2026 NBA draft thread

[Torielp10]

From reading, and watching videos talking about Schmitz interview today, I think there is a better chance we move up than move back in this draft. I’m hoping it’s for Mikel Brown but who knows, maybe wagler. But he talks about getting a true difference maker, and not rushing the process. Anyone feel the same?

[Scott41theMavs]

So, this is the thing. The Mavs are sitting at 9 at what is likely a 9-man draft. The question of "which of Acuff, Wagler, Brown, Flemings, and Burries do they like?" is a moot one unless someone above them objectively reaches. The Mavs will either 1) pick whichever of those five is left and be happy, or 2) reach on some other player who doesn't really merit the 9th pick. If one of the teams above does reach and the Mavs have a choice, then I would presume they would select whoever they had ranked higher on their draft board.

Of course, as the prior poster noted, the wildcard is if the Mavs trade up or down.

I'm not sure any one or two of the five guards is so much better than the others as to burn precious and scanty assets to make sure you get that guy, but I'm sure Masai and Schmitz weren't planning on consulting with me anyway.

[mvossman]

I really think the type of player needs to be determined by how player x can function with Cooper Flagg and the offense in general. We tend to talk about these draft picks as it relates to the pick's individual play, but I really thinks it's a lot more than that.

How will Flagg be used? Will Flagg be running the offense periodically? Will that require a true PG or will a combo guard be a better solution? We don't currently know who the head coach is, so I'm not sure anyone of this board can really answer for a draft pick's style of play with this team. I think we just like to pretend we can.

Most of us are betting on a guard simply because there are so many good ones slotted between 5-10. I am anyway. But the difference in the style of play between Acuff, Brown, Wagler, and Burries is really pretty dramatic to me. I'm guessing Masai and Schmitz are developing a vision of what they want from a draft pick and what Flagg needs. The first pick will tell us a lot I think.

I mean they are picking at 9.  I don't think they will have a lot of choice amongst those guys, and I think the price to move up will be way too high.  One of the great things about Flagg is his versatility, so I don't think they will feel the need to pigeon hole themselves into a particular guard type.  I think they will take BPA (probably a guard) and then build the roster around that player and Flagg.

[dirkfansince1998]

So, this is the thing. The Mavs are sitting at 9 at what is likely a 9-man draft. The question of "which of Acuff, Wagler, Brown, Flemings, and Burries do they like?" is a moot one unless someone above them objectively reaches. The Mavs will either 1) pick whichever of those five is left and be happy, or 2) reach on some other player who doesn't really merit the 9th pick. If one of the teams above does reach and the Mavs have a choice, then I would presume they would select whoever they had ranked higher on their draft board.

Of course, as the prior poster noted, the wildcard is if the Mavs trade up or down.

I'm not sure any one or two of the five guards is so much better than the others as to burn precious and scanty assets to make sure you get that guy, but I'm sure Masai and Schmitz weren't planning on consulting with me anyway.

I doubt that the draft will play out like the mocks suggest. Teams have their own boards and it's unlikely that all of them have the mentioned guards 5-9. For all we know the Mavs could have a wing or big higher on their board than all the mentioned guard. Or even have Philon or Okorie over some of them. Same for other teams.

[Scott41theMavs]

I doubt that the draft will play out like the mocks suggest. Teams have their own boards and it's unlikely that all of them have the mentioned guards 5-9. For all we know the Mavs could have a wing or big higher on their board than all the mentioned guard. Or even have Philon or Okorie over some of them. Same for other teams.

To me, this would objectively mean they reached. That would be the end of the story for me if it were any of our prior FO's. However, since we know Masai and Schmitz are quite competent, it will be a state of a very skeptical "wait and see" for me if any of those happen. What strikes me more than anything else about it is, if you wanted any of those lesser-touted players, why the flying eff didn't you trade down and get some more assets?

