zgolfz85 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

It's also relevant to point out that Dallas now has, easily, the best defensive frontcourt in basketball

Davis
Lively
Gafford
PJ

Scoring late in games with PJ/Davis/Lively all out there is gonna be a *****

---

You really think they're keeping all 3 btw gaff, lively and AD

---

Gafford seems to be an obvious trade casualty just because of salary. He also wasn't great in the playoffs last year.

However, they are saying they want AD to play the 4, so you need Gafford. Gafford has also dominated OKC this year, so that may be a reason to keep him.

Can you guys get Jimmy Butler without sacrificing too many of those pieces?

I was a no on Sexton until this trade. A week ago, he made no sense. Now he actually makes perfect sense.

He's probably the most realistic of that group.

Woods Ag said:

---

Can you guys get Jimmy Butler without sacrificing too many of those pieces?

---

Probably not. If I'm Miami, I have to have PJ.

The AAC may burn if Nico sends away PJ now. He's probably everybody's favorite player now lol.

shack009 said:

---

I was a no on Sexton until this trade. A week ago, he made no sense. Now he actually makes perfect sense.

He's probably the most realistic of that group.

---

Financially, you could do Gafford for Sexton straight up, but you are in the tax.

Woods Ag said:

---

Can you guys get Jimmy Butler without sacrificing too many of those pieces?

---

No realistic way to get Jimmy. Would havet to give up Gafford, Klay, and PJ to make the salaries work.

Guitarsoup said:

---

shack009 said:

---

I was a no on Sexton until this trade. A week ago, he made no sense. Now he actually makes perfect sense.

He's probably the most realistic of that group.

---

Financially, you could do Gafford for Sexton straight up, but you are in the tax.

---

If I'm giving them Gafford then maybe I would throw in Grimes or Christie and see if I can get Kesler back. Obviously we'd be throwing in that Lakers 2029 and maybe something else.

shack009 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

shack009 said:

---

I was a no on Sexton until this trade. A week ago, he made no sense. Now he actually makes perfect sense.

He's probably the most realistic of that group.

---

Financially, you could do Gafford for Sexton straight up, but you are in the tax.

---

If I'm giving them Gafford then maybe I would throw in Grimes or Christie and see if I can get Kesler back. Obviously we'd be throwing in that Lakers 2029 and maybe something else.

---

They want two firsts for Kessler. I doubt he is on the table. Ainge is a pain to deal with.

It also might be a 3-team deal bc they might not want Gafford when they have Kessler.

Could send Gafford for Chris Paul and that would cut 3M in salary for the new owners.

most fans do not have a favorite player anymore

The Mavericks now say newly acquired Anthony Davis is out for Tuesday night's game at Philadelphia due to an abdominal muscle strain. https://t.co/IY1akqht85

— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) February 4, 2025

WOMP WOMP

Welcome to Dallas 🔥

(Via @dallasmavs) pic.twitter.com/iljoFahPJj

— Dallas Texas TV (@DallasTexasTV) February 4, 2025

aezmvp said:

---

The fact that Nico got talked down from another No. 1 and the Laker's first round rookie makes this even worse.

---

This is not a fact.

You've said this multiple times. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. Do you think the trade that went down was Nico's original offer? And that he didn't first offer a deal that was more advantageous to the mavs and then got talked down?

If this was his original offer, then that's even worse imo.

aezmvp said:

---

The fact that Nico got talked down from another No. 1 and the Laker's first round rookie makes this even worse. The fact that they traded or fired everyone close to Luka makes this worse. The fact that it's out there means that no one in the NBA, no coach, management personnel, high end trainers, agents or players will play or work for this team. There is no salvaging this for a decade.

This is the Chernobyl of sports. If you thought the Mavs were radioactive in the 90s... just wait. Kyrie doesn't reup. No one is going to want to play for this team. All motivation in that locker room is gone. How can anyone have trust in the organization from the ownership down.

Let 'em go to Vegas.

---

Step back from the ledge

mavsfan4ever said:

---

You've said this multiple times. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. Do you think the trade that went down was Nico's original offer? And that he didn't first offer a deal that was more advantageous to the mavs and then got talked down?

If this was his original offer, then that's even worse imo.

---

What was reported was that a deal was in place for more, then the Lakers convinced the Mavs to do less. I can confidently say that didn't happen because it's never happened in the history of professional negotiating.

It was not reported that 2 firsts and Knecht/Christie/AD was the starting point for a negotiation. It was reported that a deal was agreed upon.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

shack009 said:

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

You've said this multiple times. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. Do you think the trade that went down was Nico's original offer? And that he didn't first offer a deal that was more advantageous to the mavs and then got talked down?

If this was his original offer, then that's even worse imo.

