Trade & Free Agency 2026/2027

[mvossman]

Melo is a reasonable comp for a possible Kyrie trade this summer, a trade of a star when M became a GM. But as you mentioned, that one happened because Melo was trying to force his way out - he was chasing a chance to play in NY - so M made the best deal and moved forward to build a team. If Kyrie starts making waves that he wants out, sure I think he gets traded; but if not, I don't see it happening.   

You mentioned Derozan, but that is not a realistic comp for what M might do in THIS type of situation at all. That's just a GM in a place he has been for quite some time making a trade of a good player to get a better one (which is what it takes sometimes), and he was offered a player who could take them to a title, if he will let go of DeRozan. So of course he did. Fast forward a half dozen years, and if he has a bunch of Robins (some of them fairly raw) needing a Batman, the DR deal is our comp for what he might do in THAT situation.

Rudy Gay was traded because he (with a big contract, and a ball stopper) didn't fit what TOR was building. That was their AD-to-Washington trade, basically -- a deal that freed up minutes, shots, and future payroll. They actually got MUCH better that same season, just by getting him out of the rotation.

I agree that none of those situations are just like what he is facing now.  He has never faced a situation like this before (a 19 year old budding superstar, a 34 year old aging star and limited assets) so no idea what he will do.  My only point was that I am not ready to assume he is not going to trade Kyrie just because that's the current message.

Regardless, the original question is why trade him in the offseason.  I think I provided valid reasons why it would at least be a consideration.  Of course I am coming from the belief that the goal should be to maximize asset return on him to support the long term rebuild.  Others prefer to keep him in order to be better in the near term and are going to need to be blown away.  By the same token, I don't have any interest in giving him away.  If his maximum return does reach a minimum threshold of significant assets then I rather just watch him play.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

His peak value is probably at the TDL, but there is an argument to pull the trigger now if you get a good enough offer.  

I agree with this.  None of the offers I've seen floated around here would convince me to trade him now.

[Smitty]

I agree with this.  None of the offers I've seen floated around here would convince me to trade him now.

This! The great thing about this board is that we have several really smart people. Some spend a lot of their free time coming up with and posting trade ideas that are both legal and logical from both teams perspective. It gives us all a chance to have some really informed opinions. I have yet to see one that makes sense from the Mavs POV. Sure, I think there are multiple teams that would want Kyrie next year, Mavs included, but what is a realistic expectation for a return if the Mavs, not Kyrie, decided it was in their best interest to "cash in" on that 'asset'. Is it worth it?

Speaking of assets, one of the things that irks me some is when people say that the Mavs lack them. In my opinion this may be the most asset rich the Mavs have ever been. They have (1) 'negative' contract in Caleb Martin. The rest of the players all have perceived neutral to positive trade value, no? Flagg, Kyrie, Lively, PJW, Max, Naji, Gafford, Klay, and AJJ as a minimum expiring that can easily just be waived. Are those considered assets? What about draft picks? They have up to (15) draft picks from now until '33. (9) of them being first rounders. A maximum of (4) being tradable this summer. What about financial flexibility? One of the huge benefits in the AD trade. They are no longer facing a massive repeater tax bill. No longer fighting to stay under the second apron. They have the ability now to take on negative contracts for additional assets. Much of which we've discussed here as being realistic options. The TPE allows them to do things others can't, and that's offer more than most can (MLE) to free agents this summer via SnT.

Yes, Kyrie is probably their best tradeable 'asset' right now... But that doesn't mean the Mavs lack them. When making a "trade Kyrie" argument, I wouldn't be using lack of assets as one of my talking points is all.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

I've been told by various sources that — in addition to the LA Clippers' Kawhi Leonard and Memphis' Ja Morant — Wizards point guard Trae Young has emerged as another "big fish" backup option for the Miami Heat in the event that Boston, Portland or some other team manages to outbid Pat Riley and Co. in the trade chase for Antetokounmpo.

marcstein.substack.com

[HoosierDaddyKid]

Minnesota's Ayo Dosunmu is yet another and league sources say that the Timberwolves are already at work to try to hash out a new deal that keeps their influential midseason acquisition in the Twin Cities.

marcstein.substack.com

[HoosierDaddyKid]

Utah Jazz center Walker Kessler is at odds with the team’s front office over the current handling of his restricted free agency, league sources told The Athletic. Kessler, the 24-year-old who was taken 22nd overall by the Jazz out of Auburn in 2022, was already known to be frustrated by Utah’s choice not to offer him an extension last summer. And now, with the Jazz choosing to leverage the realities of restricted free agency against him as a way to minimize his market, sources say he is strongly considering the prospect of a basketball future outside of Utah.

