(06-19-2022, 09:40 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]With the Dragic talk (and THJ coming off of injury), I wonder if the player divided might not be Dinwiddie.
On the Locked On NBA Draft podcast, Sac traded down to 6 and got Brogdon and a future Top 5 protected first for Holmes and 4. Point being Sac wanted a bigger PG to rotate with Fox and Davion Mitchell.
Dinwiddie for Holmes, Harkless and maybe #37 (Two-way) would be similar outcome in terms of a larger guard and make Dragic a third guard here rather than a fourth guard. It would also give Dallas more front court versatility and solve the C/PF rotation for years to come with prime aged guys if you assume they extend Wood in six months.
Holmes/Powell Bertans
Wood/Maxi Harkless
DFS/Bullock Green
Brunson/THJ Pinson
Luka/Dragic Frank
I cannot imagine Dallas doing this, tbh. Two bigs, no 5-out, no 2-PG-at-all-times? It's the complete opposite of the approach that just got them to the WCF. I could see the Mavs replacing Dinwiddie at some point, but not with a guy who is half-retired, and not trading him for backups or awkward fits with the center they just traded for.
(06-19-2022, 09:48 AM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]I cannot imagine Dallas doing this, tbh. Two bigs, no 5-out, no 2-PG-at-all-times? It's the complete opposite of the approach that just got them to the WCF. I could see the Mavs replacing Dinwiddie at some point, but not with a guy who is half-retired, and not trading him for backups or awkward fits with the center they just traded for.
It is about options. Nothing about having Holmes, Wood, Maxi and Powell forces you to play two bigs (especially in the playoffs). But now you CAN play two bigs if you wish (and a better quality big than what you are going to get at the Vet Min).
Nothing about paying Dragic $6mm instead of SD $20mm keeps you from playing two PG's whenever you wish. But, with a smaller financial commitment, if you want to play a single PG, Bullock, DFS Holmes and Wood (or Maxi and Wood or Maxi and Holmes), you can.
Are we sure Wood is a full time center? If not, where are we getting a body we can play alongside him?
Are we sure Dragic is coming here for the minimum (I hear people saying they'd "prefer" it, but that isn't the same as it happening). If not and if he's coming, then paying him $6mm to be the fourth PG makes absolutely no sense. So, how might we make sense of it.
One of the ways to get better is to make yourself match-up proof by covering any kind of combination you might need for an entire 48 minute game. Something like this does that and the cost is the spread between SD and Dragic (to the extent there is a spread) for a few backup minutes each half.
(06-19-2022, 10:01 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]It is about options. Nothing about having Holmes, Wood, Maxi and Powell forces you to play two bigs (especially in the playoffs). But now you CAN play two bigs if you wish (and a better quality big than what you are going to get at the Vet Min).
Nothing about paying Dragic $6mm instead of SD $20mm keeps you from playing two PG's whenever you wish. But, with a smaller financial commitment, if you want to play a single PG, Bullock, DFS Holmes and Wood (or Maxi and Wood or Maxi and Holmes), you can.
Are we sure Wood is a full time center? If not, where are we getting a body we can play alongside him?
Are we sure Dragic is coming here for the minimum (I hear people saying they'd "prefer" it, but that isn't the same as it happening). If not and if he's coming, then paying him $6mm to be the fourth PG makes absolutely no sense. So, how might we make sense of it.
One of the ways to get better is to make yourself match-up proof by covering any kind of combination you might need for an entire 48 minute game. Something like this does that and the cost is the spread between SD and Dragic (to the extent there is a spread) for a few backup minutes each half.
It adds options, sure, but it also takes away one of the biggest strengths of last year's team by removing Dinwiddie. Also, while you could say it gives you more options, you kind of have to start both Wood and Holmes with this lineup. Like I can't imagine Wood dealing with being moved to the bench well, and we already know what that's done to Holmes.
I don't know if Wood can survive as the lone big, but I'm 90% sure the Mavs' current plan is for him to replace Powell in the starting lineup from last year.
