(08-31-2022, 08:56 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Barrett is young and talented, but in 3 years in the NBA he has been wildly inefficient with a TS% barely over 50%. There is obviously reason to expect him to improve, but he has a long way to go to be worth 30 mil a year. Its hard to see that contract making him appealing in a trade.
I also have had visions of Russ actually contributing by coming off the bench and dominating second units, but I think its very unlikely he is willing to do it, and I am with KL regarding chemistry concerns with Brunson and probably Powell leaving and the primary add being Wood. I don't think we want to push it even farther with guys like Russ and Schroder.
Yes, Barrett is a difficult eval for me...even going back to college. He is a guy who needs the ball a lot but struggles finishing and is not a great shooter. On the other hand, he has a great build and looks the part on the floor. I wonder how he would look as a second or third option on a really good team. He should also be a good defender so that is another positive. I think in time he winds up a few time all star. But I think he is a odd fit to a lot teams.
If the Mavs have no trade brewing (they probably don't), I would be in favor of going a little off the beaten path for the last roster spot. Take a gamble. I am not sure who that is or the size of that gamble, but I would be in favor looking in a different direction than the safe route.
(08-31-2022, 10:11 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: [ -> ]He should also be a good defender so that is another positive. I think in time he winds up a few time all star. But I think he is a odd fit to a lot teams.
I think to often folks look at a players size and athleticism and assume they will be good defenders. I think there is more to good defense than that, and Barrett has not shown to be a particularly good defender yet. He gives me a Minnesota Wiggins vibe, and I'm not sure if he has Warriors Wiggins in him.
(08-31-2022, 12:37 PM)Hypermav Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/TheLaurenGunn/status/1564955151873482754?s=20&t=qMZM5TZQk8RcX0RnWAkdOQ
I would do this. I hate to help LA but we get a 23 FRP, 3rd guard and minor DP upgrade.
I would pass. You can probably get McConnell (and his three years left on his contract) for Powell.
Theis wouldn't get playing time here and the first is from Boston which will be late. The Mavs would be willing to move Hardaway but if he is here, he is going to get a lot of minutes and will be counted on to score. I don't see how this helps the Mavs this year or moving forward.
I was thinking the 23 FRP gives us all our picks to use when needed. Maybe I am wrong. This was more to set up the next move.
(08-31-2022, 01:32 PM)Hypermav Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking the 23 FRP gives us all our picks to use when needed. Maybe I am wrong. This was more to set up the next move.
We would have that pick and then 27 and 29 to trade cause we still could lose the 24 or 25 pick based on the protections on our 23. would be best to go to the draft and convey our own 23, then pick the Bos 23 for the team we're trading with, we then can trade the 24, 26, 28, 30. That's 5 picks to trade for upgrade players using THJ's new value after a good season and Bertans also having a good season and his contract essentially expiring.
That's 2 picks (and 2 pick swaps and/or some seconds) for OGA and 3 picks (and 1 pick swap and/or some seconds) for SGA.
(08-31-2022, 08:56 AM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Barrett is young and talented, but in 3 years in the NBA he has been wildly inefficient with a TS% barely over 50%. There is obviously reason to expect him to improve, but he has a long way to go to be worth 30 mil a year. Its hard to see that contract making him appealing in a trade.
I also have had visions of Russ actually contributing by coming off the bench and dominating second units, but I think its very unlikely he is willing to do it, and I am with KL regarding chemistry concerns with Brunson and probably Powell leaving and the primary add being Wood. I don't think we want to push it even farther with guys like Russ and Schroder.
Is RJ Barrett a Russell Westbrook starter kit?
(08-31-2022, 03:02 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: [ -> ]Is RJ Barrett a Russell Westbrook starter kit?
He can't distribute like Russ can. He is a Wiggins starter kit on a very similar path so far. That would mean in 4 years he might be close to worth his contract.
(08-31-2022, 12:37 PM)Hypermav Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/TheLaurenGunn/status/1564955151873482754?s=20&t=qMZM5TZQk8RcX0RnWAkdOQ
I would do this. I hate to help LA but we get a 23 FRP, 3rd guard and minor DP upgrade.
If you read the Twitter thread she says that Mike Scotto reported that Indy proposed Turner/Hield/Theis for Russ and 27 and 29 and LA turned it down because it didn't want the Theis salary. She's simply trying to build off of something that was apparently on the table (and include the Mav's). Spotrac has Theis as a club option in 24/25, so two guaranteed years left. Even I would trade Powell for two years and an option on Theis. I think he's a better fit for what we are trying to do and we have McGee to play the Powell role (or roll).
