Only Fantasy Traders in the Building (The Mitchell Case)

[cow]

First of all, those three players don't get it done in terms of a salary match.  So, it is a four for one deal and we have to go out into a depleted market to replace all those bodies.

Second, Westbrook is a culture-killer whose ego and inefficient game would crush any chance we have to compete in 22/23.

Third, there are no good FA's next summer.  So, why bother

-47,063,478 (RW) vs 46,662,398 (THJ, DP, DB) - the major trade machines say this is legal.  Maybe they are wrong?
-You aren't trading for RW the player, you are trading for his contract.  It is possible, if not likely, you'd send him home.  Further, Dinwiddie and Bertans had a labels as a bad teammates in Washington and have been model citizens here.  It's always best to judge on first hand experience. 
-One could easily say the Mavs don't have the assets or know how to make trades, so why bother?  The Mavs are also terrible at drafting, so why bother?  "Why bother?" is a ridiculous argument.  Wiggins, LeBron, Middleton, Grant, Turner, LeVert, PatBev, Brooks, Crowder, Kleber, Seth, Nunn.  Those are some of the RFAs/UFAs for 2023 that run the gamut of salary ranges.

[ItsGoTime]

There are 2 different conversations going on right now. Does trading for RW have merit and what would we do with capspace. As Jommy wrote early in this discussion, trading for RW gets us off 2 wrongs in Bertans and Powell at the price of 1 right in THJ (this is even debatable) and gives us the OPTION of capspace in 23. The option part of what he said is being skimmed or ignored.

[F Gump]

Getting RW is a move backwards, on the court. I wouldn't be interested in doing that. You want to make life easier for Luka, and having shooters rather than bricklayers is the right route.

Getting RW is a move backwards in relation to trade assets. You can't trade him. OTOH the trade values of THJ and Bertans will likely increase as we move forward, as will the value of Powell (expiring) as we near the deadline. And in ensuing years, it's problematic if you are positioned where your only trade pieces are the core pieces you need to keep.

Getting RW in relation to some pie-in-the-sky free agency pursuit in 2023 (where no one can pinpoint an actual team-changing player to feasibly target), it would come at the cost of gutting the team, which makes it undesirable too.

[MFFL]

-47,063,478 (RW) vs 46,662,398 (THJ, DP, DB) - the major trade machines say this is legal.  Maybe they are wrong?

The poster already admitted that their math was incorrect.

[ItsGoTime]

Getting RW is a move backwards, on the court. I wouldn't be interested in doing that. You want to make life easier for Luka, and having shooters rather than bricklayers is the right route.

Getting RW is a move backwards in relation to trade assets. You can't trade him. OTOH the trade values of THJ and Bertans will likely increase as we move forward, as will the value of Powell (expiring) as we near the deadline. And in ensuing years, it's problematic if you are positioned where your only trade pieces are the core pieces you need to keep.

Getting RW in relation to some pie-in-the-sky free agency pursuit in 2023 (where no one can pinpoint an actual team-changing player to feasibly target), it would come at the cost of gutting the team, which makes it undesirable too.

https://giphy.com/gifs/the-big-lebowski-...3ZB7nNf2Jq

[MFFL]

-You aren't trading for RW the player, you are trading for his contract.  It is possible, if not likely, you'd send him home.  Further, Dinwiddie and Bertans had a labels as a bad teammates in Washington and have been model citizens here.  It's always best to judge on first hand experience. 
-One could easily say the Mavs don't have the assets or know how to make trades, so why bother?  The Mavs are also terrible at drafting, so why bother?  "Why bother?" is a ridiculous argument.  Wiggins, LeBron, Middleton, Grant, Turner, LeVert, PatBev, Brooks, Crowder, Kleber, Seth, Nunn.  Those are some of the RFAs/UFAs for 2023 that run the gamut of salary ranges.

I would do the deal but you have to admit that you can't make another trade for quite awhile because you would be cutting into our core to do so. We also won't have any other midsized contracts that we can deal.

But I think it would be worthwhile to erase Bertans contract. I don't consider it a net gain to trade Powell's expiring for RW's expiring.

[cow]

Getting RW is a move backwards, on the court. I wouldn't be interested in doing that. You want to make life easier for Luka, and having shooters rather than bricklayers is the right route.

