Trade & Free Agency 2026/2027

[DallasMaverick]

We have picks. We have several players who are perceived to have positive trade value. I've outlined all of that already, so maybe we are talking past each other there. Yes, the TPE is an asset. As is the room below A2.

In the end, what are we talking about here... An asset or combination of assets is used to obtain something that you find has higher value, yes? Each team values things differently and are working within their own limitations and organizational goals. The difference I think for me is that I probably find good players as good as  -- or even more valuable than -- a late pick. One is a known commodity, the other is hope -- in that you land someone as good as or better than what you traded away. Both make sense on some level, otherwise there would never be trades.

With Kyrie, I haven't seen a realistic trade that has the Mavs landing a top 10 pick in this draft. But sure, that's intriguing. All of the others though? We're talking about one or two unrealistic hypotheticals (all of our fantasy trades are) as something we might do... So, again, it's easy to say the Mavs should do X, but it takes two to tango and when you go through all the somewhat realistic possibilities talked about so far, it's a lot of meh IMO.

I'd argue that, under the current CBA, cap space is an incredibly valuable asset, far moreso than in previous years.

Having significant negative value contracts provides an almost insurmountable boat anchor.  How many of the recent championship teams had significant negative ballast they were carrying?

I think the Mavs are in pretty good shape to build a contender now.

[F Gump]

 That is why I would be willing to sacrifice some near term winning to restock asset cupboard.  

I'm not convinced that having a pursuit of trading away good players in hand, on good contracts, will be a path that can actually "restock" anything. I think it's just an exercise in churning the roster, and settling for a treadmill of mediocrity. 

Of course, Mavs will do what they think is best. But based on his history as a GM, I really think that M is the sort that will try to create the biggest winner possible in the quickest way he can. He may move pieces that don't make DAL better by being here on the court, but I don't think he will move ones that are useful and talented (unless he can get back someone even better). I think his vision is going to be how to build the best team around CF now, and soon, if he can, and not aim for 5-10 years from now.

[mvossman]

We have picks. We have several players who are perceived to have positive trade value. I've outlined all of that already, so maybe we are talking past each other there. Yes, the TPE is an asset. As is the room below A2.

In the end, what are we talking about here... An asset or combination of assets is used to obtain something that you find has higher value, yes? Each team values things differently and are working within their own limitations and organizational goals. The difference I think for me is that I probably find good players as good as  -- or even more valuable than -- a late pick. One is a known commodity, the other is hope -- in that you land someone as good as or better than what you traded away. Both make sense on some level, otherwise there would never be trades.

With Kyrie, I haven't seen a realistic trade that has the Mavs landing a top 10 pick in this draft. But sure, that's intriguing. All of the others though? We're talking about one or two unrealistic hypotheticals (all of our fantasy trades are) as something we might do... So, again, it's easy to say the Mavs should do X, but it takes two to tango and when you go through all the somewhat realistic possibilities talked about so far, it's a lot of meh IMO.

I never suggested we don't have assets.  I said we have limited assets.  Most teams doing a full rebuild tank for multiple years to stockpile picks.  We don't have that option.  Most rebuilding teams did not trade away or swap all of their future picks, but we did.  I'm not arguing the difference in value between neutral contract player and a draft pick.  That is a different discussion.  I'm simply saying this team does not have the same asset resources as a typical rebuilding team, and their only real way to address that would be to trade Kyire, and that's only if they can actually get significant assets back.

I don't think I have ever said (or even implied) the "Mavs should do X" without taking into account context.  You asked for which of these fantasy trades I would accept, and I gave you an example.  I'm not suggesting that trade is on the table or even likely.  I'm saying if they could get that then they should.  It feels like you and Gump are implying that because I am open to trading Kyire in the right deal that I want to give him away or take any deal that comes across.  

Just like the AD trade, this comes down to valuation.  Just like that trade, Gump and I are miles apart (If I remember correctly I believe he said he would not pull the trigger on getting #10 in this draft for Kyrie).  If you are open to that trade then we are probably not that far apart.  There might be one or two other trades mentioned that I would be willing to consider that you wouldn't.

