Only Fantasy Traders in the Building (The Mitchell Case)

[F Gump]

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

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.

1 "saying that people are advocating for trading for Westbrook the player" ....This is way off base about what I have been saying. I just clarified that for you, since you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Didn't you even read it? I understand that this is all about a money move - I never said it wasn't -- but it also has on-court ramifications, right? You get RW the player, and whatever that entails. Right?

2 You quote my words but try to twist my meaning. You know what I'm saying by now. My point is that the pie-in-the-sky free agency pursuit in 2023 (which is the end goal for a RW trade) "would come at the cost of gutting the team..." -- which is what I have been pointing out from the start. I understand RW alone does not gut the team and have said so, and clarified so. I also understand that a trade for RW makes sense in the context of such a free agency pursuit (which would take gutting the team) but then doesn't make sense if you don't really truly intend to go that route.

3  "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.".... The lowest possible is probably closer to 87M including cost for empty salary slots. But here's your stripping the team -- to even do that you are getting rid of ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green.

What's more important, all those decisions happen before free agency begins (including bypassing opportunities to extend your guys before they become free agents) and you will have no signing rights on any of those players if you get to 87M. If you want to keep your rights on Maxi and Wood, you are without spendable cap room (you're about MLE below it, so might as well not have it). That would indeed be stripping the roster down, with no way to know what free agency will offer.

I'd rather have ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green. In which case, why did I get rid of THJ and Bertans, who might help me or might be trade assets?

[F Gump]

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.

I will say it again -- I used the phrase "stripping down" in relation to the overall idea of going for a high-value high-dollar free agent in 2023, for which the RW move would be the 1st step. Either you do or don't have that as an end goal, but for it to be possible it takes WAY MORE than just shedding some salary via an RW trade. It would also require you to strip down the roster in advance of free agency. My point was, if we don't really intend to strip down the roster, then free agency possibilities is NOT a reason or benefit to obtain RW.

You say "the idea of flexibility due to the expiring Westbrook for very little cost in terms of value adding players" and I'm not sure what is intended by that. A trade for RW doesn't offer any real door in re to free agency. To get there, it would take the Mavs slicing off some good, needed, core players too, and not sure there's better in free agency than the players you have to get rid of. Which to me removes the plus of "flexibility." 

For just this season alone, I don't think RW would likely be more useful than the 3, Do you? Nor do I see how it makes the team better a year from now, if we have nothing (RW having walked) vs having THJ-Bertans. And RW certainly wouldn't be more useful as a trade piece, either this season or later.

[cow]

1 "saying that people are advocating for trading for Westbrook the player" ....This is way off base about what I have been saying. I just clarified that for you, since you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Didn't you even read it? I understand that this is all about a money move - I never said it wasn't -- but it also has on-court ramifications, right? You get RW the player, and whatever that entails. Right?

2 You quote my words but try to twist my meaning. You know what I'm saying by now. My point is that the pie-in-the-sky free agency pursuit in 2023 (which is the end goal for a RW trade) "would come at the cost of gutting the team..." -- which is what I have been pointing out from the start. I understand RW alone does not gut the team and have said so, and clarified so. I also understand that a trade for RW makes sense in the context of such a free agency pursuit (which would take gutting the team) but then doesn't make sense if you don't really truly intend to go that route.

3  "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.".... The lowest possible is probably closer to 87M including cost for empty salary slots. But here's your stripping the team -- to even do that you are getting rid of ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green.

What's more important, all those decisions happen before free agency begins (including bypassing opportunities to extend your guys before they become free agents) and you will have no signing rights on any of those players if you get to 87M. If you want to keep your rights on Maxi and Wood, you are without spendable cap room (you're about MLE below it, so might as well not have it). That would indeed be stripping the roster down, with no way to know what free agency will offer.

I'd rather have ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green. In which case, why did I get rid of THJ and Bertans, who might help me or might be trade assets?

