TRADE: Tyus Jones to DAL | Branham to CHA

[Chicagojk]

Thanks for that long analysis.

So back to the question. If I understand you correctly, your preference would be that no one gets waived, and they do NOT make moves to convert Nemby and/or Cisse to regular NBA deals and to lock them up on future years at NBA minimum deals (which means their seasons end by the end of Feb and they go back to the GL)?

When is the date where players need to be on a roster to be playoff eligible?   If so, I would get right up to that date.  If you decide either of Bagley or Middleton are not in your plans for next year, I would let them go and try to get Nemhbard and/or Cisse on a minimum deal this year and for net year (non guaranteed).   I think both have shown enough that they deserve that.    Maybe they don't make the squad but I think both should.   

If you like what you see from Middleton and Bagley, I am fine keeping them if you think you are ok with what they are looking for next year.

[Scott41theMavs]

Isn't it likely that the Mavs are of the belief that not only do they have higher priorities than chasing all the losses they can attain, but also that they can't really make much of a diff anyhow, even with a random extra win here or there?

They won't make the play-in, so their limit is pick 10 on one end. They also have a really hard time "catching up" to any of those currently in the top 6, most of whom have a sizable gap difference, and that includes 2 teams (WAS, UT) who simply MUST land in the 1-6 range or lower or else they have a big risk to lose their pick. So I expect those in 1-6 will do what it takes to say in that 1-6 tier.

That means the Mavs are set to land in the 7-10 range (currently in 7) and I would suggest they may not be all that worried - at least for now - as to which of those it is. Maybe in the last week or 2 of the season they shift a bit, but I think they want to have the best play possible from a lot of backup-caliber players that are unlikely to win even if they are "unleashed".

Once again, I cannot disagree more re: Mav wins the rest of the year vs. "catching" the top six tankers.

The Mavs cannot control what happens with those top six. They can control what happens with them. If I'm running the front office, I'm telling Kidd that his secondary mandate is to gauge the fit of the current players with Flagg and what most complements his game, but his primary mandate is a hard, set in marble cap of seven more wins the rest of the way, and even that may be too much. 

It's not just a matter of "the future of our franchise depends on the luck of the ping-pong balls," (we can't control what the ping-pong ball do, that's crazy, man) but also what happens in the worse-case (and more likely than not) scenario that you don't make the top four. There could be a simple monumental difference between picking fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, or tenth, and the importance of getting a cornerstone player in this draft is simply do-or-die. They can't control what the ping-pong ball do, but they can do what is necessary to produce the best pick possible. If they don't pick at least seventh in this draft, to me, that means that more front office malpractice took place between now and the play-in. 

No one seems to have mentioned regarding last night's game that Christie's "ill-fated" (lol hells to the no) hero ball was probably Kidd's specific call. Give the kid the experience of having the game in his hands. After all, he can learn from failure, and what you wanted to happen, happened.

Oh, and perhaps nothing is more important, once again, to keep beating the cowbell, than getting the right decision-maker in place to make the pick. Wherever the Mavs pick, it had damn well better be the guy whom, in five years time, the league and journalistic consensus is that he was the best guy still on the board at that pick.

[Mavs2021]

I think the consensus about this draft is you have an obvious top-3 and arguably a pretty clear top-4 or 5 and then things really level off. It's an eye of the beholder draft beyond 5. Lottery odds really level off as well. The difference between having the 6th worst record and the 9th is only 4.5%.

 What?

The 6th odds are 37.2% to land a top 4 pick, 96.1% to be top 8.
The 9th odds are 20.5% to land a top 4 pick, 0% to be 6th, 7th or 8th.

If they not stressed or aware of the difference between the 6th odds and 9th odds, they are morons. That range is actually by far the most important range. 

You lose 0% from 1 to 3.
You lose 4% from 1 to 4.
You lose 10% from 1 to 5.
You lose 16.7% from 6 to 9.

That´s why most teams aim for bottom four/five and once they are comfy down there like the Pacers or Wizards, they don´t mind a win as long as the cushion to the Jazz remains solid.