[dirkfansince1998]

To me, this would objectively mean they reached. That would be the end of the story for me if it were any of our prior FO's. However, since we know Masai and Schmitz are quite competent, it will be a state of a very skeptical "wait and see" for me if any of those happen. What strikes me more than anything else about it is, if you wanted any of those lesser-touted players, why the flying eff didn't you trade down and get some more assets?

Because you have no guarantee that other teams also aren't higher on them. If a player is in lottery range it's not a big reach to assume that some teams might be even higher on player x/y/z than others.

[F Gump]

[Burries] Wingspan doesn’t match with what Masai looks for. 

If he can play PG is the big question because if not , with his wingspan you can’t slot him to guard 3s or 4s.

I think Burries size is no issue, if he's in the PG category. The point I made is that I see him as being drafted by the Mavs as a PG. Period. I think they will look at his size and skills and history as slot him as a PG-to-be from day one, who they will have to develop a bit (and they look for players that they can develop).

You mention defense. I agree that defensive aptitude will be a priority part of what the Mavs are looking for. Schmitz made that point. But when you compare Burries defense to these other PGs in the 5-10 range (Wagler, Brown, Acuff, Flemings), he's probably the best of the PG lot in looking at the combo of his approach (and history) to defense, and the size he brings to the table. Wagler is probably a close 2nd, but he's not likely to be there at 9 anyhow, and the other 3 each offer some combo of "don't care to defend" or "notably smaller."

[F Gump]

Also, again, if Masai is convinced that Burries can play the point, his size and wingspan are fine.  The question is if Masai is not. 

I like his shooting and ability to finish. You usually don’t get both. Plus I don’t want to take a chance. Burries floor is high. If he can play point he would be a great pick

Yep, that's been my point. I think M/S are going to see Burries specifically as a player they will make into a PG (or into a better one), and then draft him on that basis. (I don't think they would draft him to be a SG.)

[Torielp10]

I think Burries size is no issue, if he's in the PG category. The point I made is that I see him as being drafted by the Mavs as a PG. Period. I think they will look at his size and skills and history as slot him as a PG-to-be from day one, who they will have to develop a bit (and they look for players that they can develop).

You mention defense. I agree that defensive aptitude will be a priority part of what the Mavs are looking for. Schmitz made that point. But when you compare Burries defense to these other PGs in the 5-10 range (Wagler, Brown, Acuff, Flemings), he's probably the best of the PG lot in looking at the combo of his approach (and history) to defense, and the size he brings to the table. Wagler is probably a close 2nd, but he's not likely to be there at 9 anyhow, and the other 3 each offer some combo of "don't care to defend" or "notably smaller."

Does wagler remind you of Max Christie? I went back and watched some Christie at Mich st and they look identical. And measured pretty evenly.

[F Gump]

Does wagler remind you of Max Christie? I went back and watched some Christie at Mich st and they look identical. And measured pretty evenly.

Not at all. With Wagler, I already see way more skill and feel for playing the point and orchestrating offense than Christie ever shows. And in college, Christie was an awful shooter.

[F Gump]

From reading, and watching videos talking about Schmitz interview today, I think there is a better chance we move up than move back in this draft. 

Yeah, from what I hear in Schmitz interviews (including today), I think the Mavs draft focus is primarily focused on getting 1 guy that's a key long-term core guy, and are not all that interested in multiple lesser-value picks. So I don't think that fits with moving down.

But we keep hearing they feel they will get a player they like at 9, and no mention of feeling any reason to move up, so I think the highest likelihood is that they will simply pick at 9. That also has always been Masai's draft history, to just pick the draft pick, whichever one he has.

[Winter]

I mean they are picking at 9.  I don't think they will have a lot of choice amongst those guys, and I think the price to move up will be way too high.  One of the great things about Flagg is his versatility, so I don't think they will feel the need to pigeon hole themselves into a particular guard type.  I think they will take BPA (probably a guard) and then build the roster around that player and Flagg.

What I'm saying is the "best player available"  to us on this forum is a bunch of guys we've see highlights of on a youtube video and some mock draft opinions.