To me, the Mavs' interest in Dragic is as a quality 4th PG and mentor, which kind of matches up with what he was saying about himself. Will he choose the Mavs over other options for the vet minimum? We'll see.
I also suspect Dragic will basically be in the same situation no matter which team he chooses. Brooklyn will have Kyrie, Simmons, and Patty Mills. Miami has Lowry, Oladipo, and Gabe Vincent. So I think the offer is going to basically be "4th ballhandler" no matter where he goes.
(06-19-2022, 10:09 AM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]It adds options, sure, but it also takes away one of the biggest strengths of last year's team by removing Dinwiddie. Also, while you could say it gives you more options, you kind of have to start both Wood and Holmes with this lineup. Like I can't imagine Wood dealing with being moved to the bench well, and we already know what that's done to Holmes.
I don't know if Wood can survive as the lone big, but I'm 90% sure the Mavs' current plan is for him to replace Powell in the starting lineup from last year.
To me, the Mavs' interest in Dragic is as a quality 4th PG and mentor, which kind of matches up with what he was saying about himself. Will he choose the Mavs over other options for the vet minimum? We'll see.
Dragic was a net positive in the playoffs (I know, 4 games and only 79 minutes). Was Dinwiddie a net positive? Was he a net positive in his playoff minutes with Luka? Was he a net positive in his playoff minutes with Brunson? The answer to all of those questions is No BTW. So, how is that one of our biggest strengths? Dinwiddie was Luka's only negative pairing among the main rotation guys in the playoffs (Bullock, DFS, Brunson, Maxi, Powell and Bertans). Brunson was negative when paired with Dinwiddie and Maxi amongst those top guys.
I've spent some time researching Wood's effectiveness at C and PF the last three seasons (especially the two seasons before this last one in Houston). There is a huge improvement in team defensive numbers when Wood plays PF vs. when Wood plays C. The issue seems to be the corresponding drop in O. The issue both places isn't that Wood can't play PF offensively. It is that Houston and Detroit just couldn't manufacture any O with a non-shooting center on the floor (mainly because they played at least one other non-shooter at the same time). Will lack of O be an issue with Luka, Brunson, DFS and Wood on the floor together? I don't think so.
To be a champion, you have to win four series against all sorts of different lineups. I think you have to be able to play big and you have to be able to play five-out. We aren't there yet, but a deal like this gets us closer. I don't think the cost is that great.
(06-19-2022, 10:27 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Dragic was a net positive in the playoffs (I know, 4 games and only 79 minutes). Was Dinwiddie a net positive? Was he a net positive in his playoff minutes with Luka? Was he a net positive in his playoff minutes with Brunson? The answer to all of those questions is No BTW. So, how is that one of our biggest strengths? Dinwiddie was Luka's only negative pairing among the main rotation guys in the playoffs (Bullock, DFS, Brunson, Maxi, Powell and Bertans). Brunson was negative when paired with Dinwiddie and Maxi amongst those top guys.
I've spent some time researching Wood's effectiveness at C and PF the last three seasons (especially the two seasons before this last one in Houston). There is a huge improvement in team defensive numbers when Wood plays PF vs. when Wood plays C. The issue seems to be the corresponding drop in O. The issue both places isn't that Wood can't play PF offensively. It is that Houston and Detroit just couldn't manufacture any O with a non-shooting center on the floor (mainly because they played at least one other non-shooter at the same time). Will lack of O be an issue with Luka, Brunson, DFS and Wood on the floor together? I don't think so.
To be a champion, you have to win four series against all sorts of different lineups. I think you have to be able to play big and you have to be able to play five-out. We aren't there yet, but a deal like this gets us closer. I don't think the cost is that great.
Dinwiddie had his struggles in the playoffs, but he was also one of our most clutch performers, both late in games and late in series. More importantly, Dinwiddie is only 29, while Dragic is 36. Father time is undefeated, as the saying goes.
I don't doubt bigger lineups can be useful at times, but we do have a guy who is already a good fit there in Maxi. In the long run, it's possible the Mavs will want to find a starting "big wing" who can split the difference as a perimeter defender and helpside shotblocker, but it's probably a good idea to see what Wood looks like as a solution here first.
