DRAFT: #18 [Green] & #31 [Terry] & trade for #36 [Tyler Bey]

[Mavs2019]

When you think about it, they traded Barnes for Jackson, Wright and Boban. 

Definitely not great. But I don't know that we're looking at this in 5 years banging our heads, either.

Agreed. I´m the first to throw the MBT under the bus...let me re-phrase, I´ll gladly drive the bus back and forth a few times after the MBT threw themselves in front of it. This one though is a non-event.

The biggest discussion point would be, if the Kings gave the Mavs a choice between Giles and Jackson and whether the Mavs with their "college fundamentals over upside"-tendency chose Jackson. But we don´t know whether Giles was ever on the table.

It was also clear that the Kings were ready to make Barnes an (extension) offer that nobody else matched in the summer. So limited leverage there, too.

[Kammrath]

It was a pretty awful trade.

It wasn't at all IMO. Barnes was ballast and I do not know where or how the Mavs could have gotten a better deal. Just because SAC saved face and gave him a big deal doesn't mean he is a good player.

HB was -2.6 on/off last year, and that is hard to do when you are on a TERRIBLE team. He was even worse than the other terrible players on a terrible team.

[KillerLeft]

It was a pretty awful trade.

It wasn't at all IMO. Barnes was ballast and I do not know where or how the Mavs could have gotten a better deal. Just because SAC saved face and gave him a big deal doesn't mean he is a good player.

HB was -2.6 on/off last year, and that is hard to do when you are on a TERRIBLE team. He was even worse than the other terrible players on a terrible team.

Especially since for any team NOT willing to give him that contract, which I assume would be most teams, he would have been a rental. 

How the player and agent see their situation and what they're looking for contractually probably inform a guy's trade value significantly. To Sacramento he was valuable, so I guess you could make the case that Dallas could've wrangled more away from them, but they didn't want salary coming back, and it seems like a pretty big leap to assume there would've been some kind of bidding war for him from other teams. 

I think it's VERY understandable how that offer was the best they could get. They couldn't get Kemba with the room, so you can't call it a home run, but I don't think it's a negative, really.

[Mavs2019]

It was a pretty awful trade.

It wasn't at all IMO. Barnes was ballast and I do not know where or how the Mavs could have gotten a better deal. Just because SAC saved face and gave him a big deal doesn't mean he is a good player.

HB was -2.6 on/off last year, and that is hard to do when you are on a TERRIBLE team. He was even worse than the other terrible players on a terrible team.

Especially since for any team NOT willing to give him that contract, which I assume would be most teams, he would have been a rental. 

How the player and agent see their situation and what they're looking for contractually probably inform a guy's trade value significantly. To Sacramento he was valuable, so I guess you could make the case that Dallas could've wrangled more away from them, but they didn't want salary coming back, and it seems like a pretty big leap to assume there would've been some kind of bidding war for him from other teams. 

I think it's VERY understandable how that offer was the best they could get. They couldn't get Kemba with the room, so you can't call it a home run, but I don't think it's a negative, really.

I assume there are at least 20 teams Barnes would have rather signed for that summer, if they had made an equal offer to the Kings. Therefore the Kings had some leverage, that at their number, they were the only game in town. And nobody outbids a 15th pick offer for a three months rental of Harrison Barnes.

[Scott41theMavs]

If Miami presumably makes the Finals, how is Okungwu not the #1 pick, or at least top 3? Looks like the next coming of Bam, and probably the surest thing in the draft. Assuming that the teams that pick top three after the trade dust settles are as dumb as they seem to be, I'd love for the Mavs to find a way to get the #4 pick, but there's probably no way for them to do it.

[khaled1987]

If Miami presumably makes the Finals, how is Okungwu not the #1 pick, or at least top 3? Looks like the next coming of Bam, and probably the surest thing in the draft. Assuming that the teams that pick top three after the trade dust settles are as dumb as they seem to be, I'd love for the Mavs to find a way to get the #4 pick, but there's probably no way for them to do it.

I think it is probably dangerous to look for the copy of previous players tbh. I mean sometimes it works but a lot of times it will backfire 
Prepare for many euro busts who will be regarded as next Luka for example, like we have seen with Bargiani and Dirk

[omahen]

Prepare for many euro busts who will be regarded as next Luka for example, like we have seen with Bargiani abd Dirk

Exactly

[StepBackJay]

It was a pretty awful trade.

It wasn't at all IMO. Barnes was ballast and I do not know where or how the Mavs could have gotten a better deal. Just because SAC saved face and gave him a big deal doesn't mean he is a good player.

HB was -2.6 on/off last year, and that is hard to do when you are on a TERRIBLE team. He was even worse than the other terrible players on a terrible team.

Especially since for any team NOT willing to give him that contract, which I assume would be most teams, he would have been a rental. 

How the player and agent see their situation and what they're looking for contractually probably inform a guy's trade value significantly. To Sacramento he was valuable, so I guess you could make the case that Dallas could've wrangled more away from them, but they didn't want salary coming back, and it seems like a pretty big leap to assume there would've been some kind of bidding war for him from other teams. 

