You’re now the Mavs’ GM. What are you going to build?

[mvossman]

Sure there are risks in every path you choose.  You could trade AD for 3-4 picks now but wind up with Omax type picks in two years.   

The injury concerns are real for AD, Kyrie and Lively.    I am not going to disagree with that.

I am not making an argument for trading AD right now (pointless because there is no chance).  I'm simply saying that once they go down the two window path (and they have already made that call) they are probably stuck with it.  If it does not look like its working out, the best we can hope for is not to burn more future assets.

[Dahlsim]

I guess there is a scenario where AD and Kyrie play well but the Mavs don't make the playoffs, Nico gets fired and they decide to rebuild around younger players.  ... 

Injuries are the wild card for everyone and somewhat more so for teams relying on injury prone and older players but to some extent that's for everyone.  We've seen plenty of teams lose contending or even winning seasons even with young stars going down.   Even OKC had to  patiently build while waiting for Chet to come back healthy.  Indiana and Boston have to build around their young injured stars while likely losing a season or two of contention. 

This is teams is more likely a playoff team that will still have tradable players while they work their 2 to 3 year window. 
The Mavs had to assess the injury risk for vets AD, Kyrie, Klay in particular and factor that in compared to any realistic alternative routes they had.  

I see at least a solid chance that the Mavericks have a relatively healthy season resulting in at least a season of playoff quality squads possibly on the fringe of contention.  The talent level on paper is good enough to challenge any contending team IMO the rest depends on not only health but team chemistry.  

[Dahlsim]

Of the two choices I picked option #1. I got my fill of ups and downs in the Luka era. I'd rather see a consistently good team like the Mavs had with Dirk (50 wins in 11 straight seasons). That's why I'd prefer to pivot to a rebuild around CF.

Me too, #1 for the win (more than lose).

[mvossman]

Injuries are the wild card for everyone and somewhat more so for teams relying on injury prone and older players but to some extent that's for everyone.  We've seen plenty of teams lose contending or even winning seasons even with young stars going down.   Even OKC had to  patiently build while waiting for Chet to come back healthy.  Indiana and Boston have to build around their young injured stars while likely losing a season or two of contention. 

This is teams is more likely a playoff team that will still have tradable players while they work their 2 to 3 year window. 
The Mavs had to assess the injury risk for vets AD, Kyrie, Klay in particular and factor that in compared to any realistic alternative routes they had.  

I see at least a solid chance that the Mavericks have a relatively healthy season resulting in at least a season of playoff quality squads possibly on the fringe of contention.  The talent level on paper is good enough to challenge any contending team IMO the rest depends on not only health but team chemistry.  

I think you are missing my point here.  If the stars are playing to the point where they have asset value, then the Mavs will very likely be in the first window and will have no interest in trading them.  By the time the Mavs give up on the first window, it will likely be when those stars no longer have asset value.  

I think you are being optimistic regarding health.  Its not just that the Mavs have a lot of injury prone players, but Nico let go the most respected medical team in the NBA and just fired the replacement after last season shit show.  Call me skeptical he is going to bring in a competent team.

I also think you are overestimating the talent on this team.  If Kyrie, AD and Flagg were all in their prime then they might have enough talent, but that is never going to happen.  I don't think they have the elite creation necessary to be a contender.

[Dahlsim]

I think you are missing my point here.  If the stars are playing to the point where they have asset value, then the Mavs will very likely be in the first window and will have no interest in trading them.  By the time the Mavs give up on the first window, it will likely be when those stars no longer have asset value.  

So by your way of looking at it the Mavs veteran players will either have asset value or no asset value?  So there's nothing in between?     I think teams trade players that have some level of asset to teams for player and or assets that can make them better in their window of contention. 

I think you are being optimistic regarding health.

 
Here's what I said: "I see at least a solid chance that the Mavericks have a relatively healthy season".  
So you think that too optimistic?  So the Mavs have what in your estimation, no chance, barely a chance, what's the right estimate? 

