(06-10-2022, 10:21 PM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]Tobias Harris doesn't solve any problems IMO. He's definitely not a center, and not a great defender either.
He helps solve the problem we have of having players that can attack the close out. He helps to solve the rebounding issues we have. He helps solve the issue of making DFS or Luka be the C when we don’t play Maxi or Powell. He is a two way player, moreso than most of the guys on our team. His offense is stronger than his defense for sure, but I think, all around, he is a better player than THJ, that can play a role of pretty great need right now. I think that makes him a pretty large upgrade.
On top of that, his demeanor seems to be a complete fit with this group of players. It seems you are thinking the people that like this idea think Harris is some missing link. I haven’t read that from anyone. No, getting Harris in here does not make us a championship team. He is an upgrade to what we have, and especially to the outgoing players in the 2 trades proposed to get him.
(06-11-2022, 01:18 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]He’s another playable forward, and that’s not nothing, but I agree - not really worth the time, energy or even a modest package of assets.
Do you think the 2 trades proposed is a modest (or more) package of assets?
Westbrook is far and away the best player of the albatross contracts. And you get paid to take him. I realize he can’t shoot. At all. But he does everything else at an all-star level. Sure would be an interesting experiment. Way better than Tobias Harris.
I am afraid the question regarding Harris comes down to whether he is viewed as worth the increase in LuxTax it would require to add him to the payroll.
I like Harris but I am not sure I like him enough at 140% of the salary difference.
IF HE IS
Could Philly be convinced to take a package based around Hayward?
I would propose adding Hayward (pre-draft) then repackaging him in a trade for Harris after July. It would be a massive increase in salary but it would also represent a tremendous a near max increase in assets.
(06-10-2022, 08:11 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]2 Burke is the "just in case" backup to all 3 of Luka, JB, and SD, he's on a cheap deal, and he's a "be ready" guy (doesn't play a lot, but is ready when he gets a chance, and doesn't make waves when he doesn't). That makes him an almost-certain keeper.
Dragic would likely be an upgrade on Burke, but I wouldn't expect him to happen here unless BOTH of 2 things happened: a) Dragic said he will sign with Mavs for the minimum, AND b) some team has a need for Burke as their backup PG, and wants to offer a C or wing that DAL can use on a low-priced contract.
You’ve said something similar to this a few times in defense of Burke with no real push-back.
To me, Frank can be fine for the role you described for Burke. He’s $1.5M cheaper with the possibility of still having some upside. If the Mavs have determined that there is no upside for Frank, they need to move on from him too.
Dragic would be a different story. He would be the vet presence that at times can turn back the clock and win you a few games during the season and possibly be more of a presence in the playoffs (after playing a low amount of total minutes during the season).
Those are the two types of players I think we should fill the last 5 roster spots with. Young/upside/redemption players or older, battle tested vets that can impart knowledge and at times turn back the clock. Neither of which does Burke fit in IMO.
(06-11-2022, 09:33 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]You’ve said something similar to this a few times in defense of Burke with no real push-back.
To me, Frank can be fine for the role you described for Burke. He’s $1.5M cheaper with the possibility of still having some upside. If the Mavs have determined that there is no upside for Frank, they need to move on from him too.
Dragic would be a different story. He would be the vet presence that at times can turn back the clock and win you a few games during the season and possibly be more of a presence in the playoffs (after playing a low amount of total minutes during the season).
Those are the two types of players I think we should fill the last 5 roster spots with. Young/upside/redemption players or older, battle tested vets that can impart knowledge and at times turn back the clock. Neither of which does Burke fit in IMO.
Right. Maybe just trade Burke for Steph Curry, plus whatever salary filler.
(06-11-2022, 09:23 AM)SkenfromLMF Wrote: [ -> ]I am afraid the question regarding Harris comes down to whether he is viewed as worth the increase in LuxTax it would require to add him to the payroll.
I like Harris but I am not sure I like him enough at 140% of the salary difference.
The way I proposed this, the salary increase is $3.95mm. Anything we do to add salary (TPE, TP-MLE) is going to be tax expensive. That is especially true if we are trying to improve two slots (center and a two-way wing). I think the question comes down to whether Harris is $3.95mm (plus tax) better than Hardaway.
