(06-15-2022, 11:29 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I think the other side of this argument is that the players in those 5 spots are probably going to be non-factors for playing time no matter who you put in them.
This was part of my argument in the Burke discussion. The 11-15 roster spots should go to player development or older vets that can step into high minutes when injuries occur (giving them low overall minutes throughout the season so they might be change of pace/spark plug players in the playoffs).
(06-15-2022, 11:33 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]There is a MASSIVE difference between these two things:
1) Holding onto Boban because Luka says he wants him around.
2) Holding onto Boban because you think Luka needs Boban's mature voice and influence in his life to keep growing up in the right direction.
I think the Mavs will hold on to Boban because of the second, not because of the first.
I think there are plenty of players on this team and in the coaching staff to not need #2. This team is full of that type person. Let’s get 3-5 picks in this draft and get rid of the fluff on the team! If we hit on 1 of the 3-5 we’ll be further ahead than had we kept the 5.
(06-15-2022, 11:42 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]I think there are plenty of players on this team and in the coaching staff to not need #2. This team is full of that type person. Let’s get 3-5 picks in this draft and get rid of the fluff on the team! If we hit on 1 of the 3-5 we’ll be further ahead than had we kept the 5.
You may think that. But the Mavs may not.
The Mavs have an inside perspective on Luka's maturity level and needed areas of growth that we frankly do not have. If they think "burning" a roster spot on Boban is worthwhile then I trust them, above all because I think Luka's growth in maturity is the single largest way the Mavs can improve going into next season.
(06-15-2022, 11:36 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]This was part of my argument in the Burke discussion. The 11-15 roster spots should go to player development or older vets that can step into high minutes when injuries occur (giving them low overall minutes throughout the season so they might be change of pace/spark plug players in the playoffs).
Totally agree, as long as everyone understands that whoever is in these spots will be on the court about the same amount as these guys were this past season. This is why I think it's bonkers to get in a twist over whether Cuban will cut them or wait for their contracts to run out. Personally, if they don't get included in trades, I'd just keep them, myself.
In a separate argument, I see Burke and Brown as pretty damn good examples of your "veterans" who can be in those end of Bench spots and play when called upon. Don't need everyone to agree, but I think it's pretty clear that those two are significantly different than Chriss, Pinson, etc.
Then, in a third different branch of this conversation, we have @"F Gump" and I apparently being the only ones who realize that if the offense is going to include playing two ball-handling guards at a time, with the team having three really good ones on the roster, you'd better have a 4th with some experience on the roster. That's why we think Burke (or someone else with that skillset, which we both said clearly) is in a pretty important role.
(06-15-2022, 11:45 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]You may think that. But the Mavs may not.
The Mavs have an inside perspective on Luka's maturity level and needed areas of growth that we frankly do not have. If they think "burning" a roster spot on Boban is worthwhile then I trust them, above all because I think Luka's growth in maturity is the single largest way the Mavs can improve going into next season.
All speculation. I’m coming from a roster standpoint. If Boban isn’t needed to play in a game at the most dire of moments, he can fill another position on the team. Be it coaching staff, or any other spot. Time for some tough love with Luka if it is indeed as you say.
I’m not sure I trust what is a Cuban-led team with many aspects of team/player development. For all we know, the ball boy told Cuban that he can’t mess with the Boban/Luka chemistry and it was what Cuban wanted to hear, so that us the mandate (it’s crazy with what we’ve seen that that isn’t all that far fetched of a scenario).
(06-15-2022, 11:29 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I think the other side of this argument is that the players in those 5 spots are probably going to be non-factors for playing time no matter who you put in them.
Amen.
True..but I would rather invest on guys who I think could grow to be real assets or have development in front of them. It is not my money though.
I may be stretching it, but lets looks at New Orleans last year. Would you rather have Burke, Brown, Chriss, Boban taking up your end of your roster. Or would you rather scout good and wind up with Herb Jones (second round pick), Trey Murphy (#17 pick last year), Jose Alvarado (undrafted), Larry Nance Jr (throw in a trade).
All of those guys played last year for New Orleans and more importantly are in their plans this upcoming year. All outside of Nance are on good contracts and if Nance is healthy he is a solid trade asset if they wish to move him in the future.
(06-15-2022, 11:57 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: [ -> ]True..but I would rather invest on guys who I think could grow to be real assets or have development in front of them. It is not my money though.
No argument with that. Same page, other than to suggest that maybe what you really need is a good MIX of those young, developmental guys with the vets who are available if/when needed.
