2026 NBA draft thread

[mvossman]

It is tough to define a vision as we don't even have a head coach.   We also don't really know Masai and Schmitz vision as they rebuild this team.   We have some history with Masai but his vision could be different  with already having a top building block on the roster.

I think there is a good chance sooner or later that Flagg is going to have the ball more than anyone else.   I personally would like to get away from the pure point guard types.  I think/hope the vision is having 3 or 4 guys who can all create when they have the ball.  There is a room for a true point guard like Nembhard, but I wouldn't prioritize that position if he wasn't the best player.   This is coming from a guy who always liked the pure point guard types the most.  The league has gotten away from these type of players as must haves.

This was kind of where my question was headed.  I think guys that can operate on ball should be the priority, but I don't feel the need to focus on a true point guard(s) if we have multiple guys that can play on ball.

[KillerLeft]

I'm curious how broad your definition of point guard is.  Would you consider Shai, Jrue, Murray, Curry and James point guards?

The team's lead ball-handler would be my definition.

I wouldn't label all of the names you mentioned point guards, but they've all played that role before. I'd say Curry fits the description the least, but that's because his team's system was built so that he could play off ball (a genius decision). Holiday isn't really good enough, offensively, to play that role at a very high level, but his defense has always kept him relevant. Still, he's always been a sort of awkward fit with many teams - very niche. He'd have been a great fit with Luka, but what the Mavs need now is someone who is a scoring threat with the ball so Flagg can settle into a role for which he's actually suited.

[windjc]

Maybe we can draft two future hall of fame point guards and then lose them both for a can of beans in a couple of years. It’s happened before.

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

If Cooper wasn't as good as he is at handling the ball and playmaking, a PG would be a necessity. Period, Full Stop. It's going to be the reason why Burries, can work well with Flagg. But as good as Flagg is, and assuming Naji is retained, Kyrie is healthy and Burries can indeed play the PG role well enough -- Full court ball pressure by opposing teams would cause problems for the Mavs. Only one of the guys can still have the wits to play-make effectively under extreme ball pressure, the rest would just be in a state of -- "how do I get the ball cross past midcourt without being stolen".


This is the difference between a true PG and a make-shit/converted PG. The instinct is built-in. Not saying, the capability of playmaking under extreme ball pressure isn't something that can be learned, but one would rather have that PG feature built in on your supposed PG on day 1.

And then, there's also play direction. Understanding and making the right reads is what a decent PG does. A true PG does not only "understand" what is happening on the court, he knows the play 2 steps ahead before it happens. In a way, he forces the play and makes it happen, while a non-PG only takes what the defense gives. One actively exploits, one is reactive.

True PGs aren't necessarily dazzling ball handlers with advance dribble moves. True PGs may not necessarily be speed demons too and can be a one man fastbreak, or press breaker. Handles and speed can both be present in combo guards and shooting guards and offense oriented PGs, but a true PG is adept at passing. They know exactly when and where the ball should go. Devin Harris is a PG but can't throw an entry pass. This thing matters.

[KillerLeft]

Is this assuming Kyrie gets moved?

No, not really. 

1) I don't really like Kyrie as the MAIN ball-handler. I've always thought of him as more of a secondary playmaker, like he was here with Luka and in CLE with LeBron James. This is only my opinion, but I don't think he's perfectly cast to be the lead ball-handler on a team. 

2) He's 34, coming off of significant injury and an entire season missed as a result. Because I don't believe the Mavericks have any chance at achieving competitive relevance again during the rest of his career, Kyrie doesn't really play into my thinking one way or the other. That doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the potential benefits of having him in the mix here as the team grows and develops, but his current presence on the roster damn sure wouldn't stop me from launching an all-out mission to put a lead ball-handler next to Flagg, because I want THAT player to reach full maturity and readiness at around the same time Flagg does, if at all possible. In lieu of that perfect timing, I'd accept one who's slightly ahead of Flagg on his timeline but still young enough to have at least an entire contract's worth of prime ahead of him when Flagg gets to around 26 or so. Kyrie obviously doesn't check either of those boxes, so building around him seems monumentally silly to me. I wouldn't give him away just to dump him, but I'm also probably not giving him another contract, which means he's likely to want to get to a situation more suitable to wind his career down pretty soon. If I had to guess, I'd say he's already looking around for a better situation right now. Either way, I'm in the Cooper Flagg business now, not the Kyrie Irving business, and sadly they are FIFTEEN years apart in age. Flagg needs and deserves to have a running mate that he can grow with and I'd be single-minded about getting him one.

