2026 NBA draft thread

[KillerLeft]

When I read that one out of nowhere rumour Schroeder/Klay, I was wondering about Anderson/Steinbach. Ease their transition to the NBA with a countryman.  I like Steinbach a lot. I definitely want him in a trade down scenario. Ideal world is Burries at #12, Steinbach at #17, Gafford to get Anderson at #25, and hope Evans/Peat falls to #30. Otherwise probably Thomas.

Call me crazy, but....

Irving/Schroeder/Anderson
Christie/Burries/Joe
Flagg/Marshall/Peat
Washington/Bagley/Martin
Lively/Steinbach/Cisse

....without even touching the MLE/TPE looks like a miracle and a play-in contender.

Well, I think that package as a whole is kind of crazy overkill, but...if Steinbach can play a good amount of 5 that could move the needle for me on him. He'd definitely present a skills and movement advantage there in most matchups.

[F Gump]

Question (not a suggestion, just curious): Would a package built around Kyrie be enticement enough for LAC to do a #5/#9 Swap? I assume Garland would be in the deal, probably. There would have to be some other things that break in the Mavs' favor to make it fair, but Kyrie for Garland and #5 for #9 would be the nucleus of it.

IF Kyrie wants out, and IF the Mavs like either Wagler or Brown enough, I can see it. Caleb Wilson even, for those of you who think that would be a good pick.

If Peterson is there I do it in a second, but he won't be. I think that's as high as the Mavs could possibly get, sadly.

To me that's selling way low on Kyrie, where he's used to get you (only) a few rungs up the draft, to still be drafting in the very same value-tier of players.

Who knows whether it's smoke or not, but I'm seeing a lot of sports media people say that they are seeing clues the Mavs might be positioning to work to be really good this year. No 5-6 year runway in view. If so, I think the upcoming roster has to have Flagg as Batman and Kyrie as Robin (which avoids the need and cost to find those players), with pick 9 and perhaps a targeted player via trade also being put in position to play key roles. And except for the PG hole (which presumably gets more-than-filled with Kyrie and Pick 9 and/or a trade target), they already really have so many many many talented role players to fill the other roster needs as well as provide a lot of depth. 

Getting the right coach who can make that work would be vital.

[mvossman]

Question (not a suggestion, just curious): Would a package built around Kyrie be enticement enough for LAC to do a #5/#9 Swap? I assume Garland would be in the deal, probably. There would have to be some other things that break in the Mavs' favor to make it fair, but Kyrie for Garland and #5 for #9 would be the nucleus of it.

IF Kyrie wants out, and IF the Mavs like either Wagler or Brown enough, I can see it. Caleb Wilson even, for those of you who think that would be a good pick.

If Peterson is there I do it in a second, but he won't be. I think that's as high as the Mavs could possibly get, sadly.

As somebody who is open to trading Kyrie, this does not move the needle for me.  I would much rather keep 9 and use Kyrie to land another lottery pick.

[mvossman]

To me that's selling way low on Kyrie, where he's used to get you (only) a few rungs up the draft, to still be drafting in the very same value-tier of players.

Who knows whether it's smoke or not, but I'm seeing a lot of sports media people say that they are seeing clues the Mavs might be positioning to work to be really good this year. No 5-6 year runway in view. If so, I think the upcoming roster has to have Flagg as Batman and Kyrie as Robin (which avoids the need and cost to find those players), with pick 9 and perhaps a targeted player via trade also being put in position to play key roles. And except for the PG hole (which presumably gets more-than-filled with Kyrie and Pick 9 and/or a trade target), they already really have so many many many talented role players to fill the other roster needs as well as provide a lot of depth. 

Getting the right coach who can make that work would be vital.

I think that would be a terrible mistake and hope its not true.  If it is, my guess is that its a directive from Dumont that was communicated as part of the hiring process.

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

Steinbach and Stritz at 12 and 17.
..and De Larrea at 30 or Baba Miller.

Let's Go.

[KillerLeft]

As somebody who is open to trading Kyrie, this does not move the needle for me.  I would much rather keep 9 and use Kyrie to land another lottery pick.

Fair, but doesn't really answer my question. Would that be something you can see LAC being interested in pondering? 

