12-13-2023, 11:58 AM
(12-13-2023, 09:59 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: Isn't there always some risk in a buy-low scenario. Otherwise, the low part wouldn't exist. That is the trick to these deals. Almost no one here wanted Dinwiddie based on his recent past at the time of the trade. But, if you went back further, you could find reason for hope.
There isn't much point in going too far down this rabbit trail as the deal doesn't work. But just yesterday you were making the "it wasn't that long ago" argument on behalf of Maxi. I think the last 3 seasons on a good team probably holds more weight than 2019 and prior on a bad team, but I can see the concern.
Unrelated...In four starts this season Exum is now 17.5/5/4.6. His season long 3% went from .285% to 40% overnight (he was amazing last night). I don't know if it makes more sense for him to start as the 3rd PG or come off the bench when everyone is healthy. For the purpose of this exercise, I'll assume the bench. Here is what I think is likely the current depth chart.
Lively Holmes(Maxi)
GWill OMax (Maxi)
DJJ Green
Irving THJ
Luka Exum
What is the greatest need? What 'asset' would be missed the least?
The eye test says “a big, bruising rim protector and rebounder”. But I’m not sure the analytics would agree.
I found it fascinating that the Lakers tried going big last night, but it didn’t generate the overwhelming mismatches that we might have expected. Or, at least, they were offset by the mismatches that the Mavs generated as a result. And I’d perhaps also argue that the Lakers hit an extraordinarily high percentage of threes last night, which made the game closer than it should have been.
The rejoinder might be that the Mavs also hit an unusual percentage. But I’d argue that the Lakers’ performance was more unusual than the Mavs’.
I’m not sure what the greatest need is.