We are in a very crucial battle with Memphis and Milwaukee to secure the 7th odds. Furthermore the Grizzlies are excellent drafters, so if you pick right behind them, odds are they just took a very good player off the board.  Furthermore the higher up you are the better your odds to take advantage of your draft position. Let´s say everybody is right and this is indeed a 5-6 player no brainer draft. That means #6 and #7 will field the most calls, when another team feels very strongly about a player and wants to secure him.

[F Gump]

The 10th spot has a 14% chance to land top 4 and the 7th spot has a 32% Chance.  You more than double your odds by landing 7th.  Considering how valuable it would be to get a top 4 pick, I think an extra almost 20% chance is worth a lot.  I don't know what the Mavs mindset is going to be, but there is a lot of value in continuing to lose right now.

[AND TO SCOTT ALSO]

Let's be real - the Mavs from here WILL continue to lose, no matter what they do. It's not like they can flip a switch and suddenly win all the time - they aren't even a .500-caliber team. And once you mix in injuries and "injuries" as needed, the potential for winning regularly is even lower, even though playing hard and trying. They have 31 to play, and if you watch the standings, winning 3 of 10 is typically worse than what is typical even at the bottom, so that means we might see 9-10 wins from here and still go nowhere. I'm not going to obsess over those 9-10. But I won't be highly bummed when they lose, either. I'm mostly interested in how they can find some keepers to build with, maybe, and make their guys better.

I think they are likely to land at 7-8, and will win some games along the way to landing there. A few they may win by some lucky breaks, but at certain points they will be desperate for a win (and may or may NOT figure out how to get it, because they are not that good). But I promise you that what each team in the tank does has a ripple effect too. When a team's place in the tank gets threatened, they suddenly lose every game. If a team has latitude to win without messing up their tank setting, they may win. Later when it's tighter, they may lose 5 in a row. But that game or two you won earlier, had you lost it, it would NOT have made a true diff -- the other teams would have backed up accordingly, as needed. And the difference between picking 7 or 8 or 9 depends entirely on your team's ability to scout and project superbly. That's where the real focus should be imo.

[F Gump]

When is the date where players need to be on a roster to be playoff eligible?   If so, I would get right up to that date.  If you decide either of Bagley or Middleton are not in your plans for next year, I would let them go and try to get Nemhbard and/or Cisse on a minimum deal this year and for next year (non guaranteed).   I think both have shown enough that they deserve that.    Maybe they don't make the squad but I think both should.   

If you like what you see from Middleton and Bagley, I am fine keeping them if you think you are ok with what they are looking for next year.

The date is Mar 1. If waived by that date, a player can sign and is playoff eligible. 

Thanks for your ideas on the question. It makes sense.

[Scott41theMavs]

[AND TO SCOTT ALSO]

Let's be real - the Mavs from here WILL continue to lose, no matter what they do. It's not like they can flip a switch and suddenly win all the time - they aren't even a .500-caliber team. And once you mix in injuries and "injuries" as needed, the potential for winning regularly is even lower, even though playing hard and trying. They have 31 to play, and if you watch the standings, winning 3 of 10 is typically worse than what is typical even at the bottom, so that means we might see 9-10 wins from here and still go nowhere. I'm not going to obsess over those 9-10. But I won't be highly bummed when they lose, either. I'm mostly interested in how they can find some keepers to build with, maybe, and make their guys better.

I think they are likely to land at 7-8, and will win some games along the way to landing there. A few they may win by some lucky breaks, but at certain points they will be desperate for a win (and may or may NOT figure out how to get it, because they are not that good). But I promise you that what each team in the tank does has a ripple effect too. When a team's place in the tank gets threatened, they suddenly lose every game. If a team has latitude to win without messing up their tank setting, they may win. Later when it's tighter, they may lose 5 in a row. But that game or two you won earlier, had you lost it, it would NOT have made a true diff -- the other teams would have backed up accordingly, as needed. And the difference between picking 7 or 8 or 9 depends entirely on your team's ability to scout and project superbly. That's where the real focus should be imo.

Keep in mind that 1) while Utah are always crafty tankers, we're not that far behind them; 2) the Pels have no motivation to tank (even if their performance thus far indicates that someone in the Hawks' organization has blackmail photos) and could go on a tear; and 3) Washington has been playing better lately. 

