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

[DanSchwartzgan]

I am guessing, but I think that is probably where the Kuminga talk came from.   I don' think Gafford is a good fit for GSW.    I think KP could be.  The issue is his healthy is so spotty.

I've also seen it theorized that Toronto would be better off with KP than with AD.  But, I'm not sure the strategy for Toronto is talent or fit based.  I think they are just trying to clean up the books a bit.

[BigDirk41]

The Pistons have nearly $19M in tax space and a $14.1M TE, from the Schroder trade, that expires in July. Jaden Ivey has been underwhelming for them this year. He is a 23 year old combo guard that is a restricted free agent this summer. Would they be interested in the combination of Klay and Naji for Ivey and a FRP? Could you then make a move like Gafford for Mathurin or to ATL for Kennard + FRP, and duck the tax completely this season? I don't know that it's a requirement from Dumont, but as it stands, that repeater tax bill is massive next season.

DAL: Ivey, '27 FRP (DET)
DET: Naji, Klay

DAL: Kennard, '26 FRP (CLE)
ATL: Gafford

 
This would move the Mavs ~$2M below the tax line and free up a roster spot for Nembhard. The Mavs could then waive Exum at the point of needing to convert Cisse, when his two-way eligibility runs out this season.

I really hope some trades like these happen, even if AD isn't moved. This is what we should be looking for.

[DanSchwartzgan]

To me, a deal criteria for this deadline isn't "did the Mavs get enough assets for AD or reject an offered deal because they couldn't," but rather, "will the Mavs' future be brighter if they don't do Best AD Offer 2/5/26 or if they do pull the trigger."  

I think the most recent AD injury took off some of the pressure to trade AD (because showcasing him isn't hurting the tank any more).  I think it also opens some possibility that AD will be here to start the season next year...1. Because I don't think the offers get any better in the summer and 2. We don't have an incentive to tank in 26/27.  He does impact winning when he plays.

But, I also tend to agree that while there may not be an imperative to deal AD before the trade deadline, we will likely regret not doing so.

[F Gump]

MV - Your post doesn't tell me anything new. You don't agree with my opinions. Got it. Good job! I have explained how I see my pov as more realistic than what others opine (including YOU!) because I think that's where the Mavs truly are. Your post really doesn't accurately reflect my views as stated, or the way I have approached the various opinions at all, and instead you have misstated literally everything I have said, misstating my words, or an opinion itself, or how I used my opinion to speak to the trade possibilities. It's frustrating to have to deal with. I'll leave it at that.

[F Gump]

I am guessing, but I think that is probably where the Kuminga talk came from.   I don' think Gafford is a good fit for GSW.    I think KP could be.  The issue is his healthy is so spotty.

I am biased on Kuminga, as I generally don't want him for the Mavs. I just don't think he's as good as he wants to get paid, and I don't think his skills are all that great for the Mavs either.   

I do agree on reason for the Kuminga-to-DAL talk. He's an expiring contract. In some trade scenarios, the Mavs might desire to turn an incoming player with a multi-year into an expiring, which imo is how he could end up in DAL.

I would assume that in general the Mavs would rather have KP expiring than Kuminga expiring, because KP has the theoretical potential to turn into assets via a SNT, whereas Kuminga (assuming you will decline his team option to keep from being obligated) would not.

[mvossman]

Your post really doesn't accurately reflect my views as stated, or the way I have approached the various opinions at all, and instead you have misstated literally everything I have said, misstating my words, or an opinion itself, or how I used my opinion to speak to the trade possibilities. It's frustrating to have to deal with. I'll leave it at that.

LOL, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black!  How about we agree not to put words into each others mouths.  Based on posting history, I think that is going to be a lot bigger adjustment for you than me.

[F Gump]

 I know that FGump's pipe dream is Presti.

C'mon Scott, call it a "brilliant plan" - not a pipe dream!!

"The great danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."

"Aim for the moon. If you miss, you may hit a star". 

"You can't hit a home run unless you step up to the plate. You can't catch a fish unless you put your line in the water."

Dream bigger.

[DanSchwartzgan]

The Pistons have nearly $19M in tax space and a $14.1M TE, from the Schroder trade, that expires in July. Jaden Ivey has been underwhelming for them this year. He is a 23 year old combo guard that is a restricted free agent this summer. Would they be interested in the combination of Klay and Naji for Ivey and a FRP? Could you then make a move like Gafford for Mathurin or to ATL for Kennard + FRP, and duck the tax completely this season? I don't know that it's a requirement from Dumont, but as it stands, that repeater tax bill is massive next season.

