(05-23-2022, 06:52 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Agree with your points about Burke and Boban. It is amazing how much ink gets spilled over the 11-15 slots on this roster.
I might change the categories a little, but I'm in general agreement with where people are lining up. I'd do Luka and JB as Keepers, which is somewhat synonymous with untouchable. Next category would be "would like to keep", meaning I'm OK if they go out for a clear upgrade, but my preference is these guys would be part of the ongoing core. That would include Maxi, DFS, Bullock and SD. "Could be traded" would be the same people as you've listed. My meaning is I don't dislike any of them, but if I'm trying to come up with matching salary, this group is where I start. I assume "need a roster slot" is synonymous with "willing to cut" to open up a roster slot. We already need to cut one guy if 26 takes up a roster slot and we don't do a 2/1 or 3/2 type trade.
I wonder if trading THJ now isn't selling low. Seems likely he's still here at the start of the season as the TDL or even the summer after would be better times to get value for him. But, if you keep him to try to restore value and keep all of the "keepers", then you are left building a package around expiring Powell, overpaid Bertans, Green and a couple of picks.
Is it technologically possible for a moderator to automate a process that puts up a S&T disclaimer any time someone posts a S&T idea without showing the math of how the posted idea gets the team under the Apron.
I understand your distinctions, but I don't make them because I think this team has the assets to get 1-2 players in the 5-9 range (which means you don't give up someone in that range to make a lateral move) whereas I think grander designs strip the roster almost bare of players you really NEED. Solid useful playable players have a ripple effect, when you are thin and your few get overused (and performance sags with fatigue and even minor injuries). See Dinwiddie and Bertans, neither of whom is great but who made huge impacts just by being available.
On the SNT limits, I don't worry about showing the math. They're at the apron as is already, without Brunson. While doable in theory, the added hidden costs of trying to get to a SNT for a player considered worth the trouble would end up making the transaction not worth it.
(05-23-2022, 06:52 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Is it technologically possible for a moderator to automate a process that puts up a S&T disclaimer any time someone posts a S&T idea without showing the math of how the posted idea gets the team under the Apron.
Possible? For sure. We'd just need to go through each and every post and do the math by hand.
But I much prefer what we have currently where either you or FGump detail exactly how unlikely *insert SnT scenario here* idea couldn't work!
No interest whatsoever in Harris. HARD PASS.
Philly is an interesting team. They have all their stars (Embiid, Harden) and almost stars (Maxey, Harris) but they would kill for players like DFS, Bullock and perhaps even THJ. Their wing starter Green is likely done due to injury (his contract not guaranteed). I love Thybulle but his offense didn't improve in three seasons.
Their asset situation is interesting. They owe BKN their 2022 but BKN can choose to rather take the 2023 pick. So they have either the 2022 pick to trade on draft night or 2023 pick to trade in the summer (they own their 2024 pick). Not sure why BKN wouldn't take the 2023 pick and hope Philly implodes.
They could be an interesting third team partner where they would provide additional assets if Mavs build something for a great player. For example, Bullock to Philly for Thybulle, Green (salary match) and the 2022 pick.
(05-24-2022, 05:57 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]Philly is an interesting team. They have all their stars (Embiid, Harden) and almost stars (Maxey, Harris) but they would kill for players like DFS, Bullock and perhaps even THJ. Their wing starter Green is likely done due to injury (his contract not guaranteed). I love Thybulle but his offense didn't improve in three seasons.
Their asset situation is interesting. They owe BKN their 2022 but BKN can choose to rather take the 2023 pick. So they have either the 2022 pick to trade on draft night or 2023 pick to trade in the summer (they own their 2024 pick). Not sure why BKN wouldn't take the 2023 pick and hope Philly implodes.
They could be an interesting third team partner where they would provide additional assets if Mavs build something for a great player. For example, Bullock to Philly for Thybulle, Green (salary match) and the 2022 pick.
Bullock is a keeper. Mavs are better off with the Bullock end of that equation. No benefit to paying Green for a season lost to injury (and he's not a trade match otherwise). BAD DEAL.
