TRADE: DM to CLE | Markkanen + Sexton + Agbaji + 3 1sts + 2 swaps to UTA

[mvossman]

I think we tend to go to extremes when talking about how much these guys have fallen off, sometimes. Conley was a big time player in the NBA for many years, and he had a pretty good season last year (though not a great Dallas series). 

I think he'd be worth quite a bit on this team, personally. He's not as good as he once was, but his impact would be similar to what they were trying to achieve by chasing Kyle Lowry last season. 

If he's not a fit for many teams, that's kind of a good thing, imo, because it means maybe you can get him for just a salary match. Didn't work out like this when Dragic was in Toronto, but sometimes these old warriors without a super high value get moved just to accommodate them, out of respect for who they are and what they've meant to the league. Sometimes.

Totally agree.  As bad as he was in the playoffs, he had a really good season.  It seems crazy to me to let one playoff series define a player that has been so good for so long including his prior playoff series and the regular season.

I think you would have to pull the trigger on a Timmy + Green (I would prefer Frank) for Conley deal.  Does Utah go for that?  Don't they already have too many players?

It would be kind of shitty to Timmy.  He signs for less here and then we ship him off to a tanking Utah team a year later.

[Scott41theMavs]

Totally agree.  As bad as he was in the playoffs, he had a really good season.  It seems crazy to me to let one playoff series define a player that has been so good for so long including his prior playoff series and the regular season.

I think you would have to pull the trigger on a Timmy + Green (I would prefer Frank) for Conley deal.  Does Utah go for that?  Don't they already have too many players?

It would be kind of shitty to Timmy.  He signs for less here and then we ship him off to a tanking Utah team a year later.

LOL at this point I don't care one whit about Timmy's feelings. On the other hand, have to consider the optics for future free agents.

[DanSchwartzgan]

I'm pretty intrigued by the Sexton situation from a number of angles. Like this, for example: He clearly turned down offers for his worth according to league consensus (much lower than this, apparently) hoping to get a payday. I suppose you could argue that he got it, though for all we know he was aiming for a max. No accounting for how these guys view themselves. 

I wonder, is he happy today, knowing he got paid and feeling like he bet on himself and won, or is he pissed that he'll have to go to Utah and win 20 games next year to get it?

Would this same deal have been available a month ago, or did it happen because someone was finally successful in communicating to Sexton "look, this is your last chance at anything remotely resembling the kind of offer you want"? I think that type of stuff is fascinating.

Personally, I think He's a younger and smaller version of Jordan Clarkson.  I'm not sure who was going to give him starter money.  He got paid well, but I don't think outrageously so for a primary scorer off the bench.  I wouldn't mind having him in that role.  We expressed interest in dealing for him before the trade.  Are we still interested after?  Powell plus Green reaches his new number and we don't have all the S&T issues to deal with any more.

[F Gump]

Are we still interested after?  Powell plus Green reaches his new number and we don't have all the S&T issues to deal with any more.

This may be an idea to circle back to, in Dec when Sexton can be traded. Especially if they learn there's big need for that 3rd PG. OTOH it would cost Cuban a big chunk of change in extra salary/tax (I'd guesstimate $18M) to do the deal, and that feels like a deal-killer to me these days.

[mvossman]

Personally, I think He's a younger and smaller version of Jordan Clarkson.  I'm not sure who was going to give him starter money.  He got paid well, but I don't think outrageously so for a primary scorer off the bench.  I wouldn't mind having him in that role.  We expressed interest in dealing for him before the trade.  Are we still interested after?  Powell plus Green reaches his new number and we don't have all the S&T issues to deal with any more.

I'm not a fan of Sexton and think Clarkson is a better player, but I would do it for just Powell + Green.  The thing is by December when we can trade for him, Green will probably have very little worth or (if he has taken the next step) will be someone I don't want to give up for Sexton.

[KillerLeft]

I don’t hate the idea of sexton off the bench, provided the Mavs can get him to buy in. There’s enough smoke about his personality to cause worry, and it should concern us that nobody seemed to want him, even his own team. But, I don’t hate it. 

I’d prefer just to take a swing at Clarkson, who’s available now. I know people are wary of the price, but I don’t want to assume what that is. All we know for sure is that he’s available and is probably looking with his agent at landing spots as I type this. The same goes for Conley.

