MAVS NEWS:

[F Gump]

.... if you trade your 21 year old center at his lowest value when he's shown top 10 center in this league potential already then ....

ITEM 1 - I absolutely 1000% think this ^ is a massively wrong evaluation, even though thoughts like this about Lively (expectations he is looming as a future all-star dominant big) from lots and lots of posters are often repeated in various threads.

What is being ignored - and imo it's a MAJOR part of player evaluation -- is that a player has to be evaluated based on "regularly repeatable" ability, not on "peak" ability. Lots of players can look like an all-star in 1 game, but the true all-star is the one who can play at that level in about EVERY game. 

And Lively has not ever shown "regularly repeatable" ability to play at a high level in every game - because he hasn't shown that he can be available, way too often, to even play at all. Even when he plays he's not really a 30 mpg guy on a regular basis, as far as we have EVER seen. The injuries have been an issue over and over and over and over. As the old saying goes, the top ability for a player is availability. We have seen no potential at all for Lively to have ongoing consistent availability.

ITEM 2 - Now do some of you vocal critics see why I have been saying it would be a mistake to trade Gafford? In our desire to make trades, we keep ignoring how bad it is to be without good centers, where the team gets manhandled and dominated on the boards, and take for granted the difficult task of getting 1-2 good ones to handle the needs for 48 minutes. 

Where will we ever find minutes for all of these centers, you demanded to know? In fact, we haven't really had enough minutes played by GOOD centers this season. Even with the [supposed] "too many centers" roster, we have seen a steady early-season diet of C minutes going to the meh 3rd stringer (Powell) and the raw 2-way guy (Cisse) and at times no one at all (because you might as well try small ball and see if that helps) because we just don't have other options. Ugh.    

To be clear, I don't think the best plan is to have a bunch of gimpy centers and hope you have 2 of them healthy each game. But because of the injury tendencies, for now, the Mavs are FAR from having too many good centers and not enough minutes. 

Does it really matter this season? IMO not at all. But for the long run, the priority needs to be getting players who can suit up every game, or close to it.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

ITEM 1 - I absolutely 1000% think this ^ is a massively wrong evaluation, even though thoughts like this about Lively (expectations he is looming as a future all-star dominant big) from lots and lots of posters are often repeated in various threads.

What is being ignored - and imo it's a MAJOR part of player evaluation -- is that a player has to be evaluated based on "regularly repeatable" ability, not on "peak" ability. Lots of players can look like an all-star in 1 game, but the true all-star is the one who can play at that level in about EVERY game. 

And Lively has not ever shown "regularly repeatable" ability to play at a high level in every game - because he hasn't shown that he can be available, way too often, to even play at all. Even when he plays he's not really a 30 mpg guy on a regular basis, as far as we have EVER seen. The injuries have been an issue over and over and over and over. As the old saying goes, the top ability for a player is availability. We have seen no potential at all for Lively to have ongoing consistent availability.

ITEM 2 - Now do some of you vocal critics see why I have been saying it would be a mistake to trade Gafford? In our desire to make trades, we keep ignoring how bad it is to be without good centers, where the team gets manhandled and dominated on the boards, and take for granted the difficult task of getting 1-2 good ones to handle the needs for 48 minutes. 

Where will we ever find minutes for all of these centers, you demanded to know? In fact, we haven't really had enough minutes played by GOOD centers this season. Even with the [supposed] "too many centers" roster, we have seen a steady early-season diet of C minutes going to the meh 3rd stringer (Powell) and the raw 2-way guy (Cisse) and at times no one at all (because you might as well try small ball and see if that helps) because we just don't have other options. Ugh.    

To be clear, I don't think the best plan is to have a bunch of gimpy centers and hope you have 2 of them healthy each game. But because of the injury tendencies, for now, the Mavs are FAR from having too many good centers and not enough minutes. 

Does it really matter this season? IMO not at all. But for the long run, the priority needs to be getting players who can suit up every game, or close to it.

Hit the nail on the head here..

[Mavs2021]

It´s like we have not lived through 15 years of inadequate centers next to Dirk. Now we got a perfect modern defensive center and besides his availability our own fans also try to crap on his game.

[FireNicoHarrison]

Until Lively is cheap and we are in rebuild mode i don't care too much about his injuries... Young bodies have to adapt to NBA schedule and routine.

Anyway Lively trade value is very low now probably, i don't think we will have good trade availables.

Keep calm.

[Chicagojk]

I was really hoping to enjoy basketball again this year.  So far that was not really happened.  I have enjoyed a few quarters and a few halves, but I am not sure if there has been one full game I have enjoyed from start to finish.   I think this team will play better when AD is back and if they can get average point guard play.    So maybe the enjoyment comes back.  Especially with the average PG that can really put Flagg in his best spots.   I think this year that has rarely happened.  