I don't think we have much of a chance to catch Brooklyn, Indiana, or the Kings.

I think my guess of 7 total remaining wins was a good metric, even though it's lower than .300 and would give the optic of intentional tanking. One of the other teams should catch us if we play that poorly (or tank that adeptly).

[DanSchwartzgan]

Thanks for that long analysis.

So back to the question. If I understand you correctly, your preference would be that no one gets waived, and they do NOT make moves to convert Nemby and/or Cisse to regular NBA deals and to lock them up on future years at NBA minimum deals (which means their seasons end by the end of Feb and they go back to the GL)?

Yes to both.  No one gets waived.  I’d park Nembhard and Cisse and only use their remaining games when injuries force your hand.  If I had intel that someone was going to make me match a larger than minimum contract for Nembhard this summer as an RFA, I might consider cutting Williams to get Nembhard on a standard contract.  Sorry, I know Williams is a favorite of yours.  AJJ is my new Williams.  I have a very good idea what the ceiling is for Williams.  I have no idea on Johnson.

But, I have my doubts that that will be necessary.  I get the advantage of doing it now.  I’m just not positive we will even need him next season depending on the draft.  And if we do, I don’t think he’s going to command a contract that we can’t handle.    


I find your position on ping pong balls hard to swallow, but probably accurate.  I want to maximize the chances of the best possible outcome.  But winning a few here and there is fun and culturally and developmentally positive.  The draft is flat after about 4-5.  So, unless we have another (once in franchise history) miracle again, we will have to count on scouting more than position.

Your comments about the draft made my mind go somewhere it hasn’t gone before.  Common wisdom says Flagg won’t be good enough to really put final pieces around until he’s closer to his mid-20’s.  I’m not sure that’s true with this kid.  Do we really want to put another 19 year old (taken 8th or 9th overall) next to Flagg and waste these two years with Irving?  I might consider trading our lottery pick for the right youngish high level starter if I’m in the 7-10 range.  There is a place in this draft where the upside is too great to pass up.  But, beyond that, I might rather have a player of a certain level.  I haven’t identified the player yet.  I really wish we had a late first in 27 so we could pile up some fake firsts to go after someone really good if we go down this road.  

Some will say that’s impatience.  I think it may be strategic.  It has to be the right player.  Flagg is special and I’m not sure we have to go through an extended rebuild when he’s likely to be a top 25 player next season and you still have Kyrie.  I’d be even more interested in such a strategy if I thought Lively would recover to full health.

[F Gump]

Keep in mind that 1) while Utah are always crafty tankers, we're not that far behind them; 2) the Pels have no motivation to tank (even if their performance thus far indicates that someone in the Hawks' organization has blackmail photos) and could go on a tear; and 3) Washington has been playing better lately. 

I don't think we have much of a chance to catch Brooklyn, Indiana, or the Kings.

I think my guess of 7 total remaining wins was a good metric, even though it's lower than .300 and would give the optic of intentional tanking. One of the other teams should catch us if we play that poorly (or tank that adeptly).

Thank you for the comments. Some notes on them ....
1 UT is very unlikely to move up to lottery seed 7 or 8, and is more likely to rabidly pursue 4-5. That's because they lose their pick if it turns out to be 9 or higher. (It's been traded to OKC but it has protection on picks 1-8). And here's the key - if the protection kicks in (ie if the pick is 1-8), not only do they keep it, but OKC gets nothing at all. SOOOOO - I'm am convinced UT will do whatever it takes to protect that pick. 
2 The same is true of WAS (they keep pick 1-8) although WAS will then pay 2 2nds instead, but it's a big enough swing where I think they are committed to tanking hard as well.
3 Yes, NOP has no incentive to lose, because they have no pick no matter what, but they have sucked all year, so it's hard to assume they will somehow start winning. They are just bad. 

Combine those with BKN, IND, SAC and that makes 6 teams the Mavs won't catch. UT is the closest, but also has the most incentive to lose every game. NO is the only one not tanking, but they may not be good enough to actually win enough, and they are quite a ways under the Mavs in the W column. 