I also think you are overestimating the talent on this team.  If Kyrie, AD and Flagg ... 

So I said this "The talent level on paper is good enough to challenge any contending team".  You may be right, I may be overestimating but with my caveat of solid health I think the Mavs look pretty competitive on paper with any team.  

• Healthy Kyrie has been great in Dallas and one of top clutch players, closers in the league.  
  
• Healthy AD is generally ranked a Top 5 center (although playing the 4 is a possible problem for Dallas)  https://www.hoopshype.com/story/sports/n...804617007/ 
  
• Flagg is expected to be easily a top rookie if not THE top rookie this year. 
  

Then if we're looking on paper again, the Mavs roster is as deep as any team in the league on a pure talent basis.

[mvossman]

So by your way of looking at it the Mavs veteran players will either have asset value or no asset value?  So there's nothing in between?     I think teams trade players that have some level of asset to teams for player and or assets that can make them better in their window of contention. 

 
Here's what I said: "I see at least a solid chance that the Mavericks have a relatively healthy season".  
So you think that too optimistic?  So the Mavs have what in your estimation, no chance, barely a chance, what's the right estimate? 


So I said this "The talent level on paper is good enough to challenge any contending team".  You may be right, I may be overestimating but with my caveat of solid health I think the Mavs look pretty competitive on paper with any team.  

• Healthy Kyrie has been great in Dallas and one of top clutch players, closers in the league.  
  
• Healthy AD is generally ranked a Top 5 center (although playing the 4 is a possible problem for Dallas)  https://www.hoopshype.com/story/sports/n...804617007/ 
  
• Flagg is expected to be easily a top rookie if not THE top rookie this year. 
  

Then if we're looking on paper again, the Mavs roster is as deep as any team in the league on a pure talent basis.

I have a hard time seeing a trade including AD or Kyrie that makes sense for both teams while Mavs are trying to contend (or that Nico would have any interest in trading one of his guys).  

I think Kyrie will miss most of the season and will likely never be fully back to what he was.  I think AD misses 20-30 games and Lively at least 30 games.  I think we should expect more injuries in general as the medical staff has gone from a strength to a weakness.

Kyrie is an elite Robin, but never really thrived in the Batman role.  I don't expect that to change when he is 34 and returning from a significant knee injury.  AD is a really good center., too bad he will be playing a lot of minutes at the 4.  Top rookie is cool, but historically that player is generally been no more than a decent starter.  Even Lebron needed a year before he took off.  There are exceptions (Luka, Victor) but given how young Flagg is, I don't think you should expect him to be one of them.

[F Gump]

I have a hard time seeing a trade including AD or Kyrie that makes sense for both teams while Mavs are trying to contend (or that Nico would have any interest in trading one of his guys).  

I think Kyrie will miss most of the season and will likely never be fully back to what he was.  I think AD misses 20-30 games and Lively at least 30 games.  I think we should expect more injuries in general as the medical staff has gone from a strength to a weakness.

Kyrie is an elite Robin, but never really thrived in the Batman role.  I don't expect that to change when he is 34 and returning from a significant knee injury.  AD is a really good center., too bad he will be playing a lot of minutes at the 4.  Top rookie is cool, but historically that player is generally been no more than a decent starter.  Even Lebron needed a year before he took off.  There are exceptions (Luka, Victor) but given how young Flagg is, I don't think you should expect him to be one of them.

So your answer to "there's nothing in-between?" is that EVERY unknown for these players and this season will play out with the "worst case possible" outcome? Good grief. 

Yes it's easy to accept your assertion that Nico won't want to trade Kyrie or AD, at least not anytime soon, but mostly because they are huge talents and the Mavs need that. But how is that a disaster looming? The Mavs future does NOT revolve around them necessarily being traded, and at the first available moment. Let's see where this goes first. 

