(01-26-2023, 10:51 AM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]If he was fine with the change I think he'd still be with the team. Even if he had been upset because he didn't think the trade request is being taken seriously, if this was about his next contract then he'd be playing. He had an interview recently where he said he was upset because "the team didn't value him" or something like that which just shows a bunch of pouting to me.
So, of course I don’t think he was
actually fine with the change. I just don’t think it hurt his value and there was fault on both sides.
(01-26-2023, 10:55 AM)Jym Wrote: [ -> ]Even Durant came back and played after his hold-out attempt failed.
This just felt Sprewell level dumb to me.
We don’t know what was said behind closed doors to make him as angry as he is. Again, this isn’t going to change his value around the league, so not sure why all the upsettedness is over it, other than Pho asking price, which is Sprewell level dumb.
(01-26-2023, 10:45 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]He was fine with the change, he just asked them to trade him so he could get his last opportunity to get a big contract. They (as shown here) asked for waaaaay more than he is worth and he sat out cause they weren’t taking his request seriously. I don’t think it’s hurt his value much if any. He was gonna get a MLE contract before, he’ll most likely get the same after.
Like the rest of you, I think the Suns' ask is Sarver's "screw you" to Crowder for refusing to play for them, even though he's getting paid. He's not worth that 3-pronged ask (for 2 of the things on that list), and not sure at this point, as a two-month rental, he's going to be worth even 1 of them now.
His market is limited, as is his value. His shooting efficiency dropped way off last season, and his value might be as a smaller version of Dwight Powell - undersized for the PF position, so he adds energy.
This is Sarver, remember, and using the Jerry Jones expression, he may have "let his money get mad" in this case because he got pissed at paying Crowder who isn't showing up for work.
The fact that the team is getting sold may end up with a new owner settling for "the best we can get" as a consolation prize, but that angle only exists if there's a new owner in place before the TDL. While it's a bad look to the franchise to not trade Crowder, where he simply rots, Sarver doesn't have to give in - heck, he's selling the team, and his reputation is already nil.
(01-26-2023, 12:08 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I'll say it again: I'm here for this. I think it would make a huge difference.
I'll ask you the same question as I asked Kamm.
What is the long term plan with a move like this? If we are struggling with the defensive combination of Luka/Din in the starting lineup, do you think it will be better with Luka/Russell? Do you see any chance we make Russell a 6th man?
Is the plan to immediately extend him? Does it make sense to pay a defensively challenged shooting guard over 30+ mil a season? Is there any chance to make a starting unit that includes Wood/Luka/Russell defensively viable?
What salary are we sending out in addition to Din? There is no way they take on Bertans. Are we including Bullock?
I think a lot of the frustrations with Din will extend to Russell, especially on the defensive end. The difference is that Russell costs over 30 mil, has no chance of playing the 6th man spot that makes sense for Din, and without an expensive extension negotiated as part of the trade, could walk like Brunson with the Mavs having limited ability to replace him.
(01-26-2023, 12:53 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]The difference is that Russell costs over 30 mil
He's a FA at the end of the year. Regardless of his current salary, I'll be surprised if he gets $30mm on the open market in his next deal. Reduce that number and the value proposition changes considerably.
Here is a trade idea that I am quite certain Mavs would never consider, but would imho make a lot of sense
GSW: Wood
Mavs: Wiseman, Kuminga. Throw in Bob Myers while your at it - has any GM ever traded himself?
GSW gets a center they need for another push. Mavs get much younger and both players still 2 and 3 years on their rookie contract. Wiseman is 21, a former 2nd pick who has been a no show so far. Kuminga showed potential and is just 20 years old. On a short term Mavs get worse, but their ceiling raises a lot. Pump some stats to both guys and their trade value increases. Mavs athleticism dramatically improves with Green, Wiseman and Kuminga.
(01-26-2023, 12:53 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]If we are struggling with the defensive combination of Luka/Din in the starting lineup, do you think it will be better with Luka/Russell?
I think he's probably a little better than Dinwiddie, defensively, but that will still be an issue, sure. Where I'm coming from is that since they seem determined to start Dinwiddie, anyway, at least this would be a much better version of that player. I've seen you opine that while Russell is probably better, their two offensive games are probably pretty close. I do not remotely agree with that, and think Russell is in a completely different class of player.
I might feel differently if Dinwiddie was being used as I would use him, as a 6th man.
Yes, I'd extend/re-sign Russell, whatever. My plan would be to combine Dinwiddie and THJ's strengths into ONE player who is superior to both. Maybe he starts, maybe he eventually is the 6th man, but he's a good player, imo.
EDIT: Having said all of the above (I would trade Dinwiddie for Russell in a heartbeat) my hunch is that the Mavs are kicking the tires on what they hope are potential THJ trade targets, not Dinwiddie trade targets. So, if the rumors that MIN wants a PG are true, I doubt it's a trade fit. For the record, I'd offer either one of them.
(01-26-2023, 01:14 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]GSW: Wood
Mavs: Wiseman, Kuminga. Throw in Bob Myers while your at it - has any GM ever traded himself?
I don't hate that, as I like the idea of stockpiling young players. Now whether those players are any good is still TBD.
Along that line, if Bob Myers is part of the deal just make sure he is allowed nowhere near the draft room. Because if Dallas had the same 3 high 1st round picks and came away with Wiseman, Kuminga, and Moody we'd all be crucifying them.
(01-26-2023, 01:14 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]Here is a trade idea that I am quite certain Mavs would never consider, but would imho make a lot of sense
GSW: Wood
Mavs: Wiseman, Kuminga.
That would be a good trade on both ends.