I think we are getting the Boston pick and the seconds largely as compensation for McConnell vs. THJ. He'd be an expensive third guard who is guaranteed this season and next and $5mm guaranteed in 24/25 (at this rate, seems we are on our way to collecting all the partial guarantees in the league if we did this). The Boston 23 is unprotected which means we can structure a deal to trade our "next" pick since we'd be guaranteed of making a pick in 23. It would be 24 if 23 conveys, plus you do the every other year thing. So, there might be some value to having that Boston pick at the TDL. If we are pretty clearly a playoff team in February a team could take some salary and feel pretty good about getting 24, 26 and 28 plus pick swaps. As IGT points out, it is even more valuable next summer. Remember, we don't have to have our own 23 to trade 24 (or the earliest pick that conveys). We have to have "a" first in one of the next two future drafts.
I would do a pick/McConnel for THJ swap. We can replace what THJ does. We need what McConnell does even though he isn't as good. The team building assets are just too strong to pass up.
Where I think this breaks down is sending THJ to LA. They don't need both THJ and Hield and if they didn't want Theis's money, why would they take Hardaway's. Would Cleveland take THJ and send LaVert to LA rather than losing LaVert for nothing. That might be a way of fixing the biggest issue I have with her proposal.
(08-31-2022, 05:02 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]I think we are getting the Boston pick and the seconds largely as compensation for McConnell vs. THJ. He'd be an expensive third guard who is guaranteed this season and next and $5mm guaranteed in 24/25 (at this rate, seems we are on our way to collecting all the partial guarantees in the league if we did this). The Boston 23 is unprotected which means we can structure a deal to trade our "next" pick since we'd be guaranteed of making a pick in 23. It would be 24 if 23 conveys, plus you do the every other year thing. So, there might be some value to having that Boston pick at the TDL. If we are pretty clearly a playoff team in February a team could take some salary and feel pretty good about getting 24, 26 and 28 plus pick swaps. As IGT points out, it is even more valuable next summer. Remember, we don't have to have our own 23 to trade 24 (or the earliest pick that conveys). We have to have "a" first in one of the next two future drafts.
At the TDL this year, there is still a chance that the 24 or 25 first conveys to NY so we cannot trade either of those, right? If the 25 conveys, we can’t trade the 26. Unless there’s something I’m missing, I’m pretty sure the way I explained it is correct. At the TDL we can trade the Boston 23 and our 27 and 29.
(08-31-2022, 06:14 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]At the TDL this year, there is still a chance that the 24 or 25 first conveys to NY so we cannot trade either of those, right? If the 25 conveys, we can’t trade the 26. Unless there’s something I’m missing, I’m pretty sure the way I explained it is correct. At the TDL we can trade the Boston 23 and our 27 and 29.
I think if the Boston 23 is unprotected, then it can take the place of our 23 from the standpoint of the Stepien rule. So after the trade we can immediate trade that pick plus 25, 27, 29 if we wanted.
(08-31-2022, 06:51 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I think if the Boston 23 is unprotected, then it can take the place of our 23 from the standpoint of the Stepien rule. So after the trade we can immediate trade that pick plus 25, 27, 29 if we wanted.
It’s not about Stepien, it’s about the possibility that the pick itself will not be available due to it going to NY. Can’t trade it to NY and another team.
(08-31-2022, 06:14 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]At the TDL this year, there is still a chance that the 24 or 25 first conveys to NY so we cannot trade either of those, right? If the 25 conveys, we can’t trade the 26. Unless there’s something I’m missing, I’m pretty sure the way I explained it is correct. At the TDL we can trade the Boston 23 and our 27 and 29.
The terms of the deal can be "next" legally tradeable first. It doesn't have to be designated as 24 or 25. If 23 conveys, the trade partner gets 24 as the starting point for a string of future picks every other year. If 23 doesn't convey, then 25 is the earliest possible pick. At the TDL, teams should have a decent idea where the pick is likely to fall.
I agree with your take that the summer provides even greater opportunities.
Nothing in this non-trade with LA/IND would enable Dallas to trade any more of their own picks than they can right now. It only offers the Mavs a provisional Boston pick that is likely to convey, but not guaranteed.
