(01-05-2023, 03:16 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't do that trade, but for a somewhat-different reason that most might have.
I'm not excited by Hardy. I think he's JAG. Trading him while he has good GL stats and looks intriguing might even be a way to get more value than he's worth.
But my disinterest in this trade is that you aren't getting anything in Hayward that is dependably useful. His body is breaking down -- he's on his 3rd different extended stay on the inactive list in this season -- and his production is slipping considerably for the same reason.
I think the odds would be much better on Bullock and McGee getting better and being helpful, than on Hayward being healthy enough to depend on for quality play when it counts. And with GH sitting so much and sucking when he doesn't, we wouldn't have found a way to get out from under the bad money to Bertans and McGee -- the wasted money is about the same either way.
I do like the idea of packaging Bertans and McGee, and maybe even THJ, to take a player some player whose team wants to get out from under. But imo this isn't an actual solution.
Fair enough. Question. Would Rozier and his extra year at slightly more money be something you'd be interested in swapping for THJ? In the past you've been an advocate for that third ball handler and today made a compelling case for moving on from THJ. I'm kind of interested to see how far you'd be willing to go on those positions.
Charlotte has so many interesting young pieces and a little room under the cap. So, I see numerous mix and match possibilities. I agree on Hardy and feel like THJ isn't a piece I want to be married to if Wood ends up staying. Rozier was once considered a defender. He's had good years shooting 3's (but not both together and not either this season). I think neither Rozier nor THJ have positive value. But the extra year and extra money may make Rozier relatively more negative. If so, I'd see if we could pick off one of their younger bigs who is about to get paid as part of the THJ/Rozier swap to make up the value difference.
(01-05-2023, 06:15 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Would Rozier and his extra year at slightly more money be something you'd be interested in swapping for THJ?
I'm probably the last one, but I think I'd still rather have THJ. I don't hate Scary Terry, however. It's not a crazy suggestion, especially if you're looking to take the ball away from Luka just a little more. Still, I think there are better ways to do that.
(01-05-2023, 06:15 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]I agree on Hardy
So you AND @"F Gump" think Hardy is "just a guy"...It's so funny how wildly different people's takes can be on young players. I think Hardy has already shown more potential (of a different sort) than Green did until
this season. But, it is just potential, so far, I must admit.
Setting Hardy's specific case aside, there's a lesson there about young assets and how they're valued, probably.
I think if we’re getting 2 young players in place of Hardy, it’s good. There is a chance Hardy becomes someone but the Char players have some really great potential too. Hardy and his potential just comes at a much lower cost and at a younger age and contract that doesn’t have to be renewed right away.
(01-05-2023, 08:22 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]I think if we’re getting 2 young players in place of Hardy, it’s good. There is a chance Hardy becomes someone but the Char players have some really great potential too. Hardy and his potential just comes at a much lower cost and at a younger age and contract that doesn’t have to be renewed right away.
I didn’t really examine Dan’s trade (or yours, if you suggested one).
My visceral objection was to the idea of giving up a first AND Hardy for freaking Bogdanovich. I’m a hard no on that one, but strangely it’s kind of exactly the kind of thing I expect they might do.
(01-05-2023, 06:15 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Fair enough. Question. Would Rozier and his extra year at slightly more money be something you'd be interested in swapping for THJ? In the past you've been an advocate for that third ball handler and today made a compelling case for moving on from THJ. I'm kind of interested to see how far you'd be willing to go on those positions.
Charlotte has so many interesting young pieces and a little room under the cap. So, I see numerous mix and match possibilities. I agree on Hardy and feel like THJ isn't a piece I want to be married to if Wood ends up staying. Rozier was once considered a defender. He's had good years shooting 3's (but not both together and not either this season). I think neither Rozier nor THJ have positive value. But the extra year and extra money may make Rozier relatively more negative. If so, I'd see if we could pick off one of their younger bigs who is about to get paid as part of the THJ/Rozier swap to make up the value difference.
I've fiddled around with trying to find a trade match that makes sense with CHA, but when I put something together that feels fair for both sides and step back to assess the bottom line, I keep ending up unimpressed with the result. I just don't see anything that moves the needle enough to bother.
