Trade & Free Agency 2026/2027

[DL2RimRocker]

I mean, I think very similarly to you on this, as we've established. Not sure even why I'm choosing your post to respond to, but:

What I can't get past, in the context of the broader conversation, is the ridiculous notion that open-minded consideration for the idea of trading a 34 year old PG-sized non-PG is somehow akin to "bottoming out for the next ___ seasons." When did those two things become equivalent, and who should I talk to about that? I read someone's response that straw manned my point into "bottoming out until 2032." Like...WHAT? 

I'm trying to think of ways to make the team better (realistically better, not the fantasy version of better that some seem to expect will happen magically on opening night) SOONER, not later. I think there's a serious disconnect somewhere...something being assumed differently on both sides in deep and opposing ways that's making basic communication on this topic difficult. I don't quite know if that disconnect is about how we all view Kyrie, the rest of the team or both, but it's weird. 

FWIW, I could be convinced NOT to trade Kyrie, depending on how a few other variables shake out. However, I don't think the team is in a position to simply draft a guy at #9, make a smart MLE signing, hire a coach and then make the playoffs. I think that's rather far-fetched, personally. I'm trying to imagine ways of making the playoffs SOONER, and in such a way where they can remain a playoff team for some time afterwards. 

The other, separate conversation is: "if they decide to trade Kyrie, what kind of offers can we expect?" I think you've got the right of that part, for sure.

I read a suggestion of: Stewart/LeVert/Holland/#21 for Kyrie. I think it was Mavs Moneyball.

[windjc]

I mean, I think very similarly to you on this, as we've established. Not sure even why I'm choosing your post to respond to, but:

What I can't get past, in the context of the broader conversation, is the ridiculous notion that open-minded consideration for the idea of trading a 34 year old PG-sized non-PG is somehow akin to "bottoming out for the next ___ seasons." When did those two things become equivalent, and who should I talk to about that? I read someone's response that straw manned my point into "bottoming out until 2032." Like...WHAT? 

I'm trying to think of ways to make the team better (realistically better, not the fantasy version of better that some seem to expect will happen magically on opening night) SOONER, not later. I think there's a serious disconnect somewhere...something being assumed differently on both sides in deep and opposing ways that's making basic communication on this topic difficult. I don't quite know if that disconnect is about how we all view Kyrie, the rest of the team or both, but it's weird. 

FWIW, I could be convinced NOT to trade Kyrie, depending on how a few other variables shake out. However, I don't think the team is in a position to simply draft a guy at #9, make a smart MLE signing, hire a coach and then make the playoffs. I think that's rather far-fetched, personally. I'm trying to imagine ways of making the playoffs SOONER, and in such a way where they can remain a playoff team for some time afterwards. 

The other, separate conversation is: "if they decide to trade Kyrie, what kind of offers can we expect?" I think you've got the right of that part, for sure.

Of course the team could make the playoffs with a healthy Kyrie! He is an all-star! So yes, with Kyrie, a successful draft and a more experienced Flagg and no tankathon, this team could easily make the playoffs. Thats not a reason to hold on to Kyrie forever though.

[DL2RimRocker]

Of course the team could make the playoffs with a healthy Kyrie! He is an all-star! So yes, with Kyrie, a successful draft and a more experienced Flagg and no tankathon, this team could easily make the playoffs. Thats not a reason to hold on to Kyrie forever though.

Making the playoffs and competing for a championship are 2 different things. If Kyrie can yield some solid components to make us competitve in a few years you have to trade him. Next season's TDL, he should be at his highest value.

[F Gump]

.... ways to make the team better (realistically better, not the fantasy version of better that some seem to expect will happen magically on opening night) ....

If you are wanting to argue against that ^, you will be arguing against yourself. No one is saying that the team will be "magically better." Sheesh. 

It's just a question of how much talent the Mavs have, and what the talent can do, given some hard work.  

It starts with CF. The Mavs have the franchise guy. Yes, his leap from year one to two will be significant, more than people expect, but not by magic but rather by the product of talent being maximized by dedication to the craft. He levels up VERY quickly (as anyone who watched him last season saw). As long as he stays healthy, I think he's headed to be all-NBA on a faster-than-you-can imagine trajectory, and the Mavs will rise accordingly.

