Should we give Donnie credit?

[ItsGoTime]

Just because a GM doesn't get a particular player that they target, it DOES NOT equate to that GM being any more/less skilled than the guy who gets the player.

Yes, I worded it in a way that made the job as a whole good or bad, that was not my thought, just didn't come out in words well. For an offseason grade or "credit" for the offseason, what was said is very much true, and in the context of what this whole thread is about. Have you read the genesis of this discussion? It started in the mavsluvr's Mavs Lakers recap.

---

Also, my thoughts have nothing to do with specific names. Any names given are purely for example purposes as we have no clue, even with statements made public what has or would happen in any given scenario, one way or the opposite.

I was there when you started discussing it there and I moved my comment to one of the first posts on this thread.  The NBA is not a level playing field.  At any given year, any number of teams could have an elevated advantage for any number of reasons.  Usually, clubs have to go through a period of accumulating assets before they can cash in that stockpile to acquire players that make it attractive to players.  Some teams have to work harder/longer at it before they break through, as their market limits their attractiveness.  Some clubs, are attractive good bad or ugly.  Some teams are well run despite market limitations.  Some have all the market advantages and incompetence still limits them.  Dallas has an upper level GM that is well respected in the league.  

Anyway, I think I have said my piece on this thread.  Have at it!

Nothing more to say here either cause we just look at it differently. I see a lot of the things you say as excuses if the GM/FO is good to great and deserving of credit/praise for the work they did. Good to great is a moving scale too, and it moves based on performance year in and year out. For longer tenured GM's like Donnie, performances don't move the scale greatly like they would a newer GM, but you take all performance into account. Performances like last offseason where I think is less than good. If I was to give a grade, it would be about a C to C-. I guess it started as a C-, and became a C based on the gelling to this point. They are doing what I had hoped getting better players would have accomplished which is all but guaranteeing a playoff spot. 


IMO if we had a better offseason, we would be better to this day (and I believe there was plenty of opportunity to get better players than we got). Getting better players is better.

[Mavsfan12]

Just because a GM doesn't get a particular player that they target, it DOES NOT equate to that GM being any more/less skilled than the guy who gets the player.

Yes, I worded it in a way that made the job as a whole good or bad, that was not my thought, just didn't come out in words well. For an offseason grade or "credit" for the offseason, what was said is very much true, and in the context of what this whole thread is about. Have you read the genesis of this discussion? It started in the mavsluvr's Mavs Lakers recap.

---

Also, my thoughts have nothing to do with specific names. Any names given are purely for example purposes as we have no clue, even with statements made public what has or would happen in any given scenario, one way or the opposite.

I was there when you started discussing it there and I moved my comment to one of the first posts on this thread.  The NBA is not a level playing field.  At any given year, any number of teams could have an elevated advantage for any number of reasons.  Usually, clubs have to go through a period of accumulating assets before they can cash in that stockpile to acquire players that make it attractive to players.  Some teams have to work harder/longer at it before they break through, as their market limits their attractiveness.  Some clubs, are attractive good bad or ugly.  Some teams are well run despite market limitations.  Some have all the market advantages and incompetence still limits them.  Dallas has an upper level GM that is well respected in the league.  

Anyway, I think I have said my piece on this thread.  Have at it!

Nothing more to say here either cause we just look at it differently. I see a lot of the things you say as excuses if the GM/FO is good to great and deserving of credit/praise for the work they did. Good to great is a moving scale too, and it moves based on performance year in and year out. For longer tenured GM's like Donnie, performances don't move the scale greatly like they would a newer GM, but you take all performance into account. Performances like last offseason where I think is less than good. If I was to give a grade, it would be about a C to C-. I guess it started as a C-, and became a C based on the gelling to this point. They are doing what I had hoped getting better players would have accomplished which is all but guaranteeing a playoff spot. 


IMO if we had a better offseason, we would be better to this day (and I believe there was plenty of opportunity to get better players than we got). Getting better players is better.

Ok... I'll bite on that one.  I still disagree with how you view the grades and actually for the reason you said.  It is a moving scale.  Each year is different.  With the way you are grading it would be like if this were the draft grades and all of the teams that had the top 3 picks and actually picked the consensus top 3 players all get A+ and teams that pick at the lower parts of the draft pick up lesser players and therefore deserve lesser grades no matter how well they utilized those picks.  Well duh.  haha.  

That is not how I look at it.  I view it that a GM's performance grade should be based on availability and fit.  How well did you execute with what was available to you?  If players aren't available, or don't want to come there, I am not holding that against the GM - at least in the short term of one off season.  Things I hold a GM accountable for are based on fit, value, and stewardship of assets.  I stated earlier that the Mavs could have done better in asset management, and that they missed out on some opportunities (Iggy is an example) as the opportunity cost for attempting to get some top targets on their list.  For that, they clearly don't deserve an A.  But I don't take credit away because the K's didn't want to come here.  That is not our GM's fault - if so, a WHOLE LOT of GM's sucked at their jobs this season. 