1.  I've clarified the on the court ramifications of a RW trade multiple times.  Didn't you even read it?  You know opinions can differ on the severity of those ramifications and the outcomes, right?  You realize can trade for RW and not deal with the player, right?  

Kidd:  Russell, are you willing to come of the bench?
RW:  No.
Kidd:  We are going to excuse you from the team.

Or

RW:  Yes
Kidd:  We will try to make this work and rehab your playing reputation but if it doesn't work or you cause trouble, we are going to excuse you from the team.

See: John Wall.

Then you factor in THJ impact on the court.  I think he's a neutral but I welcome different views.  And certainly ever year he is retained, he becomes easier and more valuable to trade based on the structure of his contract.

2.  If I'm twisting then pot meet kettle.

3.  I'd need to double check the napkin math but I do think you can get into the 70s by gutting the team but that's highly unlikely given you wouldn't jettison Din/Bullock as their partial guarantees are north of 15m.

It's fine that you'd rather have Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie and Green but that's making a lot of assumptions about Maxi's next contract, Wood's fit on the team and if Josh Green can continue to develop.  I'd question the long term future of all three of those players with Maxi being the safest bet.  There is a leap of faith to the free agency route but also a leap of faith for a lot of what is on our roster right now as far as resigning them or being able to trade them in moves that make the team better.  

Thanks for the clarification on timings and signing rights.  That alters my thinking.

[ItsGoTime]

3  "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.".... The lowest possible is probably closer to 87M including cost for empty salary slots. But here's your stripping the team -- to even do that you are getting rid of ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green.

Based on Kamm’s spreadsheet on the first post of the Roster Talk thread, making this trade brings the salary down to just below $100M. Add in the cap holds of Maxi and Wood and you’re roughly at the projected cap. What I see you doing is lumping the RW trade into any further trades, which IMO is the fallacy in what you’ve been saying. The RW trade must be reconciled on its own merits. Any subsequent trades or creative use of the roster/contracts has to be reconciled on their own as well. You want to reconcile the future happenings now and there is no way of knowing what those would be.

What's more important, all those decisions happen before free agency begins (including bypassing opportunities to extend your guys before they become free agents) and you will have no signing rights on any of those players if you get to 87M. If you want to keep your rights on Maxi and Wood, you are without spendable cap room (you're about MLE below it, so might as well not have it). That would indeed be stripping the roster down, with no way to know what free agency will offer.

Not if you subscribe to KL’s way of thinking (and honestly, the rest of the NBA’s). Tamper, tamper, tamper. If nothing shows itself but the time to make the decision, you make the decision then. If there is a small deal available, use one or two of those contracts to make the deal. That deal would then be discussed based on the merits of that deal alone.

I'd rather have ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green. In which case, why did I get rid of THJ and Bertans, who might help me or might be trade assets?

You’d rather have all those players as opposed to…let’s say, OG and Siakam because Tor decides to tear it down when the infighting is too much to handle?


I don’t even care what the actual deal is, whatever it would be, has to be discussed on its own merits.

[ItsGoTime]

Just looked up Wood and Maxi’s cap holds (on Sportrac). Wood is $21.5M and Maxi’s is $17.5M. I see some easy way to gain cap room by just signing and/or extending them.

[F Gump]

1.  I've clarified the on the court ramifications of a RW trade multiple times.  Didn't you even read it?  You know opinions can differ on the severity of those ramifications and the outcomes, right?  You realize can trade for RW and not deal with the player, right?  

2.  If I'm twisting then pot meet kettle.

3.  I'd need to double check the napkin math but I do think you can get into the 70s by gutting the team but that's highly unlikely given you wouldn't jettison Din/Bullock as their partial guarantees are north of 15m.

It's fine that you'd rather have Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie and Green but that's making a lot of assumptions about Maxi's next contract, Wood's fit on the team and if Josh Green can continue to develop.  I'd question the long term future of all three of those players with Maxi being the safest bet.  There is a leap of faith to the free agency route but also a leap of faith for a lot of what is on our roster right now as far as resigning them or being able to trade them in moves that make the team better.  

