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

[mvossman]

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.

I don't find your arguments convincing.  I don't think people equate "not in their prime" to "falling off a cliff".

You also made a completely false statement: "and who will not EVER be what he was (your very words)".  These are not my words.  I said it was not likely.  You can't seem to make a response without doing something like this.

And you keep making the assertion that Kyrie was "just as good as a player can be at 33", and "playing at an All-NBA level".  What is that based on?  His numbers are down from previous years.  His TS% is down, his points, assists and assist rate is down and his turnovers and turnover rate is up.  Its not by a lot, but I don't see anything to suggest your two statements are accurate.

[F Gump]

I don't find your arguments convincing.  I don't think people equate "not in their prime" to "falling off a cliff".

You also made a completely false statement: "and who will not EVER be what he was (your very words)".  These are not my words.  I said it was not likely.  You can't seem to make a response without doing something like this.

And you keep making the assertion that Kyrie was "just as good as a player can be at 33", and "playing at an All-NBA level".  What is that based on?  His numbers are down from previous years.  His TS% is down, his points, assists and assist rate is down and his turnovers and turnover rate is up.  Its not by a lot, but I don't see anything to suggest your two statements are accurate.

Sorry, but 
1 A player going from an All-NBA level to out of their prime is indeed a major drop. Yes, I think Kyrie objectively played at that level last season until he was injured, and would have been selected had he not been injured. Why? He carried the Mavs all season, he was selected to the All-Star game, and he elevated his game even further after the trade. The fluctuations in the numbers were minor, he was one of the most clutch players in the league, and his efficiency shooting numbers were 48/40/92 which are stellar.
2 Nothing false at all in what I said. Or altering. Of course. Here you go again. I quoted you verbatim with quotation marks to lead off the post you are answering. It was cut-and-paste from your own post, which said "I don't think he will ever be what he was." I later below alluded to that comment of yours (this time without quotation marks) by using who will not EVER be what he was (your exact words) [which yes, those words in bold are exact word for word from the quote and convey its sense accurately] and now you want to claim that's not accurate? Good grief, what nonsense.

[ballsrchr]

Gosh guys.  I really like the comments you guys generally make, and it is easy for me to see that both of you are quite knowledgeable about basketball in ways I never was and never will be.  And...we ARE in the doldrums of the season...I feel your discontent.  I actually wish the season lasted all year!  But sometimes these "discussions" are akin to arguing about the "taint."  You know...taint this and taint that.  Or maybe the taint I learned about in the army...the taint is halfway between...the...yeah--well, maybe I can't depict this particular...picture...on this forum.  Just be aware that the taint is where you put your chin.

Now...hold my beer and I'll really show you how much I hate the summer basketball doldrums.

Nawww...better not.  I'm old.  It'll probably hurt.  The things in my mind--things that I thought I could do when I was young (and couldn't)--might actually get me dead!

Have a great day.  Damn...I'm ready for some basketball!

[mvossman]

Sorry, but 
1 A player going from an All-NBA level to out of their prime is indeed a major drop. Yes, I think Kyrie objectively played at that level last season until he was injured, and would have been selected had he not been injured. Why? He carried the Mavs all season, he was selected to the All-Star game, and he elevated his game even further after the trade. The fluctuations in the numbers were minor, he was one of the most clutch players in the league, and his efficiency shooting numbers were 48/40/92 which are stellar.
2 Nothing false at all in what I said. Or altering. Of course. Here you go again. I quoted you verbatim with quotation marks to lead off the post you are answering. It was cut-and-paste from your own post, which said "I don't think he will ever be what he was." I later below alluded to that comment of yours (this time without quotation marks) by using who will not EVER be what he was (your exact words) [which yes, those words in bold are exact word for word from the quote and convey its sense accurately] and now you want to claim that's not accurate? Good grief, what nonsense.

