MAVS NEWS:

[KillerLeft]

In contrast, I am way less married to AD in my vision - ie I see him as more of one "asset" among many right now (rather than the set-in-stone foundation to the Mavs' best upside possibility) and someone who might prove to be our Batman in a title run, but who might instead be a key trade piece to building a team with higher upside. IOW I don't buy in on the idea that his best use for us is definitely going to be as our new "Luka" or "Dirk" for a decade, necessarily, even though he came here to be that in Nico's vision.  

I don't think I came anywhere close to suggesting the emboldened above. I definitely don't see him that way, at all. I only think he'll be here until his current contract runs out, more than likely. 

I'm just saying he plays center. It doesn't matter what he says he wants, he has been basically a full time center for years now. If Kidd decides to play him there, that's where he'll play, and since it's basically factually accurate that he's best there, at this point, I'm hopeful that even Kidd sees it. If they sign PJW to an extension, rather than trade him, I'll feel pretty confident that the plan is for AD to play quite a bit of 5. I feel like that's highly likely to become the plan, no matter what happens. 

No issue whatsoever with trading AD to make the team better, just not because he doesn't "fit" with Daniel Gafford. That's the part I think is bass ackwards. Gafford is pretty good in the regular season. A role player, best in pick and roll, which is now not going to be spammed here like it has been the past 7-10 years in a row. Lively is two levels above as a player, bringing much more skill to both ends of the court. Davis is levels above Lively (currently), but I think Lively can eventually affect games in similar ways, particularly after having the opportunity to see Davis do it. Of the three, it's really obvious to me who's superfluous. But hey, opinions vary. 

Again, if there was a trade for AD proposed that I thought made the team better, I'd be all for it. We don't have an emotional attachment to him like we did with Dirk or Luka, and I don't even think of him as "Batman," to use your words. I never will, because he's not an offensive creator. They need an offensive creator (again, my opinion). I just think using Davis as a means to get that guy would be overkill, as the players talented enough to be a match in trade aren't getting traded. The kind of guy you can get at all is probably gettable with your excess front court players...which, to my thinking, is a match made in heaven. But, either I'm wrong about that or the Mavs don't think they need that guy as much as I do. 

Totally agree about the Davis injury concerns.

[KillerLeft]

It will be interesting to see.  I think most think he is best at center.  If that is true, he loses appeal to me because I am really high on Lively.

Lively, and his accelerated development, is a big part of why I'm excited about AD here, personally.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

I think Flagg will be prime Grant Hill almost immediately and definitely by year 2. I can definitely see him averaging something like 19-20 PPG, 7 plus rbs and 7 plus assist a game his rookie year. He's a 2 way player so different impact than Luka. He's going to be a stud.

Great comp.  It will be interesting what kind of help side defender Flagg will be.  I loved the AK47 comp too.  Would love to see him a swat master from SF.

[KillerLeft]

I think Flagg will be prime Grant Hill almost immediately and definitely by year 2. I can definitely see him averaging something like 19-20 PPG, 7 plus rbs and 7 plus assist a game his rookie year. He's a 2 way player so different impact than Luka. He's going to be a stud.

I'm confident Flagg is going to be very, very good. I'd go as far as to predict he'll be a stud, difference making player. I'm just not confident enough yet to make comps like this. He's pretty good at everything coming in, so I'm not sure which skillsets to predict he'll achieve the level of "great" with, though I believe he will find his niche. 

At some point, and pretty soon, hopefully, we'll have to look at each and every player the Mavs have and ask whether or not they fit with Flagg, and that's a good thing.

[F Gump]

Well, I'm not sure there's sound reasoning for keeping 3 quality paid centers on the roster. That was in my previous post you quoted.

If AD could move infrequently into the center position (willingly), then I think it makes more sense to have AD, Lively, and Kai then AD, Lively, and Gafford. I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

"I'm not sure there's sound reasoning for keeping 3 quality paid centers on the roster." -- 

Yeah, I do not call AD a C ... and I do endorse a C group of Gaff (14M), DL (5M), DP for now (hoping he becomes Kai for 2M). I believe we'll see DG/DL usually split ~40-44 mins. AD playing 4-8 +/-.

