(06-06-2022, 09:33 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy to me how fans have a tendency to elevate the role players on other teams and denigrate our own.
The major difference between DAL, BOS, MIA, and GSW is not the role players. GSW doesn't have some magic ability to identify incredible talent in role players that DAL doesn't have. Role players are elevated by coaching, culture, and the stars of the team. Give GSW the Mavs role players and they would likely not miss a beat.
I think the thing a lot of people would disagree with you on is that our role players are ALREADY being elevated. Also, I'm not sure who we're calling role players. Golden State is starting Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Draymond, and Looney. The only one you can call a role player there is Looney, and he obliterated his role player counterpart on our team. Similarly, Boston is starting Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford, and Williams... that front court crushes ours.
(06-06-2022, 10:37 AM)Branduil Wrote: [ -> ]I think the thing a lot of people would disagree with you on is that our role players are ALREADY being elevated. Also, I'm not sure who we're calling role players. Golden State is starting Curry, Klay, Wiggins, Draymond, and Looney. The only one you can call a role player there is Looney, and he obliterated his role player counterpart on our team. Similarly, Boston is starting Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford, and Williams... that front court crushes ours.
Something both teams have in common is both took on high salary players who where thought to have albatross contracts. Both Wiggins and Horford were discussed here a great bit with very little support for taking on that kind of money. I mean ‘why would anyone pay that kind of money for somone who is likely the 4th/5th best player on the team’? Well, now we know why. Because it is hard to get 4 or 5 guys of that quality without an overpay somewhere along the line.
I think many of us make the same mistake with Gobert. He’s easily a top 20 player in the league and the first negative thing anyone says is how much money he makes. Well, to get him we have to salary match to within a certain percentage of what Gobert makes. Those outgoing players combined won’t be nearly as efficient as Gobert, yet somehow more money for a great player is a worse idea than 75-cents on the dollar for much worse players.
Concerns about playoff role are potentially valid with Gobert, but unknowable given the different scheme and players who would be around Gobert. But the greater lesson of Wiggins and Horford is you may have to overspend to get the depth of quality needed to win it all.
(06-06-2022, 10:55 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Concerns about playoff role are potentially valid with Gobert, but unknowable given the different scheme and players who would be around Gobert. But the greater lesson of Wiggins and Horford is you may have to overspend to get the depth of quality needed to win it all.
No doubt overspending is required at some point. The problem with Gobert is that his overspend is going to average $42MM+ for the next four years which could significantly handcuff roster building.
Gobert+Luka+JB will be a significant portion of the cap space this year. Personally, I'm not intrigued enough by Gobert to sink that much of my flexibility into one player. I mean they traded KP to get more roster flexibility, among other reasons, and he doesn't make as much as Gobert. So let's use the flexibility to actually find paths to improvement and not just recreate the wheel here. Making a big move for Gobert feels like "been there, done that".
(06-06-2022, 10:55 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Concerns about playoff role are potentially valid with Gobert, but unknowable given the different scheme and players who would be around Gobert. But the greater lesson of Wiggins and Horford is you may have to overspend to get the depth of quality needed to win it all.
I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't understand that Gobert would make this team better (at least, if the trade price doesn't rob the roster of too much).
The problem is that we've just seen what it takes to move a contract north of a certain number with Porzingis. Gobert's is even worse. So, what happens if they add Gobert and then don't make the finals?
For my money, this is a team that has already shown their ceiling is higher than we thought. They're in a good spot, all things considered, but I personally feel like it's a lucky thing they are where they are, given the huge mistakes they've made recently. If I'm running this team, I spend the next couple of seasons being fairly risk averse...at least until the draft capital gets built up to a reasonable level again.
It's not anti-Gobert, imo. It's "the Mavs aren't in a position to take on contracts like Gobert's unless they come with ball-handling, star players who will obviously be movable later." Just my opinion.
(06-06-2022, 11:29 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't understand that Gobert would make this team better (at least, if the trade price doesn't rob the roster of too much).
The problem is that we've just seen what it takes to move a contract north of a certain number with Porzingis. Gobert's is even worse. So, what happens if they add Gobert and then don't make the finals?
For my money, this is a team that has already shown their ceiling is higher than we thought. They're in a good spot, all things considered, but I personally feel like it's a lucky thing they are where they are, given the huge mistakes they've made recently. If I'm running this team, I spend the next couple of seasons being fairly risk averse...at least until the draft capital gets built up to a reasonable level again.