[DanSchwartzgan]

I don’t see much ‘never-trade-Kyrie’ sentiment here.  I may be wrong, but the critique of the Kyrie ideas that have been thrown around seems more about the timing not being right (wait for a better return near the TDL).  But, more often, the criticism has been about the compensation not being enough.  I don’t want to argue pick equity.  Some teams can add picks to the frameworks mentioned…for instance, Detroit.  They have all sorts of pick equity.  But at some level the actual players matter more as many of the picks coming from Kyrie destinations are likely to be late firsts.

So, my question is, who is good enough in terms of the players coming back?  I feel like the goal is something that makes you better now (just not Kyrie ‘better’) and something that makes you better later (like a young unproven player or a likely lottery pick).  You can dress it up with some pick, but again, those aren’t likely to be huge difference making picks.  So, here is what I’ve seen at various places:

The Houston ideas probably have either Jabari/FVV or Jabari/R. Shepherd
The Detroit idea was Stewart, Holland, Filler
Any Minnesota idea is built around either McDaniels or Naz Reid with Beringer and Filler
There was an idea on another thread that added Garland and swapped 5 for 9


Who else?  I’ve seen Milwaukee mentioned, but I’m not sure that makes sense for either side.  

Miami?  Herro plus Ware?  
Orlando?  Suggs plus what?  
Phoenix?  Green plus Maluach?  
Toronto?  Quickly plus CMB?

There aren’t that many teams that are good enough to be a Kyrie destination who are also missing someone like Kyrie.  Who did I miss?  Who on that list moves the needle for those who haven’t liked the Houston, Detroit, LAC and Minnesota based ideas that have been mentioned?

[Chicagojk]

I don’t see much ‘never-trade-Kyrie’ sentiment here.  I may be wrong, but the critique of the Kyrie ideas that have been thrown around seems more about the timing not being right (wait for a better return near the TDL).  But, more often, the criticism has been about the compensation not being enough.  I don’t want to argue pick equity.  Some teams can add picks to the frameworks mentioned…for instance, Detroit.  They have all sorts of pick equity.  But at some level the actual players matter more as many of the picks coming from Kyrie destinations are likely to be late firsts.

So, my question is, who is good enough in terms of the players coming back?  I feel like the goal is something that makes you better now (just not Kyrie ‘better’) and something that makes you better later (like a young unproven player or a likely lottery pick).  You can dress it up with some pick, but again, those aren’t likely to be huge difference making picks.  So, here is what I’ve seen at various places:

The Houston ideas probably have either Jabari/FVV or Jabari/R. Shepherd
The Detroit idea was Stewart, Holland, Filler
Any Minnesota idea is built around either McDaniels or Naz Reid with Beringer and Filler
There was an idea on another thread that added Garland and swapped 5 for 9


Who else?  I’ve seen Milwaukee mentioned, but I’m not sure that makes sense for either side.  

Miami?  Herro plus Ware?  
Orlando?  Suggs plus what?  
Phoenix?  Green plus Maluach?  
Toronto?  Quickly plus CMB?

There aren’t that many teams that are good enough to be a Kyrie destination who are also missing someone like Kyrie.  Who did I miss?  Who on that list moves the needle for those who haven’t liked the Houston, Detroit, LAC and Minnesota based ideas that have been mentioned?

The fit is tough.  Also, Kyrie will be heavily involved if and when he is traded.   Houston is the best option imo.  They have the most stuff offer and in different variations.    That could change if they make an aggressive move this offseason.

Minny will be aggressive.  I just don't think they have a good offer.  I found it interesting that the Minny beat writer included Berringer in their core and not Gobert or Randle.   I think Minny tries to do something this summer with Gobert and/or Randle.  I don't think that is a package that would interest Dallas.

I also don't like the Detroit package.   That could change if Holland shows some growth, but that is not something I consider now.  Detroit could be a panic team next year though if they drop a notch.   

As far other teams?  Portland with a package build around Scoot or Sharpe?   Atlanta has a lot of pieces but they may solve their immediate needs this summer in the draft and have assets to make a bigger move.

[DanSchwartzgan]

Any Minnesota idea is built around either McDaniels or Naz Reid with Beringer and Filler

I’ve seen some Randall based deals proposed from Minnesota and I’m not a fan.  Some are putting Kyrie and Gafford together in a deal and send back Randall and Naz.  If Minnesota wanted an expensive backup C like Gafford, then the deal I want is Naz, McDaniels and Beringer for Irving and Gafford.