Kai is a good 3rdS backup. But I expect we will see AD and DL together on the injured list many games, and imo Kai is not nearly enough for all those times. (No, DP is no answer imo. And we have no empty slot looming to be able to add a temp in such times.)

[KillerLeft]

Totally agree with this assessment of the summer, so far. Pretty much every word:

https://youtu.be/70-ZC05MQZM?si=T8MzlGGFi71t4UV8

[Winter]

Yeah, I do not call AD a C ... and I do endorse a C group of Gaff (14M), DL (5M), DP for now (hoping he becomes Kai for 2M). I believe we'll see DG/DL usually split ~40-44 mins. AD playing 4-8 +/-.

Just to be clear, with our current roster you personally would rather see him at the PF position than the C position? I didn't realize that. I can't recall anyone else falling into this category on the board, but sometimes I gloss over important information.

I suspect we will have more evidence one way or another by mid-season.

[F Gump]

Just to be clear, with our current roster you personally would rather see him at the PF position than the C position? I didn't realize that. I can't recall anyone else falling into this category on the board, but sometimes I gloss over important information.

I suspect we will have more evidence one way or another by mid-season.

No disrespect intended, but "to be clear, with our current roster, I personally see this as mostly a quibble over semantics" (and AD and all will all end up being needed and used and depended on). 

I really think that too much focus in this discussion is over who plays where and how much, in games where all 3 are healthy, without a nod to that probably being a minority of games. And then some regular season games are "bigger" in importance, which will change who plays C and how much. And then many many games will have someone injured and unable to play, which again will change who plays C and how much.

IOW the mix will vary from game to game -- and overall I believe everyone (incl us) will be happy as they ALL somehow will get what they hoped for.

AS AN EXAMPLE ....

Mundane game, regular season, all 3 healthy -- AD plays 30-ish and DG/DL each play 18-20 (so AD plays PF for 20-ish and C for 8-12 mins). 
...[PS: See how many PF mins remain for PJW (~28) who ends up playing more PF than SF, and more PF than AD does. See how easy it is? And this is with everyone playing.]

Mundane game, regular season, now DG or DL is injured -- AD plays more C of necessity (18-20 mins) and less as a PF (his remaining 10-12). If both are out, he plays 30 as C. DG or DL plays 25-30 as C.
...[PS: Now see how many PF mins remain for PJW (~38-40) which is more than he will play, so CF may get some run at PF, or Kai may play some C. See how easy it is again?]

Bigger game, regular season, all 3 healthy -  AD plays 35-ish now. DG/DL each play 18-20 (so AD plays PF for 25-ish and C for 8-12 mins) but matchups and effectiveness and game score may alter mins for everyone. 

And so on ...

WHERE I AM OVERALL -- Some are asking me why I prefer to keep Gaff for now. Yes, I agree ultimately they will have to see if AD is not skilled enough to play PF, with a C, and also see how these C's play with him alongside. But (1) imo answers are tbd, (2) injury and dependability has to be weighed for each, and should be a major part of the equation, and (3) in worst case (where it does not work) we still need to see who fits the rest of the roster best and who needs to go.

[Winter]

WHERE I AM OVERALL -- Some are asking me why I prefer to keep Gaff for now. Yes, I agree ultimately they will have to see if AD is not skilled enough to play PF, with a C, and also see how these C's play with him alongside. But (1) imo answers are tbd, (2) injury and dependability has to be weighed for each, and should be a major part of the equation, and (3) in worst case (where it does not work) we still need to see who fits the rest of the roster best and who needs to go.

This last part is what I was missing, .... and I certainly don't disagree with it. 

The relevance of Gafford on this roster can't be known until games are actually played and rotations have gone in and out.

But it feels to me like the issue is really about what AD wants ... and what he's best suited to do on the court. For example, taking the ball up the court is not something he should be doing anymore in my opinion. Let Flagg do that now. I've also noticed he frequently looks to shoot behind the arc, which I think is a poor decision given his percentage. Leave that to others. I think where he positions himself on the court is less important since we have good rebounders all over. 

Maybe this is all manageable. I just want the guy to play to his strengths, and I'm not sure I saw that in the games I saw him play. In any event Kidd really has his hands full here, and I just hope it doesn't take more than a half-season to figure it out.

