(12-02-2022, 03:19 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]the Mavs needed roster spots badly.
Sure, but
look at what they did with them!
Guys, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! McGee's money will last longer than any of those 4 they dumped, right? And aren't we arguing that there's a better than zero chance Wood just expires and goes away?
That's not a risk they should have been willing to take, imho. I'm sorry, give me the low odds on a player picked late in the first round. If you make me decide today, that's where I am.
I am with you on the process stuff with Wood. And, I think there's still plenty of time for this to work out with him, too. But I'm already seeing signs that people are going to rationalize it all away if/when it doesn't, and I can't.
(12-02-2022, 03:19 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Re Wood and the minutes, I'm not binary at all. I think it's a process, and I'm just pushing back on the extremely simplistic whine (not saying it's yours, except when you defend it) that the process MUST be done in a way that gives Wood more minutes immediately and always, and that demands the Mavs course be tied to Wood's development.
Re Wood and the trade to get him, I'm with cow on that. I think the pick (a very low 1st-rounder in a draft that was about 15 deep in excellence, and then a big crapshoot after) was MOSTLY payment for getting rid of 4 bodies that they didn't want and couldn't use. Note that all those players except Bobi eventually were waived (that's their value) and also remember the Mavs needed roster spots badly. The Mavs were NOT going to waive those players if there was a way around it, because of the tax consequence on all the dead money.
The Mavs have claimed that they got the guy anyhow that they would have drafted with that pick, so the net cost of Wood was probably a future 2nd rounder (what it cost to get Hardy). IMO quite reasonable regardless of how it works out..
The only thing that upsets me on the execution of this all is the singing of Pinson we just seems like repeating the 4x JAG mistake all over again. I know it is just a one year deal but that spot would have better been served for someone with some upside. We just aren't good enough to waste spots like that.
(12-02-2022, 03:15 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, but what @"cow" is saying (I think) is that he's a "lottery ticket" (OK, I can get behind that analogy) and that the true value for the pick was dumping those 4 players. He seems to believe "it didn't work out, good luck out there, Mr. Wood" is and was always among the likely scenarios in their minds, both before the trade and now (correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Cow).
No, sorry. GIVE ME THE COST CONTROLLED ROOKIE PLAYER, if that's their attitude. I'm not arguing in favor of looking at Wood more favorably, I agree there's a reason he was so cheap! I'm saying, if you're going to make the trade, you'd better have a bad ass plan for making him work here, imho.
If not, you're paying to dump guys for nothing. No reason, whatsoever. Most of their money would've expired, just like his, and if he fails here that means they literally didn't add a single thing of value into the roster spots that were created by paying to move them. This is the textbook definition of "wheel spinning."
If Wood works out here and gets a new contract - GREAT TRADE.
If you're able to package Wood at the deadline in a deal that wouldn't have worked with the combo of those outgoing guys - GREAT TRADE.
If this story ends with just letting him walk and you've PAID a 1st to position yourself to make absolutely no progress, I'm sorry...that's terrible, and saying "they wouldn't have picked a good player anyway" is soooo emblematic of how horribly this franchise has conditioned our expectations.
You realize that the odds of the 26 pick being a cost controlled useful player is small, right? If that pick does not pan out, does that mean its a terrible pick? There are a lot of odds involved. The chance the pick turns out to be a useful player, the chance the player traded for turns out to be a big win, the chance the pick gets traded and we still get the guy we want for a couple of future seconds. Its easy to say a year later or several years later (in the case of a draft pick) that it was a good decision or bad, but the reality is there is incomplete information and therefor a lot of luck involved. Even the best teams at drafting struggle to get valuable players at 26. There is also value in dumping 4 useless contracts. You add it all up. Just about everyone on this board including yourself thought it was a great trade at the time, and for good reason. The jury is still out on what we get out of Wood, but if the worst case happens and we lose him for nothing, it does not mean the original decision is a bad one. Sometimes things don't work when you take chances, and you have to take chances.
(12-02-2022, 03:25 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, but look at what they did with them!
Guys, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! McGee's money will last longer than any of those 4 they dumped, right? And aren't we arguing that there's a better than zero chance Wood just expires and goes away?
That's not a risk they should have been willing to take, imho. I'm sorry, give me the low odds on a player picked late in the first round. If you make me decide today, that's where I am.
I am with you on the process stuff with Wood. And, I think there's still plenty of time for this to work out with him, too. But I'm already seeing signs that people are going to rationalize it all away if/when it doesn't, and I can't.
McGee is better than those guys and should get a chance at playing time. His contract is horrible but you theoretically removed four guys that had no chance at playing time and that gave you room for McGee (a perceived need), Wood (no matter what the outcome, will contribute on the court as long as he's on the roster) and Hardy.
If you want to be upset about kicking money down the road, then be more upset about the KP trade.
(12-02-2022, 03:28 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]You realize that the odds of the 26 pick being a cost controlled useful player is small, right?
Yep, and that's why I've almost always been on the other side of this argument in the past, trying to talk down folks who get upset that the draft is not more valued by this team. I'm all about turning picks into things you know you need and that you know can help. All about it.