Alright, I am tapping out for real.  lol.  Good conv.

[reckoner07]

And if they find a strong long-term player that makes it worth passing on Giannis earlier than expected

Why are you so convinced that signing a long term contract means passing on Giannis? My take is, IF Giannis express a wish to come here, we will find a way, no matter what contracts we have. Did you see Miami as capable of getting Butler before the season with their huge over the cap roster?

GSW using us to get KD. Utah moving Favors to get Bogdanovic. I’m sure there are many other examples. If you sign guys to reasonable contracts, you can move them and get assets. If you make a wrong decision and sign someone to a bloated contract, you attach the extra assets. That’s how other FO’s work, why can’t ours? Getting better players is better.

Oh yeah, I see impact players being obtained all the time for packages of role players.   With a team to package almost no draft assets with.

Mavs just signed a bunch of role players past '21, who are valuable, but valuable in a system, alongside an ascending all-time great. There might be an impact guy to be had on a short-term deal with these guys sure... but a quality player locked into a deal past '21, with our assets? Forget about it. And I'm not talking about eating a shit Chris Paul contract, and screwing the team (which the Mavs would never do)...just an expectation of fair market value.

The discussion is around giving credit for Donnie’s performance in the last off-season. Not about what he can do with the assets he got.


I would contend that an off-season where we didn’t sign Curry, Wright and Boban and instead signed Brogdon and acquired Favors (doesn’t actually have to be these two specific names, just better players) by trading Lee and the Utah and GSW seconds for air (similar to the Favors trade) that our team outlook with Luka’s unprecedented rise would be so much better. Add to that that Green sees the moves and decides he wants to join without wondering about the Kawhi decision and we move THJ with our 2025 first rounder for air to another team and sign him. We then have some exceptions for possible further coat-tail riders.

Better players are just better. 

With the availability of so many better players to add to our roster, players that probably wouldn’t mess with our chemistry, I cannot give credit to Donnie for his performance in the off-season. I’m ecstatic that he was able to scramble yet again after multiple plans fell through and got RC a team that he is able to get to do what they’re doing to this point.

I posted for 6 months that Brogdon was getting paid while Dlord argued vehemently for 3 million low. I wanted the Brogdon/Favors combo as much as anyone....but we can't have what we want, so we put together what we can get. Donnie didn't even really have an option to get Brogdon without massively overpaying, because he was staying put with that team. Period.  In fairness, I put out a range of $18-$22m on Brogdon, but I actually threw out the idea that it could get to like $24 if the Mavs did that.

Better players are better - if they are available. Donnie doesn't get to decide if Kemba wants to go to Boston. Donnie can't massage Danny Green to Dallas because he wants to go play in LA.  Maybe the price is wrong (bitch ) on Favors. We don't have assets. Klay & KD...dammit Donnie, how could you not pull that off!

What we do have is a very nice assembly of chemistry, and experience playing together. That's what this entire plan is - continuity. And fit with Luka. Everything of course is what optimizes Luka. And this is the team that Donnie built. It is a very good team right now.

This is exactly the team that Luka needs now. He is 20 years old. While mature beyond his years on the court, he is still just a kid. He can't drink in a bar legally. Having a young, laid back team makes it so easy for him to feel happy with life, and play his best.  

Obviously, this is not to say that they would sacrifice talent just to keep it like this. They went after Kemba and Brogdon, and those guys decided not to play with Luka. Dan said that nobody was coming to play with a 20 yr old , while I said some player is going to see what Luka is, plus they got KP. Dan was right, lol. I guess I gave the players too much credit. But I think Porzingis was viewed as a wild-card too....which he kind of is.

The thought of trading the 2025 pick makes me nauseous.

---

I love the way you stated this. Having to contend with the Dallas starters knowing that you are laying points because the Mavs bench is better than yours? Priceless.

---

For the 100th time, Brogdon was traded only after he agreed to 4/$85 with Indiana.  If we are assuming he's a rational human being, that's the highest offer he got.

If you offer him 4/$86 or more, he signs your offer sheet.  Then you wait to see if Mil matches.  It's not like the Mavs did anything with their cap space while they would've waited.  I would've given him 4/$95 and seen how much tax Mil is willing to pay.

As you've pointed out before, we generally agree in most opinions. We were both eager to pay $95m to Brogdon to get him.

Where I diverge is with the "rational human" theory. Baseball players sit around and get paid the most to hit and field. These guys want to play where they believe they win a championship, and where they have an easy path to great performance. 

It all depends on his preferences, but who knows what would have happened if Dallas had posted it. ( posted, as in let his agent know the offer). Maybe the Bucks go up to $90m. In any event, I think these guys are so driven by the star(s) and cast they're joining for the next 4 years of their basketball life, that they will take significant cuts to stay, or to go.

And it doesn't get quite as illogical financially if the player puts himself into an optimal situation where he will put up bigger numbers for the future. Maybe it's being a #2 guy on a different team instead of a #3...or for Brogdon, it might be an important role on a championship team. All speculation of course...but I'm not convinced we could have gotten him.