Also, I simply don't buy that all 5 guards are on the same level. I can buy that they're the next 5 best players after the top 4 and that it's difficult for us to pjrocet their NBA careers with any kind of accuracy, but I suuuuuuure hope out front office is good enough at their jobs to see differences and have preferences. IF they have identified the guy they think will be an all star fit next to Flagg (assuming that potential exists in that clump, which I admit might not), then I sure hope they don't have the attitude of "it's whatever - we'll just take whichever one falls to us." 

To be clear, that's not necessarily an argument for going nuclear and making a big Kyrie trade to get the guy. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's possible in terms of moving up.

[Chicagojk]

Dallas wouldn’t be doing due diligence if they didn’t explore all options via pick and player trades. Masai new to the role is probably listening and gauging interest on what the league thinks of his players. I am sure there is one guy they would move up for if they find the right value. A trade up is usually very expensive though.

I am sure they have a favorite at 9. If he is gone, they they can explore a trade back. If we are talking about trading back to 12 (if OKC is not taking their guy) they need to really like two guys left and have a third they are fine with in a trade back. For instance, let’s say it is Burries and ament. They need to have a third in case they go 10 and 11. Even if their intel is good, you have to be ready for the unexpected.


Personally I am a believer of keeping 9 and finding a way up into the lower 20s where you may get a player you have top 15.

Don’t know much about Steinbech besides highlights. When I see the highlights it looks like he is one of those guys who is a bitch to play against. Maybe not the same play style or talent but a guy like Josh hart, Sengun, hartenstein who just play hard and do stuff. Probably best on a good and deep team.

[DanSchwartzgan]

but...if Steinbach can play a good amount of 5 that could move the needle for me on him. He'd definitely present a skills and movement advantage there in most matchups.

I feel like he's in a similar vein to Morez Johnson in that both are kind of 4.5's.  I get the worry that he duplicates what Flagg does (similarly, so does Morez).  But, if those guys have some shooting ability from the 3 and can back up Flagg or Lively, that's a pretty valuable guy at 17.  Surely one is available at that spot.  

If you can still grab Burries or Flemings at 12?  Not a bad night IMHO.  If Joe or Topic are along for the ride in the OKC deal, even better. And, if Gafford went out for Risacher straight up?

[SkenfromLMF]

9 & 58 (via N.O.) for 12; 17; 37 and Joe
12; 48 & Kyrie; for ballast & 6; 36; 52
17; 52 & Martin; Klay for 58; TM3 & Herb Jones

Dallas holds 6; 30; 36; 37
Adds Joe, Murphy, and Jones + ballast from LAC

Trades 9 & 48; Martin, Klay; and cap space/TE (Joe)

Probably a bit light for NO’s perspective and not high enough in the draft swap to keep LAc’s interest

[KillerLeft]

I feel like he's in a similar vein to Morez Johnson in that both are kind of 4.5's.  I get the worry that he duplicates what Flagg does (similarly, so does Morez).  But, if those guys have some shooting ability from the 3 and can back up Flagg or Lively, that's a pretty valuable guy at 17.  Surely one is available at that spot.  

If you can still grab Burries or Flemings at 12?  Not a bad night IMHO.  If Joe or Topic are along for the ride in the OKC deal, even better.  And, if Gafford went out for Risacher straight up?

I see the vision, and I don’t hate it. Not to be obstinate, but for me this thinking only becomes acceptable when the potential star guards are out of reach, and call me crazy, but I’m starting to view Brown in that light.

[Mavs2021]

Also it now seems that all that stands between the Mavs #9 for #12 + #17+ X trade are the Atlanta Hawks picking Mara at #8.

Another reminder that tanking does matter and Flagg´s ROTY was not worth it. Much like with Luka it potentially cost us an extra 1st round pick. We lose to the Blazers or Lakers, WHICH WE 1000% could and should have, that trade is ours, cause we are in 8th and nobody can stop us from executing it.

If the Hawks are so horny for Mara themselves, we could have started a bidding war between them and the Thunder, maybe the Warriors, too. So another YAY for Ujiri firing everybody involved in this failure.

[Chicagojk]

He is not error free but Wagler is my favorite. The athleticism concerns are real. As is the teams inability to push the ball after rebounds or turnovers. That could be a team issue but to play with Flagg you need to be able to play fast.

Although he lacks burst he knows how to create space. Defenders are always worried about his shot that he takes advantage with that with slight movements. Really effective.