It's not anti-Gobert, imo. It's "the Mavs aren't in a position to take on contracts like Gobert's unless they come with ball-handling, star players who will obviously be movable later." Just my opinion.
I think there are two questions on Gobert. One is if you are comfortable with his salary and fit here? The second question is where I am doubtful. That is do we have the assets to trade for him? I was scared away when I have heard/read Lowe and Hollinger go through trade possibilities for Gobert. For most, I feel like we lack the assets that they have used for other teams. Maybe that market is eventually distressed. We will see.
I do think a defensive minded center would really help. With Jalen and Luka (and Din/Hardaway), you just don't have elite defense in two of your spots on the court. A guy like Rudy could really clean up a lot a the rim. Even with his drawbacks.
(06-06-2022, 11:29 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't understand that Gobert would make this team better (at least, if the trade price doesn't rob the roster of too much).
The problem is that we've just seen what it takes to move a contract north of a certain number with Porzingis. Gobert's is even worse. So, what happens if they add Gobert and then don't make the finals?
For my money, this is a team that has already shown their ceiling is higher than we thought. They're in a good spot, all things considered, but I personally feel like it's a lucky thing they are where they are, given the huge mistakes they've made recently. If I'm running this team, I spend the next couple of seasons being fairly risk averse...at least until the draft capital gets built up to a reasonable level again.
It's not anti-Gobert, imo. It's "the Mavs aren't in a position to take on contracts like Gobert's unless they come with ball-handling, star players who will obviously be movable later." Just my opinion.
I'm afraid of being too comfortable where we are right now and overestimating our ceiling because of an improbable WCF run. I don't want to end up like Atlanta next season. This team is likely to regress next season because of the way they overachieved if they stand pat.
We're right at the point like the pre Kawhi Raptors where we're good but we're not good enough without taking a swing. It's not like we're going to have cap space anyway.
On ABC's broadcast, former NBA official Steve Javie admitted the refs take game circumstances into account and would be less likely to give a player a second technical unless they truly crossed the line.
So Draymond avoided an ejection while KP got ejected on a super soft call? Sounds like the NBA
(06-06-2022, 12:31 PM)MrGoat Wrote: [ -> ]This team is likely to regress next season because of the way they overachieved if they stand pat.
Oh, for sure. No way do I think they should stand pat. I just think they should continue to make safe, smart moves with chemistry and fit in mind, rather than take wild, risky swings.
Now, if an
unquestionably obvious "big swing" comes along, sure. But, it's easy to miscalculate how obvious the fit will be with certain players. Most of us were pretty sure Porzingis would fit, after all.
I want to avoid another Porzingis situation, wherein the team is stuck with a high priced player who doesn't elevate the team and might even hold it back, at all costs.
(06-06-2022, 02:14 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, for sure. No way do I think they should stand pat. I just think they should continue to make safe, smart moves with chemistry and fit in mind, rather than take wild, risky swings.
Now, if an unquestionably obvious "big swing" comes along, sure. But, it's easy to miscalculate how obvious the fit will be with certain players. Most of us were pretty sure Porzingis would fit, after all.
I want to avoid another Porzingis situation, wherein the team is stuck with a high priced player who doesn't elevate the team and might even hold it back, at all costs.
I consider Gobert a more acceptable risk because of his injury history. Injuries was the main reason KP didn't pan out here even though there are other overblown narratives.
The real risk with Gobert is trading with Danny Ainge.
It doesn't have to be Gobert though, there are other moves we could make but we need a serious rim protection upgrade coming from somewhere.
(06-06-2022, 02:37 PM)MrGoat Wrote: [ -> ]I consider Gobert a more acceptable risk because of his injury history. Injuries was the main reason KP didn't pan out here even though there are other overblown narratives.
Ah, well there's the rub, then.
I think it would've been
better had Porzingis been healthier, for sure, but ultimately just as unsuccessful. He didn't have the right skillset to fit into what Dallas is (was?) trying to do during his time here, and more to the point he didn't seem to have the desire to acquire that skillset.
I agree that the injury risk with Gobert is much less concerning than it was with Porzingis. For me, it's probably going to be a simple "no, thanks" with any extremely high priced center not named Embiid or Jokic.
The relief I felt when the Mavs and Porzingis parted ways was similar to how I felt when they moved on from Harrison Barnes, who some now want to come back.
If the Porzingis situation has taught us anything, it's that if you make a mistake, that mistake follows you til the end of that player's contract no matter how you look at it. We won't have our picks loaded AND our money back until the end of the Bertans contract most likely.
