MavsBoard

Last night was our first win in four tries with Wood as a starter.  It is the third time we’ve won in 13 tries where he’s gotten more than 27 minutes (27:01 last night).  It is totally unfair to try to pin that all on Wood for sure.  But it is striking the difference between when he plays an arbitrary 27:30 or more (1-11) and when he plays 20:00-27:30 (14-3).  There is a big disconnect somewhere.

I think it would be a mistake to pay him more than “super-sub” money.  I think that is something in the $12-$14mm range.  Which team would pay Wood to start?  Charlotte maybe.  Other than that I can’t come up with anyone and they don’t really need to trade for Wood as they have access to cap room this summer.  If he’d take $14mm on a Bamba like deal, I’d sign him between now and the TDL.  If he won’t sign for that, who out there would value him as a long term piece.  Maybe there is a playoff team looking for a rental, but do any of them need the rental worse than we do?  It puts us in a tough position all around.

(12-22-2022, 11:09 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]I think it would be a mistake to pay him more than “super-sub” money.  I think that is something in the $12-$14mm range.  Which team would pay Wood to start?  Charlotte maybe.  Other than that I can’t come up with anyone and they don’t really need to trade for Wood as they have access to cap room this summer.  If he’d take $14mm on a Bamba like deal, I’d sign him between now and the TDL.  If he won’t sign for that, who out there would value him as a long term piece.  Maybe there is a playoff team looking for a rental, but do any of them need the rental worse than we do?  It puts us in a tough position all around.

I think he has more potential than you do, it seems, but I think this logic is all valid and probably a good approach that would help you avoid negotiating against yourself and get screwed in the process. 

BUT, if the plan is to move him at the TDL because you don't want to pay what he wants, then you MUST trade him, even if teams aren't offering what you want.

(12-22-2022, 11:09 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Last night was our first win in four tries with Wood as a starter.  It is the third time we’ve won in 13 tries where he’s gotten more than 27 minutes (27:01 last night).  It is totally unfair to try to pin that all on Wood for sure.  But it is striking the difference between when he plays an arbitrary 27:30 or more (1-11) and when he plays 20:00-27:30 (14-3).  There is a big disconnect somewhere.

I think it would be a mistake to pay him more than “super-sub” money.  I think that is something in the $12-$14mm range.  Which team would pay Wood to start?  Charlotte maybe.  Other than that I can’t come up with anyone and they don’t really need to trade for Wood as they have access to cap room this summer.  If he’d take $14mm on a Bamba like deal, I’d sign him between now and the TDL.  If he won’t sign for that, who out there would value him as a long term piece.  Maybe there is a playoff team looking for a rental, but do any of them need the rental worse than we do?  It puts us in a tough position all around.

That´s a good summary of the situation. Mavs cannot afford to repeat the Brunson mistake and let him walk for nothing. But they already have too many "bad contracts" on the payroll. Meaning that they most likely cannot offer Wood the kind of contract he is looking for (not sure if other teams would). And based on the price the Mavs paid in the summer he won´t net a lot in a deadline deal if they decide to sell him.

(12-22-2022, 11:09 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]But it is striking the difference between when he plays an arbitrary 27:30 or more (1-11) and when he plays 20:00-27:30 (14-3).

When Wood plays more than 29 minutes the team is 1-8....

BUT when he played the team was +20 in those 9 games....when he sat the team was -65. 

His on/off is +9.44 when he plays 29 or more minutes. The team has been successful when he plays and has sucked when he has sat. It is not Wood's fault the team is 1-8 when he plays lots of minutes.

(12-22-2022, 12:10 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]His on/off is +9.44 when he plays 29 or more minutes. The team has been successful when he plays and has sucked when he has sat. It is not Wood's fault the team is 1-8 when he plays lots of minutes.

I agree. The numbers, to me, point to the desperate circumstances it takes in terms of availability of some of the others in order to convince Kidd to play Wood that much. 

I would love to see 20 games of big minute Wood (at the 5) with a healthy or near healthy supporting cast at some point before they make any decisions about the future.

10/29 OKC 117 DAL 111 WOOD 29 MIN -7
11/16 HOU 101 DAL 92 WOOD 31 MIN +0
11/23 BOS 125 DAL 112 WOOD 34 MIN -8
11/27 MIL 124 DAL 115 WOOD 32 MIN +5
12/1 DET 131 DAL 125 WOOD 35 MIN -9
12/14 CLE 105 DAL 90 WOOD 35 MIN +9
12/16 POR 110 DAL 130 WOOD 30 MIN +19
12/17 CLE 100 DAL 99 WOOD 43 MIN +11
12/19 MIN 116 DAL 106 WOOD 34 MIN  -15

(12-22-2022, 12:32 PM)vfromlmf Wrote: [ -> ]10/29 OKC 117 DAL 111 WOOD 29 MIN -7
11/16 HOU 101 DAL 92 WOOD 31 MIN +0
11/23 BOS 125 DAL 112 WOOD 34 MIN -8
11/27 MIL 124 DAL 115 WOOD 32 MIN +5
12/1 DET 131 DAL 125 WOOD 35 MIN -9
12/14 CLE 105 DAL 90 WOOD 35 MIN +9
12/16 POR 110 DAL 130 WOOD 30 MIN +19
12/17 CLE 100 DAL 99 WOOD 43 MIN +11
12/19 MIN 116 DAL 106 WOOD 34 MIN  -15

So, what is +5 divided by 9 games.  What you've illustrated here is the Wood-On minutes are only 0.55 in these games.  If you were trying to illustrate that 'Wood is great' when he gets more minutes, you'd want to see something stronger than 0.55.  If the question was whether 'Wood is greater than' someone else (or more specifically, the players who played when he sat), then the 9.44 On-Off net rating would be what you'd look at.  