[KillerLeft]

This last part is what I was missing, .... and I certainly don't disagree with it. 

The relevance of Gafford on this roster can't be known until games are actually played and rotations have gone in and out.

But it feels to me like the issue is really about what AD wants ... and what he's best suited to do on the court. For example, taking the ball up the court is not something he should be doing anymore in my opinion. Let Flagg do that now. I've also noticed he frequently looks to shoot behind the arc, which I think is a poor decision given his percentage. Leave that to others. I think where he positions himself on the court is less important since we have good rebounders all over. 

Maybe this is all manageable. I just want the guy to play to his strengths, and I'm not sure I saw that in the games I saw him play. In any event Kidd really has his hands full here, and I just hope it doesn't take more than a half-season to figure it out.

It is definitely manageable. My issue is that I oscillate back and forth about Kidd. Sometimes I think he's a good coach, and sometimes I think he's a world class 'tard. Truly, I am more worried about him misinterpreting the opportunity in front of him and taking the roster down the wrong path than I am worried about Harrison whiffing on the next deal, which puts me in the minority around here, but that's where I am. 

And, I 100% agree with Gump and others who point to injury history and likelihood as a reason to roll deep at center. It's even possible to do that at Gafford's number for a while, at least until Lively gets paid. That all makes sense. Where I get disconnected is this idea that center is somehow THE position to worry about. To me, if you don't have the right guys handling the ball, all the center talent in the world can't save you. That's why, for me, depth at that position wouldn't take a front seat in my planning. 

I do like the Russell signing, especially for the money, and I do like that a higher percentage of the players seem confident flooring the ball than in the Kleber/DFS days. I think Exum was a good re-sign, and there's optimism about Brandon Williams and even Hardy (if only from me). So, I suppose "keeping the powder dry" (in the form of players under contract, not upcoming cap-space) isn't a bad way to go this summer. After all, we haven't even seen Flagg play with the team yet.

[F Gump]

But it feels to me like the issue is really about what AD wants ... and what he's best suited to do on the court. For example, taking the ball up the court is not something he should be doing anymore in my opinion. Let Flagg do that now. I've also noticed he frequently looks to shoot behind the arc, which I think is a poor decision given his percentage. Leave that to others. I think where he positions himself on the court is less important since we have good rebounders all over. 

Maybe this is all manageable. I just want the guy to play to his strengths, and I'm not sure I saw that in the games I saw him play. In any event Kidd really has his hands full here, and I just hope it doesn't take more than a half-season to figure it out.

IMO you are observing possible issues of coaching - player management - same as every player and roster, every year.

AD will be treated with major deference, as all stars have earned. But on a good team w a good coach, he will have limits, because team comes first. And he is good enough to know that. Both he AND team want him to play great in bringing wins, and should work to make it happen. You know that, we all do.

[F Gump]

Where I get disconnected is this idea that center is somehow THE position to worry about....

That's why, for me, depth at that position wouldn't take a front seat in my planning.

Nice strawman! No one else here has said the C position is "THE position to worry about" or "a front seat in my planning" either. Instead, 99% of the forum discussion has been over Mavs' need for a PG/offense creator and how best to deal with that. You know that!

Some of us ARE pushing back a lot (!!) vs a push push push to trade away good C's in a knee-jerk surplus sale, and have no wish to squander valuable talent - which is not "a front seat in our planning" but instead a major desire to avoid seeing another round of Nico-ing Mavs' good players.

As for whether real C's generally have only minimal value (which I understand to be YOUR broad mindset), I believe strongly they are VERY desirable if they are good ones.

HOWEVER - Interestingly, NBA analysts are now saying Mavs may be AHEAD of the curve here with manning several C's who are good and who can wear you down, rather than foolish, in seeing how teams now roster build in 2025. So maybe it IS a "front seat in the NBA's planning." Whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion, the observation (and the idea it is probably saying something about current NBA mindset) is valid.

ESPN
One of the biggest (literally) themes of the first week of the offseason is teams doubling down on big men, even if they already seem set at the position.