The perfect player isn't walking through the door given what we have to offer. So, what imperfection are we willing to tolerate? A financial imperfection (on a shorter deal) is OK by me as long as we also have a path that gets us a center upgrade (and I think we do).
(06-11-2022, 09:23 AM)SkenfromLMF Wrote: [ -> ]I am afraid the question regarding Harris comes down to whether he is viewed as worth the increase in LuxTax it would require to add him to the payroll.
I like Harris but I am not sure I like him enough at 140% of the salary difference.
IF HE IS
Could Philly be convinced to take a package based around Hayward?
I would propose adding Hayward (pre-draft) then repackaging him in a trade for Harris after July. It would be a massive increase in salary but it would also represent a tremendous a near max increase in assets.
That depends on which trade you’re talking about. In the Bertans/THJ trade the increase in salary next year is minimal and the long term salary is a big savings. In the THJ/Powell trade I think Dan said the 1 year difference is something like $7M and the long term is like $9M? Also, if we’re set on using the TPE and TP-MLE, we’re looking to butt up against the max cap spot anyway, so the difference is in the quality of the players you’re getting.
(06-11-2022, 09:40 AM)DallasMaverick Wrote: [ -> ]Right. Maybe just trade Burke for Steph Curry, plus whatever salary filler.
Huh? Where TF did this comment come from? How about buy a second round pick (or even better OKC’s #30) and use Burke’s roster spot (not role…roster spot, you draft the best player available) for that guy since Frank will really be no worse doing what Burke has been doing?
(06-11-2022, 09:43 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]The way I proposed this, the salary increase is $3.95mm. Anything we do to add salary (TPE, TP-MLE) is going to be tax expensive. That is especially true if we are trying to improve two slots (center and a two-way wing). I think the question comes down to whether Harris is $3.95mm (plus tax) better than Hardaway.
The perfect player isn't walking through the door given what we have to offer. So, what imperfection are we willing to tolerate? A financial imperfection (on a shorter deal) is OK by me as long as we also have a path that gets us a center upgrade (and I think we do).
Yep, if we do your deal we have a better pick to give Sac in the Holmes for TPE draft day trade. We also (possibly) come away with a nonguaranteed salary pick in the #34 which when picking as late as 26, the 34 might be the better option anyway.
(06-11-2022, 09:33 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]You’ve said something similar to this a few times in defense of Burke with no real push-back.
To me, Frank can be fine for the role you described for Burke. He’s $1.5M cheaper with the possibility of still having some upside. If the Mavs have determined that there is no upside for Frank, they need to move on from him too.
Dragic would be a different story. He would be the vet presence that at times can turn back the clock and win you a few games during the season and possibly be more of a presence in the playoffs (after playing a low amount of total minutes during the season).
Those are the two types of players I think we should fill the last 5 roster spots with. Young/upside/redemption players or older, battle tested vets that can impart knowledge and at times turn back the clock. Neither of which does Burke fit in IMO.
Why should there be pushback when stating who Burke is, and noticing that he has a well-defined role to play on this team when needed?
Burke is who he is. He's not likely to be moved, because of all the reasons I already provided.
Re Franky, it's not an either-or between him and Burke.
Franky's emerging role has been a developing 3-and-D wing, not at PG. (His competition in being kept long-term is probably Green, not Burke.) It doesn't look like Franky has the offense-creating skills that the Mavs want in the PG's, but he can play D and they are working on his C&S skills, with some degree of success.
(06-11-2022, 09:40 AM)DallasMaverick Wrote: [ -> ]Right. Maybe just trade Burke for Steph Curry, plus whatever salary filler.
Also, I can’t believe you just said you wanted to trade Luka, and as salary filler nonetheless!
(06-11-2022, 10:22 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I can’t believe you just said you wanted to trade Luka, and as salary filler nonetheless!
Sadly he's not good filler until the 26-27 season. That huge expiring contract should be able to land something decent.
(06-11-2022, 10:20 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Why should there be pushback when stating who Burke is, and noticing that he has a well-defined role to play on this team when needed?