Thanks for the clarification on timings and signing rights.  That alters my thinking.

1 You aren't saying anything different than me on RW on the team. My point is that I don't see him being able to make the Mavs better, or really helping. Whereas, to some degree (and perhaps more than we might expect), I think THJ and Bertans can.

2 If I ever misread you, it's not intentional. And when/if you say "that's not what I meant," then I will accept it and go forward with that. If I have done otherwise this time, I don't know where, and it was certainly never intentional.

3 Okay, so you say let's keep Din/Bullock. Now where are we?

Very rounded - Luka 40, SD 21, DFS 13.5, Bullock 10.5, McGee 5.5, Hardy 2, 6 empty slots 7, TOT about 99.5. I would think they would want to keep the cheap rights to Franky, so in round numbers there's maybe 30-32M cap room left to work with.

For that 30-32M, they will need to more than replace the combined contributions of all of the following: Wood, Kleber, Green, THJ, Bertans. I think there's way more value in that group than 30-32M, and it would be incredibly challenging (perhaps impossible) to do so in one summer. Maybe even too much to do in 2.

I just don't see the value in going that direction.

[ItsGoTime]

I just don't see the value in going that direction.

You don’t, we get it. Is it ok if others do, or at least want to discuss if there is any value to it?

[mvossman]

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.

We are sending out Powell for Crowder and the trade machine says -6 wins?  What the hell is it using?  PER?

[F Gump]

IGT - Based on Kamm’s spreadsheet on the first post of the Roster Talk thread, making this trade brings the salary down to just below $100M. Add in the cap holds of Maxi and Wood and you’re roughly at the projected cap. What I see you doing is lumping the RW trade into any further trades, which IMO is the fallacy in what you’ve been saying. The RW trade must be reconciled on its own merits. Any subsequent trades or creative use of the roster/contracts has to be reconciled on their own as well. You want to reconcile the future happenings now and there is no way of knowing what those would be.

The RW trade must be reconciled on its own merits -- That's part of exactly what I have done - talking about the value (or lack of same) in this season in adding RW for THJ-DB-DP. The only value offered by itself (ie, assuming you keep the same core you already have) is in RW play instead of the 3, for this season and beyond, as well as trade value, and I think the 3 is a far better result for the Mavs.

As to how much room (if any) would result in 2023, there are a lot of little issues. It would start with whether Green is kept or not, a decision to be made before G1 this fall. And what about Ntilikina, do you keep his rights? But the big ones are whether you keep your Bird rights on Wood and Kleber, which are helpful but costly. And if you worked an extension  with them in advance (which you should, imo).

But as you do, I start with the assumption (and have mentioned it repeatedly) of keeping THIS roster, or not. That would assume Wood-Kleber get signed, or extended, or cap holds to do so, as the default comparison, since they are part of the current core.

You don't get cap room at all in 2023 UNLESS you jettison signing rights on Wood and Maxi. But even if you do, it's less than max room.

'd rather have ALL of Maxi, Wood, Bullock, Dinwiddie, and Green. In which case, why did I get rid of THJ and Bertans, who might help me or might be trade assets?

You’d rather have all those players as opposed to…let’s say, OG and Siakam because Tor decides to tear it down when the infighting is too much to handle?


Not sure how a stripped down roster would HELP if players like that were on the trade block. It seems like you want to have the most assets, valued ones, plus some picks. To that end, I'm in favor of extending Green, Kleber, and Wood long before free agency, to have an even better core to work with on every front (including trades).

The idea of waiting until as long as possible to figure it out on keeping a desired player soon to be a FA, like Wood/Kleber, that's the same approach they took with Brunson. But the closer it gets to June, when a player has the taste of free agency and what he might get, the extension can easily get declined.