The Rockets signed Capela even though they already had Sengun and Adams. The San Antonio Spurs picked up Luke Kornet even though they already had Victor Wembanyama. The Denver Nuggets traded for Jonas Valanciunas to be the best backup Nikola Jokic has had in years. The LA Clippers added Brook Lopez to back up Ivica Zubac. The New York Knicks signed Guerschon Yabusele to play with Towns and Mitchell Robinson. The New Orleans Pelicans signed Kevon Looney to split time with promising youngster Yves Missi. The Toronto Raptors extended Jakob Poeltl and signed Sandro Mamukelashvili. The Milwaukee Bucks signed Myles Turner and Jericho Sims, in addition to extending Bobby Portis.

The desire for double-big lineups also appeared on draft night, as two non-playoff teams in the West established long-term duos. The Trail Blazers picked 7-foot-1 project Yang Hansen to pair with 7-foot-2 second-year center Donovan Clingan, while the Phoenix Suns, in quick succession, traded for veteran Mark Williams and drafted Khaman Maluach, the first center off the board.

Other contenders paid to keep their established rotation of bigs intact. The Minnesota Timberwolves re-signed Naz Reid and Julius Randle for a combined $225 million; add in Rudy Gobert, whose extension kicks in this season and the Timberwolves have $334.5 million committed to their bigs, even after trading Towns. And the Memphis Grizzlies retained Jaren Jackson Jr. and Santi Aldama for a combined $292.5 million.

Moreover, after the Thunder started Isaiah Hartenstein -- a free agent splurge last summer -- and Chet Holmgren together en route to a title, they extended third big Jaylin Williams this week. And the Dallas Mavericks have been super big since trading for Davis; until Kyrie Irving returns from injury, their five best players are all natural power forwards or centers: Davis, newly extended Gafford, Lively, P.J. Washington and No. 1 draft pick Cooper Flagg.

This leaguewide trend could set up some delightful stylistic clashes for the few teams not following their lead, such as the Lakers and Golden State Warriors. But taken all together, these transactions make one thing very clear: After a decade of small-ball flirtations, big men are back in style -- and not just MVP winners such as Jokic and Joel Embiid, but players of all stripes and levels, as long as they come with the requisite size.

[KillerLeft]

Nice strawman! No one else here has said the C position is "THE position to worry about" or "a front seat in my planning" either. Instead, 99% of the forum discussion has been over Mavs' need for a PG/offense creator and how best to deal with that. You know that!

Some of us ARE pushing back a lot (!!) vs a push push push to trade away good C's in a knee-jerk surplus sale, and have no wish to squander valuable talent - which is not "a front seat in our planning" but instead a major desire to avoid seeing another round of Nico-ing Mavs' good players. 

You seem upset (sorry if I'm reading you wrong). I assure you I meant to create no "strawman," nor was I even only replying to you. If the words I chose offended you, please accept my apology - this was not my intention. 

All I meant by "THE position" and "front seat planning" as verbiage was this: I think ball-handling is more (like, much more) crucial to success in today's NBA than...well, than anything else, really. That's not to say other stuff doesn't matter to me, because it matters a lot. But only if you have the creation to make it matter. It's a little bit like how I see Harrison's "defense wins championships" mantra. Yes, that can be true from a certain point of view - of the 10 best offenses, all making it to the playoffs and each feeling like they have a chance to win a title, I'd say it's highly likely that defense will determine who wins among them. These things are all about the proper perspective to me, and I'm not here to force anyone to agree with me. I just like talking about it. 

And, I'm sorry that I haven't expressed my position better, because you seem to think I'm wanting the Mavs to give away good players. What I'm hoping to see is the ADDITION of good players capable of playing roles that are A) are not currently represented on the roster at a championship level and B) in my personal opinion, more important than DEPTH at a position of plenty. It's that simple, and at no point have I suggested a trade that I don't think makes sense. I actually believe Coby White (just as an example) is a better basketball player than Gafford, but not better than Lively or AD. I think that makes the team better. You don't have to agree, but I wish you wouldn't accuse me of being disingenuous in these conversations. I find the use of "straw man" and some of the other language you used a little off-putting, as it seems to suggest I'm being intentionally antagonistic or obtuse. I assure you, my efforts to participate in the conversation have been genuine. 

Again, my apologies for whatever it is I have written that offended.

