2026 NBA draft thread

[F Gump]

High FT%. Got to the FT line at a high %.  Was playing very well after a slow start before an injury. 6'9" bare foot.  I don't see where he just has some physical traits.  For a skinny guy who went through a late growth spurt, who probably still hasn't adjusted to that body, to get to the line a lot while playing predominantly on the perimeter has to count for something. 

When I break it down, even by your description, I don't see anything to excite me at all. 

'What can Ament do? He is fairly good at shooting FTs (79%). And he's kinda tall! And he plays where he isn't effective. And we can find an excuse why he's so meh and up-and-down (rather than he's in the playing range that drifts between some games that are solid (nothing spectacular) and some not-as-good games where he's quite meh).' 

Sure, one day he COULD become a good player. But from what I've seen, there's not a lot to distinguish him from the big bucket of players who are tall and who gurus hope might one day develop into a good player. It's still a bunch of hope imo, not much more.

[mvossman]

When I break it down, even by your description, I don't see anything to excite me at all. 

'What can Ament do? He is fairly good at shooting FTs (79%). And he's kinda tall! And he plays where he isn't effective. And we can find an excuse why he's so meh and up-and-down (rather than he's in the playing range that drifts between some games that are solid (nothing spectacular) and some not-as-good games where he's quite meh).' 

Sure, one day he COULD become a good player. But from what I've seen, there's not a lot to distinguish him from the big bucket of players who are tall and who gurus hope might one day develop into a good player. It's still a bunch of hope imo, not much more.

To be fair, he gets to the line a lot, which is a legit skill that transfers well to the NBA.  Of course the reason its valuable is how efficient free throws are, which makes it all the more crazy that his TS% is so low (53%).

[DanSchwartzgan]

I get the sentiment of wanting to get a young wing next to Flagg, but I would greatly prefer that guy can shoot, and most of those guys in your list don't project to be great shooters.  

I think there is more separation between the two tiers of guards, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Another way we look at this differently is that I don't consider Max part of the starting core.  I think we need a better defender at that spot and his ideal role is a shooter coming off the bench.

For me the primary goal of this draft is to find a plus starter.  I'm not nearly as interested in finding multiple depth pieces.  So for me the only argument for trading down is if you have better odds finding a plus starter by taking two shots later in the draft than you do taking one shot earlier.  Its a lot easier for me to envision one of those 5 guards turning into a plus starter, while it takes a lot more projection for me to see that with any of the guys behind them, so I lean towards staying at 9.

First, let me highly recommend the link below as a fantastic interview between Stein and Sam Vecenie strictly on what might be available to Dallas and how they might (or should) think about things.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4yNLv44O0

There is probably more cocksuredness about our evaluations as message board experts than is warranted.  None of us know who will and won't be a plus-starter and who will and won't be able to shoot.  The experts don't nail this and certainly media mock drafts and message board guru's aren't any better than the experts.  There is also an inherent flaw in the logic many of us use in terms of when these skills need to arrive by.  Much too much emphasis seems to be placed on what contribution might be made this next season.  Plus starter by when is an important question.  

If you don't think Christie is part of the starting core going forward, then it probably argues for more bites at the apple, not less.  All we have to do is look at the Dennis Smith Draft to see this.  The top 10 has one superstar, two plus-starters and arguably seven busts.  13-23 has MUCH more talent.  If we actually have expert talent evaluators now, I'd rather they figure out who the next Mitchell, Bam, Jarrett Allen and OG might be than be stuck with the next DSJ.

[mvossman]

First, let me highly recommend the link below as a fantastic interview between Stein and Sam Vecenie strictly on what might be available to Dallas and how they might (or should) think about things.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4yNLv44O0

There is probably more cocksuredness about our evaluations as message board experts than is warranted.  None of us know who will and won't be a plus-starter and who will and won't be able to shoot.  The experts don't nail this and certainly media mock drafts and message board guru's aren't any better than the experts.  There is also an inherent flaw in the logic many of us use in terms of when these skills need to arrive by.  Much too much emphasis seems to be placed on what contribution might be made this next season.  Plus starter by when is an important question.  

If you don't think Christie is part of the starting core going forward, then it probably argues for more bites at the apple, not less.  All we have to do is look at the Dennis Smith Draft to see this.  The top 10 has one superstar, two plus-starters and arguably seven busts.  13-23 has MUCH more talent.  If we actually have expert talent evaluators now, I'd rather they figure out who the next Mitchell, Bam, Jarrett Allen and OG might be than be stuck with the next DSJ.