[Jommybone]

. . . You say "the idea of flexibility due to the expiring Westbrook for very little cost in terms of value adding players" and I'm not sure what is intended by that. . . .

For just this season alone, I don't think RW would likely be more useful than the 3, Do you? . . .

I’m only answering because you asked. I meant my previous post to be an apology. Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth or attack you. (Some of this thread reads a bit aggressive, and I really don’t want my contributions to come across that way. If/when they do, it’s probably because I didn’t stop to think before pulling the trigger.)

What do I mean by the idea of flexibility due to expiring Westbrook? I mean that the Mavs, next summer, would have the ability to go under the cap to sign somebody. You know how that works way better than me. My brain is recalling the times where some free agent has picked his next team and told his current team he’s signing there one way or the other. Then the current team has to decide whether it wants something for losing the guy, and brokers a sign-and-trade if they do. 

Do I think Westbrook would be a more useful player than Tim, Dwight and Davis this year? Probably not. But maybe. I’m optimistic re all 4 of them, surprisingly. It’s just that their contracts are so huge, and then the tax multiplying it is just crazy. But more to the point, yes, I think Westbrook is a fantastic player and fantastic fit here in every way except the can’t shoot thing. Of course the can’s shoot thing is huge. It’s why he’s been an absolute failure in LA. And it may make him a failure here too. But I’m intrigued by him (or Ben Simmons) on this team, where he can be surrounded by 3-point shooters at all times. You cannot play him with McGee. But with Kleber or Wood at the 5? I think it could work. Especially if he’s humbled by last year’s experience, is willing to reinvent himself, and is motivated to prove the critics wrong. What I know about the guy makes me think that might be the case. 

I don’t mean to advocate for the trade. (I raised the idea back in May or sometime and got laughed off the board. Not looking for a repeat.) I just think an honest answer is, yeah, it might possibly work. And I’d be very interested to watch and see. (Tim and Davis might also turn into key contributors. I think there’s a very decent chance of that. Dwight, on the other hand, I think they’ll stretch waive if they can’t find a taker.)

[F Gump]

JB, I appreciate the cordial tone. It came across as far less than that to me before, but if you say you didn't mean it that way, I defer to that (you know better than me what you were thinking). Moving forward.

I understand the theory of RW being a contributor. But I think that's mostly hope, rather than what we would have any legit reason to expect. It's not a good idea to expect old dog to learn new tricks at such a late point in his career -- he is who he is.

And we also need to remember that RW sees this season as a chance to prove to the NBA how valuable he is, for his next super-max contract ahead (in his mind) -- which, when I think about how that would look in games, I wouldn't want any part of that on the Mavs. He just had a season of that, with every reason and opportunity on the Lakers to show the world the RW we would want, and didn't (or couldn't). How can we rationally expect different?

[cow]

For that 30-32M, they will need to more than replace the combined contributions of all of the following: Wood, Kleber, Green, THJ, Bertans. I think there's way more value in that group than 30-32M, and it would be incredibly challenging (perhaps impossible) to do so in one summer. Maybe even too much to do in 2.

I just don't see the value in going that direction.

And I get your side of the argument completely.  But still (in order of importance).

-I love Maxi.  I don't think he's worth anything more than what he's making now.  I wouldn't begrudge him if he got a better offer somewhere else.
-THJ in my view has very little impact on the success of the team.
-Wood is a giant unknown.  We all hope he works out but he could be a terrible fit, merely good and not someone the MBT trust to invest in long term, or fantastic.  
-Bertans is largely worthless unless we reinvent some of our offense which I hope we do if he's on the team.  If you think he's ever going to have value outside of the final year of his deal, we are just far apart on valuations.  
-Green has no value.  Make me eat my words, Josh.

You could replace THJ/Bertans contributions with someone who will be, at the time of this post, be a free agent in the summer and is someone we've signed before.  He's also cost you a fraction of what those two earn.  

So what could Nico do with the other $20 million?