DAL: Ivey, '27 FRP (DET)
DET: Naji, Klay

DAL: Kennard, '26 FRP (CLE)
ATL: Gafford


This would move the Mavs ~$2M below the tax line and free up a roster spot for Nembhard. The Mavs could then waive Exum at the point of needing to convert Cisse, when his two-way eligibility runs out this season.

That accomplishes a lot of interesting and helpful things.  A young guy with upside, some picks, though not particularly valuable ones (though you would now have a 2027 pick which opens up some things you can't currently do).  It saves a few bucks in 26/27 and helps you work with Cisse and Nembhard now.  Both deals feel balanced and help the teams in question without hurting our tank (since our only centers going forward for the rest of the season would be Powell and Cisse).

I wish Ivey was better on corner 3's, but he's better from deep than many of the alternatives that we discuss.  This is the first season he's ever been a positive on-court and he's now playing a role that I think fits him best (scorer off the bench).   I like that he's restricted this summer, but I don't like that his draft status makes him and his agent think he deserves a certain salary based just on that.  He's not a favored archetype in the current NBA, but the value you passed on (by sending Klay and Naji out in other deals) is theoretical.  That's my one critique...might you have gotten more for Naji and Klay elsewhere?

[mvossman]

I am biased on Kuminga, as I generally don't want him for the Mavs. I just don't think he's as good as he wants to get paid, and I don't think his skills are all that great for the Mavs either.   

I do agree on reason for the Kuminga-to-DAL talk. He's an expiring contract. In some trade scenarios, the Mavs might desire to turn an incoming player with a multi-year into an expiring, which imo is how he could end up in DAL.

I would assume that in general the Mavs would rather have KP expiring than Kuminga expiring, because KP has the theoretical potential to turn into assets via a SNT, whereas Kuminga (assuming you will decline his team option to keep from being obligated) would not.

I think KP would be more desirable from the standpoint that he clearly has no asset value (Potts is a scary thing on a professional athlete).  He will likely be cheaper.  I think GS thinks they should be getting something for Kuminga so he will likely be more expensive.  I do completely agree with your Kuminga value assessment.

[DallasMaverick]

Let's say you're a superstar on a max contract, like Giannis, or Luka, or Jokic, and you decide that your team can't win as currently constructed. Maybe the team has whiffed on some high draft picks. Maybe they've made trades that didn't pan out, and the draft cupboard is bare.

Maybe the team went "all-in" on acquiring high-priced veterans, but they just weren't good enough to win a championship.

Let's say you're unhappy without a ring, and want a trade.

Where are you going to go? And how will your GM construct a deal that satisfies both parties?

Maybe the deal will involve another disgruntled superstar on a max salary. Does that really increase the championship aspirations of either team? In an even swap, aren't both teams in about the same place as they were before the trade? Would Giannis for Luka really move the needle for either team?

If I'm Giannis, I want to be traded to a team that retains substantial talent, but can accomodate my max salary. So they have to send out high salaries of non-performing players, and probably a ton of draft capital to compensate, and maybe some young talent that isn't performing at a high level yet.

The key in the whole equation is for the acquiring team to have substantially underpaid talent already on their roster. Guys on rookie contracts who are contributing like superstars.

...and the window of opportunity is small, because soon, those rookie contracts expire and turn into big, huge contracts. Think Boston, OKC.

If any of those superstars really want to win, they should do like Dirk: take a lower-than-market deal to allow the team to acquire more talent. Kobe could have done that, but wanted the money. LeBron could do that, but hasn't.

[DallasMaverick]

They need a GM. Period.

I think this might be an oversimplification.  It implies:

(1) A "real" GM will always make winning decisions, and
(2) The existing brain trust will always make losing decisions.

Black and white.

It's like saying that a good coach will always make the right call, and a bad coach won't, or that a good front office will always draft well, while a bad one will always whiff.

Shades of gray.  

Was Cuban a "good" owner?  Did he consistently make winning decisions?  Or was he always wrong?  I'd argue that, overall, his track record was much more positive than negative.  Did he have some stinkers? Sure.

