I could get behind a luka, kyrie and ayton squad. I just want to skip forward to the part where we know what's happening ha
I'd pass on Ayton. The last three seasons have been the Suns losing 4 in a row in the finals, getting blown out by 40 at home to the Mavs, and him completely wilting in the Nuggets series and getting blown out by 40 at home in game 6.
Hes 30 million per year and a shell of his former self. Would rather have a Capela or Okongwu type (funnily, both are on the Hawks) for half that price or less.
Hard pass on Ayton for me as well. I would pass on him even if we didn't have to give up assets to get him, but it's a hard pass considering that we would have to give up something. We couldn't figure out how to get KP, who is much more talented than Ayton, properly involved with the offense so I don't think Ayton will do much for us offensively. That's even more true if we re-sign Kyrie. Luka and Kyrie will have the ball non-stop. And Ayton doesn't do much for rim protection or rebounding. You can get that for much cheaper than $30 million per year.
Plus, Ayton comes with attitude problems (lack of effort, lack of desire, thinking he is better than what he is, etc). I'd rather just spread that money around on a couple of players or wait for someone who is actually worth $30 million per year.
Some reporting says the Mavs and Kyrie had a handshake deal for a 3+1 before the trade.
A handshake agreement with Kyrie is worth about as much a #2-flavored lollipop, but this would make a lot of sense based on what both parties were saying about contract discussions immediately after the trade.
"I can see them getting Tim Hardaway Jr., JaVale [McGee] back, Josh Green and No. 10"
When you have a depth problem, don't trade your remaining depth for a guy that doesn't like basketball
Some reporting says the Mavs and Kyrie had a handshake deal for a 3+1 before the trade.
A handshake agreement with Kyrie is worth about as much a #2-flavored lollipop, but this would make a lot of sense based on what both parties were saying about contract discussions immediately after the trade.
"I can see them getting Tim Hardaway Jr., JaVale [McGee] back, Josh Green and No. 10"
When you have a depth problem, don't trade your remaining depth for a guy that doesn't like basketball
Yeah, I don't see why the Mavs would do that trade. It would be a giant gift for Phoenix.
The Mavs have actually showed some pragmatism by tanking the last couple games of the season. This trade would be an overreaction and would not be pragmatic.
SIAP but Mark Stein is saying that if Frank Vogel decides to take an assistant role next season, the Mavs would be the frontrunner. I wouldn't hate that, especially if he can get these guys to play some semblance of defense.
Yeah they were playing games with no Sochan, Vassel, and Keldon. They played some disgusting lineups, but nobody noticed because they weren't ever competing this year.
Lol so tired of the "Spurs did it the right way" narrative. May have gone off the deep end but it's friday so i did a rant...
On 1/20, the Spurs had a record of 14-32 (30% win rate), the 4th worst team in the NBA (behind Hou, Cho, & Det).
Since 1/20, the spurs proceed to go 7-28 (20% win rate). That stretch was the WORST in the NBA & secured them the 2nd overall lotto odds.
How? Here’s how…
— Josh, the fake mavs fan (@theMcSwag) May 26, 2023
So if you don't have a shot in hell at being a playoff team, what exactly are you supposed to do? What is the right way? Spurs were in the Play-in in 21 and 22. That team built around Dejounte Murray obviously wasn't going to ever be good.
Spurs had 34 wins while trying to make the playoffs and they had three players with value over the age of 24.
Their young players were: C Zach Collins, 23yo SF Keldon Johnson, 22yo SG Devin Vassell, 21yo PG Josh Primo, 18yo PG Tre Jones, 21yo
To the blueprint of the tank was to trade the older players that had value and build around the younger players on the roster and create playing time to develop the younger players.
So the tank was kicked off by trading Derrick White (about a 12/4 good defensive role player for Josh Richardson and two first round picks.
Then they continue by fleecing Atlanta in the DeJounte Murray for 2 unprotected first round picks, one unprotected pick swap and Charlotte's lottery protected first.
Then when Collins is healthy, they trade Poeltl (contract year) for a first round pick and two seconds.
Also flip Josh Richardson (also a contract year) from the White trade for 4 seconds.
So they trade away four veteran players that were good, but none are stars or true difference makers for seven first round picks and six second round picks.
Spurs draft PF Sochan, wing Branham, and combo Wesley last year, and all had just turned 19 a month before draft day.
Primo was cut for being a creepy ass predator, but the Spurs now have a foundation of seven guys under 25 to build around and they tanked one year. The Spurs were either the worst or second worst team in the West every single day from November 25th to the end of the season.