Ah, I see what you did.  The original quote that actually set you off is "will likely never be fully back to what he was".  But you found another quote referencing that quote that might be a little more negative so you are keying on that.  I guess that's my bad for not parsing the twenty posts since then.  I still take issue with you converting "not likely" and "don't think" into "will not".

Kyrie was literally the last guy to make the AS via injury replacement.  Given that there are 24 all stars (of which he did not make the original cut) and only 15 all NBA players, I'm not sure you are making an "objective" argument that he was all NBA level.

[Jym]

Maybe I'm just underestimating modern medicine but id fully accepted we'd never see pre-injury Kyrie ever again
Flashes of the past here and there but overall a noticeable drop off
Hopefully I'm wrong on that

[KillerLeft]

Maybe I'm just underestimating modern medicine but id fully accepted we'd never see pre-injury Kyrie ever again
Flashes of the past here and there but overall a noticeable drop off
Hopefully I'm wrong on that

This is kind of where I am with it, too, but for me it's just as much about his age (and the fact that he's just gotten his golden parachute) as the injury. I guess the question is: to what extent will we notice a drop-off, and how quickly? Hopefully it will be a mild, slowly progressing drop-off, but I think it's only prudent to plan for the idea that he's about to begin a decline of some kind. 

Even without the age or injury, I don't think he's right for the role of "primary playmaker," nor was he ever, imho. His legend was born from an era in which he played next to LeBron James, and his strong play here came while playing with Luka. I'm skeptical about him as a PG, basically. I think he's much, much better as a secondary playmaker (his off-ball movement skills and IQ are his most underrated skill) and as an iso player in situations where his matchup is favorable (which will be far less frequent if he's the primary ball-handler).

If I KNEW Flagg was on a trajectory to play on-ball a lot, like Luka (but differently, of course), then I might have more hope for "window 1," and even without that knowledge I'm more hopeful than some, but I won't truly take this team seriously until we see that reality on the court or until a replacement for Luka is added. Part of me still thinks the best version of Flagg will end up being almost exclusively off-ball, and while that's more than ok with me, it does leave a sizable hole in how this roster is built.

[Jym]

This is kind of where I am with it, too, but for me it's just as much about his age (and the fact that he's just gotten his golden parachute) as the injury. I guess the question is: to what extent will we notice a drop-off, and how quickly? Hopefully it will be a mild, slowly progressing drop-off, but I think it's only prudent to plan for the idea that he's about to begin a decline of some kind. 

Even without the age or injury, I don't think he's right for the role of "primary playmaker," nor was he ever, imho. His legend was born from an era in which he played next to LeBron James, and his strong play here came while playing with Luka. I'm skeptical about him as a PG, basically. I think he's much, much better as a secondary playmaker (his off-ball movement skills and IQ are his most underrated skill) and as an iso player in situations where his matchup is favorable (which will be far less frequent if he's the primary ball-handler).

If I KNEW Flagg was on a trajectory to play on-ball a lot, like Luka (but differently, of course), then I might have more hope for "window 1," and even without that knowledge I'm more hopeful than some, but I won't truly take this team seriously until we see that reality on the court or until a replacement for Luka is added. Part of me still thinks the best version of Flagg will end up being almost exclusively off-ball, and while that's more than ok with me, it does leave a sizable hole in how this roster is built.

Yeah I really should have mentioned age in my post 
Id have more hope for a full bounce back if he was mid 20s and had 2 years to fully recover. 
Even if fully healthy I would have expected a noticable drop off from 32 to 35 for a player of his size and style

[michaeltex]

This is kind of where I am with it, too, but for me it's just as much about his age (and the fact that he's just gotten his golden parachute) as the injury. I guess the question is: to what extent will we notice a drop-off, and how quickly? Hopefully it will be a mild, slowly progressing drop-off, but I think it's only prudent to plan for the idea that he's about to begin a decline of some kind. 

