(08-10-2021, 12:26 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Even if this were possible, and I'm not sure that it is, there would have to be some incentive for either Reddick, his true target team or both to justify them participating in this. None of them would do it just to help Dallas, I don't think.
I'm slightly hopeful that Dallas can use Reddick in some small way by dealing with his eventual destination directly, but not if he's to be a minimum player. What gives me hope is that I believe that if he was itching to accept a minimum deal we probably would've seen that happen already. I think it's at least somewhat likely that IF a team is willing to pay MORE than the minimum, it might be a team who can't sign him outright. Even so, though, we'd probably be talking about a small, small sweetener, possibly too small to make adding salary attractive for Dallas.
And tbh, I'd take him back here in a heartbeat. I LIKE shooting.
I was wondering if his salary had to be fully guaranteed in that trade scenario.
I can’t imagine it would fit with the spirit of the rules to sign someone to a 15M trade matching mostly non-guaranteed salary just to execute a trade and then get cut by the receiving team.
(08-10-2021, 12:34 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I mean if you are going to use the summer league team as an analogy, what that team desperately needed more than anything is an actual point guard (same for this team without Luka).
Lauri would definitely provide some value when KP is out. He also would provide some value on the bench. There is no universe where you could start KP/Lauri/Luka/THJ and be an even average defense. He is a bench piece. That is not worth a first round pick or 15 mil a year. If we could send a second and/or Moses and max out our TPE then I am all in.
With the way the Mavs are drafting, any player projected to still be in the league two years from now would be worth a 1st round pick.
(08-10-2021, 12:34 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Lauri would definitely provide some value when KP is out. He also would provide some value on the bench. There is no universe where you could start KP/Lauri/Luka/THJ and be an even average defense. He is a bench piece. That is not worth a first round pick or 15 mil a year. If we could send a second and/or Moses and max out our TPE then I am all in.
Defense was not the reason we lost to LAC. Our offense was putrid. Lauri gives us a KP ensurance as well. We started KP and Boban and did a decent job.
I think that, given the smokie around LM, there's a pretty high chance he ends up a Mav in the next day or two.
I just believe that most on this board are going to poop themselves at what it cost us.
(08-10-2021, 12:33 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]And when using this as predictive help, do you:
A) give a player who comes from a BETTER team D than Dallas's a potential boost, due to him being whatever he was in a better overall scheme (held to a higher standard) or
B) dock that same player (here, potentially), speculating that those around him won't be able to support him as effectively?
There are other ways to extrapolate the above question, but hopefully it's clear.
Great question.
I'll start by saying, I don't know for sure. I have never looked to see what the correlation (if any) is there with these kind of situations. And it probably depends on the player.
Intuitively this is my hunch with LM...
LM was a defensive positive in On/Off on the two CHI teams that had good overall D. LM was a negative in On/Off on the two CHI teams that had bad overall D. One could speculate that LM is the type of player who does not elevate the team D due to his own play...BUT if he has a good scheme and teammates around him, he can be a plus to that good D. And if he is in a poor scheme with poor defensive teammates, he is only going to make things worse.
Just my speculation looking at the numbers and those four Bulls teams.
(08-10-2021, 12:52 PM)HAguiar95 Wrote: [ -> ]Defense was not the reason we lost to LAC. Our offense was putrid. Lauri gives us a KP ensurance as well. We started KP and Boban and did a decent job.
Our offensive rating was 114 against a great defensive team (better than Suns and Bucks). Our defensive rating was 120. That is horrid.
(08-10-2021, 01:05 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Our offensive rating was 114 against a great defensive team (better than Suns and Bucks). Our defensive rating was 120. That is horrid.
Our offensive rating plummeted to a horrific 89 when Luka sat.
Defense was an issue with the starters as in only DFS could really defend. Scoring was a problem with the bench because Jrich/Brunson/Maxi/ all couldn't score.
Lauri sorta fixes one of those issues while providing insurance for KP.
(08-10-2021, 12:34 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I mean if you are going to use the summer league team as an analogy, what that team desperately needed more than anything is an actual point guard (same for this team without Luka).
Lauri would definitely provide some value when KP is out. He also would provide some value on the bench. There is no universe where you could start KP/Lauri/Luka/THJ and be an even average defense. He is a bench piece. That is not worth a first round pick or 15 mil a year. If we could send a second and/or Moses and max out our TPE then I am all in.
So the result of all this back and forth is...LM is around an average defender? So if the 5th starter was DFS, does that make the starting 5 around average as a group? Wouldn't that be an improvement over last season? The difference between 21st and 15th in Defensive Rating is 0.3.
Also, is all this talk about defense productive? If you look at how DAL finished (21st, 112.3 rating) you have to get to DEN (11th, 111.5 rating) to find another team with a winning record. Except for ATL. Everybody else (e.g., WAS, DET, TOR, CHI) had a better defensive rating. The rules favor scoring, not defense, because nobody wants to watch an 85-82 wrestling match every night.
https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/defense/?sort=DEF_RATING&dir=-1
To me, if DAL is hitting shots, they can play with anybody, as they proved last season to MKE, LAC, LAL and PHL. Unfortunately, injury/COVID/cold shooting/fatigue often did our boys in. If the new adds are improved shooters (as their stats appear to indicate) then the scoring should be more consistent. Mixing in Lauri should only improve the scoring consistency and if he's an average defender, then it shouldn't hurt anything overall.
(08-10-2021, 12:58 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: [ -> ]I think that, given the smokie around LM, there's a pretty high chance he ends up a Mav in the next day or two.
I just believe that most on this board are going to poop themselves at what it cost us.
Interesting. To me it sounds like he’ll just have to play out the QO in Chicago.