I think it's VERY understandable how that offer was the best they could get. They couldn't get Kemba with the room, so you can't call it a home run, but I don't think it's a negative, really.

I assume there are at least 20 teams Barnes would have rather signed for that summer, if they had made an equal offer to the Kings. Therefore the Kings had some leverage, that at their number, they were the only game in town. And nobody outbids a 15th pick offer for a three months rental of Harrison Barnes.

If the Mavs were more shrewd they could have just waited it out and either a) Barnes walks which certainly could have happened. They didn't really lose anything bc we saw that Jackson wasn't really a prize. b) Barnes opts in and Mavs can easily trade him somewhere if they want to, in fact they could have probably lined up a trade with the Kings or another team if they get their guy. Other teams do this routinely. c) After seeing their FA choices aren't great they could have done what they did which is sign Boban & Curry, while retaining Barnes for 1 more season to see how things mesh. He could have been easily moved last summer or at the trade deadline.

Instead we trade Barnes for nothing because the MBT is so hyper conservative they take the bird in the hand every time when it comes to cap space. They take no chances for fear they will get stuck and not be able to sign the max-level FA they want.

[fifteenth]

Not a good take, imo, SBJ. HB was done here. There was no role for him. I defended him until it became obvious that his leaving was addition by subtraction. None of your scenarios are better options than what happened. He has some skill, but he's a black hole who gets lots of touches and removes the ball from a more efficient, Luka lead, flow offense. Good dude, but not a fit here. Had to go.

[Dundalis]

Not a good take, imo, SBJ. HB was done here. There was no role for him. I defended him until it became obvious that his leaving was addition by subtraction. None of your scenarios are better options than what happened. He has some skill, but he's a black hole who gets lots of touches and removes the ball from a more efficient, Luka lead, flow offense. Good dude, but not a fit here. Had to go.

IMO this is irrelevant. A good GM treats players like assets or chips to be moved for better pieces and at the right time (peak value). Harrison Barnes' fit with the Mavs is far less relevant than his perceived value as a moveable asset. I agree about the valuation of Barnes as a Maverick. But I also believe due to the construction of the team, he was overutilized in a way unsuitable to his skillset. On a team with let's say two established scoring options and perhaps an established high level wing defender to be used to defend the oppositions best player, a player like Barnes who can provide spacing and solid defense can potentially maximize his effectiveness and thefore be a more useful and desirable fit and get a much better return than for example if the Mavs themselves were trying to trade him in from another team. And other teams are well aware of this, with access to much better analytics than we have.

I'd also say the current roster construction combined with the development of Luka today would result in Barnes fitting in much better with the current team. THJ is every bit the black hole Barnes is, and was hot garbage the second half of last season post trade jacking up bricks at a level of inefficiency we've never seen from Barnes, but puts up a career shooting year this season and people start singing his praises. His shooting reverts to somewhere close to the norm, which is probably more likely than not, he's ultimately just a less talented version of Barnes.

This is applicable to many players around the league. We have a generational talent, which is the hardest asset to acquire. But I think it also means we need to be more precise with roster construction. Even if you can't acquire the right fit, you need to acquire desired, moveable assets that give you the flexibility to acquire the right fit in the future. Apart from Luka and KP, we simply do not have very desirable trade pieces. Part of that was the acquisition of Luka and KP themselves, but we'd also been straight up bad at asset collection for many years, headlined by our pretty blase treatment of the draft. Barnes in the situation he was in was a far better trade piece than any non Luka and KP asset we have right now, and could have been used to bring back better future trade pieces even if a direct trade didn't return THE fit.

It might not matter after all, it certainly wasn't a disaster, and Donnie has certainly proven he can do some pretty good things with limited resources, but the best non star trade chips are talented young players with upside and draft picks, and we don't really have that at all right now unless we want to trade KP, which I woudn't be averse to depending on the return, though I know the Mavs probably would be much less likely to consider it. I think a lot of fans think about trades in terms of this guy is expendable and maybe doesn't fit well, lets trade him for a guy who will fit into our team. Rather than this guy is an asset, let's try and upgrade him to a better asset/s, that 'may' be relatively permanent fixtures in the team, but might also simply be a better asset or collection of assets, that can be used to upgrade to even better assets later on.

[Scott41theMavs]

Not a good take, imo, SBJ. HB was done here. There was no role for him. I defended him until it became obvious that his leaving was addition by subtraction. None of your scenarios are better options than what happened. He has some skill, but he's a black hole who gets lots of touches and removes the ball from a more efficient, Luka lead, flow offense. Good dude, but not a fit here. Had to go.

