Only Fantasy Traders in the Building (The Mitchell Case)

[Hogmelon]

Well, the good news is that regardless of where the Mavs go from here we’ll definitely find a way to manufacture arguments about it. I have plenty of confidence in that.

Yes, you are right, KL.  And the bad news is that despite repeated requests (by moderators and other members) for common courtesy and civility, the unrestrained acrimony around here never improves.

I wonder how many people who could be (and sincerely want to be) valued contributors to this message board have come to the reasonable, rational conclusion that the negatives of posting here outweigh the positives by a significant margin.  Whatever that number may be, it is a real shame  ---  I have plenty of confidence in that.

[DanSchwartzgan]

Yes, you are right, KL.  And the bad news is that despite repeated requests (by moderators and other members) for common courtesy and civility, the unrestrained acrimony around here never improves.

I wonder how many people who could be (and sincerely want to be) valued contributors to this message board have come to the reasonable, rational conclusion that the negatives of posting here outweigh the positives by a significant margin.  Whatever that number may be, it is a real shame  ---  I have plenty of confidence in that.

Thank you.  A good reminder.

Don't know if this would help anyone else, but I personally have a two-response rule.  If I say something and someone disagrees, I will respond and then maybe respond to their response to that.  At that point, I'm done.  Shame on me if I can't make my point in two responses.  At that point, my opinion is out there and no amount of repeating myself is going to change anyone's mind.  

In fact, what typically happens is debates devolve into some form of people talking past one another so they can 'claim' victory.  I gave away too much of my life at a younger age trying to win message board debates.  It isn't worth it.  

Not saying everyone should emulate me.  Lord knows I have other challenges to overcome.  Just offering up an idea that has made my time here more pleasant.

[KillerLeft]

Don't know if this would help anyone else, but I personally have a two-response rule.  If I say something and someone disagrees, I will respond and then maybe respond to their response to that.  At that point, I'm done.  Shame on me if I can't make my point in two responses.  At that point, my opinion is out there and no amount of repeating myself is going to change anyone's mind. 

This is outstanding. I'm going to try it.

[mvossman]

Okay I´ll just leave it alone. You are either intentionally acting stupid or just can´t read.

The answer is neither.  I have had a couple of drinks and have a scathing reply prepared, but in the spirit of keeping this board more cordial, I'm going to leave it as well.

[StepBackJay]

Thank you.  A good reminder.

Don't know if this would help anyone else, but I personally have a two-response rule.  If I say something and someone disagrees, I will respond and then maybe respond to their response to that.  At that point, I'm done.  Shame on me if I can't make my point in two responses.  At that point, my opinion is out there and no amount of repeating myself is going to change anyone's mind.  

In fact, what typically happens is debates devolve into some form of people talking past one another so they can 'claim' victory.  I gave away too much of my life at a younger age trying to win message board debates.  It isn't worth it.  

Not saying everyone should emulate me.  Lord knows I have other challenges to overcome.  Just offering up an idea that has made my time here more pleasant.

Good idea, I might try the same. Lately I have been trying to not respond to every back and forth, I like a 2 response limit.

[ballsrchr]

A rousing discussion!  But, yeah, sometimes the topic does stray from what we all intend.  There are some people who are sort of thin skinned, a few who are...abrasive, yet even more who who have thoughtful responses, or at least a method to avoid vitriolic exchange.

Guys...this is the BEST Mavs forum online...and I hope we can keep it that way.  Some of the former Mavs forums (a mouthful) often devolved into vituperative arguments--over nothing--and drove many members and future members away.

I really appreciate the knowledge, thought, and sharing that goes on in this forum.  Some of you guys are great.  Some not so great.  But we are all entitled to our own opinions.  I'm not saying we can't disagree, because that is healthy.  Let's just be adult about.

[WildArkieBoy]

ballsrchr:  "Some of you guys are great.  Some not so great."