While not strong or high in weight he really is the aggressor on contact. He bounces his body to create leverage and unlike a lot of prospects the bodies don’t bother him and he keeps his balance.

My comparison has been Smaller Kon wirh more creation. Not what Kon has turned into but what I thought he was in the draft. Kon has already outperformed the expectations.

[khaled1987]

I've listened to the first 35 minutes of Jonathan Givony and Nate Duncan podcast. Jonathan seems to be a guy who values the years of following the players in high school more than the 1 year in college. In that first part there wasn't much about Mavs potential targests but it was interesting regardless.

The first part was about NIL and future of the draft. He said next two are closer to 2024 draft than current one, and no one was going to tank for them regardless of lottery change. He pointed that NCAA will extend college eligibility for 5 years, eliminating seniors for one class and that will hurt second round, and late firsts. He also pointed that Ted Cruz is preparing a bill to put a cap on NIL which could reverse some of it's effect.

He and Nate talked about development,  Nate is a believer that NBA is better for development of players, Givony didn't address that but he said there is a point where you have to leave college because it won't add to you, he also said that analytics hates older prospects (23 or older) so there is that. He used Brunson as an example, he wouldn't have been better if he stayed 5 years on college collecting NIL money.

Then they talked about the top 4 prospects:

Givony doesn't see Peterson vs AJ as a thing, for him it isn't even close. Peterson is a 6'6 Dam Lillard, he is a big PG and he was used terribly in Kansas. He said he is a guy you can build a championship team around him. AJ lack of willingness to play defense in his entire young career is something he hates, same as his tunnel vision, he sees him as a guy who put 25 ppg but not as a winning player.

He rates Boozer over AJ, he says there is a bit of Tim Duncan in him and he is a PF, Nate pointed out to defense and Givony said while Boozer isn't Duncan esque in that regard, he is a very good defender, and was a great one in high school and very switchable. They didn't agree on that as Nate said he couldn't block shots against some players, but Givony said it is about timing, Boozer awareness is great and he is at the right place at the right time and makes correct decision at that end. 

Regarding Caleb, he said he feels he is a tad bit overrated as a defender, pointed out how he was one of the first to be cut from team USA as a youngster because he was a lazy guy and also didn't play defense. But said it has all changed at Carolina  and had nothing but praise for him after that, hos motor, behaviour and game. He ended that part with saying there is a huge gap in talent after him.

Last part I listened was Nate asking him about the next group, is it going to be the guards or he sees surprises. He said it will be the guards, Ament and Mara that will complete next picks. 

I am planning to listen to the rest today, though I think Chicagojk shared the parts about Flemings, Acuff, Brown, so I am not sure there will be more interesting opinion/info there.

[Mavs2021]

Sure sounds like Givony is making a sh*tload of excuses for Peterson, while holding Dybantsa to a complete different standard. 

The first thing about building a championship roster around somebody is that he HAS to be the leader of the team, not just the best player. So that´s where from everything I have read and seen from Peterson he already falls short. He is in the mold of a KD, Harden or Embiid.  I can´t think of a single team where the best player was a poor leader and they won the title. KD always had a better leader around him, when he was successful in OKC (Westbrook) and Golden State (Curry+). Everywhere else the locker room eventually turned into a disaster, because KD is such a poor leader.  Also Peterson virtually had no assists, but I´m supposed to believe he´s the next Lillard. Lillard still averaged 3.5 APG on a team with nobody to pass to. Also Dybantsa is crap on defense, but Peterson is the new Lillard. Eh.  

Basically what Givony is doing is mostly a character analysis of Peterson, whether he´ll behave differently at the next level.

[Winter]

Well, I think that package as a whole is kind of crazy overkill, but...if Steinbach can play a good amount of 5 that could move the needle for me on him. He'd definitely present a skills and movement advantage there in most matchups.

The guy is a rebounding monster (offensive and defensively)... so there's that. He's collecting 4.2 offensive rebounds a game and can at least shoot from the perimeter.

I think the problem with him is might be slow to switch defensively. Guards will likely beat him to their spots. I think I've only seen one or two video profiles on him, so I'm a little unclear how he's viewed by GMs.