(06-15-2022, 09:27 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: [ -> ]Chriss made a splash when he first arrived, but the more you watched of him the more warts you saw. He really needs to improve on defense and fouling if he wants to stick around for awhile. Being a guy the staff can count on with rotations and not making lazy fouls will be key. To give him the benefit of the doubt, it is tough to join a team in the middle of the year and pick everything up. The Mavs will need to decide if they want to invest in him for another year. I think they may look somewhere else, but maybe they decide he is worth investing in for a full season. (Emphasis added)
Didn’t they decide this already when they gave him a guaranteed deal for next year? He looks like a great LONG-TERM project to me. Closer to contributing already than anyone we’re going to draft at #26 but with considerable development still needed.
(06-15-2022, 12:18 PM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]Didn’t they decide this already when they gave him a guaranteed deal for next year?
Burke, Brown, Chriss and Boban all have guaranteed deals for next year. Ntilikina doesn't.
Are you suggesting that this is a clue to what's to come in Chriss's case, but somehow not in the other cases?
(06-15-2022, 11:35 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]That's a different argument if you want to actively dump them and replace with vet min guys. Most of the talk has been about which guy(s) do we dump when we bring in other specific players. I don't think it matters as long as you are pulling from that pool of 4. Frank is young and has shown some value, so it would be annoying if he gets dumped before any of those 4. But there are a lot of posts on here arguing over Burke vs Boban like it matters either way.
These discussions we’re having are fluid with lots of spin offs. In all honesty I can’t remember where this one started, I just reply to the things thrown at me. To go back to your previous quote:
(06-15-2022, 11:19 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ] I don't think it has any impact on this team whether we dump any of Brown, Chriss, Burke or Boban.
I think there is a pretty big impact on the team and it’s extremely telling of the direction this FO intends to go in the future if they figure out how to get rid of those 5 end of bench guys and replace them with vets (I’ll explain what I think when I say this later in a reply to KL) or developmental guys. HUGE difference!
So for you to say, who cares? That’s dumb to me.
(06-15-2022, 12:21 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Burke, Brown, Chriss and Boban all have guaranteed deals for next year. Ntilikina doesn't.
Are you suggesting that this is a clue to what's to come in Chriss's case, but somehow not in the other cases?
Burke has a PO for next year. I'm guessing we assume he'll exercise it? He also has a 7.5% trade kicker, does that affect his salary matching number in a trade?
Ntilikina becomes guaranteed money unless he's waived by July 4th. So there is a bit of a clock ticking there that probably doesn't matter in the long run. Could have an effect on who is the first to go, though.
Pinson's 2-way is expiring and he has a $1.57M QO.
(06-15-2022, 12:36 PM)michaeltex Wrote: [ -> ]Burke has a PO for next year. I'm guessing we assume he'll exercise it? He also has a 7.5% trade kicker, does that affect his salary matching number in a trade?
Ntilikina becomes guaranteed money unless he's waived by July 4th. So there is a bit of a clock ticking there that probably doesn't matter in the long run. Could have an effect on who is the first to go, though.
Pinson's 2-way is expiring and he has a $1.57M QO.
Yep, and I'd say all of those things have an impact on this fairly complex web of decisions the Mavs are facing right now.
I don't think it should be controversial to suggest that Cuban might just factor "money I'd have to light on fire" into the deciding process. I think that's pretty obvious.
(06-15-2022, 12:21 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Burke, Brown, Chriss and Boban all have guaranteed deals for next year. Ntilikina doesn't.
Are you suggesting that this is a clue to what's to come in Chriss's case, but somehow not in the other cases?
Yes. Recency of decision distinguishes Burke. Fact that it came after a trial run and without the benefit of training camp distinguishes Brown. Seems a lot like Ntilikina in terms of potential and investment. I would wager both stay.
(06-15-2022, 12:51 PM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. Recency of decision distinguishes Burke. Fact that it came after a trial run and without the benefit of training camp distinguishes Brown. Seems a lot like Ntilikina in terms of potential and investment. I would wager both stay.
"Both" meaning Ntilikina and Chriss? Did you type "Brown" but mean "Chriss?" Sorry, just having trouble tracking your point.
(06-15-2022, 12:54 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]"Both" meaning Ntilikina and Chriss? Did you type "Brown" but mean "Chriss?" Sorry, just having trouble tracking your point.
REQUESTED CLARITY IN CAPS BELOW, AMIGO:
Recency of decision distinguishes CHRISS FROM Burke. Fact that it came after a trial run and without the benefit of training camp distinguishes CHRISS FROM Brown. CHRISS Seems a lot like Ntilikina in terms of potential and investment. I would wager both CHRISS AND NTILIKINA stay.