Also the Stepien Rule (and the workarounds) are being misstated in the conversation. The earliest contingent pick the Mavs could offer of their own would be TWO YEARS after the Stepien limit is satisfied, not the following year. That is, if trading a Mavs' pick before NY is designated to get the Mavs pick in 2023, the pick being conveyed to Team X would have to be stated as "two years after FRP conveys to NY" so no sooner than 2025 and might be as late as 2027. Having, or not having, a provisional BOS 2023 pick would not change that limit, as the trade wording must account for any and every B2B non-1st scenario.
(08-31-2022, 08:11 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]The terms of the deal can be "next" legally tradeable first. It doesn't have to be designated as 24 or 25. If 23 conveys, the trade partner gets 24 as the starting point for a string of future picks every other year. If 23 doesn't convey, then 25 is the earliest possible pick. At the TDL, teams should have a decent idea where the pick is likely to fall.
I agree with your take that the summer provides even greater opportunities.
In this situation, the “next available pick” could be the 27 first due to the 23 conveying in 25 so the next available pick is the 27. We then couldn’t also trade the 27 in the original trade.
(08-31-2022, 08:58 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]In this situation, the “next available pick” could be the 27 first due to the 23 conveying in 25 so the next available pick is the 27. We then couldn’t also trade the 27 in the original trade.
I think want Dan is saying is that if you are sending out 3 firsts conditionally on when 23 conveys, then in your scenario we would be sending out 27, 29 and 31.
I'm not sure that is a situation either the Mavs or the buyers want, so it really does not make sense to send out a pick until that pick is settled. That means either NY agreeing to remove the protection, or waiting until after next draft (assuming the pick conveys). I would guess that once the pick is known to convey (end of this coming season) we would be able to trade 24, 26, 28 and so on with the understanding that it is not triggered until after the draft (like the Wood trade). Seems like sending out a protected pick can have significant consequences on future asset management.
I wonder which team would find it more valuable to remove that protection? New York so they can send another unprotected first in Mitchell trade, or the Mavs so they would have more flexibility to make a big trade now or at the TDL.
(08-31-2022, 09:29 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I think want Dan is saying is that if you are sending out 3 firsts conditionally on when 23 conveys, then in your scenario we would be sending out 27, 29 and 31.
I'm not sure that is a situation either the Mavs or the buyers want, so it really does not make sense to send out a pick until that pick is settled. That means either NY agreeing to remove the protection, or waiting until after next draft (assuming the pick conveys). I would guess that once the pick is known to convey (end of this coming season) we would be able to trade 24, 26, 28 and so on with the understanding that it is not triggered until after the draft (like the Wood trade). Seems like sending out a protected pick can have significant consequences on future asset management.
I wonder which team would find it more valuable to remove that protection? New York so they can send another unprotected first in Mitchell trade, or the Mavs so they would have more flexibility to make a big trade now or at the TDL.
I could be wrong, but I think the last pick available to trade is the 29. If that is the case, I doubt the league would approve of language that has the chance to trade a later than 29 pick. Otherwise, we could send the next 10 available picks to NJ for KD.
(08-31-2022, 08:24 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing in this non-trade with LA/IND would enable Dallas to trade any more of their own picks than they can right now. It only offers the Mavs a provisional Boston pick that is likely to convey, but not guaranteed.
Also the Stepien Rule (and the workarounds) are being misstated in the conversation. The earliest contingent pick the Mavs could offer of their own would be TWO YEARS after the Stepien limit is satisfied, not the following year. That is, if trading a Mavs' pick before NY is designated to get the Mavs pick in 2023, the pick being conveyed to Team X would have to be stated as "two years after FRP conveys to NY" so no sooner than 2025 and might be as late as 2027. Having, or not having, a provisional BOS 2023 pick would not change that limit, as the trade wording must account for any and every B2B non-1st scenario.
Tankathon has the Boston pick as unprotected. If such a trade were made, Dallas would be guaranteed a pick in the 2023 draft. The rule is that a team can't be without two consecutive future firsts. It doesn't have to be their own future firsts. Trading the 24 pick is not a violation if the Dallas pick conveys to NY in 23. Trading 25 is a problem if 23 doesn't convey because Dallas can't trade 24 and 25.
(08-31-2022, 09:44 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Tankathon has the Boston pick as unprotected.
2023 first round draft pick to Indiana
Boston's 2023 1st round pick to Indiana protected for selections 1-12; if this pick falls within its protected range and is therefore not conveyed, then Boston will instead convey Dallas' 2023 2nd round pick, Miami's 2023 2nd round pick or Houston's 2023 2nd round pick (see Boston Incoming) to Indiana [Boston-Indiana, 7/9/2022]