[Smitty]

Is it safe to assume that OKC would be trading up to land Mara? So, the Hawks would need to pick Flemings at 8 for there to be a trade back option for the Mavs. If the rumors are also to be believed, that Rich Paul will steer Burries to Dallas, then he will need to make sure MIL and GS play ball. Which means the top 12 should go just like this:

Dybantsa
Peterson
Boozer
Wilson
Wagler
Brown Jr.
Acuff Jr.
Flemings
Mara (OKC)
Ament
Lendeborg
Burries (DAL)


Lot of assumptions there of course but I imagine this is what teams talk about before the draft. If player X is available, then X. Same for the Mavs when it’s about moving up. I can only see them doing so for 5/6. Acuff seems destined for SAC. Not sure they like Flemings. Especially not enough to trade up one with ATL. So, of the guards it feels like we should all be comparing Wagler, Brown Jr., and Burries. 2 of which would require assets to move up for. One you can possibly get in a trade down scenario (if you believe the Klutch smoke).

[KillerLeft]

Is it safe to assume that OKC would be trading up to land Mara? So, the Hawks would need to pick Flemings at 8 for there to be a trade back option for the Mavs. If the rumors are also to be believed, that Rich Paul will steer Burries to Dallas, then he will need to make sure MIL and GS play ball. Which means the top 12 should go just like this:

Dybantsa
Peterson
Boozer
Wilson
Wagler
Brown Jr.
Acuff Jr.
Flemings
Mara (OKC)
Ament
Lendeborg
Burries (DAL)


Lot of assumptions there of course but I imagine this is what teams talk about before the draft. If player X is available, then X. Same for the Mavs when it’s about moving up. I can only see them doing so for 5/6. Acuff seems destined for SAC. Not sure they like Flemings. Especially not enough to trade up one with ATL. So, of the guards it feels like we should all be comparing Wagler, Brown Jr., and Burries. 2 of which would require assets to move up for. One you can possibly get in a trade down scenario (if you believe the Klutch smoke).

If Burries is still there at 12, fine, but...we seem to be accepting the idea that trading down with OKC will automatically net 17 as the prize. I know OKC wants to consolidate for a dozen different reasons, but it occurs to me that they might want to use 17 in a different deal. I feel like it's maybe not the safest assumption that 9 for 12 and 17 is available to the Mavs.

[Winter]

Is it safe to assume that OKC would be trading up to land Mara? So, the Hawks would need to pick Flemings at 8 for there to be a trade back option for the Mavs. If the rumors are also to be believed, that Rich Paul will steer Burries to Dallas, then he will need to make sure MIL and GS play ball. Which means the top 12 should go just like this:

Dybantsa
Peterson
Boozer
Wilson
Wagler
Brown Jr.
Acuff Jr.
Flemings
Mara (OKC)
Ament
Lendeborg
Burries (DAL)


Lot of assumptions there of course but I imagine this is what teams talk about before the draft. If player X is available, then X. Same for the Mavs when it’s about moving up. I can only see them doing so for 5/6. Acuff seems destined for SAC. Not sure they like Flemings. Especially not enough to trade up one with ATL. So, of the guards it feels like we should all be comparing Wagler, Brown Jr., and Burries. 2 of which would require assets to move up for. One you can possibly get in a trade down scenario (if you believe the Klutch smoke).

I could buy that scenario, but Lendeborg might be a little iffy there. He's the one guy that could make you sweat if you're trying to get Burries at 12. Ament is a safe bet for one of those spots I think, but I'm not sure about Lendeborg.

[Scott41theMavs]

If Burries is still there at 12, fine, but...we seem to be accepting the idea that trading down with OKC will automatically net 17 as the prize. I know OKC wants to consolidate for a dozen different reasons, but it occurs to me that they might want to use 17 in a different deal. I feel like it's maybe not the safest assumption that 9 for 12 and 17 is available to the Mavs.

I get what you’re saying, but if I’m Masai, 17 needs to be on the table along with 12 for there to be a conversation.

[KillerLeft]

I get what you’re saying, but if I’m Masai, 17 needs to be on the table along with 12 for there to be a conversation.

Well, but...don't forget, it's all scenario based. I don't think they do anything without a near 100% chance the guy they'd want at 9 is going to be there at 12, so it's a decision made in real time the night of, I'm sure. With that in mind...a future 1st? If you're getting your guy anyway...