I understand you not seeing the value but I don't see the value of holding onto players that have little to no value.  And if I were a gambling bovine, I'd put my money on us living with Powell, THJ and Bertans for the life of their contracts.  I hope I'm proven wrong as soon as the Durant/Mitchell apocalypse has finished the reckoning but I doubt it.  

Maybe I'm being overly negative of the MBT, but we just keep spinning our tires and protecting contracts in the hopes they'll turn into tradeable assets down the line.  The MBT have no core competencies when it comes to roster building.  So when you say that an idea is a pipe dream that's really applicable drafting, free agency, drafting, etc.

And if JB wasn't in the MBT's long term plans, they should have hit the reset button much sooner when it was their choice.

[F Gump]

I do think you are skating by the value of players that, if they weren't here, you would wish we had someone like that. Or minimizing players as being worth 0 when they just aren't fully worth what their contract is.

FWIW I don't think it's an awful outcome to keep THJ/Bertans till their contracts expire, if the alternative is just air. I would rather see them play up to their contracts, or be used as a trade asset, rather than tossing them in the trash with no way to replace them, much less do better.

But most of all, I think you are creating many holes that you won't even begin to fill ...while having no one you can add that is worth more than the guys you are discarding.

IN YOUR IDEAL WORLD (best case scenario)...

Who are you replacing THJ/Bertans with, and at what price point?

Who would you get with the rest of the cap room, and how would that be better than what he is replacing?

[Mavs2021]

Dinwiddie + THJ + Bertans for Westbrook is the much more realistic trade.

That leaves us with

Doncic 40.0
DFS 13.4
Bullock 10.5 (5.5 guaranteed)
McGee 5.7 (guaranteed LOL, see how much that also matters in trade discussions, because it is not expiring)
Green 4.7 (non-guaranteed)
Hardy 1.7
=======
Total: 76

So that is $54M in capspace, which can be extended to $64M by waiving Green/Bullock. 

That is NOT NOTHING like many here try to suggest.

With that money you can look for free agency upgrades, you can extend Wood/Kleber, you can eat bad contracts or can make smart signings.

You can use the capspace threat for an early trade Powell + pick for Myles Turner trade.

This is exactly what (NOW) allegedly happened with Brunson. Everybody knew he was going to the Knicks, so Mavs couldn´t get sh*t for him at the deadline. So if everybody knows Turner is going to Dallas and we actually have the capspace, then it becomes a discussion. When you are sitting on the THJ + Dinwiddie + Bertans contracts, it does not.

Same goes for the threat to sign Gary Trent Jr. outright. He has a player option with Toronto in 2023. Hey Toronto you want to lose Gary Trent Jr. for nothing, cause we have capspace my friends or would you like Powell + Green?

You can also use the Westbrook expiring in a trade again. Trading an expiring is valuable to teams trying to get off "bad" contracts. THJ + Bertans + Dinwiddie are not. They are the bad contracts.

Of course we can also sit here and pretend that a Westbroook trade also means they cannot do anything for the next 12 months, then (un-successfully) have to offer Wiggins the max, while Kleber + Wood have to walk.

[mvossman]

Dinwiddie + THJ + Bertans for Westbrook is the much more realistic trade.

That leaves us with

Doncic 40.0
DFS 13.4
Bullock 10.5 (5.5 guaranteed)
McGee 5.7 (guaranteed LOL, see how much that also matters in trade discussions, because it is not expiring)
Green 4.7 (non-guaranteed)
Hardy 1.7
=======
Total: 76

So that is $54M in capspace, which can be extended to $64M by waiving Green/Bullock. 

That is NOT NOTHING like many here try to suggest.

With that money you can look for free agency upgrades, you can extend Wood/Kleber, you can eat bad contracts or can make smart signings.

You can use the capspace threat for an early trade Powell + pick for Myles Turner trade.

