Trade & FA 2025-26: Free Agency Starts 5pm CST/6pm EST

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

[Stein] Chicago is not expected to show interest in Anthony Davis, but they are a team to watch when it comes to Golden State's Jonathan Kuminga. The Bulls, meanwhile, continue to field trade interest in guard Coby White.

now we just need one more tweet that Atlanta isn't interested either

[Smitty]

now we just need one more tweet that Atlanta isn't interested either

I don’t make the trade with Atlanta without the Pelicans pick included. It’s not guaranteed to be top 5 or anything, but it allows the Mavs to stay competitive during Flagg’s rookie year while not worrying about “tanking” to improve your own pick. Also, I’m not convinced that the Mavs would be any less competitive with a KP+ return. Davis hasn’t played much this season anyway and they’ve been in nearly every game.

[mvossman]

I don’t make the trade with Atlanta without the Pelicans pick included. It’s not guaranteed to be top 5 or anything, but it allows the Mavs to stay competitive during Flagg’s rookie year while not worrying about “tanking” to improve your own pick. Also, I’m not convinced that the Mavs would be any less competitive with a KP+ return. Davis hasn’t played much this season anyway and they’ve been in nearly every game.

There is no chance they are getting that pick and even if they did I'm not sure why it would change incentives regarding their own pick?

[FireNicoHarrison]

[Siegel] The Indiana Pacers would be willing to move off of Bennedict Mathurin for a "big upgrade" like Ivica Zubac or Daniel Gafford.

Done.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

According to a source, Coby White has been inquired about, and time is of the essence in the Bulls making a decision. The source said that Minnesota is not looking to wait until February and the trade deadline to get a deal done, looking to fix the primary ball-handling situation that’s been an issue all season long for them

************************
It will be interesting to see what Minny could offer.    I don't think they can put together a great offer.   It is the type of move I could see the Minny GM doing.    They need more backcourt help.  While I don't think White is a point guard, he would be a welcome addition to their backcourt.

BTW, Mavs fandom took hate to a whole another level last year, but man the Bulls fans hate their team, GM, owner, etc.    They are not a happy bunch.  

Especially after starting the season 5-0. They've came back to earth, and don't look any better than last year except for Giddey taking a leap in his play.

[Smitty]

There is no chance they are getting that pick and even if they did I'm not sure why it would change incentives regarding their own pick?

Then there is no AD trade to ATL. My comment wasn't all that complicated.

[Dirknows]

Then there is no AD trade to ATL. My comment wasn't all that complicated.

Thought it is unlikely they would agree to a swap that is an option. Or top-4 protected and goes unprotected next season. We have no picks in 2027 so I’d like the return for AD to have 1 in it.

[DanSchwartzgan]

I really hate that Poeltl contract and not a huge fan of Barrett (another poor shooter).  I think the package of those two has negative value due to the size of those contracts.  The only thing in that trade that moves the needle is the 26 pick, but good chance Toronto will manage to stay out of the lottery in the East.  Maybe you are betting on AD breaking.  Maybe those kids have something and you are buying low, but they are both really shitting the bed this season.

That looks like a good team that is not particularly young and has no chance to contend.  Personally I am looking for a little harder reset than this.

I think the thing that is tough about these discussions is that people are all over the place on value and timing.  Some want to be the Brooklyn Nets of the 2026 draft and have five picks.  Others won't trade AD unless we get some massive haul (including a pick that is very likely top five in the upcoming draft).  What the most extreme positions ignore is the AD conundrum.  If you keep him, not only do you risk injury, you probably ruin your 2026 pick.  If you trade him for too little, you've cut off arguably the best path to the assets needed to build around Flagg.  Kicking the can to the summer doesn't guarantee anything improves.  