IMO this is irrelevant. A good GM treats players like assets or chips to be moved for better pieces and at the right time (peak value). Harrison Barnes' fit with the Mavs is far less relevant than his perceived value as a moveable asset. I agree about the valuation of Barnes as a Maverick. But I also believe due to the construction of the team, he was overutilized in a way unsuitable to his skillset. On a team with let's say two established scoring options and perhaps an established high level wing defender to be used to defend the oppositions best player, a player like Barnes who can provide spacing and solid defense can potentially maximize his effectiveness and thefore be a more useful and desirable fit and get a much better return than for example if the Mavs themselves were trying to trade him in from another team. And other teams are well aware of this, with access to much better analytics than we have.

I'd also say the current roster construction combined with the development of Luka today would result in Barnes fitting in much better with the current team. THJ is every bit the black hole Barnes is, and was hot garbage the second half of last season post trade jacking up bricks at a level of inefficiency we've never seen from Barnes, but puts up a career shooting year this season and people start singing his praises. His shooting reverts to somewhere close to the norm, which is probably more likely than not, he's ultimately just a less talented version of Barnes.

This is applicable to many players around the league. We have a generational talent, which is the hardest asset to acquire. But I think it also means we need to be more precise with roster construction. Even if you can't acquire the right fit, you need to acquire desired, moveable assets that give you the flexibility to acquire the right fit in the future. Apart from Luka and KP, we simply do not have very desirable trade pieces. Part of that was the acquisition of Luka and KP themselves, but we'd also been straight up bad at asset collection for many years, headlined by our pretty blase treatment of the draft. Barnes in the situation he was in was a far better trade piece than any non Luka and KP asset we have right now, and could have been used to bring back better future trade pieces even if a direct trade didn't return THE fit.

It might not matter after all, it certainly wasn't a disaster, and Donnie has certainly proven he can do some pretty good things with limited resources, but the best non star trade chips are talented young players with upside and draft picks, and we don't really have that at all right now unless we want to trade KP, which I woudn't be averse to depending on the return, though I know the Mavs probably would be much less likely to consider it. I think a lot of fans think about trades in terms of this guy is expendable and maybe doesn't fit well, lets trade him for a guy who will fit into our team. Rather than this guy is an asset, let's try and upgrade him to a better asset/s, that 'may' be relatively permanent fixtures in the team, but might also simply be a better asset or collection of assets, that can be used to upgrade to even better assets later on.

Exceptionally well-said. Your point about young talent is a big reason I will be pissed if the Mavs trade #18.

[IamDougieFresh]

Mavs must draft Desmond Bane to pair with Luka as the starting backcourt for the next 10 years. Pick him at 18.

[fifteenth]

I'd also say the current roster construction combined with the development of Luka today would result in Barnes fitting in much better with the current team. THJ is every bit the black hole Barnes is, and was hot garbage the second half of last season post trade jacking up bricks at a level of inefficiency we've never seen from Barnes, but puts up a career shooting year this season and people start singing his praises. His shooting reverts to somewhere close to the norm, which is probably more likely than not, he's ultimately just a less talented version of Barnes.

I disagree about the similarity between THJ and Barnes. They're not similar and Barnes doesn't provide a better version of what THJ does. And Tim is not the black hole that Barnes is. We're just seeing a different game. 

Also, Barnes didn't want to be converted to a 3-D player. He wants to be an all around player. He doesn't want to be a catch and shoot player, and THJ is fine with it. Barnes wants to be thrown the ball so he can go to work. That player isn't compatible with our offense. 

If HB had been willing to be a 3-D player, and be paid like one, he might have been a fit.

[903Mavs]

Mavs must draft Desmond Bane to pair with Luka as the starting backcourt for the next 10 years. Pick him at 18.

I’m with you 100 percent provided Saddiq Bey is gone and the Mavs elect not to use  18 in an effort to shed an undesirable contract.
I get a sense that he can contribute as a catch and shoot specialist and team defender from day 1.

[Kammrath]

Desmond Bane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47tczQYmpNs


I am not against drafting a guard, especially if that guard has the length to be a wing as well. The 6'4" wingspan with less than elite athleticism makes me REALLY nervous on Bane.

[burekemde]

Mavs must draft Desmond Bane to pair with Luka as the starting backcourt for the next 10 years. Pick him at 18.

I’m with you 100 percent provided Saddiq Bey is gone and the Mavs elect not to use  18 in an effort to shed an undesirable contract.
I get a sense that he can contribute as a catch and shoot specialist and team defender from day 1.

Id be really happy with this pick. His game is going to translate, he will be a better NBA than college player.

[Scott41theMavs]

I am not against drafting a guard, especially if that guard has the length to be a wing as well. The 6'4" wingspan with less than elite athleticism makes me REALLY nervous on Bane.

6'4" wingspan?

https://tenor.com/bgDxT.gif

[ItsGoTime]

Desmond Bane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47tczQYmpNs


I am not against drafting a guard, especially if that guard has the length to be a wing as well. The 6'4" wingspan with less than elite athleticism makes me REALLY nervous on Bane.

After watching that video, I’m of the same opinion. I mean, if he does turn out to be Malcolm Brogdon though...

[Kammrath]

[FunkBoreland]

44.2% on threes
Solid finisher 
Great floater

His like a scorer's JJ Barea, but taller.