But it's not so easy to accept that every coaching and lineup decision will be made with blind stupidity (with no recognition of what might be advantageous and what is not), every health unknown will turn out for the worst, every player development possibility will take way longer than people think, and so on.

Even with Nico being in charge (and my total distrust of what he might do), I just see the assumption that "everything that can go wrong will go wrong" as nonsense, and extremely lazy. 

Why? Because by plenty of observation, we KNOW the coach and the players are way better than that. These are skilled professionals, and I expect they will figure things out in some manner that befits their basketball knowledge and experience. Assume EVERY unknown will happen to play out with the "worst case possible" outcome? It just doesn't work that way (unless you're tanking, of course).

Where will next season take them, and will they at some point shift directions on their current roster choices? Perhaps, but even that would be NBD. That's part of how roster-building works. Yes, some things will perhaps not work, but others may be an incredible success, and in total I believe there are way better overall possibilities for this roster than you want us to expect.

[mvossman]

So your answer to "there's nothing in-between?" is that EVERY unknown for these players and this season will play out with the "worst case possible" outcome? Good grief. 

Yes it's easy to accept your assertion that Nico won't want to trade Kyrie or AD, at least not anytime soon, but mostly because they are huge talents and the Mavs need that. But how is that a disaster looming? The Mavs future does NOT revolve around them necessarily being traded, and at the first available moment. Let's see where this goes first. 

But it's not so easy to accept that every coaching and lineup decision will be made with blind stupidity (with no recognition of what might be advantageous and what is not), every health unknown will turn out for the worst, every player development possibility will take way longer than people think, and so on.

Even with Nico being in charge (and my total distrust of what he might do), I just see the assumption that "everything that can go wrong will go wrong" as nonsense, and extremely lazy. 

Why? Because by plenty of observation, we KNOW the coach and the players are way better than that. These are skilled professionals, and I expect they will figure things out in some manner that befits their basketball knowledge and experience. Assume EVERY unknown will happen to play out with the "worst case possible" outcome? It just doesn't work that way (unless you're tanking, of course).

Where will next season take them, and will they at some point shift directions on their current roster choices? Perhaps, but even that would be NBD. That's part of how roster-building works. Yes, some things will perhaps not work, but others may be an incredible success, and in total I believe there are way better overall possibilities for this roster than you want us to expect.

I have no idea where most of this is coming from.  This is not the gloom and doom post that you are making it out to be.

If the Mavs are in the mode of trying to contend, then presumably a trade would involve sending out assets (and salary) to get a better player back.  What team is going to want to send the Mavs an even better player for AD and assets?  I simply think while the Mavs are in the first "window" they will likely ride or die with AD/Kyrie.  I don't know why you are reading this as being negative?

I don't look at things from the worst possible perspective.  I try to look at things objectively (like when I argued with you a year and a half ago that there were plenty of reasons not to give up on the season).  I don't think this team currently has contending talent.  Maybe you disagree.  They took a massive hit on the Luka trade and another big hit with the Kyrie injury.  That is a big gap to ask an 18 year old rookie to fill.  I think the latest over/under for wins is 40.  I have already stated I would easily take the over, so at least I am more positive than Vegas.  Is it really that negative to suggest a team that Vegas thinks will finish 9th in the West is not a contender?

[F Gump]

"I don't look at things from the worst possible perspective." -- Wait, what?? Your comments were 100% negative, and to the extreme -- you even went BEYOND the worst possible, when it comes to what is realistic. None of that is objective - it's just irrational negative assumptions. 

For example, you used the assumption that Kyrie is most likely injured for life and will never recover (from an injury that, while being severe and can take some time, is never thought of as a career ender). You decided the Mavs will force Kyrie into a misfitting alpha role that will not work (when Kyrie has not in the past been forced to be an alpha player oncourt here, no one has said Kyrie will be the primary player they build everything around, only that he is an important and highly talented part of the equation). You decided AD would be forced to play solely as a 4 to his and the team's detriment (which makes no sense and which they have never said). And more. 

