AROUND the NBA:

[HoosierDaddyKid]

That Clev team will probably win their series against the Raptors.  They also play in the wide open East.   Although, I feel pretty confident that team is not going to win anything.    What looked like a team that was positioned really well even with some playoff flameouts, now looks like they will have some very difficult decisions coming up.  An older Harden and now a potential contract uncertainty with Mitchell.   Things change quick.

Cleveland went all in on Harden. I guess we'll see how that ends up, considering his past playoff failures. The same goes for Mitchell. On paper, they have everything covered. Size, shooting, and a deep bench. But they have to prove it to me.  Boston looks to be the favorite, but they can lay an egg if those 3's aren't falling. They take about 50 per game, but they make them more than any other team in the East. The Knicks are skeptical to me because teams are trapping and hunting Brunson on P&Rs, Kat is inconsistent, and Mike Brown I don't trust as a coach. Atlanta is still young, and Detroit struggles with consistent shooting, and Orlando is healthy now, so they're playing like the team everyone expected. They have also taken away the Cade/Duren P&R, which was very effective during the season so far. They also have more scoring punch than the Pistons, so if the Detroit defense we've seen all year doesn't show up, they're in trouble.  So basically, I'm saying the East is a crap shoot to this point, with a slight edge to Boston, or whatever team can put a playoff push together.

[Chicagojk]

If Houston loses, KD really needs to look at himself in the mirror.   When he left OKC, I think most understood.  Maybe not OKC fans and fans pissed that he was going to a stacked team, but I believe he didn't get a ton of pushback.   Then he won two titles in GSW and was huge in big games.   GS is Steph's team though, so supposedly he wasn't very happy.  Still though, most understood him wanting to go to a team that was his.

Since then though it has been a mess.  The Nets was more of a Kyrie thing but It certainly wasn't flawless with him.    Then it got worse.   The Suns turned out to be better without him this year.   Now the Rockets appear worse this year with him.   

Fair or not (I think it is fair), his last few years in his later career has not been very impressive impacting wins.

[mvossman]

If Houston loses, KD really needs to look at himself in the mirror.   When he left OKC, I think most understood.  Maybe not OKC fans and fans pissed that he was going to a stacked team, but I believe he didn't get a ton of pushback.   Then he won two titles in GSW and was huge in big games.   GS is Steph's team though, so supposedly he wasn't very happy.  Still though, most understood him wanting to go to a team that was his.

Since then though it has been a mess.  The Nets was more of a Kyrie thing but It certainly wasn't flawless with him.    Then it got worse.   The Suns turned out to be better without him this year.   Now the Rockets appear worse this year with him.   

Fair or not (I think it is fair), his last few years in his later career has not been very impressive impacting wins.

I think he took a ton of flack/pushback for jumping ship to go to a team that had just won a title without him.

[FireNicoHarrison]

KD is a pussy

[Chicagojk]

Sounds like there may be several changes to East playoff teams in their coaching staff if a few don't have an extended run.  


Amick] The noise surrounding the Knicks’ Mike Brown won’t die down unless they reach the NBA Finals, and even that might not be good enough for the first-year New York coach to be safe.


Fair or not, those are the finals-or-bust parameters set by owner James Dolan when he gave that rare interview in which he said as much earlier this season. In the here and now, though, Brown and his staff making the necessary adjustments to respond in the Knicks’ 114-98 Game 4 win over Atlanta to tie the series is far better than the alternative.
The Sixers’ Nick Nurse is widely believed to be under pressure too, meaning Sunday’s loss to Boston, which put them in a 3-1 hole, qualifies as a step in the wrong direction. The same can be said for Cleveland’s Kenny Atkinson, whose Cavs did the James Harden deal in February with the expectation that they would return to title-contender status but who, after falling 93-89 to Toronto on Sunday, are now tied 2-2 with the Raptors. Game 5 is in Cleveland on Wednesday.

[mvossman]

Sounds like there may be several changes to East playoff teams in their coaching staff if a few don't have an extended run.  


Amick] The noise surrounding the Knicks’ Mike Brown won’t die down unless they reach the NBA Finals, and even that might not be good enough for the first-year New York coach to be safe.


Fair or not, those are the finals-or-bust parameters set by owner James Dolan when he gave that rare interview in which he said as much earlier this season. In the here and now, though, Brown and his staff making the necessary adjustments to respond in the Knicks’ 114-98 Game 4 win over Atlanta to tie the series is far better than the alternative.
The Sixers’ Nick Nurse is widely believed to be under pressure too, meaning Sunday’s loss to Boston, which put them in a 3-1 hole, qualifies as a step in the wrong direction. The same can be said for Cleveland’s Kenny Atkinson, whose Cavs did the James Harden deal in February with the expectation that they would return to title-contender status but who, after falling 93-89 to Toronto on Sunday, are now tied 2-2 with the Raptors. Game 5 is in Cleveland on Wednesday.

