MavsBoard

I get what you're saying but I don't think Rick has any issue with having both Burke and Brunson, it really comes down to cost. Burke is a change of pace guy which is pretty handy.

Follow up thought is that Brunson is on a rookie deal, definitely not hurting anyone, so I'd also be ok with him just being the 3rd PG, if that's what they decide to do.

---

(09-22-2020, 10:48 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]I get what you're saying but I don't think Rick has any issue with having both Burke and Brunson, it really comes down to cost. Burke is a change of pace guy which is pretty handy.

That's true, if he's a minimum guy, but I don't anticipate that being the case. 

Plus, if you get the version of him you got in the playoffs he's way, way better than a change of pace guy. Like, WAY better. THAT version of Burke might be better than Brunson will ever be, even in the most optimistic version of his career.

---

I definitely don't think you bring Burke back if you view him as an out of rotation "change of pace" player. If that's how they view him, I think they move on. 

He was one of their 5 best players in the playoffs, easy.

(09-22-2020, 10:50 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Follow up thought is that Brunson is on a rookie deal, definitely not hurting anyone, so I'd also be ok with him just being the 3rd PG, if that's what they decide to do.

---

(09-22-2020, 10:48 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]I get what you're saying but I don't think Rick has any issue with having both Burke and Brunson, it really comes down to cost. Burke is a change of pace guy which is pretty handy.

That's true, if he's a minimum guy, but I don't anticipate that being the case. 

Plus, if you get the version of him you got in the playoffs he's way, way better than a change of pace guy. Like, WAY better. THAT version of Burke might be better than Brunson will ever be, even in the most optimistic version of his career.

Just knowing Rick he would be completely fine with Burke and Brunson. He can play 2 small guards or 3 guard lineups. I am holding onto my Brunson stock and I expect big things. He is a baller. I hope we can keep Burke but Mavs aren't going to overpay to keep him

Never forget: this team was ready to push all their chips in for Kemba Walker. They believe they need another playmaking ball handler on this team.

---

(09-22-2020, 10:54 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]Just knowing Rick he would be completely fine with Burke and Brunson. He can play 2 small guards or 3 guard lineups. I am holding onto my Brunson stock and I expect big things. He is a baller. I hope we can keep Burke but Mavs aren't going to overpay to keep him

Ok, so here's my argument to this: 

I don't believe Carlisle wants to play several SMALL players at once. I think he wants to play several SKILLED players at once. Give him a roster where Barea and Terry aren't 2 of the 3-4 most skilled players, and I don't think guys that size play together nearly as often. 

But yes, you're correct, ultimately. Under the roster conditions you're describing, he'd really have no choice but to play them together at times. What I and others are trying to do is suggest ways to give him better options. If you have the same player Curry is, only in a 6'7" body, this isn't even a worry. But, you don't. 

I, too, am high on Brunson. I, too, think he has a good future. But, it's limited. Will he ever be a starting PG? Probably not. He can add insane value to many teams as a PG off the bench, but I'm not sure he ever becomes the player who can do things we just watched Burke do, in the playoffs, against the Clippers. In other words, losing out on his potential wouldn't be the end of the world, especially since the team is kind of on a more accelerated timeline than his career. 

I'm not on a mission to get rid of Brunson, but here's what should be obvious: IF that is what you can expect from Burke going forward, the two players don't compare. IF that's what you can expect from Burke moving forward, the contract Burke is going to get would NOT being overpaying. 

It's all about whether or not you believe Burke has figured some things out. I don't know the answer to that, but I hope the Mavs do.

I also wonder if you are able to get Burke does that make one of the 3 players expendable (Brunson, Seth, Burke)? I did like how well Seth & Burke played together but then I also wonder if Burke could potentially make Seth expendable for a bigger fish, namely a starter. 

I expect Mavs to try to keep Burke if he could be had on a 1-1 TO type deal with partial MLE. Backup PGs can be surprisingly expensive so if another team thinks Burke will step in and immediately be their backup PG then his price could get too rich. The playoff series was such a small sample size you wonder if teams are thinking well if he could play that well all the time he would have been doing it the last 6-7 years.

(09-22-2020, 10:50 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Follow up thought is that Brunson is on a rookie deal, definitely not hurting anyone, so I'd also be ok with him just being the 3rd PG, if that's what they decide to do.

---

(09-22-2020, 10:48 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]I get what you're saying but I don't think Rick has any issue with having both Burke and Brunson, it really comes down to cost. Burke is a change of pace guy which is pretty handy.

That's true, if he's a minimum guy, but I don't anticipate that being the case. 

Plus, if you get the version of him you got in the playoffs he's way, way better than a change of pace guy. Like, WAY better. THAT version of Burke might be better than Brunson will ever be, even in the most optimistic version of his career.