Getting RW is a move backwards in relation to trade assets. You can't trade him. OTOH the trade values of THJ and Bertans will likely increase as we move forward, as will the value of Powell (expiring) as we near the deadline. And in ensuing years, it's problematic if you are positioned where your only trade pieces are the core pieces you need to keep.

Getting RW in relation to some pie-in-the-sky free agency pursuit in 2023 (where no one can pinpoint an actual team-changing player to feasibly target), it would come at the cost of gutting the team, which makes it undesirable too.

Repeat after me:  No one is advocating for trading for RW the player.  Now repeat it again.  

There is merit to your line of thinking about tradeable assets.  That doesn't mean it's the only path forward.  It doesn't mean it's the correct nor incorrect path forward either.  We are just talking about options.  There are also valid questions for how successful Dallas can be in those trades if they use them at all.  Imagining you are going to turn Powell's expiring or Bertans into a useful asset is as pie-in-the sky as hoping we can use cap space well.  The likelihood is that we'll have both on our books until they expire.  

Maybe you have a higher opinion of that trio but it's hardly gutting the team.  And sometimes you need to take a step backwards to move forward.  And often times that is way more desirable than spinning your tires in the mud.  

You can't pinpoint targets now because a lot can change in a year related to free agency status.  But there will be free agents and desirable free agents at that.  If you could get two Bullock level players from that class, wouldn't that alter the on court product?  Wouldn't that also give you two additional highly desirable trade assets?  Who is easier to trade:  Bullock or Powell?  THJ or Bertans?  I'm just theory crafting that cap space could get us much closer to a roster full of Bullocks and DFS level contracts and out of Bertans and Powell type contracts.

In the end.  Lakers probably say no.  Mavericks definitely say no.  So this is all just discussion porn.

[MFFL]

cow - I think you are missing a major aspect of the trade. Because the numbers are SO huge, you can add other teams easily and they can dump salary

I just checked this trade 

Mavs send THJ/Powell/Bertans to Lakers and Ntikina to Suns
Lakers send us Westbrook
Suns send us Crowder (saving them $8m)

[cow]

cow - I think you are missing a major aspect of the trade. Because the numbers are SO huge, you can add other teams easily and they can dump salary

I just checked this trade 

Mavs send THJ/Powell/Bertans to Lakers and Ntikina to Suns
Lakers send us Westbrook
Suns send us Crowder (saving them $8m)

Going beyond two teams is way above my internal trade machine capabilities.  Is Crowder really a dump candidate?

[MFFL]

Going beyond two teams is way above my internal trade machine capabilities.  Is Crowder really a dump candidate?

There is speculation that the Suns owner will want to dump salary since they matched Ayton

But you can substitute lots of above average players from teams who might want under the salary cap. There is lots of money flowing from Golden State

[dirkfansince1998]

Going beyond two teams is way above my internal trade machine capabilities.  Is Crowder really a dump candidate?

Option 1. Sarver actually wants to win and is willing to pay for a contender.
Option 2. Suns will try to get out of some salary. Most likely Saric/Shamet/Crowder. And with Crowder as the only "positive" (debatable) asset he is probably easier to move.

[cow]

It's too bad we don't have another TPE to squander.  lol

[dirkfansince1998]

It's too bad we don't have another TPE to squander.  lol

I don´t think the Mavs are even considering moves that would add a lot of salary. That´s why the TPE was always a pipe dream.

[MFFL]

I don´t think the Mavs are even considering moves that would add a lot of salary. That´s why the TPE was always a pipe dream.

I think the Mavs would add a player like Crowder if it only costs $8m (plus tax of course)

[Mavs2021]

I think the Mavs would add a player like Crowder if it only costs $8m (plus tax of course)

Crowder to Dallas
Powell to Utah
Beverley to Spurs
TPE to Phoenix

ESPN Trade Machine says

Utah +7 wins
Dallas -6 wins

So clearly we need to receive a 1st round pick from Ainge.

Final trade: Powell for Crowder +1st.