[mvossman]

I'm not convinced that having a pursuit of trading away good players in hand, on good contracts, will be a path that can actually "restock" anything. I think it's just an exercise in churning the roster, and settling for a treadmill of mediocrity. 

Of course, Mavs will do what they think is best. But based on his history as a GM, I really think that M is the sort that will try to create the biggest winner possible in the quickest way he can. He may move pieces that don't make DAL better by being here on the court, but I don't think he will move ones that are useful and talented (unless he can get back someone even better). I think his vision is going to be how to build the best team around CF now, and soon, if he can, and not aim for 5-10 years from now.

To be clear, at no point in this thread was I suggesting they trade any of those contracts.  I was simply assessing total asset value.  The only contract we are talking about trading is Kyrie.  I'm not convinced that holding onto a 34 year old on a valuable contract until he no longer has value while trying to build around a 19 year old is the right way to go.

As for what Masai will do, its hard to say because he has never been in this position.  Looking at his history, he is not a guy to stockpile picks.  There is no hint in his history that he would even contemplate some of the crazy trade proposals we have seen on this board where they send out everybody and get 5 picks in this draft or move up to #4.  I think if he gets a good enough offer he should take it.  I don't know if that offer will come.

[F Gump]

MV, I get your point. I think the biggest place where we part company is demonstrated when you say "I said we have limited assets.  Most teams doing a full rebuild tank for multiple years to stockpile picks." You are apparently defining assets as "whatever future picks a team has" (so you see the Mavs asset pool as "limited" and needing to pursue more picks) whereas I define assets as "whatever talented players on good contracts a team has been able to acquire" (so I see them as having lots of assets and merely needing to use their talent-in-hand to try to win games rather than not).

Would I prefer more picks? Sure. But picks don't win games. The goal should be winning.

[Smitty]

I never suggested we don't have assets.  I said we have limited assets.  Most teams doing a full rebuild tank for multiple years to stockpile picks.  We don't have that option.  Most rebuilding teams did not trade away or swap all of their future picks, but we did.  I'm not arguing the difference in value between neutral contract player and a draft pick.  That is a different discussion.  I'm simply saying this team does not have the same asset resources as a typical rebuilding team, and their only real way to address that would be to trade Kyire, and that's only if they can actually get significant assets back.

I don't think I have ever said (or even implied) the "Mavs should do X" without taking into account context.  You asked for which of these fantasy trades I would accept, and I gave you an example.  I'm not suggesting that trade is on the table or even likely.  I'm saying if they could get that then they should.  It feels like you and Gump are implying that because I am open to trading Kyire in the right deal that I want to give him away or take any deal that comes across.  

Just like the AD trade, this comes down to valuation.  Just like that trade, Gump and I are miles apart (If I remember correctly I believe he said he would not pull the trigger on getting #10 in this draft for Kyrie).  If you are open to that trade then we are probably not that far apart.  There might be one or two other trades mentioned that I would be willing to consider that you wouldn't.

I was replying to this part specifically " If we don't have picks, and we don't have players worth significant picks, then I'm not sure what assets you are referring to?"
- You seem stuck on draft picks as being the only thing defined as an asset in this case. My argument is that picks are not the only asset in regard to team building. And that the Mavs do in fact have picks. 


"Most teams doing a full rebuild tank for multiple years to stockpile picks" 
- Sure, but most rebuilding teams are in search of what the Mavs already have. A generational player.


"It feels like you and Gump are implying that because I am open to trading Kyire in the right deal that I want to give him away or take any deal that comes across."
- I'm not implying that at all. Apologies if it came off that way! I'm also open to trading Kyrie... What I'm saying is there's yet to be a deal proposed or talked about that meets the criteria to do so, IMO.

[mvossman]

MV, I get your point. I think the biggest place where we part company is demonstrated when you say "I said we have limited assets.  Most teams doing a full rebuild tank for multiple years to stockpile picks." You are apparently defining assets as "whatever future picks a team has" (so you see the Mavs asset pool as "limited" and needing to pursue more picks) whereas I define assets as "whatever talented players on good contracts a team has been able to acquire" (so I see them as having lots of assets and merely needing to use their talent-in-hand to try to win games rather than not).