I would love for their players to be worth getting, but I can't find a hidden gem, or a player who is somewhat overpaid but who would be very helpful to have. Injuries. Bad money. Not that useful. It's junk like that.
About Rozier, I was on the fence about him (his size and contract were the obvious negatives), but his game has gone farther and farther downhill each year, and now so far that it's impossible for me to see past his contract (he's owed more than Hardaway-Bertans combined).
No trade- Probably most likely
All in trade- scares me to death...but I don't think we have the assets yet for this type of trade.
small step back trade- I would be in favor of this to get a flawed younger, raw player for one of our veterans..probably Bullock.
small trade to add a bigger player- I found it interesting it was mentioned the Mavs think Maxi might be back after the all star break. I was thinking he may be gone for the season, so maybe they don't make this type of trade. I was thinking of something like Bullock for a comparable 4 type player on a decent contract.
I am pretty focused on the small step back trade or adding another playable PF type.
I think OG has a player option after next season. I’m imagining he’ll be looking for around 30m per year? Would love him here. Or Siakam. I like that OG is still only 25. If we traded for him we’d have him as he’s entering his prime. OG, Green, Hardy, Luka is a nice core of players 26 and under. If we keep Wood them it’s 5 under 28. Hope we can find a way to keep trending younger and more athletic.
(01-06-2023, 11:20 AM)HoosierDaddyKid Wrote: [ -> ]
OG is a stud. Is he a FA after this year or is he up for a extension?
The only part that I find slightly confusing is that Nurse is a stud coach, Siakam is a stud, OG is a stud, Barnes is a stud, FVV is a stud and yet they are the 7th worst team in the whole league, the gatekeeper for the Wembanyamension.
(01-06-2023, 12:00 PM)Mavs2021 Wrote: [ -> ]The only part that I find slightly confusing is that Nurse is a stud coach, Siakam is a stud, OG is a stud, Barnes is a stud, FVV is a stud and yet they are the 7th worst team in the whole league, the gatekeeper for the Wembanyamension.
*Wembanyama. Hey boss, can't answer why they've regressed this year.
(01-06-2023, 12:00 PM)Mavs2021 Wrote: [ -> ]The only part that I find slightly confusing is that Nurse is a stud coach, Siakam is a stud, OG is a stud, Barnes is a stud, FVV is a stud and yet they are the 7th worst team in the whole league, the gatekeeper for the Wembanyamension.
I think their biggest weakness is the most important position in the game - PG. They don't have a true PG. Plus they had a ton of injuries whole season and their team is built from basically same kind of players.
(01-06-2023, 12:21 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]I think their biggest weakness is the most important position in the game - PG. They don't have a true PG. Plus they had a ton of injuries whole season and their team is built from basically same kind of players.
Ya I think they just went ALL in on defense with switchable wings and while that side of it looks pretty great it's just ugly on the other end when you watch them. Hard to initiate offense and nobody is an elite shooter so it's just a slough for them.
(01-06-2023, 11:56 AM)MarkAguirreWrathofGod Wrote: [ -> ]I think OG has a player option after next season. I’m imagining he’ll be looking for around 30m per year? Would love him here. Or Siakam. I like that OG is still only 25. If we traded for him we’d have him as he’s entering his prime. OG, Green, Hardy, Luka is a nice core of players 26 and under. If we keep Wood them it’s 5 under 28. Hope we can find a way to keep trending younger and more athletic.
I have a feeling if we have a package that Toronto wants it would most likely include Hardy. I do wonder if salary filler/3 firsts or salary filler/2 firsts/Hardy is enough to get it done.
To me Luka/Green/OG/Dorian(or Maxi)/Wood is a true contending 5 and extremely well balanced on both sides of the ball so I would be pretty willing to part with Hardy in that case.
(01-06-2023, 12:44 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]Ya I think they just went ALL in on defense with switchable wings and while that side of it looks pretty great it's just ugly on the other end when you watch them.
I agree. Toronto has such an obvious singular draft "type" that it's actually not clear they know how to build a working team.
(01-06-2023, 12:44 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]To me Luka/Green/OG/Dorian(or Maxi)/Wood is a true contending 5 and extremely well balanced on both sides of the ball so I would be pretty willing to part with Hardy in that case.