First of all, thanks for the link.  

Second, I didn't think my post came across as cocksure.  I used phrases like "I think", "projected" and "percentage chance".

Third, I realize we actually have a competent FO now that knows more than what we do about these players and what makes sense.  Does this mean we are not supposed to voice our opinions?  Are we not even supposed to have them because Masai knows best?  As I said in an earlier post, I will stick to my opinions and hope to be wrong if he goes a different direction.

As for when these guys need to be plus starters, I agree that we don't need it right away, but the more projecting there is for a guy, the less chance that it actually happens.  For me its all about best odds to get plus starter.

As far as what Vecenie said on the interview, I agree with just about all of it.  There was no mention of Wagler, presumably like Acuff he assumes he won't be there at 9.  He clearly really likes Flemings and he really likes Brown's upside.  He also agrees Philon's lack of size/bulk puts him in a tier below.  He finished with worse case Mavs get Burries (which suggests Burries is 9 on his board) who he really likes and thinks will be a quality starter.  I probably have Burries ahead of Brown due to risk, but we are mostly on the same page.

[KillerLeft]

First, let me highly recommend the link below as a fantastic interview between Stein and Sam Vecenie strictly on what might be available to Dallas and how they might (or should) think about things.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4yNLv44O0

My takeaways from this watch:

I no longer have any interest in Philon, whatsoever, and about Mara he said "excellent DROP COVERAGE defender." Yuck, I have even less interest in him now than before.

[Winter]

This thought from Vecenie sounded good to me....

Paraphrased .... Mara is interesting because someone might really want him at #9 if Atlanta hasn't taken him. In other words, another team may be willing to give the Mavs another pick or two to get #9. Maybe it's not enough for the Mavs, or maybe the FO doesn't see as much upside value to the picks offered below them... but the talk of draft movement is the kind of thing I enjoyed hearing.

Also, I think it's safe to say Vecenie likes Burries, thinks he's a solid starter, and actually said he has heard that Burries interviews with teams went really well. However, he also implied at another point that guys like Schmitz really likes players who are young and have more upside [than the players typically slotted at the #9 spot in this draft].

[KillerLeft]

This thought from Vecenie sounded good to me....

Paraphrased .... Mara is interesting because someone might really want him at #9 if Atlanta hasn't taken him. In other words, another team may be willing to give the Mavs another pick or two to get #9. Maybe it's not enough for the Mavs, or maybe the FO doesn't see as much upside value to the picks offered below them... but that's the kind of thing I enjoyed hearing.

Sure, but for ME, my takeaway was that after Flemings, Brown and Burries (whichever 1-2 of them fall to #9), the falloff to the next tier is more significant than what is being routinely thrown out around here.

I know you aren't zeroed in on guards as targets and in fact don't even particularly like the guards, and that's fine, but I am, and I do. The comparison to Schroeder helped clarify to me that Philon (routinely mentioned as the next PG down from the usual suspects) is not going to help much in the Mavs' situation. I'm with Mvossman on this one: guard or no guard (for me, preferably guard), they REALLY need to come out of this draft with a strong, quality starter at minimum. Depth, and particularly younger depth, will be important as we go forward, no doubt, but quality, cost controlled starters and potential all stars are the real challenge and this might be their last chance for a while to easily acquire one. 

I know it's a risk either way, but give me the best chance at a potential running mate for Flagg. I think that's the goal here, and I personally hope it's an on-ball guard.

[Winter]

I know it's a risk either way, but give me the best chance at a potential running mate for Flagg. I think that's the goal here, and I personally hope it's an on-ball guard.

I would be very surprised if we came out of the first round without a guard, and I would say it's more likely than not that the pick is between 9 and 17. I can't imagine me being disappointed with anything that happens in this draft really.  I feel comfortable that the FO has explored the options and knows what it's doing.

[DanSchwartzgan]

First of all, thanks for the link.  

Second, I didn't think my post came across as cocksure.  I used phrases like "I think", "projected" and "percentage chance".

Third, I realize we actually have a competent FO now that knows more than what we do about these players and what makes sense.  Does this mean we are not supposed to voice our opinions?  Are we not even supposed to have them because Masai knows best?  As I said in an earlier post, I will stick to my opinions and hope to be wrong if he goes a different direction.

As for when these guys need to be plus starters, I agree that we don't need it right away, but the more projecting there is for a guy, the less chance that it actually happens.  For me its all about best odds to get plus starter.

