Building Around Cooper: A Backward-Looking Thought Experiment

[KillerLeft]

Flagg is the rare player that offers you the possibility of playing "small ball" WITHOUT BEING SMALL.

The fault might be with me, but for the life of me I can't understand the inclination to play him down a position. If I get it wrong with him, I'd rather get it wrong UP a position. I'd literally rather play him at the 5 than at the 1, 2 or 3 (not that I want to do that - just using hyperbole to make a point).

Having a legit front line defender with offensive skill (and the ability to capitalize on all of the mismatches that will offer up) is the ABSOLUTE DREAM.

[DanSchwartzgan]

Ok, this is interesting and furthers the plot. 

You seem to be assuming that Flagg should be treated like an offensive superstar, despite the fact that he's already a defensive superstar. I'm not saying you're wrong...but that hadn't crossed my mind. 

I've been operating with the idea that Flagg will guard the others team's best forward, not "save it" for offense. Hence my post that Smitty quoted about how it will be easier to build around him than Dirk/Nash/Brunson/Luka. Hence my comparison to Garnett. You might have the right of that part, I'm not sure, but just so you know where I'm coming from...

I think they need a plus POA defender badly, but I don't think that has to be the other forward, and in fact I doubt it will be. I think it will be a guard. So, a forward who can shoot and is not a plus defender (but hopefully a good team defender) is what I had in mind. I'll say this again, in full knowledge that I'll get clowned: I think Thompson is a better fit with Flagg at the other forward spot than either PJW or Naji Marshall.  

I thought I'd move this to a different thread.

Yes, I see Flagg as an offensive superstar.  Not in the heliocentric 29+ PPG sense of the current top five, but more in the sense of the 25-27 PPG of the next 15 or so.  I referenced his last 20 games before.  Here are all of his splits for that period (which includes AD's last full game and 10 minutes of the game where he hurt his hand):

PPG:  22.8
REB:  6.85
AST:  4.85
STK:  1.85
TOV:  2.35
2P%: .517
3P%: .376

This is in 33 MPG with no spacing and no one to keep defenses honest.  If there is any natural progression to his 3's and long 2's, he will be unstoppable.  It took Giannis, Kawhi and Tatum three and four seasons to get to these levels and Flagg is doing it (small sample) as a 19 year old rookie.  And, when the game is on the line, he's one of the best clutch scorers in the league.  Forget efficiency for the moment.  It isn't about that at this point.  It is about the skills he flashes and the things HE thinks he can do.  His eventual offensive "bag" is enormous.  We are comparing him to offensive superstars and he looks better than any of them at this age.

One caveat, Flagg can be pretty much whatever he wants to be.  If he wants to, he can put 40+ on a team.  But, I've also seen him defer (largely to AD when he had been in the league for five minutes, so difficult to know what that looks like down the road).  Part of why I don't put him in the 29+ point club is because I think he'd rather have the people around him succeed and he just win the game at the end.  Kyrie seems to have a similar mentality.  So, his eventual offensive ceiling will depend on the quality of the offensive players around him.  It is more of a mentality thing than an offensive limitation.  But even if all we ever got was 23/7/5 with great D and .376% from three, this is an All-Star and All NBA third team guy once it starts to be the norm for a full season.

I agree he is easy to build around, but it is because he's great at both sides of the ball...or will be if .376% on 3's becomes the floor rather than the ceiling.  At that point, you can put whatever you want next to him.

[mvossman]

I thought I'd move this to a different thread.

Yes, I see Flagg as an offensive superstar.  Not in the heliocentric 29+ PPG sense of the current top five, but more in the sense of the 25-27 PPG of the next 15 or so.  I referenced his last 20 games before.  Here are all of his splits for that period (which includes AD's last full game and 10 minutes of the game where he hurt his hand):

PPG:  22.8
REB:  6.85
AST:  4.85
STK:  1.85
TOV:  2.35
2P%: .517
3P%: .376

This is in 33 MPG with no spacing and no one to keep defenses honest.  If there is any natural progression to his 3's and long 2's, he will be unstoppable.  It took Giannis, Kawhi and Tatum three and four seasons to get to these levels and Flagg is doing it (small sample) as a 19 year old rookie.  And, when the game is on the line, he's one of the best clutch scorers in the league.  Forget efficiency for the moment.  It isn't about that at this point.  It is about the skills he flashes and the things HE thinks he can do.  His eventual offensive "bag" is enormous.  We are comparing him to offensive superstars and he looks better than any of them at this age.