From that palate of "beyond the scope of realism" doom-and-gloom ideas, you decided that ALL of them are looming ahead and then decided here's how they should respond - and flee from -- the pending onslaught of all those supposedly looming disasters that aren't real at all. Sheesh.

All of us have questions and see issues ahead that will probably have to be handled somehow. (NOTE: That is true of 29 other teams too.) But as much as I think Nico is a dolt, I do not think the coaches and players have lost their collective basketball minds, nor do I think they are unaware of the possibilities already, nor do I think they will be too dumb to realize if they have issues, nor do I believe they would be unable to figure out how to deal with whatever those may turn out to be. One truth that keeps getting ignored is that the Mavs have a MASSIVE amount of talent, most of it on very good contracts, which is a significant building block for successful roster-building. They'll only need to figure out the fit(s) and the needed tweaks, many of which might be solved internally, but they are nowhere near a dead end with this roster. Gloom-and-doom my azz. I'm so not buying the crap.

[mvossman]

"I don't look at things from the worst possible perspective." -- Wait, what?? Your comments were 100% negative, and to the extreme -- you even went BEYOND the worst possible, when it comes to what is realistic. None of that is objective - it's just irrational negative assumptions. 

For example, you used the assumption that Kyrie is most likely injured for life and will never recover (from an injury that, while being severe and can take some time, is never thought of as a career ender). You decided the Mavs will force Kyrie into a misfitting alpha role that will not work (when Kyrie has not in the past been forced to be an alpha player oncourt here, no one has said Kyrie will be the primary player they build everything around, only that he is an important and highly talented part of the equation). You decided AD would be forced to play solely as a 4 to his and the team's detriment (which makes no sense and which they have never said). And more. 

From that palate of "beyond the scope of realism" doom-and-gloom ideas, you decided that ALL of them are looming ahead and then decided here's how they should respond - and flee from -- the pending onslaught of all those supposedly looming disasters that aren't real at all. Sheesh.

All of us have questions and see issues ahead that will probably have to be handled somehow. (NOTE: That is true of 29 other teams too.) But as much as I think Nico is a dolt, I do not think the coaches and players have lost their collective basketball minds, nor do I think they are unaware of the possibilities already, nor do I think they will be too dumb to realize if they have issues, nor do I believe they would be unable to figure out how to deal with whatever those may turn out to be. One truth that keeps getting ignored is that the Mavs have a MASSIVE amount of talent, most of it on very good contracts, which is a significant building block for successful roster-building. They'll only need to figure out the fit(s) and the needed tweaks, many of which might be solved internally, but they are nowhere near a dead end with this roster. Gloom-and-doom my azz. I'm so not buying the crap.

This is such a negative take to the point where you are putting words into my mouth.

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.

[F Gump]

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.

[mvossman]

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 the very talented set of Mav players will be able to find ways to thrive without having to have every shot filtered through Luka. Are we to believe that these very good players have to have the final-second long cross-court passes on the back of the shot clock to be able to produce anymore? I sure don't buy that thinking, and it's certainly a negative assumption to assert they can't, without any observation yet to show that.]

"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.

This is hilarious.  You claim you are not putting words in my mouth (without addresses the three examples I provided) and respond by putting more words in my mouth.

I did not imply "that Kyrie at 34 is headed over a cliff".  I think he is due for age related decline.

I did not state "each minute AD plays as a 4 is bad" or "flatly assumes that he can't play well as a 4 at all".  I think he is better at the 5.

I don't know why you keep telling me we don't need Luka heliocentric offense?  I have never once advocated for that.  I have made it clear in the past that its not Luka style we will miss but his elite creation ability.  Yet you make ridiculous statements like "You have blindly assumed it is not possible".  There is absolutely no basis for putting those words in my mouth.