As far as what Vecenie said on the interview, I agree with just about all of it.  There was no mention of Wagler, presumably like Acuff he assumes he won't be there at 9.  He clearly really likes Flemings and he really likes Brown's upside.  He also agrees Philon's lack of size/bulk puts him in a tier below.  He finished with worse case Mavs get Burries (which suggests Burries is 9 on his board) who he really likes and thinks will be a quality starter.  I probably have Burries ahead of Brown due to risk, but we are mostly on the same page.

I tried to keep my comments broad and include myself.  Sorry if I didn't fully accomplish that.

We probably need some agreement on terms.  I rank a "plus starter" as higher than a "quality starter".  When Vecenie says Burries will probably be a "quality starter" does he meet your definition?  If not, then he really belongs in the tier with some of the trade-down guys (BTW, I like Burries and won't be upset if that is who we get).  

I worry about Flemings' length and are we sure he is a "shooter" any more than others in the trade down range?  BTW, I like Flemings and won't be upset if that is who we get, but I see his star upside as limited.  

Brown has a sweet stroke that didn't translate into efficiency.  Vecenie notes that he throws some wild passes.  In much the same way that I think Ament will be a 38% or better shooter from three, people on the Brown train assume he can curb some of his base instincts.  I think the evidence is good for Brown from some of his body of work prior to college, but we don't know.  Sometimes these guys are just who they are (BTW, I like Brown and won't be upset if that is who we end up with).

I do find comfort in having the decision makers we have in place, but I'm well aware that today's hero's can easily become tomorrow's goats.  So, we can't put too much into Masai and Schmitz (but, I really like Schmitz).  I think there is a really good chance this new braintrust goes for a little more length than some of these guards.  My interest in trading down goes way up if they believe they can get that length in someone they see making it to 12 or 14.

[mvossman]

I tried to keep my comments broad and include myself.  Sorry if I didn't fully accomplish that.

We probably need some agreement on terms.  I rank a "plus starter" as higher than a "quality starter".  When Vecenie says Burries will probably be a "quality starter" does he meet your definition?  If not, then he really belongs in the tier with some of the trade-down guys (BTW, I like Burries and won't be upset if that is who we get).  

I worry about Flemings' length and are we sure he is a "shooter" any more than others in the trade down range?  BTW, I like Flemings and won't be upset if that is who we get, but I see his star upside as limited.  

Brown has a sweet stroke that didn't translate into efficiency.  Vecenie notes that he throws some wild passes.  In much the same way that I think Ament will be a 38% or better shooter from three, people on the Brown train assume he can curb some of his base instincts.  I think the evidence is good for Brown from some of his body of work prior to college, but we don't know.  Sometimes these guys are just who they are (BTW, I like Brown and won't be upset if that is who we end up with).

I do find comfort in having the decision makers we have in place, but I'm well aware that today's hero's can easily become tomorrow's goats.  So, we can't put too much into Masai and Schmitz (but, I really like Schmitz).  I think there is a really good chance this new braintrust goes for a little more length than some of these guards.  My interest in trading down goes way up if they believe they can get that length in someone they see making it to 12 or 14.

I would say the line between quality starter and plus starter is fairly blurred.  I would say the goal is plus starter, the tolerable is quality starter and anything below that is a complete miss.  I think the guys past 9 have a significantly higher miss chance than Burries.

Flemings is a legit PG which separates him from most of the guys behind him, and his elite athleticism helps to make up for his length (also he was the only plus defender in college of all the pure PGs near his range). As for his shooting, I take some solace that he was a plus catch and shoot 3 point shooter and only struggled with self created 3s. He had the ball in his hands so much he did not have much opportunity for C&S so that somewhat makes up for volume. It also helps that he was an elite FT shooter.

When projecting 3 point percentage in NBA the historically best traits to look at from college are 3 point volume and free throw percentage.  Based on those metrics, Brown projects to be one of the best 3 point shooters in this class and Ament projects to be middling.  I realize there is more to it than that and there are examples of guys that buck these trends.

Don't get me wrong, I am super happy with the FO we have right now and like you I particularly like Schmitz.  I loved that interview from a couple of years ago where he said now processing speed and skills are more important than athleticism.  I just hope if these guys do have a guy around the late lottery range that they really like, they find a way to keep 9 and trade assets/players for that pick.

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

FYI - here's a simulator for the NBA's new 321 proposal. Let your heads explode!!!

https://espnanalytics.com/nba-321-lottery

[hakeemfaan]

I get the sentiment of wanting to get a young wing next to Flagg, but I would greatly prefer that guy can shoot, and most of those guys in your list don't project to be great shooters.  

