(09-28-2020, 06:25 AM)DanSchwartzman Wrote: [ -> ]I'm really surprised on a board that so thoroughly hates both Powell and Wright that a solution that pushes Powell back on the depth chart and removes Wright completely (and preserves draft picks and the MLE) isn't more heartily embraced.
Harrell salary and price to get him are key questions. If it is in the range of 10 mil, I have no problem. But then - why would Clippers trade 6th man of the year for a PG that couldn't break rotation against Clippers and doesn't save them any money? Doesn't make much more sense to resign Harrell at that money and sign a PG of Wright (or better) quality for MLE? I guess this deal can only be possible if we add (at least) #18. And this is again a point where I rather explore other options for #18.
Unless of course trade was agreed after game 2 and all the lavish praise Wright got from Carlisle and they didn't want him to get injured afterwards
(09-27-2020, 09:40 PM)jesusshuttlesworth82 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2020, 07:37 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]If the question is "which guy would you rather pay $16 million" I'd go with Grant. I definitely don't like Harrell for that money.
Pretty sure all front offices feel that way.
Maybe some dumbass player analysts like Paul Pierce or Shaq would take the bigger name guy. Harrell got exposed hard. Can't play defense and can't shoot. So basically the opposite of what every team wants next to their star players. Grant meanwhile fits that mold to a tee.
I would not worry ab the Mavs pursuing Harrell. I can't imagine they would seriously pursue him. Some team will give him a pretty hefty contract that the Mavs wouldn't be able to match and wouldn't want to even if they could. He is way too redundant with Powell.
I like Grant a lot, I just don't see a path for him or any other guy who is going to get starter money (ie 15 mil+). Mavs aren't likely doing any large multi-year deals this offseason.
(09-28-2020, 09:52 AM)JamesConway Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/RealGM/status/131059...90272?s=20
He is going to get traded. I think he could easily make up that money on the open market if he opted out and lock in a long-term deal. If he did that he could also choose his destination. Hayward is another guy ppl think is overpaid but he's a couple of years removed from that gruesome injury now and is still a good player. A team like the Knicks or some other desperate team would be glad to hand him a lot of money.
(09-28-2020, 09:54 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]Hayward is another guy ppl think is overpaid but he's a couple of years removed from that gruesome injury now and is still a good player.
People think he is overpaid??? He is overpaid and that is a fact. He is a good player but not 34 mil good, more like 20 mil per good, max. This is why it is totally logical he will opt in and not follow "your advice" and make up that money on the open market. Because that money is simply not there. I am sure Boston will try to improve but he will be moved only if very good players are coming to Boston.
(09-28-2020, 10:04 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020, 09:54 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]Hayward is another guy ppl think is overpaid but he's a couple of years removed from that gruesome injury now and is still a good player.
People think he is overpaid??? He is overpaid and that is a fact. He is a good player but not 34 mil good, more like 20 mil per good, max. This is why it is totally logical he will opt in and not follow "your advice" and make up that money on the open market. Because that money is simply not there. I am sure Boston will try to improve but he will be moved only if very good players are coming to Boston.
The market decides who is overpaid and who isn't. I think he could at least get a 1 yr deal at big money if he really wanted to. We will see if he does indeed opt-in or not. He could also be calculating that it's good to take the for-sure 1 yr deal and wait until next season when there is more money to spend. I don't think 34 is too high, he would be many teams first or second best player. We had guys like PatBev and Bobby Portis getting 15 mil/yr so ya I don't think he's overpaid in this market. Not saying I would want the Mavs to get him or anything.
(09-28-2020, 06:51 AM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]But then - why would Clippers trade 6th man of the year for a PG that couldn't break rotation against Clippers and doesn't save them any money? Doesn't make much more sense to resign Harrell at that money and sign a PG of Wright (or better) quality for MLE?
Sure -- it would probably be more desirable to the Clippers to keep Harrell. But it's not in their control. He's an unrestricted FA, and let's not forget he openly feuded with Paul George in the playoffs and (likely) was the guy leaking negative stories about locker room conversations after they were eliminated. I get the vibe he wants out. And at that point, a capped-out team like the Clippers has to choose between replacing him with a minimum wage guy or taking someone else in a S&T.
For example, I could see a situation where Dallas offers Harrell the full MLE and a starting job, believing that they can unload Wright's salary to a 3rd team if necessary to keep the trade mostly '21-neutral. If he were to accept, Dallas would then approach the Clippers and say "Trez is ours. Do you want Wright? If so, let's do a S&T to get Harrell a little more money. If not, we'll trade Wright elsewhere and you can scour the minimum wage bin". Then it's up to the Clippers -- but keeping their own guy is no longer an option.
Of course, Harrell may get more than the MLE from another team with cap space and they could then take a similar approach with LA. The main point is not that I think Dallas is getting Harrell, but that the Clippers may not be in the prime position to keep him that people seem to assume.
(09-28-2020, 10:09 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]I think he could at least get a 1 yr deal at big money if he really wanted to.
He already has a 1 yr deal at big money... Cap space have teams like NY, Charlotte, Detroit and Atlanta. So what do you think it is better? Take 34 mil and play for Boston or go to one of those crap places?
(09-28-2020, 10:10 AM)Tyler Wrote: [ -> ]But it's not in their control. He's an unrestricted FA
I forgot he is UFA. Than it makes a bit of sense. I guess it will be a lot of suitors at MLE and a few crap teams might offer big money. Still don't really see why Clippers would see taking Wright contract as a positive over just letting Harrell walk and sign someone like Augustin, Teague or MCW. All three are arguably better players and will probably cost less than Wright. I think a pick would need to be included.
