Trade & FA 2025-26: Free Agency Starts 5pm CST/6pm EST

[KillerLeft]

We've talked a lot about "sunk cost" relative to the Luka trade and what might motivate the team to expect a lot (too much?) out of moving AD...

I think the real, over-arching issue is "sunk cost" relative to the team having so recently been in the NBA finals. People on different ends of the AD trade spectrum are talking about the merits of their position on that specific issue, but really where they are opposed, imho, is about whether or not this team has any chance of being good next season. It's what we're not talking about enough, I think.

If you think guys like AD, PJW, Thompson, Kyrie, Marshall, etc, have a chance of still being here when the team is competitive, then I think you don't move them unless you get GOOD offers. If you don't, then you kind of owe it to yourself (in the Mavs' shoes) to admit that to yourself and get whatever you can for any/all of them. I think some of the incredulous disbelief I'm reading that others don't agree with the valuation of some of these trade proposals really boils down to an assumption that we're all seeing this team's near future prospects on the court the same way, and I don't think that's true.

Further, I don't think it's as obvious which way that will go as most who are ardent in their outlooks probably believe. Those who assume this team is just a reshuffle and improved health away from competitive play might be correct, but some of them seemed pretty convinced this year's team would be good, and we all see how that's worked out. Those who think it's a forgone conclusion that the team must start completely over from scratch (they're not stating it in those terms, but I believe they feel that way without admitting it, even to themselves in some cases) might be surprised at just how good this team can be super quickly, given how fast Flagg is improving, provided the talent is shuffled in a way that offers more synergy around him (and with improved health).

I'm honestly not sure which way to lean, myself, but for the Mavs, it occurs to me that making that determination..which direction do we go? That's the first domino that needs to fall, and we haven't talked about it as much as I think we should.

[loki]

We've talked a lot about "sunk cost" relative to the Luka trade and what might motivate the team to expect a lot (too much?) out of moving AD...

I think the real, over-arching issue is "sunk cost" relative to the team having so recently been in the NBA finals. People on different ends of the AD trade spectrum are talking about the merits of their position on that specific issue, but really where they are opposed, imho, is about whether or not this team has any chance of being good next season. It's what we're not talking about enough, I think.

If you think guys like AD, PJW, Thompson, Kyrie, Marshall, etc, have a chance of still being here when the team is competitive, then I think you don't move them unless you get GOOD offers. If you don't, then you kind of owe it to yourself (in the Mavs' shoes) to admit that to yourself and get whatever you can for any/all of them. I think some of the incredulous disbelief I'm reading that others don't agree with the valuation of some of these trade proposals really boils down to an assumption that we're all seeing this team's near future prospects on the court the same way, and I don't think that's true.

Further, I don't think it's as obvious which way that will go as most who are ardent in their outlooks probably believe. Those who assume this team is just a reshuffle and improved health away from competitive play might be correct, but some of them seemed pretty convinced this year's team would be good, and we all see how that's worked out. Those who think it's a forgone conclusion that the team must start completely over from scratch (they're not stating it in those terms, but I believe they feel that way without admitting it, even to themselves in some cases) might be surprised at just how good this team can be super quickly, given how fast Flagg is improving, provided the talent is shuffled in a way that offers more synergy around him (and with improved health).

I'm honestly not sure which way to lean, myself, but for the Mavs, it occurs to me that making that determination..which direction do we go? That's the first domino that needs to fall, and we haven't talked about it as much as I think we should.

To some extent the AD injury has pushed this decision out. Guys like Gaff/Klay/Marshall are good players, but I don't think they're irreplaceable if the Mavs want to move one or two of them at the deadline and still try to contend next year. Bringing back Kyrie and AD while adding a high draft pick could more than make up for their loss.

But if I had to make the call now, I lean more towards starting over from scratch. As good as Flagg has been I still think he needs 3-4 years to have a shot at growing into a #1 on a contender type of player. After he put up 23/6/5 on nearly 60% TS in December I thought he might be ready sooner. However, so far in January he's down to 17/6/5 on 50% TS. Luka spoiled us by ascending to All-NBA 1st team in his 2nd season like it was no big deal. I don't think we should get our hopes up by expecting the same from Flagg.