[cow]

I don’t hate the idea of sexton off the bench, provided the Mavs can get him to buy in. There’s enough smoke about his personality to cause worry, and it should concern us that nobody seemed to want him, even his own team. But, I don’t hate it. 

I’d prefer just to take a swing at Clarkson, who’s available now. I know people are wary of the price, but I don’t want to assume what that is. All we know for sure is that he’s available and is probably looking with his agent at landing spots as I type this. The same goes for Conley.

The price for Clarkson probably isn't crazy but I have a hard time imaging we have a match for what Utah wants and what we'd be willing to part with.  Maybe you could get creative by taking both Conley and Clarkson but I still think you need to offer a future first and that's going to be sticky.  As would offering DFS, Bullock or Maxi.

[F Gump]

you need to offer a future first and 

I'd wager that's a deal-killer. Period.

The issue is that the Mavs want to load up a package of picks for a star, and then trade them in a bunch (like they did with KP). However the caliber of possible players from UT are nowhere near good enough, even if they would be helpful in some way at the present time. So trading a pick would delay their pursuit of such a trade, or perhaps even kill it.

The Mavs might still look for lesser trades, but ones that won't cost them a FRP.

[cow]

I'd wager that's a deal-killer. Period.

The issue is that the Mavs want to load up a package of picks for a star, and then trade them in a bunch (like they did with KP). However the caliber of possible players from UT are nowhere near good enough, even if they would be helpful in some way at the present time. So trading a pick would delay their pursuit of such a trade, or perhaps even kill it.

The Mavs might still look for lesser trades, but ones that won't cost them a FRP.

Agreed.  If we owned '23, it might be a different story but I don't think we are going to handcuff ourselves again when we are so close to flexibility, especially for the 3rd tier players that you breezed past in the playoffs.  

Also, never trade with Ainge.

[ItsGoTime]

Ya, I think picks are out unless we get some kind of sweetheart deal. Like trading Bertans, Powell and a first for a quality starter or something. Basically if we trade a first, we have to get back a player that is worth a first. 

Also, in my mind, the only first available in trade is the 28 because that doesn’t screw up next year’s pick lineup. So not only does the player need to be worth a first, but an unprotected first that far in the future (since there is no telling what lies ahead that far, the player needs to be on at least 2 if not 3 year contract and be young enough to be relevant in 28).

I don’t think we find that trade, so it is easier to just say, don’t trade picks til next year.

[KillerLeft]

You guys making the point that they can't/won't want to trade picks seem to think that's a new idea. From my POV, it might be an OLD one, honestly. That's the way I thought the last couple of seasons, as that '23 pick being up in the air was really gumming up the works, but...now? I'm not so sure we understood the realities involved at the time, and to me, they've become quite clear:

1) If you're like me the last 3-5 trades, going back to Jrue Holiday, basically, have all been for SHOCKINGLY big hauls in terms of draft capital. Like, "WOW" numbers of picks. These prices are getting steeper, and it doesn't seem like the level of players going the opposite direction in these deals matters one bit. It's about financial relief and draft capital, period. I suppose that's good news in a sense, because the Mavs can't really offer young potential stars in any deal for a win-now type of any value. But...

2) Simply getting past the '23 pick logjam won't get the Mavs to that 5-6 pick range the next star (not even superstar) will cost. To me, they'd first have to acquire additional draft capital to include in such a trade. They quite clearly don't know how/have no interest in doing that. I'm having trouble thinking of one instance during Cuban's governorship when this was their goal. 

3) There are like five teams who have amassed so much draft capital that there's no way the prices for these impact guys will go down anytime soon. Such guys don't want to go to those teams, obviously, so the deals won't actually get made, but those teams' ability to offer as much draft capital as they can will serve to keep these trade prices ridiculous. 

This is kind of what happened with Durant, imho. If Gobert is worth 5 firsts (!!!) then Durant is clearly worth way more. No problem, right? You go to one of those five teams and make a separate deal to pick up a few picks, or just fold them into a 3-way, right? The problem is that teams have accumulated those picks so that THEY can get a Durant (or hopefully a younger version of him) and they have their own set of problems now because nobody remotely fitting that description wants anything to do with a tanking, vetless team. Long story short, those teams aren't interested in using their draft capital to facilitate a Durant type to a PHX-type destination. BUT, their (theoretical) ability to offer 5-7 picks for Durant themselves (never mind the fact that such a notion is a complete nonstarter) makes the team holding the Durant type feel like they'd be suckers to let him go for a lesser price. *BOOM*...trade economy ruined for all of the teams who actually matter. 