One caveat, Flagg can be pretty much whatever he wants to be.  If he wants to, he can put 40+ on a team.  But, I've also seen him defer (largely to AD when he had been in the league for five minutes, so difficult to know what that looks like down the road).  Part of why I don't put him in the 29+ point club is because I think he'd rather have the people around him succeed and he just win the game at the end.  Kyrie seems to have a similar mentality.  So, his eventual offensive ceiling will depend on the quality of the offensive players around him.  It is more of a mentality thing than an offensive limitation.  But even if all we ever got was 23/7/5 with great D and .376% from three, this is an All-Star and All NBA third team guy once it starts to be the norm for a full season.

I agree he is easy to build around, but it is because he's great at both sides of the ball...or will be if .376% on 3's becomes the floor rather than the ceiling.  At that point, you can put whatever you want next to him.

Agree with this.  Feels like he is going to be a guy that scores 27 a game with a loaded box score.  I think you put one more high level creator next to him (probably the guy initiating offense) and surround them with space and you are good to go.

[KillerLeft]

I thought I'd move this to a different thread.

Yes, I see Flagg as an offensive superstar.  Not in the heliocentric 29+ PPG sense of the current top five, but more in the sense of the 25-27 PPG of the next 15 or so.  I referenced his last 20 games before.  Here are all of his splits for that period (which includes AD's last full game and 10 minutes of the game where he hurt his hand):

PPG:  22.8
REB:  6.85
AST:  4.85
STK:  1.85
TOV:  2.35
2P%: .517
3P%: .376

This is in 33 MPG with no spacing and no one to keep defenses honest.  If there is any natural progression to his 3's and long 2's, he will be unstoppable.  It took Giannis, Kawhi and Tatum three and four seasons to get to these levels and Flagg is doing it (small sample) as a 19 year old rookie.  And, when the game is on the line, he's one of the best clutch scorers in the league.  Forget efficiency for the moment.  It isn't about that at this point.  It is about the skills he flashes and the things HE thinks he can do.  His eventual offensive "bag" is enormous.  We are comparing him to offensive superstars and he looks better than any of them at this age.

One caveat, Flagg can be pretty much whatever he wants to be.  If he wants to, he can put 40+ on a team.  But, I've also seen him defer (largely to AD when he had been in the league for five minutes, so difficult to know what that looks like down the road).  Part of why I don't put him in the 29+ point club is because I think he'd rather have the people around him succeed and he just win the game at the end.  Kyrie seems to have a similar mentality.  So, his eventual offensive ceiling will depend on the quality of the offensive players around him.  It is more of a mentality thing than an offensive limitation.  But even if all we ever got was 23/7/5 with great D and .376% from three, this is an All-Star and All NBA third team guy once it starts to be the norm for a full season.

I agree he is easy to build around, but it is because he's great at both sides of the ball...or will be if .376% on 3's becomes the floor rather than the ceiling.  At that point, you can put whatever you want next to him.

This is awesome, but didn't really address my question. 

What hadn't occurred to me even once that you put in your previous thread was the bit about hiding him (my paraphrasing, because I can't remember your exact wording) him a little on defense to conserve his energy for offense. That's what I meant by "treat him like an offensive superstar." I agree he's very good, offensively, but I think that approach might be a mistake (if I understood you correctly). If anything, I think the move might be to find ways for him to conserve energy on offense. Not sure, but that was the idea I found interesting from the original post.

[Winter]

There was recently an analyst from San Antonio who was on a podcast who was wishing they had drafted Kon. Looking at San Antonio guards, it's easy to see why. Neither Castle or Harper are they kind of perimeter threats they really need. Fox is a better driver than a perimeter player. So their guard play is maybe less than optimal for the team who has Wemby. Harper and Castle may have enough skill to offset it, but you can see why the Spurs might wish for Kon's ability.

Fortunately for the Spurs, they have guys in the rotation who have really stepped up like Champagnie and H. Barnes who can play 27-28 minutes a game. We have no one like that - Klay being the closest (and really not that close).

We need to make opponents less willing to sink off their man to help inside when Flagg turns the corner. It just makes Flagg so much more deadly when the opponents are uncertain. Kyrie will certainly do that next season and Christie will have another season under his belt. But we really need at least two other players who can help open up the offense. I would love for at least one to be starter material.