You claim "One take very opposite to yours" that this team will be salty on defense.  Where did I make any comment whatsoever on this thread regarding defense.  I suggested they should eventually trade for a POA defender.  Is that what you are basing this on?

The building blocks comment just meant I don't see them as assets to build a team.  I see them as the focal point (along with Flagg) for the first window.  Your last sentence is a perfect microcosm of this entire thread.  At what point did I ever say I had a problem with AD or Kyrie being on the roster?

Please stop parsing my posts to the board.  I am not the greatest communicator, but you seem to be wanting to read things into it that are not there.  I would suggest you ask for clarification if it seems like I am being overly negative, but it doesn't really seem like you want to listen.

[F Gump]

MV, words have meaning beyond the exact literal words on the page. That's how language works. I may have used words in responding that were not your exact words, but they were still definitely your ideas.

In your latest, you complain when I don't address some of your words, and then object when I do address others (which you call parsing them). You can't have it both ways. I'll just have to do the best I can with my responses, and you do you, and I'll do me. 

In this post, at first I did go in and address some of the specifics in your most recent post, which also addressed earlier ones too, but on further thought, I'm just deleting all of that and bailing on the details entirely. It was just pointing out the same contradictions in what YOU keep saying, and pointing out how what I was saying addressed your very ideas. But in this back-and-forth I have already addressed your ideas (which yes, my words were indeed speaking to exactly what you said, even if I didn't use the very same words that you did), and obviously you are clearly assuming a whole set of extremely negative outcomes which I see as too assumptive, so I will leave it at that. 

BOTTOM LINE. I've tried to respond to what YOU apparently wanted to assert, and I spoke to YOUR words from the get-go, but your response that I am making things up (never did) has made no sense and is wrong. Everything I gave in response has been true to what you wrote AND keep writing, even if they weren't your exact words. Overall, your ideas were written as a declaration of how bad things will be, so if they aren't intended to be negative after all, and highly so, I'm not sure what your opinion really is intended to be. I'll leave it at that.

[Benskix2]

I think Kyrie is going to be a worse player next year than he was last year, and the same will be true every year for the rest of his career. Even if he's somehow not worse he's going to miss a big chunk of the year

I think AD is going to have to play a lot of the 4, because we already have two 5's who aren't great candidates to play the 4 and deserve a lot of minutes. So either/both Cooper or PJ are going to have to play a lot of 3 to make this roster work.

There is a very high probability that injuries sort out some of the minutes crunch, but missing players obviously hurt our ceiling.

So in regards to the OP I don't believe this team has a window of contention as currently constructed, and that our best bet is to try and get good around Cooper Flag a couple of years from now, but I don't want to assemble a team whose ceiling is "just good".

[F Gump]

I think Kyrie is going to be a worse player next year than he was last year, and the same will be true every year for the rest of his career.  Even if he's somehow not worse he's going to miss a big chunk of the year

I think AD is going to have to play a lot of the 4, because we already have two 5's who aren't great candidates to play the 4 and deserve a lot of minutes.  So either/both Cooper or PJ are going to have to play a lot of 3 to make this roster work. 

There is a very high probability that injuries sort out some of the minutes crunch, but missing players obviously hurt our ceiling.

So in regards to the OP I don't believe this team has a window of contention as currently constructed, and that our best bet is to try and get good around Cooper Flag a couple of years from now, but I don't want to assemble a team whose ceiling is "just good".

I think Kyrie will be back better than most expect, because ACL injuries these days are way more "routine" than they used to be. It's a serious injury, but other than the time missed, it really doesn't have to have any lasting impact on Kyrie's game. That's subject to Kyrie's willingness to work, of course, but I trust that part of the equation won't prove to be an issue. 

