Remember, lots of smoke screen around the draft. "Journalists" need to write about something. I'd say their hit rate is usually well below 50% this time of year,
NO TO KESSLER, NO MATTER WHAT! Tattoo this on every MFFL's forehead.
I am starting to warm up to the idea of Christian Koloko at #26 though; briefly played with Josh Green. Improved every year, late bloomer. Great physical traits. International pedigree.
What does it take to move up in the draft?
In 2017, the Utah Jazz jumped 11 draft spots to #13 by trading #24, Trey Lyles (after a bad season) to the Denver Nuggets, where the Jazz took Donovan Mitchell.
In 2011, the San Antonio Spurs jumped 14 draft spots to #15 by trading #29, George Hill (a 25-year-old bench player for Popovich) to the Indiana Pacers, where the Spurs took Kawhi Leonard; hell they even squeezed a second rounder out of Indiana.
Not saying there's a great chance, you need two to tango, but a couple examples where moving up in the draft may not cost that much.
(06-14-2022, 12:15 PM)Fuerza1 Wrote: [ -> ]What does it take to move up in the draft?
In 2017, the Utah Jazz jumped 11 draft spots to #13 by trading #24, Trey Lyles (after a bad season) to the Denver Nuggets, where the Jazz took Donovan Mitchell.
In 2011, the San Antonio Spurs jumped 14 draft spots to #15 by trading #29, George Hill (a 25-year-old bench player for Popovich) to the Indiana Pacers, where the Spurs took Kawhi Leonard; hell they even squeezed a second rounder out of Indiana.
Not saying there's a great chance, you need two to tango, but a couple examples where moving up in the draft may not cost that much.
Maybe something like this. Danny Green + #23 to the Mavs.
Followed by 23# + 26# for a late lottery pick. Going with draft value charts and your examples the Mavs would end up in the #12-#15 range.
(06-14-2022, 12:27 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe something like this. Danny Green + #23 to the Mavs.
Followed by 23# + 26# for a late lottery pick. Going with draft value charts and your examples the Mavs would end up in the #12-#15 range.
It would probably have to be something like that. #26 is such a low pick it's almost impossible to trade it for a future pick on it's own as it's not much more valuable than an early second round pick. Danny Green does have a non guaranteed contract but I don't see why Philly would do this. Essentially they'd be trading 23 for 26, an adjustment of some sort would have to be made
(06-14-2022, 10:38 AM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]If the Hornets are super hot on Turner and need more draft capital to get the deal done and we're trying to offload the pick, I wonder if they would be interested in PJ Washington for 26.
This is my favorite possible outcome on draft night.
So new regime or old regime it looks to be the same old for Mavs fans. Spend months talking about the various possibilities in the draft only for us to not even draft on draft night.
(06-14-2022, 12:50 PM)hakeemfaan Wrote: [ -> ]So new regime or old regime it looks to be the same old for Mavs fans. Spend months talking about the various possibilities in the draft only for us to not even draft on draft night.
I don't think it has to do with regimes.... it has to with fans expectations and limited ideas.
(06-14-2022, 12:54 PM)Winter Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it has to do with regimes.... it has to with fans expectations and limited ideas.
At some level it has to do with the organization as well. Denver just got a pick even lower than the Mavs and gave up a future first. So they are obviously seeing some value. I just hope that we don’t have the mindset that this team is ready right now and so no one drafted can contribute right away. We are not a star laden team. We might struggle next year. Hopefully the front office is keeping all avenues of improvement open which includes the draft.
(06-14-2022, 12:27 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe something like this. Danny Green + #23 to the Mavs.
Followed by 23# + 26# for a late lottery pick. Going with draft value charts and your examples the Mavs would end up in the #12-#15 range.
But in this scenario, they still end up with too many players.
Better to trade #26 plus a non-core player (Brown, Burke, Chriss, Boban, Pinson) for a higher draft pick. Then you actually have room for the draft pick on the roster.
(06-14-2022, 02:26 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: [ -> ]But in this scenario, they still end up with too many players.
Better to trade #26 plus a non-core player (Brown, Burke, Chriss, Boban, Pinson) for a higher draft pick. Then you actually have room for the draft pick on the roster.
How is that supposed to help the Mavs draft position. Need to add value to move up. Can obviously send any combination of them out. But they aren´t adding value. Important part is to take back something negative or to give up something that at least interests other teams.
(06-14-2022, 03:17 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]How is that supposed to help the Mavs draft position. Need to add value to move up. Can obviously send any combination of them out. But they aren´t adding value. Important part is to take back something negative or to give up something that at least interests other teams.
I think he was meaning in the Green trade. Although I think the Green trade is using the TPE, so using other players doesn’t work if I remember correctly. In all honesty, is Green even gonna play next year? If he does, it’s gonna be all rehab time for him. Is the #23 worth that if we can’t dump Brown and another player on them? Is the guy we’re doing all that for really that can’t miss?
(06-14-2022, 09:21 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, it will take 26 (at least) to get into the Turner conversation. Mavericks were not mentioned among the interested teams, however.
This actually makes sense to me. If you value the draft, but DON'T want to cut someone semi-valuable and eat some guaranteed money (that you'll have to pay tax on) in the process, finding a way to turn this year's pick into a future pick is not a bad idea at all.
(06-14-2022, 09:25 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/_TradeDeadline/statu...3958520834
A couple of things:
1) I will judge the offseason on the whole...just like last year.
2) I really dislike trying to compare GS to Dallas having expensive rosters. GS may get their 4th title soon and already have 3 young guys they will eventually grow into rotation players. They already have their young core. Dallas does not.
3) Pick 26 is not a sure thing. In fact, you are more likely to miss on it. But if you never take these picks serious, you will never get them right. Dallas better be doing the work on these prospects...and it should have been a year long process.
4) While pick #26 has better odds of not working out, it is your GM's job to find the player who will. No one bats 100%. Pick 26 could turn out to be the low cost Dinwiddle replacement in two years. Or maybe the low cost Bullock replacement in two years. Or the low cost Maxi replacement in 2 years. Etc. If Dallas wants to get out of the tax, finding young players on rookie deals is easiest route to do so.
5) I agree that picks to the 20's to the 40's are all over the place and it is the eye of the beholder. Hopefully our beholder has a good eye!
(06-14-2022, 05:46 PM)Chicagojk Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that picks to the 20's to the 40's are all over the place and it is the eye of the beholder. Hopefully our beholder has a good eye!
If one of the top of their board isn't there at #26 I support trading back into the 30s to try to get one of your other guys.
For me that would be if Eason, Liddell, LaRavia, Dalen Terry, and Jalen Williams are all gone then I would be fine flipping #26 into an early 2nd rounder as there will be guys there that I still like.
(06-14-2022, 03:17 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]How is that supposed to help the Mavs draft position. Need to add value to move up. Can obviously send any combination of them out. But they aren´t adding value. Important part is to take back something negative or to give up something that at least interests other teams.
Sounds to me like Mavs are looking for the best way to move out of the 2022 draft -- not up (or down).