I look at the West now it may not be the worst thing to suck this year.   OKC looks awesome.   Houston, Denver and LAL also look very good.   Granted I have not sat down and watched either Denver or LAL yet.   I think best case for me entering the season is I had hoped Dallas would be in the GSW, Minnesota/LAL (might have been a stretch), and Spurs range in the West.  I thought LA Clippers would have been above us.   Looking at that middle section now despite SA having some real promise, that may have been deadzone for this Mavs team when healthy.  Stuck in non contender and awful with limited picks after this year.    So maybe that is a positive.   

I am not really sure how this team is built back again into a contender.  I do think when healthy and some smart moves, they can get back to the good but not great range relatively quickly.   Getting from good to great is where it gets tricky.

[StrandedOnBeauboisHill]

ITEM 1 - I absolutely 1000% think this ^ is a massively wrong evaluation, even though thoughts like this about Lively (expectations he is looming as a future all-star dominant big) from lots and lots of posters are often repeated in various threads.

What is being ignored - and imo it's a MAJOR part of player evaluation -- is that a player has to be evaluated based on "regularly repeatable" ability, not on "peak" ability. Lots of players can look like an all-star in 1 game, but the true all-star is the one who can play at that level in about EVERY game. 

And Lively has not ever shown "regularly repeatable" ability to play at a high level in every game - because he hasn't shown that he can be available, way too often, to even play at all. Even when he plays he's not really a 30 mpg guy on a regular basis, as far as we have EVER seen. The injuries have been an issue over and over and over and over. As the old saying goes, the top ability for a player is availability. We have seen no potential at all for Lively to have ongoing consistent availability.

I think this is misinterpreting "peak" on the basketball court vs "peak" in terms of games played in a season with the latter being the concern, saying "Moussa Cisse has the potential to be an all star" would match up with your one game comment but we're talking about a guy who still has a large sample size of playing winning basketball at the highest levels.  

Also a reason I put potential because of course it would take more games to prove that but from the skill standpoint it's not like we've only seen him play a month of basketball or something.  I think the idea of seeing no potential for Lively to have consistent availability is where I disagree with a lot of sports fan.  We're an incredibly reactionary society these days and we act like a foot injury means we got to dig this kid a grave a put a fork in him.  Literally every single able bodied human being has the potential to correct health issues, especially at such a young age.  Some more than others sure and like I said, if we weren't in rebuilding mode then I'd probably be looking to maximize value but that's pretty far from the case.

Again, my argument here is that it feels like everyone is convinced that he'll never be able to be more available than he is now and there is LITERALLY no way for anyone here to know that and this franchise is in a position where it's a very small gamble to find out over the next few seasons.

[F Gump]

 We're an incredibly reactionary society these days and we act like a foot injury means we got to dig this kid a grave a put a fork in him.  Literally every single able bodied human being has the potential to correct health issues, especially at such a young age.  Some more than others sure and like I said, if we weren't in rebuilding mode then I'd probably be looking to maximize value but that's pretty far from the case.

What you call "reactionary" is - imo - simply a case of accepting what's been staring us in the face for a LONG time. At some point, it's time to admit that what we have is what we have. It is what it is. 

It would be reactionary if this was the first time Lively was injured and it was a minor bump or bruise. But we are a LONG WAYS from that. It's actually been true for a LONG time that Lively seems to be made of glass. For me, I've been wary of Lively's persistent injury record for at least a year -- and that year was just more of the same. It's this injury after the last one after the one before that after the one before that -- and on and on and on. In fact, this is how many separate injuries just this calendar year? 3? 4? 5? I'm losing count. In addition (and perhaps important to some) foot injuries on players who are big and players whose games depend on jumping are a very bad thing that can linger forevvvvveeeeerrrrrr.

HOPE he can be healthier? Sure, that makes sense. But based on how we got here, it's not the basket you want to put your eggs in. Build around that? That wouldn't be smart at all.

[StrandedOnBeauboisHill]

What you call "reactionary" is - imo - simply a case of accepting what's been staring us in the face for a LONG time. At some point, it's time to admit that what we have is what we have. It is what it is. 

It would be reactionary if this was the first time Lively was injured and it was a minor bump or bruise. But we are a LONG WAYS from that. It's actually been true for a LONG time that Lively seems to be made of glass. For me, I've been wary of Lively's persistent injury record for at least a year -- and that year was just more of the same. It's this injury after the last one after the one before that after the one before that -- and on and on and on. In fact, this is how many separate injuries just this calendar year? 3? 4? 5? I'm losing count. In addition (and perhaps important to some) foot injuries on players who are big and players whose games depend on jumping are a very bad thing that can linger forevvvvveeeeerrrrrr.

HOPE he can be healthier? Sure, that makes sense. But based on how we got here, it's not the basket you want to put your eggs in. Build around that? That wouldn't be smart at all.