As far as the numbers crunch at C & F, it's only going to be a minutes crunch if those 5 Mavs players who look like starters (Gaff, Lively, AD, PJW, Flagg) all navigate the year injury free. (In that case, I see Naji as getting left out.) But I don't think "injury free" will happen, in which case the depth will be valuable rather than any sort of issue. If there are 2 injuries at the same time, you already start to get a bit thin, and if they have 3 at once they will actually be a bit short-handed and either using 3rd-stringers or guards or 2-ways or all of the above to play C & F. (When you realize that's all it takes, the extra depth is no longer a concern.) I think the depth of QUALITY players at C-F will actually help, not hurt.

The question marks about running the offense will probably get worked out via developing the mix they have to start the season, but I think the Mavs early (and 1st half) schedule will factor into that a lot. Over the first month, they play 14 games at home and only 4 on the road, which is massively lopsided, and not only should help the record (and perhaps give them some confidence to build on), but more importantly will give them a big edge in having the opportunity for practices. You rarely can do those on the road. Extra practice sessions can help them in the development and oncourt chemistry areas, and that added foundational time to supplement camp should have an effect to carry over for the rest of the year.

The typical ACL return time these days is said to be 8-12 months, and the 1st half of the season ends right at the 10-month mark for Kyrie. If they can lay an early foundation that carries them for the first half, developing the guard rotation (Russell, Exum, Williams, Nembhard) with extra available minutes, then add Kyrie into the mix for the back half run (which will certainly be a major boost when it happens), the result could be good. Should be interesting.

[mvossman]

MV, words have meaning beyond the exact literal words on the page. That's how language works. I may have used words in responding that were not your exact words, but they were still definitely your ideas.

[Let me illustrate.
1 Say I said, 'Kidd is a bum, he can't coach hoops, he's bad for the team, he's the worst, he is ruining the Mavs chances, he will never be any good, the Mavs could win a title this year if Kidd wasn't the coach, etc.' 
2 Then even though I didn't say the exact words that 'I think Kidd needs to be fired asap' the idea is definitely within what I wrote.
3 So if you replied 'I can't believe you think Kidd needs to be fired,'...
4 ... and I came back with 'How dare you put words in my mouth, I never said Kidd should be fired, how dare you!', ...
5 ... then you would go "Wait, what??" because even though I didn't say those exact words, the meaning was very much part of what I said.]

The point is, I have only said what your words CLEARLY convey, by the implications and greater meaning that flow from your words, and it is NOT putting words in your mouth to speak to the broad ideas included. Now you can walk back your words if you want and say "I didn't want to mean THAT, instead here is what I meant." That's fine with me, if you wish to undo and/or clarify. But instead you say "How dare you, I am not making any extreme negative assumptions here" and of course you have been, they are everywhere within what you are writing. 

I'll speak to your first 2 examples, but they are characteristic. 
1 You said "I did not imply "that Kyrie at 34 is headed over a cliff." I think he is due for age related decline." -- Potato, potato. Not your exact words, but definitely your ideas. Age certainly has a gradual effect on all players, but in your various comments you are assuming an EXTREME decline at 34 as a certainty, and to the point where it is a significant issue. In light of the fact that Kyrie was ALL-NBA level at 33, it would have to be going over a cliff for him not to still be a highly valuable player at 34 and perhaps even play at an All-NBA level once he's healthy again. Some of your words were "I think Kyrie will miss most of the season and will likely never be fully back to what he was" which CLEARLY indicate the idea that his game is now headed over the cliff ("never be fully back") because he's 34 ("age related decline") and also certainly seems to say you think he will never truly get over his injury (or, as I put it to speak to what you said, "injured for life"). Not your exact words, but definitely your ideas, and an extremely negative assumptions to the max.
 