I’m a huge fan of McDaniels starting next to Flagg.  Naz provides a stretch center, which I think would be valuable and Beringer/Cisse provides some insurance around Lively’s health without having to spend big $.  In such a scenario, I’m fine with getting a guard at #9 and using some of the excess we have at forward to find a third guard.

Edit: Minnesota could use some salary relief to keep Ayo. We could take DiVincenzo into our exception since he won’t be of any value to them in 26/27. Or, if they wanted a player, we could swap Naji for DiVincenzo to give them an option at backup forward.

[mvossman]

I’ve seen some Randall based deals proposed from Minnesota and I’m not a fan.  Some are putting Kyrie and Gafford together in a deal and send back Randall and Naz.  If Minnesota wanted an expensive backup C like Gafford, then the deal I want is Naz, McDaniels and Beringer.

I’m a huge fan of McDaniels starting next to Flagg.  Naz provides a stretch center, which I think would be valuable and Beringer/Cisse provides some insurance around Lively’s health without having to spend big $.  In such a scenario, I’m fine with getting a guard at #9 and using some of the excess at forward to find a third guard.

McDaniels would be perfect next to Flagg.  I would trade him straight up for Kyrie (including filler).  I like Naz Reid too, but that contract is pricey.  I'm good with the trade you propose but I doubt Minny does it.  McDaniels and Reid are a huge part of what that team does.

[mvossman]

I don’t see much ‘never-trade-Kyrie’ sentiment here.  I may be wrong, but the critique of the Kyrie ideas that have been thrown around seems more about the timing not being right (wait for a better return near the TDL).  But, more often, the criticism has been about the compensation not being enough.  I don’t want to argue pick equity.  Some teams can add picks to the frameworks mentioned…for instance, Detroit.  They have all sorts of pick equity.  But at some level the actual players matter more as many of the picks coming from Kyrie destinations are likely to be late firsts.

I do see that sentiment.  I think there are a lot of folks that would not make a Kyrie trade in the offseason unless the Mavs are blown away.  Then at the TDL if the Mavs are hovering around 500 and threatening a play-in spot many of those same folks would be mortified at trading Kyrie for assets ("we could make the playoffs!").  It's not an overt never-trade-Kyrie, but effectively it plays out that way.  Its hard to trade away a fan favorite.

[vfromlmf]

Put me on the trade Kyrie bus. I'd hate to see him go and love to watch him play but I don't have delusions about the Mavs contending any time soon. They're years away.

At this point I'd much rather watch a modern-style, young & athletic team compete for the play-in than waste another year on a team with limited upside. Being a fan of a team is always a journey. This journey has ended and it's time to move on.

In terms of trade packages, the ideal is filler, a young player with upside and a 1st.

I like the DET package. MIL interests me with a combo of tradeable vets plus 10

[DanSchwartzgan]

I do see that sentiment.  I think there are a lot of folks that would not make a Kyrie trade in the offseason unless the Mavs are blown away.  Then at the TDL if the Mavs are hovering around 500 and threatening a play-in spot many of those same folks would be mortified at trading Kyrie for assets ("we could make the playoffs!").  It's not an overt never-trade-Kyrie, but effectively it plays out that way.  Its hard to trade away a fan favorite.

So, what happens in the summer when he opts out and wants a new three year contract for $100mm.  Honest question, because it’s coming.  If there is any potential destination that has cap room (or can get there), the return in any deal plummets.  Or, do we want to add two more years to Kyrie’s current deal?

[mvossman]

So, what happens in the summer when he opts out and wants a new three year contract for $100mm.  Honest question, because it’s coming.  If there is any potential destination that has cap room (or can get there), the return in any deal plummets.  Or, do we want to add two more years to Kyrie’s current deal?

I'm guessing the folks that don't want to trade him now or when the team is competing for a playoff spot, will be fine paying that contract.

[DanSchwartzgan]

McDaniels would be perfect next to Flagg.  I would trade him straight up for Kyrie (including filler).  I like Naz Reid too, but that contract is pricey.  I'm good with the trade you propose but I doubt Minny does it.  McDaniels and Reid are a huge part of what that team does.

