(07-03-2025, 11:42 PM)Jym Wrote: ehh he hasn't shot over 30% from 3 since 2019-20 
Much, much more likely he shoots 28% than 38%.

(07-03-2025, 11:43 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: 1 Gump, that's Gafford money.
2 I guess I should ask: do you think Gafford is more valuable or of equivalent value to PJW? I sure don't, but you might.
3 If I'm PJW, I want to be paid as a starting 4, because that's what I am. You could convince me to come off the bench...if I'm being paid well.
4 This is why I assumed one of them would be gone, only...to me, it makes more sense to keep the guy with positional flex who helps in a variety of ways (and is just a better player, imo).

(07-04-2025, 01:02 AM)F Gump Wrote: 1 Nope. 
... 1a Gaff will be 16.67 yr 1. Or less.
... 1b Gaff got more than I wished he did. 
... 1c NBA economics had a seismic change (Jun 30) since Gaff deal was done.
2 I place PJW above Gaff, and my proposed numbers all say as much.
3 I assume PJW starts.
...3a In a Hard Cap World, if you have stars on a team, everyone who starts will not get huge money. For ones who play a big role incl starters but are not stars, it is an MLE-ish world. Do the math and add it up, and you see. We're way at the upper end of "-ish." (See Myles who imo landed a bloated deal, which cannot happen if you want MANY good players w your stars.)
4  I prefer PJW to be a keeper (and Gaff as well) - but of course only if salary makes sense (like everyone else) in a HCW (which is inflexible and unforgiving). Every penny of all deals impact everyone now. PJW is no diff.

(07-04-2025, 01:05 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: Knowing all of the above, and now knowing Gafford’s contractual details, so you still hope they keep him?

(07-04-2025, 01:38 AM)F Gump Wrote: Gaff/Lively is your very good tandem C. I see Gaff's pay (MLE +10%) as a bit rich, but tolerable (for now).

And no I do not want to sell off good pieces because a very bad GM is forcing a very bad fit which is messing up many well-manned positions. Sell off AD and all is resolved.

Find a way to swap AD for a G who can defend, create and score (Jrue of 5 years ago, say) and I'm in. Way in. If I'm greedy, add a 3-and-D SG too.

(07-04-2025, 09:21 AM)Winter Wrote: I think by mid-season, a coach should be able to explain to AD - statistically and through film - that he is better for the team at the center position.

(07-04-2025, 09:28 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: I agree. To me, players will do what's asked, as long as they understand why. They want to win. 

I'm much more concerned with the implications of how the roster is being put together by Harrison (with a lot of input from Kidd, presumably) and whether or not Kidd is flexible and creative enough to get the most out of them than I am with AD's willingness to buy into whatever role the team needs him to play. The question is: do they know what they want him to do, and is it the right thing? If the answer is yes, and he can stay healthy enough, you don't want to trade him, imo. He's their best player by a mile.

(07-04-2025, 09:45 AM)Winter Wrote: I agree conceptually. The salary structure may help determine some of this.

The most likely outcome in my mind is that AD willingly moves to center either this season or next. And Frank Vogel may be helpful here.

(07-04-2025, 11:47 AM)F Gump Wrote: KL, thanks for the long reply. It looks to me like I assess AD (and his value on this roster) very differently than you. You clearly see him as this team's franchise player to build around, and a necessary difference-maker for this team and its upside. So you would plug him into what you see as his best position © and make everything else fit to that.

Makes sense, for how you see AD.

In contrast, I am way less married to AD in my vision - ie I see him as more of one "asset" among many right now (rather than the set-in-stone foundation to the Mavs' best upside possibility) and someone who might prove to be our Batman in a title run, but who might instead be a key trade piece to building a team with higher upside. IOW I don't buy in on the idea that his best use for us is definitely going to be as our new "Luka" or "Dirk" for a decade, necessarily, even though he came here to be that in Nico's vision. 

My biggest issue with a commitment to AD is his lack of dependability. I can use an oft-injured guy as a valuable piece, but if up to me, I would not ever make him The Guy I build everything around, since I don't know when (if) I will have him on the floor. And it's a long long grind - perhaps 110 games - to a ring. I need The Guy to show up every night.

Re Gafford, I clearly value him as a player way more than you do - so what you see as a "problem" to try to be rid of is what I see as a "big help" to the team and its future. And in this iteration of the roster, I think he is very needed, not a surplus.

(07-04-2025, 12:03 PM)F Gump Wrote: I don't see any "move" needed per se or any big drama. He can go in a game as a C where everyone else is smaller. He was LA's only C more or less. He played C regularly, he knows how. 

He just does not like being a C. (Why? I'd guess he prefers a Big Guy on the floor alongside to be the designated "bully," so he will not have the job. Or maybe he prefers to play as a 4 where he will then almost always be bigger/longer than the opponent and naturally more dominant.)

(07-04-2025, 12:03 PM)F Gump Wrote: I don't see any "move" needed per se or any big drama. He can go in a game as a C where everyone else is smaller. He was LA's only C more or less. He played C regularly, he knows how. 

He just does not like being a C. (Why? I'd guess he prefers a Big Guy on the floor alongside to be the designated "bully," so he will not have the job. Or maybe he prefers to play as a 4 where he will then almost always be bigger/longer than the opponent and naturally more dominant.)

(07-04-2025, 12:38 PM)Winter Wrote: Well, I'm not sure there's sound reasoning for keeping 3 quality paid centers on the roster. That was in my previous post you quoted.

If AD could move infrequently into the center position (willingly), then I think it makes more sense to have AD, Lively, and Kai then AD, Lively, and Gafford. I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

(07-04-2025, 12:06 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: "The guy" is clearly Cooper, but it's hard to gauge how long it will take him to be that guy. He will be interesting to build around because I believe he will be a perennial all-star and frequent at-least-2nd-team-All-NBA-guy, but probably never the scoring champion. He will always need to have two or so other players next to him who can create their own shot, with at least one being one of the top guys in the league at it. TLDR: our rich man's Scottie needs a poor man's Jordan. Kyrie can probably be that for a while if he can come back at anything close to his pre-injury skill level.

The front office and coaching staff (sorry Rick) goofed with Luka because, while they clearly valued him, they failed to see and establish to the roster that he was the guy from day one, leading to the abject idiocy we saw from Wes and DAJ (and, to a lesser extent, Harry and DSJ) until they were traded. Cooper isn't the guy like that, but will hopefully be according strong respect by the vets and be a major focal point from day one. 

In the debate between the two of you, while you two are probably my favorite posters here, I'd have to lean toward F Gump on this one.

(07-04-2025, 12:16 PM)Jym Wrote: The only realistic path to the WCF or even Finals that I see is for Davis to go full Bubble Davis and play like the best player on the planet for a couple months
It's there, it could happen. So I get why we'd keep him.

(07-04-2025, 01:18 PM)Ghost of Podkolzin Wrote: This.  This is the Mavs' strategic advantage.  Size.  I don't see AD playing that much at C.