4) Ok, so let's say the Mavs unload that '23 pick, get past this rule and can finally make an offer with like 3 firsts and 2 swaps. That will be next summer or the deadline after (after not really maximizing 2-3 seasons of Luka, including this coming one), right? What do we actually think they'll be able to get by then for such an offer? Hopefully, they'll be in line for the next Holiday/Murray type, but they'll still be nowhere remotely close to the best offer for the next Donovan Mitchell type, even if they completely mortgage their future (again). Let's not even discuss any player whose current fans might try to argue is on the same level as Luka - that's an animal this team will literally never be able to acquire while Luka is here (at least through trade). 

5) Is a Holiday/Murray type going to be worth such an offer to the Mavs then, with all of their good players being a year and a half older than they are now? Would that player be worth such an offer to them now, if they were unshackled enough to offer it? Would that player make the Mavs a contender right now, if they could only afford him? I'm not sure.

6) I'm also not sure one Holiday/Murray is actually preferable to three Clarkson-types (but different versions who play different positions and bring different skills to the table). I feel like I could make a compelling argument that having 8-9 high quality players who all fit together in a variety of interesting ways might be noticeably preferable to acquiring one Holiday/Murray type and having to rely on 6 dudes because of it. 

7) The Clarkson-level guys (or Wood-level risks) might ultimately be all the Mavs can ever pull off, regardless of what they have available. I'm using the the word "might" to cover my bases here, but I'm starting to feel this way, tbh. If that's ultimately going to be the get, why not add them now, coming off a WCF run, when the mojo level is high? 

8) I feel like there's quite a bit of "meh" being expressed over both Clarkson and Conley on this board, but the reality is that they're both very good players, and either of them would make this team much better, especially given the current roster issues. To my thinking, this Utah situation has made them available, and whether we want to slow down our imaginations to realize it or not, guys like that aren't available very often. I've seen people act like they're trash because their team lost to the Mavs in the first round, which is a joke, because actually, the Utah players are part of a core that was a perennial playoff team. That's a big deal. Those players are more difficult to get than we realize around here - I'm confident of that. 

I could go on, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind. The tl;dr conclusion is that the Mavs have something going now, and there are good players who fit available now, through unforeseen events like a playoff team being blown up. Now, I'm not dying to give up a first round pick for anyone, but this attitude that the Mavs are simply waiting for '23 to convey so they can make a "real" trade is troubling to me, because there will be some other problem they have to deal with by then, I feel pretty assured. 

This team's chance to build a juggernaut dynasty ended when Giannis inked his name on his new contract in Milwaukee. There is no guarantee of another, more successful Porzingis deal in the future. In fact, I find it really unlikely that they'll have another crack at something like that during this Luka contract, the way things are going. During several summers I was preaching patience (just what people are saying now) but that was with Luka on his rookie deal. He's on his second contract now, so the reality the Mavs are facing right now is the reality they'll have for a while: How do we maximize each individual season? 

[mvossman]

You guys making the point that they can't/won't want to trade picks seem to think that's a new idea. From my POV, it might be an OLD one, honestly. That's the way I thought the last couple of seasons, as that '23 pick being up in the air was really gumming up the works, but...now? I'm not so sure we understood the realities involved at the time, and to me, they've become quite clear:

1) If you're like me the last 3-5 trades, going back to Jrue Holiday, basically, have all been for SHOCKINGLY big hauls in terms of draft capital. Like, "WOW" numbers of picks. These prices are getting steeper, and it doesn't seem like the level of players going the opposite direction in these deals matters one bit. It's about financial relief and draft capital, period. I suppose that's good news in a sense, because the Mavs can't really offer young potential stars in any deal for a win-now type of any value. But...

2) Simply getting past the '23 pick logjam won't get the Mavs to that 5-6 pick range the next star (not even superstar) will cost. To me, they'd first have to acquire additional draft capital to include in such a trade. They quite clearly don't know how/have no interest in doing that. I'm having trouble thinking of one instance during Cuban's governorship when this was their goal. 

3) There are like five teams who have amassed so much draft capital that there's no way the prices for these impact guys will go down anytime soon. Such guys don't want to go to those teams, obviously, so the deals won't actually get made, but those teams' ability to offer as much draft capital as they can will serve to keep these trade prices ridiculous. 

