Trade & FA 2024-25:

[GATA]

People like to live in Houston?

[Mavs2021]

Next Mavs coach: Jordi Fenandez?

[HoosierDaddyKid]

People like to live in Houston?

It's the 4th largest city in the country. So what do you think?

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Oh they would absolutely ask for Lively. I’ve said this before but the only way we are getting him is if he says “do everything you can to get me to Dallas.” It’s more likely he would have a list of places- “Dallas, Miami, LA, NY.” We just have to hope OKC or SA are not on that list. 

Minimum it takes Lively, every available pick, Omax, Jaden, Maxi, Naji and that’s not even near enough. I don’t think it’s even enough salary to match.

I'm sure they'd ask for Lively, just like people ask for ice water in hell.  We're not our own competition.  Our competition is what other franchises offer.  No one can be packaged with Giannis, so it's probably impossible to package all low dollar contracts.  There will be at least one big contract included.

Kyrie, Grimes, OMax, 2025FRP

[mvossman]

I'm sure they'd ask for Lively, just like people ask for ice water in hell.  We're not our own competition.  Our competition is what other franchises offer.  No one can be packaged with Giannis, so it's probably impossible to package all low dollar contracts.  There will be at least one big contract included.

Kyrie, Grimes, OMax, 2025FRP

Folks are bringing up Lively because they are talking about what might be reasonable trade.  What you have is not even in the ballpark.  Kyrie makes no sense so you would have to get a third team involved, but the real issue is that is not nearly enough value.  This is Giannis we are talking about.  Gobert and Bridges went for 5 and 6 picks.  I doubt the Mavs can generate enough value (without Luka) but the only chance would be to include Lively.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Folks are bringing up Lively because they are talking about what might be reasonable trade.  What you have is not even in the ballpark.  Kyrie makes no sense so you would have to get a third team involved, but the real issue is that is not nearly enough value.  This is Giannis we are talking about.  Gobert and Bridges went for 5 and 6 picks.  I doubt the Mavs can generate enough value (without Luka) but the only chance would be to include Lively.

Of course there would be a third team as Kyrie's destination.  So, fill in the blank for picks and assets Kyrie.  We paid 2 starters and 3 picks for Kyrie, and his stock was at the lowest it's ever been.

[mvossman]

Of course there would be a third team as Kyrie's destination.  So, fill in the blank for picks and assets Kyrie.  We paid 2 starters and 3 picks for Kyrie, and his stock was at the lowest it's ever been.

We paid one first and Din was not considered an asset.  I think you are wildly underestimating the difference in trade value between Giannis and Kyrie.  One is a top 5 franchise player.  The other is a robin who still has plenty of red flags in his past and is two years older.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

We paid one first and Din was not considered an asset.  I think you are wildly underestimating the difference in trade value between Giannis and Kyrie.  One is a top 5 franchise player.  The other is a robin who still has plenty of red flags in his past and is two years older.

Edited by KillerLeft to remove attacking, unnecessary content. First warning.

[F Gump]

GP - "We paid 2 starters and 3 picks for Kyrie, and his stock was at the lowest it's ever been."

100% accurate.

MV in reply - "We paid one first and Din was not considered an asset."

ITEM 1 - GP note that we did pay 3 picks for Kyrie (not 1) was 100% true. The omission of the 2 other picks in reply seems to be intended to deceptively try to make someone look mistaken who was not.

ITEM 2 -  GP note that we paid 2 starters was 100% true. "Din was not considered an asset" is imo very wrong, because the facts all say otherwise. When Kyrie trade went down, there's every reason to think SD was an important part of the package BKN wanted, to step into the lineup in place of Kyrie, and persuade KD to want to stay. Not only was SD a starter every game, he was in the middle of a strong year, with strong positives in one way after another - 17.7 ppg, 5.3 apg, pcts of 46/41/82, PER 16.1, age 29, solid 6'5" 2nd ball-handler, great complement to Luka. DAL was ultimately meh that year, of course, but his 46% shooting and 41% on 3s and excellent 2nd ball-handler made him a very good contributor. None of us knows how others viewed him as an asset, but I would wager both DAL and BKN did, and traded accordingly.

[mvossman]

GP - "We paid 2 starters and 3 picks for Kyrie, and his stock was at the lowest it's ever been."

100% accurate.

MV in reply - "We paid one first and Din was not considered an asset."