Now with that in mind, consider what our future looks like if we bring Rudy in and his issues in the playoffs look exactly the same here...The guy is owed 46 million dollars in 25/26...there is no recourse if that doesn't work out. If he doesn't work out here his value will most likely be even lower than Porzingis' was on the way out.
I can't pass on Rudy fast enough. So glad to hear Stein say we aren't really looking that direction anymore.
(06-06-2022, 12:31 PM)MrGoat Wrote: [ -> ]I'm afraid of being too comfortable where we are right now and overestimating our ceiling because of an improbable WCF run. I don't want to end up like Atlanta next season. This team is likely to regress next season because of the way they overachieved if they stand pat.
We're right at the point like the pre Kawhi Raptors where we're good but we're not good enough without taking a swing. It's not like we're going to have cap space anyway.
I have a few thoughts on this:
To Dan's point, taking on a big overpay player may be necessary and Gobert makes a lot of sense given his likely fit with Luka and filling a desperate need on this team in general. I would be willing to take that gamble if we can get away with something like THJ + Powell + Green + 22 first. If we start talking about future firsts or breaking up the core then I am probably out.
I don't think there is any danger of this team standing pat this offseason. Our starting center just got outplayed in the playoffs by multiple backup centers making 5 million or less. At the minimum we will spend the tax MLE on a center that can provide more useful playoff minutes than Powell did.
You mention the Kawhi trade, and I always go back to the Jrue trade. Both cases were for a two way wing that took that team over the edge. I think ultimately that is what this team needs to do, but it make more sense to do it the following offseason when we have access to all of our picks. This is also the reason I don't want to send any future picks for Gobert. Our long term plan should be to get a young high level two way wing to pair with Luka. That is the move to put us over the top and I don't see a reasonable way to get that player yet.
(06-06-2022, 10:55 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]He’s easily a top 20 player in the league and the first negative thing anyone says is how much money he makes. Well, to get him we have to salary match to within a certain percentage of what Gobert makes. Those outgoing players combined won’t be nearly as efficient as Gobert, yet somehow more money for a great player is a worse idea than 75-cents on the dollar for much worse players.
I don't want to disagree with your point.
But the idea that Gobert is the most efficient way to spend 40M on players, does NOT really hold up. 40M payroll is more value imo if spent on Kleber-DFS-Bullock, and probably by a lot. Or if we want to just limit it to the center position, I think Turner-Kleber-Powell would give the Mavs more value than Gobert, even though I don't particularly want to keep Powell. Or Turner-Kleber-_____ [MLE guy]. And the latter ideas certainly offer more of a "guarantee" of continuing value if someone's game goes south or someone is injured.
OTOH there's probably a nice feasibility for Gobert at the RIGHT price, especially if the price is something like Powell, THJ, Brown, and 22 pick. In that case, you're basically keeping the team that went to war this year, except Powell is replaced by Gobert. For whatever we do or don't think of Gobert, that's certainly a much better version of similar type center.
But I don't think UT will be looking for anything less than huge value, to let go of Gobert (justified or not) because that's how Ainge operates -- and the first rule should have us looking for something different. I think that's probably at the root of the Mavs flip flop on interest in Gobert --- when hearing he might be available and thinking of what they think he's worth, the Mavs were eager, but when confronted with UT's actual desires and Ainge's involvement, the realization dawned that serious interest was more likely to get them royally screwed, and why bother. Still some interest but not all in, they are saying, so they are backing off to see if UT is serious about moving on from him, and has no other suitors where the price is low, but only then.
And FWIW, I think Mavs would be much better served by adding Turner, + a 2-way wing that's as good as DFS and RB, + MLE center, with the expectation total payroll and perhaps trade cost will be in the same range or lower than Gobert.
(06-06-2022, 05:57 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]the idea that Gobert is the most efficient way to spend 40M on players, does NOT really hold up. 40M payroll is more value imo if spent on Kleber-DFS-Bullock, and probably by a lot.
This is the dilemma. The current roster can win 50+ games but they can't win a title. At some point you're going to have to cash in the Kleber-DFS-Bullock types. Probably Brunson too, unless he develops enough to earn some All Defense votes.
(06-06-2022, 06:28 PM)vfromlmf Wrote: [ -> ]This is the dilemma. The current roster can win 50+ games but they can't win a title. At some point you're going to have to cash in the Kleber-DFS-Bullock types. Probably Brunson too, unless he develops enough to earn some All Defense votes.
Can't?? I don't share your proclamation of doom. Or your solution of the best way to get there.