The disparity between 9.44 and 0.55 tells you the 9.44 is more about how bad the group on the floor was when Wood sat than how good Wood was when he got more minutes.

Wood's agents must be licking their chops.    It may be leading a staring contest with desperate franchise at the start of FA.  He just needs to find that one other team.    Plenty of others have run rough shot over this ownership in the past.   Heck, you may not even need to find another team.   I can promise they are going to be asking for a promise to start too.   LOL>  

I think the highest I would go, if I would even offer it, would be 17-18 million.   I am still not sure if that is what I would offer.   If Wood and his agency thinks he is a fringe all star type, they are going to be looking for more, I think.  

I read the Jalen FA thing wrong last year.  I thought we were taking care of everything behind the scenes.   But still, I am fine they didn't trade him.  I won't feel the same way about Wood.  If he is not in your plans or you think he may be too expensive for the role you envision, you have to try your hardest to move him.

I’d offer the 4 for $77 million Saturday.  His return as a rental player will be pretty low, just like JB’s was at the deadline last year. If you’re any good at being a GM, you have to make decisions on players 12-18 months in advance.  Last minute, seat of the pants stuff is for losers. When the Mavs acquired Wood and gave up a nice asset, they needed to already know how they’d proceed. The decisions are already made.  It’s for us to just watch and judge.

(12-22-2022, 08:53 PM)ThisIStheYear Wrote: [ -> ]4 for $77 million

Yep. Give that to Wood and actually play him 30 mins/gm and he is an asset. He WILL produce. Trade him if needed at some point, but do not let him walk.

(12-22-2022, 08:54 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. Give that to Wood and actually play him 30 mins/gm and HOPE LIKE HECK he is an asset. He MIGHT produce. Trade him if needed at some point, but do not let him walk.

FIFY. There is no way to know if Wood will ever produce what is needed. It's only hope, and naive desperation.

Me? I don't support paying for what I desperately hope he might one day become. I pay for what he is. There are no assurances he suddenly becomes all that, when he's never done it.

And that next contract is his incentive to put in the work, and bring the focus, to make it happen. I think the other way - paying on your desperation, rather than on his proven ability - is naively putting the cart before the horse, and is a GM approach that inevitably leads to an impossible payroll with a bunch of bloated contracts and not enough money to pay for enough talent.

(12-22-2022, 09:05 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]FIFY. There is no way to know if Wood will ever produce what is needed. It's only hope, and naive desperation.

Me? I don't support paying for what I desperately hope he might one day become. I pay for what he is. There are no assurances he suddenly becomes all that, when he's never done it.

And that next contract is his incentive to put in the work, and bring the focus, to make it happen. I think the other way - paying on your desperation, rather than on his proven ability - is naively putting the cart before the horse, and is a GM approach that inevitably leads to an impossible payroll with a bunch of bloated contracts and not enough money to pay for enough talent.

Pretty much.  If he signs his extension tomorrow, I'm cool with it.  Anything beyond that or more expensive than that and it just feels too risky.

(12-22-2022, 09:05 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]There is no way to know if Wood will ever produce what is needed.

Wood is in the midst of his 4th straight season of 20+ pts/36, 10.5+ rbds/36, 1.5+ asts/36, 1.0+blks/36, 50+ FG%, 37+ 3P%. He has produced for 4 straight seasons now at a level that very, very few NBA players have. 

In fact, Wood and Lauri are the ONLY players in the NBA scoring 17+ pts, 8+ rbds, and shooting 38+% on threes on 2+ 3PA/gm and Lauri is doing it with 6.5 more mins/gm.

(12-22-2022, 09:15 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Wood is in the midst of his 4th straight season of 20+ pts/36, 10.5+ rbds/36, 1.5+ asts/36, 1.0+blks/36, 50+ FG%, 37+ 3P%. He has produced for 4 straight seasons now at a level that very, very few NBA players have. 

In fact, Wood and Lauri are the ONLY players in the NBA scoring 17+ pts, 8+ rbds, and shooting 38+% on threes on 2+ 3PA/gm and Lauri is doing it with 6.5 more mins/gm.

Just reciting offensive numbers doesn't really tell us the story. A player has to contribute on TWO ends of the court to have significant value. One-way players are a dead end in building an elite team.

Or, to look at it another way, there's no question all those prior stats didn't particularly impress other teams either, since each team he's been on has let him go easily and cheaply (never mind the flashy numbers), and the market to get him has been modest at best (never mind the flashy numbers).

(12-22-2022, 09:15 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Wood is in the midst of his 4th straight season of 20+ pts/36, 10.5+ rbds/36, 1.5+ asts/36, 1.0+blks/36, 50+ FG%, 37+ 3P%. He has produced for 4 straight seasons now at a level that very, very few NBA players have. 

All while winning 33% of the games he's appeared in.

(12-22-2022, 09:29 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]All while winning 33% of the games he's appeared in.

Right, because Wood was THE reason his teams didn't win many games. 

(12-22-2022, 09:37 PM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]Right, because Wood was THE reason his teams didn't win many games. 

So you are saying you love stats until the argue against your point of view?   Gotcha.

(12-22-2022, 09:42 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]So you are saying you love stats until the argue against your point of view?   Gotcha.

I am saying I love stats until they are used in a way that goes against what they are saying. Wood was one man on a roster of 15 men. 

In the last 4 seasons (including this one) Wood has had an on/off rating of about +5.0, meaning his teams were significantly better when he played than when he didn't. And on his Detroit team, that team was actually a winning team when he played (!!!), this is a team that was 20-46.

So no, the stats do NOT say Wood is a "losing" player at all.