And, I don't disagree that the Wood "lottery ticket" was worth a 1st.
What I'm pushing back against is the idea that even if it doesn't work out with Wood, the
true value was in "dumping" players, because the players they slid into those spots aren't an improvement over the ones they dumped, and unless I'm remembering wrong they've actually made the problem more long term by giving McGee that ridiculous contract.
(12-02-2022, 03:28 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]You realize that the odds of the 26 pick being a cost controlled useful player is small, right?
False.
Statistical analysis of the history of the draft show that the pick is 55% a star, solid player, or role player, while 45% a bust.
Better than a 50/50 chance that player is in your rotation in the future. That is not small.
(12-02-2022, 03:29 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]McGee is better than those guys and should get a chance at playing time.
Yeah, we might be able to find common ground if I had any ability to get close to this POV, but I just don't.
I have not ever for a second been a fan of McGee's game, his personality, his professionalism or anything about him, really. And that's not hindsight.
We're just not going to agree on that.
(12-02-2022, 03:39 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, we might be able to find common ground if I had any ability to get close to this POV, but I just don't.
I have not ever for a second been a fan of McGee's game, his personality, his professionalism or anything about him, really. And that's not hindsight.
We're just not going to agree on that.
Again, do the exercise in your mind. Cut him. Once he clears waivers, he'll be on another team in minutes and part of the rotation. Probably a Buck. You can disagree with the MBT for wanting him and certainly the contract, but you can't pretend no one else wanted him.
(12-02-2022, 03:05 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]Can we at least acknowledge that giving up that pick in the trade didn't really do much damage seeing as the guy we wanted (as far as we're told) slid far enough down and we made a move to nab him?
So they could've had him PLUS a different flier on a different sliding player (Liddell was there, if memory serves).
I'm sorry, guys. I don't think anyone they might've picked would've changed the franchise, but if you're telling me "they always knew Wood was probably just going to bust out here and walk" then give me option B!
We keep talking about how few young assets the team has - well, drafting them (in situations where trading the pick doesn't make you better FOR SURE) is HOW you get those young players. Yes, many of them won't work out, but if you don't try you don't get chances at any of them working out!
(12-02-2022, 03:43 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]Again, do the exercise in your mind. Cut him. Once he clears waivers, he'll be on another team in minutes and part of the rotation. Probably a Buck. You can disagree with the MBT for wanting him and certainly the contract, but you can't pretend no one else wanted him.
I addressed this exercise already.
I wish the Bucks would've signed him. Then, they'd be worse and the Mavs might be the tiniest bit better. Certainly better situated to move forward.
(12-02-2022, 03:43 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]So they could've had him PLUS a different flier on a different sliding player (Liddell was there, if memory serves).
I'm sorry, guys. I don't think anyone they might've picked would've changed the franchise, but if you're telling me "they always knew Wood was probably just going to bust out here and walk" then give me option B!
We keep talking about how few young assets the team has - well, drafting them (in situations where trading the pick doesn't make you better FOR SURE) is HOW you get those young players. Yes, many of them won't work out, but if you don't try you don't get chances at any of them working out!
They'd still need roster spots for your sliding player and Hardy.
(12-02-2022, 03:39 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]False.
Statistical analysis of the history of the draft show that the pick is 55% a star, solid player, or role player, while 45% a bust.
Better than a 50/50 chance that player is in your rotation in the future. That is not small.
Now do the statistical analysis for Mavs draft picks.
(12-02-2022, 03:45 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]They'd still need roster spots for your sliding player and Hardy.
And that's valid.
And you're right, maybe it would've been harder to "dump" enough players in separate deals than I think.
And sure, maybe it's unrealistic to expect Cuban just to eat LT money by cutting 1-2 guys in the last year of their deals, should no such deals present themselves just to hold onto a draft pick, but damnit, that's what I'm saying.
Cow, I agree that signing Pinson was utterly stupid. But he got the new Bobi role.
KL, yes the McGee signing looks quite awful so far. I'm hoping that will change.
However, the Mavs' inability to evaluate talent doesn't change anything. We wanted them to have a way to try, right? Remember, this team was VERY thin last year, and that was a huge part of the wall they hit vs GS. They needed to move off those 4 and add some useful ones to the mix. And let's be real, Cuban wasn't going to spend an extra $Eleventy-Fourteen Million in tax by waiving a bunch of players and then paying more money to fill those slots again.. He just wasn't.
I'd wager getting Wood was less about Wood himself, and more about a Mav proposal (take our 4 junk bodies, give us an expiring salary match, and you get our pick) being shopped all around the league, and Wood was the best offer they got (the one they thought had the most potential for them) so they took it.
(12-02-2022, 03:50 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]I'd wager getting Wood was less about Wood himself, and more about a Mav proposal (take our 4 junk bodies, give us an expiring salary match and, and you get our pick) being shopped all around the league, and Wood was the best offer they got (the one they thought had the most potential for them) so they took it.
I think you're absolutely, 100% right about this.
The question is, SHOULD this have been their approach?
Wood got 17 minutes in the one point loss to Denver. Media and Twitter went nuts: Why is Wood not playing?!