[F Gump]

KL - Got it. No worries. But as you say "I didnt mean it THAT way" and object to the label of strawman, I would invite you to read and consider YOUR WORDS that I quoted. Who are you disconnected from? Whose planning are you contrasting when you say that's "not MY planning". If the answer to those is "no one" then that is EXACTLY what a strawman argument is, and all I did is point it out for what it was to try to get you to stop it.

Look, we ALL know Mavs prob will be weak at PG/offense creator. But none of us knows for sure what is the best solution, since we dont know for sure how weak (or not), what other internal solutions are possible (and how effective they would be), and what external solutions are available (with what flaws and at what price). Nor can we be sure yet if they might have strengths in other areas that will bedevil opponents and more than compensate.

So opine away all you want -- whether we agree or not -- but please let me define MY views for myself.

[KillerLeft]

KL - Got it. No worries. But as you say "I didnt mean it THAT way" and object to the label of strawman, I would invite you to read and consider YOUR WORDS that I quoted. Who are you disconnected from? Whose planning are you contrasting when you say that's "not MY planning". If the answer to those is "no one" then that is EXACTLY what a strawman argument is, and all I did is point it out for what it was to try to get you to stop it. 

Point taken, but my whole aim in the conversation (with you and others who think similarly but maybe not identically) is to see which of the following is most accurate. Do we see this differently because:

1) We see what works best for the center position (and by extension, every position) differently?

2) We see the importance of the center position differently? (this is what I was hinting at. I sometimes get the feeling that some equate good, deep center representation on the roster with a good team). 

3) We see Daniel Gafford (or AD, or Lively...or PJW, for that matter) differently in terms of value on and off the court? 

...and I still can't put my thumb on it, if I'm being honest. Anyhoo, it's not worth causing a kerfuffle over, so I apologize for my part in it. 

Happy 4th!

[KillerLeft]

IMO you are observing possible issues of coaching - player management - same as every player and roster, every year.

AD will be treated with major deference, as all stars have earned. But on a good team w a good coach, he will have limits, because team comes first. And he is good enough to know that. Both he AND team want him to play great in bringing wins, and should work to make it happen. You know that, we all do.

I agree with every word of this, btw, and feel like I've been making similar points. 

My interpretation of where this thinking leads is that AD is going to play much, much more center than we're thinking now (if healthy, of course). I could be wrong about that, but I agree with you about the stakes and process of deciding laid out above.

[F Gump]

KL, back to the discussion.

1 No response to the LONG outline by ESPN of what seems to be a renewed emphasis on bigs, and how that might bear on Mavs roster- building choices?

2 On Coby, to me I have doubts Mavs really would want him (or like whatever cost it would take). If they did, I dont think they would have added DR as the 7th or 8th guard on the 15-man. That's already close to excessive and leaves the other 3 positions thin.

3 Re AD and his role, I recalled a thought I had weeks or months ago and if it still might look right. It was that Kidd's vision is to recreate Mavs title team. If true, DG/DL are intended to mirror Ty and Haywood, and he wants AD to be able to be Dirk. If true, it would also offer hints at what he will try to make happen with other players (fill in blanks). It's an interesting exercise to imagine Kidd planning w that model and what that makes the team look like.

[KillerLeft]

KL, back to the discussion.

1 No response to the LONG outline by ESPN of what seems to be a renewed emphasis on bigs, and how that might bear on Mavs roster- building choices?

2 On Coby, to me I have doubts Mavs really would want him (or like whatever cost it would take). If they did, I dont think they would have added DR as the 7th or 8th guard on the 15-man. That's already close to excessive and leaves the other 3 positions thin. 

3 Re AD and his role, I recalled a thought I had weeks or months ago and if it still might look right. It was that Kidd's vision is to recreate Mavs title team. If true, DG/DL are intended to mirror Ty and Haywood, and he wants AD to be able to be Dirk. If true, it would also offer hints at what he will try to make happen with other players (fill in blanks). It's an interesting exercise to imagine Kidd planning w that model and what that makes the team look like.