Burke is who he is. He's not likely to be moved, because of all the reasons I already provided.
Re Franky, it's not an either-or between him and Burke.
Franky's emerging role has been a developing 3-and-D wing, not at PG. (His competition in being kept long-term is probably Green, not Burke.) It doesn't look like Franky has the offense-creating skills that the Mavs want in the PG's, but he can play D and they are working on his C&S skills, with some degree of success.
I just don’t see the need for Burke that you are trying to create when we have the skills to fill that role on the team already in Frank, while he is training to get to a level where he can crack the rotation (and if he does get there, he still has the same ability). If he’s not the guy, bring in the guy…heck, Pinson is being guaranteed a spot on the roster, make HIM that guy! Whatever the case may be, there is no reason to keep a guy like Burke on the roster. I don’t see the roster spot value in a guy that has a best use as a 3rd string player.
(06-11-2022, 10:27 AM)loki Wrote: [ -> ]Sadly he's not good filler until the 26-27 season. That huge expiring contract should be able to land something decent.
You’re probably right, my bad!
(06-11-2022, 10:36 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]I just don’t see the need for Burke that you are trying to create when we have the skills to fill that role on the team already in Frank, while he is training to get to a level where he can crack the rotation (and if he does get there, he still has the same ability). If he’s not the guy, bring in the guy…heck, Pinson is being guaranteed a spot on the roster, make HIM that guy! Whatever the case may be, there is no reason to keep a guy like Burke on the roster. I don’t see the roster spot value in a guy that has a best use as a 3rd string player.
I think your view of what the bottom rungs of a title-chasing team should look like is unrealistic. It's not going to have guys who could fill regular roles (top 8-9) on most teams. (It's also not going to have a whole slew of development guys who the coach can't trust.)
Your idea to just use any ole guy in the Burke role is silly. It's clear you don't understand his value, but the Mavs do. I am certainly not "creating" a need for such a player or a use for Burke, merely recognizing what is.
Finding an offense-creator is hard, and having an extra one in that bottom 5 for "just in case" is valuable. The need for an extra arises with some regularity. It has looked like they would love for Franky or Green to become that guy, but it's not as simple as just proclaiming them to be up to it. They tried to use them there but it didn't work. I'm sure they will try some more at times. But that is why you keep a guy like Burke, until and unless you have another in hand.
Mavs have other more pressing issues. No desire to create more holes to fix.
(06-10-2022, 10:21 PM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]Tobias Harris doesn't solve any problems IMO. He's definitely not a center, and not a great defender either.
Harris doesn't solve any problems?
We had only 6 guys we trusted for significant minutes in the playoffs. Harris has averaged well over 30 minutes in the playoffs playing at a high level. He would be an upgrade to the starting unit and a massive boost to playoff depth.
We were getting killed on the boards the entire playoffs. Replacing Bullock with Harris would be an upgrade in this area, regardless of what we do at center.
We have been talking about needing more guys that can do basketball things on offense and Harris represents a huge upgrade over Bullock in this area.
The thing you really need to ask yourself is whether you want Timmy or Harris on this team. Harris is more versatile on offense, does not have the defensive issues Timmy does and his extra size is a plus. If we can really get him for the proposed trades of Timmy + Powell or Timmy + Bertans I'm not sure why you wouldn't pull that trigger? Hell if its Timmy + Bertans I might be willing to toss in the pick because it would improve our cap situation so much.
I don't know if that team is a contender but it looks good and deep to me:
Starters:
Center/Harris/Dorian/Luka/Brunson
Second unit:
Powell/Maxi/Bullock/Green/Dinwiddie
Don't need to spend 40M a year to get someone of the caliber of Bullock, or a bit better. Terrible roster-building idea imo.
(06-11-2022, 11:06 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]I think your view of what the bottom rungs of a title-chasing team should look like is unrealistic. It's not going to have guys who could fill regular roles (top 8-9) on most teams. (It's also not going to have a whole slew of development guys who the coach can't trust.)
Your idea to just use any ole guy in the Burke role is silly. It's clear you don't understand his value, but the Mavs do. I am certainly not "creating" a need for such a player or a use for Burke, merely recognizing what is.