That's why I think DAL is going to land in 7-8 and there's not a lot they can do about it. I think MEM will be their competition, and maybe MIL too, for slots 7-9.

[F Gump]

Yes to both.  No one gets waived.  I’d park Nembhard and Cisse and only use their remaining games when injuries force your hand.  If I had intel that someone was going to make me match a larger than minimum contract for Nembhard this summer as an RFA, I might consider cutting Williams to get Nembhard on a standard contract.  Sorry, I know Williams is a favorite of yours.  AJJ is my new Williams.  I have a very good idea what the ceiling is for Williams.  I have no idea on Johnson.

But, I have my doubts that that will be necessary.  I get the advantage of doing it now.  I’m just not positive we will even need him next season depending on the draft.  And if we do, I don’t think he’s going to command a contract that we can’t handle.    


I find your position on ping pong balls hard to swallow, but probably accurate.  I want to maximize the chances of the best possible outcome.  But winning a few here and there is fun and culturally and developmentally positive.  The draft is flat after about 4-5.  So, unless we have another (once in franchise history) miracle again, we will have to count on scouting more than position.

Your comments about the draft made my mind go somewhere it hasn’t gone before.  Common wisdom says Flagg won’t be good enough to really put final pieces around until he’s closer to his mid-20’s.  I’m not sure that’s true with this kid.  Do we really want to put another 19 year old (taken 8th or 9th overall) next to Flagg and waste these two years with Irving?  I might consider trading our lottery pick for the right youngish high level starter if I’m in the 7-10 range.  There is a place in this draft where the upside is too great to pass up.  But, beyond that, I might rather have a player of a certain level.  I haven’t identified the player yet.  I really wish we had a late first in 27 so we could pile up some fake firsts to go after someone really good if we go down this road.  

Some will say that’s impatience.  I think it may be strategic.  It has to be the right player.  Flagg is special and I’m not sure we have to go through an extended rebuild when he’s likely to be a top 25 player next season and you still have Kyrie.  I’d be even more interested in such a strategy if I thought Lively would recover to full health.

Thanks for your responses.

On the idea of trading the 1st, to me the best player to add alongside CF is the one with the best upside, rather than the one who is farthest along at the moment. CF's trajectory is like a rocket. I took some heat back in the summer when I said he needed to be used in challenging ways, even if he isn't yet up to the task, because he is a super fast learner who will grow his game incredibly quickly. He needs game opportunity to grow his skills. We are not even 2/3 of the way through season 1 and he's already leaps and bounds ahead of where he began the year. 

That won't stop. So just find the best talent, and hope they can grow their play as fast as he does.

As far as trading for that guy rather than draft pick, who is that guy who is still young, and who would be the perfect fit next to CF? And would he even be available? I don't recall these sort of trades elsewhere, do you?

PS This is where you need an expert GM!

Speaking of which, if we go back in NBA history, we can see a GM who did make a move like that. In 1980 BOS had added Bird a year earlier who had a stellar rookie season. Then they ended up with the top pick and there was a franchise-type center coming out of college. Auerbach traded that pick to GS, who sent them pick 3 and a young center. The center was named Parrish. Pick 3 was McHale. 

If the Mavs get more lottery luck and land pick 1 (or 2 or 3), would you do a trade like THAT?

[vfromlmf]

MacMahon seems to think Nembhard has a chance to stick. Obviously, if you watch the games, things often look much better when he's on the floor. But he's also small and has gotten himself into trouble quite a bit recently. I was really starting to think he may have a long career... overseas. Anyway, Macmahon talks to plenty of people I don't so I'm rethinking my position.

Interestingly, if you compare Nembhard's stats to his best-case outcome (who happens to be Tyus Jones) Nemby's numbers are actually better than Jones rookie numbers. And if you look at the 13 games he started in December Nemby's numbers are actually as good or better than Jones' season averages in the best year of his career, his 8th season!

I'm not ready to say the Mavs should cut someone to sign Nembhard but the rookie is back in the "maybe he's got something" category for me. And maybe Tyus Jones can teach him a thing or two.

