-the-Mavs asset if they trade down and draft him later). It's that he is a long-game pick who will take a very long time to become whatever they believe he will be, and several years of growing pains and hand-wringing by us fans until he gets there. Please, Masai and Schmitz, don't do that to us unless you truly believe he's the next Durant.

If they believe he's the next Durant, they should be doing everything they can to trade up and get him. Durant at #9? That's an extremely unrealistic expectation. But it's draft season!

I'm not as down on Ament as the board seems to be. I have him as my #11 prospect personally, but what we think matters ZERO. There are a lot of really good prospects in this draft. I feel confident that the new MBT will do the work and make the best decision possible. There won't be trade downs to save cap, or agents that can manipulate Masai & Co., or gamblers running the draft room. Not to say they won't miss on their evaluation and selections, but that we finally have professionals in the room.

[KillerLeft]

If Burries is not there then there will be another one of the guard there instead (likely there will be multiple available at 9).

I lean more towards BPA than need.  I recognize how limited this team is on creation and I think that should be their top priority in free agency/trades regardless of who they draft.  But if these guys think Morez is the next Bam with better shooting I would rather them pull that trigger than take a risky stab because they are valuing offensive initiation above all else.

Yeah, we're not quite connecting, mostly because you seem focused on your personal ranking of each player on their own merits. 

What I'M saying, and I don't need you or anyone to agree, is that MY list would be comprised ONLY of players with the potential to make a difference in the area of offensive creation. To my way of thinking, "BPA" is misleading, especially when you are a team who can't create efficient offense, which I deem to be the first and most crucial step along the way of building a competitive team. In fact, the only time I think "BPA" holds logical water, and where I believe the term originates from, is when a team is in the opposite situation, wherein they have too much offensive creation and need role players. THAT's when it's a "reach" for need, as in "we need a 3&D 4," and THAT's when "BPA" is a sound argument, imho. Guys who can handle the ball are simply objectively more valuable and therefore more worthy of a high pick, imo. When you're in the situation the Mavs are in, having very little in the way of creation, I honestly don't think it could be more obvious what the priority should be. 

Forget Ament vs. "the guards." I think you and I would probably have pretty similar rankings there. I'm saying (and this isn't going to win the debate, but should clarify where I am with my hopes for the Mavs) I'd take ANY of the guards OR Ament over Caleb Wilson. That's how strongly I feel that they need to use this opportunity to add creation.

[windjc]

Yeah, we're not quite connecting, mostly because you seem focused on your personal ranking of each player on their own merits. 

What I'M saying, and I don't need you or anyone to agree, is that MY list would be comprised ONLY of players with the potential to make a difference in the area of offensive creation. To my way of thinking, "BPA" is misleading, especially when you are a team who can't create efficient offense, which I deem to be the first and most crucial step along the way of building a competitive team. In fact, the only time I think "BPA" holds logical water, and where I believe the term originates from, is when a team is in the opposite situation, wherein they have too much offensive creation and need role players. THAT's when it's a "reach" for need, as in "we need a 3&D 4," and THAT's when "BPA" is a sound argument, imho. Guys who can handle the ball are simply objectively more valuable and therefore more worthy of a high pick, imo. When you're in the situation the Mavs are in, having very little in the way of creation, I honestly don't think it could be more obvious what the priority should be. 

Forget Ament vs. "the guards." I think you and I would probably have pretty similar rankings there. I'm saying (and this isn't going to win the debate, but should clarify where I am with my hopes for the Mavs) I'd take ANY of the guards OR Ament over Caleb Wilson. That's how strongly I feel that they need to use this opportunity to add creation.

Kyrie can create. And will.

[mvossman]

Kyrie can create. And will.

Sure he can, and so can Flagg.  But they need more than that and I would argue that when you are drafting a 20 year old to fit with another 20 year old it does not really matter what a 34 year old can do.  Need to be thinking longer term than that.

[Jakeospikez]

Pretty sure that it was KL who said that the Mavs have to be looking at Burries as a lead guard, because that possibility causes his ceiling to shoot up. It's not a positional question, but rather a quantitative commentary on his value and potential.

To me, Burries-the-off-guard's ceiling is as a strong 5th-best starter on a contending team - doesn't move the needle much. If he can be a full-fledged lead guard, he's a solid 3rd-best starter. I don't think even then he has any whiff of Robin potential. I think each of the other four guys have a small percentage chance of becoming Robins, although perhaps none of them ever get there. 

Burries will be the best player at 9 presuming that the big four are gone and the other four guards are gone, but that doesn't seem to be what you were saying at all. Do you rank him over all four of Acuff, Flemings, Wagler, and Brown? I.e. fifth best in this draft? Or how would you rank those five? Just trying to understand you here.

Burries gets comp'd to Jrue and if you go off of his offball ceiling, that's not a 5th best starter. Jrue is probably the ideal 3rd best starter you could get on a championship team and he has 2 rings that prove that as he was a critical contributor to both of those titles. If Kyrie were younger it'd be an obvious pick because you already have 1a/1b with Flagg/Kyrie and need someone to compliment them. If the FO believes he could be that offball guy that eventually develops into onball in a few years then maybe he's the right choice. Doesn't look like there's an easy path to a 1b after Kyrie is done though if this pick doesn't become it.

[windjc]

Sure he can, and so can Flagg.  But they need more than that and I would argue that when you are drafting a 20 year old to fit with another 20 year old it does not really matter what a 34 year old can do.  Need to be thinking longer term than that.

I believe Dallas is allowed to do trade deals over the 3 years to improve ball handler situations. Unless I missed the legality of their ability to build rosters in the future. The draft this year is one top 10 guy. Even if this pick is another hall of famer we got some roster building to do.

[F Gump]

I said this before, and I'm still thinking this way.

Of the ones being mocked most commonly in the 5-10 range, I tend to see Burries as closest to what I think the Masai-Schmitz pair seeks. I think they can (and do) see Burries as a PG-to-be on their draft board. And ...
1 Positional size ...as a PG, Burries qualifies. He is a full-sized PG and maybe a bit more.
2 Untapped upside ....as a PG, Burries qualifies. He deferred in AZ and played off-ball, in pursuit of winning. But in the NBA, he can do more.
3 Skills to work with .... he's a plus shooter. One of the best 3-level scorers with efficiency. 
4 Must play both ends of the floor ... he's perhaps the best guard-category defender of the 5-10 group, to go with size as well

I also have seen the following things being said about him, which aligns with what I think he offers.
- Brayden Burries can effectively create his own offense
- Although he has not been a pure, ball-dominant isolation scorer in college, he is a connective playmaker and supplementary scorer
- He offers creation abilities and scoring through pick-and-roll and dribble-jumpers, using his frame and deliberate tempo to manipulate defenders and squeeze through tight windows.
- At around 6’4" and 215 lbs, he utilizes his functional strength and footwork to attack closeouts, absorb contact, and score efficiently at the rim.
- He is a tremendous transition scorer and reliable three-point shooter (knocking down roughly 39% of his attempts), which commands respect from defenders and opens up further driving lanes.
- His high basketball IQ and handling skills allow him to generate offense and make smart decisions, shoot efficiently, and score off the bounce.

I'm not in a Burries or Bust mindset, because there's no guarantee he's still there at 9, but I think he makes way more sense than most, of the ones who should be there at 9.