I think we're talking past each other a little bit.  I'm not denying that Lively has a troublesome history with injuries at all and I'm not suggesting building around him either at this point.

This is what I would frame as admitting what we have.  A 21 year old only in his third pro year who has shown flashes of being a really good piece who is recovering from foot surgery on a pretty shitty team that shouldn't be winning games this season if they're valuing the future and happens to be up for an extension next year.  

So I guess the question is what would you do in that situation?  I actually think that he's playing himself into a what would be considered a much lower annual contract number if he extends this season compared to what everyone thought would be an immediate, no questions asked, max contract watching him as a rookie.  With that in mind, I'm still extending him this offseason because I kind of want to take advantage of that and hope it works out because if that doesn't work out....who cares this team isn't competing for championships for a long time, even if Lively gets healthy.

Is your position that we shouldn't extend him?

[F Gump]

I think we're talking past each other a little bit.  I'm not denying that Lively has a troublesome history with injuries at all and I'm not suggesting building around him either at this point.

This is what I would frame as admitting what we have.  A 21 year old only in his third pro year who has shown flashes of being a really good piece who is recovering from foot surgery on a pretty shitty team that shouldn't be winning games this season if they're valuing the future and happens to be up for an extension next year.  

So I guess the question is what would you do in that situation?  I actually think that he's playing himself into a what would be considered a much lower annual contract number if he extends this season compared to what everyone thought would be an immediate, no questions asked, max contract watching him as a rookie.  With that in mind, I'm still extending him this offseason because I kind of want to take advantage of that and hope it works out because if that doesn't work out....who cares this team isn't competing for championships for a long time, even if Lively gets healthy.

Is your position that we shouldn't extend him?

Two parts to my answer ...

1  I have not been addressing the financial possibilities at all. None of what I have said has had any real connection to the extension question. But if I go there now: I don't think extending him is going to be a viable option, because I don't think either side will like the other's numbers. Here's how I think it is most likely to play out.
....MAVS - Because of his injury history, DL will have to "prove" to them he can stay healthy before the they make a bigger commitment. But imo it's way too late in the timeline for that, because the window for an extension opens and closes next summer. The BEST he can offer by that point would be that he's been healthy for how long - a half season in a row? - and we can't even assume that much will be true. Mavs offer will come in fairly low, but of course they will want him to extend at that number. 
....DL - He won't want to be locked into a lower number and will ask for a big number. And frankly, is Dallas the team he can trust his medical maintenance and recovery to their staff? So he will decline the extension they offer, play out season 4, and try to prove himself in season 4 after which he will be RFA. It will play out like Josh Green did, and with similar angst in the discussions featuring major alarmism over how the Mavs blew it and now he will cost $200M or so.
....Once he's a RFA in summer 2027, both sides will see how much the rest of the NBA values him, and both sides will figure out how they want to navigate things from there. IMO no way to avoid that, and it brings no guarantees. The Mavs will only have to pay what someone else will offer. Who knows what others will be willing to pay? But all of that makes his long-term future in Dallas a bit uncertain, and based on his inability to stay healthy, rightly so.

2 However --- My "position" has nothing to do with extensions or next contracts (because they aren't at that crossroads yet, and likely won't even be there until the summer of 2027). And there's no good way to talk trade either -- the Mavs don't know his long-term value, other teams don't know it either, and neither do we, so everything with him is in a long-term holding pattern to see what emerges.

What my position is -- ie the point I have been making -- is that, with his injury history being so ongoing, and no end in sight, anyone who is planning on him as a MAVS' BUILDING BLOCK for the future and as a FUTURE STAR CENTER is ignoring all the facts up to this point. So far he is always just another injury waiting to happen. He is also a looming financial nightmare to deal with in 2027 from which we can't be sure he remains a Mav. And his past production has been so limited minutes-wise that we certainly can't say his future presence will give us many years of top-tier center play -- out of the 4000 minutes per year at center, will he even be able to ever play as many as 1500 in a season? If we guesstimate that in future years he will be playing 40-55 games each season (due to injuries and injury "management"), and will average 20-25 mpg, the UPPER extreme of that has the Mavs only getting 1375 minutes from him per season. That's not enough minutes to be a solution at C, or to pay big money for, or to get major impact from.

SUMMARY of my position is this - We can't and shouldn't make plans that say "We have the center position filled with a great center solution for the long term, because we have Lively -- and he's only 21."

Is it possible that it all changes in the future and he's healthy and plays full time? Sure, it's possible. But that's not what we should expect at all, because he has NEVER been able to do that, ever.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://x.com/basednoahh/status/1993910905369973143


Nico was seen at a Dallas bar.

[FireNicoHarrison]

https://x.com/basednoahh/status/1993910905369973143


Nico was seen at a Dallas bar.

What a puppet