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

[mvossman]

We had this discussion last summer when you said how wonderfully reliable he was, despite his continuing ability to get injured and miss games, and how Gaff needs to go, and sorry but "7 games played" is what we got and is NOT an outcome that makes me confident in Lively's availability.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  I seriously doubt I ever suggested Lively was "wonderfully reliable".  I would love to see that quote.  You asked a question (has he ever even played half the games) which I answered and stipulated his health is a major concern.  

I'm not sure you should be crowing about a pro Gafford argument from last summer.  We are paying him 17 mil to get outplayed by Dwight Powell.

[loki]

If you are trading Gafford in suitable trade window, the decision has to be made IN THE SUMMER. And there will be NO CLUE on what Lively will offer next season, when we are in the summer. He's an injured player, who has had a significant issue and surgery, and will not even try to play until October. 

On top of that, Lively has NEVER been reliable for a whole season. Has he ever even played half? I like the "idea" of Lively, but I don't see that as something to depend on.

In light of that, to me it would be a major mistake to assume Lively is the answer as the C you need, and move Gafford. This franchise has lots of experience in lacking a decent center, years on end at times, and now that they have a decent solution, imo the idea of frittering it away would be stupid.

I view Gafford as a bit more replaceable than that. It was nice to have Brendan Haywood as a backup, but the 2011 Mavs couldn't have won a title without Tyson Chandler. That's kind of how I view the Lively/Gafford duo. 

I do think it's smart to be prepared for another injury filled year for Lively, but they could explore cheaper options in free agency. Even if you just traded a 2nd for a guy like Goga (since Orlando's roster is getting expensive and Mo Wagner needs a new deal) I don't think the drop off in production would be that meaningful. Especially given that the Mavs are unlikely to be contenders next year. There should also be some good centers available with the OKC pick if they wanted to go that route.

It seems that the Finley/Riccardi front office was willing to move on from Gafford since they were reportedly seeking a 1st at the deadline. I guess we'll find out this offseason whether the mystery new GM feels the same.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

The Mavs are one of the worst teams in the league. Gafford is the only functional center on the roster. All this talk of trading him because he is not the ideal starting Center on a championship team is about 4-5 years premature. Let him get healthy, play next to Kyrie and Flagg, and rehab some trade value next year. We already saw he doesn't have much trade value right now. I don't know why everyone is in a rush.

[loki]

The Mavs are one of the worst teams in the league.  Gafford is the only functional center on the roster.  All this talk of trading him because he is not the ideal starting Center on a championship team is about 4-5 years premature.  Let him get healthy, play next to Kyrie and Flagg, and rehab some trade value next year.  We already saw he doesn't have much trade value right now.  I don't know why everyone is in a rush.

I agree with your timeline, and that's part of the reason I think they can afford to deal Gafford now. I wouldn't say I'm in any rush to move him though. Keeping him to rehab some trade value is reasonable. Of course, there's a chance his value continues to decline the longer they hold on. Even at peak value he's probably never returning more than a late FRP.

[KillerLeft]

The Mavs are one of the worst teams in the league.  Gafford is the only functional center on the roster.  All this talk of trading him because he is not the ideal starting Center on a championship team is about 4-5 years premature.  Let him get healthy, play next to Kyrie and Flagg, and rehab some trade value next year.  We already saw he doesn't have much trade value right now.  I don't know why everyone is in a rush.

I see this point and agree, to an extent. And, if the pick and roll game gets going again (pretty huge if) he could look good again very quickly. 

However, I don't personally believe there is any chance of the Mavs being competitive next year. "Good," maybe, but not of any consequence. Maybe I am jumping the gun, but for me it's more about selling high on a player I don't believe will still be here when things next matter. The "fish out of water" aspect of his (current, to be fair) fit here is part of it for me, too, but that could change with the addition of a single player. 

I'll say this (right or wrong): IF the plan is to run the offense through Flagg then I don't think Gafford is the right guy no matter how quickly things move along. I also think it's telling that he arguably fits IND's needs better than Zubac and yet they opted to make a crazy deal involving a fair amount of risk of losing a premium pick in this draft to get Zubac instead. Obviously, Zubac is better, overall - we all knew that. But, I didn't think it was this big of a gap. Zubac has only really been at this level for a year or two. I think it tells us a lot about either the league's temperature on Gafford's extension numbers or that Mavs were asking for too much (maybe both). If it's the latter, maybe they just didn't really want to trade him, but there was a lot of reporting out there that they just wanted a first round pick, so...

