Trade & FA 2025-26: Free Agency Starts 5pm CST/6pm EST

[michaeltex]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6535175...ed_article


Kuminga signs with the Warriors  for 2-years,  48.5 million

all that hand wringing for a 2 year contract?

[F Gump]

all that hand wringing for a 2 year contract?

GS did raise their offer (reportedly) by about 1.6M this season, so it paid off to some degree to take it to the wire. But in general terms, GS really stayed on the same page all along. And technically, it is only a one year commitment being made by GS, with a 2nd year at their option (although in practical terms, it's almost certain to end up as 2 years.)

[Jym]

What do you guys think we should do with Gafford?
What would be his value? 

He only makes sense to me if Lively takes that step up and starts slinging around 4 to 5 threes a game 
Only at that point do all the bigs start making sense to me. Gafford has basically no role here in the playoffs if Lively stays a non-shooter 
All backup/4th quarter center minutes would have to go to AD 
Or do we just keep him no matter what and wait to trade AD?

[Super Cooper]

What do you guys think we should do with Gafford?
What would be his value? 

He only makes sense to me if Lively takes that step up and starts slinging around 4 to 5 threes a game 
Only at that point do all the bigs start making sense to me. Gafford has basically no role here in the playoffs if Lively stays a non-shooter 
All backup/4th quarter center minutes would have to go to AD 
Or do we just keep him no matter what and wait to trade AD?

This is a great forum.

I think the current thought is to look at Gaff/DLive as a rotation rather than starter/backup.  I don't think DLive will ever be a high minutes player.

[Jym]

This is a great forum.

I think the current thought is to look at Gaff/DLive as a rotation rather than starter/backup.  I don't think DLive will ever be a high minutes player.

I would hope he can step up and play 28+ minutes, especially in the playoffs 
So much potential to be more than just a low 20s guy who averages 8 and 7. Hopefully his body lets him

[Winter]

Gafford will play good minutes I would think. The best idea for this rotation is to be competly covered for an injury.

Gafford is valuable. If he gets traded in February, the Mavs need to squeeze some team for both a player (perhaps a good shooting wing) and draft picks.

[KillerLeft]

What do you guys think we should do with Gafford?
What would be his value? 

He only makes sense to me if Lively takes that step up and starts slinging around 4 to 5 threes a game 
Only at that point do all the bigs start making sense to me. Gafford has basically no role here in the playoffs if Lively stays a non-shooter 
All backup/4th quarter center minutes would have to go to AD 
Or do we just keep him no matter what and wait to trade AD?

I don't understand the connection you're making here between Lively's shooting and Gafford's value. 

I do understand the connection between one responder's lack of faith that Lively will ever be a high-minute player and Gafford's value, although I disagree about Lively...but the connection you're making here confuses me. Is your thinking that IF Lively starts shooting, he and Gafford could play TOGETHER? I don't think that's something I'd even consider, shooting or not. They're both squarely in the "center only" category, I think, and for a variety of good reasons.  Am I missing something in the point you're making?

[F Gump]

I think the current thought is to look at Gaff/DLive as a rotation rather than starter/backup.  I don't think DLive will ever be a high minutes player.

Spot on ^.

I think the Mavs prefer the ability to always have a fresh center, and neither has to worry about fouls. Also there's extra capacity in reserve in case of injury. 

There's also no avenue to a trade that would be of great use. Mavs are so deep at every position that you get back someone you can't use. The result would be a pointless salary clogging the payroll which of course is a Nico Special, sadly (see Martin, C.). But I greatly prefer to keep our super-strong center rotation, which was how the Mavs won a title (and could have won more, if Cuban hadn't cheaped out).

[Jym]

I don't understand the connection you're making here between Lively's shooting and Gafford's value. 

I do understand the connection between one responder's lack of faith that Lively will ever be a high-minute player and Gafford's value, although I disagree about Lively...but the connection you're making here confuses me. Is your thinking that IF Lively starts shooting, he and Gafford could play TOGETHER? I don't think that's something I'd even consider, shooting or not. They're both squarely in the "center only" category, I think, and for a variety of good reasons.  Am I missing something in the point you're making?

