DFS-Franky
for
Vanderbilt-Clarkson
?
(01-31-2023, 01:43 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]DFS-Franky
for
Vanderbilt-Clarkson
?
This adds 3 mil to Mavs payroll, so no go for Cuban...
(01-31-2023, 01:47 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]This adds 3 mil to Mavs payroll, so no go for Cuban...
Good point.
As I think further, it also doesn't bring back anything remotely close to a "star" for DFS, either.
(01-31-2023, 01:43 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]DFS-Franky
for
Vanderbilt-Clarkson
?
I'm interested. It's not clear to me what Vanderbilt's value is, relative to DFS. People here probably assume that Vanderbilt is worth more, and they might be right, but the opposite wouldn't surprise me, either.
I was sarcastic, since you like to teach us about that all the time
I am very much affraid about how much would Clarkson want for next contract that will take him to his mid thirties. Otherwise I think it would be a good deal for Mavs
(01-31-2023, 01:49 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Good point.
As I think further, it also doesn't bring back anything remotely close to a "star" for DFS, either.
But, I like that Vanderbilt's best position is the 4, where most of DFS's minutes come from these days. It's in the range of jumping off points I'd be willing to explore if I'm the Mavs. No idea what Utah would think of it.
(01-31-2023, 01:50 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I'm interested. It's not clear to me what Vanderbilt's value is, relative to DFS.
I think they are close in value. DFS is a decent defender, but not really elite. Vando is similar in that regard. DFS is a better 3 point shooter on a much higher volume, Vando operates closer to the basket. DFS is more expensive but cost controlled for what should be his good years. Vando is younger and cost controlled for another season.
(01-31-2023, 01:21 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/basketbllnews/status...0073607168
If anyone is wondering why Indy officials (GM and Coach) keep talking about keeping Turner, there is an interesting debate going on in the CBA Geek community (mainly between Coon and Pincus). There is some thought that even though Turner is technically allowed to be traded, that the NBA could step in and void the trade. The contention is such a renegotiate and trade violates the spirit of the restrictions the NBA intended for Extend and Trades. I’m not saying who is right, just that there is a debate.
The interesting thing about this (and possibly why Indy is being so open about NOT trading Turner now) is if the NBA were to no-go a Turner trade now, it would be six months before he could be traded. Six months would take him to the end of July, or past the most active part of the off-season. If sleeping dogs are allowed to lie, then Turner could be traded in June or July and it would be so far past the renegotiation that the NBA would have a harder time objecting. That would be even more true if all public statements say ‘our intention was to keep him’.
(01-31-2023, 01:53 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]I think they are close in value. DFS is a decent defender, but not really elite. Vando is similar in that regard. DFS is a better 3 point shooter on a much higher volume, Vando operates closer to the basket. DFS is more expensive but cost controlled for what should be his good years. Vando is younger and cost controlled for another season.
I just think we, as fans and in an over-arching general sense, tend to overvalue youth and potential, while the professionals who have to deal with these guys every day tend to overvalue experience, professionalism and good habits.
I wouldn't be surprised if DFS is very well thought of around the league and worth quite a bit to the right team. I think the weirdness here is about our collective wondering about why Utah would be interested in such a player.
(01-31-2023, 01:20 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I would suggest that is more depressing that interesting. The tealeaves suggest the Mavs primary goal is to dump salary to stay under the tax. I'm sensing an unpleasant deadline.
Time will tell. Tea leaves could also be pointing to something bigger now rather than waiting until the summer. I’m going to stay positive and keep exploring ideas I like (at least until Lucy yanks the ball like she does this time every year).
(01-31-2023, 01:59 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I think the weirdness here is about our collective wondering about why Utah would be interested in such a player.
They have a nice team and are perhaps just one superstar away from being serious. They have plenty of assets to jump after next superstar available
(01-31-2023, 01:33 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]But one is an actual offensive creator with some "carrying a winning team for stretches" potential, depending on the beholder. I'm comfortable with the cost of that being a great role player.
I do not and will not agree that the problem is defense. The numbers don't matter, because all of the "good" offense this team has is iso ball. I want to follow a team that MOVES THE BALL. Maybe the problem here is offensive talent/skill, maybe it's that the coach is unqualified and they don't have a system, maybe it's just that Luka and Dinwiddie won't give up the ball. There are times when I feel I see evidence of all of those symptoms, so I'm not sure what the solution is. What I do know is that getting this team where it needs to be is not just a matter of improving the defense.
You know what makes players try harder on defense? Getting to touch the ball and feeling like they're important parts of a good team.
We have had the worst defense in the league since our top 3 defenders went out. It seems fairly clear that the biggest issue is lack of defensive talent. If ISO ball was causing defensive issues then why wasn't it last season? Brunson had a higher usage and lower assist rate than Dinwiddie. I don't think the guys who play defense for this team are getting any less attempts than last season (and to the degree they have its been more about sucking). I get the desire to see more ball movement on offense, but I'm not terribly excited about watching us lose 125 to 130 every night no matter how much the ball moves.
And if ball movement is your goal, I don't know why Sexton would be the target. He has a reputation for being selfish with the ball and is averaging less than 3 assets per game. For all the bitching about Dinwiddie, I'm surprised at the interest in getting guys just like him. At least D-Lo is actually better than Din.
(01-31-2023, 02:03 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]If ISO ball was causing defensive issues then why wasn't it last season?
There were 2-3 stretches in the 2nd half of the season, some while Porzingis was hurt and one after the trade, during which the offense looked GREAT to me.
