(09-29-2020, 06:42 PM)Hypermav Wrote: [ -> ]No on Seth
Hayward if he shaves that goofy mustache.
Brunson, I would listen.
I forgot my no Ainge rule plus THJ is 2 years younger.
(09-29-2020, 06:48 PM)cjeter24 Wrote: [ -> ]I personally actually really like Hardaway's game. My issue with Hardaway is that he shouldn't be a starter but because of roster construction he is most effective there.
I think he showed he could play very well with other players other than the Mavs starters in the bubble. I think his fit with certain bench guys is the primary issue.
I still maintain THJ could be a very efficient 6th man and a 6th man candidate every year here.
I feel the exact opposite.
THJ was garbage until Rick inserted him into the starting lineup with Luka and he was feasting on open kickout looks from Luka penetration. Dude takes so many garbage shots that playing with Luka minimizes that and it's mostly catch and shoot 3s.
@"jesusshuttlesworth82" That's true, but it works both ways.
THJ being out there unafraid to get the ball up and shoot 500+ 3's at 40% absolutely helped give Luka and the offense space to get comfortable.
(09-29-2020, 06:23 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]@"khaled1987" none of that interests me (without knowing how the Clippers deal would actually work) but it's still a nice glimpse into how these guys are viewed outside of our Mavs culture.
I see those 3 trades as a "potential"of bigger picture:
-Seth trade: If we land one of those elite shooters in the draft, and he shows clear signs of his game translating early in the season, I would call Phily then
-Hayward: This is a clear plan powder move. I like THJ more than current Hawyard who is IMO living on reputation, he has one good play-off appearance in his career and it was 3 years ago. He isn't that player anymore. But it saves us money for 2021 and give us a decent replacement for THJ for next season too.
-Brunson: I think sooner or later a team would want to take a gamble on him as their starting PG and he would want out, and we would let him go. Unless he and Luka learn how to play with each other and he moves to starting spot, I think he is a trading chip. The best time to trade is probably between this off-season to the next one. Again, seeing what we would do in the draft, or off-season moves first before making such a trade.
In other words, I won't do this trades unless I have another move done/or in plan
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.72)]
If LA is keen on keeping Beverley, though, a more offensive-minded guard could be acquired if the Clippers are willing to part with Williams and/or Shamet. Jalen Brunson could fill that role off the bench for a low cost. The Brooklyn Nets could move Spencer Dinwiddie with a healthy Kyrie Irving coming back next season.[/color]
https://www.si.com/nba/clippers/news/la-...rade-guard
Low cost, what do low cost mean?
Y'all are severely underrating Hayward. He was a max player and even post-injury is superior to THJ. I don't think there's anyway Celtics would trade him to the Mavs anyway, they are looking for a bigger swing than a relatively lateral move in Hayward for THJ.
(09-29-2020, 06:48 PM)cjeter24 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2020, 06:35 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2020, 06:29 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]I seem to be using the "I've never liked that guy" a lot lately but Hayward falls in that category before he became injury prone. Am I bad person for wanting to stick with THJ over him?
Curry versus Josh Richardson is interesting. Curry's elite skill (shooting) is superior to Josh's elite skill (defense). I guess that's how I'd weigh it.
No, you're not a bad person for wanting THJ over Hayward. The bullies around here (looking at you, @"Kammrath" and @"Scott41theMavs") want you to be ashamed to admit that his shooting was a much needed component of the Mavs success this year, but you go ahead and fight the good fight. I'm right behind you.
You make a good point about Curry vs. Richardson, and I'll take it one step further: a guard who another fan base wants to dump because he can't shoot probably doesn't fit in here.
I personally actually really like Hardaway's game. My issue with Hardaway is that he shouldn't be a starter but because of roster construction he is most effective there.
I think he showed he could play very well with other players other than the Mavs starters in the bubble. I think his fit with certain bench guys is the primary issue.
I still maintain THJ could be a very efficient 6th man and a 6th man candidate every year here.