[ThisIStheYear]

[AND TO SCOTT ALSO]

Let's be real - the Mavs from here WILL continue to lose, no matter what they do. It's not like they can flip a switch and suddenly win all the time - they aren't even a .500-caliber team. And once you mix in injuries and "injuries" as needed, the potential for winning regularly is even lower, even though playing hard and trying. They have 31 to play, and if you watch the standings, winning 3 of 10 is typically worse than what is typical even at the bottom, so that means we might see 9-10 wins from here and still go nowhere. I'm not going to obsess over those 9-10. But I won't be highly bummed when they lose, either. I'm mostly interested in how they can find some keepers to build with, maybe, and make their guys better.

I think they are likely to land at 7-8, and will win some games along the way to landing there. A few they may win by some lucky breaks, but at certain points they will be desperate for a win (and may or may NOT figure out how to get it, because they are not that good). But I promise you that what each team in the tank does has a ripple effect too. When a team's place in the tank gets threatened, they suddenly lose every game. If a team has latitude to win without messing up their tank setting, they may win. Later when it's tighter, they may lose 5 in a row. But that game or two you won earlier, had you lost it, it would NOT have made a true diff -- the other teams would have backed up accordingly, as needed. And the difference between picking 7 or 8 or 9 depends entirely on your team's ability to scout and project superbly. That's where the real focus should be imo.

I absolutely can’t stand all the tanking the current system created. The league should just level out the odds across the entire lottery.  I’d rather have bad teams stay bad than see all of this tanking. That said, the Mavs need to lose every game possible.

[mvossman]

And the difference between picking 7 or 8 or 9 depends entirely on your team's ability to scout and project superbly. That's where the real focus should be imo.

Of course scouting is crucial, but that scouting may tell you that you really wanted the guy that got picked at 7 while you are sitting at 9.  But that was not the point of my post that you responded to.  The biggest difference between the 7th and 9th odds is about the chances to land a top 4 pick.  I feel like the mindset around here is that they are both small chances and it doesn't make that much difference, but mathematically it makes a big difference.

[Scott41theMavs]

Thanks for your responses.

On the idea of trading the 1st, to me the best player to add alongside CF is the one with the best upside, rather than the one who is farthest along at the moment. CF's trajectory is like a rocket. I took some heat back in the summer when I said he needed to be used in challenging ways, even if he isn't yet up to the task, because he is a super fast learner who will grow his game incredibly quickly. He needs game opportunity to grow his skills. We are not even 2/3 of the way through season 1 and he's already leaps and bounds ahead of where he began the year. 

That won't stop. So just find the best talent, and hope they can grow their play as fast as he does.

As far as trading for that guy rather than draft pick, who is that guy who is still young, and who would be the perfect fit next to CF? And would he even be available? I don't recall these sort of trades elsewhere, do you?

PS This is where you need an expert GM!

Speaking of which, if we go back in NBA history, we can see a GM who did make a move like that. In 1980 BOS had added Bird a year earlier who had a stellar rookie season. Then they ended up with the top pick and there was a franchise-type center coming out of college. Auerbach traded that pick to GS, who sent them pick 3 and a young center. The center was named Parrish. Pick 3 was McHale. 

If the Mavs get more lottery luck and land pick 1 (or 2 or 3), would you do a trade like THAT?

One of the reasons the Mavs traded for KP in '19 was because of how "ahead of schedule" (which should have been easy to see for anyone with the brain before the draft even happened) Luka was, combined with the reality that they didn't have a pick because they used it to trade for Luka. CF is just as ahead of schedule as Luka was (imho, but I'll admit it's debatable), but the difference is we have our pick. 

In spite of no decent picks (aside from grabbing Brunson with Luka in '18 and the DL pick), the Mavs lucked into some success due to Brunson and then chessed into success due to Lindsay - and then of course promptly lost Lindsay and traded away the golden egg-laying goose. The single most obvious and speedy way for Dallas to become a perennial contender with Flagg as the flaggship is to nail this draft (as in, move up in it). If they don't, let's say that due to botched tanking and leapfrogging they pick 10th. This draft is so tremendous that there is a 100% chance that an average or better perennial starter (a guy who, in his prime, is going to command $18-20 m/year) is going to be available there. If you have the right GM, you'll get that guy as opposed to doing a Sacramento or a New Orleans. If you don't have the right guy and they botch it, then I suppose that isn't the end of the world as Lindsay showed us - but it does mean you're going to have to get a better guy real darn quick to fix what that guy messed up.