Certainly the Mavs fell short this year. But so did every team except 1. "Didn't" doesn't mean "can't" in the world of athletic competition. And the Mavs proved they are on the upper level, which means that (like with other teams) a bit better play or just a few breaks here and there might be all they need to turn "didn't" the last time into "did" in the future.
As for how to improve, I don't think your solution is the right one.
IMO the Mavs' biggest issue was more about QUANTITY of playoff-playable bodies, than about quality of their top players. The few they had were exhausted, but no one to relieve them. Consolidating 2 or 3 into 1 would be moving in the exact wrong direction. Arguably LAL had the top 1, top pair, and top trio of NBA talent, yet they weren't even close because they had to sacrifice any quantity of solid role players in order to make the top guys fit. You can't sacrifice your rotation top to bottom in favor of just having a very few primary stars.
Ideally you have 2-3 stars who will drive your success by making others better, and 6-7 solid role players around them. For the former, the Mavs have Luka whose usage counts for more than 1 in impact, and perhaps Brunson, but only 4 or so solid role players (Kleber, DFS, Bullock, SD). Each solid role player added, until they get a total of 8-9 playoff-playable guys overall, will be enough to elevate this team's potential, and they were already close even though they are so lacking in numbers. They are right there - I don't think it was a fluke, but more a case of a team who learned quickly how to play at a higher level, working on a learning curve that is part of the process, and showed scary good potential for being a champ in the future.
(06-06-2022, 06:28 PM)vfromlmf Wrote: [ -> ]This is the dilemma. The current roster can win 50+ games but they can't win a title. At some point you're going to have to cash in the Kleber-DFS-Bullock types. Probably Brunson too, unless he develops enough to earn some All Defense votes.
What does it mean to cash in on Kleber-DFS-Bullock types? Those kind of players are generally under valued in the free agent and trade markets, but they are desperately needed to win games, especially playoff games.
Brunson is a different story. He won't ever earn all defense votes. There may be a long term fit issue here regarding his defense and he is the kind of player that a rebuilding team might actually want (as opposed to a 30 year old 3&D player). If the Mavs had been smart enough to offer him the max extension last offseason, I can't imagine all of the trade proposals that would be thrown around this board sending him out for a legit 2 way player.
(06-06-2022, 10:55 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Something both teams have in common is both took on high salary players who where thought to have albatross contracts. Both Wiggins and Horford were discussed here a great bit with very little support for taking on that kind of money. I mean ‘why would anyone pay that kind of money for somone who is likely the 4th/5th best player on the team’? Well, now we know why. Because it is hard to get 4 or 5 guys of that quality without an overpay somewhere along the line.
I think many of us make the same mistake with Gobert. He’s easily a top 20 player in the league and the first negative thing anyone says is how much money he makes. Well, to get him we have to salary match to within a certain percentage of what Gobert makes. Those outgoing players combined won’t be nearly as efficient as Gobert, yet somehow more money for a great player is a worse idea than 75-cents on the dollar for much worse players.
Concerns about playoff role are potentially valid with Gobert, but unknowable given the different scheme and players who would be around Gobert. But the greater lesson of Wiggins and Horford is you may have to overspend to get the depth of quality needed to win it all.
I agree with you that in order to create a team with major depth at every position we need to be willing to accept an overpay here or there, but I don't think the argument against Gobert is about his high salary, but rather it's a question of how easy is it to replicate what Gobert brings at a better cost.
Now 3x DPOY don't just grow on trees, and Gobert is fantastic at what he does. It's easy to downplay his impact because of what has occurred recently, but I am a firm believer that Gobert would be a force on a good team, and the Mavs should be lucky to get him at a reasonable cost.
With that said, how much different is this team with Gobert versus say Clint Capela? Myles Turner? Nurkic? Heck a rookie that fills the skills we all desire (i.e. Williams, Duren. Koloko etc.). Suspend a moment how attainable each of these guys are respectively, and ask philosophically if Gobert is actually worth that much of an investment on this particular team?
I find myself straddling that line. Some days I think this team with Gobert is a finals contender based on what we saw these playoffs, on other days I fear we go all in on a one dimensional guy that doesn't really diversify the offense and his defense is able to be schemed out in the playoffs and we stagnate much like Utah except Gobert is even older.
I know you weren't really making a post about Gobert but rather learning the lesson of Wiggins/Horford (the latter I was a big proponent of last offseason), but I do think using him as an example for your original point doesn't really work in favor for it, and Gobert is a unique case all together.