(03-02-2025, 03:00 AM)F Gump Wrote: Won't happen until he clears waivers. Probably can't be in uni in time for Kings game Monday. I'm guessing Kelley goes, to open the needed space. We'll see what happens and when.

(03-02-2025, 01:57 AM)WildArkieBoy Wrote: But for billionaire penny-pinching, Quentin Grimes and L. Doncic would still be Mavs 2025.  Grimes, out from under the JKidd arbitrary minutes restriction, has been doing some scoring.  In the smallest of sample sizes, last game Grimes had 44, L. Doncic 32.  That's a sizeable "talent loss" via the Adelson, Dumont, Harrison contingent.

wab

Oh, BTW, Quentin Grimes and Luka Doncic are the only guards this season to record a game with
--Over 40 points
--Over 5 rebounds
--Over 2 steals
--Over 5 threes

The Mavs traded them both away

Quentin Grimes and Luka Doncic are the only guards this season to record a game with — Over 40 points— Over 5 rebounds — Over 2 steals— Over 5 threes The Mavs traded them both away.

Quentin Grimes and Luka Doncic are the only guards this season to record a game with — Over 40 points— Over 5 rebounds — Over 2 steals— Over 5 threes The Mavs traded them both away.

(03-02-2025, 02:03 PM)RoyTarpleysGhos Wrote: The other guys on the roster are making it crystal clear there is no legitimate third option behind Kyrie and AD.

(03-02-2025, 02:03 PM)RoyTarpleysGhost Wrote: If AD isn’t back soon, the tank will be organic. 

I’m thinking the March 6th update will be that he’ll be reevaluated on March 20th.

The other guys on the roster are making it crystal clear there is no legitimate third option behind Kyrie and AD.

(03-02-2025, 02:54 AM)F Gump Wrote: Some consolation, perhaps. Grimes wasn't affordable, to stay in Dallas (because of payroll limits in a hard cap world). . . .

(03-02-2025, 06:57 PM)The Jom Wrote: Wait though. We were trading away Luka. You mean to tell us there was no one willing to help us find a few Grimes dollars under Apron 2 as part of taking Luka off our hands? No way. Of course we could have rerouted Luka and found room for QG.

(03-02-2025, 08:25 PM)F Gump Wrote: Maybe I was not clear enough. Grimes wanted MLE or more, and the Mavs did not think he was worth it. Was their evaluation wrong? Perhaps so, but (a) there's no reason to think he would have been anything in Dallas the rest of the season than he already was, or would have gotten more minutes like in Philly either even more so with Christie being acquired, and (b) he's shown signs that he is NOT the defender we thought, which would explain part of their thinking.

(03-03-2025, 10:47 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I heard some guy named Marcel (I think) on YouTube say Grimes' agent requested the trade.  He said it like it was a known fact.  I haven't seen that anywhere, but it makes sense that it might be true.  He's not in your plans and you can get back someone of similar quality with a cost controlled contract.  So, why not do the guy a favor.  I still don't see the need to pay for the privilege, but maybe that cost control versus the uncertainty of a RFA is more valuable than I think.

(03-03-2025, 10:47 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I heard some guy named Marcel (I think) on YouTube say Grimes' agent requested the trade.  He said it like it was a known fact.  I haven't seen that anywhere, but it makes sense that it might be true.  He's not in your plans and you can get back someone of similar quality with a cost controlled contract.  So, why not do the guy a favor.  I still don't see the need to pay for the privilege, but maybe that cost control versus the uncertainty of a RFA is more valuable than I think.

(03-03-2025, 10:47 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I heard some guy named Marcel (I think) on YouTube say Grimes' agent requested the trade.  He said it like it was a known fact.  I haven't seen that anywhere, but it makes sense that it might be true.  He's not in your plans and you can get back someone of similar quality with a cost controlled contract.  So, why not do the guy a favor.  I still don't see the need to pay for the privilege, but maybe that cost control versus the uncertainty of a RFA is more valuable than I think.

(03-03-2025, 11:26 AM)DallasMaverick Wrote: There were certainly indications that Kidd was unhappy with Grimes (based on playing time), and even a couple of instances where Grimes seemed unhappy with his role & usage.

I think the Max Christie trade made him even more expendable, and he would have been even more unhappy with his role.

Good move, Nico.

(03-03-2025, 11:39 AM)mvossman Wrote: I don't think Kidd was unhappy with Grimes.  I think the roster construction kept him from getting the minutes that his talent warranted (which is why Grimes was potentially unhappy with his role).

I would argue that even if it makes sense to move Grimes, it does not by definition make the move good.  Not only did they give up an asset to make the move (a highly questionable decision) but they also trapped themselves with that trade into not being able to operate in the buyout market or sign someone off the street for more than 10 days.  If Caleb underperforms (assuming he ever gets healthy) or is simply trade fodder in the offseason, then it would be really hard to call this a good move.