Since then, over the last 5 games, Wood has averaged 30 minutes and "Dallas is 1-4 and 3rd worst defensive team in the NBA, allowing 121.3 per 100 possessions. Detroit is really bad, struggled to defend basic sets in first half, but Dallas 61 first half point, or what would be 122 def rtg." (Iztok) and Wood is -41 plus/minus.
(12-02-2022, 03:50 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]Cow, I agree that signing Pinson was utterly stupid. But he got the new Bobi role.
KL, yes the McGee signing looks quite awful so far. I'm hoping that will change.
However, the Mavs' inability to evaluate talent doesn't change anything. We wanted them to have a way to try, right? Remember, this team was VERY thin last year, and that was a huge part of the wall they hit vs GS. They needed to move off those 4 and add some useful ones to the mix. And let's be real, Cuban wasn't going to spend an extra $Eleventy-Fourteen Million in tax by waiving a bunch of players and then paying more money to fill those slots again.. He just wasn't.
I'd wager getting Wood was less about Wood himself, and more about a Mav proposal (take our 4 junk bodies, give us an expiring salary match, and you get our pick) being shopped all around the league, and Wood was the best offer they got (the one they thought had the most potential for them) so they took it.
Looking at the big picture is what we need to do even if some of the execution afterwards was flawed (McGee, Pinson). We also need to operate in the reality that Cuban is a cheap ass now.
I think you are spot on with Wood being the best offer the could scrape together and had the highest likelihood of threading the needle and working out. It's obvious Kidd doesn't want him. And as much as I think Kidd sucks and the MBT suck at evaluations, the league seemingly has no use for Wood either. Just look at what other players return in picks and what we paid for Wood.
And that doesn't mean that it still can't work out with him. I just think it's rather silly to pin our hopes on him even if he's our second best player. Just saying that is rather damning of how this franchise is run.
It feels like we all get stuck in trying to salvage this mess when the obvious answer is to start over while Luka is still young.
(12-02-2022, 03:55 PM)vfromlmf Wrote: [ -> ]Wood got 17 minutes in the one point loss to Denver. Media and Twitter went nuts: Why is Wood not playing?!
Since then, over the last 5 games, Wood has averaged 30 minutes and "Dallas is 1-4 and 3rd worst defensive team in the NBA, allowing 121.3 per 100 possessions. Detroit is really bad, struggled to defend basic sets in first half, but Dallas 61 first half point, or what would be 122 def rtg." (Iztok)
It's such a difficult thing to discuss, because I totally agree with the point you're making here. I'm not trying to overrate Wood at all.
I guess I'm just underwhelmed with the strategy, asset wise. It's so easy to say something like "this is the best they could do in the position they were in" but at
some point if they don't start making moves that
work then they're just going to be bad, and for longer than a couple of months.
I think that part of the solution might be committing to someone other teams have been unable to reach, like Wood, and
forcing him to be the player he could be.
(12-02-2022, 03:59 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]It's such a difficult thing to discuss, because I totally agree with the point you're making here. I'm not trying to overrate Wood at all.
I guess I'm just underwhelmed with the strategy, asset wise. It's so easy to say something like "this is the best they could do in the position they were in" but at some point if they don't start making moves that work then they're just going to be bad, and for longer than a couple of months.
I think that part of the solution might be committing to someone other teams have been unable to reach, like Wood, and forcing him to be the player he could be.
We are already there. Luka is going to win you games you should have no chance at, he's just that good. The rest of the team is going to lose you games you should win, they are just that bad and poorly constructed.
(12-02-2022, 04:01 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]We are already there. Luka is going to win you games you should have no chance at, he's just that good. The rest of the team is going to lose you games you should win, they are just that bad and poorly constructed.
Ok, agreed.
SO, now you understand why some people think "attaching the course of the team to Wood" (or however @"F Gump" put it) is the way forward. It's only a dumb thought if there's something to lose.
(12-02-2022, 03:55 PM)vfromlmf Wrote: [ -> ]Wood got 17 minutes in the one point loss to Denver. Media and Twitter went nuts: Why is Wood not playing?!
Since then, over the last 5 games, Wood has averaged 30 minutes and "Dallas is 1-4 and 3rd worst defensive team in the NBA, allowing 121.3 per 100 possessions. Detroit is really bad, struggled to defend basic sets in first half, but Dallas 61 first half point, or what would be 122 def rtg." (Iztok)
Yeah that "it´s better to win 134-125 instead of losing 94-99" didn´t work out that well, but as usual it comes down to having too high expectations for the players, because of the dire state of the front office. If Brunson was still here, we make that Wood deal, he´s still coming off the bench, third/fourth best player. He´s playing 25 MPG, we are probably 14-7 and everybody is happy, but new MBT had to be like old MBT. It´s the same with the expectations placed on every rookie. He needs to be the savior. And since we only make one draft pick every two or three years, all the unrealistic expectations are carried by one young player.
You need perspective on how bad this FO is?
The Kings drafted Bagley. We drafted Luka. Four years later they have the better record. THE KINGS. Oh and Bagley whooped our ass.