The truth is none of us has any idea what the real value of AD is around the league.  Most would agree we'd like great picks and youth with upside and cap relief through expiring deals for AD.  And, we'd like to do it in a way that the team keeps playing hard but still lands a great pick (since it is the only one they control for a long while).  There is no path to all of that happening.  So, where do we settle and where do we hold the line?  Strategy is the key (which you mention in thinking about a harder reset).  Where you are going is just as important as the steps along the way.  The Toronto deal as ESPN wrote it keeps the team competitive, but caps the ceiling.  I too like a deeper reset with greater upside.  I don't mind talking about other paths (like what ESPN proposed).  Maybe an imperfect idea can be improved upon. 

I don't mind the Poeltl part if we are being paid to do it.  As I said, I'm not a big fan of Barrett.  In terms of youth in this three way deal, I'd rather have Collin Murray-Boyles and Mathurin.  If I have Mathurin, I don't need Barrett, but I'm not sure how to do the deal without his money, so I need a fourth team and now this thing has gone off the rails.  Indy isn't giving a pick AND Mathurin for Gafford, so Toronto has to add one (I'd rather have 27/29 than 26/28).  We still have issues with unbalanced lineups and still need to move Barret for some return that doesn't add more players to our roster.  I think my basic position for bringing this up is no one is talking about Toronto while everyone seems to be shooting holes in deals involving Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta.  At some point, it might pay to look at this and see if we can find something workable.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

Maybe. 

But look what Houston did. They had lots of promising young talent- and went and acquired seasoned vets. And are winning.

This might be the new formula that GM’s are chasing.

That's a fair assessment. But it's not a guarantee for success.

[Smitty]

I think the thing that is tough about these discussions is that people are all over the place on value and timing.  Some want to be the Brooklyn Nets of the 2026 draft and have five picks.  Others won't trade AD unless we get some massive haul (including a pick that is very likely top five in the upcoming draft).  What the most extreme positions ignore is the AD conundrum.  If you keep him, not only do you risk injury, you probably ruin your 2026 pick.  If you trade him for too little, you've cut off arguably the best path to the assets needed to build around Flagg.  Kicking the can to the summer doesn't guarantee anything improves.  

The truth is none of us has any idea what the real value of AD is around the league.  Most would agree we'd like great picks and youth with upside and cap relief through expiring deals for AD.  And, we'd like to do it in a way that the team keeps playing hard but still lands a great pick (since it is the only one they control for a long while).  There is no path to all of that happening.  So, where do we settle and where do we hold the line?  Strategy is the key (which you mention in thinking about a harder reset).  Where you are going is just as important as the steps along the way.  The Toronto deal as ESPN wrote it keeps the team competitive, but caps the ceiling.  I too like a deeper reset with greater upside.  I don't mind talking about other paths (like what ESPN proposed).  Maybe an imperfect idea can be improved upon. 

I don't mind the Poeltl part if we are being paid to do it.  As I said, I'm not a big fan of Barrett.  In terms of youth in this three way deal, I'd rather have Collin Murray-Boyles and Mathurin.  If I have Mathurin, I don't need Barrett, but I'm not sure how to do the deal without his money, so I need a fourth team and now this thing has gone off the rails.  Indy isn't giving a pick AND Mathurin for Gafford, so Toronto has to add one (I'd rather have 27/29 than 26/28).  We still have issues with unbalanced lineups and still need to move Barret for some return that doesn't add more players to our roster.  I think my basic position for bringing this up is no one is talking about Toronto while everyone seems to be shooting holes in deals involving Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta.  At some point, it might pay to look at this and see if we can find something workable.

All great stuff. One thing is that while the Pelicans pick is Top 5 now, they're a 3-game win streak from it being Pick 8 or worse and have no incentive to tank like the teams below them (or above them) do, depending on how you look at it. That's why I say there's no guarantee it's even a top X pick. Lottery pick? Sure. I think we'll know more in 6 weeks when the TDL nears. 

I haven't been involved in the what-if when it comes to Toronto because there's nothing there that remotely piques my interest. A lot of meh, with little to no upside. This team needs to be competitive next season and beyond. If the likely Toronto package is the return for a player like Davis, I'm simply not pulling the trigger.