Would I prefer more picks? Sure. But picks don't win games. The goal should be winning.

This team clearly does not have enough talent to contend right now.  That includes all of the current player "assets".  That means they need to get better beyond the players currently on the roster.  The only way to do that is via assets above and beyond the current talent on the team.  I am referring to the assets that will improve the on court talent.  Including current players is double counting.  With Kyrie, there is potential to acquire assets that will improve the team in the future when Kyrie's own contributions (in his late 30s) would be minimal or not at all.  If you don't think this team will have enough talent to contend during the window that Kyrie will be effective, then there is very strong argument for acquiring future talent for him now if you can.

[Smitty]

This team clearly does not have enough talent to contend right now. 

Are you arguing that they are not "contenders" or that they will be or should be in full blown long-term rebuilding mode due to the current lack of talent (your opinion) around Flagg?

Is there an in-between somewhere? And that somewhere is where you don't want this team to be?

[mvossman]

Are you arguing that they are not "contenders" or that they will be or should be in full blown long-term rebuilding mode due to the current lack of talent (your opinion) around Flagg?

Is there an in-between somewhere? And that somewhere is where you don't want this team to be?

I am arguing that they are not contenders right now and its hard to see them get to that point in the next couple of years, especially if they don't plan on sacrificing the future to win now (like trading future picks for win now vets, which I don't think they will do).  In my mind the in-between move would be to trade the one player that has significant asset value now and will very likely have much less value (both asset and on court) by the time the contention window opens.  You could trade him for younger player(s), picks or both.  I'm not advocating for a full tear-down given that they don't benefit from losing (and I don't think that is Masai methodology anyways).

[michaeltex]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nobody really knows how good (or bad) the current team is.

Two years ago they lost the finals to Boston. Since then:

• Released arguably the best training staff in the sport. A team that has recovered/extended the careers of countless players of all ages.
  
• Luka shows up out of shape and instantly gets injured in practice, takes two weeks off to "rehab" (i.e., get in better shape) the comes back and gets hurt AGAIN, which puts him out until...
  
• THE TRADE, sending the entire team into shock, and bringing back the returning-from-injury husk of AD, who promptly injures himself, AGAIN.
  
• Lost Lively for a lot of the season to a broken foot that originally diagnosed as a strain.
  
• Lost Gaff for significant time due to a knee sprain. I think even DP was injured some during this period.
  
• Lost Kyrie to ACL tears that ended his season and was expected to extend deep into the next.
  
• Move from any semblance of competition and into tanking mode, playing with a team of 2-ways and 10-day players. But still (after all that) it took a loss to MEM in the play-in to get into a lottery position.
  
• Was touched by the hand of whatever deity you subscribe to and drafted Flagg
  
• Ditched Nico and put a co-GM duo in charge of the team on an interim basis that at least had the freedom to dump AD.
  
• AD shows up to camp out of shape because of off-season eye surgery and continues to miss enough games through random injuries that he was gone by late January.
  
• Lively shows up to camp with lingering foot issues and gets shut down for the season after just a couple games.
  
• At some time around the ASB, the team starts an "ethical" tank to 1) get the best lottery odds possible, 2) not get noticed by the fine police at NBA HQ and 3) showcase Flagg toward getting ROY honors.
  
• etc. etc.
  

TL : DR - This team is a bunch of players who haven't played together in any kind of successful system or with any kind of winning expectations for two years now. I would submit that many of the vets were playing post-ASB to just get it over and not get hurt. A new season, maybe a few new faces, certainly some welcomed returns of old faces and the right leadership, this may be a better team than anyone expects. We just don't know right now because everything has been a twilight zone for the last few years.

But at least there is the excitement of what should be a good draft opportunity and room to maneuver in the FA/trade market.

[mvossman]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nobody really knows how good (or bad) the current team is.

Two years ago they lost the finals to Boston. Since then:

• Released arguably the best training staff in the sport. A team that has recovered/extended the careers of countless players of all ages.
  
