2026 NBA draft thread

[F Gump]

A lot of these analysts are just so hung up on the 3 that they can't see beyond it.  This literally after one of the best midrange shooters currently, and one who is a small guard, led his team to a title.

Plus it's not as if Flemings is terrible at shooting the 3.  In fact this guy says he will be a good regular season player and if he can change the pull up 2 to a pull up 3 then we're talking.  What?? Those are two different shots and the pull up 2 in many ways is still much more difficult for defenses to plan for and to defend, especially as you go deeper into the playoffs.  Harden for all his dribbling brilliance never had confidence in a drive hard, stop and pull up for the 2, which is why he struggled as his team went deeper into the playoffs.

But again, many teams seem down on him. So maybe they're all seeing something in the individual workouts that we are not privy too. Let's see how low he drops and what sort of impact he eventually has in the league. IMO if he drops below 10 some team is going to get a real steal in terms of getting a player who clearly belongs a tier above where he will get drafted.

You make some good points in favor of Flemings' value.

The flip side is that reportedly LAC had Wagler in at the same time as Flemings, and they went head to head, and we're told that Wagler dominated him. That story has made the rounds, and undoubtedly has some weight with gurus.

[mvossman]

You make some good points in favor of Flemings' value.

The flip side is that reportedly LAC had Wagler in at the same time as Flemings, and they went head to head, and we're told that Wagler dominated him. That story has made the rounds, and undoubtedly has some weight with gurus.

You can make the argument that Wagler is more of a scorer and Flemings is more of a playmaker, so it would make sense that Wagler wins that matchup as you are taking Flemings best skill out of the equation.

[KillerLeft]

Brunson's midrange game was always a factor.  We'll disagree on that.

If the argument is could he have gone to the next level as the main guy without a consistent 3, that's a different argument.  But he needs his 3 only to keep defenses honest. His bread and butter is still his midrange game.  There is nothing so far that Flemings has shown to say that he can't do the same.  

Plus with Flagg here, no one is asking Flemings to come in and carry this team.  As a legit 2nd option, you very rarely get a chance at such a guy at #9.

Oooof. Hardest of disagrees here. Maybe we're using the phrase "a factor" differently, but to me it seems pretty simple. 

Goal #1: try to get two feet in the paint. When a guy is a threat to do that off the dribble, defenses back off and cheat in the lanes to take that away. They defend you by going under screens. The counter to that is to shoot from the perimeter. When the the defense is tight, it's easier to get a a driving angle. Even then, modern NBA defenses (good ones, at least) can take away the 3 AND the paint. That, to me, is where the open midrange becomes the deciding factor and yes, at that specific point, I agree that the midrange is where superstars make their names. 

Obviously there are some players who receive the ball in the midrange the way Dirk or Carmello Anthony used to, but that obviously doesn't apply to Brunson. 

We talk a ton around here about how "most people didn't see this in Brunson's future" at various points during his time here, and while I think you and I were probably both early adopters of his stock, I still vividly remember thinking his ceiling was lower than it should be, not because he couldn't shoot from the outside, but because he wouldn't. I feel pretty strongly that a pick and roll guard (which is EXACTLY what Brunson is) must be taken seriously enough as an outside shooter to prevent defenders from going under. That's basically the first step along the path to success for those guys nowadays, imho. Once Brunson got there, a whole slew of options opened up for him, expert midrange counters among them.

[KillerLeft]

Just to add to the above, there's a reason "3-level scorer" is such a sought after attribute these days. If you're trying to build an offense around someone, that someone had better have some type of game at all three levels, or he's going to be (relatively) easily defended. Maybe the exception is guys who are dominantly big and physical inside, but even then the passing angles to get them the ball can be taken away.

I think the reason three-point shooting is such a talked about skill at draft time is that 99% of these guys are NOT going to be the central focus of their teams' offenses, and in that case the outside shooting (occupying a defender and giving whomever the team's star or stars are adequate space to work) is almost always going to be THE determining factor as to whether a support player has enough utility on offense to be playable.

Even in 2026, you can design an offense to accommodate for a great defender here and there who can't shoot 3's...maybe they're a great cutter, or maybe they're talented at relentlessly hitting the offensive glass from the weak side baseline...whatever. BUT, you're not going through that trouble for a rookie. Period. In order to reach that point, nowadays, you have to first GET ON THE FLOOR. More and more often, "getting on the floor" equals "defend as hard as you can and be ready to SHOOT."

[khaled1987]

A lot of these analysts are just so hung up on the 3 that they can't see beyond it.  This literally after one of the best midrange shooters currently, and one who is a small guard, led his team to a title.