CALLING OUT @"Kammrath"
Justin Jackson and #31 to NY for Frank N.
In or out?
(09-28-2020, 11:26 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]CALLING OUT @Kammrath
Justin Jackson and #31 to NY for Frank N.
In or out?
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/FKhKMphSgp1Ac/giphy.gif)
I like what the Mavs could get at 31 in this draft. But Frank is a KNOWN NBA defender and still has a ton of upside in the right organization.
(09-28-2020, 11:26 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]CALLING OUT @"Kammrath"
Justin Jackson and #31 to NY for Frank N.
In or out?
I am not Kamm but no way I would give up 31 for Frank. I would definitely do JJ straight up. Frank has been a major bust. If you can't get him for cheap then circle back next year when he's a FA. He needs his offensive game fixed.
31 could get you a really nice wing prospect with a team-friendly contract so I would not give that away for a project like Frank.
(09-28-2020, 11:40 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]31 could get you a really nice wing prospect with a team-friendly contract so I would not give that away for a project like Frank.
Just to play Devil's advocate, Brunson was the 33rd pick, and I wouldn't trade him for Frank N, to be clear. But, I think if the team picked at #31 ten years in a row, they'd be lucky if two of those picks were as successful as Brunson. And, even in a successful version of this outcome, you're probably looking at guy who's every bit the "project" Frank N is, only Frank N is a few years down the developmental path already.
(09-28-2020, 11:26 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]CALLING OUT @"Kammrath"
Justin Jackson and #31 to NY for Frank N.
In or out?
Out as long as #31 is involved. Without the pick I'd be in. Neither player is worth the salary, Imo both have negative value. I'd happily swap them though.
Btw: there's a fun KP/Ntilikina stat. During KP's allstar year in NY they were a glaring positive in their 2 man-lineups: +6.5 points per 100 possessions over 365 minutes together. All of Frank's other 2 man lineups were negative
https://www.basketball-reference.com/pla...neups/2018
(09-28-2020, 11:45 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020, 11:40 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]31 could get you a really nice wing prospect with a team-friendly contract so I would not give that away for a project like Frank.
Just to play Devil's advocate, Brunson was the 33rd pick, and I wouldn't trade him for Frank N, to be clear. But, I think if the team picked at #31 ten years in a row, they'd be lucky if two of those picks were as successful as Brunson. And, even in a successful version of this outcome, you're probably looking at guy who's every bit the "project" Frank N is, only Frank N is a few years down the developmental path already.
The other thing is even though he's an RFA I'd rather get Frank on a team-friendly deal from the get-go so that we can reap the benefits when uncle Ricky fixes his game. The MBT has learned from their history of these 1-year make-good deals like Aminu where the guy bolts the next year after Rick makes him good. Get Frank on some cheap 3 year deal with TO's in 2021. At that point I am on board.
For #31 I just like the value there a lot. The weakness of Donnie is being able to project improvement from raw prospects (altho Cubes claims Donnie wanted Giannis when he was drafted). Donnie does a lot better evaluating a) active NBA players and b) more experienced collegiate players. I could see us drafting another 2-3 year collegiate starter with relatively low upside in terms of star power, but someone who has the potential to immediately contribute. If that player busts you can get rid of them pretty easily.
While I do like the Mavs filling their bench with a lot of vets, its hard to have all 16 be vets so there is definitely a spot in my mind for a rookie who gives you 3D potential.
CALLING OUT @"Kammrath" PART 2.
You and your computer have had ample time to consider Montrez Harrell's fit in Dallas, but if you've weighed in with your take, I missed it.
WHAT IS YOUR TAKE MY DUDE?
(09-28-2020, 11:52 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]For #31 I just like the value there a lot. The weakness of Donnie is being able to project improvement from raw prospects (altho Cubes claims Donnie wanted Giannis when he was drafted). Donnie does a lot better evaluating a) active NBA players and b) more experienced collegiate players. I could see us drafting another 2-3 year collegiate starter with relatively low upside in terms of star power, but someone who has the potential to immediately contribute. If that player busts you can get rid of them pretty easily.
While I do like the Mavs filling their bench with a lot of vets, its hard to have all 16 be vets so there is definitely a spot in my mind for a rookie who gives you 3D potential.
While I don't think I agree that Donnie and the Mavs are any less successful identifying good players when they make picks than most other GM's, I will agree that they have too often opted to avoid making picks at all. The impact that constantly drafting players has on your team, financially, is a good and often glossed over angle. Rookie deals are good things to have.
I am pro-Frank if you can get him cheap but isn't Josh Reaves sort of our own version of Frank N? Reaves has similar issues in that you are not sure what you are getting offensively but I love his defense. We have a very limited sample size but I have been very impressed by his defense, especially for his size.
(09-28-2020, 09:54 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]He is going to get traded.
I wouldn't be too sure. Hayward, while overpaid, is still a pretty freaking good player. And if Boston were to trade him, it'd be pennies on the dollar considering his contract. The only reason why they would trade him is if they were trying to get a replacement and needed the cap space. Is Jerami Grant that dude? Maybe.
Of the teams that would actually trade for Hayward, I think the list is pretty small. He falls into a niche role where he isn't quite good enough now to lead a team to the playoffs on his own. And doesn't have the marketability to sell tickets by himself. But his contract is paying him to be that level of player. That's why I can't see a team like the Knicks trading for Hayward. Only playoff teams should be interested, but probably don't want to match contracts and give up any core rotation pieces.
).![[Image: you-were-the-chosen-one.jpg]](http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/you-were-the-chosen-one.jpg)