2 You said "I did not state "each minute AD plays as a 4 is bad" or "flatly assumes that he can't play well as a 4 at all." I think he is better at the 5" --- Uh huh. You said it was "too bad he will be playing a lot of minutes at the 4." So what DOES that mean, if not how I took it? I took that to mean that you think he can't play well at the 4. If you instead think he can play well at the 4, then why is him playing there "too bad"? Isn't it a plus that he can play both and play them well, rather than a minus? [As I see it, AD's play is not likely to be a problem at all, no matter how they use him. He has and creates other question marks for the team, to be sure, but he's a really top player because he's very impactful on both ends of the floor.] Anyhow, saying that AD's time on the court is going to somehow be undesirable is an extremely negative take.

Oh, and by the way, you complain when I don't address your words, and then object when I do (which you call parsing them). You can't have it both ways. I'll do the best I can with my responses, and you do you, and I'll do me.

BOTTOM LINE. I've tried to respond to what YOU have said, and I spoke to YOUR words from the get-go, but your response that I am making things up (never did) has made no sense. The implications and thoughts have been true to what you wrote AND keep writing, even if they weren't your exact words. All of your ideas were written in a context of how bad things are likely to go, so if they aren't intended to be negative after all, and highly so, I'm not sure what your opinion really is intended to be.

So the phrase "likely never gets back to what he was" equates to "an extreme decline at age 34 is a certainty"?  Do you honestly not see the difference between those two statements?  You are doing this across the board (and often more blatantly than this).  

If you actually want to understand what my original point was, then I will try to put it more clearly.

I think as long as Nico is here they are going to do everything they can to win with AD (which I refer as window one).

I think it very unlikely that they will trade AD or Kyrie during window one, both because I don't think Nico has any interest, and because its hard to see it from a logistical standpoint.  I don't see this in any way a bad thing.  

I don't think this team is currently a contender.  I think they are light on creation, are unevenly constructed (overbalanced to the frontcourt) and need time to play with each other, which won't fully start until late in season due to Kyrie injury.  It should be better the following season, but my guess is they will still need to add a piece to get there.  I think they will have a better idea of what that piece needs to be by the end of this season (or possibly even at the TDL).  

At some point, window one is going to end.  I think that most likely happens when Kyrie and AD are no longer playing at a high level.  I don't know when this will happen, but when it does they are probably past the point of being traded for significant assets.  This will a point that a lot of teams reach, when your stars age out and you have spent most of your future assets to win now.  It could be a long road to get to window two.

You can get most of this just by reading through this thread.  If you think the view that this team is not a contender is overly negative, then I think you are going to run into a lot of negativity regarding the Mavs.  The rest is just observation and speculation.

[mvossman]

I think Kyrie is going to be a worse player next year than he was last year, and the same will be true every year for the rest of his career.  Even if he's somehow not worse he's going to miss a big chunk of the year

I think AD is going to have to play a lot of the 4, because we already have two 5's who aren't great candidates to play the 4 and deserve a lot of minutes.  So either/both Cooper or PJ are going to have to play a lot of 3 to make this roster work. 

There is a very high probability that injuries sort out some of the minutes crunch, but missing players obviously hurt our ceiling.

So in regards to the OP I don't believe this team has a window of contention as currently constructed, and that our best bet is to try and get good around Cooper Flag a couple of years from now, but I don't want to assemble a team whose ceiling is "just good".

Its interesting, this take is actually more negative than mine, but you get a like while I get a 10 page scolding.

I actually think Kyrie will play at a higher level in two years then he will next year.  Guys come back from that injury perfectly healthy, but they don't trust the knee.  There are a lot of guys who talk about not really feeling right for a couple of months after coming back.

We are on the same page regarding as currently constructed, but what if they made a move in the neighborhood of Gafford plus assets for Derrick White?  Does that move the needle for you from a contention standpoint?

[Knutsen]

So we do need some real internal development to get back to championship level talent - that is Cooper Flagg has to get better each and every month, but also Lively has to stay healthy and start expanding his offensive game while learning how to be even more dominant defensively from - and together with - AD. Max Christie has to develop into a very good two way guard by learning a lot from Klay and Kyrie.