It's hard to know if that will be an opportunity in the draft. I think our first pick is simply the best available, but I hope one or both players in that first round can add support to a more open offense.

[mvossman]

There was recently an analyst from San Antonio who was on a podcast who was wishing they had drafted Kon. Looking at San Antonio guards, it's easy to see why. Neither Castle or Harper are they kind of perimeter threats they really need. Fox is a better driver than a perimeter player. So their guard play is maybe less than optimal for the team who has Wemby. Harper and Castle may have enough skill to offset it, but you can see why the Spurs might wish for Kon's ability.

Fortunately for the Spurs, they have guys in the rotation who have really stepped up like Champagnie and H. Barnes who can play 27-28 minutes a game. We have no one like that - Klay being the closest (and really not that close).

We need to make opponents less willing to sink off their man to help inside when Flagg turns the corner. It just makes Flagg so much more deadly when the opponents are uncertain. Kyrie will certainly do that next season and Christie will have another season under his belt. But we really need at least two other players who can help open up the offense. I would love for at least one to be starter material.

It's hard to know if that will be an opportunity in the draft. I think our first pick is simply the best available, but I hope one or both players in that first round can add support to a more open offense.

What would be really nice is to find somebody that can provide that space on offense and provide some POA defense on the other end.

[KillerLeft]

There was recently an analyst from San Antonio who was on a podcast who was wishing they had drafted Kon. Looking at San Antonio guards, it's easy to see why. Neither Castle or Harper are they kind of perimeter threats they really need. Fox is a better driver than a perimeter player. So their guard play is maybe less than optimal for the team who has Wemby. Harper and Castle may have enough skill to offset it, but you can see why the Spurs might wish for Kon's ability.

Fortunately for the Spurs, they have guys in the rotation who have really stepped up like Champagnie and H. Barnes who can play 27-28 minutes a game. We have no one like that - Klay being the closest (and really not that close).

We need to make opponents less willing to sink off their man to help inside when Flagg turns the corner. It just makes Flagg so much more deadly when the opponents are uncertain. Kyrie will certainly do that next season and Christie will have another season under his belt. But we really need at least two other players who can help open up the offense. I would love for at least one to be starter material.

It's hard to know if that will be an opportunity in the draft. I think our first pick is simply the best available, but I hope one or both players in that first round can add support to a more open offense.

This is a good example of why I don't think "best player available" is always the best policy. I'd rather have Dylan Harper than Kon Knueppel in a vaccum (I think), but on a team that already has Fox AND Castle...not so much. And now, folks are probably questioning which was actually the better player, Kneuppel or Harper, when in reality one of them just had a clearer path to providing an impact.

[Winter]

This is a good example of why I don't think "best player available" is always the best policy. I'd rather have Dylan Harper than Kon Knueppel in a vaccum (I think), but on a team that already has Fox AND Castle...not so much. And now, folks are probably questioning which was actually the better player, Kneuppel or Harper, when in reality one of them just had a clearer path to providing an impact.

It's true you really can't look at each player in a vaccum. You have to see them (or at least imagine them) with your specific component of players. That doesnt mean you grab a player to fill a statistical need. It means you get a player that has skills to help you win games.

I was thinking about this while watching Caleb Wilson videos - a player with everything (statistically speaking) except a 3-point shot. He could play SF, is an incredible rebounder, great passer, excellent defender, appears smart, low turnover rate, good finisher, pretty good shooter inside the paint, and he sucks at perimeter shooting. But just watching a few of his videos, I can see why no one is going to pass him up at #4. He looks almost fail-proof. He played great against Duke (and Boozer) and NC won the game. He had an impact in every part of that game.

I'm sure San Antonio thought the same thing about Harper. There are different ways to impact a game.

[mvossman]

It's true you really can't look at each player in a vaccum. You have to see them (or at least imagine them) with your specific component of players. That doesnt mean you grab a player to fill a statistical need. It means you get a player that has skills to help you win games.

I was thinking about this while watching Caleb Wilson videos - a player with everything (statistically speaking) except a 3-point shot. He could play SF, is an incredible rebounder, great passer, excellent defender, appears smart, low turnover rate, good finisher, pretty good shooter inside the paint, and he sucks at perimeter shooting. But just watching a few of his videos, I can see why no one is going to pass him up at #4. He looks almost fail-proof. He played great against Duke (and Boozer) and NC won the game. He had an impact in every part of that game.