---

I definitely don't think you bring Burke back if you view him as an out of rotation "change of pace" player. If that's how they view him, I think they move on. 

He was one of their 5 best players in the playoffs, easy.

It's not like Burke has never played like he did in the playoffs before. If you were gonna get that short stint of Burke on a consistent basis, we would have seen it before. He's 27, not 21. Marquis Daniels was a beast in the playoffs once upon a time. But a least he was young. You don't project late 20's players with years of NBA experience off a handful of good games.

If one of the 3&D wings we might pick with pick 18 in the draft isn't there, I'd rather us take Kira Lewis Jnr, and roll with him and Brunson as the backup PG's. He's much more talented than Brunson or Burke.

(09-22-2020, 10:17 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]How in the world does Wright + 18 get you Richardson??

Kennard is an option, for example. Philly saves money and gets a better player

@"Dundalis" so you're voting for "flash in the pan" which very well could be the case. If you're right, they'd be smart to let him go. 

I don't view 27 as old, and I think it takes people different lengths of time to learn things. I think it's POSSIBLE that he has turned a corner. I have no idea whether this is the case, and ultimately, we have no choice but to trust the Mavs' opinion of him. 

But, if he has turned the corner, he gives them something they desperately need, and in that case, I'd argue that the contract he's about to sign with someone could look like a bargain.

(09-22-2020, 10:24 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I agree. Wright + 18 isn't enough and from my seat, Seth + 18 is too steep a price for the Mavs.

Again, neither of this was my proposal. Wright+18 for a third team that provides value for Philly (like Kennard from Detroit) or if Richardson gets traded from Philly in a bigger package, like to OKC for CP3. 

The other one was Seth+31

(09-22-2020, 11:42 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2020, 10:24 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I agree. Wright + 18 isn't enough and from my seat, Seth + 18 is too steep a price for the Mavs.

Again, neither of this was my proposal. Wright+18 for a third team that provides value for Philly (like Kennard from Detroit) or if Richardson gets traded from Philly in a bigger package, like to OKC for CP3. 

The other one was Seth+31

So @"omahen" is Richardson then ending up on the Mavs in these scenario's or another player? Can you clarify??

(09-22-2020, 10:46 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be pretty shocked if Burke wasn't the better defender

Brunson was arguably the most impactful defender on the Mavs last year (+5.1). He was showing signs of really being an impactful two way player. 

Burke was good in 18-19 with the Mavs on defense and looked really good in the playoffs. 

I honestly would consider them to be about equivalent defenders, but if I had to take one on defense I would take Brunson I think.

(09-22-2020, 11:44 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]So @omahen is Richardson then ending up on the Mavs in these scenario's or another player? Can you clarify??

I really don't understand, what is not clear. Richardson is the goal. I realize Philly will not trade him for Wright+18. But Detroit might trade Kennard for Wright+18 and Philly might prefer Kennard than Richardson. Or if you want it the other way around - Detroit might trade Kennard for Richardson (saves Philly money and he is a better shooter). But what does a rebuilding Detroit really need from one year rental Richardson. So perhaps Detroit trades Richardson for #18. Can they get a better pick for him?

Philly gets: CP3
Dallas gets: Richardson
OKC gets: Horford, Mike Scott, Wright, 18, 31, OKC 2020 1st rd back from Philly, 2026 Philly 1st rd

Philly pays a premium to get CP3 and get off Horford contract while also saving about $2 million in cap. OKC does it because it’s their best offer

(09-22-2020, 11:42 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2020, 10:24 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]I agree. Wright + 18 isn't enough and from my seat, Seth + 18 is too steep a price for the Mavs.

Again, neither of this was my proposal. Wright+18 for a third team that provides value for Philly (like Kennard from Detroit) or if Richardson gets traded from Philly in a bigger package, like to OKC for CP3. 

The other one was Seth+31

https://images.app.goo.gl/ht4JB39muzxCAp4N8

(09-22-2020, 11:55 AM)Jason Terry Wrote: [ -> ]Philly gets: CP3
Dallas gets: Richardson
OKC gets: Horford, Mike Scott, Wright, 18, 31, OKC 2020 1st rd back from Philly, 2026 Philly 1st rd

Philly pays a premium to get CP3 and get off Horford contract while also saving about $2 million in cap. OKC does it because it’s their best offer

Yes, this is another example on how Mavs could get Richardson. I think OKC doesn't get so many picks, but overall I think Horford+Richardson is the basis for Philly to trade for CP3. Perhaps it might even really take that many picks to beat the NY offer.

(09-22-2020, 11:49 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2020, 11:44 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]So @omahen is Richardson then ending up on the Mavs in these scenario's or another player? Can you clarify??