---

What was reported was that a deal was in place for more, then the Lakers convinced the Mavs to do less. I can confidently say that didn't happen because it's never happened in the history of professional negotiating.

It was not reported that 2 firsts and Knecht/Christie/AD was the starting point for a negotiation. It was reported that a deal was agreed upon.

---

The report was that the deal got whittled down. That the initial talks were including knecht and two firsts and then Pelinka was able to convince Nico that it was too much. I have not seen anyone say a deal was in place.

I feel like that's just arguing semantics. Obviously a deal wasn't in place, or there would have been a deal on those terms. The reporters are just saying that the starting point of the deal involved more assets coming to the mavs (which still wouldn't have been a good deal for the mavs) and that Pelinka somehow was able to convince Nico that the lakers could not give up that many assets.

---

We discussed it a page or two back. He said "the deal was bigger." Using the word "deal" there implies an agreement. It's the definition of the word that there is an agreement when you use it as a noun. I don't think it's semantics.

Maybe the guy has come out and said since then that's not what he meant.

Agree to disagree. He wasn't saying that they had a deal in place and then Pelinka reneged on an agreement in place. If that had happened, then there likely wouldn't have been a deal bc no one with a brain would then complete a trade with someone who just broke their word (although Nico may not have a brain). He's just using the term "deal" to talk about the trade negotiations as a whole. He's not picking his words thinking that they are going to be dissected like you are dissecting them. That's very common lingo when referring to trade negotiations.

The deal was initially larger and then it evolved to what was agreed upon. Thats what he is saying. The deal that was initially being discussed was larger and then Pelinka convinced Nico to take knecht and another first out of the deal.

And like I said, if he's not correct (meaning Nico didn't propose a larger deal at first), then that makes Nico look even more inept.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

You've said this multiple times. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. Do you think the trade that went down was Nico's original offer? And that he didn't first offer a deal that was more advantageous to the mavs and then got talked down?

If this was his original offer, then that's even worse imo.

---

I think its become his way of coping with the trade, lol.

No, some of us just aren't ok with abandoning all reason in favor of blindly emoting every time something we don't like happens.

You can agree the trade was terrible while also not believing every absurd claim just to make the ire of your rage look as bad as possible. It's not an exaggeration to say that if a Twitter account posted a rumor about Nico raping 12 year olds in Thailand for sport a sizable portion of Mavs fans would take that as gospel truth and run with it.

It's demeaning and beneath otherwise intelligent adults to behave that way. It's no different than those who claim that Jerry Jones cares more about the price of beer in the stadium than winning a Super Bowl. It's absurd on its face and the eagerness with which you believe it only speaks ill of you, not the individual under the microscope.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

You've said this multiple times. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. Do you think the trade that went down was Nico's original offer? And that he didn't first offer a deal that was more advantageous to the mavs and then got talked down?

If this was his original offer, then that's even worse imo.

---

Again, some of you keep acting like the clip didn't say what it said. The claim was CLEARLY that a deal was made and then Nico was bullied into taking less after the fact. That DOES NOT HAPPEN in professional sports. It's comically absurd to believe that. It was a shock jock claim meant to get that segment snipped and posted online for clicks. And now that that has been pointed out some of you are discretely trying to walk it back and replace it with a more palatable claim that was not actually made.

What is absurd about the claim that they were initially discussing a deal that involved more assets going to Dallas? Common sense says that happened. And if it didn't, then that means Nico's initial offer was asking for AD, Christie, and one first and nothing more.

So if you think the claim is absurd, that means you believe that Nico didn't ask for another first or another good young player? That's even more absurd if true (and like I said makes Nico look even worse).

I just watched the clip. You are inferring way too much into the use of the term "deal." He literally says the deal got whittled down. He is not saying that Pelinka reneged on a deal that was officially agreed to. Give me a break.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

What is absurd about the claim that they were initially discussing a deal that involved more assets going to Dallas? Common sense says that happened. And if it didn't, then that means Nico's initial offer was asking for AD, Christie, and one first and nothing more.

---

Because that's not the claim that was made, it was the claim substituted for the actual claim once it was pointed out how laughably absurd said claim was.

This whole discussion started with a video clip stating as fact that Dallas and LA had a deal, and then Nico was pressured/bullied into accepting a lesser deal for the same return after that. It was then pointed out how unbelievable that is and how that doesn't happen, and so the argument was paraphrased and edit by some here to attempt to claim it was making a less absurd claim.

Quote:

---

So if you think the claim is absurd, that means you believe that Nico didn't ask for another first or another good young player? That's even more absurd if true (and like I said makes Nico look even worse).

---

No, I believe there was a back and forth until the deal as it happened was ironed out. I do not believe that a deal was ironed out and then Nico was shoved into a locker until he agreed to less because that isn't a believable claim. It was, however, the claim that was made.