I'm sure San Antonio thought the same thing about Harper. There are different ways to impact a game.

I will probably get flamed for this but would seriously consider picking Flemings over Wilson at 4 if we end up there.

[Smitty]

I will probably get flamed for this but would seriously consider picking Flemings over Wilson at 4 if we end up there.

I’m not even sure Flemings is the best PG in this draft. Brown Jr. and Acuff might be better. Even then, I’m picking Wilson.

[meistermatze]

This is a good example of why I don't think "best player available" is always the best policy. I'd rather have Dylan Harper than Kon Knueppel in a vaccum (I think), but on a team that already has Fox AND Castle...not so much. And now, folks are probably questioning which was actually the better player, Kneuppel or Harper, when in reality one of them just had a clearer path to providing an impact.

Well, I would say this is kind of a truism, isn’t it? Of course a rule of thumb is the right way to go - until it isn’t. So I’m not even sure you would disagree with what I’m about to say (but then again, what exactly is your point?).

Picking the best player available in the draft is the most logical course of action in almost all circumstances because the volatility in selecting and projecting young players is extremely high. If you always pick the best player, he might not immediately fill the role you need in order to be successful right away. However, until a rookie is ready to contribute in a meaningful way, years could pass. By then, the specific skill set you originally needed might no longer be relevant. And if you misjudge their development, they might end up having no value whatsoever.

If you always pick “the best player,” your chance of getting some value at some point is significantly higher. It’s essentially an expected value (EV) argument.
Of course, you can point to specific examples where this doesn’t apply. But on the other hand, there are hundreds of examples where it turned out the other way.

I also don’t think anybody would disagree with that - and neither would you. But your argument was based on the premise that we’ve already seen more than half a season of Knueppel, Harper, and their respective teams. Sure, now things are different. But without that knowledge, you still make the same decision ten times out of ten and end up being right maybe seven out of ten times. So it’s still the right move.

[KillerLeft]

Well, I would say this is kind of a truism, isn’t it? Of course a rule of thumb is the right way to go - until it isn’t. So I’m not even sure you would disagree with what I’m about to say (but then again, what exactly is your point?).

Picking the best player available in the draft is the most logical course of action in almost all circumstances because the volatility in selecting and projecting young players is extremely high. If you always pick the best player, he might not immediately fill the role you need in order to be successful right away. However, until a rookie is ready to contribute in a meaningful way, years could pass. By then, the specific skill set you originally needed might no longer be relevant. And if you misjudge their development, they might end up having no value whatsoever.

If you always pick “the best player,” your chance of getting some value at some point is significantly higher. It’s essentially an expected value (EV) argument.
Of course, you can point to specific examples where this doesn’t apply. But on the other hand, there are hundreds of examples where it turned out the other way.

I also don’t think anybody would disagree with that - and neither would you. But your argument was based on the premise that we’ve already seen more than half a season of Knueppel, Harper, and their respective teams. Sure, now things are different. But without that knowledge, you still make the same decision ten times out of ten and end up being right maybe seven out of ten times. So it’s still the right move.

I think there are some instances that play out like that, sure. But I disagree with this idea for the most part. The problem with this kind of thinking is that the circumstances a player are drafted into play an extremely large role in determining whether or not that player will be successful, especially early on. So, the “best” player, drafted into the wrong circumstances, might look worse a few months in than several lesser players. Then, they get labeled a disappointment or a bust, then they lose confidence…etc.

Back to the Harper conversation: I would agree with your premise as a drafting franchise only if I were willing to move the players ahead of him. If I am going to bet on a high draft pick, I am going to bet on him playing a large role right away. I might not have felt this way 10 years ago, but the runway for these guys is so much shorter now. It’s really tough to keep teams together and it’s just silly with the way the game’s economics work now to have a top-five pick on a top five-pick salary, even on a rookie contract, not playing a meaty and crucial role. 

I kind of think t would’ve been wise on SA’s part to either trade Fox OR to trade down for a different, better fitting player, picking up an extra asset along the way. That’s how I see it, anyway.

[Smitty]

Well, I would say this is kind of a truism, isn’t it? Of course a rule of thumb is the right way to go - until it isn’t. So I’m not even sure you would disagree with what I’m about to say (but then again, what exactly is your point?).