Wonder if Kidd ends up in NY this time if Mavs hire legit GM.

[KillerLeft]

Wonder if Kidd ends up in NY this time if Mavs hire legit GM.

From your fingers to God's eyes, my friend.

[Winter]

Per The Athletic’s Sam Amick, one proposal is clawing its way to the front. In late-March, three anti-tanking proposals were submitted to the league, and per Amick, option No. 1 is the “heavy front-runner.”

That would increase the number of lottery teams from the current 14 to 18, and would give the bottom 10 teams an even 8% chance at landing the top pick. The remaining 20% of odds would be divided among the remaining eight teams.

It would be a drastic diversion from the current system, which gives teams lesser odds in descending order, starting with a 14% chance at the top pick for the worst three teams.

Per Amick, tweaks are still expected to be made to the current proposal, though Option No. 1 is currently the favorite and likely to win out. At least 23 of the current 30 owners would need to give it the green light at next months’ Board of Governors meeting.

The biggest problem with the proposed option is moving from artificially bad teams to legitimately bad teams, which could happen with lessened lottery luck each year. For now, teams are positioning themselves for better odds with slightly better talent level, though the proposed option guarantee that the worst teams get the top players, which should likely be the goal.

With that, teams could continuously get lesser talent by falling at the lottery, making it hard to acquire the top picks and thus accelerate rebuilds.

[Chicagojk]

Wonder if Kidd ends up in NY this time if Mavs hire legit GM.

The Mavs can say they want Kidd to coach the team and Kidd may say he wants to coach the team.  Although if you are looking at established GM's, you need to give them full authority to pick the coach.    If I was a GM with skins on the wall, Kidd would sort of scare me.    I think Kidd likes the new found power too.

[DallasMaverick]

A couple of observations about this years' playoffs:

Teams we viewed as very strong can quickly look weak.

Teams we viewed as pretty weak can quickly look strong.

Players we view as expensive, one-dimensional, and washed-up (Marcus Smart, CJ McCollum) can be key contributors on winning teams.

The gap between pretty good and pretty weak teams is actually small. A single player or coach can swing things dramatically.

If you subscribe to the "winner" and "loser" categorization of players (or coaches, or GM's), you will miss quality contributors, or overvalue mediocre ones.

Timelines and windows open and close rapidly. It's really hard to anticipate when a team might be good or bad, or when injuries will decimate a team's chances.

[Chicagojk]

A couple of observations about this years' playoffs:

Teams we viewed as very strong can quickly look weak.

Teams we viewed as pretty weak can quickly look strong.

Players we view as expensive, one-dimensional, and washed-up (Marcus Smart, CJ McCollum) can be key contributors on winning teams.

The gap between pretty good and pretty weak teams is actually small.  A single player or coach can swing things dramatically.

If you subscribe to the "winner" and "loser" categorization of players (or coaches, or GM's), you will miss quality contributors, or overvalue mediocre ones.

Timelines and windows open and close rapidly.  It's really hard to anticipate when a team might be good or bad, or when injuries will decimate a team's chances.

I agree with most of this.    It seems like the game is changing.  Gone are most of the pure point guards.  Mostly gone is the slow build of sucking for 5 years and building up a plethora of young guys to stick together for 10 years.    It is not completely gone, but I think you find your star and then find your co-star and mostly the rest of the guys are a rotating cast every few years.  even the co star could be tricky...if that co star thinks he wants to be the star.     It just sucks the top two teams set up to dominant are really close to Dallas.   

I also agree with Smart and McCollum.    McCollum was near all star in Portland.   Probably not the ideal fit with DAme but they mostly made it work (despite him being in trade rumors every years).  He was pretty good in New Orleans but that was a moribund franchise.   In Washington it was as bad as you can get as a veteran.    He finds the right spot and looks very good again.  These type of veterans are all over the league.   Good players that need the right spot.   The tricky part is getting your star.  So much opens up once you do.   Heck you can add Kennard to Smart.   Kennard got a yawn at the trade deadline.  A guy who fits what you want but just seems to lose minutes as he times goes on.    He was a mid first round pick and now is on a hot streak.

[dirkfansince1998]

I agree with most of this.    It seems like the game is changing.  Gone are most of the pure point guards.  Mostly gone is the slow build of sucking for 5 years and building up a plethora of young guys to stick together for 10 years.    It is not completely gone, but I think you find your star and then find your co-star and mostly the rest of the guys are a rotating cast every few years.  even the co star could be tricky...if that co star thinks he wants to be the star.     It just sucks the top two teams set up to dominant are really close to Dallas.   