(05-24-2022, 06:09 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Bullock is a keeper. Mavs are better off with the Bullock end of that equation. No benefit to paying Green for a season lost to injury (and he's not a trade match otherwise). BAD DEAL.
I am getting fed up with your comments. Not sure who put you in a position of a trade judge here, because this is basically what you do. I understand you don't need to agree with any idea but I would appreciate if you would provide an input of what you would do, not just what you wouldn't.
I would also appreciate if you would at least read the whole idea before commenting. I clearly said I see Philly as possible third team. So the deal is not Bullock for Green and assets but it is for Green and assets which are used for a player that is worth giving up Bullock for. Who would that be, I don't have idea atm.
And yes, Green is a trade match. You can't trade Bullock for Thybulle without additional salary included.
[Edited to make this a better place]
I gave my preference, but I'll say it again since you seem to have missed it.
In this proposal, Bullock is the type of asset you want to keep, and that other teams want. He is a keeper. So I would not trade him.
In addition, I don't see any value being obtained (for me, or to flip to someone else) so I don't see the point. Teams don't lust for a low pick, a no-offense guy, or a an injured guy with $10M owed. Nothing there to interest anyone.
(05-24-2022, 06:56 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry but not sorry. You expect sucky ideas to be praised cuz they are yours, I guess, but have NEVER seen you say positive things to others on things you don't like and you tend to look for flaws to pick at. So ....
You are such a charming person, just raining compliments.
I don't expect praise. I expect constructive discussion. You don't provide it. I might not sing praise (I press like with things I agree with), but you would have a hard time finding my post in the form of "this trade sucks" as you do it. If I don't agree, I tend to propose what I would do instead. You don't.
Fortunately enough, we have that wonderful ignore function that comes really handy.
1 [Edited] Sorry my reply bothered you, but I was trying to be responsive while offering my opinion on the idea, in a way that conveyed my reaction.
2 I need to post in a way that makes sense to me. You should do likewise. You do you, not me.
3 If my not liking an idea of yours is an outlier, I'm sure others will come and say, "Wait, that makes sense to me."
4 I like what I like, don't like what I don't like, and don't feel shy about giving my pov. That's not likely to change, but not trying to be offensive.
[Edited to be more collegial]
Back to topic ....
I would not trade Bullock. He's a keeper, the kind of guy you want more of, not less. At a price that is very valuable. You need several like that imo to build up enough talent to be really good. And a pu-pu platter of junk in return, no, there's not an alternative that I would offer to get that.
This is what can happen when we talk about off-season moves during a glorious playoff run. Plenty of time to talk about next year, next year.
(05-23-2022, 04:54 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe I used the wrong term when I said "role." I am not saying Burke is a regular, but only that he is here and has a specific, well-defined use that he fills when needed -- and that will be needed from time to time. That's his fit on the roster, and he is paid suitably for that. He's one of the players who fills slots 11-15.
While he could be replaced, it wouldn't be with anyone that's better, or that would play more, and the salary would be similar too. And since he is a known quantity, best to just let it alone for some stability.
You're right that the job will probably be to find 1 or 2 guys who can upgrade or add to the usable regulars, and it's most likely somewhere in slots 6-9. But the presence (or absence) of Burke (or Bobi either) doesn't impact any of that.
I think Burke will be replaced if they find someone better. Clearly if they can't then he won't. Burke almost got replaced by guys off the street during the Covid mess. His contract having 1 more year on it probably prevented that. Now that he only has the 1 year left I could see him getting bought out. I don't put Burke in the Boban basket at all because Boban has a clear role which is Luka's best friend and culture setter. Burke is not horrible but he is definitely in a spot that could be upgraded.
(05-23-2022, 07:26 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]I understand your distinctions, but I don't make them because I think this team has the assets to get 1-2 players in the 5-9 range (which means you don't give up someone in that range to make a lateral move) whereas I think grander designs strip the roster almost bare of players you really NEED. Solid useful playable players have a ripple effect, when you are thin and your few get overused (and performance sags with fatigue and even minor injuries). See Dinwiddie and Bertans, neither of whom is great but who made huge impacts just by being available.
