Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Only Fantasy Traders in the Building (The Mitchell Case)
#21
(07-15-2022, 03:50 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Yes, the following season is what I'm thinking about. If you really could move both Hardaway and Bertans, somehow, is that good enough to get to the max slot, keep one of Bullock/Dinwiddie on the roster AND keep one of Wood/Kleber's cap holds in place to re-sign them once the cap space is used? 

My guess (haven't done the math) is that keeping one of those four players would be fairly possible, but two of them might not work.

I'd keep Maxi on a bargain extension or deal next offseason, but would let him walk if someone is going to offer him more than he's making now.  Love the dude but he's a bench piece with injury concerns.  Wood is an unknown but I'd be terrified of offering him big money even if he plays really well for us which I expect he will.  if Din's health holds up, you pick up his option which I think converts him from $10m to $15m.  His health makes me afraid for a big, long term investment.  You can pick up Bullocks 3rd year option and hopefully keep him long term around the same price point.
Like Reply
#22
To me Westbrook makes no sense, because I don't think you land a difference-maker in 2023 going that route.

Also I am really leery of plans that center on yet another "big chase" shortcut. Shortcuts often become long-cuts and disasters instead. Cuban wasted all the post-title years for Dirk in one shortcut plan after another that led to nowhere except the treadmill of mediocrity.

In this case, it likely to waste several years of Luka's career. You're blowing off 2022-23, then you only have a stripped down roster in 2023-24, and perhaps the following year as well, which is going to be a big handicap against teams spending 30-60M more in payroll. I'd rather be working with a 160-170M payroll, and getting another talent here and there while building on what we have already put together, rather than go through repeated short-window cycles of build up - tear down that hope to stumble into something good.

.
[-] The following 2 users Like F Gump's post:
  • DanSchwartzgan, KillerLeft
Like Reply
#23
(07-15-2022, 04:06 PM)F Gump Wrote: To me Westbrook makes no sense, because I don't think you land a difference-maker in 2023 going that route.

Also I am really leery of plans that center on yet another "big chase" shortcut. Shortcuts often become long-cuts and disasters instead. Cuban wasted all the post-title years for Dirk in one shortcut plan after another that led to nowhere except the treadmill of mediocrity.

In this case, it likely to waste several years of Luka's career. You're blowing off 2022-23, then you only have a stripped down roster in 2023-24, and perhaps the following year as well, which is going to be a big handicap against teams spending 30-60M more in payroll. I'd rather be working with a 160-170M payroll, and getting another talent here and there while building on what we have already put together, rather than go through repeated short-window cycles of build up - tear down that hope to stumble into something good.

I get it, and I agree. I'm just wondering what they might be thinking. Are you prepared to swear they aren't seriously considering something like this? Is there anything, other than your opinion on the likelihood of such a strategy being successful, that I'm missing that would point to it being unlikely?
Like Reply
#24
(07-15-2022, 04:06 PM)F Gump Wrote: To me Westbrook makes no sense, because I don't think you land a difference-maker in 2023 going that route.

Also I am really leery of plans that center on yet another "big chase" shortcut. Shortcuts often become long-cuts and disasters instead. Cuban wasted all the post-title years for Dirk in one shortcut plan after another that led to nowhere except the treadmill of mediocrity.

In this case, it likely to waste several years of Luka's career. You're blowing off 2022-23, then you only have a stripped down roster in 2023-24, and perhaps the following year as well, which is going to be a big handicap against teams spending 30-60M more in payroll. I'd rather be working with a 160-170M payroll, and getting another talent here and there while building on what we have already put together, rather than go through repeated short-window cycles of build up - tear down that hope to stumble into something good.

That's a defeatist attitude and you can also say given the MBT's performance that there is no way we are going to draft or trade for a second star.   You have to give MBT 2.0 a chance in the free agency market.  It's a risk but we aren't getting a difference maker in the trade market either with the asset pool.  And it also doesn't have to be a "big chase" but maybe you can sign a few PatBev level players.  We also have no indication that Cuban is willing to go to a 160-170M payroll and free up future cap space doesn't prevent you from getting there either, right?  It all just depends on the order of signings and resignings.  I also don't think getting rid of long term bad salary at the cost of a marginal downgrade in talent for a year is a shortcut.  