(06-19-2022, 10:01 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]It is about options. Nothing about having Holmes, Wood, Maxi and Powell forces you to play two bigs (especially in the playoffs). But now you CAN play two bigs if you wish (and a better quality big than what you are going to get at the Vet Min).
Nothing about paying Dragic $6mm instead of SD $20mm keeps you from playing two PG's whenever you wish. But, with a smaller financial commitment, if you want to play a single PG, Bullock, DFS Holmes and Wood (or Maxi and Wood or Maxi and Holmes), you can.
Are we sure Wood is a full time center? If not, where are we getting a body we can play alongside him?
Are we sure Dragic is coming here for the minimum (I hear people saying they'd "prefer" it, but that isn't the same as it happening). If not and if he's coming, then paying him $6mm to be the fourth PG makes absolutely no sense. So, how might we make sense of it.
One of the ways to get better is to make yourself match-up proof by covering any kind of combination you might need for an entire 48 minute game. Something like this does that and the cost is the spread between SD and Dragic (to the extent there is a spread) for a few backup minutes each half.
I guess we will offer Dragic something between vet-min and tMLE.
And I still believe in a Bertans midseason-trade for some expiring overpaid center.
(06-19-2022, 10:01 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]It is about options. Nothing about having Holmes, Wood, Maxi and Powell forces you to play two bigs (especially in the playoffs). But now you CAN play two bigs if you wish (and a better quality big than what you are going to get at the Vet Min).
Nothing about paying Dragic $6mm instead of SD $20mm keeps you from playing two PG's whenever you wish. But, with a smaller financial commitment, if you want to play a single PG, Bullock, DFS Holmes and Wood (or Maxi and Wood or Maxi and Holmes), you can.
Are we sure Wood is a full time center? If not, where are we getting a body we can play alongside him?
Are we sure Dragic is coming here for the minimum (I hear people saying they'd "prefer" it, but that isn't the same as it happening). If not and if he's coming, then paying him $6mm to be the fourth PG makes absolutely no sense. So, how might we make sense of it.
One of the ways to get better is to make yourself match-up proof by covering any kind of combination you might need for an entire 48 minute game. Something like this does that and the cost is the spread between SD and Dragic (to the extent there is a spread) for a few backup minutes each half.
The only part that would interest me in your scenario is getting rid of Dinwiddie´s long-term contract and I´d still not sign Dragic for the TP-MLE.
Jalen Smith is at least an option for the TP-MLE money and he produced the same numbers as Holmes did over the last 25 games. Only he has a lot more upside.
(06-19-2022, 10:48 AM)Mavs2021 Wrote: [ -> ]The only part that would interest me in your scenario is getting rid of Dinwiddie´s long-term contract and I´d still not sign Dragic for the TP-MLE.
Jalen Smith is at least an option for the TP-MLE money and he produced the same numbers as Holmes did over the last 25 games. Only he has a lot more upside.
"getting rid of" Dinwiddie is a far cry from calling him one of our "greatest strengths". So, I'll take it.
I was all in on Jalen Smith before Wood. I don't think Smith has the defensive prowess for the role I envision alongside Wood. His age is right though. One thing that gets lost in some of these discussions is the needs here are not single year needs. Maxi and Powell aren't kids and are both UFA's next summer. If there is a chance to do more than just a band-aid type fix, I suspect the team does it. Especially if the contract continues to be perceived as a good value going forward. I think the Holmes contract will age better than the Dinwiddie contract for trade purposes. I see the longer term at the lower dollars to be a positive.
(06-19-2022, 09:46 AM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing in that interview sounds like vet min with Dallas to me. With Miami? Maybe. Not with Dallas.
He basically said that is possible to sign with the Mavs, but he can't talk with other teams before 1.7. He confirmed that Brooklyn would like him back.
He wasn't talking a about possible comeback to Miami, but i would agree with you, if Miami offers him a contract, they will surely have adventage to sign him.
