(06-17-2022, 11:33 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]I see it differently. I think I'm the only one who isn't fully ignoring the possibility Brunson doesn't work out the way everyone thinks it will. Nothing that happened Wednesday changes that possibility.
Oh, I’ve been vocal that JB is not what I actually want at the position and role he plays. He’s just too good at what he does (now that he’s shown the world what he can do without Luka in the playoffs) to only get snt value from him.
Edit: Unless Nico flips that script too!
(06-17-2022, 11:11 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]Ya, this is a pretty good way to look at it. I think in terms of on court impact, Luka/JB vs Luka/SD in a starting role (if JB decides to go elsewhere, let’s not lose sight of JB HAS to sign here even if he is not “the guy”), the drop off is really not that big if there is one at all. The drop off comes when you add Dragic instead of SD on the bench as the 3rd guy. How big of a drop off though? Sometimes big, other times none at all, I would contend. We also should get a vet min/development 4th guy in that scenario, we still have the roster spots to do that.
In that sense, does Toppin enter your radar on that list somewhere? Young promising bigger body wing. Might be able to man the 5 spot in a “smallball” set. I could see that as a possibility where we need a 3rd team to help facilitate. Toppin and our 23 back is a decent snt return, maybe we can extract more?
Toppin is a good one. I missed him on my added list. There are probably more guys if I looked a little harder.
I lean towards the Brunson to Dinwiddie being a fairly big drop off. Brunson is just so efficient scoring, and I'm not sure he is done getting better. If he pulls the trigger on more threes its not hard to see him be an efficient 20 points a game scorer.
I think most of us are trying not to think about the Mavs destroying their future by not re-signing Brunson.
Finding ways to minimize the damage with S&Ts is nice but it's still kind of like figuring out the best way to shoot your toes off with a magnum.
(06-17-2022, 11:28 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]We are replacing Bullock in the starting lineup, so I don't think it needs to be a big wing (although that is probably preferable). Some other guys I would have ahead of Grant:
Jrue
Middleton
George
Brown
Fred (awkward fit with Brunson, but perfect fit with Luka)
Smart
Bane (ouch)
Mikal Bridges
Miles Bridges
Edwards
Ingram
Wiggins
Mobley
Anunoby
Wagner
Thats a lot of guys, a lot of them significantly better than Grant or younger. Including your list that is over 20 guys. A lot of them will not be available, but a couple should be. This list could also grow with young guys taking a big step this coming season.
Clarke
John Collins
Edwards
If we include salary:
Crowder, Boucher, Kyle Anderson, Saddiq Bey, Lue Dort,
If feeling lucky with health:
Jingles, Hayward
But the point is, just don´t want Grant.
(06-17-2022, 11:40 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Toppin is a good one. I missed him on my added list. There are probably more guys if I looked a little harder.
I lean towards the Brunson to Dinwiddie being a fairly big drop off. Brunson is just so efficient scoring, and I'm not sure he is done getting better. If he pulls the trigger on more threes its not hard to see him be an efficient 20 points a game scorer.
I can see that too. I can also see SD’s 3% dropping to a point that it’s hard to see him starting. If all stays the same as it was? I don’t think they’re that far off. Having JB’s efficiency next to Luka’s inefficiency is a balance that makes them fit well together though, so it is probably closer to what you’re saying.
I feel like Wood is basically John Collins with worse PR. Obviously Collins is a couple years younger and doesn't have the bad coaching rep, but the stats are remarkably similar.
(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]I think most of us are trying not to think about the Mavs destroying their future by not re-signing Brunson.
Finding ways to minimize the damage with S&Ts is nice but it's still kind of like figuring out the best way to shoot your toes off with a magnum.
I’m in the camp of sign Brunson at (most) all costs. What if NY wants to max him out? Are you willing to do that? I’m not sure I am.
(06-17-2022, 11:49 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]I’m in the camp of sign Brunson at (most) all costs. What if NY wants to max him out? Are you willing to do that? I’m not sure I am.
I would do it just because it would be extremely funny for the Knicks to spend assets dumping all of the contracts necessary to even threaten that only for him to re-sign.
(06-17-2022, 11:51 AM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]I would do it just because it would be extremely funny for the Knicks to spend assets dumping all of the contracts necessary to even threaten that only for him to re-sign.
Not sure it would play out like that, but it would be funny to see!
(06-17-2022, 11:33 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]I see it differently. I think I'm the only one who isn't fully ignoring the possibility Brunson doesn't work out the way everyone thinks it will. Nothing that happened Wednesday changes that possibility.
I think several posters have discussed that possibility. I think the prevailing thought is that from an asset perspective it will be nearly impossible to acquire as much asset value in a S&T as it would to simply sign him.
(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]I think most of us are trying not to think about the Mavs destroying their future by not re-signing Brunson.
Finding ways to minimize the damage with S&Ts is nice but it's still kind of like figuring out the best way to shoot your toes off with a magnum.