[Smitty]

We've talked a lot about "sunk cost" relative to the Luka trade and what might motivate the team to expect a lot (too much?) out of moving AD...

I think the real, over-arching issue is "sunk cost" relative to the team having so recently been in the NBA finals. People on different ends of the AD trade spectrum are talking about the merits of their position on that specific issue, but really where they are opposed, imho, is about whether or not this team has any chance of being good next season. It's what we're not talking about enough, I think.

If you think guys like AD, PJW, Thompson, Kyrie, Marshall, etc, have a chance of still being here when the team is competitive, then I think you don't move them unless you get GOOD offers. If you don't, then you kind of owe it to yourself (in the Mavs' shoes) to admit that to yourself and get whatever you can for any/all of them. I think some of the incredulous disbelief I'm reading that others don't agree with the valuation of some of these trade proposals really boils down to an assumption that we're all seeing this team's near future prospects on the court the same way, and I don't think that's true.

Further, I don't think it's as obvious which way that will go as most who are ardent in their outlooks probably believe. Those who assume this team is just a reshuffle and improved health away from competitive play might be correct, but some of them seemed pretty convinced this year's team would be good, and we all see how that's worked out. Those who think it's a forgone conclusion that the team must start completely over from scratch (they're not stating it in those terms, but I believe they feel that way without admitting it, even to themselves in some cases) might be surprised at just how good this team can be super quickly, given how fast Flagg is improving, provided the talent is shuffled in a way that offers more synergy around him (and with improved health).

I'm honestly not sure which way to lean, myself, but for the Mavs, it occurs to me that making that determination..which direction do we go? That's the first domino that needs to fall, and we haven't talked about it as much as I think we should.

The Mavs won’t be a contender next year by any means. Mostly because their best two players aren’t on the court enough. I’m fine with AD and Kyrie being here through their contract though. To bridge the gap to when Cooper is that Top-10 in the league type player. I don’t want the Mavs to make moves to improve their perceived contention status next year or anything. As in, send a future pick for a more win-now player. If they win organically because their best players are healthy, so be it.

I think that’s how they should operate. Sell high on Vets that may not fit in 2-3 years, collect assets, and focus on player development.

[KillerLeft]

The Mavs won’t be a contender next year by any means. Mostly because their best two players aren’t on the court enough. I’m fine with AD and Kyrie being here through their contract though. To bridge the gap to when Cooper is that Top-10 in the league type player. I don’t want the Mavs to make moves to improve their perceived contention status next year or anything. As in, send a future pick for a more win-now player. If they win organically because their best players are healthy, so be it.

I think that’s how they should operate. Sell high on Vets that may not fit in 2-3 years, collect assets, and focus on player development.

See, right there. With respect, I can't wrap my head around this logic, and I feel you're sidestepping the question, somewhat, despite giving clear answers. 

To be clear, I don't know which way is the right way to go, but I'm uncomfortable with this sort of line straddling. If, like you state, I thought for sure "the Mavs won't be a contender next year by any means," then I'd very quickly settle on the notion that almost all vets need to be liquidated into either draft capital, extremely young players or both.

And, it's not that I don't see the value in mixing vets in with the youngsters - I've always been a proponent of continuity and experience in this community. But, the team just doesn't have many assets other than some attractive veteran role players. If they're not going to be good (by my definition, a contender), then they need to get busy acquiring assets that aren't going to age out so quickly. 

What I'm saying is that those who've chosen a clear direction on how to handle this trade deadline seem to have decided what they believe in terms of the team's near future, whether they realize it consciously or not. 

I just don't think it's as clear as some think whether or not they'll be good. I'm a little paralyzed by indecision, and I wonder if the Mavs are, too.

[mvossman]

We've talked a lot about "sunk cost" relative to the Luka trade and what might motivate the team to expect a lot (too much?) out of moving AD...

I think the real, over-arching issue is "sunk cost" relative to the team having so recently been in the NBA finals. People on different ends of the AD trade spectrum are talking about the merits of their position on that specific issue, but really where they are opposed, imho, is about whether or not this team has any chance of being good next season. It's what we're not talking about enough, I think.