New York Times

[dirkfansince1998]

This! The great thing about this board is that we have several really smart people. Some spend a lot of their free time coming up with and posting trade ideas that are both legal and logical from both teams perspective. It gives us all a chance to have some really informed opinions. I have yet to see one that makes sense from the Mavs POV. Sure, I think there are multiple teams that would want Kyrie next year, Mavs included, but what is a realistic expectation for a return if the Mavs, not Kyrie, decided it was in their best interest to "cash in" on that 'asset'. Is it worth it?

Speaking of assets, one of the things that irks me some is when people say that the Mavs lack them. In my opinion this may be the most asset rich the Mavs have ever been. They have (1) 'negative' contract in Caleb Martin. The rest of the players all have perceived neutral to positive trade value, no? Flagg, Kyrie, Lively, PJW, Max, Naji, Gafford, Klay, and AJJ as a minimum expiring that can easily just be waived. Are those considered assets? What about draft picks? They have up to (15) draft picks from now until '33. (9) of them being first rounders. A maximum of (4) being tradable this summer. What about financial flexibility? One of the huge benefits in the AD trade. They are no longer facing a massive repeater tax bill. No longer fighting to stay under the second apron. They have the ability now to take on negative contracts for additional assets, much of which we've discussed here as being realistic options. The TPE allows them to do things others can't, and that's offer more than most can (MLE) to free agents this summer via SnT.

Yes, Kyrie is probably their best tradeable 'asset' right now... But that doesn't mean the Mavs lack them. When making a "trade Kyrie" argument, I wouldn't be using lack of assets as one of my talking points is all.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/4880...ts-hornets

Draft asset ranking from ESPN. They have the Mavs 18th in the league. For a rebuilding team that's not a good at all. And compared to other teams I don't think the list of tradeable players under contract is changing all that much. Mavs might overtake the Kings, Bulls and Pelicans. But contenders with way better rosters would leapfrog the Mavs (Celtics, Knicks, Cavs, Wolves). And teams like the Clippers or Bucks would probably overtake the Mavs if they blow it up.

You already mentioned the Mavs best asset. A clean payroll.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

The Bucks seem to not be in love with the Heat's offer(s) and continue to discuss trade packages with other teams, team sources say. That said, Miami has been able to improve what it can offer since the trade deadline and can send a package headlined by the No. 13 pick in next week's draft plus various rotation players, namely Wisconsin native Tyler Herro, and prospects.

ESPN


Heat Central: “What I’ve heard from people, depending on who you talk to, Boston or Miami is in the driver's seat of this conversation. A couple of executives I talked to yesterday said, they think that Miami thinks Boston is in the lead” — @VinceGoodwill on Giannis to Miami or Boston rumors

x.com

[HoosierDaddyKid]

Jon Krawczynski: But in the last week to 10 days, there have been more and more signs coming out of Dallas that Kyrie is going to stay there; that the Mavericks want Kyrie to play alongside Cooper Flagg; that Kyrie really enjoys being in Dallas; and that he wants to stay there. It did seem like he has found some kind of comfort and tranquility there, so that makes sense. So while I believe that, if the Wolves were going to trade for Kyrie Irving, yes, maybe it would be Julius Randle, a first-round pick, and something else to get Kyrie—versus needing eight different pieces to get Giannis—I just think that is looking more and more unlikely at this point. What exactly the Timberwolves do to address their ball handling is something we’ll have to see. But the Kyrie Irving steam has definitely been reduced by quite a bit, and at this point, I would be very surprised if a Kyrie Irving deal got done.

YouTube

[Smitty]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/4880...ts-hornets

Draft asset ranking from ESPN. They have the Mavs 18th in the league. For a rebuilding team that's not a good at all. And compared to other teams I don't think the list of tradeable players under contract is changing all that much. Mavs might overtake the Kings, Bulls and Pelicans. But contenders with way better rosters would leapfrog the Mavs (Celtics, Knicks, Cavs, Wolves). And teams like the Clippers or Bucks would probably overtake the Mavs if they blow it up.

You already mentioned the Mavs best asset. A clean payroll.

Thanks for sharing. Marks is one of the best. This doesn't change anything I posted. The Mavs have several assets. I think we're so used to talking about draft picks as the only real "asset" around here because we're not used to having so many good players on good deals. This article, which only includes draft capital, can and will change significantly in as little as two weeks. Again, Kyrie is their most valuable trade asset, but that doesn't mean they should take back meh players and a future pick for "hope". Give me good players and/or great picks that have a higher likelihood of turning into good players or what's the point. 

