2019-2020 Mavs Trade Discussion + Salary Chart

[ItsGoTime]

My thoughts:

• I can't agree with saying that "how the team is playing beside the point".
  
  
• You're creating the rubric (regardless of how it jives with the team's plans) and then grading the team based on it, which is a bit arbitrary, but it's what fans do.
  
  
• Delon has delivered starter quality play. Seth has shown starter quality skill. I think the Mavs already viewed Powell and DFS as starter quality. Whether Delon and Seth are starters in name, or not, depends at this point on what needs to happen in order to create the most productive lineups for the team. Player minutes in the 20's and larger rotations are a trend that facilitates the trend of playing at a faster pace. Some teams are constructed in a way where "starter" is way less meaningful than it used to be. 
  

1. Then we disagree, cause the offseason already happened, that's just science. 
   
2. Seems to me you put the team's plans on a pedestal as if no other option is better. Realistic? Sure. Better, will never be proven one way or another. I as well as many posters believed going into the offseason that we had 2 starters on the team (including the assumed re-signed players). That means we needed 3 starters as I said. We had the money for 2 higher end contributing starters (oh, and by starters, I go by the same method as Scott has laid out in another thread, guys who would be starters on a championship quality team not guys that by default start a game...guys who can carry a load in the condensed rotation, higher minutes for higher contribution in the playoffs type players). Also, of course I create a rubric/mandate for the team to get better. I don't have privy to the closed doors, so the only realistic thing I can do is create a rubric/mandate of what we need as a team. They can choose who those guys are, and then I can judge them on whether or not that was the right choice. Isn't that how this goes? I will say, I agree with Ray Allen in that I don't feel "failure" is exactly the right word. I'd say the offseason was a disappointment and not on the mark. They secured a team that had the chance of being better than the sum of the parts due to the great possibility of the "gel" factor. That same "gel" factor could have been in play with 2 higher end starters though which maybe means we're 6-0 right now instead of 4-2 seeing how close both losses were.
   
3. I think I mainly covered this with #2. Basically, better players are just better to have.