If you think guys like AD, PJW, Thompson, Kyrie, Marshall, etc, have a chance of still being here when the team is competitive, then I think you don't move them unless you get GOOD offers. If you don't, then you kind of owe it to yourself (in the Mavs' shoes) to admit that to yourself and get whatever you can for any/all of them. I think some of the incredulous disbelief I'm reading that others don't agree with the valuation of some of these trade proposals really boils down to an assumption that we're all seeing this team's near future prospects on the court the same way, and I don't think that's true.

Further, I don't think it's as obvious which way that will go as most who are ardent in their outlooks probably believe. Those who assume this team is just a reshuffle and improved health away from competitive play might be correct, but some of them seemed pretty convinced this year's team would be good, and we all see how that's worked out. Those who think it's a forgone conclusion that the team must start completely over from scratch (they're not stating it in those terms, but I believe they feel that way without admitting it, even to themselves in some cases) might be surprised at just how good this team can be super quickly, given how fast Flagg is improving, provided the talent is shuffled in a way that offers more synergy around him (and with improved health).

I'm honestly not sure which way to lean, myself, but for the Mavs, it occurs to me that making that determination..which direction do we go? That's the first domino that needs to fall, and we haven't talked about it as much as I think we should.

I think a real important part of this is defining what competitive means.  Does it mean contention?  Or does it mean when healthy they could get to the second round of the playoffs?  I think they will be competitive in the second sense, but not in the first.  

As for somebody who thinks they need to reset, I wouldn't say its starting over completely from scratch.  I think Flagg/Max/Lively is a good core to start with.  But most of the rest of the guys will be gone.  The finals team was almost a complete overhaul from two years prior.

[KillerLeft]

I would add that, in addition to the "expert negotiation skills" we always talk about around here as part of the GM discussions, one of the main advantages I see in teams with good ones is a clear and confident direction for the franchise. In other words, someone at some point soon has to make the call which way they want this thing to go, and I'd feel a lot better if that determination wasn't being made by a committee of "meh" folks that happen to have survived the consequences of the organization's last year.

[KillerLeft]

I think a real important part of this is defining what competitive means.  Does it mean contention?  Or does it mean when healthy they could get to the second round of the playoffs?  I think they will be competitive in the second sense, but not in the first.  

Well, it's a good and key question, I agree. 

I'll push back pretty significantly on the distinction you make above. One of the things I feel I've learned during my NBA fandom (and all of sports fandom, really) is that while it's tempting to make determinations like this, they are frequently counterproductive and inaccurate, despite what seems like common sense, careful analysis, historical, fact-based tracking, etc. The reality is that if your team is of a quality to reach the 2nd round, they ARE a contender. Period. It might SEEM like there are only 2-3 teams with a chance to win each season, and the "smart money" might be to assume one of them will, especially when you're as close to the day-to-day goings on around the sport as fans like us, but the reality of sports is that crazy things happen. None of us here believed the 2011 Mavs were a "contender." Literally, none of us. Many still didn't like the team's chances after they swept the Lakers, even. 

I'm not as confident as you that the 2nd round is a possibility for this team next year with this ill-fitting roster and this coaching staff. But if I were, I'd contently call that team a contender, personally. Reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs is a hell of a good season, and much, much more enjoyable than the one we're witnessing now.

[Smitty]

See, right there. With respect, I can't wrap my head around this logic, and I feel you're sidestepping the question, somewhat, despite giving clear answers. 

To be clear, I don't know which way is the right way to go, but I'm uncomfortable with this sort of line straddling. If, like you state, I thought for sure "the Mavs won't be a contender next year by any means," then I'd very quickly settle on the notion that almost all vets need to be liquidated into either draft capital, extremely young players or both.

And, it's not that I don't see the value in mixing vets in with the youngsters - I've always been a proponent of continuity and experience in this community. But, the team just doesn't have many assets other than some attractive veteran role players. If they're not going to be good (by my definition, a contender), then they need to get busy acquiring assets that aren't going to age out so quickly. 

What I'm saying is that those who've chosen a clear direction on how to handle this trade deadline seem to have decided what they believe in terms of the team's near future, whether they realize it consciously or not. 