Picking the best player available in the draft is the most logical course of action in almost all circumstances because the volatility in selecting and projecting young players is extremely high. If you always pick the best player, he might not immediately fill the role you need in order to be successful right away. However, until a rookie is ready to contribute in a meaningful way, years could pass. By then, the specific skill set you originally needed might no longer be relevant. And if you misjudge their development, they might end up having no value whatsoever.

If you always pick “the best player,” your chance of getting some value at some point is significantly higher. It’s essentially an expected value (EV) argument.
Of course, you can point to specific examples where this doesn’t apply. But on the other hand, there are hundreds of examples where it turned out the other way.

I also don’t think anybody would disagree with that - and neither would you. But your argument was based on the premise that we’ve already seen more than half a season of Knueppel, Harper, and their respective teams. Sure, now things are different. But without that knowledge, you still make the same decision ten times out of ten and end up being right maybe seven out of ten times. So it’s still the right move.

Agree with nearly all of this! The word "fit" has been thrown around here ad nauseum. I've never talked about fit when talking draft stuff with any sport. I've always used the term need. And I'm a big believer in don't draft for need. Free agency is for need. Draft the best player available on your board at the time and you will be more successful. Trust your scouts. Trust all the work that led to you stacking your board the way you did. Us fans aren't privy to a lot of information. The work done by several to get all the information they can on these kids. Character, intangibles, work ethic, desire, etc.. Just because someone is more talented, doesn't mean he's the best available, if that makes sense. A lot of the 'best talent' prospects were busts for a lot of 'other' reasons.

And one last thing. Example: Just because I think Wilson is a better prospect than Flemings (or others) doesn't mean the Mavs do. So, when I say things like I would take X over Y, it's because I have that person higher. The Mavs may have it differently, and maybe that's when we can all argue they took need over best available, because in the end, we'll never know how their board was stacked...

[KillerLeft]

The word "fit" has been thrown around here ad nauseum.

Sorry to hear you feel that way, because it's going to be thrown out around here with increasing frequency now that our Mavs are building around someone specific!

[mvossman]

Agree with nearly all of this! The word "fit" has been thrown around here ad nauseum. I've never talked about fit when talking draft stuff with any sport. I've always used the term need. And I'm a big believer in don't draft for need. Free agency is for need. Draft the best player available on your board at the time and you will be more successful. Trust your scouts. Trust all the work that led to you stacking your board the way you did. Us fans aren't privy to a lot of information. The work done by several to get all the information they can on these kids. Character, intangibles, work ethic, desire, etc.. Just because someone is more talented, doesn't mean he's the best available, if that makes sense. A lot of the 'best talent' prospects were busts for a lot of 'other' reasons.

And one last thing. Example: Just because I think Wilson is a better prospect than Flemings (or others) doesn't mean the Mavs do. So, when I say things like I would take X over Y, it's because I have that person higher. The Mavs may have it differently, and maybe that's when we can all argue they took need over best available, because in the end, we'll never know how their board was stacked...

I will say that when I use the term "fit" its not just about fit with Flagg, its about fit on a contending NBA roster.  I recognize that Boozer is an insanely elite college player, but a player that does not protect the rim and will struggle defensively on the perimeter is a red flag to me.  I have similar fit concerns with Wilson, who I recognize has elite athleticism and motor, but he is a perimeter player who can't shoot.  For me its not just about talent, its also about how that talent can fit in a lineup.

[Smitty]

but a player that does not protect the rim and will struggle defensively on the perimeter is a red flag to me. 

Dirk hate detected.

[Smitty]

In all seriousness... I get what you're saying. I might even agree with some of it? Maybe? I think with some of the discussions lately, it's kind of gotten more to the extremes; to try and make a point and I think there's some things in-between the lines that are agreeable.

