2026 NBA draft thread

[hakeemfaan]

I'm not worried about helping out LA.  If I could turn Gafford into salary relief, a flyer and the 25th pick in this draft, I do it.

You missed my point. I would even deal with OKC or Spurs who will probably dominate the West for the next decade if I thought it would help the team.

The proposed deal with LA does much , much more for LA than it does for us.  I will look elsewhere, especially given that there are other teams that have a strong need for a center.

[loki]

I read his post of not including Gaffford.  Like trade 30 for one of those players and a pick higher up in the first.  At least that is what I thought.

Yeah, I just meant getting paid a pick to absorb a bad contract. No Gafford or even 30 involved. I'd include the Mavs 2nd round pick if needed.

[mvossman]

https://x.com/mavsfilmroom/status/205601...37261?s=61

This is very encouraging.  If this is the mindset going in, then its much less likely they will reach on a toolsy forward, and more likely they will go with one of the 5 guards.  When Masai was first hired the though was Wagler would not be high on the list, but if they are focusing on skills, processing speed and positional size then he may be a lot higher than originally thought.

[mvossman]

You missed my point. I would even deal with OKC or Spurs who will probably dominate the West for the next decade if I thought it would help the team.

The proposed deal with LA does much , much more for LA than it does for us.  I will look elsewhere, especially given that there are other teams that have a strong need for a center.

Then we are just arguing about value.  I think giving this FO a pick in the first round of this draft is very valuable, and I don't value Gafford as much as you do.  He will probably be worth that contract in LA vs here, but I think the Mavs are getting more out of that trade.

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

Every draft has pretty good players. 

Strongly disagree. 

Would you rather have the 3rd pick in the 2000 Draft or the 15th in 1996?
Top 5 in 2004 or top 20 in 1984?

No, this isn't cherry picking. Years are pre-judged based on talent. 2000 was seen as so bad that the Magic gave away their lottery pick to the Mavs for a future pick in a better draft. 

Likewise, who made the better decision in the 2024 Draft? San Antonio or Minnesota? Rob Dillingham or a future 1st?

Would you rather have Derik Queen or the 8th pick in a better draft?

I simply do not understand people's affinity for needing "brand name" (lottery picks) selections when the generic version is just as good or better. If Karim Lopez is picked this year at 18, does it mean he's a less talented player than if he went 3rd in 2027 simply because the other players in his class aren't as good?

[hakeemfaan]

Strongly disagree. 

Would you rather have the 3rd pick in the 2000 Draft or the 15th in 1996?
Top 5 in 2004 or top 20 in 1984?

No, this isn't cherry picking. Years are pre-judged based on talent. 2000 was seen as so bad that the Magic gave away their lottery pick to the Mavs for a future pick in a better draft. 

Likewise, who made the better decision in the 2024 Draft? San Antonio or Minnesota? Rob Dillingham or a future 1st?

Would you rather have Derik Queen or the 8th pick in a better draft?

I simply do not understand people's affinity for needing "brand name" (lottery picks) selections when the generic version is just as good or better. If Karim Lopez is picked this year at 18, does it mean he's a less talented player than if he went 3rd in 2027 simply because the other players in his class aren't as good?

You are arguing in hindsight.  With this draft and the upcoming draft, we both will need 3-5 years to confirm who was correct or wrong. I am willing to take the chance that a lot of the hype around this draft doesn't live up, because most drafts don't live up to hype.  Even now after the top 4, there is no real consensus, because all the players have real warts and upside as well.

I would always want a shot at a lottery pick than a mid first round pick.

[hakeemfaan]

Then we are just arguing about value.  I think giving this FO a pick in the first round of this draft is very valuable, and I don't value Gafford as much as you do.  He will probably be worth that contract in LA vs here, but I think the Mavs are getting more out of that trade.

Yes we disagree.   I don't see in any way how we are getting anything anywhere near what the Lakers are getting with that deal.