I just don't think it's as clear as some think whether or not they'll be good. I'm a little paralyzed by indecision, and I wonder if the Mavs are, too.

I look at who’s under contract next season and try to categorize it.

All-Star level Vets: Davis, Kyrie
Core: Flagg, Christie, Lively, ‘26 FRP
Sell High Vets: Gafford, Naji, Klay
Hold: PJW, Martin
Anchors: DLO, Hardy
Develop: Nembhard, Cisse, Kelly

The Mavs have no draft pick next year so there’s no harm in having Davis and/or Kyrie on your roster. You can be competitive. The harm would be extending either of them. There’s also no harm in selling them, unless it’s pennies on the dollar? Because again, there’s no harm for them being on the roster next season.

I would sell high on the 3 vets that have positive value league wide. They either don’t fit with Flagg (IMO) or won’t be here when he’s ready to take over the league.

I would hold on PJ and Martin. One I think can be a good fit. The other is negative value, and I’m not in a position to be sending assets to offload negative contracts.

DLO and Hardy fit into the don’t send out assets category. They’ll both be off your books after next season, so you’re stuck with them for 12 more months.


I don’t think there’s some major need to get rid of everyone 25 and older and replace them with a 19 year old. I also don’t think it’s practical to make 7 trades of everyone that “doesn’t fit” Flagg next year. It’s kind of a bridge year in a way. If you are keeping Davis, due to lack of market, and Kyrie wants to be here.. You have a pathway to be good in Flagg’s second season. The reason it probably won’t work is health.

The only major decision I think this team needs to make this summer is whether or not to extend Kyrie, Davis, Naji. I would elect to say no to all 3.

[mvossman]

Well, it's a good and key question, I agree. 

I'll push back pretty significantly on the distinction you make above. One of the things I feel I've learned during my NBA fandom (and all of sports fandom, really) is that while it's tempting to make determinations like this, they are frequently counterproductive and inaccurate, despite what seems like common sense, careful analysis, historical, fact-based tracking, etc. The reality is that if your team is of a quality to reach the 2nd round, they ARE a contender. Period. It might SEEM like there are only 2-3 teams with a chance to win each season, and the "smart money" might be to assume one of them will, especially when you're as close to the day-to-day goings on around the sport as fans like us, but the reality of sports is that crazy things happen. None of us here believed the 2011 Mavs were a "contender." Literally, none of us. Many still didn't like the team's chances after they swept the Lakers, even. 

I'm not as confident as you that the 2nd round is a possibility for this team next year with this ill-fitting roster and this coaching staff. But if I were, I'd contently call that team a contender, personally. Reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs is a hell of a good season, and much, much more enjoyable than the one we're witnessing now.

There are like 15 or 20 teams that could win a playoff round this season.  Do you consider all of them contenders?

That Mavs team won 57 games and came in second in the West.  We didn't think they could win because we watched them fail so badly in prior playoff runs, but that was not a team I would have said second round max (I feared it though.  I still remember watching them blow that big lead against Portland).

I think if they run this team back it will be good (when healthy) but not great.  I don't think they have the ceiling to get to the finals and I don't think there is any chance they could stay healthy for a long playoff run regardless.

[mvossman]

I look at who’s under contract next season and try to categorize it.

All-Star level Vets: Davis, Kyrie
Core: Flagg, Christie, Lively, ‘26 FRP
Sell High Vets: Gafford, Naji, Klay
Hold: PJW, Martin
Anchors: DLO, Hardy
Develop: Nembhard, Cisse, Kelly

The Mavs have no draft pick next year so there’s no harm in having Davis and/or Kyrie on your roster. You can be competitive. The harm would be extending either of them. There’s also no harm in selling them, unless it’s pennies on the dollar? Because again, there’s no harm for them being on the roster next season.

I would sell high on the 3 vets that have positive value league wide. They either don’t fit with Flagg (IMO) or won’t be here when he’s ready to take over the league.

I would hold on PJ and Martin. One I think can be a good fit. The other is negative value, and I’m not in a position to be sending assets to offload negative contracts.

DLO and Hardy fit into the don’t send out assets category. They’ll both be off your books after next season, so you’re stuck with them for 12 more months.