Even without the age or injury, I don't think he's right for the role of "primary playmaker," nor was he ever, imho. His legend was born from an era in which he played next to LeBron James, and his strong play here came while playing with Luka. I'm skeptical about him as a PG, basically. I think he's much, much better as a secondary playmaker (his off-ball movement skills and IQ are his most underrated skill) and as an iso player in situations where his matchup is favorable (which will be far less frequent if he's the primary ball-handler).

If I KNEW Flagg was on a trajectory to play on-ball a lot, like Luka (but differently, of course), then I might have more hope for "window 1," and even without that knowledge I'm more hopeful than some, but I won't truly take this team seriously until we see that reality on the court or until a replacement for Luka is added. Part of me still thinks the best version of Flagg will end up being almost exclusively off-ball, and while that's more than ok with me, it does leave a sizable hole in how this roster is built.

Kyrie has been amazing during his time in DAL. Killer 3pt game and awesome attacking-the-basket (ATB) creativity. He was THE guy LBJ left MIA to play with, but he got tired of the LBJ circus and wanted out. His time in BOS and NY were productive (winning wise) but his off court activities created a kerfuffle that destroyed his relationship with the Nets.

I also have my doubts that Kyrie will be fully back at mid-season. He might be physically ready, but he may need time to get there mentally. Although, I'm certainly no expert on mental aspects of athletic injury recovery. That said, I'm hopeful the current roster design will take some of the need for his ATB and put the burden on bigger, younger bodies. He's not a true setup PG like Luka, but I'm hoping the realizes there are a lot of finishers available on this team.

Larger picture...Kidd is notorious for his early season experimentation, but that usually ends by around Christmas. I'm looking at January results to get a feel on whether this roster can contend. If not, the there should be some TDL activities.

Final question...If PJW gets extended like the stories are now suggesting, does that make it harder to make trades for improvement, i.e., does that put DAL over the 2nd apron?

[F Gump]

Nothing the Mavs do with PJW will change their payroll this season, so no danger of exceeding Apron 2 this year. Nor would exceeding A2 be allowed anyhow, as they have a hard cap.

In future years, they are likely to have issues staying under A2 unless they find a way to move off of some salary. Getting rid of the Martin and Hardy crap contracts (that Nico stupidly added last season for no real good reason, equivalent to a pair of payroll-related own goals imo) would solve that. Whether Nico can get out of that box of his own doing remains to be seen. FWIW the rules next season don't demand they stay under A2, but the penalties are quite harsh if they don't.

[mvossman]

If I KNEW Flagg was on a trajectory to play on-ball a lot, like Luka (but differently, of course), then I might have more hope for "window 1," and even without that knowledge I'm more hopeful than some, but I won't truly take this team seriously until we see that reality on the court or until a replacement for Luka is added. Part of me still thinks the best version of Flagg will end up being almost exclusively off-ball, and while that's more than ok with me, it does leave a sizable hole in how this roster is built.

I see Flagg being a lot like Kawhi (obviously best case).  I don't think he will be the guy running the offense, but I think he will be the guy to go get a bucket when you really need it.  That can work with AD and Kyrie (and probably one other strong initiator) but he is going to have to get there quickly to have any chance in this window.

[F Gump]

MV, at no time did I ever try to cherry pick quotes. All your comments were similar to each other and said the same thing afaik. NOR DID I LIE ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID - those were indeed your exact words, just as I said and also quoted. If your wording differed slightly in one post vs another, do you expect me to research every post and do a dissertation on all of the content in all of them, just to quote you, as ALL of them really conveyed the same idea? That's absurd.

You KNOW I did not lie. I not only quoted your EXACT words that you cited and claimed I made up, but I even led off the post with a quote in quotation marks of your exact words too. Please stop with the ongoing BS that I am making things up, and then trying to nitpick ways to keep making that claim, as you KNOW I'm not.

As to Flagg .... yep, the sooner he develops, the better. From all accounts, he's been an incredibly fast learner and catches up to (and then excels in) the next level incredibly quickly. That's a major part of why he's so highly regarded. It makes for a very high ceiling that can come much quicker than it takes for others. I would think he will have plenty of opportunity to shine WITH Kyrie and AD before they eventually are moved or retire.

