(01-20-2026, 03:23 PM)F Gump Wrote: That's part of it. Keep in mind that I am not prioritizing for years 1-2 instead of 2-3+, but rather in addition to. I have seen the evolution of teams when they strip it down - with the belief they will add talent back as easily as they shed it - and it is way harder than anyone expects. If you aren't trying to be good next year, then you are very likely to still suck in years 3,4, and more. Talent is HARD to acquire. Then, the fact the Mavs won't have any avenue to top picks, even if they suck in those 1-2-3-4 years, is likely to push the "back to the top" timeline even farther down the road than years 4-5. FOREVER. Ugh.
Mavs of the early 90s were just going to go backwards a little bit and then be great again. And it took a decade. It was awful. The same was true of the Mavs of the post-title years - after Cuban decided to strip down the talent from the title team, it took a decade to be relevant again (wasting the balance of the Dirk years, right after they had assembled all the pieces needed to be dominant, with Dirk at his peak of dominance).
There's another part to it, however. It's the cheap price as I see it. If it's a LATE first as the (theorized) price (as mentioned), I'm not all that clingy to keep it. Those are very very dicey as to actual value (OMax and Green are the latest glaring examples), and an early 2nd can be just as promising even though they don't carry the glittery label of FIRST Round Pick. That cheap price would be layered on top of the benefit of removing Dumont's possible desire to sell off GOOD talent that you already have, to back off from taxed payroll. Getting a non-tax year injected right now would be a huge financial change and maybe keep him from later being miserly. Or to put it another way, I would pay a late first (turning it into a 2nd, as mentioned), for the benefit of swapping out the carcasses of Martin/DAR (or similar) and getting back the talents of Klay/Naji, for example.
I would NOT want to give away good key talent right and left to achieve that savings to be clear. But if it's a late 1st (in my mind, I read that as a pick in the 20's, and in a future year down the road)? Yeah, I'd do that.
They still have the talent base, which can be really good imo if they are smart enough to tweak it properly (and can work the training/medical staff stuff properly). It's not all gone yet, but once it's gone, there's no going back.
So that makes sense. You care about the next two years for themselves (which is more than I do) but you are also concerned about stripping it down to the point where we can't get back reasonably quickly.
From my perspective of primarily focused on 3+ years from now, you can probably understand why I would prefer to maximize return on guys in or approaching their mid 30s as I think their contributions in that timeframe will be limited (that talent is going away relatively soon regardless if we trade it or watch it decline).
While I agree talent is not easy to add, its interesting to look at how we acquired the talent on this roster that's under 30:
Flagg: finished in the very late lottery and got crazy lucky
Lively: finished late lottery
Max: throw-in on Luka trade
PJ: crappy first round pick (that might not be crappy, thanks Nico!)
Gafford: crappy first round pick (OKC)
Marshall: 10 mil in free agency
Lets not forget the two guys Nico threw away:
DJJ: min signing
Grimes: THJ dump and a bunch of 2nds
All of that talent was acquired in two years with two late lottery finishes, two crappy firsts and sub MLE signings. Seems like crappy firsts and some exemption room are not totally useless.
I will also point out that nobody has suggested "giving away" talent to clear cap. There are always assets coming back in deals proposed. A team like Atlanta that currently has more expiring salary than they know what to do with will likely welcome trading some of it for a quality player. That means we are getting full value in assets with the side benefit of clearing some cap.
![[-]](https://www.mavsboard.com/images/collapse.png)