MAVS NEWS:

[F Gump]

SleepingHero "Hardy+Martin is 15mil that can be easily trimmed to avoid any 2nd apron talk. Talk Kyrie into that 3 year extension starting at 37 mil and the Mavs are suddenly below the 1st apron."

I don't think getting below A1 is a realistic plan to work towards. Benefits (such as they may be) would be minimal to none (the moves above only get you there, and are worthwhile in an A2 plan, but gain you nothing in so doing for a plan to work with an A1 limit).

[loki]

I can't help but feel the Mavs will have to add value to Hardy+Martin to dump their contracts with nothing coming back. I doubt the 2030 Philly 2nd gets it done. If it takes a 1st round pick swap they absolutely should not do that.

This is why I don't think moving Gafford for a pick or young player is that bad of an idea. You could get a young guard to develop and open up room to sign a vet with the tax MLE. If you hold onto him there is the risk of his playing time and trade value dwindling.

[F Gump]

I can't help but feel the Mavs will have to add value to Hardy+Martin to dump their contracts with nothing coming back. I doubt the 2030 Philly 2nd gets it done. If it takes a 1st round pick swap they absolutely should not do that.

This is why I don't think moving Gafford for a pick or young player is that bad of an idea. You could get a young guard to develop and open up room to sign a vet with the tax MLE. If you hold onto him there is the risk of his playing time and trade value dwindling.

" to dump their contracts with nothing coming back " -- Well yeah, but that's not really what's been discussed (although maybe SH is thinking that way). I am certainly not in favor of that, and don't feel it would be worth the hassle.

But I think the idea you propose is just as undesirable. It's a similar idea of a big salary dump for junk, at a price of talent. And I don't favor any pure salary dump being pursued.

I have suggested (and continue to believe) that you use Martin-Hardy to chase Ball, in which case the salary difference is way more modest, and the talent is fairly even. Ball has LOTS of question marks, but also the potential to be useful. The same is certainly just as true of both Martin and Hardy. In theory, each team is turning players with mixed value into something that is of value to them.

[loki]

" to dump their contracts with nothing coming back " -- Well yeah, but that's not really what's been discussed (although maybe SH is thinking that way). I am certainly not in favor of that, and don't feel it would be worth the hassle.

But I think the idea you propose is just as undesirable. It's a similar idea of a big salary dump for junk, at a price of talent. And I don't favor any pure salary dump being pursued.

I have suggested (and continue to believe) that you use Martin-Hardy to chase Ball, in which case the salary difference is way more modest, and the talent is fairly even. Ball has LOTS of question marks, but also the potential to be useful. The same is certainly just as true of both Martin and Hardy. In theory, each team is turning players with mixed value into something that is of value to them.

I don't see Chicago being tempted by Martin-Hardy for Ball without draft compensation. They've invested too much in Lonzo to move him now for two negative contracts. I definitely don't view them as mixed value. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. 

To attach a concrete name to a possible Gafford trade, it might be something like Gaff to Atlanta, #22 to Orlando, Black to Dallas. I don't view that as a pure salary dump. That's landing a Lonzo starter kit with two healthy knees who just needs a little more development.

I don't know enough about the draft to say if it's worth trading Gafford straight up for a pick. You may be correct about the lack of depth. But if they can find the right player with enough upside, I'm happy to take the risk of it not panning out at the expense of the 3rd center. The franchise player is only 18 years old after all. I'm more concerned with building around him than going all-in to win right now. I also don't care to see many two center lineups next year, so that may be another difference in our thinking.

[F Gump]

1 I think Lonzo being highly desired in CHI is a ship that has sailed. They wanted to dump him at the deadline, and couldn't find a taker who would offer anything they like. (They leaked that they were getting offers of a FRP. My personal speculation at the time, backed up by rumors reported later, was that the best offers they got entailed them taking a junky matching contract with future years, and they would only get a junk first-rounder). So I believe the re-signing was purely to try to get some value later, rather than let his deal expire, by signing him and then having him show something (hopefully) desirable the rest of the year. Only 1 year, so in case they couldn't trade him they wouldn't be stuck for long. 

My point being, from all appearances CHI's preferred plan has been to trade him. BUT instead of showing something good down the stretch, he got hurt AGAIN and didn't play at all.

On that basis, I believe he can be had fairly easily, cheaply, just so long as CHI feels they might be getting something useful. And I think in a Martin-Hardy package, they would see something they like, enough to pull the trigger.

2 He's a risk. It's why he should be available, and be cheap. Not sure he'll have much interest and it might be a waste of a trade for Mavs.

HOWEVER - for me, as proposed (and maybe to include DP), the Mavs do end up with a side benefit that would mitigate that potential downside, which would be that such a trade also offers needed help for Mavs in both payroll and roster space. And it could be a win for CHI too.

3 Gafford is a luxury only if (a) both Lively and AD remain healthy all season, and (b) AD is open to playing a major role at C. I don't have any reason to think either of those is true, or will become true.