• Luka shows up out of shape and instantly gets injured in practice, takes two weeks off to "rehab" (i.e., get in better shape) the comes back and gets hurt AGAIN, which puts him out until...
  
• THE TRADE, sending the entire team into shock, and bringing back the returning-from-injury husk of AD, who promptly injures himself, AGAIN.
  
• Lost Lively for a lot of the season to a broken foot that originally diagnosed as a strain.
  
• Lost Gaff for significant time due to a knee sprain. I think even DP was injured some during this period.
  
• Lost Kyrie to ACL tears that ended his season and was expected to extend deep into the next.
  
• Move from any semblance of competition and into tanking mode, playing with a team of 2-ways and 10-day players. But still (after all that) it took a loss to MEM in the play-in to get into a lottery position.
  
• Was touched by the hand of whatever deity you subscribe to and drafted Flagg
  
• Ditched Nico and put a co-GM duo in charge of the team on an interim basis that at least had the freedom to dump AD.
  
• AD shows up to camp out of shape because of off-season eye surgery and continues to miss enough games through random injuries that he was gone by late January.
  
• Lively shows up to camp with lingering foot issues and gets shut down for the season after just a couple games.
  
• At some time around the ASB, the team starts an "ethical" tank to 1) get the best lottery odds possible, 2) not get noticed by the fine police at NBA HQ and 3) showcase Flagg toward getting ROY honors.
  
• etc. etc.
  

TL : DR - This team is a bunch of players who haven't played together in any kind of successful system or with any kind of winning expectations for two years now. I would submit that many of the vets were playing post-ASB to just get it over and not get hurt. A new season, maybe a few new faces, certainly some welcomed returns of old faces and the right leadership, this may be a better team than anyone expects. We just don't know right now because everything has been a twilight zone for the last few years.

But at least there is the excitement of what should be a good draft opportunity and room to maneuver in the FA/trade market.

I agree with this to a point.  But the reality is the Mavs don't have a player on the roster (outside Flagg and Kyrie) as good as the Nick's 5th starter.  And that team currently has the fourth best odds to win next year (which seems about right to me).  The depth of talent on some of these teams they are competing with is crazy high.  I think they have a long way to go.

[Smitty]

I agree with this to a point.  But the reality is the Mavs don't have a player on the roster (outside Flagg and Kyrie) as good as the Nick's 5th starter.  And that team currently has the fourth best odds to win next year (which seems about right to me).  The depth of talent on some of these teams they are competing with is crazy high.  I think they have a long way to go.

Lively hate detected.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

Interesting discussion.

If we had a poverty owner like the Kings, I think there definitely would be an incentive to keep Kyrie and try to make the 10 seed/play in.  But Masai seemed pretty clear in his press conference that we're going to build this thing for the long term.  But still, as an entertainment product youre putting out on the court, how much responsibility do you have to the fans paying money for tickets?  How much does another 26-56 type of season erode your fanbase?  I know I'm not paying for any tickets if they suck again.  People lose interest.  Not everyone is a hardcore fan looking to optimize Cooper Flagg's prime 5 years from now.

[KillerLeft]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nobody really knows how good (or bad) the current team is.

Two years ago they lost the finals to Boston. Since then:

• Released arguably the best training staff in the sport. A team that has recovered/extended the careers of countless players of all ages.
  
• Luka shows up out of shape and instantly gets injured in practice, takes two weeks off to "rehab" (i.e., get in better shape) the comes back and gets hurt AGAIN, which puts him out until...
  
• THE TRADE, sending the entire team into shock, and bringing back the returning-from-injury husk of AD, who promptly injures himself, AGAIN.
  
• Lost Lively for a lot of the season to a broken foot that originally diagnosed as a strain.
  
• Lost Gaff for significant time due to a knee sprain. I think even DP was injured some during this period.
  
• Lost Kyrie to ACL tears that ended his season and was expected to extend deep into the next.
  
• Move from any semblance of competition and into tanking mode, playing with a team of 2-ways and 10-day players. But still (after all that) it took a loss to MEM in the play-in to get into a lottery position.
  