This is kind of what happened with Durant, imho. If Gobert is worth 5 firsts (!!!) then Durant is clearly worth way more. No problem, right? You go to one of those five teams and make a separate deal to pick up a few picks, or just fold them into a 3-way, right? The problem is that teams have accumulated those picks so that THEY can get a Durant (or hopefully a younger version of him) and they have their own set of problems now because nobody remotely fitting that description wants anything to do with a tanking, vetless team. Long story short, those teams aren't interested in using their draft capital to facilitate a Durant type to a PHX-type destination. BUT, their (theoretical) ability to offer 5-7 picks for Durant themselves (never mind the fact that such a notion is a complete nonstarter) makes the team holding the Durant type feel like they'd be suckers to let him go for a lesser price. *BOOM*...trade economy ruined for all of the teams who actually matter. 

4) Ok, so let's say the Mavs unload that '23 pick, get past this rule and can finally make an offer with like 3 firsts and 2 swaps. That will be next summer or the deadline after (after not really maximizing 2-3 seasons of Luka, including this coming one), right? What do we actually think they'll be able to get by then for such an offer? Hopefully, they'll be in line for the next Holiday/Murray type, but they'll still be nowhere remotely close to the best offer for the next Donovan Mitchell type, even if they completely mortgage their future (again). Let's not even discuss any player whose current fans might try to argue is on the same level as Luka - that's an animal this team will literally never be able to acquire while Luka is here (at least through trade). 

5) Is a Holiday/Murray type going to be worth such an offer to the Mavs then, with all of their good players being a year and a half older than they are now? Would that player be worth such an offer to them now, if they were unshackled enough to offer it? Would that player make the Mavs a contender right now, if they could only afford him? I'm not sure.

6) I'm also not sure one Holiday/Murray is actually preferable to three Clarkson-types (but different versions who play different positions and bring different skills to the table). I feel like I could make a compelling argument that having 8-9 high quality players who all fit together in a variety of interesting ways might be noticeably preferable to acquiring one Holiday/Murray type and having to rely on 6 dudes because of it. 

7) The Clarkson-level guys (or Wood-level risks) might ultimately be all the Mavs can ever pull off, regardless of what they have available. I'm using the the word "might" to cover my bases here, but I'm starting to feel this way, tbh. If that's ultimately going to be the get, why not add them now, coming off a WCF run, when the mojo level is high? 

8) I feel like there's quite a bit of "meh" being expressed over both Clarkson and Conley on this board, but the reality is that they're both very good players, and either of them would make this team much better, especially given the current roster issues. To my thinking, this Utah situation has made them available, and whether we want to slow down our imaginations to realize it or not, guys like that aren't available very often. I've seen people act like they're trash because their team lost to the Mavs in the first round, which is a joke, because actually, the Utah players are part of a core that was a perennial playoff team. That's a big deal. Those players are more difficult to get than we realize around here - I'm confident of that. 

I could go on, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind. The tl;dr conclusion is that the Mavs have something going now, and there are good players who fit available now, through unforeseen events like a playoff team being blown up. Now, I'm not dying to give up a first round pick for anyone, but this attitude that the Mavs are simply waiting for '23 to convey so they can make a "real" trade is troubling to me, because there will be some other problem they have to deal with by then, I feel pretty assured. 

This team's chance to build a juggernaut dynasty ended when Giannis inked his name on his new contract in Milwaukee. There is no guarantee of another, more successful Porzingis deal in the future. In fact, I find it really unlikely that they'll have another crack at something like that during this Luka contract, the way things are going. During several summers I was preaching patience (just what people are saying now) but that was with Luka on his rookie deal. He's on his second contract now, so the reality the Mavs are facing right now is the reality they'll have for a while: How do we maximize each individual season? 

There is a lot to unpack here, so I will make just a few comments:

I think the fact that there are a few teams hoarding picks is actually an advantage for us.  Those teams are in full tank mode still and are looking for superstars and very young up and comers.  That means there should be less competition for those second tier guys in their upper 20s who have plenty of prime years left but don't fit the timeline of team starting from scratch.