Man, idk...that offense is going to be terrible under Kidd, I think.
(01-05-2023, 03:16 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't do that trade, but for a somewhat-different reason that most might have.
I'm not excited by Hardy. I think he's JAG. Trading him while he has good GL stats and looks intriguing might even be a way to get more value than he's worth.
But my disinterest in this trade is that you aren't getting anything in Hayward that is dependably useful. His body is breaking down -- he's on his 3rd different extended stay on the inactive list in this season -- and his production is slipping considerably for the same reason.
I think the odds would be much better on Bullock and McGee getting better and being helpful, than on Hayward being healthy enough to depend on for quality play when it counts. And with GH sitting so much and sucking when he doesn't, we wouldn't have found a way to get out from under the bad money to Bertans and McGee -- the wasted money is about the same either way.
I do like the idea of packaging Bertans and McGee, and maybe even THJ, to take a player some player whose team wants to get out from under. But imo this isn't an actual solution.
What's Hardy missing offensively besides elite athleticism? The decision making issues for a rookie with his aggressive offensive repertoire is pretty common. Maybe he's a JAG, but I've not seen any holes in his skillset that tells me he isn't a likely 20+ PPG guy down the line if he's allowed to figure out the NBA. The stroke is nice, and he looks better at creating separation for his shot than any rookie not named Luka to have come through for the Mavs that I've seen, including Brunson.
(01-06-2023, 01:39 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Man, idk...that offense is going to be terrible under Kidd, I think.
Why is that? I think that Green's ball handling has been getting much better and OG can also create for himself. I think sometimes we act like we need multiple offensive initiators when in reality we just need folks who can both shoot but aren't afraid to floor the ball and break the defense down (this is my biggest gripe with Hardaway in his current role right now). Right now we're starting a lineup that has less offensive talent then what I just proposed (obviously in my opinion) but curious as to why you think otherwise.
It's still the same concept at the end of the day, Luka/Wood stack action, pick and roll surrounded by shooters, just with players who are little more dynamic or are at least developing into players that are more dynamic than what we currently have.
(01-06-2023, 01:41 PM)Dundalis Wrote: [ -> ]What's Hardy missing offensively besides elite athleticism?
I'm not even sure he's missing that, at least in the sense that matters with his style of game. He's more athletic than Brunson, for example, and he's really going to make it into an All Star game this year in the East, I think.
Every time I see Hardy play...every time...I say to myself "man, this kid is longer than I thought." And YES, as you say, he has a huge of bag of tricks designed to create space to get his shot off. Honestly, his skills aren't even raw. His decision making needs work, but he's WAY farther along than Green was when he got drafted, imho. Polished, by comparison.
(01-06-2023, 01:44 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]Why is that? I think that Green's ball handling has been getting much better and OG can also create for himself. I think sometimes we act like we need multiple offensive initiators when in reality we just need folks who can both shoot but aren't afraid to floor the ball and break the defense down (this is my biggest gripe with Hardaway in his current role right now). Right now we're starting a lineup that has less offensive talent then what I just proposed (obviously in my opinion) but curious as to why you think otherwise.
It's still the same concept at the end of the day, Luka/Wood stack action, pick and roll surrounded by shooters, just with players who are little more dynamic or are at least developing into players that are more dynamic than what we currently have.
Well, you might could convince me it would be an improvement in some ways on offense, or at least stay the same (but with added athletic ability and defense), so I get the temptation.
BUT, OG will be an "all-in" move. So, where do you go from there? I do NOT believe that will be ENOUGH offense to be a contender. I just don't. I would absolutely do a move like that for Siakim, who would singlehandedly change the shape of this team, offensively. For my money, the
offense is what you have to fix first.
I think this all goes back to the thing we've started hearing recently...variations on "maybe the Mavs don't need a costar. Maybe they're good with the right role players."
Personally, I believe this sentiment is born of the boredom and frustration caused by the length of time the Mavs have wasted trying to identify and successfully acquire such a player. I don't buy it at all. I think the guy they need should be the team's second best offensive player. Sucks that they literally already had that guy and let him get away, but basically, that's the only kind of move that would make me feel ok with giving up picks at the moment.