ITEM 1 - GP note that we did pay 3 picks for Kyrie (not 1) was 100% true. The omission of the 2 other picks in reply seems to be intended to deceptively try to make someone look mistaken who was not.

ITEM 2 -  GP note that we paid 2 starters was 100% true. "Din was not considered an asset" is imo very wrong, because the facts all say otherwise. When Kyrie trade went down, there's every reason to think SD was an important part of the package BKN wanted, to step into the lineup in place of Kyrie, and persuade KD to want to stay. Not only was SD a starter every game, he was in the middle of a strong year, with strong positives in one way after another - 17.7 ppg, 5.3 apg, pcts of 46/41/82, PER 16.1, age 29, solid 6'5" 2nd ball-handler, great complement to Luka. DAL was ultimately meh that year, of course, but his 46% shooting and 41% on 3s and excellent 2nd ball-handler made him a very good contributor. None of us knows how others viewed him as an asset, but I would wager both DAL and BKN did, and traded accordingly.

I don’t know why you are jumping into this but we are talking about trading for Giannis. Second round picks are immaterial in this conversation.  I merely pointed out that only one of those picks is a first (100% accurate) which is the only pick that matters. 

Dinwiddie was a starter on a lottery team making 18 mil a year. Less than a year after the trade he was dumped for salary relief, and less than a year and a half after that trade he couldn’t get more than vet min in free agency. Call me skeptical anyone was going to spend a first for him at the time, and anything less is immaterial in a Giannis trade. 

The bottom line argument is that Kyrie is not in same ballpark trade value wise compared to Giannis. Care to weigh in on that?

[F Gump]

I don’t know why you are jumping into this  ...

I don't appreciate when someone tries to shade the truth (or even hide it) when someone does it with me to try to "win" rather than have an honest transparent discussion of the facts. The idea that SD wasn't an asset a year or two later, after his production fell way off the table, in no way speaks to his value on trade date. Get real. And 3 picks are 3 picks, in this era, which is exactly what was stated. That's why.

As for Giannis, he's a great player but a pipe dream on every level -- the biggest issue being how his salary is too cumbersome to add to a hard cap that has another supermax and still have enough payroll to obtain the rest of the talent to compete. See Bucks, Milwaukee. I'm very comfortable ending my own GA-to-DAL comments there.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

GP - "We paid 2 starters and 3 picks for Kyrie, and his stock was at the lowest it's ever been."

100% accurate.

MV in reply - "We paid one first and Din was not considered an asset."

ITEM 1 - GP note that we did pay 3 picks for Kyrie (not 1) was 100% true. The omission of the 2 other picks in reply seems to be intended to deceptively try to make someone look mistaken who was not.

ITEM 2 -  GP note that we paid 2 starters was 100% true. "Din was not considered an asset" is imo very wrong, because the facts all say otherwise. When Kyrie trade went down, there's every reason to think SD was an important part of the package BKN wanted, to step into the lineup in place of Kyrie, and persuade KD to want to stay. Not only was SD a starter every game, he was in the middle of a strong year, with strong positives in one way after another - 17.7 ppg, 5.3 apg, pcts of 46/41/82, PER 16.1, age 29, solid 6'5" 2nd ball-handler, great complement to Luka. DAL was ultimately meh that year, of course, but his 46% shooting and 41% on 3s and excellent 2nd ball-handler made him a very good contributor. None of us knows how others viewed him as an asset, but I would wager both DAL and BKN did, and traded accordingly.

Ya, he seems to just post opinions without checking the facts.  I'm not going to state "the trade was..." without researching it first.  My opinions come from facts.  My facts don't come from my opinions.

My point is that if Kyrie was worth 2 starters and 3 picks (one an unprotected FRP) at the lowest point in his career, he's worth much more now.  How much?  I'm not exactly sure, but perhaps enough to package our 2025 FRP and OMax types.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

I don’t know why you are jumping into this but we are talking about trading for Giannis. Second round picks are immaterial in this conversation.  I merely pointed out that only one of those picks is a first (100% accurate) which is the only pick that matters. 

Dinwiddie was a starter on a lottery team making 18 mil a year. Less than a year after the trade he was dumped for salary relief, and less than a year and a half after that trade he couldn’t get more than vet min in free agency. Call me skeptical anyone was going to spend a first for him at the time, and anything less is immaterial in a Giannis trade. 

The bottom line argument is that Kyrie is not in same ballpark trade value wise compared to Giannis. Care to weigh in on that?