I also agree with Smart and McCollum.    McCollum was near all star in Portland.   Probably not the ideal fit with DAme but they mostly made it work (despite him being in trade rumors every years).  He was pretty good in New Orleans but that was a moribund franchise.   In Washington it was as bad as you can get as a veteran.    He finds the right spot and looks very good again.  These type of veterans are all over the league.   Good players that need the right spot.   The tricky part is getting your star.  So much opens up once you do.   Heck you can add Kennard to Smart.   Kennard got a yawn at the trade deadline.  A guy who fits what you want but just seems to lose minutes as he times goes on.    He was a mid first round pick and now is on a hot streak.

The best teams in the league have cores that have been together for years. OKC, SA, Boston. To a lesser degree the Cavs. And it took years to build those teams. That's the level the Mavs need to reach if they ever want to get back into the championship conversation.
As far as roster building goes what you are describing has basically been the post 2011 Dirk-lead Mavs approach. Dirk and an ever changing list of solid veterans. Enough to make the playoffs. Not enough for a deep playoff run. I guess the play-in made the treadmill status more enjoyable but there is no real upside to it.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

I think he took a ton of flack/pushback for jumping ship to go to a team that had just won a title without him.

He absolutely did. I remember that.

[Chicagojk]

So Paulo and Suggs shot 5-31 and Franz missses the second half and Orlando still wins?

Sort of impressive Detroit had the best record in the east. Watching them in the second half and was amazed how many spares they have getting important minutes.

[mvossman]

The best teams in the league have cores that have been together for years. OKC, SA, Boston. To a lesser degree the Cavs. And it took years to build those teams. That's the level the Mavs need to reach if they ever want to get back into the championship conversation.
As far as roster building goes what you are describing has basically been the post 2011 Dirk-lead Mavs approach. Dirk and an ever changing list of solid veterans. Enough to make the playoffs. Not enough for a deep playoff run. I guess the play-in made the treadmill status more enjoyable but there is no real upside to it.

The same can be said for the Nuggets and Bucks (and obviously the Warriors).  Basically every NBA champion for the last many years has followed the same formula.  Start with an Elite creator, build a core around that creator that play multiple years together, and in most cases add a final piece (or two) in the year they win it.

The Mavs have done the hardest part.  They have their elite creator.  The next step is to build the core.  I'm not sure any member of the current roster will end up being part of that core.  I still have hope for Lively.  Kyrie will probably be in his late 30s before this team is ready to contend.  They desperately need this coming draft pick to be part of that core.  I am hoping they can turn some combination of PJ/Naji/Gafford (plus assets) into another part of the core.  I think its going to be a process and they are in the early stages.  It will definitely require patience.

[F Gump]

The same can be said for the Nuggets and Bucks (and obviously the Warriors).  Basically every NBA champion for the last many years has followed the same formula.  Start with an Elite creator, build a core around that creator that play multiple years together, and in most cases add a final piece (or two) in the year they win it.

The Mavs have done the hardest part.  They have their elite creator.  The next step is to build the core.  I'm not sure any member of the current roster will end up being part of that core.  I still have hope for Lively.  Kyrie will probably be in his late 30s before this team is ready to contend.  They desperately need this coming draft pick to be part of that core.  I am hoping they can turn some combination of PJ/Naji/Gafford (plus assets) into another part of the core.  I think its going to be a process and they are in the early stages.  It will definitely require patience.

Great analysis. 

DS also had a great point in a recent post, in which he surmised that a vital part of the process might be a trade(s) that sets up The Trade. 

Every move doesn't need to directly address the roster in the 2031 or 2032 season. 

It should be a long-term game of amassing assets, developing assets, and selling assets for more/better as you go.

[F Gump]

PS - "The Mavs have done the hardest part. They have their elite creator." ----

Was this intentional wording, or a slight misstatement of your thinking?

I recall the discussions last summer -- you and others felt the Mavs were making a mistake in putting the ball in CF's hands, and needed someone else to be the creator, vs my pov that I felt they saw him as potentially becoming a high-level high-usage creator of offense, and were going to put him in that role (with lots of failure as part of the path) to accelerate the process.

There's no question they did what I thought they would. I think it was a great investment of his rookie season minutes. 

But I'm not sure that he is that Elite Creator guy yet, and not sure his future will be best as The Creator on a team.

My question is how YOU see it now -- iyo, do they need another (better, more natural) PG/creator to play alongside CF? Should he be a secondary creator? Or do you see him as the guy to create the offense?