4 I like the idea of Black, and would welcome him if available. But his shot is a BIG issue. ORL doesn't want Gafford anyhow, so that's not the trade. And I'm skeptical ATL would want to pay to add Gafford as they already have a C.

5 More relevant than that, I don't expect ORL would have the least interest in trading AB for a junk pick in a shallow draft, and am really skeptical they would have interest in trading him at all.

[Reunion Mav]

Wow. I feel informed and caught up. I especially like someone pointing out that Gafford
moving forward is anything resembling a luxury. We needed him desperately the last 2 years and are still possibly in the same situation. I could support trading him for a clear short term and long term gain in value but let’s not pretend he isn’t quite talented and that he can continue to be a very positive Maverick we can root for.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Agreed. Gafford has not been, nor will he be, a "luxury". Lively is averaging 45.5 games played.

Because AD dislikes playing the 5 anyway, Flagg/PJ/Lively/Gafford make AD the ultimate luxury.

I really think AD should be dealt for Colby/Dejounte/etc

[Reunion Mav]

Well I’ve been a great respecter of AD and his game since his Pelicans days. He is likely the best and most dominant player on our team. Though I can be open to a really good trade involving him as well I see nothing that makes trading our best player urgent. I’m with FG. Be very careful and patient trading good talent and especially careful trading great talent. Didn’t we just learn that.

If a desperate team wants to give us a trade that works great for us fine. I know from long history this board loves talking trades almost more than anything else and that is fun. But especially now with CF we are in a position of strength with talent. We only do something when great opportunity large or small arises. Our internal development and chemistry building opportunities are great

[SleepingHero]

If you think that, you shouldn't. At one time, yes it was labeled that way. However, that's not how it actually turned out (and I'm not seeing anyone who says otherwise).

It's VERY thin at the top, with not much quantity OR quality behind Flagg, and there's not much depth to the draft either. The sizable guaranteed contracts to kids who by default end up being 1st rounders (because they are the best that's left) but are never worth a roster spot will be MANY. Sure, some of them will pan out as always, but it's a real crapshoot. And the Mavs can't really afford to get stuck with that guy who is junk, littering their cap with a multi-year guarantee. Frankly, I think B Will and Kai would be late lottery or so if they could jump into this draft right now, even at their age.

https://nbadraft.theringer.com/cooper-flagg

Ringer calls this a juggernaut of a class. ESPN says there are several "firework" players outside of Flagg.

Outside of Flagg, there are guys like Tre Johnson, Edgecomb, and Bailey, all of whom project to be frenetic scorers. Harper also looks to be a sound prospect with fantastic abilities. I still love guys like Kneuppel, Maluach, Will Riley, and Clayton Jr. 

It's easy to go tit for tat over the perceived depth of this draft, but it doesn't really matter. I think there are multiple mid to late 1st round prospects worth a flyer. You don't see it from what you've watched. That's fine. What I do know is that we're both over the moon that the Mavs are walking away with by far and away the best player out of all of them.

[loki]

1 I think Lonzo being highly desired in CHI is a ship that has sailed. They wanted to dump him at the deadline, and couldn't find a taker who would offer anything they like. (They leaked that they were getting offers of a FRP. My personal speculation at the time, backed up by rumors reported later, was that the best offers they got entailed them taking a junky matching contract with future years, and they would only get a junk first-rounder). So I believe the re-signing was purely to try to get some value later, rather than let his deal expire, by signing him and then having him show something (hopefully) desirable the rest of the year. Only 1 year, so in case they couldn't trade him they wouldn't be stuck for long. 

My point being, from all appearances CHI's preferred plan has been to trade him. BUT instead of showing something good down the stretch, he got hurt AGAIN and didn't play at all.

On that basis, I believe he can be had fairly easily, cheaply, just so long as CHI feels they might be getting something useful. And I think in a Martin-Hardy package, they would see something they like, enough to pull the trigger.

2 He's a risk. It's why he should be available, and be cheap. Not sure he'll have much interest and it might be a waste of a trade for Mavs.

HOWEVER - for me, as proposed (and maybe to include DP), the Mavs do end up with a side benefit that would mitigate that potential downside, which would be that such a trade also offers needed help for Mavs in both payroll and roster space. And it could be a win for CHI too.

3 Gafford is a luxury only if (a) both Lively and AD remain healthy all season, and (b) AD is open to playing a major role at C. I don't have any reason to think either of those is true, or will become true.

4 I like the idea of Black, and would welcome him if available. But his shot is a BIG issue. ORL doesn't want Gafford anyhow, so that's not the trade. And I'm skeptical ATL would want to pay to add Gafford as they already have a C.

5 More relevant than that, I don't expect ORL would have the least interest in trading AB for a junk pick in a shallow draft, and am really skeptical they would have interest in trading him at all.

My view on AD is that he's being paid $54M next year to play where the coach tells him. I wouldn't make a decision based on his personal desire to play the 4. I don't think he'll actually cause a problem if he's asked to play primarily at center.