Agree that the clean payroll is massive in this apron world!

[mvossman]

Thanks for sharing. Marks is one of the best. This doesn't change anything I posted. The Mavs have several assets. I think we're so used to talking about draft picks as the only real "asset" around here because we're not used to having so many good players on good deals. This article, which only includes draft capital, can and will change significantly in as little as two weeks. Again, Kyrie is their most valuable trade asset, but that doesn't mean they should take back meh players and a future pick for "hope". Give me good players and/or great picks that have a higher likelihood of turning into good players or what's the point. 

Agree that the clean payroll is massive in this apron world!

Outside Flagg and Kyrie, the Mavs have 4 players that might be worth a late first (PJ, Gafford, Naji, Max).  Combine that with below average draft capital and I think its a reasonable statement that the Mavs have limited assets.

Nobody is making the argument that Mavs have limited assets so they should make a "meh" trade for Kyrie.  The argument is simply that due to the Flagg timeline and limited assets it would make sense to trade Kyrie if a reasonable trade presents itself.  What is "reasonable" is eye of the beholder, and I think it is heavily influenced by whether you want to build for the future or be a good team now.

[michaeltex]

If you want multiple options for trading Kyrie, it seems like this summer is the time to make the deal. Especially post-July 1st, when payrolls are at their lowest and teams have the most slots open. But that doesn't help if you are looking for immediate assets for the upcoming draft. IMO, if you aren't going to get something immediate, then keep Kyrie here, let him season the kids with experience and see how effective he is playing with Coop.

Informationally, can you make a deal now to have Team "A" agree to draft player "X" with the understanding "X" will be traded for Team "B"s player "K" once the new season starts and contracts end and slots open up? That would be a trade that spans two different contract years and I don't know how HQ feels about that.

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

As I've kind of aluded to before, I think that the Kyrie situation is tricky:

Scenario 1: the Mavs only get 80% of Kyrie's value this off-season, but they trade him anyway. He goes on to ball out and the Mavs sold short.

Scenario 2: Again, the Mavs only get 80% of his value this off-season, they trade him and his body breaks down with injury. The Mavs feel like they got out ahead of something, which they didn't do with AD.

Scenario 3: the Mavs keep him and he balls out. Kyrie says all the right things, but next off-season he opts out and either forces the Mavs to sign him to an ugly contract, or else he signs elsewhere.

Scenario 4: the Mavs keep him, but his body goes full "AD". Now his value is at 50%.

Scenario 5: Kyrie stays and, ultimately, the Mavs never wind up trading him. He just plays out the string in Dallas. The Mavs never really add players via Kyrie that fit Cooper's timeline.

Scenario 6: The "Wayne's World 'We want a happy ending'" version - Kyrie stays, plays amazing and the Mavs get 120% of his value at the TDL.

Basically, there's a way this could all work out, but there's more ways it could go sideways.

[cow]

As I've kind of aluded to before, I think that the Kyrie situation is tricky:

Scenario 1: the Mavs only get 80% of Kyrie's value this off-season, but they trade him anyway. He goes on to ball out and the Mavs sold short.

Scenario 2: Again, the Mavs only get 80% of his value this off-season, they trade him and his body breaks down with injury. The Mavs feel like they got out ahead of something, which they didn't do with AD.

Scenario 3: the Mavs keep him and he balls out. Kyrie says all the right things, but next off-season he opts out and either forces the Mavs to sign him to an ugly contract, or else he signs elsewhere.

Scenario 4: the Mavs keep him, but his body goes full "AD". Now his value is at 50%.

Scenario 5: Kyrie stays and, ultimately, the Mavs never wind up trading him. He just plays out the string in Dallas. The Mavs never really add players via Kyrie that fit Cooper's timeline.

Scenario 6: The "Wayne's World 'We want a happy ending'" version - Kyrie stays, plays amazing and the Mavs get 120% of his value at the TDL.

Basically, there's a way this could all work out, but there's more ways it could go sideways.

No scenarios let us get 100% of Kryie's value...got it!  

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

No scenarios let us get 100% of Kryie's value...got it!  

Hey, 80% and 120% averages to 100%! Lol

I think the general consensus on here has been that a trade now wouldn't necessarily get back full value. Whereas, if he plays well, he'd be the "Darling of the Deadline".

[Smitty]

Outside Flagg and Kyrie, the Mavs have 4 players that might be worth a late first (PJ, Gafford, Naji, Max).  Combine that with below average draft capital and I think its a reasonable statement that the Mavs have limited assets.