Finding an offense-creator is hard, and having an extra one in that bottom 5 for "just in case" is valuable. The need for an extra arises with some regularity. It has looked like they would love for Franky or Green to become that guy, but it's not as simple as just proclaiming them to be up to it. They tried to use them there but it didn't work. I'm sure they will try some more at times. But that is why you keep a guy like Burke, until and unless you have another in hand.
Mavs have other more pressing issues. No desire to create more holes to fix.
If the Mavs re-sign Brunson they are already sitting at 15 contracts not including the 26th pick, taxpayer MLE, and Pinson. Who would you expect them to trade or waive to make room for the new guys? Burke seems like one of the most likely candidates to me. 3rd stringers making $3.3m are tough to swallow when they cost you $12m in tax.
(06-11-2022, 11:06 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]I think your view of what the bottom rungs of a title-chasing team should look like is unrealistic. It's not going to have guys who could fill regular roles (top 8-9) on most teams. (It's also not going to have a whole slew of development guys who the coach can't trust.)
Your idea to just use any ole guy in the Burke role is silly. It's clear you don't understand his value, but the Mavs do.
Finding an offense-creator is hard, and having an extra in that bottom 5 for "just in case" is valuable. The need arises with some regularity. They would love for Franky or Green to become that guy, but it's not as simple as just proclaiming them to be up to it. They tried to use them there but it didn't work. I'm sure they will try some more at times. But that is why you keep a guy like Burke, until and unless you have another in hand.
Mavs have other more pressing issues. No desire to create more holes to fix.
I just think you’re making a hole where there is a small dent and the defense is what I find silly.
What, in my expressed view of what the final 5 (the 11-15 roster spots) on the roster should look like is unrealistic, please tell me.
Frank is not just any ole guy, he started out his career as a PG. There is skill there and we see it as we watch him too. Outside of that, I also said, if he is not that guy, bring in someone else that fits the description of what I said. A vet like Dragic, or a guy determined to have upside that is MORE than a 3rd string player. When a player is determined that their best use is as a 3rd string player, the team has little to no use for them anymore cause the roster space is too limited and valuable. Plenty of reclamation/draft/undrafted/vet min vets to get every year to keep a guy who will not be more than the 4th guard on your team!
(06-11-2022, 11:16 AM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Don't need to spend 40M a year to get someone of the caliber of Bullock, or a bit better. Terrible roster-building idea imo.
Tobias Harris is significantly better than Bullock. He is in a different class. They are not that far off defensively and in different stratospheres offensively. He is obviously overpriced, but he would probably get somewhere in the 20s on the open market today. Bullock is an MLE player. The goal is to upgrade the roster, not worry about how much one player is making, especially when its not really impacting our ability to make moves. If this team is better with Tobias than it is with Timmy and Powell/Bertans than it makes sense to pull the trigger.
(06-11-2022, 11:10 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Harris doesn't solve any problems?
We had only 6 guys we trusted for significant minutes in the playoffs. Harris has averaged well over 30 minutes in the playoffs playing at a high level. He would be an upgrade to the starting unit and a massive boost to playoff depth.
We were getting killed on the boards the entire playoffs. Replacing Bullock with Harris would be an upgrade in this area, regardless of what we do at center.
We have been talking about needing more guys that can do basketball things on offense and Harris represents a huge upgrade over Bullock in this area.
The thing you really need to ask yourself is whether you want Timmy or Harris on this team. Harris is more versatile on offense, does not have the defensive issues Timmy does and his extra size is a plus. If we can really get him for the proposed trades of Timmy + Powell or Timmy + Bertans I'm not sure why you wouldn't pull that trigger? Hell if its Timmy + Bertans I might be willing to toss in the pick because it would improve our cap situation so much.
I don't know if that team is a contender but it looks good and deep to me:
Starters:
Center/Harris/Dorian/Luka/Brunson
Second unit:
Powell/Maxi/Bullock/Green/Dinwiddie
I think, put a minimum of Holmes in that C spot and that team has a good possibility of repeating this year’s performance with a Luka supernova playoff run of being a Champ.