I think there is more separation between the two tiers of guards, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Another way we look at this differently is that I don't consider Max part of the starting core.  I think we need a better defender at that spot and his ideal role is a shooter coming off the bench.

For me the primary goal of this draft is to find a plus starter.  I'm not nearly as interested in finding multiple depth pieces.  So for me the only argument for trading down is if you have better odds finding a plus starter by taking two shots later in the draft than you do taking one shot earlier.  Its a lot easier for me to envision one of those 5 guards turning into a plus starter, while it takes a lot more projection for me to see that with any of the guys behind them, so I lean towards staying at 9.

With our previous GMs and maybe another draft class, I would be leery of moving down. 

With Masai and Schmidt, and this draft class, I  hope they move down if they have  an offer they like. 

OKC is showing that one legit stud and a bunch of really solid 2 way guys, can win at the highest levels. Maximize the chances of getting multiple solid 2 way guys if you can get multiple picks 10-20.  I don’t feel we need a true Robin around Flagg anymore.  A bunch of lesser Robins is just fine.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

I'm gonna have to disagree with that.  SGA is a one man offense in many ways like Luka.  I kinda hope Flagg has more help on offense and it doesn't turn into Cooper Flagg ISO ball all the time.  I think we need a younger Kyrie, someone to share the offensive load with Flagg.  I thought the other parts of his game (defense) didn't stand out as much in his rookie season because he had so much responsibility on offense.

[F Gump]

With our previous GMs and maybe another draft class, I would be leery of moving down. 

With Masai and Schmidt, and this draft class, I  hope they move down if they have  an offer they like. 

I'm also not a "move down" guy because my observation is that you typically trade THIS (whether good or bad) for what tends to be a poo-poo platter of meh. It looks more promising than it tends to turn out. (And I'm even extra-ultra pessimistic when I saw what Cuban did with such moves, the worst being the Giannis fiasco, of course.)

We may be discussing things the Mavs aren't that interested in doing anyhow.

Unless I missed something, Masai has never moved down on draft day. And he's never moved up, either. He just tends to pick the pick, and hope for the best.

Schmitz has never had the final say, so we probably can't read anything into his past places. But, for the record, but the last few years in POR, there have been a few draft day swaps. IMO the most notable was a move down last summer, from 11 to 16. Instead of getting Coward at 11 (who turned out to be a decent rookie) or some other pick, they took Yang Hansen at 16 (who they apparently had prioritized and wanted to take, period, and figured he would be there at 16). Hansen (a project, by their own admission) was fairly bad as a rookie (but they said he's a 3-year development). However, they did also land 3 future picks for trading down (one FRP, 2 SRP). So the score on that deal is TBD. But again, Schmitz didn't make that decision to trade down.

[DanSchwartzgan]

 
Don't get me wrong, I am super happy with the FO we have right now and like you I particularly like Schmitz.  I loved that interview from a couple of years ago where he said now processing speed and skills are more important than athleticism.  I just hope if these guys do have a guy around the late lottery range that they really like, they find a way to keep 9 and trade assets/players for that pick.

We definitely agree on the last part about adding something better than 30 to 9.

I don't dislike these three guys at all, though I will admit I don't want Acuff here at all and have huge worries Wagler can take anyone off the dribble without a screen.  

I just see some things in some of the other guys that I also like and feel like there are more ways to skin this cat.  I think Chicago asked an interesting question the other day.  It was posed as this guy and this guy at 9 + 30 or that guy and that guy at 12 and 17 (I may be slightly off).  I found myself liking the second option, but the problem with that is there is no guarantee the second guy you want is going to be there.  You might be able to guage who might be picked between 9 and whatever pick you traded down to.  But, if it is a two pick deal like OKC or Charlotte, you need to have multiple people you like for the second pick.

[DanSchwartzgan]

Schmitz has never had the final say, so we probably can't read anything into his past places. But, for the record, but the last few years in POR, there have been a few draft day swaps. IMO the most notable was a move down last summer, from 11 to 16. Instead of getting Coward at 11 (who turned out to be a decent rookie) or some other pick, they took Yang Hansen at 16 (who they apparently had prioritized and wanted to take, period, and figured he would be there at 16). Hansen (a project, by their own admission) was fairly bad as a rookie (but they said he's a 3-year development). However, they did also land 3 future picks for trading down (one FRP, 2 SRP). So the score on that deal is TBD. But again, Schmitz didn't make that decision to trade down.