You make an interesting question regarding should we spend all of our assets on a second tier guy, or spread them out for strong role players (like Clarkson).  My thoughts are that this team has too many one way players.  Its really hard to have a top 10 offense and top 10 defense with a bunch of one way players.  It seems like you are always making a tradeoff on a lineup.  What we desperately need is two way players.  The closest we have to that now is Dorian (one of the reasons he is so valuable) but he does not create for himself or others.  We really need a quality defender that can provide some offensive creation so we are not playing constant whack-a-mole with the lineups.  I don't think somebody like a Siakam would require quite the package some of those others got, but he would make a huge difference.

If we do go down the pieces route, instead of targeting guys like Clarkson, what about something like sending out a first for Wiggins and 2 firsts for anunoby?  Basically going the Boston route except we have Luka instead of Tatum.  In fact, Derrick White is another player I would target who may not cost a first.  These are the kind of players I would like to match with Luka, Dinwiddie and Wood.

[haveitall]

There is a lot to unpack here, so I will make just a few comments:

I think the fact that there are a few teams hoarding picks is actually an advantage for us.  Those teams are in full tank mode still and are looking for superstars and very young up and comers.  That means there should be less competition for those second tier guys in their upper 20s who have plenty of prime years left but don't fit the timeline of team starting from scratch.

You make an interesting question regarding should we spend all of our assets on a second tier guy, or spread them out for strong role players (like Clarkson).  My thoughts are that this team has too many one way players.  Its really hard to have a top 10 offense and top 10 defense with a bunch of one way players.  It seems like you are always making a tradeoff on a lineup.  What we desperately need is two way players.  The closest we have to that now is Dorian (one of the reasons he is so valuable) but he does not create for himself or others.  We really need a quality defender that can provide some offensive creation so we are not playing constant whack-a-mole with the lineups.  I don't think somebody like a Siakam would require quite the package some of those others got, but he would make a huge difference.

If we do go down the pieces route, instead of targeting guys like Clarkson, what about something like sending out a first for Wiggins and 2 firsts for anunoby?  Basically going the Boston route except we have Luka instead of Tatum.  In fact, Derrick White is another player I would target who may not cost a first.  These are the kind of players I would like to match with Luka, Dinwiddie and Wood.

The Mavs have plenty of good role players.  Why trade for Jordan Clarkson when you have THJ?  The need is for a second star at any position.  If we trade any first round pick it should be for a star.  Otherwise just get the players you can and hold on to the picks.

[ItsGoTime]

Wiggins (if his play is for real and not systemic), OGA, Mann, Isaac, White, SGA are a few names off the top of my head that look to possibly be available within the year and/or next offseason. Those are the type of player we should add to the roster while moving off of the mostly offense types we currently have. They aren’t stars (Wiggins, Isaac, SGA and OGA might be, but it’s hard to tell right now), but they are all 2 way that have skills on offense. If we could replace THJ and Bertans with 2 of those type names above, we’re contenders in my mind.

I think one of the things getting overlooked is the protections on the picks being exchanged. An unprotected pick (especially later ones for trades that make contenders), is worth a lot more than a pick with protection. That could be the “overpay” we would have to give in this current pick heavy environment.

[F Gump]

You guys making the point that they can't/won't want to trade picks seem to think that's a new idea. From my POV, it might be an OLD one, honestly. That's the way I thought the last couple of seasons, as that '23 pick being up in the air was really gumming up the works, but...now? I'm not so sure we understood the realities involved at the time, and to me, they've become quite clear:

........

This team's chance to build a juggernaut dynasty ended when Giannis inked his name on his new contract in Milwaukee. There is no guarantee of another, more successful Porzingis deal in the future. In fact, I find it really unlikely that they'll have another crack at something like that during this Luka contract, the way things are going. During several summers I was preaching patience (just what people are saying now) but that was with Luka on his rookie deal. He's on his second contract now, so the reality the Mavs are facing right now is the reality they'll have for a while: How do we maximize each individual season? 

You make great points about the practicality of a Mavs multi-pick trade quest -- but not sure they really matter to the issue at hand.

Your main point is "you guys are saying the Mavs aren't going to trade for a player who costs a FRP, but that's wrong because the Mavs should trade for help when it's available, even if it costs a FRP."

But respectfully, I don't see how your argument is really relevant, in our discussions of what players the Mavs might want to pursue right now, unless you think THE MAVS thinking regarding trades is different than it looks like to the rest of us. Not what you think they should want to do, but what they are trying to do. I think they are working to amass assets in hopes of a big multi-pick acquisition and don't see any point in debating lesser players who will cost a FRP, which they wouldn't consider imo as it would delay/derail their ability to do that theoretical deal.