[mvossman]

Then there is no AD trade to ATL. My comment wasn't all that complicated.

I think if that is the kind of return you are looking for then you are never going to trade AD (which I think is a mistake).  I am also concerned that if this is the FO mindset, they are actually seriously considering extending AD (which I think would be an even bigger mistake).

You said that if we trade for that pick we don't have to worry about tanking for our own.  I interpreted that to mean that as long as we had one good pick we didn't need to worry about getting another, but maybe you were just saying that we would organically tank after that trade?

[mvossman]

I think the thing that is tough about these discussions is that people are all over the place on value and timing.  Some want to be the Brooklyn Nets of the 2026 draft and have five picks.  Others won't trade AD unless we get some massive haul (including a pick that is very likely top five in the upcoming draft).  What the most extreme positions ignore is the AD conundrum.  If you keep him, not only do you risk injury, you probably ruin your 2026 pick.  If you trade him for too little, you've cut off arguably the best path to the assets needed to build around Flagg.  Kicking the can to the summer doesn't guarantee anything improves.  

The truth is none of us has any idea what the real value of AD is around the league.  Most would agree we'd like great picks and youth with upside and cap relief through expiring deals for AD.  And, we'd like to do it in a way that the team keeps playing hard but still lands a great pick (since it is the only one they control for a long while).  There is no path to all of that happening.  So, where do we settle and where do we hold the line?  Strategy is the key (which you mention in thinking about a harder reset).  Where you are going is just as important as the steps along the way.  The Toronto deal as ESPN wrote it keeps the team competitive, but caps the ceiling.  I too like a deeper reset with greater upside.  I don't mind talking about other paths (like what ESPN proposed).  Maybe an imperfect idea can be improved upon. 

I don't mind the Poeltl part if we are being paid to do it.  As I said, I'm not a big fan of Barrett.  In terms of youth in this three way deal, I'd rather have Collin Murray-Boyles and Mathurin.  If I have Mathurin, I don't need Barrett, but I'm not sure how to do the deal without his money, so I need a fourth team and now this thing has gone off the rails.  Indy isn't giving a pick AND Mathurin for Gafford, so Toronto has to add one (I'd rather have 27/29 than 26/28).  We still have issues with unbalanced lineups and still need to move Barret for some return that doesn't add more players to our roster.  I think my basic position for bringing this up is no one is talking about Toronto while everyone seems to be shooting holes in deals involving Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta.  At some point, it might pay to look at this and see if we can find something workable.

I feel like taking on long term bad salary for picks is something that a hard tanking team does.  I don't think that applies to this team because they already have Flagg and they don't have control over the future picks for years.  That is why I'm generally out on a Toronto deal, but more specifically I don't think that trade proposal adequately paid for AD, Gafford and taking on that contract.

[Smitty]

I think if that is the kind of return you are looking for then you are never going to trade AD (which I think is a mistake).  I am also concerned that if this is the FO mindset, they are actually seriously considering extending AD (which I think would be an even bigger mistake).

You said that if we trade for that pick we don't have to worry about tanking for our own.  I interpreted that to mean that as long as we had one good pick we didn't need to worry about getting another, but maybe you were just saying that we would organically tank after that trade?

"I think if that is the kind of return you are looking for then you are never going to trade AD (which I think is a mistake)."

I think Dan spoke to this well. Opinions on what Davis could/should return are all over the place. It's safe to say we have different opinions. I will try to simplify what I think he should net you in-season. Expiring OR good player + young player + FRP(s). The picks depend on the other two. If it's just an expiring contract (filler) and a meh young player, then the higher/better pick package. The deal with ATL is fairly simple for me to show that value. Someone like Toronto, not so much. I don't know if 5 FRP's would make me like the players that would have to be included. (I can admit, I'm not a huge fan of just getting a bunch of picks anyway). Chicago is also easy to show where I'm at in terms of value. Detroit, I struggle with but can find something that works.