I have no interest in arguing. I'm not saying the defense has been good or not a problem, but this narrative that Luka and a bunch of defenders could compete rings totally false to me. 2-way players, yes, but only if their strengths are used to cohesive effect. This offense with a better defense is still a dead end.
They (whoever "they" means...maybe the FO, maybe Kidd, maybe Luka, himself, maybe all of them) are literally trying to recreate the Harden Rockets, and I'm not into it.
(01-31-2023, 02:03 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]And if ball movement is your goal, I don't know why Sexton would be the target. He has a reputation for being selfish with the ball and is averaging less than 3 assets per game.
Agreed, to an extent. He wouldn't be "the target" for me, but since the rumor is DFS to Utah, he's one of the few players there who'd make sense from a talent perspective, imo. Maybe it's a three-way deal or whatever, and there are certainly other deals I'd like better.
The point is that Beasley is not one of them.
(01-31-2023, 01:43 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]DFS-Franky
for
Vanderbilt-Clarkson
?
I would guess that all three guys have the value of a protected first (Frank is filler). I think Utah would want more. And what do we do with Clarkson? He is going to cost 20 mil a year next season.
(01-31-2023, 01:26 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I do not think DFS will be worth more than he is now, so if that is truly his max value right now, then so be it. Better than holding on to this no-man's-land and letting him degrade as a player.
This is the kind of argument you make for a rebuilding team. This team needs to be sniffing contention in the next two seasons to keep Luka here, and that might start as soon as this coming offseason if they pull the trigger with the assets they will have access to. He is a home grown player with a good locker room presence (including friends with Luka) and he is under 30 years old. That does not seem like a player that you have to sell off for whatever you can now. If we get a really good offer then maybe it makes sense to pull the trigger, but I don't see the hurry.
(01-31-2023, 02:10 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]. . . this narrative that Luka and a bunch of defenders could compete rings totally false to me . . . .
I dunno, man. If the defenders can hit open 3s, I like this strategy. Give me JG, RB, DFS, MK and somebody like SD to take over when Luka sits, and I think we’re onto something. From my optimistic seat, the hole in the roster is either behind or in front of MK, who isn’t reliable at 30+ mins/game or for a whole season.
First half of this season seems to argue against me. But second half of last season and the playoffs have my back.
(01-31-2023, 02:03 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]We have had the worst defense in the league since our top 3 defenders went out. It seems fairly clear that the biggest issue is lack of defensive talent. . . .
Wait, what???
Doesn’t this just mean our top 3 defenders are darn good at defense?
(01-31-2023, 01:57 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]If anyone is wondering why Indy officials (GM and Coach) keep talking about keeping Turner, there is an interesting debate going on in the CBA Geek community (mainly between Coon and Pincus). There is some thought that even though Turner is technically allowed to be traded, that the NBA could step in and void the trade. The contention is such a renegotiate and trade violates the spirit of the restrictions the NBA intended for Extend and Trades. I’m not saying who is right, just that there is a debate.
The interesting thing about this (and possibly why Indy is being so open about NOT trading Turner now) is if the NBA were to no-go a Turner trade now, it would be six months before he could be traded. Six months would take him to the end of July, or past the most active part of the off-season. If sleeping dogs are allowed to lie, then Turner could be traded in June or July and it would be so far past the renegotiation that the NBA would have a harder time objecting. That would be even more true if all public statements say ‘our intention was to keep him’.
Coon's FAQ 59 says "A contract cannot be renegotiated in conjunction with a trade" but (a) not sure what part of CBA he bases that on, and (b) there's no mention of how long that supposed prohibition would last. Bobby Marks said he
could be traded, and he is someone who knows the rules very well.
It's an interesting issue.
My own pov? I believe that whatever the CBA actually says is what matters, and not a spirit of the rules vagueness. I don't know how the CBA words it.
Long ago, the NBA tried to actively enforce the "spirit of the rules" where Stern decided what loopholes he would allow and when, but my observation is that idea was done away with (perhaps on advice of legal counsel), in favor of "the CBA is a legal document, so whatever it says, that's the deal." If they didn't like some accidental loophole, gotta live with it, then fix it with the next CBA. They have done lots of fixes over the years, but I can't recall the last time they stopped a team doing something that was legal but loophole-oriented. In fact, once one team does it, others have been free to do the same, until fixed in next CBA (or not).
One other part of the equation is that these are issues regarding a team who is under the cap. In Indy's case, still far under the cap, it's not likely to change any trade matching.
DFS and THJ and our two seconds for Clarkson, Olynyk, and Vanderbilt? I don't think that deal happens in an Ainge-shaped world, but it's something I would do if I were the Mavs. It's also presuming Cuban is willing to pay the luxury tax next year.
Luka-Din-Hardy
Clarkson-Bullock
Green
Vanderbilt-Maxi
Wood-Olynyk-Powell
(01-31-2023, 02:31 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see the hurry.
The hurry is this:
To truly amass assets in the NBA you need to continually make the right evals (or more than you miss) and "buy low" and "sell high." If you miss your window (which can come and go quickly) to get a 1st (or more?) for DFS then you have "lost" from an asset standpoint.
I am not saying I am correct about DFS's value now OR moving forward. I have no true clue, I can only guess. I am just saying if his value is at its likely peak, then you pull the trigger.
Luka is the only player where "selling high" doesn't make sense because you cannot possibly get adequate value in return (unless of course he is threatening to walk in free agency, then you sell because you have to).