Plus it's not as if Flemings is terrible at shooting the 3.  In fact this guy says he will be a good regular season player and if he can change the pull up 2 to a pull up 3 then we're talking.  What?? Those are two different shots and the pull up 2 in many ways is still much more difficult for defenses to plan for and to defend, especially as you go deeper into the playoffs.  Harden for all his dribbling brilliance never had confidence in a drive hard, stop and pull up for the 2, which is why he struggled as his team went deeper into the playoffs.

But again, many teams seem down on him. So maybe they're all seeing something in the individual workouts that we are not privy too. Let's see how low he drops and what sort of impact he eventually has in the league. IMO if he drops below 10 some team is going to get a real steal in terms of getting a player who clearly belongs a tier above where he will get drafted.

I think Givony isn't obsessed with 3PT rather than him not liking current Flemings. He is saying pull up 3 because that would elevate Flemings into something else to warrant him.being a future star.

The word backup slipped out of his mouth and then he said NBA player, and I feel he thought he went too far so he said top 10 pick. 

Givony was kind of Schmitz mentor on draftexpress early years, and for that I am taking what he says seriously in our case (and generally he is one of the pioneers in that area and still one of the best). 

I am not arguing about Flemings myself, as I liked him and was one of the first to mention him early in the NCAA season, I prefer him over both Wagler and Burries, but it feels that folks who are more invested in the process don't share the same enthusiasm. And I am just taking notice.

Same with Philion for me btw, I rate him really high, but it seems I am alone on that.

[hakeemfaan]

You make some good points in favor of Flemings' value.

The flip side is that reportedly LAC had Wagler in at the same time as Flemings, and they went head to head, and we're told that Wagler dominated him. That story has made the rounds, and undoubtedly has some weight with gurus.

But I don't have Flemings rated above Wagler.   

If Flemings and Burries are the last two guards left, I'll take Flemings over Burries, but I'd be happy with either one.

I'm just against passing on all of them and moving down or knocking down Flemings as a decent NBA prospect as Givony is doing just because he didn't shoot a lot of 3s.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

I'm getting draft fatigue. This guy said this and this guy said that. No one knows what the Mavs are thinking or who will be available at 9. Only 3 more days.

[mvossman]

That hypothetical trade would not be legal as given (PJ for 12), but the legal version of any deal with OKC would obviously have a boatload of matching salary coming back from OKC, that could easily serve to satisfy their aim to shed salary (while also swapping 12 for PJ).

You would have to define what that salary was then, but by himself I don't think PJ market value is close to lottery pick, and I don't know that OKC has enough bad salary to get them there.

[hakeemfaan]

Just to add to the above, there's a reason "3-level scorer" is such a sought after attribute these days. If you're trying to build an offense around someone, that someone had better have some type of game at all three levels, or he's going to be (relatively) easily defended. Maybe the exception is guys who are dominantly big and physical inside, but even then the passing angles to get them the ball can be taken away.

I think the reason three-point shooting is such a talked about skill at draft time is that 99% of these guys are NOT going to be the central focus of their teams' offenses, and in that case the outside shooting (occupying a defender and giving whomever the team's star or stars are adequate space to work) is almost always going to be THE determining factor as to whether a support player has enough utility on offense to be playable.

Even in 2026, you can design an offense to accommodate for a great defender here and there who can't shoot 3's...maybe they're a great cutter, or maybe they're talented at relentlessly hitting the offensive glass from the weak side baseline...whatever. BUT, you're not going through that trouble for a rookie. Period. In order to reach that point, nowadays, you have to first GET ON THE FLOOR. More and more often, "getting on the floor" equals "defend as hard as you can and be ready to SHOOT."

If Flemings is on the floor, he will handle the ball a lot and will be a focus to score.  You are not drafting Flemings to be an off the ball player like you will be doing with Burries.  So he will get plenty of chances to create his own shot.

Also, to me the midrange shot is much more difficult.  Having that and a great FT# shows that Flemings will be fine with the 3 pt shot as well.  It's not like he's bad at it currently. The only complaint is that he takes a low volume of it. Plus he needs it only to keep defenses honest just like what Brunson has done.   

I am ok with using his wingspan and smaller size against him, especially if the Mavs want to go with a bigger guy like Burries.   Givony also talks about  Fleming's defense as nothing special, when everything else you've read says he is one of the top defenders at the guard position in this draft, and he came from a system where it was emphasized.

I can understand legit criticism, but not just throwing stuff out there for the sake of it.  In any case, as Tarp is saying, there's no point in us debating on this. It does appear that the Mavs are not going to draft Flemings if he drops to them.  Someone below us will get a real steal.

[Scott41theMavs]

If Flemings is on the floor, he will handle the ball a lot and will be a focus to score.  You are not drafting Flemings to be an off the ball player like you will be doing with Burries.  So he will get plenty of chances to create his own shot.

Also, to me the midrange shot is much more difficult.  Having that and a great FT# shows that Flemings will be fine with the 3 pt shot as well.  It's not like he's bad at it currently. The only complaint is that he takes a low volume of it. Plus he needs it only to keep defenses honest just like what Brunson has done.   