[Smitty]

For next year it breaks down like this for me:

Kyrie |
Max |          Klay | AJJ
Flagg | Naji          | Martin
PJW
Gafford | Lively

UFA's that could be potential gets with the MLE:

Guards              Wings                Bigs
McCollum          LeBron             Vucevic
Simons             T. Harris          M. Robinson
Sexton             Hachimura         Landale
C. White            K. Ellis              
Grimes             Middleton*                
Dosunmo          Kuminga (TO)             
Gillespie                                                                                   
Alvarado (PO) 


RFA's that could be potential gets:
J. Ivey
P. Watson
B. Mathurin
T. Eason


Trade options with the TPE or MLE:
Josh Hart $20.9M
Monk $20.2M
Curuso $19.5M 
Nembhard $19.5M 
Dort $18.2M (TO) 
G. Allen $18.1M
Strus $16.6M 
Schroder $14.8M
Lavert $14.8M
Moody $12.5M 
Isaiah Joe $11.3M
Nesmith $11.0M
McConnell $11.0M
A. Black $10.1M

I know we've talked a lot about Naji with his fit and future price tag. Now that he's made it past the TDL, I wanted to break down what an extension could look like for him and see what others think about it.

He can get a 4-year extension, with the 1st year starting 140% above the league average salary (~$12M), with 8% max raises.

Current Contract
26-27 | Age 29: $9.4M

Max Extension
27-28 | Age 30: $16.8M
28-29 | Age 31: $18.1M
29-30 | Age 32: $19.6M
30-31 | Age 33: $21.1M

It comes out to a 4 year ~$75M deal with an average annual value of around $19M.

In fairness to Naji this isn't much more than the projected MLE. The Non-taxpayer mid-level would be around 4 years $64M with an average annual value of around $16M.

I’ve been off the Peterson #1 train for a while. His talent is undeniable but he’s 3rd for me all day. Too many question marks.

As of this moment my top 10 are:
1) Dybantsa
2) Boozer
3) Peterson
4) Wilson
5) Wagler
6) Flemings
7) Brown Jr.
8) Acuff
9) Ament
10) Mullins

Here's kind of a 'Top-7' for the second first rounder the Mavs have. Some will rise and fall, of course.

Christian Anderson | PG | Texas Tech
Morez Johnson Jr. | F/C | Michigan
Dailyn Swain | G/F | Texas
Isaiah Evans | G/F | Duke
Flory Bidunga | F/C | Kansas
Henri Veesaar | C | North Carolina
Meleek Thomas | PG | Arkansas

Above are a few things I've talked about since the TDL. And of course, my love for PJW is well noted... so I won't rehash any of that. But, given all the information, what would I do this summer? We know that the Mavs have 10 players under contract. They currently have 3 draft picks. They have the full MLE ($15M), $21M TPE, $6M TPE, and some trade options with positive value guys like Klay (expiring), Naji, PJ, Gafford. If things hold like they are today the Mavs are most likely to land pick #8 (34.1%), pick #29 (OKC), and pick #49 (PHX). What do I do?

At pick 8, using my own board, the selection is Darius Acuff Jr. 6'3 190lb Freshman PG from Arkansas, currently 19.6 years old.
At pick 29, using my own list that is in no particular order, the selection is Isaiah Evans 6'6 180lb Sophomore SG from Duke, currently 20.5 years old.
At pick 49, using that same list, the selection is Henri Veesaar 7'0 225lb Junior C from North Carolina, currently 22.2 years old. Which will be one of my 2-Ways.

Which brings me to this at the start of free agency:
Kyrie | Acuff
Max | Evans | Klay | AJJ
Flagg | Naji | Martin
PJW
Gafford | Lively |        | Veesaar*

Of my own Free Agents (Middelton, Jones, Powell, Bagley, Williams) and current 2-Ways (Nembhard, Cisse, Kelly). I can see bringing back any of Middleton, Bagley, Jones and/or converting Nembhard, Cisse.

Of the list of UFA/RFA's I have some interest in Coby White, Dosunmo, Gillespie, Mathurin, Eason. I don't think the MLE lands a lot of the guys I'd really want though.

With three roster spots open, I have a need for a 3rd PG, 3rd Big, and another 3/4 Wing. Without getting into all the trade options, I'll pick from the list above. Gillespie (MLE range), Middleton (1-yr), Bagley and bring back Nembhard and Cisse on another 2-Way. Leaving me with:

Kyrie | Acuff | Gillespie |     Nembhard*
Max | Evans | Klay | AJJ
Flagg | Naji | Martin
PJW | Middleton
Gafford | Lively | Bagley |     Cisse* | Veesaar*

I would extend Naji at 4/$64M and Max at 4/$70M. I would not extend Lively. Just wait until he hits RFA the following summer. You end up having a team full of guys around that MLE range, outside of Kyrie, who has a $42.4M PO the following year. Your positive trade value guys through the summer and the following TDL are now Klay (expiring), PJW, Gafford. You also have your $21M TPE to use instead of maybe just bringing back Middleton?