"You said that if we trade for that pick we don't have to worry about tanking for our own."

All I mean is that you've secured a lotto pick that has a high chance to be top 10 already. It allows you to keep your options open later into the season on if/when you need to start intentionally trying to lose games. IF you only had the one pick (your own), it doesn't offer the same flexibility. I think the difference between pick 13 and pick 15, 16, 17 is not all that significant. You can just play the season out and know that you have a lotto pick and your own pick, wherever it falls (13-17).

[michaeltex]

FWIW, the draft this past summer was significantly thinned out by players returning to college play due to the lucrative NIL dollars they could get (so much for amateurism). Unless the system changes, this will likely be a continuing story, so the deeper you go in the draft, the shallower the talent pool.

Just saying that lower FRP or any SRP may not have the same value now as they had historically, since there is financial incentive for the talent to just go back to school for another year.

On a side (philosophical) note...a lot of talent pulled out of the last draft for this reason. With a shallower pool, how in the hell did Ryan Nembhard not get drafted in at least the 2nd round?

[Mavs2021]

I think the thing that is tough about these discussions is that people are all over the place on value and timing.  Some want to be the Brooklyn Nets of the 2026 draft and have five picks.  Others won't trade AD unless we get some massive haul (including a pick that is very likely top five in the upcoming draft).  What the most extreme positions ignore is the AD conundrum.  If you keep him, not only do you risk injury, you probably ruin your 2026 pick.  If you trade him for too little, you've cut off arguably the best path to the assets needed to build around Flagg.  Kicking the can to the summer doesn't guarantee anything improves.  

The truth is none of us has any idea what the real value of AD is around the league.  Most would agree we'd like great picks and youth with upside and cap relief through expiring deals for AD.  And, we'd like to do it in a way that the team keeps playing hard but still lands a great pick (since it is the only one they control for a long while).  There is no path to all of that happening.  So, where do we settle and where do we hold the line?  Strategy is the key (which you mention in thinking about a harder reset).  Where you are going is just as important as the steps along the way.  The Toronto deal as ESPN wrote it keeps the team competitive, but caps the ceiling.  I too like a deeper reset with greater upside.  I don't mind talking about other paths (like what ESPN proposed).  Maybe an imperfect idea can be improved upon. 

I don't mind the Poeltl part if we are being paid to do it.  As I said, I'm not a big fan of Barrett.  In terms of youth in this three way deal, I'd rather have Collin Murray-Boyles and Mathurin.  If I have Mathurin, I don't need Barrett, but I'm not sure how to do the deal without his money, so I need a fourth team and now this thing has gone off the rails.  Indy isn't giving a pick AND Mathurin for Gafford, so Toronto has to add one (I'd rather have 27/29 than 26/28).  We still have issues with unbalanced lineups and still need to move Barret for some return that doesn't add more players to our roster.  I think my basic position for bringing this up is no one is talking about Toronto while everyone seems to be shooting holes in deals involving Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta.  At some point, it might pay to look at this and see if we can find something workable.

All good points. I´d base my whole approach around one counterpoint: If you want to tank, you can.

If this was my team. I´d first talk to Jason Kidd and then I´d call everybody in and say:

Listen guys. Nico did us dirty. That one is on me. I´ll do right by you. We won´t be pressured to do any bad deals, but nobody gets traded without their consent either. Nevertheless we´ll have to tank this season. That means we´ll all shut you down strategicly soon to secure a high draft pick to have sufficient building blocks for the Flagg timeline. If you have concerns about your next contract, playing time, career left I understand. See me later and we´ll talk. At the same time, we belief that this roster with minor tweaks will be able to contend next year. We have no choice. Like we have no choice this year. You have seen a dark clould being lifted in recent weeks. If you good, we will be in the play-offs next year.