Then there’s the chance that we trade two or three of our good players for a really good one, that fits better next to Flagg, AD and Kyrie - for example Gafford and Washington for a very strong shooting guard, without having a specific guy in mind right now.

It will be a fascinating season, even if I‘m not sure it will be a really successful one. Maybe next year will be our best shot with this team, we‘ll see.

[F Gump]

Your comments said: "Do you think Kyrie at age 34 will still be in his prime? ... I don't think he will ever be what he was." -- and similar.

Why did I take from such comments the thought that you feel Kyrie will certainly have an extreme decline at age 34? Or that he will fall off the cliff at age 34? Or that he must be injured for life, then? 

Well, how about considering what your words imply are definitely coming for Kyrie. And then consider his baseline, and compare it -- in 2024-25 up to the injury, he was playing at an All-NBA level at age 33. And when we do that, my responses did speak squarely to your assertions.

If Kyrie's age 34 is bringing a player who is clearly NOT possibly going to be a prime-caliber player (the clear assertion of your question), and who will not EVER be what he was (your very words), how does he get there without his game falling off a cliff, since he was just as good as a player can be at 33? You have him going from All-NBA level of play, to a guy "out of his prime" (which is the common terminology for a guy whose game has taken a big step backwards and is fading), in just one year. That's not a small step. Nor is it a minor development for a player to NEVER get back to what he was (your words) after an injury break, and either that's falling off a cliff due to "age related decline" as you word it, or due to the idea he will never really recover from the injury ("injured for life"). 

Or else, of course, you might want to walk back what you said in the first place -- if you don't mean that, say something else. But if you meant it, then own the implications that come with it. 

I can go back and show the same thing on the rest of the things you raised. You make the claim, then when I run with it and speak to the idea and its clear implications, you claim you never said "that" and go even further to claim I am putting words in your mouth - even though "that" was exactly what your words conveyed. I would have dropped this a long time ago, but you keep pushing the claim I am putting things in your mouth, and nope not true at all.

[F Gump]

So we do need some real internal development to get back to championship level talent - that is Cooper Flagg has to get better each and every month, but also Lively has to stay healthy and start expanding his offensive game while learning how to be even more dominant defensively from - and together with - AD. Max Christie has to develop into a very good two way guard by learning a lot from Klay and Kyrie.

Then there’s the chance that we trade two or three of our good players for a really good one, that fits better next to Flagg, AD and Kyrie - for example Gafford and Washington for a very strong shooting guard, without having a specific guy in mind right now.

It will be a fascinating season, even if I‘m not sure it will be a really successful one. Maybe next year will be our best shot with this team, we‘ll see.

That's an analysis I think is a good plan, but I think there are some details that could be hard to navigate.

The first is finding the "very strong shooting guard" that really fits and gives you as much or more as you are sending away. That's a LOT of value to offer, on very reasonable contracts, tied up for years. So you'd want a guy who plays strong D, who can shoot 3's well, and who is hopefully in a similar age range as Gaff/PJW. But you also have a money issue, as you want a guy whose money is no more than that pair, and preferably a bit less. Does that guy even exist?

The second is that you're riding with the health of AD for the long term. IF he can be healthy, no problem, but if he keeps getting dinged all the time, what do you do? All your depth is gone. While (when healthy) AD is clearly the best they have, because he's an impact player on both ends of the court, it's really risky to put all your eggs in THAT basket as your key player. 

That's a hard idea to figure out how to navigate, because Nico. And it's fair to admit AD is their best talent, if he is playing, so you sure don't want to move off of him without being overwhelmed by an offer. While more should have been included, it's not unrealistic to recognize he was THE main piece that landed Luka Doncic for LA, and he's likely to still have very considerable trade value for some ongoing period. (The big question to me would be figuring out, if AD was the player being moved, what player or sort of player, or package, you would be looking for in return.)