I think a lot of those guys have some position flex. Naji, Klay, Evans are G/F. Flagg, PJW, Middleton, Martin are 3/4 types depending on matchups and certain lineup combinations. I don't think it's a contender in the West next year, but I like a lot of the young guys in the start of a Flagg rebuild: 

PG: 6'3 Acuff (19)
SG: 6'5 Christie (23)
SF: 6'6 Evans (20)
PF: 6'9 Flagg (19)
C: 7'1 Lively (22)

[DanSchwartzgan]

With three roster spots open, I have a need for a 3rd PG, 3rd Big, and another 3/4 Wing. Without getting into all the trade options, I'll pick from the list above. Gillespie (MLE range), Middleton (1-yr), Bagley and bring back Nembhard and Cisse on another 2-Way. Leaving me with:

Kyrie | Acuff | Gillespie |     Nembhard*
Max | Evans | Klay | AJJ
Flagg | Naji | Martin
PJW | Middleton
Gafford | Lively | Bagley |     Cisse* | Veesaar*

I would extend Naji at 4/$64M and Max at 4/$70M. I would not extend Lively. Just wait until he hits RFA the following summer. You end up having a team full of guys around that MLE range, outside of Kyrie, who has a $42.4M PO the following year. Your positive trade value guys through the summer and the following TDL are now Klay (expiring), PJW, Gafford. You also have your $21M TPE to use instead of maybe just bringing back Middleton?

I think a lot of those guys have some position flex. Naji, Klay, Evans are G/F. Flagg, PJW, Middleton, Martin are 3/4 types depending on matchups and certain lineup combinations. I don't think it's a contender in the West next year, but I like a lot of the young guys in the start of a Flagg rebuild: 

PG: 6'3 Acuff (19)
SG: 6'5 Christie (23)
SF: 6'6 Evans (20)
PF: 6'9 Flagg (19)
C: 7'1 Lively (22)

Thanks for the synopsis.  For the most part we are on the same page.  I'm not sure I spend assets on Gillespie if I have Irving and Acuff on the team.  I'd probably look for a sweet shooting forward to put in the rotation either by trade or by free agency.

I think the main thing I want to point out is I'm trying to also think of this from the perspective that Dallas doesn't draft a guard.  Maybe its because we move up and Wilson or Dybasta (please Lord) makes more sense.  Or, maybe its because Ament is higher on their board than whatever guard is left by the time we draft at 8/9/10.  Whatever the reason, we need a plan should that be the path.  To me, that's the point at which a Gillespie or Dosunmo or Ivey makes sense.  Your draft pick rotates with Flagg and whoever is still here at the forward spots and you need someone to rotate with Kyrie and Christie in the guard rotation.  I'm mainly focused on top 8/9.  I think expansion draft has to enter our thinking at some point also.

[Smitty]

Thanks for the synopsis.  For the most part we are on the same page.  I'm not sure I spend assets on Gillespie if I have Irving and Acuff on the team.  I'd probably look for a sweet shooting forward to put in the rotation either by trade or by free agency.

I think the main thing I want to point out is I'm trying to also think of this from the perspective that Dallas doesn't draft a guard.  Maybe its because we move up and Wilson or Dybasta (please Lord) makes more sense.  Or, maybe its because Ament is higher on their board than whatever guard is left by the time we draft at 8/9/10.  Whatever the reason, we need a plan should that be the path.  To me, that's the point at which a Gillespie or Dosunmo or Ivey makes sense.  Your draft pick rotates with Flagg and whoever is still here at the forward spots and you need someone to rotate with Kyrie and Christie in the guard rotation.  I'm mainly focused on top 8/9.  I think expansion draft has to enter our thinking at some point also.

I think you and I are aligned on the idea that the Mavs don't have to draft a Guard. I would be ecstatic with one of Dybantsa, Boozer, Wilson, and even Ament, who is worthy at 7/8/9, if that's the direction they go. To your point, there are a lot more Guard options I like in Free Agency that could help fill the need at Guard.

On the expansion draft, a week or so ago I worked through the rules to see what it would look like for the Mavs if it happened this coming season. It was great! We expose AJ Johnson, Martin, and the 5 UFA’s. It will look a lot different by 29-30, but something to be mindful of for sure.