2026 NBA draft thread

[Dirknows]

I wanted us to tank and get the #1 odds, when we were last in January. Then I wanted us to tank next year again and take Luka. Then I wanted us to trade the saved Reddish pick + Porzingis picks to acquire a star C and win ten championships with Brunson, Doncic, Tatum/Markkanen and X, but I´m sure Cuban will tell us more about how great he handled that whole culture stretch.

Trading up and trading down both have risk/reward. I was trying to say if the Mavs believe they need to move up to get their guy, they should go for it.

[mvossman]

I feel I've been pretty careful to word things in terms of whether or not the Mavs have identified their guy from among the PG's in that tier. It's very possible that their opinions are just as guess-oriented and gut-feelingish as ours, but I kind of doubt it, since they have access to more info and the players themselves, and...idk, I guess I just really hope they have a better grasp than we do. 

But, I'll state it all again, for the 100th time, I guess: If you don't have a PG, and a very good one, you don't have a basketball team. The only thing that passes for a PG on the Mavs' roster right now is 34, coming off of an entire missed year and I wouldn't be surprised if he'd rather be somewhere else, since the team is quite literally starting over in basically every conceivable way this summer.

If you can get Peterson, great! If not, which seems likely, I could be talked into any of Wagler, Brown, Acuff, Flemings or Burries. But, just because I'm ok with lumping them together doesn't mean they're interchangeable. I'm watching YouTube highlights and listening to podcasts while I work on my real job. The guys who make these choices for a living had better not see those guys as interchangeable, because 1-2 of them will be misses and 1-2 of them will be stars. If the Mavs think they know which will be stars, or more accurately, if they've identified which of them they feel confident they can MAKE into a star, depending on them to fall to #9 in order to move the franchise forward seems like loser thinking to me.

I just don't think its that black and white for the experts.  If it was, you would see a lot more movement in the draft.  I think every draftee is a probability function, and those 5 guys may be really close to each other even for the experts regardless of how far apart they actually end up.

I will say this, given your hyper focus on lead guard, I don't think you should have Burries in your second tier.  I think his odds to turn into a starting NBA player is at least as high as the rest of the guys, but his odds to turn into a starting lead guard is appreciably less than those other guys.

[KillerLeft]

I will say this, given your hyper focus on lead guard, I don't think you should have Burries in your second tier.  I think his odds to turn into a starting NBA player is at least as high as the rest of the guys, but his odds to turn into a starting lead guard is appreciably less than those other guys.

And I'll say this, again: My inclusion of Burries in the 2nd tier is contingent on the idea that he's already a lead guard, an opinion I've heard from multiple experts who followed him prior to this season. This is covered ground. I'm simply remaining open to the idea that one college season doesn't equate to an all-encompassing reflection of his potential. There's lots out there about him choosing the role because it was the only one available to him at the school he wanted. I don't know (but obviously, neither do you), but the people putting this out there say he had offers from other schools to be a lead guard. Good schools. If this is true, he goes up a notch for me because it shows he's wiling to make himself a fit in the right situation. 

Obviously, if he's NOT a lead guard, or even if him being a lead guard requires "developing into" one, that lowers him for me. All those guys are going to require loads of development regardless of what their roles are, but my interest in Burries is mostly based on the idea that he already IS a lead guard. Again, the MAVS need to have the right of it, but I can see it enough to remain open. Worst case, he's a GUARD, which is something, given this team's current roster status. 

I'm past the point of needing to argue about this part - we're too close to the draft, and we all think what we think. Now, I'm on to arguing with this ridiculous notion that it's somehow preferable to come away with two mediocre forwards, or one mediocre forward and a 3rd string PG, or a mediocre forward and a slow, stiff big who you can't play in the playoffs than the ONE thing that could concevably move the team forward from here.

I'll add that I was ridiculed around here for suggesting Peterson would be a lead guard in the NBA, and then two months later, POOF! His representation is out there letting teams know that's the role he wants. So predictable, honestly. In the NBA, the guys who handle the ball are the ones who matter. You're not going to draft a guard in the top 5 (or top 10, probably) and NOT give him the ball. You don't have to be Jason Kidd to succeed in that role. In fact, you're probably better off these days starting your career off have 1-3 things you do really well with the ball at each level, provided you are a threat to SCORE.

[Scott41theMavs]

Should have traded down and taken Jarrett Allen at 22. Or OG at 23. Or Josh Hart at 30.

All those expert GM’s who made millions of dollars…just don’t know.

This is either a bit, or an agenda.

Not sure what your issue is with Masai (and you weren't all that keen on Presti either), but this excrement is making you look like a Nico apologist or something.

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

So how does the pairing of Masai and Schmitz work as far as the draft?

Would Schmitz give a short list of players he likes and then Masai gets the final say based on the guys on the list?
or is it the other way around?

[Scott41theMavs]

Single digits! 9 days until the first round.

[Scott41theMavs]

Perhaps this year's Finals changes the desired model so much that Acuff, Flemings, and Brown are the first three picks.

And then we'll really wished we tanked right.

