2026 NBA draft thread

[Winter]

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 think that's a reasonable argument, but for me it's straightforward. At #9 the best player available is Burries. If we play through the season and feel we need a true PG, let's trade for one. 

It's entirely possible the FO is running through possibilities of other players and trades, but I'm of the opinion we shouldn't pick for position at #9.

[Scott41theMavs]

I think that's a reasonable argument, but for me it's straightforward. At #9 the best player available is Burries. If we play through the season and feel we need a true PG, let's trade for one. 

It's entirely possible the FO is running through possibilities of other players and trades, but I'm of the opinion we shouldn't pick for position at #9.

Pretty sure that it was KL who said that the Mavs have to be looking at Burries as a lead guard, because that possibility causes his ceiling to shoot up. It's not a positional question, but rather a quantitative commentary on his value and potential.

To me, Burries-the-off-guard's ceiling is as a strong 5th-best starter on a contending team - doesn't move the needle much. If he can be a full-fledged lead guard, he's a solid 3rd-best starter. I don't think even then he has any whiff of Robin potential. I think each of the other four guys have a small percentage chance of becoming Robins, although perhaps none of them ever get there. 

Burries will be the best player at 9 presuming that the big four are gone and the other four guards are gone, but that doesn't seem to be what you were saying at all. Do you rank him over all four of Acuff, Flemings, Wagler, and Brown? I.e. fifth best in this draft? Or how would you rank those five? Just trying to understand you here.

[Winter]

Pretty sure that it was KL who said that the Mavs have to be looking at Burries as a lead guard, because that possibility causes his ceiling to shoot up. It's not a positional question, but rather a quantitative commentary on his value and potential.

To me, Burries-the-off-guard's ceiling is as a strong 5th-best starter on a contending team - doesn't move the needle much. If he can be a full-fledged lead guard, he's a solid 3rd-best starter. I don't think even then he has any whiff of Robin potential. I think each of the other four guys have a small percentage chance of becoming Robins, although perhaps none of them ever get there. 

Burries will be the best player at 9 presuming that the big four are gone and the other four guards are gone, but that doesn't seem to be what you were saying at all. Do you rank him over all four of Acuff, Flemings, Wagler, and Brown? I.e. fifth best in this draft? Or how would you rank those five? Just trying to understand you here.

Oh, sorry. I'll clarify. I haven't considered that Wagler would be available. That's more or less a dealer's choice to me. I'd probably be fine with Wagler or Burries (but I suspect Wagler would not be a Mavs selection).

I'm just not all that impressed with the PGs in our 5-10 range. Acuff probably generates enough offense to offset his defense, but I don't know that I really want him for the Mavs. Flemings and Brown don't look much better than Okoro to me, so I'm just not quite high enough to pick either one of them at #9. I suspect only one will be there when the Mavs pick, but I'm ambivalent. I see more "positives" in Burries than I do any of the PGs. 

But I agree there's not much space between these players, and I'll be a fan whoever they get.

[mvossman]

Pretty sure that it was KL who said that the Mavs have to be looking at Burries as a lead guard, because that possibility causes his ceiling to shoot up. It's not a positional question, but rather a quantitative commentary on his value and potential.

To me, Burries-the-off-guard's ceiling is as a strong 5th-best starter on a contending team - doesn't move the needle much. If he can be a full-fledged lead guard, he's a solid 3rd-best starter. I don't think even then he has any whiff of Robin potential. I think each of the other four guys have a small percentage chance of becoming Robins, although perhaps none of them ever get there. 

Burries will be the best player at 9 presuming that the big four are gone and the other four guards are gone, but that doesn't seem to be what you were saying at all. Do you rank him over all four of Acuff, Flemings, Wagler, and Brown? I.e. fifth best in this draft? Or how would you rank those five? Just trying to understand you here.

I think there is some middle ground here.  Burries may not develop into a true lead guard role, but he would still provide a ton of value as a combo guard.  If he turns into a Derrick White, NAW or Josh Hart with better offense I would be more than satisfied.

[KillerLeft]

Pretty sure that it was KL who said that the Mavs have to be looking at Burries as a lead guard, because that possibility causes his ceiling to shoot up. It's not a positional question, but rather a quantitative commentary on his value and potential.

I don't know that they "have to be" looking at Burries as a lead guard, but there are loads of smart people out there who view him that way. In fact, I've basically become convinced that he IS a lead guard who simply didn't play that role for ONE SEASON due to his fit on one, particular team. It just so happens that this one season is the only thing most of us have to go on to study his game, so people are out there assuming he's an off-guard, but again, a lot of those with the contextual ability to zoom out and look at his experience as a whole say he's a lead guard, so...yeah, it will be interesting. 

I agree with your point that this changes the equation on his value quite a bit, if true, and I'll push back against Winter's point pretty hard. To me, there's zero chance that Burries is a better prospect for ANY team than Brown or Flemings if he's NOT a lead guard. I just feel that a guard (or player of any position, really, but especially guard) who can succeed ON ball is inherently and objectively more valuable than a guard relegated to playing off-ball. I think this is true from any team's POV, but it's an even more glaring distinction for a team in the Mavs' situation. 