If you look at Schmitz's interview and hear what he's saying about what he wants to see in a draft pick, it is far beyond that. I really know very little about the advanced metrics of any of these players. So when that player is picked by the Mavs - or even if the pick is traded - I'm not going to be disappointed. With Nico and Cuban (and even Don Carter to a lesser extent), I frequently felt one guy was steering the ship. They were the ones giving a thumbs up or down. I don't feel quite the same way at this point. It feels more collaborative. That's open to change of course, but right now, I'm easily persuaded that the current FO knows a whole lot more than anyone here, and, more importantly, that the current owners are not involved in the decision making.

I'll probably be disappointed at some point - when players picked fail to be what was projected - but that's a few years down the road.

[ThisIStheYear]

Unless the Mavs trade down, they’ll have an easy choice. We have a clear 4 player 1st tier and a clear 2nd tier of 5 freshmen guards followed by a 3rd tier of 14 players, all of whom could be rated as high as tier 2, but have very small flaws, usually their age, that drop them just a notch. It’s the deepest draft class in NBA history. I like some of the tier 3 guys (mainly Cam) as high as even pick 5, but if the Mavs play the percentages, they’ll just stick at 9 and take whichever tier 2 player falls to them.

[Chicagojk]

Cam boozer 20-10 and all star as a rookie?

https://x.com/DraftExpress/status/206076...deo/1?s=46

[mvossman]

I doubt that the draft will play out like the mocks suggest. Teams have their own boards and it's unlikely that all of them have the mentioned guards 5-9. For all we know the Mavs could have a wing or big higher on their board than all the mentioned guard. Or even have Philon or Okorie over some of them. Same for other teams.

I'm sure there will be some surprises, but I hope Mavs won't be one of them.  I have been struggling with who I would pick if the Mavs were at 10 and the draft went chalk, and I am really glad Mavs won't be in that spot.  Philon and Okorie scream 6th man to me and given this FO known preference for positional size, I would be surprised if they wanted one of those guys over the top 9.

[Chicagojk]

We will see if accurate but I have been thinking the general fan has been too low on Ament.

https://x.com/mavsfilmroom/status/206078...65011?s=46

[JamesConway816]

Phew. That’s a strong take from Givony. The guy usually knows his stuff though. That would shake things up significantly.

[vfromlmf]

I've been all-in on Ament for a while. Not a popular opinion around here but he's my guy if he's there at 9.

[mvossman]

I've been all-in on Ament for a while. Not a popular opinion around here but he's my guy if he's there at 9.

I wonder what the history is of guys who have high pedigree but were that bad in college?  I mean his true shooting percent was 53, he had as many turnovers as assists and didn't play particularly good defense.  He got to the line a lot but had a poor percentage at the rim.  Even as a project I don't think he will ever be an on ball player.  I'm struggling with what the appeal is other than positional size.

[vfromlmf]

I think he's a lot better than those numbers and if he returned for another college season he'd be the number one pick in '27.

People talk about context a lot and he was sort of given the Cooper Flagg treatment early on. In high school he was a skinny perimeter-oriented prospect who relied heavily on his outside shot and rarely played through contact. At Tennessee, his role was drastically altered to force him out of his comfort zone. The coaching staff tasked him with putting pressure on the rim, drawing fouls, and acting as a primary driver. He also gained 26 pounds of muscle at Tennessee on a 5000 calorie per day diet which is insane -- and he's still growing.

Ament is physical, draws fouls, and despite what you said he is a good defender with the length to become elite.

If you judged Cooper Flagg based on his first 10-15 NBA games you'd really miss the boat on your eval. Same with Ament. He's not Flagg (obviously) but he showed tremendous growth until he got hurt. And he played hurt in the NCAA tournament. That's toughness. I don't see any reason to believe the good stretch was a fluke and no reason why he won't continue to develop in the NBA into an All-Star caliber player.