(08-10-2021, 01:07 PM)SleepingHero Wrote: [ -> ]Our offensive rating plummeted to a horrific 89 when Luka sat.
Defense was an issue with the starters as in only DFS could really defend. Scoring was a problem with the bench because Jrich/Brunson/Maxi/ all couldn't score.
Lauri sorta fixes one of those issues while providing insurance for KP.
Our bench is terrible without Luka. I would argue having a legit point guard would be more important for that issue than Lauri (but he would contribute as well).
(08-10-2021, 01:09 PM)michaeltex Wrote: [ -> ]So the result of all this back and forth is...LM is around an average defender? So if the 5th starter was DFS, does that make the starting 5 around average as a group? Wouldn't that be an improvement over last season? The difference between 21st and 15th in Defensive Rating is 0.3.
Also, is all this talk about defense productive? If you look at how DAL finished (21st, 112.3 rating) you have to get to DEN (11th, 111.5 rating) to find another team with a winning record. Except for ATL. Everybody else (e.g., WAS, DET, TOR, CHI) had a better defensive rating. The rules favor scoring, not defense, because nobody wants to watch an 85-82 wrestling match every night.
https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/defense/?sort=DEF_RATING&dir=-1
To me, if DAL is hitting shots, they can play with anybody, as they proved last season to MKE, LAC, LAL and PHL. Unfortunately, injury/COVID/cold shooting/fatigue often did our boys in. If the new adds are improved shooters (as their stats appear to indicate) then the scoring should be more consistent. Mixing in Lauri should only improve the scoring consistency and if he's an average defender, then it shouldn't hurt anything overall.
No. The result is that he is somewhere between average to very bad. It is also important to realize that the two guys we currently have playing his position (DFS and Maxi) are two of the best defenders on the team.
I'm not sure what your argument is regarding team defense? The bottom line is that every legit contender was top 10 in defense (except the Nets), and just about every champion was a top 10 defense. To be a true contender, it cannot be ignored.
(08-10-2021, 12:13 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding was that it was a desperate attempt to stop the turn style defense at the rim. Boban is a terrible defender in space, but in a Zone with KP taking up some of the space, he was probably our best option.
Interesting. I just thought it was an attempt to force the LAC bigs back onto the court or, alternatively, punish their small lineup with post play. Unfortunately, Bobi was the best post player on the roster. And even more unfortunately, Nic Batum can play interior D.
(08-10-2021, 01:27 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Our bench is terrible without Luka. I would argue having a legit point guard would be more important for that issue than Lauri (but he would contribute as well).
Agreed. That's why I said "sorta fixes one of those issues." Lauri has legit offensive talent. He's a lethal knockdown shooter that can also create off the dribble for himself. He can bring so much more than Maxi on offense. The only question is does that difference in offensive output makeup for his defensive deficiencies.
I say yes.
While defense was a problem last year, so was offense. Doncic was overused, I think we can all agree on that. One issue was Porzingis just did not get into a rhythm. Part of that can potentially be fixed with coaching and hopefully better health. However load management means that Doncic was left shouldering the scoring load with teams roughing him up. Otherwise on offense it was Hardaway who played well enough in the playoffs to get that contract. Markannen and hopefully a better Porzingis would take some of that pressure off Doncic. Against small and fast teams you can put Markannen in a super sixth man role and have Brunson feed him down low.
In terms of practical trade, the Bulls will want something. 2nd rounder should definitely be offered along with maybe Green. I would not trade Brunson or DFS for Markannen though. Kleiber maybe. Powell, WCS, definitely but they would not take them.
(08-10-2021, 12:58 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: [ -> ]I think that, given the smokie around LM, there's a pretty high chance he ends up a Mav in the next day or two.
I just believe that most on this board are going to poop themselves at what it cost us.
Paying anything is too much.
(08-10-2021, 01:38 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]No. The result is that he is somewhere between average to very bad. It is also important to realize that the two guys we currently have playing his position (DFS and Maxi) are two of the best defenders on the team.
I'm not sure what your argument is regarding team defense? The bottom line is that every legit contender was top 10 in defense (except the Nets), and just about every champion was a top 10 defense. To be a true contender, it cannot be ignored.
I agree that is historically how it has been, but teams like ATL and BRK are breaking that mold. ATL beat NYK and PHI (#4 and #2 respectively) until they met MKE who inspirationally circled the wagons when GA went down. BRK was an odds maker favorite until injuries took them off the table, and it still took MKE 7 games to win.
There wasn't as much of a outlier in the west, but LAC beat UTA (#3 defensive) without KL thanks to the offensive efforts of PG and Mann.
I'm not saying that defense isn't important, but is there a trend starting to show up? If a team can score consistently enough, doesn't that puts pressure on the opponent to match their output and stresses their offensive rotations. Maybe to the point where they lose efficiency and the defense looks better as a result?
I don't know. My RW job involves looking for how systemic changes affect (or not) an outcome. But maybe I'm too close to the trees on this one.
(08-10-2021, 02:31 PM)michaeltex Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying that defense isn't important, but is there a trend starting to show up? If a team can score consistently enough, doesn't that puts pressure on the opponent to match their output and stresses their offensive rotations. Maybe to the point where they lose efficiency and the defense looks better as a result?
I don't think there's a new trend. The old adage that has withstood the test of time is great offense will always beat great defense.
But what balanced that statement is that great offense isn't nearly as consistent as great defense. Because defense is mostly effort and schemes. Offense there are so many more variables.
If a team can find a way to score no matter what then they'll always win because that's basketball. I wouldn't want to bank on that longshot anyways though.
Sounds like more of a public negotiation with Markkanen’s agent than Chicago…