This is exactly what (NOW) allegedly happened with Brunson. Everybody knew he was going to the Knicks, so Mavs couldn´t get sh*t for him at the deadline. So if everybody knows Turner is going to Dallas and we actually have the capspace, then it becomes a discussion. When you are sitting on the THJ + Dinwiddie + Bertans contracts, it does not.

Same goes for the threat to sign Gary Trent Jr. outright. He has a player option with Toronto in 2023. Hey Toronto you want to lose Gary Trent Jr. for nothing, cause we have capspace my friends or would you like Powell + Green?

You can also use the Westbrook expiring in a trade again. Trading an expiring is valuable to teams trying to get off "bad" contracts. THJ + Bertans + Dinwiddie are not. They are the bad contracts.

Of course we can also sit here and pretend that a Westbroook trade also means they cannot do anything for the next 12 months, then (un-successfully) have to offer Wiggins the max, while Kleber + Wood have to walk.

I'm lost.  Didn't we just go to the WCF?  You want to dump Dinwiddie, Timmy, Wood, Maxi and potentially Bullock for air so we can generate cap space?  If you put that group along with Bertans and Powell on the open market you are probably looking at over 80 mil.  We would take a huge step back next year so we can go chasing powder and likely (given the entire history of this FO in free agency) get less value out of than we gave up.

[ItsGoTime]

The RW trade must be reconciled on its own merits -- That's part of exactly what I have done - talking about the value (or lack of same) in this season in adding RW for THJ-DB-DP. The only value offered by itself (ie, assuming you keep the same core you already have) is in RW play instead of the 3, for this season and beyond, as well as trade value, and I think the 3 is a far better result for the Mavs.

Yes, I did see your take about what you believe RW would do to this team on court. I covered that thought in my reply to DS but not specifically to you. I think the odds are in your favor on the thought and is a bigger mark in the cons side, but with odds, there is always the chance. With what has been and is happening in his life and on the court last season, there is something there that could lead one to believe it’s a catalyst for change. Also, Cow has done a pretty good job of echoing much of my thoughts on him.

As you said in the above, that was “part” of exactly what you have done. I’m reading and rereading but I can’t see your mention of the other part of exactly what you have done (I’m not trying to be antagonistic, I’m trying to use your words to fully understand what you are saying).

I have been responding to what I think I’m reading from you on that facet of such a deal. To me, it doesn’t matter if we get anything at all done with the opportunity this deal gives us. It does put us in striking distance of getting enough cap space to get creative after we’ve tampered our butts off (I mean, the penalty is what we throw into every single trade, even if they don’t ask for it?). This is the Miami way, I would love to model just 1 offseason after them, just 1 please! Mainly the point was, judge each transaction on their own merits. If we do nothing but resign our guys and move on, that doesn’t make the RW trade any better or worse.

As to how much room (if any) would result in 2023, there are a lot of little issues. It would start with whether Green is kept or not, a decision to be made before G1 this fall. And what about Ntilikina, do you keep his rights? But the big ones are whether you keep your Bird rights on Wood and Kleber, which are helpful but costly. And if you worked an extension  with them in advance (which you should, imo).

I did very rough math based on Kamm’s spreadsheet, just went back and after rounding to the nearest $100k, I show we would have $132.7M with capholds and everything else. The projected cap is currently at $133M. With capholds of $21.5M for Wood and $17.5M for Maxi, I can very easily see at least $14M in savings on those 2 contracts alone (not sure how extensions work on if we can extend at a lesser value than their current contract, that’s a Maxi question). Max extend Wood as soon as he looks like he fits and resign (or extend if you can do it for less salary) Maxi starting at $7M (hopefully lower because that back and age…DAMN!). That’s $10.5M savings on Maxi (at least) and $4M on Wood to add to the $300k below tax for a total of $14.8M to offer a FA, or combine with salary matching contract(s) and picks to get a disgruntled player or a player that the team sees the writing on the wall like SA and git while the gettin’s good, or use it in a SnT along with salary matching contracts and depending on the player, pick(s). So many options. Once you’ve tampered your butt off all season and know who is coming, you can also play the exact same game NY played with us.