• Was touched by the hand of whatever deity you subscribe to and drafted Flagg
  
• Ditched Nico and put a co-GM duo in charge of the team on an interim basis that at least had the freedom to dump AD.
  
• AD shows up to camp out of shape because of off-season eye surgery and continues to miss enough games through random injuries that he was gone by late January.
  
• Lively shows up to camp with lingering foot issues and gets shut down for the season after just a couple games.
  
• At some time around the ASB, the team starts an "ethical" tank to 1) get the best lottery odds possible, 2) not get noticed by the fine police at NBA HQ and 3) showcase Flagg toward getting ROY honors.
  
• etc. etc.
  

TL : DR - This team is a bunch of players who haven't played together in any kind of successful system or with any kind of winning expectations for two years now. I would submit that many of the vets were playing post-ASB to just get it over and not get hurt. A new season, maybe a few new faces, certainly some welcomed returns of old faces and the right leadership, this may be a better team than anyone expects. We just don't know right now because everything has been a twilight zone for the last few years.

But at least there is the excitement of what should be a good draft opportunity and room to maneuver in the FA/trade market.

I have to know who they hire to coach and how draft night shakes out before committing to my opinion of next year's chances, but my early feeling isn't optimistic. 

Flagg is a great young player, but I just don't get the sense that the organization has even settled on HOW to build around him yet. He was used a lot of different ways last season which is a great thing in some ways, but you kind of have to pick a lane for him before committing to putting certain pieces around him. I've noticed some overlap between the people who are optimistic about the team's near future and those who are OK with Flagg playing a lot of PG, which makes sense. He's a similar size to Luka, so if that worked, there might be reason to think the team built around Luka might have a chance of coming together relatively quickly. I, myself, think most of last season is proof that it won't work, and that a lot of those Luka-complementary players are quite literally in Flagg's way, blocking his development, or to put it more nicely, not a fit with him. 

I would not be in favor of "tearing it down," but then again if I'm honest, I think Gafford, PJW and Naji Marshal all have to go in order for Flagg to become what I'd be trying to make him, so...turning those players into equivalently skilled players in more appropriate areas seems tough. However, that's what I'd try first. 

Kyrie and Thompson both fit fine, imho, but they're both so old that their fit is kind of irrelevant. As long as the majority of good role players here are bad fits with Flagg, BAD TEAM. I think both Kyrie and Thompson bring a lot of benefit to the table in terms of mentorship and leading by example, and I value that greatly. It's not my intention to discount that part of their value at all, but when weighed against just how little the Mavs actually have to work with in terms of building around Flagg, and where the state of the on court product is right now, it's tough for me to get excited about bringing either of them back. 

When I try to identify the Mavs' core...you've got Flagg, Lively (fingers crossed), Christie and (if you're feeling generous) Nembhard. I think others are living in a world where other names currently on the roster matter, but I can't see it. I'm hoping the Mavs draft a ball-handler to pair with Flagg, Lively proves this foot injury is in the past and the Mavs commit to building around that group.

[DanSchwartzgan]

Gafford/#9 for Risacher/#8?

Now at least two of the guards are available when you draft.

[KillerLeft]

Interesting discussion.

If we had a poverty owner like the Kings, I think there definitely would be an incentive to keep Kyrie and try to make the 10 seed/play in.  But Masai seemed pretty clear in his press conference that we're going to build this thing for the long term.  But still, as an entertainment product youre putting out on the court, how much responsibility do you have to the fans paying money for tickets?  How much does another 26-56 type of season erode your fanbase?  That's another reason I'd start the season with Kyrie.  Let the people see him and Cooper play.  Reassess at the trade deadline.  What's the hurry?

I think any fans excited to see Kyrie play with Flagg would quickly lose interest once they realized how unsuccessful the team will be, competitively, even those who intellectually understand they're likely to bad before the season starts. It's one thing to admit there's a good chance the team won't be good but quite another to sit through loss after loss during a season wherein even the homers around here won't be able to assume there's some 3D chess tanking going on. 