[KillerLeft]

This was kind of where my question was headed.  I think guys that can operate on ball should be the priority, but I don't feel the need to focus on a true point guard(s) if we have multiple guys that can play on ball.

It's so funny how easy it is to talk past each other in this format. People use these qualifying words like "true" or "traditional" to describe their disagreement for someone else's opinion, but those words don't actually add the context needed for clarity because we each view things so differently. 

I haven't seen what I'd call a "true" or "traditional" PG succeed in the NBA since...idk, 2011 Jason Kidd? And even then, the reason they won was because Terry was the PG down the stretch of every (literally EVERY) close game, and Kidd was relegated to an off-ball catch and shoot guy/secondary playmaker. 

If by "true" or "traditional" people mean in the modern sense, then we're talking about someone kind of like Terry, honestly. Brunson would be another good example. A guy who can hold his own in all of the modern pick and roll scenarios. Make the right reads, the right passes, present as a threat to score from all three levels, know how to counter each and every defensive wrinkle thrown at him. Above all (and this is where I started not to believe in Luka towards the end), they need to be willing to give the ball up not ONLY when they're doubled and think they can get an assist out of it, but when they see that another teammate is two passes away from an advantage. 

Flagg was better with the ball last year than I expected by the end. That's awesome that he can handle it - it will make him so, so much more dangerous and by extension, the Mavs' offense. But, I am aggressively uninterested in having him bring the ball up, initiate offense from above the break very much, etc. I want him catching more lobs than he throws. I want him running towards the rim or trailing the ball in transition, not making decisions with the ball. It's not about whether he can/can't succeed with the ball. I'm sure he's capable of reaching proficiency in that role, making some all star teams, whatever. It's just that I think that version of his career sells ridiculously low on his potential. The version of Flagg I'd be chasing is one who finishes more plays than he starts and one who remains a force on DEFENSE well into his 30's, not someone who has to fight a defender who picks him up at half court every night just to get to his spots. 

Flagg can, should and will handle the ball a lot. There will be times when he runs the offense, probably on a nightly basis - he's going to be a star player. It's nice to know that he won't be limited in those situations, just like it's nice to know that if he's a screen setter he'll be able to decimate teams on the short roll as a decision maker, etc, etc, etc. I'm not suggesting he stand in the corner - I'm suggesting that the best version of him as a player, even considering offense only, is not giving him a live dribble above the break as the primary starting point for the team's offense. I'm surprised there's so much pushback about this, frankly. 

None of this is real (at least not to me) until the Mavs have an on-ball offensive scorer/playmaker worthy of being Flagg's running mate in terms of both skill and age. Flagg is basically the next generation of guys like Dirk and Kevin Garnett, imo. Those guys were infinitely more skilled with the ball than their predecessors, just like Flagg and Tatum are more skilled with the ball than they were. However, no matter how much basketball changes, it will always be played inside-out, meaning the ball will always need to make it to a player with two feet in the paint, via either dribble penetration or the post pass. As a playmaker, Flagg has a much better chance of affecting that kind of offensive impact if he isn't getting the ball above the break full time. This team needs a lead ball-handler, and since Flagg is a forward, it makes a ton of sense for that guy to be a guard, which is great, because even in 2026 it's easier to find guards who qualify, imo - there are like 5 potentials in the upcoming draft.

[DallasMaverick]

The case for Yaxel:

He’s ready to contribute now.

He’ll be cheap for 4 years.

We’ve got three cheap years of Flagg left.