[KillerLeft]

I don't think somebody like a Siakam would require quite the package some of those others got, but he would make a huge difference.

You had me until here. There's a lot about your thinking that I'm in line with, but with what we've seen recently, I'm extremely doubtful that the the Mavs will ever be able to trade for a Siakim.

I think when he gets traded, we'll be all "wow, they got THAT many picks for Siakim!!! Not worth it!"
And then we'll think of some other name to covet who we "don't think" will go for such a high price.

[KillerLeft]

But respectfully, I don't see how your argument is really relevant, in our discussions of what players the Mavs might want to pursue right now, unless you think THE MAVS thinking regarding trades is different than it looks like to the rest of us. Not what you think they should want to do, but what they are trying to do. I think they are working to amass assets in hopes of a big multi-pick acquisition and don't see any point in debating lesser players who will cost a FRP, which they wouldn't consider imo as it would delay/derail their ability to do that theoretical deal.

Ok, cool. 

If we're talking about what they are thinking, then I think your other theory (the one about how Cuban won't even spend what it takes to fill the 15th spot) might be closer to the truth. 

If they're working to amass assets, I'm not seeing it. Again, players aren't really what's moving the needle out there. I think medium-big expirings like the one Bertans will become are very useful in building trades (much more so than HUGE ones, like KP), so I get that part. What have you seen that indicates they are doing anything to acquire more draft capital (the only thing that will ever matter in trades wherein a team is letting go of the type of player we're talking about) to use in such a trade? Other than sitting on their hands waiting for '23 to convey like schmucks, I mean. 

If what they're doing now is their version of "working to amass assets for a big multi-pick acquisition" then imho, they are doing it the absolute worst possible way. Figuring out how to get a pick for Brunson would've been a start. Converting anyone not named Luka they can into a 1st would be the way to go, too. 

For my money, they either need to get busy winning or set themselves up to actually win that next auction. This in-between road is killing me.

[KillerLeft]

I think one of the things getting overlooked is the protections on the picks being exchanged. An unprotected pick (especially later ones for trades that make contenders), is worth a lot more than a pick with protection. That could be the “overpay” we would have to give in this current pick heavy environment.

This is a great point. Great. 

Donovan Mitchell, not even a top-20 guy, just went for 3 unprotected 1sts and 2 unprotected pick swaps to a team that's not even as established as a winner yet. I like the trade for Cleveland, but I don't know that Mitchell guarantees that Ainge won't look pretty smart for getting those picks. 

What do you think the price would've been to put Mitchell next to Luka? More? I think definitely, yes.

[Scott41theMavs]

Ok, cool. 

If we're talking about what they are thinking, then I think your other theory (the one about how Cuban won't even spend what it takes to fill the 15th spot) might be closer to the truth. 

If they're working to amass assets, I'm not seeing it. Again, players aren't really what's moving the needle out there. I think medium-big expirings like the one Bertans will become are very useful in building trades (much more so than HUGE ones, like KP), so I get that part. What have you seen that indicates they are doing anything to acquire more draft capital (the only thing that will ever matter in trades wherein a team is letting go of the type of player we're talking about) to use in such a trade? Other than sitting on their hands waiting for '23 to convey like schmucks, I mean. 

If what they're doing now is their version of "working to amass assets for a big multi-pick acquisition" then imho, they are doing it the absolute worst possible way. Figuring out how to get a pick for Brunson would've been a start. Converting anyone not named Luka they can into a 1st would be the way to go, too. 

For my money, they either need to get busy winning or set themselves up to actually win that next auction. This in-between road is killing me.

If you and DLord are right about this, then our situation is really worse than 2011-2018, with the difference that Luka is a more transcendent overall player than Dirk (ducks) and is in his prime, so the results will belie the reality - until Luka leaves, of course. After which we become the Kings of the past 20 years until Cuban gives up and sells the team.

[mvossman]

You had me until here. There's a lot about your thinking that I'm in line with, but with what we've seen recently, I'm extremely doubtful that the the Mavs will ever be able to trade for a Siakim.

Why?  You don't think 4 unprotected firsts and 3 swaps plus salary filler would be enough if Toronto decides to rebuild?  Honestly I think that is probably too big of a package.  I don't think Siakam is at the same level as Mitchel.  I think he is closer to a Murray.  To be honest I might rather have a Wiggins/Anunoby combo for a package like that.