[mvossman]

Yes we disagree.   I don't see in any way how we are getting anything anywhere near what the Lakers are getting with that deal.

Really?  You don't see any way how?  At least half the guys Masai drafted in the 20s range (in drafts not considered as good/deep as this one) are at least as good as Gafford, and it would be on a rookie contract instead of making 18 mil a year.

[hakeemfaan]

Really?  You don't see any way how?  At least half the guys Masai drafted in the 20s range (in drafts not considered as good/deep as this one) are at least as good as Gafford, and it would be on a rookie contract instead of making 18 mil a year.

I already addressed this 
You are giving the Lakers a real need position and a proven player who works with Luka while we are “hoping” we hit on a late first round pick.

I don’t care how good Masai is. The odds on that are not that high.

[Smitty]

https://x.com/mavsfilmroom/status/205601...37261?s=61

Sounds like he would have Boozer #1 on his board…

[Chicagojk]

Sounds like he would have Boozer #1 on his board…

I have moved on, but must admit there is a piece of my heart that is sad that I won't be the one enjoying seeing the people who doubt Boozer be proven wrong if the Mavs had drafted him    .   That would have been a ton of fun.  Instead we may be going up against him often.  Ugh.  

I think the processing thing is so important.   How many people were fooled by Jalen Green.   I was/am fooled by Shaeden Sharpe.  Everytime I see him, I think he looks great.  But he played less than 10 minutes the last few games and it appears the coach isn't fond of his defense or how he plays.  Both guys can turn it around and both have a lot of talent, but the league is filled with guys who had great talent who just never figured it out.

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

I feel like a Gafford to the Lakers for Vanderbilt + #25 would be a gift for LA. The deal would have to happen in the new year where the Mavs would trade Gafford into their space. Essentially, they'd really only be paying Gafford $4.8 million a season, which is the difference between him and bench guy, Vanderbilt.

The Mavs could take Zeke Nnaji into the TPE for #26.

I'm not advocating for the Mavs making four 1sts. Rather, I see them as chess pieces to proactively move up for the best guard that fits Masai's system instead of settling for whatever is left over.

Perhaps the Clippers would take #9 + #25 for #5. If so, which is the best guard?

[dirkfansince1998]

I have moved on, but must admit there is a piece of my heart that is sad that I won't be the one enjoying seeing the people who doubt Boozer be proven wrong if the Mavs had drafted him    .   That would have been a ton of fun.  Instead we may be going up against him often.  Ugh.  

I think the processing thing is so important.   How many people were fooled by Jalen Green.   I was/am fooled by Shaeden Sharpe.  Everytime I see him, I think he looks great.  But he played less than 10 minutes the last few games and it appears the coach isn't fond of his defense or how he plays.  Both guys can turn it around and both have a lot of talent, but the league is filled with guys who had great talent who just never figured it out.

Love the response from Schmitz. Raw athleticism doesn't necessarily translate to a higher ceiling. Not even to better basketball specific athleticism. I can find 10+ guys in each draft class with a 40+ max vert. Probably cannot find a single one with the body control and balance of Luka. And I think Boozer is this years Luka. Would hate to be the team that picks this years Bagley over him but I guess the Mavs don't have to worry about the top 4 picks anyway.

[mvossman]

Love the response from Schmitz. Raw athleticism doesn't necessarily translate to a higher ceiling. Not even to better basketball specific athleticism. I can find 10+ guys in each draft class with a 40+ max vert. Probably cannot find a single one with the body control and balance of Luka. And I think Boozer is this years Luka. Would hate to be the team that picks this years Bagley over him but I guess the Mavs don't have to worry about the top 4 picks anyway.

I doubt there is a Bagley in the top 4 unless its health related.  If there really is more of a focus on the mental side than being athletic, I wonder how that affects their preferences regarding the guards?  Will Brown take a hit given his questionable shot selection and high turnover rate?

[Chicagojk]

Love the response from Schmitz. 