[mvossman]

MV, at no time did I ever try to cherry pick quotes. All your comments were similar to each other and said the same thing afaik. NOR DID I LIE ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID - those were indeed your exact words, just as I said and also quoted. If your wording differed slightly in one post vs another, do you expect me to research every post and do a dissertation on all of the content in all of them, just to quote you, as ALL of them really conveyed the same idea? That's absurd.

You KNOW I did not lie. I not only quoted your EXACT words that you cited and claimed I made up, but I even led off the post with a quote in quotation marks of your exact words too. Please stop with the ongoing BS that I am making things up, and then trying to nitpick ways to keep making that claim, as you KNOW I'm not.

As to Flagg .... yep, the sooner he develops, the better. From all accounts, he's been an incredibly fast learner and catches up to (and then excels in) the next level incredibly quickly. That's a major part of why he's so highly regarded. It makes for a very high ceiling that can come much quicker that it takes for others. I would think he will have plenty of opportunity to shine WITH Kyrie and AD before they one are moved or retire.

This is the last comment I am going to make regarding this because I realize it is totally ass whipping the board.  You started this by calling my post wildly and intentionally negative (language lesson, using the phrase "good grief" in response to a post is confrontational).  Since then every post on this thread by someone else has basically said the same things I said (or been more negative).  So just maybe your accusation that I was being intentionally negative is misplaced and I was actually expressing views commonly expressed by other folks.

[F Gump]

MV, I think you were expressing your views, not what everyone does or does not think.

To rewind, the conversation started with your idea (as it appeared to read to me, anyhow) that the Mavs were headed for a failed, bad, going nowhere season -- with the rationale that there was really no way around it because this, that, and the other WILL all go wrong. My paraphrase, of course.

You were asked if you couldn't see a better outcome that was in between but you said SINCE all of A, B, C, D etc WILL happen so as to be bad, there really isnt any path to a good successful season. It was your stance on the inevitability of all the various bad outcomes that I responded to.

Are you saying that I misread you and you actually do think there ARE possibilities that any, some, most, or even all of the various possibilities in player contributions, health, lineups, coaching choices, development etc this season could turn out positively rather than bad, and lead to a surprisingly fun season for Mavs fans? Or no?

[michaeltex]

[mvossman]

MV, I think you were expressing your views, not what everyone does or does not think.

To rewind, the conversation started with your idea (as it appeared to read to me, anyhow) that the Mavs were headed for a failed, bad, going nowhere season  -- with the rationale that there was really no way around it because this, that, and the other WILL all go wrong. My paraphrase, of course.

You were asked if you couldn't see a better outcome that was in between but you said SINCE all of A, B, C, D etc WILL happen so as to be bad, there really isnt any path to a good successful season. It was your stance on the inevitability of all the various bad outcomes that I responded to.

Are you saying that I misread you and you actually do think there ARE possibilities that any, some, most, or even all of the various possibilities in player contributions, health, lineups, coaching choices, development etc this season could turn out positively rather than bad, and lead to a surprisingly fun season for Mavs fans? Or no?

This definitely seems to be where the primary disconnect is.  In describing the reasons why I don't think this team is a contender, you took as suggesting this season will be a disaster.  There is a lot of room between contender and disaster and I think it will be somewhere in the middle.  If nothing else, watching Flagg develop will be a ton of fun to watch (he is honestly the reason I am still fully engaged).  The rest will be seeing what works and what doesn't.  But they need to hurry.  We have established I am less bullish than you on Kyrie (and AD for that matter) longevity.  I think it will be a race between Flagg development and Kyrie/AD decline.

[Dahlsim]

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.

MV, I think you were expressing your views, not what everyone does or does not think.

To rewind, the conversation started with your idea (as it appeared to read to me, anyhow) that the Mavs were headed for a failed, bad, going nowhere season  -- with the rationale that there was really no way around it because this, that, and the other WILL all go wrong. My paraphrase, of course.