1) Not really. I think teams are scared of Jokic, but I don't think "more size" is the only or possibly even the best way of meeting that fear. I think there's speculation from this past playoffs that the game will be officiated in such a way that allows more physicality, and I hope so...but I'm not so sure. I also think bigger players are becoming more skilled, but that the phenomenon hasn't become commonplace for 7-footers just yet. There are lots of Flaggs popping up these days, but we still haven't seen a Gafford who can move quite well enough (yet). I know Gafford isn't 7' tall - I'm referring to the build. In a general sense, I do like that the Mavs are big, and I don't mean to give the impression that I feel otherwise, but I think the name of the game is still skill. Give me a bunch of Flagg/PJW guys who can run and change directions. That's still the model that counts in my book. AD and Lively fit that vision. 

2) I agree that the Mavs seem not to have prioritized White. I'm not sure if it's because they didn't want him, or because they couldn't afford him. I like Gafford and I really like PJW, but if I were in Chicago's shoes, I'd not trade White for either. So, I guess we just don't know. I do think Russel at the tpMLE was a good get, but not enough. Although I guess I need to say that I'm not advocating for giving a good player away for a bad one just to assuage the roster imbalance. If we actually knew what was on the table in real life, I could tell you what I thought and we'd get to the bottom of this. Me, personally...I think they're short on creation. I'd have tried like heck to do Russell AND someone else, and Coby White happens to be the only shopped name out there that I think is worth the risk of giving up one of their front court players (but NOT the Lakers pick, which I think might be the real reason he's not here or anywhere besides Chicago for that matter). 

3) I think VERY highly of AD, but not of his ability to be Dirk in some sort of 2011 Mavs clone. I think he's much more like Duncan (the best center of a different generation, who also wanted everyone to realize he was really a 4). Even compared to Duncan I think his scoring game is limited. I think he's one of the best defenders EVER, if I'm being honest, and he'll have his moments on offense, but I think much of what makes him special evaporates when he's not bigger AND quicker than his opponent. At the 5, I think he's probably the 2nd best in the NBA. Some would say the best, if he could stay healthy. At the 4, I think he's below average, as he can't move or shoot quite well enough. Further, I am loathe to push everyone else out of position to accommodate this need to be uber big. I think it will look awesome against bad teams, and good teams will eviscerate this great defense we're all so keen on. 

I suspect after reading the last few pages that the conversation should be much simpler. I am frankly not a believer in Daniel Gafford to the level some people are. I don't dislike him, and I think he's very good at what he does well. I just don't value what he does well as much as some, particularly now that Luka is gone. He's basically an offense only player who's now very likely to get in the way on offense. He can't shoot, pass or handle the ball, and the team is no longer built on the spread pick and roll. On defense, while he'll have some "wow" moments when the ball happens to touch the paint at the same time he arrives there, there will be way more moments when his slow, lumbering feet are explored for easy pull up jumpers, as every team except the Mavs seems to have 2-3 guys on the court who can drain those at all times. He's the weak link on that end, in my mind, and now he's gotten paid. I worry that without Luka here, that will be the next contract they can't move if they don't do so soon. So, I suppose it's true that I don't view him as an asset quite as favorably as you do (though I don't feel like I'm trying to give him away, either). There were a lot of teams looking for centers this summer. Is that a trend, or an outlier? Will that need be there again at the deadline? Next summer? I worry about that.

[Winter]

My interpretation of where this thinking leads is that AD is going to play much, much more center than we're thinking now (if healthy, of course). I could be wrong about that, but I agree with you about the stakes and process of deciding laid out above.

You know, I go back and forth on this. I swear there are some posts I've made here where I state that I think he won't play center much because the coaching won't demand it. A day later I make a post saying we should all lighten up because of course coaching will demand it.

Damn fickeled!

[myconsumerclub]

We seem to forget that Kyrie is a top 5 guard with the best ball handling in the league.

He will be back and I think he will be the Kyrie we all know and love. This being the case we just need a place saver that allows us to use our other players to win enough games to keep us in the fight for the ring and then when Kyrie comes back we have that weapon to use, then that becomes the difference maker to integrate and begin showing the true dominant nature our team has. Got to have faith guys.

If we then see that the experiment to field Cooper as a 1-2 is successful it will be even more so with a player like Irving who has already shown he could fit in with Luka.

They will solidify the ball handling and give us an unbeatable height advantage in the guard rotation and the defense of Kyrie against other guards will usually be strong enough for us to be great on defense as a team that can get stops at the end of games.

The hope that Cooper can be effective to be the main ball handler is what drives my enthusiasm.