(06-19-2022, 11:03 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]"getting rid of" Dinwiddie is a far cry from calling him one of our "greatest strengths". So, I'll take it.
I was all in on Jalen Smith before Wood. I don't think Smith has the defensive prowess for the role I envision alongside Wood. His age is right though. One thing that gets lost in some of these discussions is the needs here are not single year needs. Maxi and Powell aren't kids and are both UFA's next summer. If there is a chance to do more than just a band-aid type fix, I suspect the team does it. Especially if the contract continues to be perceived as a good value going forward. I think the Holmes contract will age better than the Dinwiddie contract for trade purposes. I see the longer term at the lower dollars to be a positive.
Very much agreed on the long-term value contract strategy.
That´s why players like Dragic, D. Green etc. don´t interest me much at minimum plus.
If Cuban wants to pay up we still have trades that can accomplish these things.
Theoretically we now have
TPE
TP MLE
Vet Min
to fill out the rest of the roster.
If we take on bad contract with the TPE, maybe we can extract a 2nd round pick early enough to pick a sliding Koloko, Kamagate or at least Nzosa.
Zach Collins +#38 for our TPE
Gary Harris TP-MLE
Pick Nzosa #38
Doncic/Dinwiddie/Ntilikina
Brunson/Harris/Green
Bullock/THJ
DFS/Kleber/Bertans
Wood/Powell/Collins/Nzosa
(06-19-2022, 12:15 PM)Mavs2021 Wrote: [ -> ]
Theoretically we now have
TPE
TP MLE
Vet Min
to fill out the rest of the roster.
We also have to think about a theoretical budget too (we don't as fans I guess, but if you want to accurately portray options, it is probably wise to at least pretend we are thinking like a team might).
We've added some salary already both in terms of the $2mm cost difference between Wood and the four outgoing players plus you have to pay to fill the roster slots that were opened (at 3X salary in tax cost). If there is another move to be made where someone is outgoing, I suspect it has more outgoing than incoming salary (which my SD for Holmes/Harkless does).
Not trying to enforce my beliefs on anyone. Y'all do you. Just saying I see it as highly unlikely we spend the TPE AND the TP MLE.
(06-18-2022, 04:51 PM)BoredAssistant Wrote: [ -> ]I think you make a fair point and 3% seems reasonable considering the last couple of years. Looks like he has lost a quarter billion in value in the last year which isn't shocking, and it seems some of it is wrapped up in movie cinemas which I assume has picked up in the last few months from the eye-test. There's a lot of volatility but yeah I can see him paying a large tax for 1 or even 2 years. Thanks.
(06-19-2022, 12:36 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]We also have to think about a theoretical budget too (we don't as fans I guess, but if you want to accurately portray options, it is probably wise to at least pretend we are thinking like a team might).
We've added some salary already both in terms of the $2mm cost difference between Wood and the four outgoing players plus you have to pay to fill the roster slots that were opened (at 3X salary in tax cost). If there is another move to be made where someone is outgoing, I suspect it has more outgoing than incoming salary (which my SD for Holmes/Harkless does).
Not trying to enforce my beliefs on anyone. Y'all do you. Just saying I see it as highly unlikely we spend the TPE AND the TP MLE.
I think you are describing the most likely scenario but the recent discussions about the Warriors and the way they essentially outplayed the tax system with increased revenue and franchise value gives me hope that Cuban is catching on.
I am by no means and expert but to me it looks like Cuban has cashed in on the Mavs in the last couple of years. Among the league leaders in operating income each year.
[url=
Find more statistics at Statista[/url]
https://www.si.com/nba/heat/miami-news/m...prediction
Quote:As a matter of fact, Robinson told Brunson the entire Heat team thought the Suns were going to win that series except for one player: P.J. Tucker.
“He was adamant,” Robinson says of Tucker. “[He said] ‘I talked to Jared Dudley (assistant coach for the Dallas Mavericks). I gave him the game plan! I got Dallas! Dallas is winning this one. I talk to Duds.'”
