(07-01-2022, 08:08 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: Some nice posts this morning.  I don't think Powell is gone, but I also don't see 40 minutes of McGee/Powell either.  There are too many mouths to fee at the 4/5 between Wood, McGee, Maxi, Powell and some DFS minutes at the four for that to happen.  I hedged on Powell last night thinking that maybe something like this is possible which would move Maxi to the five more behind McGee and DFS to the four more when Wood is playing center as a part time lineup instead of the base lineup.  

If anyone cares to go back and look, my advocacy for bringing in another center was mostly about flexibility.  We are a really long team that rebounds well with McGee, Wood, DFS and Luka.  We are a very different beast if you remove McGee and move Wood to Center.  We won't rebound or defend as well, but boy do we have a chance to blow people away offensive.y.  We need to be able to do both well and McGee provides things in limited minutes that Powell couldn't.  I think there needs to be another true big (not DFS) besides McGee, Wood and Maxi.  Who knows if it will be Powell or someone cheaper.  Powell in this limited role will be more than adequate.

To you point about an overpay, it doesn't have to be Harris coming here.  He could go to a third team and someone else could come here.  Maybe Detroit and we end up with Burks?  Too many moving parts and reported Mav's targets still on the board to think through all the possibilities.

(07-01-2022, 08:29 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: Cato says McGee got the full tax MLE...and will not be able to sign Hardy to more than a two year minimum deal.  Said to sign Hardy to a four year deal they would have needed over 1 million of the exception. 

Incredibly disappointing if the Mavs wanted to sign Hardy to a 4 year deal.  You would think they could have negotiated using the player option to get that extra money.

edit- let me add that it appears he is not 100% solid of the above, but it appears his sources have confirmed some of this.  We will see.

(07-01-2022, 08:32 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Agree with most of this. Just don´t think that McGee at his current age is the best solution. Especially because the Mavs desperately need to address the lack of assets on the roster.
Other problem is that basketball doesn´t allow for as many situationable subs as other sports. Flexiblity is important and will hopefully help the Mavs in certain matchups but it always comes with a trade off. In this case rim protection + rebounding instead of perimeter defense/switching + shooting.

I am not sure if McGee will be a part of the 7-8 man playoff rotation that we talked about in the last couple of weeks. Would argue that his value in the last few seasons was more about his durability in the regular season. In the playoffs he was an afterthought. Suns tried to give him a few spot minutes. Lakers made a crucial decision and benched him for the rest of their playoff run after a couple of bad games in the WCFs.

I think of him as a regular season body that can reduce the load of Woods and Kleber. But when it matters I don´t want to see him on the floor.

(07-01-2022, 08:32 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Agree with most of this. Just don´t think that McGee at his current age is the best solution. Especially because the Mavs desperately need to address the lack of assets on the roster.
Other problem is that basketball doesn´t allow for as many situationable subs as other sports. Flexiblity is important and will hopefully help the Mavs in certain matchups but it always comes with a trade off. In this case rim protection + rebounding instead of perimeter defense/switching + shooting.

I am not sure if McGee will be a part of the 7-8 man playoff rotation that we talked about in the last couple of weeks. Would argue that his value in the last few seasons was more about his durability in the regular season. In the playoffs he was an afterthought. Suns tried to give him a few spot minutes. Lakers made a crucial decision and benched him for the rest of their playoff run after a couple of bad games in the WCFs.

I think of him as a regular season body that can reduce the load of Woods and Kleber. But when it matters I don´t want to see him on the floor.

(07-01-2022, 08:29 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: Cato says McGee got the full tax MLE...and will not be able to sign Hardy to more than a two year minimum deal.  Said to sign Hardy to a four year deal they would have needed over 1 million of the exception. 

Incredibly disappointing if the Mavs wanted to sign Hardy to a 4 year deal.  You would think they could have negotiated using the player option to get that extra money.

edit- let me add that it appears he is not 100% solid of the above, but it appears his sources have confirmed some of this.  We will see.

(07-01-2022, 08:48 AM)Branduil Wrote: It would be pretty amazing if they immediately repeated the Brunson mistake after seeing its consequences.

(07-01-2022, 06:55 AM)mvossman Wrote: Hartenstein is a better player than Mcgee, much younger, and a better defender.  I realize he got paid more per year, but if we gave the contract we just gave to McGee to Hartenstein (or Jalen Smith) the reaction would be much more positive on this board.

(07-01-2022, 09:55 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: https://twitter.com/NBADraftWass/status/1542883842431877130

He left off Satnam Singh though.

Conclussion...never stop looking under every rock.   Player evaluation and development never stops.

(07-01-2022, 09:55 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: He got paid a number the Mavs literally couldn't get to without trading 2-3 guys to open up the full MLE.

Hartenstein wasn't ever a realistic get.

(07-01-2022, 09:36 AM)loki Wrote: Hardy would be a RFA after two years and the Arenas provision prevents other teams from offering more than Dallas can match. Shouldn't be a problem.

(07-01-2022, 10:40 AM)mvossman Wrote: I never said he was.  I responded to the suggestion that McGee was a better option than Hartenstein (which is strongly disagreed with).

(07-01-2022, 10:53 AM)SleepingHero Wrote: Right but what I was trying to say is that Hartenstein was never an option.

(07-01-2022, 10:51 AM)mvossman Wrote: I don't think that is true?  I think it needs to be 3 years in order for him to be an RFA.  That is one of the biggest reasons they want to give him a 3 year deal (and full bird rights).

(07-01-2022, 10:58 AM)loki Wrote: It's 3 years or fewer to become a RFA. They wouldn't have full bird rights as you mentioned, but they can still match any offer.

(07-01-2022, 10:45 AM)michaeltex Wrote: Helping him with footwork and situational recognition, etc. I submit that he could provide a similar role for Woods to improve his defensive effectiveness.

(07-01-2022, 10:45 AM)michaeltex Wrote: I just read all 12+ pages of this thread and the change in the overall tenor has been interesting. It went from WTF!!! to "Hmmmm...maybe there is something workable here". But that was also true about the KP trade thread. 

I do think this is a good add. He's a better rim protector and rebounder than anyone else currently on the team. Looking at some of the game highlights, he doesn't seem to clog up the paint, giving room for Luka, et. al., to operate effectively.

FWIW, I read somewhere in the last 12+ hours that Magee thinks one of his roles was to help mentor and train Ayton on how to be an effective NBA center. Helping him with footwork and situational recognition, etc. I submit that he could provide a similar role for Woods to improve his defensive effectiveness.

It takes more than one man in the middle. Even in 2011 Chandler was replaced by Haywood for some key matchups. Sometimes due to foul trouble, sometimes due to effectiveness. Everyone remembers TC, but Haywood was a key contributor who took a bench role after signing to be the starter pre-Chandler. I think DAL started last season with 7 "bigs" on the roster and ended with 3, maybe 4, of which only 2 were somewhat playable, and only Maxi against GSW. Attrition and matchups take their toll.

IMO, Magee makes Powell, and his expiring $11M contract, very, very expendable. 

I think Maxi stays, but his non-guaranteed salary for next season could be trade bait as well. But that would have to happen by Sunday, 7/3.

(07-01-2022, 11:03 AM)mvossman Wrote: So what does that mean?  He is not an RFA but they can match an offer?  What is the difference?

(07-01-2022, 11:03 AM)mvossman Wrote: So what does that mean?  He is not an RFA but they can match an offer?  What is the difference?