I really don't understand, what is not clear. Richardson is the goal. I realize Philly will not trade him for Wright+18. But Detroit might trade Kennard for Wright+18 and Philly might prefer Kennard than Richardson. Or if you want it the other way around - Detroit might trade Kennard for Richardson (saves Philly money and he is a better shooter). But what does a rebuilding Detroit really need from one year rental Richardson. So perhaps Detroit trades Richardson for #18. Can they get a better pick for him?

So you are still not going to get Richardson in that deal. Dallas sending out only 18 + Wright is not going to net Richardson, period. You can disagree which is fine. I don't see why Detroit just sends Philly Kennard for nothing. Nothing in that trade makes sense as its completely 1-sided towards Dallas. It's just not going to happen.

(09-22-2020, 12:00 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]So you are still not going to get Richardson in that deal. Dallas sending out only 18 + Wright is not going to net Richardson, period. You can disagree which is fine. I don't see why Detroit just sends Philly for nothing. Nothing in that trade makes sense as its completely 1-sided towards Dallas. It's just not going to happen.

A while ago you proposed Wright+Jackson+18 for Schroeder trade and Schroeder had much better season than JRich. On both sides of the floor. 

I bet you that if Richardson gets traded to Detroit or OKC, he will be moved for pick(s). No reason for them to keep him or for him to stick around with a rebuilding team. He is too good for that. Who is a salary filler in this kind of trade is irrelevant.

---

(09-22-2020, 12:00 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why Detroit just sends Philly Kennard for nothing.

Nothing? They get #18 pick

(09-22-2020, 12:00 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2020, 11:49 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2020, 11:44 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]So @omahen is Richardson then ending up on the Mavs in these scenario's or another player? Can you clarify??

I really don't understand, what is not clear. Richardson is the goal. I realize Philly will not trade him for Wright+18. But Detroit might trade Kennard for Wright+18 and Philly might prefer Kennard than Richardson. Or if you want it the other way around - Detroit might trade Kennard for Richardson (saves Philly money and he is a better shooter). But what does a rebuilding Detroit really need from one year rental Richardson. So perhaps Detroit trades Richardson for #18. Can they get a better pick for him?

So you are still not going to get Richardson in that deal. Dallas sending out only 18 + Wright is not going to net Richardson, period. You can disagree which is fine. I don't see why Detroit just sends Philly Kennard for nothing. Nothing in that trade makes sense as its completely 1-sided towards Dallas. It's just not going to happen.

I don’t see how dallas fits in a Kennard trade, but a swap like him for Richardson does make sense for Philly. They’re already at $147 million in cap next year, by far the highest payroll. Doesn’t take a lot to see they likely will want to reduce salaries

(09-22-2020, 12:09 PM)Jason Terry Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t see how dallas fits in a Kennard trade

totally same way as in your OKC proposal. I don't think JRich has value for a rebuilding team and it is very likely he will walk from them in 2021

(09-22-2020, 10:55 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Never forget: this team was ready to push all their chips in for Kemba Walker. They believe they need another playmaking ball handler on this team.

This has been my mantra the past week or so - the Mavs' single greatest offseason need is not a 3-and-D wing (although that is a very high need), but a Jrue Holiday type (not Jrue because he's too expensive).

And as we both said, pick any two of Curry, Burke, and Brunson, not three. BTW, I think you're underrating Seth's playmaking abilities, which make it all the more a Brunson vs. Burke battle. And for those who prefer Brunson over Burke, the idea of Burke is that he would make Brunson a viable trade commodity.

Someone suggested drafting Kira Lewis as a backup point guard. If I'm the Mavs, if I keep 18, I go for a guy I think can fit starting in a year or two (at the latest), not someone who is permanently going to come off the bench on a Luka-run team. The only exception would be if the Mavs think that Aleksej is a future star.

---

(09-22-2020, 12:03 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2020, 12:00 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]So you are still not going to get Richardson in that deal. Dallas sending out only 18 + Wright is not going to net Richardson, period. You can disagree which is fine. I don't see why Detroit just sends Philly for nothing. Nothing in that trade makes sense as its completely 1-sided towards Dallas. It's just not going to happen.

A while ago you proposed Wright+Jackson+18 for Schroeder trade and Schroeder had much better season than JRich. On both sides of the floor.

I bet you that if Richardson gets traded to Detroit or OKC, he will be moved for pick(s). No reason for them to keep him or for him to stick around with a rebuilding team. He is too good for that. Who is a salary filler in this kind of trade is irrelevant.

---

(09-22-2020, 12:00 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why Detroit just sends Philly Kennard for nothing.

Nothing? They get #18 pick

Not sure why, but for some reason Omahen's rejoinder reminded me of "Green card? I'm from East LA."