But as you do, I start with the assumption (and have mentioned it repeatedly) of keeping THIS roster, or not. That would assume Wood-Kleber get signed, or extended, or cap holds to do so, as the default comparison, since they are part of the current core.

You don't get cap room at all in 2023 UNLESS you jettison signing rights on Wood and Maxi. But even if you do, it's less than max room.

Once they’re signed, that number is their cap number, not the caphold, right? We don’t necessarily need max caproom, we need the threat of it. With THJ and Bertans, there absolutely is no threat of it.

Not sure how a stripped down roster would HELP if players like that were on the trade block. It seems like you want to have the most assets, valued ones, plus some picks. To that end, I'm in favor of extending Green, Kleber, and Wood long before free agency, to have an even better core to work with on every front (including trades).

The idea of waiting until as long as possible to figure it out on keeping a desired player soon to be a FA, like Wood/Kleber, that's the same approach they took with Brunson. But the closer it gets to June, when a player has the taste of free agency and what he might get, the extension can easily get declined.

As soon as Wood is determined to be a good fit, I want him extended. It would suck if he signs the extension and proceeded to be lazy, but he’s worked pretty hard to get to where he is and his lifetime earnings are not all that great (compared to what it sounds like he thinks he is as a player in the league).


Maxi is getting old and has returning back issues. I’m picturing the old Larry Bird moments of laying on his stomach on the court watching the game while someone is loosening his back up. Maxi isn’t starting at a peak level of where Bird was. I want to give him less than McGee, but because of McGee, he needs a contract close to that.

[Mavs2021]

I'm lost.  Didn't we just go to the WCF?  You want to dump Dinwiddie, Timmy, Wood, Maxi and potentially Bullock for air so we can generate cap space?  If you put that group along with Bertans and Powell on the open market you are probably looking at over 80 mil.  We would take a huge step back next year so we can go chasing powder and likely (given the entire history of this FO in free agency) get less value out of than we gave up.

Okay I´ll just leave it alone. You are either intentionally acting stupid or just can´t read.

[KillerLeft]

Well, the good news is that regardless of where the Mavs go from here we’ll definitely find a way to manufacture arguments about it. I have plenty of confidence in that.

[ItsGoTime]

BTW, I said that if we made the RW trade it has to be judged on its own merit and any subsequent transactions should be judged separately. I think the judgement should be levied on Nico/the FO if the plan of using RW to get in threat range of capspace in 23 ends up with us just resigning our players. That would be an execution issue, not a trade issue.

[Mavs2021]

BTW, I said that if we made the RW trade it has to be judged on its own merit and any subsequent transactions should be judged separately. I think the judgement should be levied on Nico/the FO if the plan of using RW to get in threat range of capspace in 23 ends up with us just resigning our players. That would be an execution issue, not a trade issue.

They always double down by not understanding that the front office shortcomings they project onto this approach, also all apply to their own trading Plan Crypto.

What happens if nobody wants the long-term garbage contracts of Bertans, THJ and Dinwiddie for the next two years (or not the lala fantasy trades you project)? Very likely.

What if Wood and Kleber decide they want to leave Dallas next summer? They are UFAs afterall. There is no guarantee they want to stay, especially Wood in a contract year with no attachment to the Mavs at all.

So then we are stuck with

Doncic 40
Dinwiddie 21
THJ 18
Bertans 17
DFS 13
Bullock 10
McGee 6
Green 5
Hardy 2
=======
122

So no capspace.

Ah we just wait till 2024, when we´ll already have committed $95M against a $136M to this starting five....

Doncic
THJ
DFS
Bertans
McGee

I seriously cannot understand how Plan Crypto could go wrong. If I´m Luka or a superstar on a different team in 2024, I look at this starting five and I don´t think championship, I think DYNASTY.