So it's not Din's worth at the time of the trade, but what he became in the future?  Say that out loud.

Dude, just admit you reacted without researching.  You made up that Din wasn't an asset because it fit your opinion, not because it was a fact.  Again, your "facts" come from your opinion, not vice versa.  Be better.

[mvossman]

I don't appreciate when someone tries to shade the truth (or even hide it) when someone does it with me to try to "win" rather than have an honest transparent discussion of the facts. The idea that SD wasn't an asset a year or two later, after his production fell way off the table, in no way speaks to his value on trade date. Get real. And 3 picks are 3 picks, in this era, which is exactly what was stated. That's why.

As for Giannis, he's a great player but a pipe dream on every level -- the biggest issue being how his salary is too cumbersome to add to a hard cap that has another supermax and still have enough payroll to obtain the rest of the talent to compete. See Bucks, Milwaukee. I'm very comfortable ending my own GA-to-DAL comments there.

I take huge offense at this accusation.  I would argue its much more relevant that there was only one first in that trade than the generic "three picks".  The intent was not to imply that there were not also second round picks, just that it does not really matter.

The idea that Dinwiddie was not an asset is an opinion.  There is no way to know what those teams thought of him, which by definition means its an opinion.  He was needed for salary matching and he made sense from a positional replacement standpoint.  The general consensus on here is that he was a negative asset in the KP trade and his value clearly fell off a cliff soon after the Kyrie trade.  He had a nice run late in the WCF season and he put up good numbers on a bad team (something to generally be weary of) the next year.  I think that was enough to keep him from being a negative asset, but I don't think the Nets would have had any interest paying a first for him in a world where they traded Kyrie to somebody else.  

You can have a differing opinion regarding Dinwiddie value at the time and I am willing to discuss it.  But don't tell me I am shading the truth because I am clarifying firsts in a trade and have a differing opinion than you regarding player asset value.

This whole argument is kind of a joke. I'm guessing you know that Kyrie + Naji + 1 first is not in the ballpark of Giannis value, which is the context of the conversation. Yet you are quibbling about 2nd round picks that have no bearing in a discussion like this.

[mvossman]

So it's not Din's worth at the time of the trade, but what he became in the future?  Say that out loud.

Dude, just admit you reacted without researching.  You made up that Din wasn't an asset because it fit your opinion, not because it was a fact.  Again, your "facts" come from your opinion, not vice versa.  Be better.

As I stated above, Din not being an asset is my opinion.  We state opinions on here all the time without using the "I think" or "I believe" because that gets annoying to write every time, and when discussing something like asset value its obviously an opinion.

Din was bad with the Wizards and had a significant injury before that.  I think front offices look at more than the most recent performance when assessing value on a 9 year vet.  I would also argue that the fact that the Nets gave up on him so quickly suggests that maybe they were not all that invested in him to begin with.

[mvossman]

Ya, he seems to just post opinions without checking the facts.  I'm not going to state "the trade was..." without researching it first.  My opinions come from facts.  My facts don't come from my opinions.

My point is that if Kyrie was worth 2 starters and 3 picks (one an unprotected FRP) at the lowest point in his career, he's worth much more now.  How much?  I'm not exactly sure, but perhaps enough to package our 2025 FRP and OMax types.

I'm going to ignore your inflammatory remarks because I'm trying to talk about basketball and not get into juvenile fights.

I'm not sure Kyrie is worth that much more now than he was at the time of the trade.  I think he is a very good player when he is happy, and his happiness is wildly dependent on his current situation/environment, and nobody knows what situations will make him happy.  As happy as he seems to be in Dallas, I think any team would consider it a huge risk that putting him into a completely different environment has a strong possibility of not making him happy.  He is also nearly two years older since the trade and past his prime.  He has not shown any signs of falling off a cliff yet, but that is another significant risk to a potential buying team.

If I had to guess, I would say Kyrie is worth maybe 2 or 3 firsts to the right team (if you consider DFS one first round pick value at the time of the trade this is roughly the difference between our valuations of that trade).  That is just so far from Giannis value.  Regardless, my guess is that the Bucks would want actual young talent and not just a bushel of picks, and the only significant option we would have to offer is Lively.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

As I stated above, Din not being an asset is my opinion.  We state opinions on here all the time without using the "I think" or "I believe" because that gets annoying to write every time, and when discussing something like asset value its obviously an opinion.