This allows headroom to pay another star like Kyrie, and a bunch of really solid veteran contributors.

The AD trade allowed them to clear out just about all of their negative contracts.

Ready to win now.

[DanSchwartzgan]

The case for Yaxel:

He’s ready to contribute now.

He’ll be cheap for 4 years.

We’ve got three cheap years of Flagg left.

This allows headroom to pay another star like Kyrie, and a bunch of really solid veteran contributors.

The AD trade allowed them to clear out just about all of their negative contracts.

Ready to win now.

If I'm drafting a Michigan player, it is Morez Johnson.  The per 40 numbers are pretty close in terms of points, boards and stocks.  Morez isn't quite as good with his advanced stats, but neither was Yaxel 3 1/2 years ago (their age difference).  I feel like you are getting a similar player today in Johnson who has more upside from here than Yaxel.

I think you raise a good point otherwise.  We have room under the cap to spend a good deal of money.  We don't have to Brooklyn taking on bad contracts for picks.  We don't have to focus only on players 22 or under.  We can try to build out a more competitive roster.  Doing so not only allows the team to start to put together a winning culture.  It allows Flagg to play in systems that are more like what he will play in when we are actually able to contend.

I'm not advocating trading for a bunch of 35 year olds.  Much like the distinction above between Yaxel and Morez, I'd rather have the FA or trade target with more upside if they are relatively close to the older alternative right now.

[dirkfansince1998]

If I'm drafting a Michigan player, it is Morez Johnson.  The per 40 numbers are pretty close in terms of points, boards and stocks.  Morez isn't quite as good with his advanced stats, but neither was Yaxel 3 1/2 years ago (their age difference).  I feel like you are getting a similar player today in Johnson who has more upside from here than Yaxel.

I think you raise a good point otherwise.  We have room under the cap to spend a good deal of money.  We don't have to Brooklyn taking on bad contracts for picks.  We don't have to focus only on players 22 or under.  We can try to build out a more competitive roster.  Doing so not only allows the team to start to put together a winning culture.  It allows Flagg to play in systems that are more like what he will play in when we are actually able to contend.

I'm not advocating trading for a bunch of 35 year olds.  Much like the distinction above between Yaxel and Morez, I'd rather have the FA or trade target with more upside if they are relatively close to the older alternative right now.

That's actually what Lendeborg himself stated in a combine interview. Asked about his teammates he mentioned Morez as the standout guy. The one that is going to have the best pro career.

[Chicagojk]

Vecenie new mock

https://x.com/sam_vecenie/status/2063940...75329?s=46

[Smitty]

Vecenie new mock

https://x.com/sam_vecenie/status/2063940...75329?s=46

Would be just fine by me. Getting to pick between Brown Jr. and Burries at #9. Getting to pick between I. Evans and Zuby at #30. Ideal scenario in my book.

[Smitty]

https://x.com/QuinnFishburne/status/2063...06311?s=20

[Smitty]

Nathan Grubel (@DraftDeeper)

2026 NBA MOCK DRAFT CORRECT, UPDATED PROJECTIONS

Fresh 2026 NBA Mock Draft with all of my latest projections, I will have a separate What Would I Do Updated Mock Draft tomorrow! PLENTY of movement in this one, we're starting to get a better picture! #NBA #NBADraft

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

Sam Vecenie mock draft from this morning.

Dybantsa
Peterson
Boozer
Wilson
Wagler
Acuff
Flemings
Mara

Mavs take Brayden Burries over Mikel Brown Jr.

9. Dallas Mavericks
Brayden Burries | 6-4 guard | 20 years old | Arizona
The Mavericks are another team that has engendered a lot of speculation among sources, something that the new brain trust led by Masai Ujiri and Mike Schmitz will likely appreciate. They’ve explored trading this selection and are considering several different players and positions, from lead guards like Flemings, Wagler, Brown, Acuff and Christian Anderson to Ament to Yaxel Lendeborg.