I take Brown over Burries in that situation, UNLESS I'm convinced Burries can be my PG. Period. 

If I'm not convinced Burries is my PG but I don't like Brown, I trade down so that a team who likes Brown can get him and hope to get Burries a pick or two later. If ALL of Brown, Wagler, Acuff and Flemings are off the board before #9, then fine - I take Burries there. Again, if one of those guys is still there, BUT I think Burries can be my on-ball guy, fine - I can justify taking him over one of them.

There's a REASON the on-ball guards are all clumped together in that 2nd tier. It's the same logic as the NFL draft. If you're picking in a certain range, you're hoping to get a certain skillset.

[Winter]

Also, when I look at video I'm sort of faced with the fact that Burries was never going to get the ball in his hands the way Flemings and Brown did. He was not usually the lead guard and on a deep Arizona team, and he really wasn't "featured" because of some other good AZ players. I have to imagine him getting more touches in the NBA, especially since his transition play was so good.

I have a more difficult time imagining a better version of Brown or Flemings, but I could be entirely wrong about that.

[KillerLeft]

Burries may not develop into a true lead guard role, but he would still provide a ton of value as a combo guard.  If he turns into a Derrick White, NAW or Josh Hart with better offense I would be more than satisfied.

To further clarify, the point I've been making is not aligned with the above, which seems to suggest that Burries would have to be made into a lead guard. What I've heard some people say that has me excited about him is that he's ALREADY a lead guard who just took a one-year break from that role so that he could attend a particular school and participate in a particular program. 

Obviously, he'd still require "development," just like all the other on-ball guys we talk about. Also, this take could be incorrect, but I've encountered it in multiple places, coming from people who've followed him for quite some time. I just want to clarify my feelings on it. IF you (the Mavs decision makers) don't think lead guard is a LIKELY fit for his role, I don't think you should take him at #9 unless all the on-ball guys are gone. I feel pretty strongly about that. But, if you DO believe in him as an on-ball guy, I can see some of his attributes seeming more attractive than some of theirs.

[Winter]

Also - just to be clear - I'm not so in love with Burries that I would discount a trade of some kind. I won't try to imagine the possibilities here. My overall point is that I am more of a fan of the best player available than a definitive lead guard.

[dirkfansince1998]

Also, when I look at video I'm sort of faced with the fact that Burries was never going to get the ball in his hands the way Flemings and Brown did. He was not usually the lead guard and on a deep Arizona team, and he really wasn't "featured" because of some other good AZ players. I have to imagine him getting more touches in the NBA, especially since his transition play was so good.

I have a more difficult time imagining a better version of Brown or Flemings, but I could be entirely wrong about that.

That's the thing with the high/low ceiling narrative. It's mostly used to make the case that player x/y/z can turn into a completly different player if he fixes a long list of flaws/limitations. If Ament learns how to shoot, finish, pass and defend he could be the best player in the entire draft class. I guess that makes him a high ceiling pick or it just means that floor/ceiling isn't the best way to evaluate talent.
In Burries case it doesn't require some crazy projections to view him as a guy that can handle a bigger playmaking load. But for some reason some people think that it's more likely that Brown fixes his decision making/shot selection or that Acuff won't be borderline unplayable on defense.

[mvossman]

That's the thing with the high/low ceiling narrative. It's mostly used to make the case that player x/y/z can turn into a completly different player if he fixes a long list of flaws/limitations. If Ament learns how to shoot, finish, pass and defend he could be the best player in the entire draft class. I guess that makes him a high ceiling pick or it just means that floor/ceiling isn't the best way to evaluate talent.
In Burries case it doesn't require some crazy projections to view him as a guy that can handle a bigger playmaking load. But for some reason some people think that it's more likely that Brown fixes his decision making/shot selection or that Acuff won't be borderline unplayable on defense.

As usual you express my own thoughts better than I am.

[Chicagojk]

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.

I Evans was one of my guys I hoped made it to 30 around a month ago.  I have seen him pop up more in the 20's recently, but I think there is a real chance he makes it near 30.   I have sort of come off him a bit though.   I don't think I would be disappointed in the pick, but I do have some questions.   I see some THJ in him...both good and bad.   He is not bashful shooting and can provide some wow highlights in the open floor.   He is just limited on creation right now.    Defense will be the big thing for hi.  If he can defend ok, he will get playing time and his game can grow.    If not, it may be an uphill battle. 

On that mock, i would really prefer a move up 4-6 spots.  For me that would be ideal.   Even at 30, I may lean for a guy like Karaban over Evans.

[mvossman]

To further clarify, the point I've been making is not aligned with the above, which seems to suggest that Burries would have to be made into a lead guard. What I've heard some people say that has me excited about him is that he's ALREADY a lead guard who just took a one-year break from that role so that he could attend a particular school and participate in a particular program. 