Nah I never see Lively and Gafford playing together 
My point is that AD has to play major minutes at center if Lively stays a non-shooter which effectively knocks Gafford out of the playoffs rotation 
At least if they want to win anything. 
If Lively can shoot then AD can play PF and Gafford can get his 20 minutes a night behind Lively

[KillerLeft]

Nah I never see Lively and Gafford playing together 
My point is that AD has to play major minutes at center if Lively stays a non-shooter which effectively knocks Gafford out of the playoffs rotation 
At least if they want to win anything. 
If Lively can shoot then AD can play PF and Gafford can get his 20 minutes a night behind Lively

Ah, I see. 

I kind of think that if everyone is healthy (big if), Gafford would be used sparingly in a playoff scenario regardless of what Lively can do as a shooter. I think it has more to do with the current trend of isolating people in bad matchups more than anything. You really can't get away with playing guards who are too small or bigs who aren't quick in the playoffs these days, and it gets riskier to do that the deeper you go. 

While I see the logic behind those who'd opt to trade Davis and maybe even Lively rather than Gafford, pointing to him being the most dependable in terms of health (so far), the above is why I believe that would be foolish. If Lively and Davis are both healthy at season's end, you might be the only team in the league who can play TWO centers who both move their feet well enough to dominate on defense. You'd be the only team who doesn't have to play at least part of a game with a PJ Washington type at the 5 (unless you wanted to). That, to me, is the point. If one or both is hurt then yeah, your chances are worse, but that's not really mitigated much with a Gafford type, imho. Both Lively and Davis bring a considerable amount of ball-handling and versatility to the offensive end, too. 

End of day, I'm ok with holding onto Gafford for now, as I'm sure it will pay off over the course of the season. And, I'm in no rush to trade him just to remove him from the equation. The potential problem I keep coming back to is the idea that the 3rd best center on the team is a better and more expensive player than the third or possibly even the second best guard on the team. That's not a situation I feel very comfortable with, personally. For that reason, I'd jump at the chance to make the RIGHT deal, should such a chance present itself.

[KillerLeft]

This is a great forum.

I think the current thought is to look at Gaff/DLive as a rotation rather than starter/backup.  I don't think DLive will ever be a high minutes player.

Welcome, friend! We're happy you enjoy reading and super thrilled you decided to join in the fun!

[Jym]

Ah, I see. 

I kind of think that if everyone is healthy (big if), Gafford would be used sparingly in a playoff scenario regardless of what Lively can do as a shooter. I think it has more to do with the current trend of isolating people in bad matchups more than anything. You really can't get away with playing guards who are too small or bigs who aren't quick in the playoffs these days, and it gets riskier to do that the deeper you go. 

While I see the logic behind those who'd opt to trade Davis and maybe even Lively rather than Gafford, pointing to him being the most dependable in terms of health (so far), the above is why I believe that would be foolish. If Lively and Davis are both healthy at season's end, you might be the only team in the league who can play TWO centers who both move their feet well enough to dominate on defense. You'd be the only team who doesn't have to play at least part of a game with a PJ Washington type at the 5 (unless you wanted to). That, to me, is the point. If one or both is hurt then yeah, your chances are worse, but that's not really mitigated much with a Gafford type, imho. Both Lively and Davis bring a considerable amount of ball-handling and versatility to the offensive end, too. 

End of day, I'm ok with holding onto Gafford for now, as I'm sure it will pay off over the course of the season. And, I'm in no rush to trade him just to remove him from the equation. The potential problem I keep coming back to is the idea that the 3rd best center on the team is a better and more expensive player than the third or possibly even the second best guard on the team. That's not a situation I feel very comfortable with, personally. For that reason, I'd jump at the chance to make the RIGHT deal, should such a chance present itself.

Yeah I don't want to dump him just to dump him 
Just feels like a luxury we can't afford looking at the guard rotation 
Maybe Christie steps up and establishes himself as a solid SG and I'd feel better about having a valuable, starting level center wasted on the bench 
Klay being the best SG on the roster doesn't feel ideal