[hakeemfaan]

And I'll say this, again: My inclusion of Burries in the 2nd tier is contingent on the idea that he's already a lead guard, an opinion I've heard from multiple experts who followed him prior to this season. This is covered ground. I'm simply remaining open to the idea that one college season doesn't equate to an all-encompassing reflection of his potential. There's lots out there about him choosing the role because it was the only one available to him at the school he wanted. I don't know (but obviously, neither do you), but the people putting this out there say he had offers from other schools to be a lead guard. Good schools. If this is true, he goes up a notch for me because it shows he's wiling to make himself a fit in the right situation. 

Obviously, if he's NOT a lead guard, or even if him being a lead guard requires "developing into" one, that lowers him for me. All those guys are going to require loads of development regardless of what their roles are, but my interest in Burries is mostly based on the idea that he already IS a lead guard. Again, the MAVS need to have the right of it, but I can see it enough to remain open. Worst case, he's a GUARD, which is something, given this team's current roster status. 

I'm past the point of needing to argue about this part - we're too close to the draft, and we all think what we think. Now, I'm on to arguing with this ridiculous notion that it's somehow preferable to come away with two mediocre forwards, or one mediocre forward and a 3rd string PG, or a mediocre forward and a slow, stiff big who you can't play in the playoffs than the ONE thing that could concevably move the team forward from here.

I'll add that I was ridiculed around here for suggesting Peterson would be a lead guard in the NBA, and then two months later, POOF! His representation is out there letting teams know that's the role he wants. So predictable, honestly. In the NBA, the guys who handle the ball are the ones who matter. You're not going to draft a guard in the top 5 (or top 10, probably) and NOT give him the ball. You don't have to be Jason Kidd to succeed in that role. In fact, you're probably better off these days starting your career off have 1-3 things you do really well with the ball at each level, provided you are a threat to SCORE.

We saw in this Finals the importance of a secure ball handler. 

Both Harper and Castle can do a few things really well and can score but put on ball pressure on them and they can’t handle it. This is why Fox was kept in despite underperforming, even though I don’t  know if he is strong with the ball either. 

As I said, my bar for a PG is low. If Burries can be really strong with the ball when defenses really get after him, then it is fine. But a lead guard HAS to be dependable with the ball first and foremost. Of course you need scoring as well in this day and age . Weaker defense from the PG  position is one thing you can hide somewhat well and something a team can live with as long as the player is at least trying hard.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

Trading up to pick 5-8 seems like a waste of assets, since almost anyone in the 5-to-10 group might end up in your lap anyhow.

WOOOSH

[loki]

We saw in this Finals the importance of a secure ball handler. 

Both Harper and Castle can do a few things really well and can score but put on ball pressure on them and they can’t handle it. This is why Fox was kept in despite underperforming, even though I don’t  know if he is strong with the ball either. 

As I said, my bar for a PG is low. If Burries can be really strong with the ball when defenses really get after him, then it is fine. But a lead guard HAS to be dependable with the ball first and foremost. Of course you need scoring as well in this day and age . Weaker defense from the PG  position is one thing you can hide somewhat well and something a team can live with as long as the player is at least trying hard.

Limiting turnovers is important, but I wouldn't make that my criteria for a lead guard. Guys like Luka turn it over constantly and they're still extremely productive because they hit so many home runs in between the strikeouts. I'd rather have a guy with the necessary court vision/creativity to generate offense even if he's a little over-aggressive than have someone who takes no risks. You can be strong with the ball and still have an anemic offense.

[loki]

Single digits! 9 days until the first round.

[hakeemfaan]

Limiting turnovers is important, but I wouldn't make that my criteria for a lead guard. Guys like Luka turn it over constantly and they're still extremely productive because they hit so many home runs in between the strikeouts. I'd rather have a guy with the necessary court vision/creativity to generate offense even if he's a little over-aggressive than have someone who takes no risks. You can be strong with the ball and still have an anemic offense.

Luka gets into trouble when he tries to do too much but he is rock solid with his handles. That’s a guy who is used to teams literally designing their defenses around him 

The Spurs young uns were coughing up the ball a lot and looked nervous. 

To me being solid with the ball has always been #1 for your lead guard. Even Curry is really solid with his handles though he is not your typical facilitator   When the lead guard gets the ball your team should have the confidence that no matter what the other team throws at him, he won’t get flustered.

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

Some scouts are saying Burries only sees the strong side of the ball and couldn't see past thru the first pass. Makes the simple pass, makes the right play. Fully functional as a playmaker -- Good enough would be the term now and probably will be just that.
Burries handles are good, not great, not advance, just good enough -- he is not twitchy, not quick, kinda' easier for opposing guards to know where he would go, but he isn't inept, just not advance.

Now combine Burries' just "good-enough handles" and "good-enough" playmaking against a defense hell bent on stopping the ball handler past midcourt.
Burries most likely would just be struggling to handle the ball as opposed to organizing an offense on top of ball handling duties.
His mind will be pre-occupied with just making it thru his dribble.

I have less worries about this with a dude like Flemmings.

NOTE: I like Burries if he is the only one of the top guards left. I would just look on adding a PG or a quasi-PG (like Burries but better at PG) at pick 30.