Obviously, he'd still require "development," just like all the other on-ball guys we talk about. Also, this take could be incorrect, but I've encountered it in multiple places, coming from people who've followed him for quite some time. I just want to clarify my feelings on it. IF you (the Mavs decision makers) don't think lead guard is a LIKELY fit for his role, I don't think you should take him at #9 unless all the on-ball guys are gone. I feel pretty strongly about that. But, if you DO believe in him as an on-ball guy, I can see some of his attributes seeming more attractive than some of theirs.

I guess LIKELY is another word we could be talking over each other.  There are other guys who I think are more likely to be able to take on lead guard roles, but not necessarily by enough to account for the lower floor.  If I am looking for the guy most likely to become a starter on a contending team then I probably go with Burries.  Not just because he has the best defense of the group and tools to potentially make it either on ball or off, but also because of his mental makeup.  He choose a talented team and took on a limited role seamlessly because he wanted to win.

But if I were of your mindset, and wanted the guy most likely to develop into a lead guard on a contending team I would probably go with Flemings.  He has the elite first step and high BBIQ that will carry over to the next level.  He also has good enough defense (for the 1) that you won't have to build your team around him (like Acuff).  But he can't fall back to another position due to his lack of size and limited shooting.  I would be happy with either guy.

[Chicagojk]

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

Hmm I think I would go Flemings, Karaban here.   Although, also some interest in a move up from 30 here too.   At 48, not sure of a lot of them.

[mvossman]

I Evans was one of my guys I hoped made it to 30 around a month ago.  I have seen him pop up more in the 20's recently, but I think there is a real chance he makes it near 30.   I have sort of come off him a bit though.   I don't think I would be disappointed in the pick, but I do have some questions.   I see some THJ in him...both good and bad.   He is not bashful shooting and can provide some wow highlights in the open floor.   He is just limited on creation right now.    Defense will be the big thing for hi.  If he can defend ok, he will get playing time and his game can grow.    If not, it may be an uphill battle. 

On that mock, i would really prefer a move up 4-6 spots.  For me that would be ideal.   Even at 30, I may lean for a guy like Karaban over Evans.

I know he took a lot of flack here, and some of it was warranted, but you could do worse than THJ at 30.

[Chicagojk]

I saw a report that Nets and Bucks went down to Orlando recently to meet with him and watch him workout.  I also saw the Mavs had an upcoming workout.    Although, now I see this.

Mikel Brown Jr. and his camp have shut down various pre-draft workout invites which likely signals a team has already given him a draft promise, per
@BrettSiegelNBA
.
Brown will meet with the Clippers and Hawks before the draft.

[Smitty]

@BrettSiegelNBA
We have a new mock draft on @ClutchPoints with all the latest intel and talk around the league you need to know.

Bulls and Thunder attempting to trade up, the ongoing Dybantsa vs. Peterson debate at No. 1, and much more:

There has not been as much talk in recent days about Darius Acuff being a real target for the Clippers at No. 5 compared to him going 6th to the Nets or 7th to the Kings.

More on Acuff, Nate Ament's stock rising, the Hawks leaning toward selecting a guard at 8, and more:

There has been a lot of chatter recently about the Bulls seeing what the cost would be to move up from No. 15 into the top 10 of this year's draft to grab one of the top guard prospects.

Two names are always quietly mentioned for the Warriors at No. 11: Cam Carr and Aday Mara. Brayden Burries is another name mentioned frequently if he falls out of the top 10.

A lot of intel on the Warriors, including an upcoming workout with Yaxel Lendeborg:

Mikel Brown, Kingston Flemings, and Keaton Wagler are all of interest to Chicago.

2026 NBA Mock Draft 3.0: Latest intel and updates for all 60 picks with 2 weeks until draft

[Smitty]

BrettSiegelNBA: Nothing has really happened with Ament and the Nets since Chicago, and he has yet to privately work out for them in Brooklyn. Ament is drawing interest from a plethora of teams — the Thunder, Bucks, Hawks, Mavs, and Bulls. He has worked out for Oklahoma City and Chicago, and I have heard Ament will also work out for the Warriors and Bucks, if those haven't already happened privately. A lot of the trade chatter surrounding the top 10 is that the Thunder have a legitimate interest in moving up, with Ament now being the top prospect named for them.

[Smitty]

If the Ament stuff is true, with Presti wanting to trade up for him, does it change your opinion at all? Still completely out on Ament at #9?!

[mvossman]

If the Ament stuff is true, with Presti wanting to trade up for him, does it change your opinion at all? Still completely out on Ament at #9?!

Still out.  OKC can afford to take big swings as they have a ton of picks.  Mavs don't have the same luxury.  With Flagg already in the fold and little in the way of future assets they need a high floor guy with reasonable upside.

[Smitty]

@APH00PS
There has been “no smoke” coming out of Keaton Wagler’s pre-draft workouts, per @krystenpeek.

“That’s either one of two things: He’s killing it and he has a promise and everyone is tight-lipped or people are thinking ‘Okay, he rose way too quick, way too fast.’”

(via https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/no...0771652443)