Kind of disagree. I think THJ works best as a 3rd banana. Anytime he needs to do too much and create is when he faulters. I think he needs to start to be effective. I'm not opposed to upgrading him as his inconsistencies can be a little maddening but I don't think Hayward checks the right boxes.
(09-29-2020, 06:45 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]We are going to turn down Hayward for THJ & Wright? Worst-case scenario we are dumping money. I can't imagine why anyone would not do that deal? I thought this board hated THJ. I am actually fairly pro-THJ but I would do this deal.
In that scenario, Boston is going to want more compensation. Willing to do that deal if we have to add picks? it also makes it so that your three best players are injury prone.
(09-29-2020, 07:20 PM)Hypermav Wrote: [ -> ][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.72)]If LA is keen on keeping Beverley, though, a more offensive-minded guard could be acquired if the Clippers are willing to part with Williams and/or Shamet. Jalen Brunson could fill that role off the bench for a low cost. The Brooklyn Nets could move Spencer Dinwiddie with a healthy Kyrie Irving coming back next season.[/color]
https://www.si.com/nba/clippers/news/la-...rade-guard
Low cost, what do low cost mean?
Just Kawhi. They wouldn't need to throw in PP.
Just kidding, of course, but hell, no, Brunson is our best trade asset right now. If we're going to part with him, it's going to be as the key sweetener of a deal for a rotation player (including moving up *substantially,* not a little bit, in the draft). Most teams wouldn't see that as "low cost."
(09-29-2020, 07:20 PM)Hypermav Wrote: [ -> ] Low cost, what do low cost mean?
I assume they mean contract wise. JB is 1.8 for the next 2 years with 1 year unguaranteed.
I don't see how they trade Lou Will for someone like Brunson though. If I'm the Mavs I make that trade 10/10 and never look back.
(09-29-2020, 07:31 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2020, 06:45 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]We are going to turn down Hayward for THJ & Wright? Worst-case scenario we are dumping money. I can't imagine why anyone would not do that deal? I thought this board hated THJ. I am actually fairly pro-THJ but I would do this deal.
In that scenario, Boston is going to want more compensation. Willing to do that deal if we have to add picks? it also makes it so that your three best players are injury prone.
I probably wouldn't do it if I had to add picks unless the Mavs are super high on Hayward and envision keeping him. Hayward isn't injury prone, he had a freak injury. My issue with him is just that he doesn't give you much defensively. At any rate it's moot because I don't think Boston would do THJ for Hayward. They probably need a center more than they need another guard.
Regarding Seth, I really love Seth but if I could cash him in for a starter I'd have to at least consider it. I feel like there is a ceiling on his impact as a 6th man. I don't think the Mavs will trade him but for the right deal I might consider it.
(09-30-2020, 03:55 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2020, 07:20 PM)Hypermav Wrote: [ -> ] Low cost, what do low cost mean?
I assume they mean contract wise. JB is 1.8 for the next 2 years with 1 year unguaranteed.
I don't see how they trade Lou Will for someone like Brunson though. If I'm the Mavs I make that trade 10/10 and never look back.
I can't see a win now team give up Lou Williams for Brunson either. Ballmer just canned a coach for win now mode.
Why is everybody trying to trade my guy Jalen Brunson? He's a baller!
The thing with Brunson is he's worth much more to the Mavs. Good player with high floor and decent ceiling (borderline starter?). His minutes and place in the rotation were all over the place for whatever reason. I think this year he gets a more defined role in the rotation. If the Mavs were to trade him they would get very little in return so why do it?
(09-30-2020, 10:14 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]The thing with Brunson is he's worth much more to the Mavs. Good player with high floor and decent ceiling (borderline starter?). His minutes and place in the rotation were all over the place for whatever reason. I think this year he gets a more defined role in the rotation. If the Mavs were to trade him they would get very little in return so why do it?
The reason was Delon Wright. Carlisle kept giving him so many chances to play point. It's one of the few things he has done that I disagree with.