But i think if GS offers up Wiseman/Kuminga in trades, they'll get something better than an expiring CWood
(01-26-2023, 01:14 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]Here is a trade idea that I am quite certain Mavs would never consider, but would imho make a lot of sense
GSW: Wood
Mavs: Wiseman, Kuminga. Throw in Bob Myers while your at it - has any GM ever traded himself?
GSW gets a center they need for another push. Mavs get much younger and both players still 2 and 3 years on their rookie contract. Wiseman is 21, a former 2nd pick who has been a no show so far. Kuminga showed potential and is just 20 years old. On a short term Mavs get worse, but their ceiling raises a lot. Pump some stats to both guys and their trade value increases. Mavs athleticism dramatically improves with Green, Wiseman and Kuminga.
I'm a huge Wood fan, but am intrigued by that deal. The obvious problem with Wiseman's value is health. I think we're looking at a career that will be riddled with injury. So, it'd be Wood for Kuminga with a lottery ticket of Wiseman.
Kuminga is not having a good sophomore campaign. Numbers are all down (3pt% is awful) with more opportunity this year.
https://www.thewarriorstalk.com/blog/202...rrent-saga
(01-26-2023, 01:04 PM)Tyler Wrote: [ -> ]He's a FA at the end of the year. Regardless of his current salary, I'll be surprised if he gets $30mm on the open market in his next deal. Reduce that number and the value proposition changes considerably.
But then we are in the same position with Russell that we were in with Brunson last year and Wood this year if we don't extend. We will be bird rights trapped meaning if we don't land him then we can't replace him with cap space. That means he has a ton of leverage and all it takes is one team to decide he is worth his current contract.
If he is not worth that contract, then he is a negative asset and I don't know why we would want to send out Dinwiddie (who folks want to trade because he might be a positive asset) for a negative one.
(01-26-2023, 03:15 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]But then we are in the same position with Russell that we were in with Brunson last year and Wood this year if we don't extend. We will be bird rights trapped meaning if we don't land him then we can't replace him with cap space. That means he has a ton of leverage and all it takes is one team to decide he is worth his current contract.
If he is not worth that contract, then he is a negative asset and I don't know why we would want to send out Dinwiddie (who folks want to trade because he might be a positive asset) for a negative one.
I do not think a contract that would make Russell less of an asset than Dinwiddie is allowable in the CBA.
I could be wrong, but I do not think the two are comparable.
(01-26-2023, 01:21 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I think he's probably a little better than Dinwiddie, defensively, but that will still be an issue, sure. Where I'm coming from is that since they seem determined to start Dinwiddie, anyway, at least this would be a much better version of that player. I've seen you opine that while Russell is probably better, their two offensive games are probably pretty close. I do not remotely agree with that, and think Russell is in a completely different class of player.
I might feel differently if Dinwiddie was being used as I would use him, as a 6th man.
Yes, I'd extend/re-sign Russell, whatever. My plan would be to combine Dinwiddie and THJ's strengths into ONE player who is superior to both. Maybe he starts, maybe he eventually is the 6th man, but he's a good player, imo.
EDIT: Having said all of the above (I would trade Dinwiddie for Russell in a heartbeat) my hunch is that the Mavs are kicking the tires on what they hope are potential THJ trade targets, not Dinwiddie trade targets. So, if the rumors that MIN wants a PG are true, I doubt it's a trade fit. For the record, I'd offer either one of them.
Historically Russell's defense has been worse than Dinwiddie's before this year. I think they are the same animal in that regard and not what you want to put next to Luka in the starting lineup.
I think Russell is better offensively, but I'm struggling with different class. I'm not sure how he combines Din and Timmy? Offensively Din can do just about anything Timmy can. He is shooting the 3 at better clip with only a few less attempts per game, and that is likely more about him being more aggressive attacking the rim. The only thing Timmy has on those guys is that he is actually playing average defense. If I thought there was any chance we could get that from Russell, this would be a different conversation.
What are you going to extend Russell at? Its hard to believe he is going to be willing to take a real haircut on an extension when he is in the prime of his career. He is more likely to test free agency than do that. Do you really want to give 30+ mil to a player that would ideally be our 6th man?
(01-26-2023, 03:49 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Historically Russell's defense has been worse than Dinwiddie's before this year. I think they are the same animal in that regard and not what you want to put next to Luka in the starting lineup.
I think Russell is better offensively, but I'm struggling with different class. I'm not sure how he combines Din and Timmy? Offensively Din can do just about anything Timmy can. He is shooting the 3 at better clip with only a few less attempts per game, and that is likely more about him being more aggressive attacking the rim. The only thing Timmy has on those guys is that he is actually playing average defense. If I thought there was any chance we could get that from Russell, this would be a different conversation.
What are you going to extend Russell at? Its hard to believe he is going to be willing to take a real haircut on an extension when he is in the prime of his career. He is more likely to test free agency than do that. Do you really want to give 30+ mil to a player that would ideally be our 6th man?
It seems like we have differing opinions on all three players in question. That's the only real answer I have to your questions.
(01-26-2023, 04:05 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like we have differing opinions on all three players in question. That's the only real answer I have to your questions.
This is true, and most importantly on Russell. In my mind, if we trade for him and sign him to something near a max extension, it will be the panic move that folks are worried about. I just don't see a Wood/Luka/Russell ever being good enough defensively to contend.
Russell would ultimately be turning Din's $20mill contract into a $30mill contract without *that much of an upgrade. Hard Pass.
Pass mainly for increased money reasons.
Dinwiddie gets to the rim and finishes plus hits 3s at good clip. Defense is not good but he does seem to intercept other teams passes well.
Russel, from what I remember a few years ago is a smooth shooter like Ingram, Paul, Durant inside the arc. Only issue is...those are considered bad shots in todays NBA. I would rather Spencer take it to the rim than rely on someone hitting 18 footers efficiently. Does Russel score at rim well? 3 pointers?