I was right, Kamm was wrong (ab Gobert)

[ThisIStheYear]

It's possible this is true, but only if Gobert is GOOD here (in this hypothetical). "Good" as in better than he has been for Utah, imo. 

If I take your meaning correctly (correct me if I'm not) you seem to be implying that even if Gobert isn't a fix all, he and his contract would somehow be less burdensome than the combo of players you mention. I couldn't disagree with that idea more. I think we're uniquely positioned to see that the opposite of that opinion is likely true based on the objectively positive impact the Porzingis trade made on this season's team. 

By spreading the Porzingis money out into two players, the Mavs accomplished three things:

1) not having one player making so much money lessens the political need to force the one player into situations wherein the game is on the line, even when it's obvious doing so is not in the best interest of the team. If Gobert is here, the team goes right back to "making it work" with him, no matter what. 

2) More players soaking up the same amount of salary means more possibilities, in single games and over the course of a season, to get value on that money. I'd submit that BOTH Dinwiddie and Bertans have fit in here reasonably well for the most part, but I think we'd all admit, if we're being honest, that Dinwiddie alone has been a better fit than Porzingis ever was. Therefore, even if Bertans is (as some believe) a waste of the money, the team is better positioned with only a portion of the money being wasted, rather than the entire amount. I'd submit that it's very possible that the combo of THJ, Bertans and Powell is significantly more positive for the team than turning their money into Gobert alone UNLESS he fits here like a glove. I do not agree that there's no chance of buyer's remorse on such a hypothetical trade at all. In fact, I'd say it's a pretty huge risk when viewed from this angle. 

3) Finally, Dinwiddie and Bertans, while not being "value contracts" at all, are much easier to move in future trades separately or packaged with additional players than Porzingis. Moving Porzingis requires (as we've seen) the stars to align nearly perfectly, and you have to be willing to take what the other team MUST give you in order to make the math work. I think this hardship would be even more burdensome with Gobert, if in fact he didn't work out here. 

Now, to be clear, I think Gobert is a much, much better player than Porzingis. And, I'm not sure I wouldn't take the risk involved in your hypothetical package, were it available. I'm just saying that it could easily result in a worsening of the Mavs' roster effectiveness and near-future prospects. There is risk, imo.

I’m implying that THJ and Bertans are zero marginal product players on this roster, that Gobert is a top 10 all time interior defensive presence, and is a miles better than Powell (who’s not horrible and at least isn’t a ZMP). The Mavs might just slow down a team like Phoenix with defensive control of the paint.  It’s also difficult to get a player like Gobert. He’d have to basically force his way out.  So I’d have no illusions this trade is available, even if you throw in some other assets. My main point to those complaining about Rudy’s cost is to point out that we’re paying even more for a collection of overpaid, very low value players, unlike Gobert, who is a legitimate, occasional all star.