(05-29-2025, 12:20 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: Quick reminder about the value of first-round draft picks:

https://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Looking at the stats for each draft position, you’d have to put Gafford as a top-10 pick. And he’s already developed, so there’s no risk involved.

It’s easy to want to trade my dull old quarter for that bright, shiny nickel.

(05-31-2025, 04:43 PM)RasheedsBigWhiteSpot Wrote: Remember, two drafts ago, Atlanta wanted the 10th pick for an older, more expensive Clint Capella. If I'm the Mavs I want at least the 13th pick from them. I'd probably try and get a late 1st from the Nets and then make the Hawks trade 13+22 for Gafford and 27.

Edit: In fact, a 3 teamer with the Nets could generate the Mavs a $24 mil TPE.
Mavs get 13 and 22
Hawks get Gafford and 25
Nets get Martin

(05-31-2025, 01:17 PM)Kidnova Wrote: So, in today's NBA, a 26 year old verstatile wing that can play both ways is a net negative value?  Maybe the CBA is so utterly broken that this is true, but I find it hard to believe there won't be a robust market for Washington, and Gafford for that matter.  I guess we'll find out.

(05-31-2025, 05:17 PM)Winter Wrote: McMahon has an article "The Athletic" now about the two timeline idea and Golden State's attempt to pull it off.

The big difference is Flagg is not Wiseman. Then again, I'm not sure AD is bank-able as a major threat in the way Curry was. It's hard to say much about any of this as a comparison. Golden State had a cutting kind of ball-movement that most teams don't have.

My personal feeling is that just about anything is possible, but going younger sounds a little smarter to me.

(05-31-2025, 05:17 PM)Winter Wrote: McMahon has an article "The Athletic" now about the two timeline idea and Golden State's attempt to pull it off.

The big difference is Flagg is not Wiseman. Then again, I'm not sure AD is bank-able as a major threat in the way Curry was. It's hard to say much about any of this as a comparison. Golden State had a cutting kind of ball-movement that most teams don't have.

My personal feeling is that just about anything is possible, but going younger sounds a little smarter to me.

(05-31-2025, 05:41 PM)ThisIStheYear Wrote: They didn’t have a robust market when the Mavs traded for them. Why would they have a robust market now? Unless you’re a contender, they’re not the kind of player you give up real assets for. They’re not good enough to elevate your team unless you already have a couple of great players.  They may not be huge salary guys, but they’re still too expensive in the very near future to roster if you don’t already have great players. I’d expect the Mavs to get about 75% of what they gave up for them.  They were perfect mid salary guys for the Mavs to surround Luka with, but their success was more about Luka than them. Maybe the Mavs could get a decent asset from LA.

(06-03-2025, 02:07 PM)cow Wrote: Thibs is out.  Smart move.

(06-03-2025, 04:30 PM)Chicagojk Wrote: Interesting.  I think Thibs is a good coach.  Probably a short term coach as he wears out his welcome after awhile, but he is good.  He got out coached by Carlisle, but I would think he is probably a top 10 coach.  Maybe the Knicks can do better.  As good as Jalen is, I think there offense is too Jalen dependent.    Do they have the roster to take some pressure off his shoulders?  The East is wide open though.    So the Knicks are in a pretty good position, I think.

One more thing, I give Nico a ton of crap for not speaking.    Compared to Leon Rose he is a chatterbox.  I am not a fan of leaders of teams not talking to the press.  I don't think Rose has talked in forever.  At least I don't believe he has. 

Also, as much stability as the Knicks appear to have, you can't totally right off the crazy owner.  And they have a crazy owner.

(06-03-2025, 04:36 PM)Winter Wrote: I am starting to wonder if Towns is some kind of roster grenade. When he's in the lineup, everyone looks uncertain. It's like you don't know what's going to happen when you put him in the game.

(06-03-2025, 04:55 PM)Chicagojk Wrote: They don't have enough for Giannis, but I wonder if they do for KD.  That could be spicy.   I have no idea if Mitchell Robinson can stay healthy, but I think he has proven he can give you good minutes if he is available.   Maybe you get a backup center to fill in minutes.

Not sure PHX would want Towns terrible contract though.

(06-03-2025, 08:59 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: Apparently Towns and Booker are friends and have wanted to play with each other.  Towns makes slightly less, so the Phoenix side works.  It isn’t hard to make the NY side work as well.

(06-03-2025, 11:24 PM)F Gump Wrote: And speaking of players out of favor, NO is at a real crossroads with Zion -- and this was BEFORE this bimbo eruption thing. I never thought we'd get here, but I have to think they are going to be seriously considering waiving him in June, or trading him, because of the difference between contract and actual production. Right now he has NO guaranteed money iiuc.

(06-04-2025, 05:39 AM)omahen Wrote: I think Williams has 20 % of his salary guaranteed for next season, as he passed his weight checks. Neglectable in the decision making process, basically.

I think they have two paths, assuming no one is offering anything of value for him at this point. Option 1 is cut the cord, similar to as Mavs did with KP. Eat the loss and move on. Either trade him for the very little they can get or cut him. This option includes more or less trading all vets and start a (long?) rebuild. Tank in hope of getting a star through draft. 

Option 2 is run it for another season, hope he can stay healthy and increase his value. His next two years after next season are not guaranteed anyway and they can cut him later. This option is basically more of the same they had for last five seasons or so. Trying to build a very specific roster around a very specific player who is rarely available (with roster obviously not functioning without him).

Neither option is attractive, I am not sure which one I would take. Probably more inclined towards first one.