If all you care about are picks, then sure. You might have the opinion that the Mavs aren't absolutely loaded with "assets".


Nobody is making the argument that Mavs have limited assets so they should make a "meh" trade for Kyrie.  The argument is simply that due to the Flagg timeline and limited assets it would make sense to trade Kyrie if a reasonable trade presents itself.  What is "reasonable" is eye of the beholder, and I think it is heavily influenced by whether you want to build for the future or be a good team now.

It's okay to do both. Is trading a good player, say, Max in your example above, for a late FRP next year guaranteed to make you better in the future? No. It does provide hope, I guess. It gives you another FRP to trade again I suppose... But you can be good now and still build for the future. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Team building isn't so linear.

Back to Kyrie. Has anyone posted a realistic, legal trade, from any of the rumored suitors, that makes you want to pull the trigger?

[mvossman]

Smitty, Not sure how to reply inline like you did, so here is my response:

If we don't have picks, and we don't have players worth significant picks, then I'm not sure what assets you are referring to? A clean cap sheet and lack of negative assets is nice, but not something you can rebuild with by itself. The TPE is limited value. They might be able to get something out of it, but probably not significant.

There is always a tradeoff between being good now and being good later. You can try to do both, but that is a tradeoff as well.

I have seen trades involving Mavs getting a top 10 pick in this draft (if the Bucks make one last ditch effort to keep Giannis, or a multi team trade involving Gobert). I would pull the trigger on such a trade.

[Smitty]

Smitty, Not sure how to reply inline like you did, so here is my response:

If we don't have picks, and we don't have players worth significant picks, then I'm not sure what assets you are referring to?  A clean cap sheet and lack of negative assets is nice, but not something you can rebuild with by itself.  The TPE is limited value.  They might be able to get something out of it, but probably not significant.

There is always a tradeoff between being good now and being good later.  You can try to do both, but that is a tradeoff as well.

I have seen trades involving Mavs getting a top 10 pick in this draft (if the Bucks make one last ditch effort to keep Giannis, or a multi team trade involving Gobert).  I would pull the trigger on such a trade.

We have picks. We have several players who are perceived to have positive trade value. I've outlined all of that already, so maybe we are talking past each other there. Yes, the TPE is an asset. As is the room below A2.

In the end, what are we talking about here... An asset or combination of assets is used to obtain something that you find has higher value, yes? Each team values things differently and are working within their own limitations and organizational goals. The difference I think for me is that I probably find good players as good as  -- or even more valuable than -- a late pick. One is a known commodity, the other is hope -- in that you land someone as good as or better than what you traded away. Both make sense on some level, otherwise there would never be trades.

With Kyrie, I haven't seen a realistic trade that has the Mavs landing a top 10 pick in this draft. But sure, that's intriguing. All of the others though? We're talking about one or two unrealistic hypotheticals (all of our fantasy trades are) as something we might do... So, again, it's easy to say the Mavs should do X, but it takes two to tango and when you go through all the somewhat realistic possibilities talked about so far, it's a lot of meh IMO.

[F Gump]

I'm with Smitty. The issue for me is that players are only being defined as an "asset" if you can envision trading them for a pick who you can then use to draft a different player that in most of the scenarios you only hope will give you play on the court as good as the player you traded away in the first place.

Picks are only tools to try to get a useful player. They aren't that player. To some degree they are a real crapshoot, especially when they are not in the lottery.

To me, that approach makes no sense. You already have that very-useful player, on a very-reasonable contract. He is an asset just to have him. You don't have to turn him into someone else to replace him, to then have an asset. That's how I see it.

[mvossman]

I'm with Smitty. The issue for me is that players are only being defined as an "asset" if you can envision trading them for a pick who you can then use to draft a different player that in most of the scenarios you only hope will give you play on the court as good as the player you traded away in the first place.

Picks are only tools to try to get a useful player. They aren't that player. To some degree they are a real crapshoot, especially when they are not in the lottery.

To me, that approach makes no sense. You already have that very-useful player, on a very-reasonable contract. He is an asset just to have him. You don't have to turn him into someone else to replace him, to then have an asset. That's how I see it.

So I agree that a player worth their current contract has value.  Is that enough?  Is a bunch of neutral contracts and some late future firsts enough to build around a superstar and a #9 lottery pick into a contender?  I'm not sure that it is.  That is why I would be willing to sacrifice some near term winning to restock asset cupboard.  To give them a better chance to contend later.  Its a tradeoff, and I think you can make an argument either way.