Burries is the name I hear the most with Dallas, though, with sources around the lottery trying to determine why he’s not working out in as many places as you’d expect given his standing at the start of the process. There is a lot of enthusiasm for Burries among teams who want to try to win next season, as he’s seen as a tough guard who can dribble, pass and shoot who will also defend at a high level with physicality.

[loki]

Mavs take Brayden Burries over Mikel Brown Jr.

[Scott41theMavs]

I would be absolutely content with Burries as the pick if he were the last guy standing of the five guards, and I like him a little more than Wagler, and could see taking him over Acuff since the latter is someone you'd have to hide on D, but Burries over Flemings or Brown would probably achieve a similar reaction from me.

[Scott41theMavs]

I've missed some countdown days, but 15 days until the first round of the 2026 NBA draft.

[Winter]

I would be absolutely content with Burries as the pick if he were the last guy standing of the five guards, and I like him a little more than Wagler, and could see taking him over Acuff since the latter is someone you'd have to hide on D, but Burries over Flemings or Brown would probably achieve a similar reaction from me.

I'm not sure why other than Flemings and Brown are seasoned PGs. There's nothing in individual statistics that I can see would be better - the opposite is largely true. I suppose there are advanced projections that are beyond me, but in terms of just individual play as a guard it looks like Burries is the most well-rounded. 

I think you could argue for a true PG - assists and playmaking - but that doesn't feel like a huge hole to fill so much on this team - at least not so big that Burries couldn't fix it.

[mvossman]

It's an interesting risk/reward case.  Brown could end up being a 6' 5" Trae Young.  But a lot of risk too.  Both physically with his back, and mentally with his questionable shot selection and poor decision making as a playmaker.  He is not going to be a plus defender either.

They have to get this pick right, and of all the guards he probably has the highest bust potential (he has some Jordan Poole vibes).  I'm not sure which makes more sense between him and Burries.  This is a case where I would trust which ever route the FO takes.

[Scott41theMavs]

I'm not sure why other than Flemings and Brown are seasoned PGs. There's nothing in individual statistics that I can see would be better - the opposite is largely true. I suppose there are advanced projections that are beyond me, but in terms of just individual play as a guard it looks like Burries is the most well-rounded. 

I think you could argue for a true PG - assists and playmaking - but that doesn't feel like a huge hole to fill so much on this team - at least not so big that Burries couldn't fix it.

While I think KL overstates his case - for example, I'm 1,000% fine with Flagg as an offensive initiator, even as the ballhandler in a pick-and-roll - I think "true point guard" is pretty important. Burries has a strong floor but a far lower ceiling compared with the other four players.  

I believe that Acuff will (both in terms of his rookie year and career stats) be the best offensive player in this draft unless Peterson is - no question. It's just that we have seen how destructive Trae Young-level non-defense is to the possibility of a team having a prayer of being a contender. 

I was once the ultimate anti-Brown poster here, but I have come around on him in terms of size, potential, and presumed health. I didn't know (as was argued by mvossman) that Brown's defense was bad. That perhaps re-drops him a bit for me.

I find Wagler to be a complete enigma. I see the Haliburton-pauper's Luka case for him, but man, I have to really squint to look at a guy who is that tall and can't dunk, and that slow and deliberate in his game, and see an NBA player. That said, he probably has the highest BBIQ of the five.

Overall, I would say that Flemings is my guy. The bad physical measurements of the combine have the platinum lining that they're 1) likely to cause him to fall, when he was (rightly) seen for most of the season as a clear 5th pick, and 2) largely irrelevant to his game and who he is as a player in spite of #1.

 So, of the five, I would say
1) Flemings, by a mile,
2) Wagler 
3) Burries
4) Brown (#2 prior to mvossman's defense comment)
5) Acuff (but shoots to #2 at the very least if scouts believe that he can and will defend any better than Trae)

So, if Acuff can play *any* defense, and be a 20th percentile defender as opposed to an absolute zero, and if Brown is at least a 50th percentile defender among guards, the order would be
1)-1a) Flemings and Acuff
3) Brown
4) Wagler
5) Burries