Regardless, now that AD is gone, I'm no longer in the "too many centers on this roster" camp, and I could definitely see trying Gafford again with a healthier and hopefully more complete roster as a viable option...just not if the offense is going to result in so much throwing him the ball in the low post. That's a joke, and not who he is as a player.

[SleepingHero]

I wonder if a broken bone is like an ACL in that you aren't 100% when you first come back from the injury.

Often times, a healed broken bone is stronger than the bone was previously due to a variety of factors.

But since broken bones require immobilization, often for many months, things around the area atrophy. As a high level athlete, the muscles waste and the high twitch movement you've built as a habit has all of a sudden reset and you must rebuild it. That's just the physical part of it. The mental battle is a whole different game. 

That is possibly to what Ivey is referring to. His injury was very severe and took a long time to heal. Just to rebuild to where he was will take time in terms of habits. And it's like trying to walk backwards on one of those moving walkways because all the time that it is taking you to just get back to where you were, your peers are using that time to get even better and the goalposts have shifted. Must be heavy given he never really got the chance to show out for a big contract and then his role got replaced. 

I don't think Ivey is worth Gafford, but he may be worth a flier as a reclamation project. Although I don't think the Mavs want to invest the time given ideally they are trying to win next year.

[mvossman]

The Mavs are one of the worst teams in the league.  Gafford is the only functional center on the roster.  All this talk of trading him because he is not the ideal starting Center on a championship team is about 4-5 years premature.  Let him get healthy, play next to Kyrie and Flagg, and rehab some trade value next year.  We already saw he doesn't have much trade value right now.  I don't know why everyone is in a rush.

I hope the time table is a little sooner than that, but I agree he won't be part it.  I don't think adding Kyrie to the mix is going to move the needle much on his value and would rather get whatever we can for him this summer before he becomes a negative asset, but maybe he is already there.

[DanSchwartzgan]

I don't think Ivey is worth Gafford, but he may be worth a flier as a reclamation project. Although I don't think the Mavs want to invest the time given ideally they are trying to win next year.

Thanks for the medical info.

While I acknowledge that a team with Lively on the roster has to have another starter level or near-starter level center, I'd probably take it a step further.  A team with Lively on the roster has to have an entire center rotation solution for the games he will miss.  In other words, it probably has to also have a functional third stringer and potentially a two-way spot dedicated to the position.  Does it have to be from among people like Gafford, Powell, Bagley and Cisse?  No.  

As to Gafford specifically, his contract was designed to be tradeable.  There are numerous reports that he was shopped ahead of the TDL.  He was brought in during a time when the team 'might' have had a different vision for the position than the vision for what is needed now.  I say 'might' because we are new at this whole 'building around Flagg' thing and we don't have the vision-caster in position yet.  So, I'd say the concept of a "Gafford-level" center is more important than it specifically being Gafford himself.

That wasn't so much about what you said as it was a general comment.  Your comment about Gafford vs. Ivey does bring something to mind that I've been thinking about for awhile.  At some point we are going to have to hit on some acquisitions who are more than they appear to be at the time of the trade.  It doesn't have to be Ivey, but I'll use him as an example.  We collectively have a habit here of shooting down ideas based on who players are today rather than who someone might become.  We have a very good idea what Gafford is here in our system.  But we don't know what other players might become.  A year ago if I had thrown out current league darling Peyton Watson (for example), the response would have been about low volume or below league average on 3's or a lack of self-creation.  Arguments in favor of Watson (again, for example) would have fallen largely on deaf ears because of what he couldn't do "At The Time".  Our own Max Christie has turned out much better this season than what people thought he might become when he was first traded here.

Beside Flagg, our team building assets are the 2026 pick, the possibility of cap room in 2028 (if Kyrie retires or moves on), a bunch of junk #1 picks and trades/signings around the fringes.  The thing that takes this to a different level is nailing something like a Gafford for Player X type deal.  I have no idea if Ivey is Player X.  That's someone else's job.  I just wish we (collectively) had more imagination for what someone might be two seasons from now when it really starts to matter.

[Chicagojk]

Often times, a healed broken bone is stronger than the bone was previously due to a variety of factors.

But since broken bones require immobilization, often for many months, things around the area atrophy. As a high level athlete, the muscles waste and the high twitch movement you've built as a habit has all of a sudden reset and you must rebuild it. That's just the physical part of it. The mental battle is a whole different game. 