That´s how I would approach it. I really do not care about anything else than the best draft odds possible. If we get a top 5 pick, nobody willl give a flying f***, if AD gets hurt next October, cause we´ll have two studs for the future with Nembhard, Lively and Christie as rotational building blocks and likeable veterans in Kyrie, Naji, Gafford and Washington.

[Smitty]

With a shallower pool, how in the hell did Ryan Nembhard not get drafted in at least the 2nd round?

His agent got a commitment from the Mavs to guarantee a 2-way contract for his client. The same way Proctor was steered to the Cavs. A lot of the second round is agent driven.

[Smitty]

@MavsFilmRoom
“The expected suitors, which — as ESPN first reported — are expected to include Detroit, Atlanta and Toronto. Yet as several league sources indicated, the actual level of interest from the aforementioned teams remains to be seen.“

“As one league source shared, there are even some indications that the Mavericks are still considering upgrading this current core rather than parting with their veterans.”


This is from Sam Amick's latest article.

[michaeltex]

His agent got a commitment from the Mavs to guarantee a 2-way contract for his client. The same way Proctor was steered to the Cavs. A lot of the second round is agent driven.

I'm just saying, he's not the 64th best player in that draft, is he? Seems like someone in the 2nd would have taken a chance. 

But, maybe he would not have had an opportunity to shine like he has on the PG-starved Mavs and would have been sent to the G-League and essentially forgotten with another team.

[mvossman]

"I think if that is the kind of return you are looking for then you are never going to trade AD (which I think is a mistake)."

I think Dan spoke to this well. Opinions on what Davis could/should return are all over the place. It's safe to say we have different opinions. I will try to simplify what I think he should net you in-season. Expiring OR good player + young player + FRP(s). The picks depend on the other two. If it's just an expiring contract (filler) and a meh young player, then the higher/better pick package. The deal with ATL is fairly simple for me to show that value. Someone like Toronto, not so much. I don't know if 5 FRP's would make me like the players that would have to be included. (I can admit, I'm not a huge fan of just getting a bunch of picks anyway). Chicago is also easy to show where I'm at in terms of value. Detroit, I struggle with but can find something that works.

"You said that if we trade for that pick we don't have to worry about tanking for our own."

All I mean is that you've secured a lotto pick that has a high chance to be top 10 already. It allows you to keep your options open later into the season on if/when you need to start intentionally trying to lose games. IF you only had the one pick (your own), it doesn't offer the same flexibility. I think the difference between pick 13 and pick 15, 16, 17 is not all that significant. You can just play the season out and know that you have a lotto pick and your own pick, wherever it falls (13-17).

I agree nobody knows what his value is.  I think you are higher than most.  Personally I would rather a trade happens that we might think is an underwhelming return (but still a tangible net positive for the future) than no trade and the possibility of an extension (I am not arguing this should be the FO mindset).

I don't think landing NOP pick should have any effect on how we approach our own pick.  Getting a second lottery pick would be huge.  I would also argue there is a significant difference between 13 and 15.  Its only 5% chance to get a top 4 pick, but how much more valuable is a top 4 than a 15?

[F Gump]

[Siegel] The Indiana Pacers would be willing to move off of Bennedict Mathurin for a "big upgrade" like Ivica Zubac or Daniel Gafford.

I know this snippet of info  surprises some, but it shouldn't. Gaff is a good center who has much-needed big man skills (defend the rim, block shots, rebound, good scoring skills around the basket). We seem to have forgotten what it's like when teams can dominate you inside and you lack the centers to stop them (stuck with DP, for example).

But teams value that a lot. 

In addition, because of his looming free agency, and the possibility you might be forced to a choice of matching a way-overpaid offer, or lose him, Mathurin is not as valuable as you might think. He's going to get a fairly sizable jump in pay, and that big raise will put financial stress on the cap of the team that has him. Absorbing a jump of maybe 20M is not a yawned in a hard cap world.