Din was bad with the Wizards and had a significant injury before that.  I think front offices look at more than the most recent performance when assessing value on a 9 year vet.  I would also argue that the fact that the Nets gave up on him so quickly suggests that maybe they were not all that invested in him to begin with.

Nice gaslighting, lol.

A page out of your book...  " Din was not considered an asset".  That is a factual statement on what he was considered in general, not your opinion.  Again, you make up facts to support your opinions.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

I'm going to ignore your inflammatory remarks because I'm trying to talk about basketball and not get into juvenile fights.

I'm not sure Kyrie is worth that much more now than he was at the time of the trade.  I think he is a very good player when he is happy, and his happiness is wildly dependent on his current situation/environment, and nobody knows what situations will make him happy.  As happy as he seems to be in Dallas, I think any team would consider it a huge risk that putting him into a completely different environment has a strong possibility of not making him happy.  He is also nearly two years older since the trade and past his prime.  He has not shown any signs of falling off a cliff yet, but that is another significant risk to a potential buying team.

If I had to guess, I would say Kyrie is worth maybe 2 or 3 firsts to the right team (if you consider DFS one first round pick value at the time of the trade this is roughly the difference between our valuations of that trade).  That is just so far from Giannis value.  Regardless, my guess is that the Bucks would want actual young talent and not just a bushel of picks, and the only significant option we would have to offer is Lively.

You are the only person on earth with that opinion, lol.

[F Gump]

I take huge offense at this accusation.  I would argue its much more relevant that there was only one first in that trade than the generic "three picks".  The intent was not to imply that there were not also second round picks, just that it does not really matter.

The fact that you take offense at being called out for shading the truth, when you were shading the truth to try to "win" the discussion, sorry but I don't have any sympathy. Just be better.

Your points that you used that they only traded a 1st, that was not really the case. And that Din was not an asset, that was not true. The convo was about the NBA thinking, and Kyrie did yield 3 picks and 2 starters (both of whom would have had good value to BKN, based on BKN needs and the players' play) at a time when his market value was low. 

To add an overlooked plus re Kyrie, the fact that he is NOT on a supermax adds a lot of value. That matters way more than fans realize.

In fact, wasn't the discussion supposed to be about the way the NBA sees value in trades (rather than what WE value)? The idea that 2nds don't matter and have no bearing is absurd, when teams instead chase them, and in an era where 2-ways (with teams having 3) and 2nd-round salary exceptions and hard caps (with different accounting for 2nds) and rostering fewer than 15 because of money issues are vital issues for a FO that are made MUCH easier with 2nds. And the idea that a starter, healthy, 29, a BIG ball-handler who can (and does) create offense and score, and playing VERY well for his 2nd year in a row after getting out of the WAS hellhole, that he would not be desirable to a team who needed someone like that, that's even more absurd.

[mvossman]

The fact that you take offense at being called out for shading the truth, when you were shading the truth to try to "win" the discussion, sorry but I don't have any sympathy. Just be better.

Your points that you used that they only traded a 1st, that was not really the case. And that Din was not an asset, that was not true. The convo was about the NBA thinking, and Kyrie did yield 3 picks and 2 starters (both of whom would have had good value to BKN, based on BKN needs and the players' play) at a time when his market value was low. 

To add an overlooked plus re Kyrie, the fact that he is NOT on a supermax adds a lot of value. That matters way more than fans realize.

In fact, wasn't the discussion supposed to be about the way the NBA sees value in trades (rather than what WE value)? The idea that 2nds don't matter and have no bearing is absurd, when teams instead chase them, and in an era where 2-ways (with teams having 3) and 2nd-round salary exceptions and hard caps (with different accounting for 2nds) and rostering fewer than 15 because of money issues are vital issues for a FO that are made MUCH easier with 2nds. And the idea that a starter, healthy, 29, a BIG ball-handler who can (and does) create offense and score, and playing VERY well for his 2nd year in a row after getting out of the WAS hellhole, that he would not be desirable to a team who needed someone like that, that's even more absurd.

This is ridiculous. If you think a couple of seconds have any bearing on a Giannis trade you have lost all perspective. And when somebody says he cost three picks and the response says one first, the implication is clarification, not contradiction. I think you are being very pedantic with this.

So you called me out for stating an opinion as fact, and now you are stating your opinion as fact.  Din being useful to that team is a different conversation than saying he was worth both 18 mil in cap and significant assets.