PJ Tucker would be exactly the kind of veteran defensive wing they need off the bench. He would have to opt out of his $7.2m final year and sign here for less. Maybe Dallas could try to entice him with a 2 year offer. Probably still unlikely, but I'll continue to hold out hope given his relationship with Dudley. A playoff rotation wing isn't going to be easy to find in this free agent class.
(06-19-2022, 08:28 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Does this sound like the TP-MLE? 3 years, not all of them guaranteed.
No. It sounds like a Boban-like replacement (friend of Luka, off-court contributor, sometime player) at a similar contract length (2-3 years) and price point. It might even explain WHY Mavs felt free to move Bobi.
(06-19-2022, 09:40 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]With the Dragic talk (and THJ coming off of injury), I wonder if the player divided might not be Dinwiddie.
I don't buy that at all. Dragic is just right for the Burke role. OTOH Dinwiddie is needed as a MAJOR contributor to what they are building.
Also, THJ is not a fit to replace Dinwiddie. Been there, done that, THJ lacks the skills needed to be half of a two-creator setup. His injury recovery just means it might take some games before his full value can be realized in a trade. Waiting is certainly an option.
(06-19-2022, 09:40 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Dinwiddie for Holmes, Harkless and maybe #37 (Two-way) would be similar outcome in terms of a larger guard and make Dragic a third guard here rather than a fourth guard.
THJ, not Dinwiddie, is the only way I'd want to do that. (Although, I still have hesitation on Holmes, especially as a 4th C on the roster.) And by June 27.
SAC gets an even bigger guard, and better for DAL too.
THJ - for Holmes/Holiday/37. Mavs also get a new 13.6M TPE.
Or Powell for Holmes by June 27. I have less hesitations there. Even less if I knew Holmes was a good defender on bigger Cs.
I like Dinwiddie but he's inconsistent. I would say he had 6 really good games in the playoffs, the other 12 games were meh or stinkers. Mavs went 3-3 in what I deem his "good games."
Other issues with Dinwiddie is that he is making starter money, and has 2 ACL tears (1 in each knee) to his ledger.
Furthermore, Dinwiddie shot 40% from 3PT range during his time in DAL (regular season and playoffs). That is an astronomical improvement from his career 31.6 3PT% before joining DAL. Is that sustainable? Conventional wisdom says not likely.
IMO, at least 1 of Bertans/THJ/Dinwiddie have to go this summer. I think Dinwiddie has the most value right now, and it may never be higher than it is now. Selling high is not a bad idea, especially if you can switch Dinwiddie for a wing or more frontcourt help, and have another playmaker (likely is cheaper) lined up to fill his void.
That being said, I think Mavs keep Dinwiddie, but I hope his role is tweaked, especially if he's sharing time with THJ.
My case for signing Jalen Smith to the tax MLE.
I realize he may not want to sign here for the max tax MLE (roughly 3/20), but this is why I think he should be our top target.
1. Asset. He would be the youngest with most upside option we could sign. He was a lottery pick just 2 years ago and is already a rotational level player. We would basically only be paying him a little over a million more than his club option that the Suns waived (which was crazy). After trading our pick away, it would be a good way to add cost controlled youth with upside. From a purely asset standpoint, he would be the top choice.
2. Defensive big wing. There is a lot of talk of adding a defensive big wing using the tax MLE. If we add Jalen to the center rotation, then we can slide Maxi down to the 4. I would argue he is probably a better option than anyone we could get in the market. An argument could be made that Maxi is probably at his best at the 5 (one I would agree with) and there is a good chance he will spend time there in the playoffs (Jalen might not be ready for primetime, or TDL trade). But from a wear and tear standpoint it might be better to play most of minutes at the 4 during the regular season.
3. Wood insurance. There is a very real chance that Wood does not work out. Hopefully, if that is the case we can move him at the deadline instead of letting walk at the end of the season. Assuming Jalen is playing at a rotational level here, that allows us to trade Wood at the TDL for something other than a center. Maybe that defensive wing like a Crowder or Covington. Maybe they could even package Wood and Green for Grant. Having Jalen gives us a lot more options to make that Wood TDL trade without crushing our center depth (like we did with the KP trade).