I was thinking how good that Schmitz had experience working with a franchise and not coming directly as a GM to the Mavs as a draft guy online.    He may very well turn out to be a poor GM.  Time will tell.   Although working with a franchise for 3 years, I am sure it gave him valuable experience.  It isn't just scouting players correctly.  There is so much more.   Which teams are good to deal with.  How to deal with agents.   How to be able to switch on the fly when a target is drafted before you.   There are a lot of things that he has probably learned that he would probably tell you he had no idea 3 years ago.    I am sure he had relationships with the teams before joining the blazers, but it is different talking about prospects with them and trying to do business with them.

[loki]

I feel like a Gafford to the Lakers for Vanderbilt + #25 would be a gift for LA. The deal would have to happen in the new year where the Mavs would trade Gafford into their space. Essentially, they'd really only be paying Gafford $4.8 million a season, which is the difference between him and bench guy, Vanderbilt.

The Mavs could take Zeke Nnaji into the TPE for #26.

I'm not advocating for the Mavs making four 1sts. Rather, I see them as chess pieces to proactively move up for the best guard that fits Masai's system instead of settling for whatever is left over.

Perhaps the Clippers would take #9 + #25 for #5.  If so, which is the best guard?

9+25 for 5 feels a bit light. You might have to throw the Lakers 29 1st on top of that. It took a top 5 protected 1st for the Mavs to move from 5 to 3 to get Luka.

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

9+25 for 5 feels a bit light. You might have to throw the Lakers 29 1st on top of that. It took a top 5 protected 1st for the Mavs to move from 5 to 3 to get Luka.

There's no way I would give up the Lakers pick to move up. It's been stated on here that GMs now see future picks as being more valuable because of how chaotic lotteries will be in the next few years. I see the Lakers pick as being one of those that teams would value because of how easily LA could derail in next few seasons. 

As I've stated before, I'd deal it for #12 or a similar pick. I like the idea of iadding another player rather than through positioning.  I'd prefer to use the cap space to be opportunistic in getting picks that can be rerouted.  Remember, one aspect of the Luka/Hawks trade was Atlanta originally wanting the Mavs to take on multiple years of Kent Bazemore's contract at $20 million a season. Ultimately, they settled on a protected pick.

I feel like if the Mavs can pick up a mid-1st rounder, it helps mitigate whatever shortcomings #9 would have. In other words, if they only have #9 and take Burries (who I think would play PG), then, hypothetically, #12 can be more of an upside gamble like Ament (who I think will either be a total all star or Cam Reddish level bust, with no in between).

[loki]

There's no way I would give up the Lakers pick to move up. It's been stated on here that GMs now see future picks as being more valuable because of how chaotic lotteries will be in the next few years. I see the Lakers pick as being one of those that teams would value because of how easily LA could derail in next few seasons. 

As I've stated before, I'd deal it for #12 or a similar pick. I like the idea of iadding another player rather than through positioning.  I'd prefer to use the cap space to be opportunistic in getting picks that can be rerouted.  Remember, one aspect of the Luka/Hawks trade was Atlanta originally wanting the Mavs to take on multiple years of Kent Bazemore's contract at $20 million a season. Ultimately, they settled on a protected pick.

I feel like if the Mavs can pick up a mid-1st rounder, it helps mitigate whatever shortcomings #9 would have. In other words, if they only have #9 and take Burries (who I think would play PG), then, hypothetically, #12 can be more of an upside gamble like Ament (who I think will either be a total all star or Cam Reddish level bust, with no in between).

To be clear, I would put some degree of protection on the Lakers pick. Should have mentioned that. But I think the Mavs would have to be absolutely convinced that one guy (Wagler?) was a cut above the others. Otherwise I'd find adding an additional pick in that 12 range pretty interesting too.

[hakeemfaan]

Sorry if this has been posted before. This might give some insight into their mindset when it comes to a player like Carr as not being their choice:

https://x.com/reallatiflove/status/20560...37457?s=46

[myconsumerclub]

duplicate