I am ok with using his wingspan and smaller size against him, especially if the Mavs want to go with a bigger guy like Burries.   Givony also talks about  Fleming's defense as nothing special, when everything else you've read says he is one of the top defenders at the guard position in this draft, and he came from a system where it was emphasized.

I can understand legit criticism, but not just throwing stuff out there for the sake of it.  In any case, as Tarp is saying, there's no point in us debating on this. It does appear that the Mavs are not going to draft Flemings if he drops to them.  Someone below us will get a real steal.

Once again, praying it's a smokescreen. Good FO's don't show their real hand before the draft. How many of us thought in '18 that they were going to trade up to get Luka?

[KillerLeft]

I'm getting draft fatigue.  This guy said this and this guy said that.    No one knows what the Mavs are thinking or who will be available at 9.  Only 3 more days.

Tell me about it. We've been so fortunate as Mavs fans over the years not to have this time of year be as make or break as it has been recently. Hopefully, this won't become a tradition, because this hot stove draft period is brutal. Free agency and the trade deadline are, too, but in a much more fun way, imho.

[F Gump]

It does appear that the Mavs are not going to draft Flemings if he drops to them.  Someone below us will get a real steal.

No disrespect intended -- but who that has any real clue is saying that the Mavs would not be interested in Flemings at all?

[OBX Maverick]

I'm getting draft fatigue.  This guy said this and this guy said that.    No one knows what the Mavs are thinking or who will be available at 9.  Only 3 more days.

In 46 years following the Mavs, I’ve never seen so much BS and pure conjecture surrounding a Mavs draft. I have a feeling there will be some fireworks next week, but nobody has a clue what those fireworks are gonna be at this point. I will say that all the silence from Masai et al is absolutely driving me nuts right now!

[F Gump]

Article at nba.com by Sefko on Mavs possible pick. No earthshaking info, but I found some interest in him including a list of the top 10 draft picks in the various mocks by name brand sports media. 

In case you're wondering, the media were  
NBADraftRoom.com
ESPN
CBSSports.com:
SBNation
NBADraft.net
Tankathon.com
The Ringer
The Athletic
USAToday

No two of them were exactly alike. Some went farther off the usually-seen expectations than others, but no one had anything I see as wildly odd. Wilson was the only pick that was the same in every mock, at 4. 

The "consensus" for the top 10 looked like what might be expected, and the only one that surprised me in the consensus was that almost all of them saw Acuff at 6. The consensus draft expections by raw numbers:
1 Dybantsa
2 Peterson
3 Boozer
4 Wilson
5 Wagler 
6 Acuff
7 Brown
8 Flemings
9 Burries
10 Ament
Those same 10 players were in almost every top 10, just in differing order, with the only other player in the top 10 anywhere other than those was Mara, who was selected by two of them at 8. 

https://www.nba.com/mavs/news/burries-fl...ricks-pick

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

I'm probably one of the very tiny minority in here who likes Nate Ament.
I mellowed down a bit on him and now I have the guards above him (except for Burries).

For me, Burries would be a PG-study who won't be a PG after all things are said and done.

Mavs would get another PG in the next 2 years regardless if its Ament or Burries as the pick.
Burries plays 1 and 2, Nate plays 2 and 3. But as an SG? I'd take Ament.
Burries would have a better impact on year 1, and probably would be a constant with incremental improvements.
With Ament? year 1 would probably be "pull-yer-hair" type of play, but year 2? I expect him to better than Burries.

[Smitty]

The Mavs “are the one team in the top 10 of this draft that has consistently messaged a willingness to move up and (more importantly) down in the order,” per Stein and Fischer.

Hannes Steinbach is considered to be a trade back candidate.

(via open.substack.com/pub/marcstein/…)

[mvossman]

The Mavs “are the one team in the top 10 of this draft that has consistently messaged a willingness to move up and (more importantly) down in the order,” per Stein and Fischer.

Hannes Steinbach is considered to be a trade back candidate.

(via open.substack.com/pub/marcstein/…)

Jesus, these rumors are brutal.  Hope its all smokescreen.

[KillerLeft]

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.

[KillerLeft]

Jesus, these rumors are brutal.  Hope its all smokescreen.

Yeah, Steinbach seems interesting, but he's about as far from ideal as you can get with this opportunity for the Mavs, imo. His whole highlight package is him doing stuff Cooper Flagg should be doing. 

I really, really hope they're not about to put nothing but forwards on the floor again this year.

[Mavs2021]

Yeah, Steinbach seems interesting, but he's about as far from ideal as you can get with this opportunity for the Mavs, imo. His whole highlight package is him doing stuff Cooper Flagg should be doing. 

I really, really hope they're not about to put nothing but forwards on the floor again this year.

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.