I like Brunson, too, but at the end of the day he's a backup PG on a team where the starting PG is your best player. That would be fine, except he doesn't appear to do very well WITH Luka as an off-ball guy. So, his role here will always have a low minute ceiling.
You definitely don't trade him unless you have to because even backup PG's are super important, but I'd think he's pretty far from untouchable.
Would you consider including Brunson with the 18 and 31 picks to move up in the draft? And if so, how high do you think that would get us?
(09-30-2020, 10:14 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]The thing with Brunson is he's worth much more to the Mavs. Good player with high floor and decent ceiling (borderline starter?). His minutes and place in the rotation were all over the place for whatever reason. I think this year he gets a more defined role in the rotation. If the Mavs were to trade him they would get very little in return so why do it?
What? 1) He is a very good young player on a value contract. It makes no sense to say he has no value to other teams. 2) I have said repeatedly, and several have concurred, that Luka and Brunson don't look good together on the court. Brunson looks great when Luka is out. What are you gonna do, sit Luka????
What I'm saying is, Brunson absolutely has much more value to the Mavs as a trade chip than he does on court. He is their most valuable trade sweetener - more valuable than #18 because he's a proven player, more value than '25 because that will be a low pick. If he's not worth more to other teams than to the Mavs, then we're in deep doo, because there's nothing we're conceivably going to get of value in trade without parting with KP, which I'd generally prefer not to do.
(09-30-2020, 10:45 AM)chaparral Wrote: [ -> ]Would you consider including Brunson with the 18 and 31 picks to move up in the draft? And if so, how high do you think that would get us?
@"cow" suggested this yesterday.
I guess for me it would depend on the specific player you could get. I have no idea how high that could get you, tbh. I'm much better with the NFL draft than the NBA. In that league, draft capital seems to be valued more consistently from year to year, whereas in basketball is seems to be tied more to specific targets. Just my take, I could be wrong about that.
In THIS draft, I think I'd be more inclined to either trade the picks for someone already in the league with playoff experience or take 2-3 stabs at snagging good role players in the draft. I'm not sure it makes good business sense to trade up unless it's for a difference maker.
Gonna need luck, no matter what approach they take.
(09-30-2020, 10:14 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]I think this year he gets a more defined role in the rotation.
I think his role was defined exactly. When everybody was available, he was substituting Luka. This of course means he only played something like 15 minutes per game. When Luka was out, he was thrown in his place. Not Wright or Curry, who were the nominal #3 and #4 guards. They kept their positions.
(09-30-2020, 10:14 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]If the Mavs were to trade him they would get very little in return so why do it?
Totally agree with this. I think Mavs value Brunson much higher than the rest of the league.
So once Wright is out of the mix I bet Brunson locks down his position. And I disagree with @"Scott41theMavs" and any others that would think we'd get much back for Brunson. Sure we could trade him but what are we going to get back that's better than Brunson? He is not valued enough to get us anything better than what we already have.
I picture Brunson as the Mavs long-term Barea replacement. He's underrated, I just like his game a lot. He is underrated because he's not athletic but he's just a baller.
(09-30-2020, 11:46 AM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]So once Wright is out of the mix I bet Brunson locks down his position. And I disagree with @"Scott41theMavs" and any others that would think we'd get much back for Brunson. Sure we could trade him but what are we going to get back that's better than Brunson? He is not valued enough to get us anything better than what we already have.
I picture Brunson as the Mavs long-term Barea replacement. He's underrated, I just like his game a lot. He is underrated because he's not athletic but he's just a baller.
Agree that he's going to have a solid and important role here.
Agree that he's underrated, and will be a fine pro for a long time. Probably not as good as Barea, but it's certainly possible.
Agree that the Mavs might have the highest opinion of him in the league.
But...I CAN see how a few teams might VALUE him more than what he's worth to the Mavs, specifically because I think so highly of him. I can easily see how a team in the market for a bench guard who could play on ball might think he can play 25 minutes per game for them, whereas in Dallas, he really can't do that.
Then again, he is obviously very smart, so maybe he improves his off-ball offense. If so, maybe he gets more minutes here, eventually.