I fit squarely in the latter category.  

[ballsrchr]

ballsrchr:  "Some of you guys are great.  Some not so great."

I fit squarely in the latter category.  

Oh no!  With a name like WildArkiBoy you gotta be one of the good guys.  We all are--until we show otherwise...and that rarely happens.

I've always wondered if you're from Arkansas...

[cow]

Yes, you are right, KL.  And the bad news is that despite repeated requests (by moderators and other members) for common courtesy and civility, the unrestrained acrimony around here never improves.

I wonder how many people who could be (and sincerely want to be) valued contributors to this message board have come to the reasonable, rational conclusion that the negatives of posting here outweigh the positives by a significant margin.  Whatever that number may be, it is a real shame  ---  I have plenty of confidence in that.

I've been posting on and moderating message boards since the 90s and honestly this is the most civil place I've come across.  Considering the nature of fandom, I find that remarkable.  Disagreements happen but in the end, we all of the same goal.

I got fired up yesterday and if I made anyone feel uncomfortable, my sincerest apologies.  I just hate being called a liar and I'm often bad about turning the other cheek.

[Mavs2021]

I've been posting on and moderating message boards since the 90s and honestly this is the most civil place I've come across.  Considering the nature of fandom, I find that remarkable.  Disagreements happen but in the end, we all of the same goal.

I got fired up yesterday and if I made anyone feel uncomfortable, my sincerest apologies.  I just hate being called a liar and I'm often bad about turning the other cheek.

The problem is that Cuban never does anything right or changes anything, so we are stuck with having the same discussion all over again. If we are honest every discussion about

1.) draft prospects --> mostly useless unless Cuban has the same so far down the gutter that he has no other choice, even then he f**** up tanking.
2.) using capspace to take on bad contracts to acquire assets  --> useless to discuss never happens.
3.) any measure taking a step back to taking a step forward --> useless to discuss never happens.
4.) signing younger free agents with potential  upside --> mostly useless to discuss rarely happens < 5%.
5.) trading Mavs rotational/expiring players for future assets  -->mostly useless to discuss rarely happens <5%.

Basically what we should have discussed is:

Which veteran do we sign with the TP-MLE.
Which veteran do we sign with the vet minimum.
Will we find a trade for Dwight Powell.
Which other rotational piece veterans, perceived as an upgrade, can we get for THJ/Dinwiddie/Bertans, probably adding future Mavs picks.
WTF we just lost Brunson for nothing, which should be about a one reply "discussion". Mark is an idiot. Everybody like. The end.

That´s why the tone eventually gets rougher. We have the same limited hypothetical discussions over and over.

Is Cuban broke or just cheap is the only new layer for this off-season.

[DanSchwartzgan]

I think expiring Powell may play a role.
 

Getting back to the OP (kind of), I was reading Tim Cato’s Q&A piece from a few days ago.  He reasserts Powell is the most likely Mav to be gone before the season begins.  He also points out Dallas isn’t trying to land a star with the poo poo platter it has to offer.  Instead, the idea is for Dallas to insert itself (and presumably Powell) into a deal that helps teams complete something they wouldn’t be able to do otherwise.  

I’ve already spoken about using Powell in a larger deal where NY is getting Mitchell, but doesn’t want non-expiring players like Fournier or Randle.  I note that Miami is pretty light on expiring deals also which would make it difficult to complete a deal if the other team wanted young cheap talent and expiring veterans.

The natural question is why Powell?  Why not just pay SA or Indy for their space?  Well that word “pay” obviously.  Dallas is motivated to swap him for something while SA and Indy are motivated to get picks for the use of their room.  Also, Powell can eat some innings for the right team.  I’ll note that Utah and Philly are both a bit thin at backup center.