(06-15-2022, 01:03 PM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]I would wager both CHRISS AND NTILIKINA stay.
That's what I thought you meant, just making sure.
I think anyone involved with the team (or closely observing) would hope that Ntilikina gets at least one more season here to see if he can truly blossom and claim a regular role. I think he has shown enough to earn that hope.
I share your level of intrigue over Chriss's play style and potential skillset, but don't know that he has shown enough to qualify for that same tier (Ntilikina's tier).
In a separate but related point, I speculate that if you asked the coaching staff what
they'd prefer, the top three guys on this list they'd want to keep would be Ntilikina, Burke and Brown (in some order). Those are the three who already seem closest to understanding what it takes to simply
be a professional basketball player. Obviously Boban qualifies here, too, but he just flat-out isn't a type of player who can function in today's game. This is compounded by the obvious decline in his game that has occurred during his time here in Dallas.
Maybe most importantly, I'm not sure Cuban cares about any of that more than he cares about the hike in his tax bill (even if it is just for one year) that would come with some of what's being suggested around here.
But it's all guessing at this point.
(06-15-2022, 11:35 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]But there are a lot of posts on here arguing over Burke vs Boban like it matters either way.
I’ve reread a couple pages back and can’t see a single post doing this. I also know I’ve never tried to make this argument personally. If this is your source of anger towards this discussion, I don’t know how you got there.
(06-15-2022, 12:27 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]These discussions we’re having are fluid with lots of spin offs. In all honesty I can’t remember where this one started, I just reply to the things thrown at me. To go back to your previous quote:
I think there is a pretty big impact on the team and it’s extremely telling of the direction this FO intends to go in the future if they figure out how to get rid of those 5 end of bench guys and replace them with vets (I’ll explain what I think when I say this later in a reply to KL) or developmental guys. HUGE difference!
So for you to say, who cares? That’s dumb to me.
Again you are moving the goalposts. I'm simply saying that if we are adding a player it does not really matter which of those 4 are getting removed because I don't expect any of them to contribute even a little bit.
As far as whether the 14 and 15 spots are going to be developmental, vets or cheerleaders, reports seem pretty clear they are going for cheerleaders. I don't have nearly enough grasp of that locker room to have any idea if that is a great idea, pointless or somewhere in between.
It seems like every year there are arguments about the 14th and 15th spots and it never really seems to matter. We had 6 guys get significant minutes in the playoffs. My biggest concern is who is going to be 7 and 8 in next years playoffs. Then I have interest if we are going to add some young guys either through draft or MLE or both somewhere in the 9-12 slots. Then I have mild curiosity if we are going to add a vet at 13 (may not given the tax situation). By the time we get to 14 and 15 I just don't think it makes much difference. There are only so many developmental guys you can have on a competing team. Green is worth a look for at least another year, you can make an argument for Frank, and we may have 1 or 2 other guys coming in. That is more than enough. One could easily make the argument that of the bottom 6 guys on our 17 man roster the two cheerleaders provided the most value (its a low bar). If this FO thinks that and wants to go with it, so be it.
(06-15-2022, 01:48 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Again you are moving the goalposts. I'm simply saying that if we are adding a player it does not really matter which of those 4 are getting removed because I don't expect any of them to contribute even a little bit.
As far as whether the 14 and 15 spots are going to be developmental, vets or cheerleaders, reports seem pretty clear they are going for cheerleaders. I don't have nearly enough grasp of that locker room to have any idea if that is a great idea, pointless or somewhere in between.
It seems like every year there are arguments about the 14th and 15th spots and it never really seems to matter. We had 6 guys get significant minutes in the playoffs. My biggest concern is who is going to be 7 and 8 in next years playoffs. Then I have interest if we are going to add some young guys either through draft or MLE or both somewhere in the 9-12 slots. Then I have mild curiosity if we are going to add a vet at 13 (may not given the tax situation). By the time we get to 14 and 15 I just don't think it makes much difference. There are only so many developmental guys you can have on a competing team. Green is worth a look for at least another year, you can make an argument for Frank, and we may have 1 or 2 other guys coming in. That is more than enough. One could easily make the argument that of the bottom 6 guys on our 17 man roster the two cheerleaders provided the most value (its a low bar). If this FO thinks that and wants to go with it, so be it.
Moving what goal posts? You inserted yourself into the conversation that had goal posts and changed them yourself all while being aggressive in your wording.