[F Gump]

Cow, please stop making up crap that I didn't say -- I never said that trading for RW is stripping the team or gutting the team. You keep saying that lie, and it's getting old to hear. You should already be aware I am not saying that, since I have gone to the effort to make clear I never said such a thing. And it's rude to do that, to claim I say things that I haven't -- it doesn't make me want to talk to you, when you do that.

I understand contracts and players. If you trade for RW, yes it's a money move, but you are not just trading for the contract. It is ALSO a player move. He's on your team, and other players are not. That has ramifications in MANY different ways.

The thought that we might otherwise have THJ-Bertans-Powell until they expire is valid (although I think there will be MANY better opportunities than RW to trade them at some point). But whether or not that would be a plus or a minus? If it's just less payroll, you lose, because the Mavs will be able to get some oncourt value from that trio at some point, if they are here. I would dare say they will also be able to find a trade where one or more are needed to make it happen.

Trading those 3 does NOT get you 1-2 mid-tier guys later. YOU DON'T GET CAP ROOM by trading those 3 for RW. You just aren't as far over the cap, assuming you keep your good players.

Yes you might get 2 mid-tier guys if you go further and start shedding players (or you might not), but what does that gain you when you have to get rid of 2-3 core players to have the cap room to do so?

As for who will be available in a year, the list won't grow. But it might shrink. And before it even shrinks, there's nothing enticing. Your list of your preferences is ugly from a Mavs' roster-building angle ...

Wiggins, LeBron, Middleton, Grant -- don't plan on any of them changing teams, and most if not all could sign extensions in advance
Turner --- he wants big money and may be available (but Indy may trade him to a team who gives him an extension), but he's not a game-changer imo worth shedding good players in order to pursue, and his health is a big question mark.
LeVert, PatBev, Brooks, Crowder, Kleber, Seth, Nunn -- they would be nice to ADD to what Mavs have, but not as a replacement for 1-2 of the core

The Mavs have put together a pretty good team. There are a couple of holes in the top backups, that need to be addressed. I would rather keep these 3 guys and continue to look for answers on those fronts, and move forward.

[KillerLeft]

I think the Mavs would add a player like Crowder if it only costs $8m (plus tax of course)

I think that’s an assumption we don’t currently have the info to support. We can be reasonably confident that they were willing to pay even more than that for a player of Brunson‘s quality, but he’s an offensive creator. 

Maybe they are willing to add salary for someone like Crowder, maybe they aren’t. I hope we find out soon that they are, but I’m pretty suspicious that they are not.

[cow]

Cow, please stop making up crap that I didn't say -- I never said that trading for RW is stripping the team or gutting the team. You keep saying that lie, and it's getting old to hear. You should already be aware I am not saying that, since I have gone to the effort to make clear I never said such a thing. And it's rude to do that, to claim I say things that I haven't -- it doesn't make me want to talk to you, when you do that.

Getting RW in relation to some pie-in-the-sky free agency pursuit in 2023 (where no one can pinpoint an actual team-changing player to feasibly target), it would come at the cost of gutting the team, which makes it undesirable too.

Kind of like the "lie" you keep attaching saying that people are advocating for trading for Westbrook the player?

Don't talk to me if you don't want to or if you find me rude.  I'm not going to lose any sleep.  You tend to put horse blinders on in your conversations here and then get upset when the favor is returned.  I understand your POV and greater point about a RW trade being a domino to your feared outcome.  It's valid, but it's not the only valid POV.  You are welcome to your own thoughts and to disagree with mine but your communication style comes off as arrogant and dismissive. Was that rude of me to say?  

Getting off of THJ and Bertans early could take your committed salary down to the $70m range depending on the options you pickup or decline so THEY CAN CREATE CAP ROOM (caps don't make a point any more valid, btw) for two smaller contracts.

[Jommybone]

Please stop strawmanning me. I never said "sending these 3 guys out the door [would be] stripping down the roster." I never said trading for RW would, either. That's a fabrication of you and others who have chosen to make this discussion personal.

Not at all what I meant to be doing. Very sorry. Just disagree with what reads to me like vehemence to the idea of flexibility due to the expiring Westbrook for very little cost in terms of value adding players. And I’m pretty sure the term stripping down didn’t originate with me.

[ItsGoTime]

And I’m pretty sure the term stripping down didn’t originate with me.

No but the very relevant to the discussion “options” did.