Why pick 1/20? Because it's the only date that works for your narrative. The difference in selecting #1 overall for the #4 team (Charlotte) and the #3 team (Spurs) was 12.5% to 14%. It is minimal be design. The difference between #4 and #1 is the same. 1-3 have the same odds.
So if moving three non-all star role players for 7 first round and 6 second round picks to create playing time for younger players to play and develop is not the right way to tank, what exactly is the right way to tank?
Spurs got lucky getting the #1 pick, but creating cap space, acquiring valuable draft assets, and creating playing time availability to develop players is essential in rebuilding a team, especially when you are in a market like San Antonio where it is very had to attract free agents.
So explain what the Spurs should have done? Should they have held on to those role players and turned down 3 unprotected Atlanta picks, because maybe the Spurs could have made the play-in game again and get trounced by the Lakers?
Or should they have done what the Rockets and Pistons have done and just refuse to win over 20 games until they win the lottery a few times?
What exactly is the right way to rebuild, Swagggy J?
They were playing the end of bench guys, but several of those guys were last year's draft picks that they are trying to develop.
Malaki Branham for one. He put up 14/4 in 28mpg on 46% from the field after Feb 1. Up until Feb 1, he was getting 7ppg on 19mpg and 41% shooting. I think getting him in the game and getting him minutes after GLeague is over is crucial to his development. Do you diagree?
A good question to ask is where is the arbitrary line for tanking? Going back a little over a year, the Spurs have traded Derrick White and Dejounte Murray, with the clear intention of being bad for this season to have a shot at Wemby. If the Spurs had White, Dejounte, and Poeltl, they are contending for the playoffs this year.
Mavs knew they weren't going to win the championship, so they lost the last 2 games of the season. Spurs knew they weren't going to win the championship, so they lost 60 games all year on purpose.
What is the difference? Where is the imaginary line between the two scenarios which makes what the Mavs did a fine-able offense and an affront to basketball, and what the Spurs did is doing it the right way?
I never passed judgment on tanking teams. The media did with Dallas for losing 2 games on purpose while teams around the league did the same thing for far longer. It makes sense to tank. I'm glad the Mavs did it and I'm sure you're glad the Spurs did it.
I just don't like the moralizing bull**** that the media does about which teams did it "the right way." It's all arbitrary nonsense that Shack09 summarized well.
A good question to ask is where is the arbitrary line for tanking? Going back a little over a year, the Spurs have traded Derrick White and Dejounte Murray, with the clear intention of being bad for this season to have a shot at Wemby. If the Spurs had White, Dejounte, and Poeltl, they are contending for the playoffs this year.
Mavs knew they weren't going to win the championship, so they lost the last 2 games of the season. Spurs knew they weren't going to win the championship, so they lost 60 games all year on purpose.
What is the difference? Where is the imaginary line between the two scenarios which makes what the Mavs did a fine-able offense and an affront to basketball, and what the Spurs did is doing it the right way?
They had those three guys and were a 30-35win team for two years. It clearly wasn't gonna work.
I think the Mavs did the right thing and probably should have made the decision earlier.
A good question to ask is where is the arbitrary line for tanking? Going back a little over a year, the Spurs have traded Derrick White and Dejounte Murray, with the clear intention of being bad for this season to have a shot at Wemby. If the Spurs had White, Dejounte, and Poeltl, they are contending for the playoffs this year.
Mavs knew they weren't going to win the championship, so they lost the last 2 games of the season. Spurs knew they weren't going to win the championship, so they lost 60 games all year on purpose.
What is the difference? Where is the imaginary line between the two scenarios which makes what the Mavs did a fine-able offense and an affront to basketball, and what the Spurs did is doing it the right way?
They had those three guys and were a 30-35win team for two years. It clearly wasn't gonna work.
I think the Mavs did the right thing and probably should have made the decision earlier.
I agree the Mavs should have been losing earlier.
Why would people like Rusillo (and others in the basketball world who I actually find to be knowledgeable and not just super take-y) say that trying to lose all 82 is doing it the right way, but trying to lose 2 is a horrible thing?
A good question to ask is where is the arbitrary line for tanking? Going back a little over a year, the Spurs have traded Derrick White and Dejounte Murray, with the clear intention of being bad for this season to have a shot at Wemby. If the Spurs had White, Dejounte, and Poeltl, they are contending for the playoffs this year.
Mavs knew they weren't going to win the championship, so they lost the last 2 games of the season. Spurs knew they weren't going to win the championship, so they lost 60 games all year on purpose.
What is the difference? Where is the imaginary line between the two scenarios which makes what the Mavs did a fine-able offense and an affront to basketball, and what the Spurs did is doing it the right way?
They had those three guys and were a 30-35win team for two years. It clearly wasn't gonna work.
I think the Mavs did the right thing and probably should have made the decision earlier.
