(12-18-2019, 10:15 AM)HanspardsShowerVoice Wrote: The argument that better players are just better is true to an extent, but the idea that you're trading 3 for 1 assumes that the potential upgrade to player #4 is going to more than make up for the likely downgrades to rotational players 6-9 that you gave up in the trade. You would think after last year there would be more appreciation of how badly it sucks to have to give minutes to guys like Daryl Macon, Broekhoff and Trey Burke out of necessity. The idea that you just split up players into two tiers of "Good" vs. "Not Good" and that everyone in the "Not Good" tier is virtually interchangeable is bizarrely simplistic mindset.Let's take Turner for example. If you consolidate 3 rotational players for the 1 (and 1 rotational on a bad contract) the net is -1 rotational player. The gain is a better player in the mix that plays plenty of time to make up for the -1 (with some of the other rotational players increasing their minutes that some are clamoring for). If we determine that Turner is not the right piece by the end of the season, I don't think he's lost any trade value and you package HIM with the 1st rounder, think of the possibilities that opens up? If he's a good fit, you have an upgrade at the position and better team in the playoffs IMO.
Now apply that logic with appropriate evaluation to players like Jrue or Favors or any other guys that come up as being available from the reporters. A trade for Jrue might need to be a 3 for 1+1, Favors might only need 2 assets (player and pick or 2 lower end players) for 1. Jrue and Favors might be good to go with 5 assets (including picks) for 2+1.
I'd like to say, I don't want to discount what you and others are saying, cause I think it is sound reasoning and not a bad idea either. I just see that if the FO can uncover a sound deal for a better player, I don't think it's good to pass up because the guys we have right now are playing well together. I think a lot of that happened in the Dirk era, and I'd like to correct (what I think is) that mistake.
(12-18-2019, 09:32 AM)fifteenth Wrote: I don't actually begrudge the traffic in the trade threads. At the time of my comment I was just lamenting the lack of new reading material in the other threads. I was being selfish. I wanted a little Mavs fix before I went to sleep.Well, that picked up quite a bit today!
(12-18-2019, 10:14 AM)aguiar95 Wrote: Is this enough?I think that all depends on what Chi thinks of THJ. I am with you on a Chi OPJ trade though, I think he's right there as good as RoCo.
(12-18-2019, 10:35 AM)fifteenth Wrote: I think the lack of agreement in what we need is due to the forum's lack of agreement on what constitutes winning basketball, and disagreement on which Mavs are actually sub-par pieces.I think that is true too (lots of pieces that add up to the whole truth). Sub-par makes the thought so negative though. I don't think of Powell as sub-par as a basketball player, just that he is asked to do something he's less capable of doing vs some other, better players out there. Nothing would make me happier than seeing Powell and Maxi reunited as bench players.
(12-18-2019, 11:30 AM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: I have two other responses to you, but I don't know how to quote selectively in this format.Are you using a phone or tablet, or a computer? If phone or tablet, sometimes the "Reply" doesn't show up right away for me, but when you highlight a group of words, there should be a "Reply" button that shows up at the bottom of the highlight (edit: if it doesn't show up right away, I usually touch the highlighted words and the highlight goes away, but the "Reply" button shows up, at least that is my experience). Click on that and it takes you to the Quick Reply section with the highlighted words in a Quote box. On a computer, I have yet to see it not show the "Reply" button after highlighting the desired words.