Don't get me wrong, I like Brunson as a player, but "destroying their future" is absolute hyperbole. He's not a game changing player, even if he does have improvement left in him. If they pull off the right moves, this team could absolutely be better without Brunson on it.
(06-17-2022, 11:56 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I think several posters have discussed that possibility. I think the prevailing thought is that from an asset perspective it will be nearly impossible to acquire as much asset value in a S&T as it would to simply sign him.
You never do when you are the team losing the FA (thus the word "losing"). However, if done correctly, it does open up our stash of picks and positions us for a broader makeover now rather than a year from now.
(06-17-2022, 11:59 AM)Dundalis Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get me wrong, I like Brunson as a player, but "destroying their future" is absolute hyperbole. He's not a game changing player, even if he does have improvement left in him. If they pull off the right moves, this team could absolutely be better without Brunson on it.
There is no S&T they can do with Brunson that would be better than re-signing him, I can guarantee that at least. It would be pennies on the dollar.
(06-17-2022, 11:28 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]We are replacing Bullock in the starting lineup, so I don't think it needs to be a big wing (although that is probably preferable). Some other guys I would have ahead of Grant:
I think it has to be a big wing, I don't think we can be a true contender without one. Smart, FVV, Jrue, Bane, Edwards are all small guards. Ingram is a PF but doesn't really play defense. I think Middleton, both Bridges, George, Brown, Anunoby and Wiggins are all too small for the need too. Mobley can't shoot but he could be interesting - I didn't include him on my list because of his shooting. Wagner is not there yet.
(06-17-2022, 12:04 PM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]There is no S&T they can do with Brunson that would be better than re-signing him, I can guarantee that at least. It would be pennies on the dollar.
Fair enough, though Im mainly thinking about the idea of Brunson not being around longer term. Im just hoping they don't overpay him, though I guess that is likely not a reality. I would be curious what you could get in return for Brunson and a hopefully balling out Wood at the TDL.
(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Mapka Wrote: [ -> ]John Collins
Doesn't fit with Wood at all. Basically same player offensively, same questionable defense.
(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Mapka Wrote: [ -> ]Clarke
I intentionally didn't include unproven guys. There is just no way you could say he has proven he can be anywhere near Grant level. He also can't shoot.
(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Mapka Wrote: [ -> ]Edwards
Just a totally different position. If we are including guys like him, lets also put Curry, Beal, Lillard etc on the list. The whole point was we need a big wing...
(06-17-2022, 11:51 AM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]I would do it just because it would be extremely funny for the Knicks to spend assets dumping all of the contracts necessary to even threaten that only for him to re-sign.
You are severly underestimating the Knicks ability to create cap space. If Brunson chooses NY (it is his decision, not Dallas and he is not restricted), they basically need to dump two or at most three expiring contracts to create space for him. Denver basically needed just a pick swap (and got 2 second rounders) to dump 9 mil of Green.
(06-17-2022, 11:59 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]You never do when you are the team losing the FA (thus the word "losing"). However, if done correctly, it does open up our stash of picks and positions us for a broader makeover now rather than a year from now.
Here’s where I am with it.
This thought is following along the THJ signing and consequent rumored shopping.
I want to sign JB for up to $25M. I think he played well enough to earn that contract and still think there is a bit more upside to his game. Any more than that and he could become untradeable. I’m not so completely sold that JB CAN’T be the guy next to Luka when we win another championship. I just think the archetype needed next to Luka is not something he can be and not having that guy makes it harder on the team to win it all.
For those reasons, I don’t want JB priced at a point where his contract is seen in any way a negative. I think that’s what happened to THJ. I don’t think even the teams that wanted to sign him at a price higher than we gave him are all that interested in him now.
(06-17-2022, 11:59 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]You never do when you are the team losing the FA (thus the word "losing"). However, if done correctly, it does open up our stash of picks and positions us for a broader makeover now rather than a year from now.
I guess the question is, are you talking about actively pursuing the S&T or looking for ways to mitigate Brunson's choice? If the later, then we are all on the same page. If the former, then I don't think the value of NY not having to make space will be nearly the value of a signed Brunson.
(06-17-2022, 12:07 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]I think it has to be a big wing, I don't think we can be a true contender without one. Smart, FVV, Jrue, Bane, Edwards are all small guards. Ingram is a PF but doesn't really play defense. I think Middleton, both Bridges, George, Brown, Anunoby and Wiggins are all too small for the need too. Mobley can't shoot but he could be interesting - I didn't include him on my list because of his shooting. Wagner is not there yet.
I'm not sure why it has to be a big wing. We have Dorian for that. This team with any of those guys you mentioned is better than this team with Grant, and in most cases its not close.
Edit: Also most of those guys in the second list are only an inch or two shorter than Grant and within 10 or 15 lbs. So are Dorian and Luka. I think this is a strange line to draw, especially in todays positionless game.