I agree the Mavs should have been losing earlier.
Why would people like Rusillo (and others in the basketball world who I actually find to be knowledgeable and not just super take-y) say that trying to lose all 82 is doing it the right way, but trying to lose 2 is a horrible thing?
I don't know what they say or why because I never give them any attention or clicks
The post you responded to was complaining about the ridiculous media narrative. It was not saying the spurs should not have tanked. If the media is going to get on its high horse, then it should complain about a team tanking for 60-82 games, not a team tanking for 2 games.
I don't think anyone here blames the spurs for tanking.
Swag's tweets are about how the Spurs weren't trying and they didn't do it the right way.
So I am asking what is the right way. It's pretty simple.
I get that some people are vehemently anti-tanking, but the Spurs spent three years on the edge of the playoffs and had to hit reset. So they tanked one year, got their rookies a lot of playing time, and moved forward.
But Swag's tweets seem to think that isn't the right way. So what is the right way?
Team Tank. Once Brunson left I advocated for Dallas to send Luka to Slovenia to care for his sick grandma this season. The long term gain is worth the short term pain. Every time.
Someone else passed this to me, so I thought i would pass it to yall. If Bron says the Lakers have to bring on Kyrie, do a draft day trade where the Lakers pick and Mavs picks are made by Toronto and Josh Green goes to the Raptors. Mo Bamba, Vanderbilt, and Beasley all go to the Mavs. Basically turn Kyrie, Green, and 10 into OG Anunoby, Vanderbilt, Bamba, and Beasley.
I don't really have an opinion, other than those four seem like they would fit with Luka better than Kyrie and the Mavs would improve defensively a lot.
Someone else passed this to me, so I thought i would pass it to yall. If Bron says the Lakers have to bring on Kyrie, do a draft day trade where the Lakers pick and Mavs picks are made by Toronto and Josh Green goes to the Raptors. Mo Bamba, Vanderbilt, and Beasley all go to the Mavs. Basically turn Kyrie, Green, and 10 into OG Anunoby, Vanderbilt, Bamba, and Beasley.
I don't really have an opinion, other than those four seem like they would fit with Luka better than Kyrie and the Mavs would improve defensively a lot.
I'd be good with that, mostly cuz of OG and Vanderbilt
Neither Toronto nor LA has the ability to take on dead weight, because neither will likely be teams with cap space, unless Toronto moves Pascal.
To get teams to take on dead weight like Bertans, the Mavs are going to have to add a lot more assets than they have. A lot of teams are going to want to dump off dead weight and only about 5-7 teams can take on dead weight. This is one of the things that makes Portland moving the 3rd pick for a win now player so difficult.
Also Toronto definitely says no to that. Not near enough for them giving up OG.
Maybe. But they would have three picks in top 16 of a very deep draft. If you want to get your rebuild on, how many years in advance do you want your draft picks to be? Also, most teams that want OG would be a team that is close to or already contending, so their picks likely aren't going to be 10th or 16th.
Plus Jalen Green, a talented 22yo player.
Additionally, OG being in contract year lowers his value for most teams. No one is trading the DeJounte Murray haul for him and Murray was a much better offensive player.
Then try to work out a Pascal for #3 type deal with Portland and you can rebuild around Green, Scottie Barnes, Brandon Miller, maybe Cason Wallace at 10, Kobe Bufkin at 13, and Derek Lively with the Lakers pick. Let Gary Trent walk and S&T away FVV and Poeltl for future picks. Now you have a team to build around and probably some future picks from FVV and Jakob and you also don't have bad contracts on the team. That's a good blueprint for future success and development. A lot better than trying to keep overrated guys like Pascal, FVV, and Trent together to make the playin.
Speaking of Phoenix, does anybody know how to get ahold of their GM? I need to get him really high and send him this idea from Bleacher Report:
Quote:
Dallas Mavericks Receive: C Deandre Ayton Phoenix Suns Receive: F/C Christian Wood (via sign-and-trade), SG Josh Green, C JaVale McGee
A shaky center position in Dallas only gets worse as both Wood and Dwight Powell now become free agents. Getting Ayton, who was selected two picks ahead of Luka Doncic in 2018, would give the Mavs another franchise centerpiece who's still only 24 and under contract for the next three seasons.
Ayton put up 18.0 points, 10.0 rebounds and shot 58.9 percent overall this season and has become a solid defender who still carries some three-point shooting potential.
Wood is capable of starting at power forward or center, giving Phoenix yet another offensive weapon to take the pressure off Devin Booker and Kevin Durant. McGee thrived during his previous stop with the Suns as a backup center and Green is a good, young 3-and-D piece to place between the stars.