You were asked if you couldn't see a better outcome that was in between but you said SINCE all of A, B, C, D etc WILL happen so as to be bad, there really isnt any path to a good successful season. It was your stance on the inevitability of all the various bad outcomes that I responded to.

Are you saying that I misread you and you actually do think there ARE possibilities that any, some, most, or even all of the various possibilities in player contributions, health, lineups, coaching choices, development etc this season could turn out positively rather than bad, and lead to a surprisingly fun season for Mavs fans? Or no?

Good offseason dead zone friendly debate.  
F Gump good job remembering the general point that far back in the thread   

MV good stuff representing the reasonably pessimistic side of the Mavs is glass empty, although I did get the impression at some point that hit the unreasonable side of betting on worst outcomes, but I think you reeled it back in toward the middle pretty well.   

The point I responded to in particular on reasonable outcomes between 0 = negative and 100 = championship ring had to do with the optionality of Mavs veterans, AD and Kyrie in particular, maintaining some trade value during the new few years that Mavs hope to be able be to some level contenders.   I suggested their are scenarios where the 2 stars could be less than 100% their prime best yet still maintain some useful level of trade value.  Relevant if the Mavs decided a trade was needed to help the franchise during the window. 

You suggested Nico would never trade them if they were still in the window.  Maybe not but my point is he could trade them or even it Nico were gone the Mavs could still have tradeable veterans at some level in the next few years if they need the flexibility to make a change.  For example if you trade an AD or a Kyrie the returning player doesn't have be purely better than the one you send out, they could be simply a better fit at the time.

[Benskix2]

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?

I would be thrilled with that trade.  I'm not sure it would be enough to make them contenders, but I would like to find out.  But that's a lot of salary to add, and I don't know how you fill out the roster and avoid the super double secret repeater probation tax in 26/27.  That's a problem for the next GM though, I think I would do it.

[ItsGoTime]

If I’m the GM, I’m looking to get 2 players to add to Flagg, PJW and Lively to be my core dynasty group. Those 2 names are Anthony Black and Cason Wallace. I’d have little problem using any available assets (other than the names listed) to do so! I think a lineup of Wallace/Black/Flagg/PJW/Lively kills for many many years!

[mvossman]

You suggested Nico would never trade them if they were still in the window.  Maybe not but my point is he could trade them or even it Nico were gone the Mavs could still have tradeable veterans at some level in the next few years if they need the flexibility to make a change.  For example if you trade an AD or a Kyrie the returning player doesn't have be purely better than the one you send out, they could be simply a better fit at the time.

I have resigned myself to the likelihood that Nico will be here for the duration of the first window, but dreams can come true.

I am struggling to see Kyrie traded for fit.  Given the Mavs desperate need for creation and how good that relationship has been, its hard to see another team value more (or even as much) as the Mavs do.

I could see AD being traded for fit.  But now you get into the logistics of traded a 60+ million contract for a 32+ year old player.  I think it will be really hard to find a match that works for both teams.  

I tried to do a thought experiment where something like this could possibly happen.  The best I could come up with is maybe things go poorly this season and Nico gets fired.  Maybe AD plays well but its clear the fit is not there with all of the other frontcourt players.  Maybe Mavs and Boston work something like AD for White + Simmons + assets?  But I don't know how you make that work.  If you do at the TDL, Boston would have to add at least one more salary meaning that Mavs would have to clear two roster spots.  Its just really hard to make something like this work.

[mvossman]

I would be thrilled with that trade.  I'm not sure it would be enough to make them contenders, but I would like to find out.  But that's a lot of salary to add, and I don't know how you fill out the roster and avoid the super double secret repeater probation tax in 26/27.  That's a problem for the next GM though, I think I would do it.

It would not be just Gafford.  They would add other salary filler (like Martin who would be even farther down the depth chart after the trade).