Quote:Do you think Kyrie at age 34 will still be in his prime? Is it not reasonable to assume that a 34 year old who is still recovering from a significant knee injury will experience some decline? Are you really expecting him to come back exactly as he was? I never said "injured for life". I said I don't think he will ever be what he was. Did we get prime Klay at 34? Why is the reasonable take to completely ignore age?
I did not say AD would play all of his minutes at the 4. I said too bad he will play a lot at the 4. Do you honestly think he wont?
I have no idea why you think its unreasonable to be concerned about creation on a roster that lost Luka. Like there should be no concerns at all?
A doom and gloom scenario is AD get hurt early, Dlo plays like he did last year, Flagg struggles with too much responsibility too early and this team gets in a big hole. That is a legit possibility. But I am not nearly as negative as you are making me out be. I happen to think Dlo will have a bounce back year (just like I though Grimes would last year). I think this team should be able to tread water even with a few early injuries.
I don't see AD and Kyrie as building blocks. I see them as win now players and have a hard time seeing them traded on their current contracts. But I certainly never said they were "at a dead end with this roster". Where is this coming from? I have suggested trade proposals recently to potentially get to contention status.
We can have differences of opinion on our outlooks for this team, but I would prefer if you did not misrepresent mine by putting words into my mouth.
We can have differences of opinion on our outlooks for this team, but I would prefer if you did not misrepresent mine by putting words into my mouth. - I would not ever intentionally misrepresent your words, but with all respect, I really don't think I did. These are not my negative takes at all, nor me putting words in your mouth.
"Do you think Kyrie at age 34 will still be in his prime?" --- You are of course wanting to imply that Kyrie at 34 is headed over a cliff. In so doing, you ignore that until he was injured, objectively Kyrie at 33 was playing some of the best hoops of his career, at an all-NBA level, for the whole season. He (not Luka) carried this team (Luka only played about 45% of the Mav games prior to his trade). The issue ahead is the time it takes to heal, not his ability at this point. And his injury is not one of a change-your-ability nature. Having observed Kyrie's professionalism as a Mav, I think it's massively over-negative to assume the rare outcome that he won't be near the same player after an ACL rehab.
"I said I don't think he will ever be what he was." -- And I said that is an extremely negative assumption, which it is. Kyrie was showing NO sign of slowing down last season before the injury (in fact, he was better). Please put the shovel back in the shed and stop digging his grave.
"I did not say AD would play all of his minutes at the 4. I said too bad he will play a lot at the 4. Do you honestly think he won't?" --- OBJECTIVELY, you are assuming with that statement that "each minute AD plays as a 4 is bad" and bemoaning his use there. That statement (1) flatly assumes that he can't play well as a 4 at all, and (2) it also assumes that the coaches will be mindlessly unable to know to do something different if that AD role is not working -- both of which are assuming extreme negatives. I think all parties are better than that, frankly. And based on his track record, AD will play well, not poorly.
"I have no idea why you think its unreasonable to be concerned about creation on a roster that lost Luka. Like there should be no concerns at all?" --- Of course there are questions, because we are going to get something new and different, and we have yet to see it at all. Yes it's likely to be something unknown, but no it is not doomed to fail if it's different from the one-man ball Luka played. Will it work, to diversify the offense rather than have one guy "creating" shots for everyone? You have blindly assumed it is not possible - and yep, that's another negative assumption.
"I think this team should be able to tread water even with a few early injuries." --- "Tread water" is your idea of someone being optimistic, right? While you want to think of that as some sort of rosy thinking, it's not even close.This is a team that is oozing talent, and they also get an early schedule that will help give them an edge as they are figuring things out. [One take very opposite to yours - I think the Mavs will be salty on defense, even early on, which will allow them to lock down teams in the 4th quarter and close out games in a superior way.]
"I don't see AD and Kyrie as building blocks. I see them as win now players ..." --- What would building blocks be used for, if not to win games? That's the whole point of a roster, to win (and win and win). So I'm not seeing the problem in having them on this roster, assuming that winning is the goal.
EDITED TO ADD - Let me be clear that I am not complaining about you deciding to assume that the various unknowns are all going to go wrong and the Mavs are doomed to land in mediocrity land. You think that, sure, your opinion. My objection is that you want to label it as somehow objective (not even close) and even-handed (nope, not at all) rather than own you have blindly assumed all of the variables (in determining their season's path) will definitely go the wrong way.
In this discussion you mentioned how I was very negative in the past, bailing on the Mavs prospects in 2023-24 before the trade deadline, and you're right. But when I did, I owned the fact that I was assuming the negative, ie the season was done as far as any possible good outcome, and no I wasn't being even-handed or objective. Sure, I said it because I was truly convinced they had no chance with the existing roster (even now, I think that was spot on) and that their supposed trade assets (such as Grant Williams and Richaun Holmes) had no real shot at landing them a single player to make a difference. But I was (admittedly) assuming they had no way to change that future, and as it turned out, they did.