I could be wrong about this part, because you make a good point regarding Kyrie's draw for fans, but...if the Mavs were able to get Wagler, Brown Jr, Flemings, etc, I think pairing one of those youngsters WITH Flagg is more than enough to get me excited after last season.

[KillerLeft]

Gafford/#9 for Risacher/#8?

Now at least two of the guards are available when you draft.

I'd say yes so hard they'd rethink the offer.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

I think any fans excited to see Kyrie play with Flagg would quickly lose interest once they realized how unsuccessful the team will be, competitively, even those who intellectually understand they're likely to bad before the season starts. It's one thing to admit there's a good chance the team won't be good but quite another to sit through loss after loss during a season wherein even the homers around here won't be able to assume there's some 3D chess tanking going on. 

I could be wrong about this part, because you make a good point regarding Kyrie's draw for fans, but...if the Mavs were able to get Wagler, Brown Jr, Flemings, etc, I think pairing one of those youngsters WITH Flagg is more than enough to get me excited after last season.

Winning is the draw to most fans.  Even if you're not a real contender, a team fighting for the playoffs is a draw.  A team that's giving up on the season in June is not a draw.

You dont think they could reconstruct this roster to compete for .500? Golden State made the playin last year with a 37-45 record.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

Gafford/#9 for Risacher/#8?

Now at least two of the guards are available when you draft.

Meh

Risacher no longer looks like a promising prospect.  I liked him at one point.  Now he is more like a Josh Green type of guy. Anyone miss Josh Green?

[Smitty]

I have to know who they hire to coach and how draft night shakes out before committing to my opinion of next year's chances, but my early feeling isn't optimistic. 

Flagg is a great young player, but I just don't get the sense that the organization has even settled on HOW to build around him yet. He was used a lot of different ways last season which is a great thing in some ways, but you kind of have to pick a lane for him before committing to putting certain pieces around him. I've noticed some overlap between the people who are optimistic about the team's near future and those who are OK with Flagg playing a lot of PG, which makes sense. He's a similar size to Luka, so if that worked, there might be reason to think the team built around Luka might have a chance of coming together relatively quickly. I, myself, think most of last season is proof that it won't work, and that a lot of those Luka-complementary players are quite literally in Flagg's way, blocking his development, or to put it more nicely, not a fit with him. 

I would not be in favor of "tearing it down," but then again if I'm honest, I think Gafford, PJW and Naji Marshal all have to go in order for Flagg to become what I'd be trying to make him, so...turning those players into equivalently skilled players in more appropriate areas seems tough. However, that's what I'd try first. 

Kyrie and Thompson both fit fine, imho, but they're both so old that their fit is kind of irrelevant. As long as the majority of good role players here are bad fits with Flagg, BAD TEAM. I think both Kyrie and Thompson bring a lot of benefit to the table in terms of mentorship and leading by example, and I value that greatly. It's not my intention to discount that part of their value at all, but when weighed against just how little the Mavs actually have to work with in terms of building around Flagg, and where the state of the on court product is right now, it's tough for me to get excited about bringing either of them back. 

When I try to identify the Mavs' core...you've got Flagg, Lively (fingers crossed), Christie and (if you're feeling generous) Nembhard. I think others are living in a world where other names currently on the roster matter, but I can't see it. I'm hoping the Mavs draft a ball-handler to pair with Flagg, Lively proves this foot injury is in the past and the Mavs commit to building around that group.

I think you hit on something that I’ve been trying to say but failed to convey. I would MUCH rather trade those good but maybe I’ll fitting vets for other good players. 
Trading Naji, PJ, Gafford, Klay, Kyrie, etc. for draft picks is absolutely no guarantee that you get a good player with that pick. It could just as easily set you back with a ‘bust’. 

I think that’s why I’ve been against any proposed Kyrie trade so far. The closest one that was tolerable was the unrealistic Minnesota one with Naz, Ayo, Divincenzo, ‘33 FRP coming back because you get 3 proven, really good players in the deal, plus the lottery ticket. 

Those are the type of trades I prefer for really any of the guys that are talked about here.