While true that he didn't make the pick, I wonder if his influence as an advocate for Yang (assumption on my part) is the reason he was their pick.  It isn't hard to imagine the real decision maker moving down once convinced Yang would still be there a few spots later.  If Yang was who they wanted anyway, the meh return of future picks are now free shots that can be used on players or put into a package for something else desirable.  

Point being, if for some reason Schmitz is enamoured with someone mocked to go later and the intel holds up, It doesn't seem that much of a stretch that Masai might make the same call as the Portland GM did.

[mvossman]

With our previous GMs and maybe another draft class, I would be leery of moving down. 

With Masai and Schmidt, and this draft class, I  hope they move down if they have  an offer they like. 

OKC is showing that one legit stud and a bunch of really solid 2 way guys, can win at the highest levels. Maximize the chances of getting multiple solid 2 way guys if you can get multiple picks 10-20.  I don’t feel we need a true Robin around Flagg anymore.  A bunch of lesser Robins is just fine.

Chet and Jalen Williams are a lot more than "really solid 2 way guys".  They are top 30 players.  If that is what you mean by "lesser Robin" then fine, but its a really tall ask for Mavs to land multiple players like that in this draft.  I would be very happy to land just one player in the ballpark of those guys, and the best chance of that (in my opinion) is in the top 9.

[mvossman]

We definitely agree on the last part about adding something better than 30 to 9.

I don't dislike these three guys at all, though I will admit I don't want Acuff here at all and have huge worries Wagler can take anyone off the dribble without a screen.  

I just see some things in some of the other guys that I also like and feel like there are more ways to skin this cat.  I think Chicago asked an interesting question the other day.  It was posed as this guy and this guy at 9 + 30 or that guy and that guy at 12 and 17 (I may be slightly off).  I found myself liking the second option, but the problem with that is there is no guarantee the second guy you want is going to be there.  You might be able to guage who might be picked between 9 and whatever pick you traded down to.  But, if it is a two pick deal like OKC or Charlotte, you need to have multiple people you like for the second pick.

I'm a little different.  I see a lot of risk in the guys 10 - 16.  I don't have a lot of interest in paying the price to pick there.  But there are a bunch of guys I would like to take a flyer on that will be in the late teens to 20s range.  I feel like that is the area Masai has done some of his best work and it won't be nearly as expensive to add an extra pick in that range.  I also like trading for a pick when you know what is available so you don't have to play that guessing game.

[F Gump]

https://youtu.be/dy4yNLv44O0?si=GB_eej3aAoJ18Ikv

This is a Stein-Vecenie interview posted in another thread by BoredAssistant with some informed thoughts about this draft (generally) and about Mavs picks.

Some Vecenie highlights ....
1 thinks Mavs will definitely get a high quality player at 9, sees Mavs as well-stocked w talent so can draft BPA, sold on CF
2 sees Acuff as gone by 9, he prefers Flemings of the rest, thinks Brown has highest upside but maybe too inconsistent, likes Burries a lot (sees him as a logical choice for Mavs, a starter)
3 but not Philon (at all)
4 uncertain right now whether the quality in this draft will go 30 deep, it's iffy -- he's sure there are 25-27 but waiting to see who stays in or not that would fill out that 25-30 range (deadline is 5/27)
5 his comments on how he sees Masai and Schmitz preferences was interesting -- if they have a bias or type ...
....Masai - as we see it, he thinks M prefers length, athleticism, positional size, maybe F's over G's period?
....Schmitz - may tend to draft for "what we can make them into" (trusts development staff, skews for younger and perhaps rawer) such as Mikel Brown*

Video was FULL of info. Lots more. Easy listen.



*JUST WONDERING. I wonder if this is a road to cap issues, if you plan to use 2-3 years or more of cheap rookie contract with them less productive. Then about the time they are of any value, you have to compete financially to keep them (or another team takes them away, just as they are about to emerge). Lively has been and is about to be something like this. You lose the "bargain" years you need, to collect enough talent under the Aprons to be elite.

[Chicagojk]

I don’t see much of Tatum in him - looks more like a Avdija starter kit to me. 

Deni also isn’t the fastest guy, but with his relentlessness and physicality and attacking mindset he does things on offense he shouldn’t be able to do.

Yeah that is a good one, more so than Tatum.   Deni would be the top level case, but I could see some similarities in the brief highlights I watched.