On the SNT limits, I don't worry about showing the math. They're at the apron as is already, without Brunson. While doable in theory, the added hidden costs of trying to get to a SNT for a player considered worth the trouble would end up making the transaction not worth it.
I agree with this assessment and I think this is where you see contending teams (ie final four teams) upgrade. I don't believe Mavs will risk taking a step back by trading off one of their top 6 guys. Everyone after that is movable for the right deal. Mavs needed 8 guys they could trust against the Warriors and they had basically 6. I am of the mind that Bullock got worn out. If you had another 2-way wing you trusted that could help DFS and Bullock not get worn out. Frank was good against PHX but his lack of offense made him unplayable against the Warriors. Looney punished that Mavs for going small. Mavs need someone better than Powell who after 3 series has proven to not be a playoff player. Mavs have tools to get man 7 and 8. Upgrading any spot 1-6 would be a tall ask. I am sure they will look at every option but at the end of the day I am betting on smaller depth moves.
(05-24-2022, 08:59 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]I think Burke will be replaced if they find someone better. Clearly if they can't then he won't. Burke almost got replaced by guys off the street during the Covid mess. His contract having 1 more year on it probably prevented that. Now that he only has the 1 year left I could see him getting bought out. I don't put Burke in the Boban basket at all because Boban has a clear role which is Luka's best friend and culture setter. Burke is not horrible but he is definitely in a spot that could be upgraded.
If we don´t play Burke at all, he should be replaced by a younger player in a position of more pressing need. Burke is a PG and we have at least three that are better with Luka, Brunson and Dinwiddie.
No need to revert to name calling or devolving the thread into insults.
I think we all just want the Mavs to be better
(05-24-2022, 04:55 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]Mavs: Harris
Houston: Bertans, Thybulle
Philly: THJ, Gordon
I actually don't mind Harris at all. His contract is a heartbreaker, but he certainly can create his own shot and give the team different looks. We also get off of Bertan's deal which is a plus. I think the Mavs need draft compensation though at the end of the day. Harris also doesn't solve our biggest issue which is no competent center that can play 25mpg.
(05-24-2022, 06:56 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]In this proposal, Bullock is the type of asset you want to keep, and that other teams want. In return, a low pick and a no-offense guy and a $10M waste match to pay? Nothing there to interest anyone.
I also agree Bullock is a keeper. He is one of the few main cogs that allows us to play the way we do. If anything we should be looking to add on that type of player archetype, not get rid of him for an injured guy and Josh Green 2.0.
Is Jae Crowder for the TPE a viable thing or will it be expired by the time the Mavs can realistically make a deal?
(05-24-2022, 10:37 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: [ -> ]Is Jae Crowder for the TPE a viable thing or will it be expired by the time the Mavs can realistically make a deal?
The TPE expires at the end of the league year. They can use it at the draft, a typical spot for trades before the new league year and free agency opens.
More and more, I think the Mavs should try to absorb another veteran wing into the TPE. Crowder, Alec Burks, Royce O’Neale, Justin Holiday, and a couple of others could fit.
I´m not the biggest fan of Tobias Harris. He´s a steady player. He plays as the team does. He´s just not a difference maker for that kind of money. He escaped a lot of criticism due to Simmons/Harden, but for $40M i expect you to step up and in occasionally to carry the team, when you are needed.
He didn´t do it in Philly, I doubt it would be any different here, but I don´t hate the Harris for THJ/Bertans trade for cap cleaning purposes.
We´d get off $33M a year earlier. If you want to make a big trade for say Lillard in the summer of 2023, it doesn´t hurt to already have the hypothetical 2024 max slot in place.
(05-24-2022, 10:37 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: [ -> ]No need to revert to name calling or devolving the thread into insults.
You smell bad and have horrible taste in t-shirts.