[mvossman]

We need one more starter from somewhere.  Right now that doesn't project to come from the draft.  It looks like a PG project behind Kyrie is the most likely outcome there.  So, my efforts this summer are much more about a SF who fits between Flagg and Christie much more than it is the end-of-bench guys.  If you can do that and draft well and Lively is healthy, you start to make sense and you have enough excess to put players into a trade and still have a solid bench.

Lively      Gafford     Bagley
Flagg       PJ            Middleton or Pick
Starter     Naji         Martin
Christie    Klay         Johnson
Kyrie        Pick         Jones or Nembhard

I agree with all of this.  If you look at that lineup, Gafford, PJ and Klay all make too much to be part of the second unit.  In an ideal world we can convert some combination of those contracts for that missing starter.  Ideally somebody youngish who can shoot and defend.

EDIT: And I just read Smitty say basically the same thing

[Mavs2021]

I agree with all of this.  If you look at that lineup, Gafford, PJ and Klay all make too much to be part of the second unit.  In an ideal world we can convert some combination of those contracts for that missing starter.  Ideally somebody youngish who can shoot and defend.

EDIT: And I just read Smitty say basically the same thing

There is no way the 30th pick should not be on the 15 men roster. Jones, Nembhard, Middleton, Bagley, Johnson, Martin cannot make this roster ahead of the 30th pick. If you do that as the GM, you might as well hand in your resignation and dissolve your scouting department.

We can add veterans via TPE and MLE.

[mvossman]

There is no way the 30th pick should not be on the 15 men roster. Jones, Nembhard, Middleton, Bagley, Johnson, Martin cannot make this roster ahead of the 30th pick. If you do that as the GM, you might as well hand in your resignation and dissolve your scouting department.

We can add veterans via TPE and MLE.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the post you responded to?

[Mavs2021]

I agree with this, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the post you responded to?

Well Dan posted a roster that did not make it entirely clear that he thought the 30th round pick should be on it and you agreed with everything he said, therefore....

[mvossman]

Well Dan posted a roster that did not make it entirely clear that he thought the 30th round pick should be on it and you agreed with everything he said, therefore....

I guess I need to be more careful with the term everything.  Especially when referring to such a huge post.  That detail completely escaped me.

[DanSchwartzgan]

Well Dan posted a roster that did not make it entirely clear that he thought the 30th round pick should be on it and you agreed with everything he said, therefore....

Because it shouldn’t be entirely clear.  If the 30th pick and the TPE buys you a good starter, then I do that in a second.  Heck, I might add our fake first in 2030 and other things depending on the quality of the player we are talking about.  This love affair with garbage firsts over real NBA players who might actually contribute something is just silly.  So, the third string designation of Middleton/Pick is supposed to be an “or” depending on how you fill the starting forward role and what it takes to do it.

[Mavs2021]

Because it shouldn’t be entirely clear.  If the 30th pick and the TPE buys you a good starter, then I do that in a second.  Heck, I might add our fake first in 2030 and other things depending on the quality of the player we are talking about.  This love affair with garbage firsts over real NBA players who might actually contribute something is just silly.  So, the third string designation of Middleton/Pick is supposed to be an “or” depending on how you fill the starting forward role and what it takes to do it.

There is literally no way that a five way combination of AJ Johnson, C. Martin, Jones/Nembhard, Middleton + Bagley should take priority over the 30th pick. None whatsoever. If you are convinced that you picked the BPA at #30 in a generational draft, then that pick should have at least a 10% chance to be a Jae Crowder,  a 2% chance to be Desmond Bane, a 0.1% chance to be Jalen Brunson. We are just at the beginning of the Flagg journey. Every 1st round pick has more value than a veteran minimum guy over 30.