I think this team had limited potential with JB on the roster but with him gone and us returning nothing, we are already on a treadmill.  Too good for lottery picks, not good enough to compete for titles.

All that said, I stick by my stance that the odds of this happening are less than 1%.  And if the MBT are so convinced that is the wrong type of move, it's more evidence for it being the right move.
[-] The following 1 user Likes cow's post:
  • Mavs2021
Like Reply
#25
(07-15-2022, 12:39 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: What's the easiest way for Dallas to end up with Kemba Walker (other than for the minimum after a buyout, of course)?

Obviously, he's a trade match for Powell.  Powell is the most obvious outgoing in a trade matched deal (or Powell plus Green for Kemba plus someone like Saben Lee).  But all versions with Powell outgoing need to figure out why Detroit would want Powell and Noel.

As I mentioned in the OP, Detroit still has $10mm in cap room until Knox becomes official.  That isn't enough for Powell, but you can expand Detroit's room by:

1.  Sending Dallas or a 3rd team a contract worth $1.1mm or more (I'm using Saben Lee because of the Sweeney/Stackhouse connections)

2.  Kemba taking the right sized discount in his buyout and reducing his cap hit.  (I'm not positive on this.  I'm not talking about an offset, I'm talking about discounting guaranteed money).  

In either case, Powell is again joining a team that already has Noel in the 'Powell expiring role'.  Version #1 creates a TPE large enough to take back Kemba in a separate deal (if they don't want to wait until September to aggregate).  But, it has the additional problem of having to compensate Detroit for giving up a young player.  
  
That is why I started down the path of rolling Powell into a bigger deal with NY, Utah and possibly Orlando.  One of expiring Powell or Noel (if you don't aggregate him) can end up in Utah.  I think there are all sorts of crazy ways to make things happen if you open that floodgate.
[-] The following 1 user Likes DanSchwartzgan's post:
  • KillerLeft
Like Reply
#26
The Mavs problem continues to be a lack of assets. There are ways to remedy that, but quick fixes usually make it even worse.

As to the Westbrook/strip down approach, I think it has even smaller likelihood of success than most, because it's all based on getting a player you don't want, getting rid of players you do want and need, and hoping to get lucky in 2023. It's all-or-nothing on getting the unknown star as a free agent, and are there even any likely-to-be-available stars next summer?

The solutions that last are ones where you figure out the draft, learn how to develop players, and negotiate a bargain here or there in free agency, all of which take lots of work to learn, and time to execute. You also sign your own talent when the time comes, OR you trade them for talent if you don't want to keep them. But if you develop the expertise do that expertly, you never have the stream of excess talent that other teams will want, when it's time to trade.
Like Reply
#27
(07-15-2022, 04:06 PM)F Gump Wrote: You're blowing off 2022-23, then you only have a stripped down roster in 2023-24, and perhaps the following year as well, which is going to be a big handicap against teams spending 30-60M more in payroll. I'd rather be working with a 160-170M payroll, and getting another talent here and there while building on what we have already put together, rather than go through repeated short-window cycles of build up - tear down that hope to stumble into something good.

I agree.  Keep piling up players (especially players who have the right contracts) and take your shot next summer when you have your picks.  We can do just as well with players like Rose or Gary Harris or Dinwiddie who can be traded next summer as expiring salary match rather than taking the unnecessary step of clearing the decks for 23/24.  It looks like NY may land Mitchell with just such a deal and no space.