I don’t think there’s some major need to get rid of everyone 25 and older and replace them with a 19 year old. I also don’t think it’s practical to make 7 trades of everyone that “doesn’t fit” Flagg next year. It’s kind of a bridge year in a way. If you are keeping Davis, due to lack of market, and Kyrie wants to be here.. You have a pathway to be good in Flagg’s second season. The reason it probably won’t work is health.

The only major decision I think this team needs to make this summer is whether or not to extend Kyrie, Davis, Naji. I would elect to say no to all 3.

I agree with most of this.  I'm afraid pennies on the dollar is all they are ever going to get for AD.  This latest injury killed any hope I had of getting value for him this TDL (or ever).  I am not looking forward to dealing with that for another two years.  The constant waiting for the next injury, the fear of Mavs caving and giving him any kind of an extension and otherwise dealing with his disgruntled agent.  I'm a little worried that might impact Lively's extension (who shares the same agent).

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

I would add that, in addition to the "expert negotiation skills" we always talk about around here as part of the GM discussions, one of the main advantages I see in teams with good ones is a clear and confident direction for the franchise. In other words, someone at some point soon has to make the call which way they want this thing to go, and I'd feel a lot better if that determination wasn't being made by a committee of "meh" folks that happen to have survived the consequences of the organization's last year.

I thought they already made the decision...Then AD got injured.  If AD had stayed healthy and gotten dealt, they would have continued to tear it down.  

Now if they're stuck with AD, they might be re-evaluating more akin to what you said.  Why just give away the veterans unless we're getting future assets back?  We can run a 45 win team out there next year and sell some tickets and stay relevant.

Doesn't really help that none of these guys have much trade value. 
If there's a 1st rd pick on the table for any of them, I think the Mavs will still pull the trigger. I don't think we'll see any report that the Mavs turned down a 1st rd pick for Gafford, or Naji, or Klay, or PJ.  Is anyone offering a 1st for these guys?

[Smitty]

I agree with most of this.  I'm afraid pennies on the dollar is all they are ever going to get for AD.  This latest injury killed any hope I had of getting value for him this TDL (or ever).  I am not looking forward to dealing with that for another two years.  The constant waiting for the next injury, the fear of Mavs caving and giving him any kind of an extension and otherwise dealing with his disgruntled agent.  I'm a little worried that might impact Lively's extension (who shares the same agent).

I don’t want to rehash the value of Davis. We’ve beat that horse to death. I just don’t see it as the Mavs MUST decide by this TDL or in the off-season if they want to have him on the roster to start ‘26-‘27. That decision might be made for them by the market. I would break it down and say the only decision they NEED to make is if they want to sell high on the vets listed and if they want to offer extensions to the ones eligible.

We need to keep in mind that the Mavs will also make moves at next years trade deadline. They can keep everything as-is this Summer, if they absolutely wanted to, and push some of those things down the line. I don’t call it straddling. I call it team building. It takes two to tango. Just because we think the Mavs should trade someone doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. ”Value” is different for every team in the league. Timing is important. Just because I think they should sell high on Naji, doesn’t mean there’s a team out there willing to give a FRP, or what I would call “good value”. If that’s the case, fine. That’s why I say the Mavs don’t HAVE to make any decisions right now and describe next season as a “bridge year”, where some of this will work itself out in time.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

I agree with most of this.  I'm afraid pennies on the dollar is all they are ever going to get for AD.  This latest injury killed any hope I had of getting value for him this TDL (or ever).  I am not looking forward to dealing with that for another two years.  The constant waiting for the next injury, the fear of Mavs caving and giving him any kind of an extension and otherwise dealing with his disgruntled agent.  I'm a little worried that might impact Lively's extension (who shares the same agent).

They are completely screwed after the AD injury.  Unless they get lucky in the lottery again. 

It's like the guy with the broken down old sports car that refuses all offers saying "I know what I have." Eventually, he will get nothing for it.

[mvossman]

I don’t want to rehash the value of Davis. We’ve beat that horse to death. I just don’t see it as the Mavs MUST decide by this TDL or in the off-season if they want to have him on the roster to start ‘26-‘27. That decision might be made for them by the market. I would break it down and say the only decision they NEED to make is if they want to sell high on the vets listed and if they want to offer extensions to the ones elegible.