That is possibly to what Ivey is referring to. His injury was very severe and took a long time to heal. Just to rebuild to where he was will take time in terms of habits. And it's like trying to walk backwards on one of those moving walkways because all the time that it is taking you to just get back to where you were, your peers are using that time to get even better and the goalposts have shifted. Must be heavy given he never really got the chance to show out for a big contract and then his role got replaced. 

I don't think Ivey is worth Gafford, but he may be worth a flier as a reclamation project. Although I don't think the Mavs want to invest the time given ideally they are trying to win next year.

along with all that, He also has a knee thing.  That is what is bothering him too.  Maybe hat happened trying to favor that leg or something additional.    Bad bone break followed with knee pain (after a basic scope) is not great.

[Chicagojk]

Thanks for the medical info.

While I acknowledge that a team with Lively on the roster has to have another starter level or near-starter level center, I'd probably take it a step further.  A team with Lively on the roster has to have an entire center rotation solution for the games he will miss.  In other words, it probably has to also have a functional third stringer and potentially a two-way spot dedicated to the position.  Does it have to be from among people like Gafford, Powell, Bagley and Cisse?  No.  

As to Gafford specifically, his contract was designed to be tradeable.  There are numerous reports that he was shopped ahead of the TDL.  He was brought in during a time when the team 'might' have had a different vision for the position than the vision for what is needed now.  I say 'might' because we are new at this whole 'building around Flagg' thing and we don't have the vision-caster in position yet.  So, I'd say the concept of a "Gafford-level" center is more important than it specifically being Gafford himself.

That wasn't so much about what you said as it was a general comment.  Your comment about Gafford vs. Ivey does bring something to mind that I've been thinking about for awhile.  At some point we are going to have to hit on some acquisitions who are more than they appear to be at the time of the trade.  It doesn't have to be Ivey, but I'll use him as an example.  We collectively have a habit here of shooting down ideas based on who players are today rather than who someone might become.  We have a very good idea what Gafford is here in our system.  But we don't know what other players might become.  A year ago if I had thrown out current league darling Peyton Watson (for example), the response would have been about low volume or below league average on 3's or a lack of self-creation.  Arguments in favor of Watson (again, for example) would have fallen largely on deaf ears because of what he couldn't do "At The Time".  Our own Max Christie has turned out much better this season than what people thought he might become when he was first traded here.

Beside Flagg, our team building assets are the 2026 pick, the possibility of cap room in 2028 (if Kyrie retires or moves on), a bunch of junk #1 picks and trades/signings around the fringes.  The thing that takes this to a different level is nailing something like a Gafford for Player X type deal.  I have no idea if Ivey is Player X.  That's someone else's job.  I just wish we (collectively) had more imagination for what someone might be two seasons from now when it really starts to matter.

True.  late first round picks and second round picks are hard to hit on every year.  Although, as we have seen most good teams have key guys they have found in this range.   Mavs had Jalen.   They found DFS, Barea , Maxi as undrafted guys.   Nico had a few hits in free agency.  Derrick Jones was a great get.   

Speaking of FA and where this team is, you can make the argument that instead of signing an established guy for the MLE that you look for that diamond in the rough who hasn't hit yet.   There is probably more risk there, but at the same time you are not stuck paying 13 million for a guy who in two years may not be in your plans.

[DanSchwartzgan]

 
3 Note to DS - while the rules allow the Mavs to spend up to the apron, we can rest assured they won't be taxpayers no matter what. They will undoubtedly prioritize a hard repeater-tax reset which happens with 2 consecutive tax-free years. We should look at moves that fit that paradigm.
 

Great point.  Will do.

[mvossman]

Beside Flagg, our team building assets are the 2026 pick, the possibility of cap room in 2028 (if Kyrie retires or moves on), a bunch of junk #1 picks and trades/signings around the fringes.  The thing that takes this to a different level is nailing something like a Gafford for Player X type deal.  I have no idea if Ivey is Player X.  That's someone else's job.  I just wish we (collectively) had more imagination for what someone might be two seasons from now when it really starts to matter.

Totally agree.  They need to take their shots, and Gafford is the kind of asset you take that shot with.  But it is really hard to get right.  For every Peyton Watson there are 10 guys who go nowhere.  The seller should know more about that player than the buyer, which worsen the odds.  There is also an element of luck.  Even the best scouts have misses.  Just like late first round picks and free agent signings, you need to be prepared to have some misses with these kinds of moves.