If it doesn't work out, contracts like those I named do expire in 24/25 and you can create space for a big swing then if it didn't work in 23/24 depending what you've done with Hardaway, Wood and to a lesser extent Bertans.  Basically use two year players or 1+1 with TO players to give yourself a shot at trade matching in 23/24 and a second shot using space if need be in 24/25.
Like Reply
#28
Any Westbrook deal is a non-starter for both Lakers and Dallas bc Lakers want Kyrie this year or next. Mavs don't have any interest in Westbrook.
[-] The following 1 user Likes StepBackJay's post:
  • F Gump
Like Reply
#29
(07-15-2022, 05:12 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: Mavs don't have any interest in Westbrook.

No one has suggested they do.  You are missing the forest (his expiring contract) for the trees (the player).
Like Reply
#30
(07-15-2022, 04:39 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I agree.  Keep piling up players (especially players who have the right contracts) and take your shot next summer when you have your picks.  We can do just as well with players like Rose or Gary Harris or Dinwiddie who can be traded next summer as expiring salary match rather than taking the unnecessary step of clearing the decks for 23/24.  It looks like NY may land Mitchell with just such a deal and no space.

If it doesn't work out, contracts like those I named do expire in 24/25 and you can create space for a big swing then if it didn't work in 23/24 depending what you've done with Hardaway, Wood and to a lesser extent Bertans.  Basically use two year players or 1+1 with TO players to give yourself a shot at trade matching in 23/24 and a second shot using space if need be in 24/25.

Yep, keep making smart decisions and piling up singles and doubles.   Sometimes, you get lucky and that double turns into a homerun.   Player evaluation/acquisition is a 365 day job.    There is a reason why Memphis is in such a good position (besides getting lucky with Ja).   They constantly hit singles and doubles and then occasionally have a single turn into a triple (Bane).

I don't know if the Mavs will come through this summer.  Losing Brunson for me is really tough.   There is a world though that they find 75% of production of Brunson while staying in good financial standing moving forward.  The Mavs are out of errors though....can't afford any more.

Not bad for someone who has not watched a baseball game all year.  Play Ball!
Like Reply
#31
(07-15-2022, 04:16 PM)cow Wrote: That's a defeatist attitude and .

Not really. It's a desire to see the Mavs learn to do it right, rather than keep looking for a shot at a shortcut that has almost no chance of success, and that will cost dearly to even try.

No one even cares if there's a prize - just get max cap room. We've done this before, and almost got Kemba. And then Lowry. How is there any way to win playing such games?
Like Reply
#32
(07-15-2022, 06:00 PM)F Gump Wrote: Not really. It's a desire to see the Mavs learn to do it right, rather than keep looking for a shot at a shortcut that has almost no chance of success, and that will cost dearly to even try.

No one even cares if there's a prize - just get max cap room. We've done this before, and almost got Kemba. And then Lowry. How is there any way to win playing such games?

Yes, really as I can easily leverage the same criticisms about our current modus operandi.  The MBT have failed spectacularly in just about every facet.  Nico and Kidd have never hard cap room to recruit free agents.  You have to give them a shot at some point.  And our disagreements on method aside, there is no correct answer.  I disagree with calling it a shortcut too.  The shortcut was the KP trade.  The shortcut is trading away every FRP/SRP as soon as it is available to us.  

The reality is damage has probably already been done and Cuban and company might not have the talent to course correct from the KP trades and Brunson.  And my argument against the "wait and see" approach and thinking we can use our soon-to-be full compliment of FRPs is that we really need to start considering the risk.  How much patience do we realistically think Luka has?  Trading away picks beyond '25 would certainly keep me up night.  And while Luka will return picks if and when he demands a trade, they'll be no where near as valuable as our own.  This is why Kyrie isn't a Laker right now and if the Lakers are smart, they'll stand pat.  Every GM in their right mind is licking their chops at the possibility of getting the rights to Mavericks' '27 and '29 picks.

And beyond our disagreements on methodology, I don't expect the Mavericks will execute well no matter the path they choose.  That's my defeatist attitude.
[-] The following 1 user Likes cow's post:
  • dirkfansince1998
Like Reply
#33
(07-15-2022, 06:09 PM)cow Wrote: I disagree with calling it a shortcut too.  The shortcut was the KP trade.  The shortcut is trading away every FRP/SRP as soon as it is available to us.  