Now we would have a backcourt that can stand against any other in the league with a bench that has defense to throw at others with Exum and if B Will takes off where he ended last year then he is a plus to use as well.

DLo should be useful on offense having played with AD so many years that he will instantly fit.

BONUS if injury hits, this team does an excellent job in finding 2 ways that can compete and Nembhard, Kelly and maybe another C/PF to serve as insurance from among Sharp, Cisse and others that may arrive by the time our season is getting underway. I see us using them to rest our teams star bigs as a strategy to keep them fresh and healthy for the play offs. Hopefully we clear roster space to sign Kai Jones as well because we have some serious injury concerns at C. We need to rest our 3 centers a lot this year and keep that regualr season mileage low.

I pray we are going to be rewarded as we show faith in what this team is capable of and waiting till the arrival of Kyrie and the proof that Cooper is who we want him to be. After we see what we have then we can rethink and re-evaluate it all to see who fits and who does not as you guys have said is then needed.

If Cooper is the man we thought he was then does that not mean we are set with the backcourt having talent off the bench that can be used sporadically as needed against matchups we face then our wisdom of keeping Gafford is rewarded by that fit with a team that now has a great backcourt to match the great frontcourt without the need to sell Gaff to get another star ball handling creator guard or wing.

After Kyrie returns is when the season starts for us. That and Cooper breaking out are the 2 things we need to see happen before we need to spend any more assets of adding anything other than Kai who is a need because we have the asset in our grasp and losing it to Denver would be a stupid thing to do. We need to sign him just to play keep away from other contenders that have a need at C.

Kyrie Cooper PJ AD Lively/Gafford with Klay first wing off the bench between Cooper and PJ who can also both rest AD.

Now we have Exum, Bwill, Dlo, and Nembhard to use to rest Kyrie over the rest of the season till the playoffs begin and that should be enough for Kidd to find the way to make them fit against other teams as Kyrie eases back into the rotation. Cooper getting developed so he can play multiple positions is a key to his becoming the new team MVP but also to his helping make others around him a lot better.

If we see Cooper and PJ being a fit working together then we can work harder to trade off others to make sure we can extend PJ and find the $$$ to keep him long term. If Gaffords game is amplified by playing with Cooper then his value is greater than it was and so we can get more for him in a trade as well. When we get Kyrie back we won't have a lot of time before the TDL to evaluate things so I anticipate not making trades at the TDL, at least nothing major, assuming nothing negative happens to make such trades needed. A full season of letting Kyrie and Cooper learn to play together is needed.

Cooper should help everyone to improve their game just like Luka did. With that established your assets are worth more. Not even saying we should trade Gafford but if that was the plan we would be wise to allow the addition of Cooper to the team first so we can gauge how Coopers game works its magic to improve everyone.

Then Coopers impact is multiplication not simple addition because we can make moves with more value established as he helps to improve everyone around him and so we can make teams pay back more when and if any of our top trade assets are used in trades.

That is what we need to factor into the long term vision.

We can not just assume we are a win now at all costs team this season, we need to plan ahead properly and develop what we have for it to create more chemistry and stop trying to trade every spare piece off for the newest bigger better thing that is rumored to want off of some team. Shiny toys do not stay shiny forever the magic that leads to winning rings is chemistry.

Hey our old guys need to rest and heal still and show that they can handle the grind before we turn everything up to the maximum effort. Kyrie may not be his old self this season. AD needs to save what he has in the tank to use when Kyrie is fully back. It would suck to finally get Kyrie all the way back and then AD goes out again. Then you will have an AD you won't be able to trade for anything. We need to keep our guys fresh and if that depth is there like it is at PG to rest Kyrie we are able to resist the urge to overplay our old guys. We may need to bring on a few more pieces like Jones and a 2 way big that we can use to help us better rest AD and lower his usage during the regular season.

Then we can have guys who are ready to step in and play as our old guys fade away and Coopers timeline goes into full swing. Kyrie AD and Klay are not going to play the game forever. I just hope we can trade these guys to bring back assets that we can use to surround Cooper with better talent if it is still needed. Firing Nico is not going to happen if we win a ring sooner rather than later so we just need to trust the man does the right thing in getting back value with trades before that players value expires.