If AD and/or Lively can't stay healthy, the Mavs are toast in the playoffs even if they have Gafford. He's a great insurance policy in the regular season, but I think he'll continue to be a weak spot defensively when a team targets him over the course of a series.

I do think Gafford makes quite a bit of sense for Atlanta with an older Capela entering free agency. He'd be an incredible fit with Young, and they already have a lottery pick. His next contract may be their big concern. But if they can re-sign him there would be plenty of minutes available for both he and Okongwu.

Black's shot is definitely an issue, but that's why you could potentially land him. He doesn't have to be the exact target though. I'd just like to see them trying to develop someone. There may not be a lot of avenues for the Mavs to land a legit point guard in the next few years if the current trade market is any indication. They won't have great (if any) picks and will have limited funds in free agency.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Why is Martin seen as useless? Nico paid Grimes and a 2nd for him, with nothing occurring since to change his value. Nico can't be *that* bad, right?

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

I don't see Chicago being tempted by Martin-Hardy for Ball without draft compensation. They've invested too much in Lonzo to move him now for two negative contracts. I definitely don't view them as mixed value. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though. 

To attach a concrete name to a possible Gafford trade, it might be something like Gaff to Atlanta, #22 to Orlando, Black to Dallas. I don't view that as a pure salary dump. That's landing a Lonzo starter kit with two healthy knees who just needs a little more development.

I don't know enough about the draft to say if it's worth trading Gafford straight up for a pick. You may be correct about the lack of depth. But if they can find the right player with enough upside, I'm happy to take the risk of it not panning out at the expense of the 3rd center. The franchise player is only 18 years old after all. I'm more concerned with building around him than going all-in to win right now. I also don't care to see many two center lineups next year, so that may be another difference in our thinking.

#sunkcost

What CHI has invested in Ball is immaterial as to his value, to CHI or to any other franchise.

[loki]

Why is Martin seen as useless?  Nico paid Grimes and a 2nd for him, with nothing occurring since to change his value.  Nico can't be *that* bad, right?

Well, his injury lingered much longer after the trade deadline than anyone expected. He played absolutely terribly when he was on the court. He's a limited role player turning 30 who just had one of his worst seasons and is due $29M over the next 3 years with an even larger cap hit due to the trade kicker.

I think he could become valuable again, but he's going to have to prove it on the court. Nico would have gotten picks back in the Grimes deal if he understood how trade value worked.

[SleepingHero]

Why is Martin seen as useless?  Nico paid Grimes and a 2nd for him, with nothing occurring since to change his value.  Nico can't be *that* bad, right?

I haven't seen a more useless player for the Mavs in quite some time. 

I mean, Martin CAN be useful. He's shown as much in his other stops. But frankly, I don't think he wants to be here. His camp signaled how much he didn't want to be traded in Philly. He took his sweet time coming back from an injury. He hasn't seemed particularly enthused as well given the 2 months he was a player here, the fans were revolting. 


But even when he is 100% healthy, I don't see why Nico traded for him as a player. He can't shoot. He can't create for himself. He's not a particular creator for others. He is a fantastic defender, but even then that alone is not worth almost 10 mil with his trade kicker. 

The only thing I can surmise is that Nico just did not want to negotiate this summer with Grimes and they valued the fixed cost Martin provided. Given how inept he is as a negotiator, that can be seen as a good thing. It's also a bad thing because Nico's lack of brain matter led to trading for Martin in the first place.

I am so ready to just trade him to any team for a 2nd round pick. I don't see him being worth much more.

[loki]

But even when he is 100% healthy, I don't see why Nico traded for him as a player. He can't shoot. He can't create for himself. He's not a particular creator for others. He is a fantastic defender, but even then that alone is not worth almost 10 mil with his trade kicker. 

The sad thing is he would have really benefited from Luka creating a bunch of open looks for him. He's just a poor fit on a roster that struggles with shot creation.

[Chicagojk]

I can actually see the appeal to Martin. Now I would have preferred keeping Grimes and giving up the high second was just another gut punch. First, Martin needs to get healthy. Second, it looks like his shot is broken. That needs to change. I don't think we should expect to see the Playoff run Martin from Miami. Although, I could see a case where he is an important role player in a playoff series going against all these great guards/wings. I could see some teams who would prefer Martin over Grimes for those matchups. Now, we certainly did not see it this year. I have no idea if he is back. I guess we will see.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Relatively, the Grimes trade was worst than the Luka trade. We had all been screaming for someone like Grimes for years. If Martin now needs draft capital for someone to take his contract, this was horrendous.

[Chicagojk]

https://x.com/MavsFilmRoom/status/1925969854193967169

So Collin Sexton is a Klutch client. Stuck on a bad team. So is Lonzo.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/n...801293007/


Sean Sweeney is on the Suns' Head Coaching radar

[Jym]

Lively looking huge