Nailing the core of the problem. How can the Mavs hit singles or doubles if they aren´t even playing the game.
[-] The following 1 user Likes dirkfansince1998's post:
  • rocky164
Like Reply
#34
And to further clarify, I'm not suggesting the Mavs go big game hunting if they clear a ton of space.  While it's true we haven't had success with that in the past, we are more than a piece away from a championship.  Give me two DFS/Bullock level players with the cap room.  Those are the level of players I think we could have success recruiting, would probably have the most positive impact around Luka and like Dorian and Reggie are our most desirable trade pieces (outside of Luka of course).
[-] The following 2 users Like cow's post:
  • ItsGoTime, Mavs2021
Like Reply
#35
Straw man 1: Mavs shouldn’t strip down. (Of course not. Stripping is seedy, and down is the opposite of up, which is where we want em to go.)

Straw man 2: Mavs shouldn’t trade players we want for a player we don’t want. (Of course not. That’s what don’t want means.)

Reality: The proposed trade is Timmy and 2 contracts we would pay to get rid of in exchange for the option to get way under next year’s cap, should the Mavs decide next year that there’s sufficient benefit in doing so.

It’s ok to value Timmy more than this option, or to say that we wouldn’t or shouldn’t exercise it even if we did have it. But in this thread, we haven’t been discussing the cost fairly. The only cost is Timmy. Everything else is gain.
[-] The following 3 users Like Jommybone's post:
  • cow, Mavs2021, mvossman
Like Reply
#36
(07-15-2022, 05:50 PM)Chicagojk Wrote: Yep, keep making smart decisions and piling up singles and doubles.   Sometimes, you get lucky and that double turns into a homerun.   Player evaluation/acquisition is a 365 day job.  

And when have the Mavs EVER done that?

They just gave a 35 year old career back-up an bad overpay in years and salary. Then they signed a 26 year old journeyman to a full NBA contract, cause he´s a great cheerleader.

There is no difference between the Westbrook approach and making smart decisions approach.

The Mavs problem is not having capspace. It´s that they are too dumb to use it properly.

It´s not the fault of capspace that the Mavs use it to sign THJ instead of Markkanen or Collins.

It´s not capspace´s fault that the Mavs roughly pay the same amount of picks for the whole Delon Wright experience as the Cavs did for Allen/Prince.

There is a reason some teams can turn over their whole roster in 3-5 years and the Mavs 2nd best player after 12 years of "whatever that was" is THJ, Dinwiddie, DFS or Wood depending on who you ask.
Like Reply
#37
(07-16-2022, 12:11 AM)Jommybone Wrote: It’s ok to value Timmy more than this option, or to say that we wouldn’t or shouldn’t exercise it even if we did have it. But in this thread, we haven’t been discussing the cost fairly. The only cost is Timmy. Everything else is gain.

I very much disagree.

What is this "everything else" to be gained by having WB? Nothing. He's going to be a real problem to sit, and a bigger problem to play. The immediate cost is tossing 2022-23 in the trash.

And for what? There's no free agent you want in 2023. And even if one magically appears, the price to be able to sign him will come at the cost of stripping down most of your talent, which means you do strip down the roster for the WB move to actually be helpful. It will take several wasted years (while Luka is ready to win) to reacquire some surrounding cast that will keep you from being a 2-3 man team that's too thin to go very far.
Like Reply
#38
Newsflash, Powell/THJ/Bertans is absolutely not stripping the team down.
Like Reply
#39
Why do so many read hyperbole into every post and type hyperbole into most their posts? This community should be so far beyond that, and yet, here we are.
Like Reply
#40
(07-16-2022, 07:45 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: Newsflash, Powell/THJ/Bertans is absolutely not stripping the team down.

What do you gain by moving them? It helps Cuban pay less payroll, but doesn't put a better team on the court. And you don't get any actual cap room just by getting rid of those 3.
Like Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)