How do you know the current GM's can't make good decisions? What track record do you see?  Or is it just guilt by association? Nico liked them, so you hate them.  Weak.

Perhaps you could take the position that they are disqualified simply because they don't have a track record at all. OK, I can accept that.  It's like a young person with no credit score.  But I'm guessing that they DO have an internal track record which we can't see - how they recommended or opposed moves while they were in the inner circle. Like how it eventually leaked that Donnie favored drafting Giannis, but Cuban overruled.

This viewpoint also sees people as completely static, incapable of learning or improving.  Isn't the feedback of a bad decision instrumental in improving your decision-making process?  Did you ever touch the hot stove when you were a kid?

[F Gump]

LOL, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black!  How about we agree not to put words into each others mouths.  Based on posting history, I think that is going to be a lot bigger adjustment for you than me.

Dude, you just made a field of strawmen, I point it out, now you're all huffy about it. You don't care that you did that, you just want to put me down. I get it. You've been doing it for weeks.

And you claimed I attacked you, when I did no such thing. You deliberately changed what I wrote, then objected to that new content. Which was yours, not mine! (I never claimed everyone who disagrees with me thinks AD is worthless. Sheesh.) 

I don't ever put words in your mouth intentionally, and when I do it accidentally, if you point it out I apologize and move on. You know that. 

You literally made up a whole list of things you said are my ideas that I claim are the Mavs thinking, and it was ALL nonsense. In literally none of them was that true about what you said, not a single one. More than one isn't even an accurate reflection of my personal opinion. Please stop.

[mvossman]

Dude, you just made a field of strawmen, I point it out, now you're all huffy about it. You don't care that you did that, you just want to put me down. I get it. You've been doing it for weeks.

And you claimed I attacked you, when I did no such thing. You deliberately changed what I wrote, then objected to that new content. Which was yours, not mine! (I never claimed everyone who disagrees with me thinks AD is worthless. Sheesh.) 

I don't ever put words in your mouth intentionally, and when I do it accidentally, if you point it out I apologize and move on. You know that. 

You literally made up a whole list of things you said are my ideas that I claim are the Mavs thinking, and it was ALL nonsense. In literally none of them was that true about what you said, not a single one. More than one isn't even an accurate reflection of my personal opinion. Please stop.

This is the actual sentence you wrote:

For those who think AD is worthless and needs to be moved no matter what, obviously to them what I am saying is not "realistic," 

Who is this referring too?  There are a lot of people on this board that think your demands are unrealistic, but very few (if any) have stated AD is worthless and needs to be moved no matter what.  You do this a lot.

As for stating your views, that was supposed to be a description of how they are coming across.  I didn't make that clear and honestly it wasn't necessary to make the point I was making anyways.  I will not be doing that again.

[mvossman]

I think this might be an oversimplification.  It implies:

(1) A "real" GM will always make winning decisions, and
(2) The existing brain trust will always make losing decisions.

Black and white.

It's like saying that a good coach will always make the right call, and a bad coach won't, or that a good front office will always draft well, while a bad one will always whiff.

Shades of gray.  

Was Cuban a "good" owner?  Did he consistently make winning decisions?  Or was he always wrong?  I'd argue that, overall, his track record was much more positive than negative.  Did he have some stinkers? Sure.

How do you know the current GM's can't make good decisions? What track record do you see?  Or is it just guilt by association? Nico liked them, so you hate them.  Weak.

Perhaps you could take the position that they are disqualified simply because they don't have a track record at all. OK, I can accept that.  It's like a young person with no credit score.  But I'm guessing that they DO have an internal track record which we can't see - how they recommended or opposed moves while they were in the inner circle. Like how it eventually leaked that Donnie favored drafting Giannis, but Cuban overruled.

This viewpoint also sees people as completely static, incapable of learning or improving.  Isn't the feedback of a bad decision instrumental in improving your decision-making process?  Did you ever touch the hot stove when you were a kid?

Suggesting this team needs a real GM is not making the black and white statements you are implying (lots of straw men today).

I would argue Cuban was a good owner who made a lot of mistakes but was willing to pay to fix them.  I would argue that changed after the championship.  He made the same mistakes but was less willing (and able from a CBA standpoint) to address his failures.