Maybe another way to frame this is to offer some comps of bigger star players who have the ball a lot. As you see it, is his (potential) trajectory --- 
1 80-90% of Offense Creation -- Luka, SGA - ball dominant, all the time
2 40-60% of Offense Creation -- Giannis, Lebron, Kawhi - lots of ball dominance, but in need of a PG who carries much of the offense
3 20-40% of Offense Creation -- Tatum, Durant - lots of usage, able to create, but not the guy who regularly does it himself, lots of off-the-ball play

I'm not sure who he is (or where he's headed), but the answer is a big factor in what they need alongside, and how they need him to improve.

[mvossman]

PS - "The Mavs have done the hardest part. They have their elite creator." ----

Was this intentional wording, or a slight misstatement of your thinking?

I recall the discussions last summer -- you and others felt the Mavs were making a mistake in putting the ball in CF's hands, and needed someone else to be the creator, vs my pov that I felt they saw him as potentially becoming a high-level high-usage creator of offense, and were going to put him in that role (with lots of failure as part of the path) to accelerate the process.

There's no question they did what I thought they would. I think it was a great investment of his rookie season minutes. 

But I'm not sure that he is that Elite Creator guy yet, and not sure his future will be best as The Creator on a team.

My question is how YOU see it now -- iyo, do they need another (better, more natural) PG/creator to play alongside CF? Should he be a secondary creator? Or do you see him as the guy to create the offense?

Maybe another way to frame this is to offer some comps of bigger star players who have the ball a lot. As you see it, is his (potential) trajectory --- 
1 80-90% of Offense Creation -- Luka, SGA - ball dominant, all the time
2 40-60% of Offense Creation -- Giannis, Lebron, Kawhi - lots of ball dominance, but in need of a PG who carries much of the offense
3 20-40% of Offense Creation -- Tatum, Durant - lots of usage, able to create, but not the guy who regularly does it himself, lots of off-the-ball play

I'm not sure who he is (or where he's headed), but the answer is a big factor in what they need alongside, and how they need him to improve.

When I use the term elite creation, I am referring to both creating for others and themselves.  Everybody in your list above I would consider elite creators and they all are in the same ballpark of total creation (or usage) except for Luka (who is crazy high).

I don't see Flagg in a Luka/SGA role.  He will be more like the other guys.  But all of these guys need somebody else in the lineup who can create for others.  Luka had Kyrie (and now Lebron and Reaves) and Shai has Williams.  Long term Flag will need a guy who can create for others at a high level.

[DallasMaverick]

When I use the term elite creation, I am referring to both creating for others and themselves.  Everybody in your list above I would consider elite creators and they all are in the same ballpark of total creation (or usage) except for Luka (who is crazy high).

I don't see Flagg in a Luka/SGA role.  He will be more like the other guys.  But all of these guys need somebody else in the lineup who can create for others.  Luka had Kyrie (and now Lebron and Reaves) and Shai has Williams.  Long term Flag will need a guy who can create for others at a high level.

Doesn’t this also depend significantly on the type of offense being run?

In an offense with lots of ball movement, shots and creation get distributed more equally than in a heliocentric one.

[michaeltex]

PS - "The Mavs have done the hardest part. They have their elite creator." ----

Was this intentional wording, or a slight misstatement of your thinking?

I recall the discussions last summer -- you and others felt the Mavs were making a mistake in putting the ball in CF's hands, and needed someone else to be the creator, vs my pov that I felt they saw him as potentially becoming a high-level high-usage creator of offense, and were going to put him in that role (with lots of failure as part of the path) to accelerate the process.

There's no question they did what I thought they would. I think it was a great investment of his rookie season minutes. 

But I'm not sure that he is that Elite Creator guy yet, and not sure his future will be best as The Creator on a team.

My question is how YOU see it now -- iyo, do they need another (better, more natural) PG/creator to play alongside CF? Should he be a secondary creator? Or do you see him as the guy to create the offense?

Maybe another way to frame this is to offer some comps of bigger star players who have the ball a lot. As you see it, is his (potential) trajectory --- 
1 80-90% of Offense Creation -- Luka, SGA - ball dominant, all the time
2 40-60% of Offense Creation -- Giannis, Lebron, Kawhi - lots of ball dominance, but in need of a PG who carries much of the offense
3 20-40% of Offense Creation -- Tatum, Durant - lots of usage, able to create, but not the guy who regularly does it himself, lots of off-the-ball play

I'm not sure who he is (or where he's headed), but the answer is a big factor in what they need alongside, and how they need him to improve.

I would add that playing Coop at the point provided him a unique perspective on the game, increasing his understanding and effectiveness with more exposure. As it turns out, this was an excellent season to let him learn the pro game, increase his confidence and live with the mistakes that inevitably happened. No pressure to not make a mistake to stay on the floor, in fact mistakes were good if they were learning experiences.