I don’t want any part of Randall…period.  It would be hard for Minnesota to give up Naz and Beringer.  So, to me it is McDaniels and Beringer (win now player and win later player) for Kyrie.  You need to get them to sending more than they are receiving, which is easy to do by adding DiVincenzo and AJ Johnson to the deal.


Lively/Gafford/Beringer
Flagg/PJ/Pick
McDaniels/Naji/Martin
Christie/Klay/DiVincenzo
Pick/______/Nembhard

From here, I’d look to move Gafford for a guard and make Cisse my 3rd Center.

[loki]

I think Minny considers McDaniels part of their core. He's likely off limits in a Kyrie trade. I want nothing to do with Randle.

How about a 3 team deal with Houston and Detroit?

Dallas trades Kyrie for FVV, Holland, Houston's 28 FRP, and #21
Houston trades FVV, Sheppard, and their 28 FRP for Kyrie
Detroit trades Holland and #21 for Sheppard

I know some people like Jabari and it wouldn't surprise me if Masai does too, but I'm not convinced yet of his fit with Flagg. Sheppard could also go to Dallas in a deal like this. I just sent him to Detroit because he might not fit the mold that the Mavs are looking for.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

MIN is not trading McDaniels for Kyrie Irving unless the Mavs are throwing in a bunch more assets on top.  That's a non starter. Their core is Edwards, McDaniels, and Naz Reid. They'll only include their attractive assets in a Giannis type trade.

MIN wants off either Randle or Gobert, which is a non starter for the Mavs.

[DanSchwartzgan]

MIN is not trading McDaniels for Kyrie Irving unless the Mavs are throwing in a bunch more assets on top.  That's a non starter.

Then shut down the Kyrie to Minnesota rumors.  He is the key for Dallas and you have to give to get.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

That Detroit deal that was posted is honestly the only one that makes sense for both sides. I wouldn't be upset at it.

Although if we go another year of Brandon Williams/Dante Exum/Dangelo Russell types at starting PG I might just be done with this team. It's an entertainment business and I am not entertained. I'm not waiting on some theoretical contending team 5 years from now.

[Chicagojk]

MIN is not trading McDaniels for Kyrie Irving unless the Mavs are throwing in a bunch more assets on top.  That's a non starter.  Their core is Edwards, McDaniels, and Naz Reid.  They'll only include their attractive assets in a Giannis type trade. 

MIN wants off either Randle or Gobert, which is a non starter for the Mavs.

Yes, I believe Minny will be aggressive this offseason.  Supposedly they think Ant, McDaniels, Reid and Berringer is their core.   I think they work hard to sign Ayo.    

Then they will look to move Gobert and/or Randle for another piece.  That could be tricky to find a taker and get a core player back.   I think that is their goal though.   I was surprised to see Beringer as a core piece but they apparently really like him and feel they could move off Gobert.

Also their pick seems to be near the range where guards are going, so they may find a young guy to play backup minutes in the draft.

[dirkfansince1998]

I don’t want any part of Randall…period.  It would be hard for Minnesota to give up Naz and Beringer.  So, to me it is McDaniels and Beringer (win now player and win later player) for Kyrie.  You need to get them to sending more than they are receiving, which is easy to do by adding DiVincenzo and AJ Johnson to the deal.


Lively/Gafford/Beringer
Flagg/PJ/Pick
McDaniels/Naji/Martin
Christie/Klay/DiVincenzo
Pick/______/Nembhard

From here, I’d look to move Gafford for a guard and make Cisse my 3rd Center.

Connelly mentioned Beringer as a part of their future core. If I had to guess they will try to move on out of Randle/Gobert. For the Mavs this only makes sense if a third team is involved. Not sure who is in need of a win now PF/C.

[Chicagojk]

I think it is important to remember what Zach Lowe said after the Mavs brought Masai on board.  He said he is patient, but don't think that is a weakness.   That he is a shark and when will attack when the deal is right.   

Last year was so bad.  Admittingly, I thought it would be better.  Even with Flagg being better than I thought, the season stunk.   I don't really blame Kidd for that.   I think while moves will be made and maybe some aggressive moves, I think Masai will also see this as an opportunity to be competitive and also re-build value of some guys.   He has that aura where he thinks he can improve play on the court.   Maybe with his handpicked coach he also thinks this will put players in more advantageous positions.

I do expect some trades this offseason.  Although, Masai may just take a step back and let things play out a little with the bet that a deal will eventually present itself.