Your right that folks learn and get better at what they are doing.  Given how important this particular point in the Mavs transition from Luka based to Flagg based, wouldn't it make sense to bring somebody in who has already gone through that learning process than to have somebody starting from scratch?  We can't afford a bunch of newbie errors right now.

[Smitty]

That's my one critique...might you have gotten more for Naji and Klay elsewhere?

Hard to know for sure. It takes two to tango. I think the consensus on the board is that Naji’s value is anywhere from multiple second round picks to a late FRP, and that Klay’s value is expiring + SRP(s). Moving them in separate deals could maximize their individual value. The fact that you get an intriguing young guard that’s a RFA makes it reasonable to me in this hypothetical, therefore I’m satisfied with the combined value.

I’ve seen contradicting reports on Ivey. Some have said they won’t look to trade him at all and others report they’ve made calls to gauge interest. If I’m DET and I have a chance to win the East this year, adding both Klay and Naji would be very enticing!

[F Gump]

This is the actual sentence you wrote:

For those who think AD is worthless and needs to be moved no matter what, obviously to them what I am saying is not "realistic," 

Who is this referring too? 

It is referring to those who have stated (or seem to imply) that AD is worthless and needs to be moved no matter what. That's why I said it was "For those..." (and not for everyone).

[F Gump]

Hard to know for sure. It takes two to tango. I think the consensus on the board is that Naji’s value is anywhere from multiple second round picks to a late FRP, and that Klay’s value is expiring + SRP(s). Moving them in separate deals could maximize their individual value. The fact that you get an intriguing young guard that’s a RFA makes it reasonable to me in this hypothetical, therefore I’m satisfied with the combined value.

I’ve seen contradicting reports on Ivey. Some have said they won’t look to trade him at all and others report they’ve made calls to gauge interest. If I’m DET and I have a chance to win the East this year, adding both Klay and Naji would be very enticing!

I wonder if Ivey is worth the gamble. 

As in all "payroll-reduction" deals, I'd certainly want to see some bad salary outgoing (ie Martin, Hardy, or DAR), rather than using talent by itself to reduce the total. 

This deal appears to put DET over the tax line AND forces them to waive a player. Not sure how that would fly. It also offers 2 players that would need a good chunk of minutes to be of value to them, rather than park them on the bench, but Ivey's minutes are not that significant (only 17 mpg). Is the #1 team in the East going to be interested in revamping their setup that much?

[Smitty]

This deal appears to put DET over the tax line

Not by my calculations.

DET has $18,966,443 of room below the Tax Line. 

Ivey outgoing: $10,107,163
Klay and Naji incoming: $25,666,667

Leaving them $3,406,939 below the Tax Line.

[F Gump]

I think it is clear there is disagreement with your perception of Market Value.  But, you are in essence saying there is no market unless Dallas agrees to a deal.  Thus, your perception of what they will accept defines market value.  That just feels circular.  

Circular is not the right word. What I am offering is my view of how things are (which includes opinion), and it aligns with how I think things are likeliest to go, because of course it should! Otherwise, I should have a different opinion.

But yes, IN MY ESTIMATION, the Mavs are less likely to be committed to seeing AD is traded. So, "what do they want or expect, as their minimum acceptable return" is imo what is closest to defining what a TDL trade would end up looking like, IF ONE HAPPENS, because I think that otherwise the Mavs will simply walk.

I'm not suggesting they have put out a mandate, take it or leave it. If they are smart, they are asking for even more than they would accept, with a willingness to negotiate to that bare minimum if need be.

But I think they know what they want and if anyone chases an AD deal, I think it will be the buyer, not the Mavs. 

If a deal doesn't happen? Then we can't really answer the question of "what deal was the workable deal" with any reliability. 

I don't do this from only the Mavs pov, even though I think they are the ones who will drive the hardest bargain. For example, I have repeatedly noted disagreement with viability of the particulars of any proposed deals that put ATL over the tax line, because I don't think the ATL ownership would be willing to go there period. I also think that will continue to apply to future years ATL payroll.

[F Gump]

Not by my calculations.

DET has $18,966,443 of room below the Tax Line. 

Ivey outgoing: $10,107,163
Klay and Naji incoming: $25,666,667

Leaving them $3,406,939 below the Tax Line.

Okay. No argument. I didn't do the math, but was using Spotrac totals which are weird at times and they had 175+M on the DET cap sheet as the total, but on the 30-team summary they also have 168M. That number works.