We need to keep in mind that the Mavs will also make moves at next years trade deadline. They can keep everything as-is this Summer, if they absolutely wanted to, and push some of those things down the line. I don’t call it straddling. I call it team building. It takes two to tango. Just because we think the Mavs should trade someone doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. ”Value” is different for every team in the league. Timing is important. Just because I think they should sell high on Naji, doesn’t mean there’s a team out there willing to give a FRP, or what I would call “good value”. If that’s the case, fine. That’s why I say the Mavs don’t HAVE to make any decisions right now and describe next season as a “bridge year”, where some of this will work itself out in time.

Well, the other decision they need to make is if the want to pay tax and how much.  If they don't want to pay tax next season then they have some work to do this TDL or the offseason is going to be painful.

[Smitty]

Well, the other decision they need to make is if the want to pay tax and how much.  If they don't want to pay tax next season then they have some work to do this TDL or the offseason is going to be painful.

I suspect that decision has already been made and we’ll know which direction based on the moves they make, if any.

[mvossman]

They are completely screwed after the AD injury.  Unless they get lucky in the lottery again. 

It's like the guy with the broken down old sports car that refuses all offers saying "I know what I have."  Eventually, he will get nothing for it.

I'm not sure how much value AD had before that injury.  I think a lottery pick in the upcoming draft is probably worth more than what they could have gotten for AD.  The silver lining of AD injury was supposed to be improved draft positioning but that hasn't panned out so far.

[loki]

Doesn't really help that none of these guys have much trade value. 
If there's a 1st rd pick on the table for any of them, I think the Mavs will still pull the trigger. I don't think we'll see any report that the Mavs turned down a 1st rd pick for Gafford, or Naji, or Klay, or PJ.  Is anyone offering a 1st for these guys?

Klay-Definitely not.
Naji-Debatable. I don't think so, but many here do.
Gafford-He went for a late 1st two years ago and I think he's still worth that. The ankle injury and lack of a point guard explains his tough year.
PJ-He went for a top 2 protected 1st two years ago and has been better than expected. I think there are a ton of contenders who love to add him. He could be worth a late lottery pick.

[cow]

Klay-Definitely not.
Naji-Debatable. I don't think so, but many here do.
Gafford-He went for a late 1st two years ago and I think he's still worth that. The ankle injury and lack of a point guard explains his tough year.
PJ-He went for a top 2 protected 1st two years ago and has been better than expected. I think there are a ton of contenders who love to add him. He could be worth a late lottery pick.

Mostly agree, I don't think Naji is all that debatable as the type of a team that would bid for his services, a contender, would be willing to sacrifice their own first rounder assuming that pick would convey soon and be in the 20s.

[Dirknows]

I suspect that decision has already been made and we’ll know which direction based on the moves they make, if any.

I'm not too familiar with the repeater tax rules and all I really know is 2nd apron=bad. But I think they definitely need to get under the tax at the deadline, it makes no sense to be in that position with this current team.

[KillerLeft]

Naji Marshall, and to a slightly lesser extent, Gafford, are basically gold to contenders right about now. Both good players (Marshall's play currently reaching all time high levels), both on good contracts (especially Marshall, but Gafford's is good, too, provided his new team has a starting role in mind). Both of them are worth a first or two for sure, considering the type of firsts good teams have to offer.

Again, the problem is "why?" There is a very low chance that you'd find a player as good as either with a late first round pick, and even if you hit on the pick(s) it will be 2-4 years (starting when the pick is made - the drafts in question might be a few years down the road already) before you have a player who's the equivalent of what you're giving up with either of those two. If you think you'll be bad for the next few years, that's a decent risk to take because before long those guys (Marshall and Gafford) will be old and worth less, anyway. But, if there's a chance of being good in the next year or so, letting go of those guys (for draft capital, at least) could be a mistake (unless you get back better fitting pieces of equivalent quality, not just picks).

I just don't know what I think they should do, frankly. Honestly, if there was just a starting level PG here, I might be in favor of trying to compete next season, in which case I'd be looking at reshaping the roster in a completely different light. It's really that close of a call for me.