[F Gump]

So how does the pairing of Masai and Schmitz work as far as the draft?

Would Schmitz give a short list of players he likes and then Masai gets the final say based on the guys on the list?
or is it the other way around?

I doubt we will be given the answer to that. 

My guess is that S will be tasked with the legwork and player valuing, and that M will then decide who is the player to pick using those facts.

[khaled1987]

Regarding the finals in relation to the draft.

For me, this final makes me feel more comfortable about the draft, it is an opportunity, an important one, but not as consequential as folks said.

But the traditional model of a "Batman and Robin doesn't seem to be the current one. Well coached and deep teams are essential.

A year ago, or less, KAT was a loser you can't build a winner around, Brunson was a undersized ball hog that doesn't win chips. Now they are champions. None on this team is a traditional franchise player. Not a single starter was drafted by them.

Last year, OKC had clear superstar , but I don't see a clear "side kick" but rather a strong deep team. Same with 2023 Denver. 2022 GSW was kind off the same too. Boston 2024 is the closest thing to that, though I feel it was 2 robins with a very deep team around them.

Get a good talent, don't focus too much on his limitation, and see how it works as a fit and then we work from there.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

J. Kyle Mann, an NBA draft analyst for The Ringer who was Simmons’ guest on the June 8 episode did not echo this sentiment. “I think the Jazz will take Peterson. I’ve heard they like Peterson, I’ve heard Danny likes Peterson,” Mann said. Boozer was the national player of the year in his lone collegiate season at Duke, averaging an insane freshman stat line of 22.5 points, 10.2 rebounds and 4.1 assists per game. Boozer’s high IQ and rebounding are two of his biggest strengths, while his defense and perceived lower athletic ability leave some teams hesitant on drafting the former Blue Devil.

Yahoo! Sports

[Smitty]

@ShamsCharania
Developments ahead of the June 23-24 NBA draft: BYU's AJ Dybantsa has conducted formal visits with both the Washington Wizards (No. 1) and Utah Jazz (No. 2) while Kansas' Darryn Peterson only visited the Wizards and does not plan to grant anyone else a meeting, sources tell me and @JeremyWoo.

Both have believed in going No. 1 -- and now teams in the lottery are taking note of Peterson's decision to only give access to Washington.

[KillerLeft]

@ShamsCharania
Developments ahead of the June 23-24 NBA draft: BYU's AJ Dybantsa has conducted formal visits with both the Washington Wizards (No. 1) and Utah Jazz (No. 2) while Kansas' Darryn Peterson only visited the Wizards and does not plan to grant anyone else a meeting, sources tell me and @JeremyWoo.

Both have believed in going No. 1 -- and now teams in the lottery are taking note of Peterson's decision to only give access to Washington.

Caleb Wilson AND Kingston Flemings at 10 would be a pretty great way to jumpstart the rebuild for Milwaukee.

[hakeemfaan]

Regarding the finals in relation to the draft.

For me, this final makes me feel more comfortable about the draft, it is an opportunity, an important one, but not as consequential as folks said.

But the traditional model of a "Batman and Robin doesn't seem to be the current one. Well coached and deep teams are essential.

A year ago, or less, KAT was a loser you can't build a winner around, Brunson was a undersized ball hog that doesn't win chips. Now they are champions. None on this team is a traditional franchise player. Not a single starter was drafted by them.

Last year, OKC had clear superstar , but I don't see a clear "side kick" but rather a strong deep team. Same with 2023  Denver. 2022 GSW was kind off the same too. Boston 2024 is the closest thing to that, though I feel it was 2 robins  with a very deep team around them.

Get a good talent, don't focus too much on his limitation, and see how it works as a fit and then we work from there.

One thing the playoffs always brings out is shotmaking.  Elite shot makers stand out when the talent level rises as teams go deeper into the playoffs and every team is bringing their best effort.  

Wrt the draft to me that means players like Wagler, Flemings, Burries will stand out because they have that jump shot be it even a middy like Flemings 

Brown, Ament are more risky though Brown most likely will be gone before our turn comes up. Same for Wagler. 

My realistic dream is for Flemings to fall   I will be happy with Burries as well. Lead guard or not because his shot is good. I love Philon more from a pure talent level but I understand the concerns about his size and getting beaten up which is also a reality as you go through a long playoffs. 

I see a huge drop off after that and am not in favor of moving down. Sure just like any draft there will be one or more players who will be picked lower who might turn out to be very good but you are not playing the percentages at that point. 

At least as of now there are tiers to this draft and the dropoff after 10 seems too risky to move down.

[SleepingHero]

“@shamscharania

Developments ahead of the June 23-24 NBA draft: BYU's AJ Dybantsa has conducted formal visits with both the Washington Wizards (No. 1) and Utah Jazz (No. 2) while Kansas' Darryn Peterson only visited the Wizards and does not plan to grant anyone else a meeting, sources tell me and @JeremyWoo.

Both have believed in going No. 1 -- and now teams in the lottery are taking note of Peterson's decision to only give access to Washington.”

If this is the case, and Peterson has a chance of falling, the Mavs should be HIGHLY motivated to potentially trade up with Chicago.