Another place I think Powell may make sense is helping to facilitate Sexton’s eventual move to a new team.  His BYC status and asking price make a direct two-team deal challenging.  As a for instance, let’s use his reported asking price of $20-$22mm and the rumor that Utah is interested once Mitchell is done.  That means the Cleveland outgoing is $10mm-$11mm.  Cleveland can only take back one of Utah’s low teens guys like Clarkson or Beverley, but neither matches the full incoming of $20+ million.  However, if the deal is Clarkson to Cleveland and Beverley for Powell, Utah is sending out $26.3mm and that is enough to match Sexton in his range plus Powell.  Cleveland gets the bench scoring lost in cheaper Clarkson on a shorter contract.  Dallas gets a third ball handler who joins Maxi as a bench defender also.  Utah gets their Mitchell replacement and a one year center in Powell.

[KillerLeft]

Love the idea of exchanging Powell for Beverly. Love it. 

But, I'll ask the same question I did in the other thread: does that actually solve the ball-handler issue? I'm not sure that it does.

[mvossman]

Love the idea of exchanging Powell for Beverly. Love it. 

But, I'll ask the same question I did in the other thread: does that actually solve the ball-handler issue? I'm not sure that it does.

This last season he dished over 6 assets per 36 with less than 2 turnovers.  He may not be ideal, but way better than any option we have right now and the defense is a big added bonus.  Personally, I think this is about the best outcome we could realistically hope for at this point.

[F Gump]

How about Derrick Rose to Dallas instead of UT, with Powell + _____ (either Green or Franky or Hardy) then going to the Jazz? I think he would be a great fit in what the Mavs are trying to do.

[KillerLeft]

This last season he dished over 6 assets per 36 with less than 2 turnovers.  He may not be ideal, but way better than any option we have right now and the defense is a big added bonus.  Personally, I think this is about the best outcome we could realistically hope for at this point.

Agreed on the defense. Agreed that he's an improvement over the options on the current roster. I just don't know that I view him as a ball-handler. I think he's a better version of Ntilikina, role wise. Again, would love to have him on the team.

[StepBackJay]

How about Derrick Rose to Dallas instead of UT, with Powell + _____ (either Green or Franky or Hardy) then going to the Jazz? I think he would be a great fit in what the Mavs are trying to do.

gimme

[mvossman]

How about Derrick Rose to Dallas instead of UT, with Powell + _____ (either Green or Franky or Hardy) then going to the Jazz? I think he would be a great fit in what the Mavs are trying to do.

I would be fine with this too.  I probably prefer Beverly defense over Rose offense on this team and giving up one of those three players is a small hit, but I would be good with either move over signing a crappy vet min.

[DanSchwartzgan]

How about Derrick Rose to Dallas instead of UT, with Powell + _____ (either Green or Franky or Hardy) then going to the Jazz? I think he would be a great fit in what the Mavs are trying to do.

I'm with Mvossman.  I'll take either.  Both have been solid on court contributors and fill a need.  It makes sense that we would have to add something to Powell to get either (though my heart was hoping otherwise).  I think the league probably values either much more highly than Powell.  I do like the options you have with Rose's TO, but I probably like Beverley's D better.  

Two for one outgoing seems the wrong direction for a team that has an open roster spot.  I wonder if we could make it two-for-two and bring back a young guard like McBride or Butler to partially replace what we are giving up in Green (if it were him versus the other two).

[F Gump]

I'm with Mvossman.  I'll take either.  Both have been solid on court contributors and fill a need.  It makes sense that we would have to add something to Powell to get either (though my heart was hoping otherwise).  I think the league probably values either much more highly than Powell.  I do like the options you have with Rose's TO, but I probably like Beverley's D better.  

Two for one outgoing seems the wrong direction for a team that has an open roster spot.  I wonder if we could make it two-for-two and bring back a young guard like McBride or Butler to partially replace what we are giving up in Green (if it were him versus the other two).

It's a proposed 2-for-1 only because Powell outgoing by himself doesn't salary match with Rose. He would trade match with Beverly, however. (The problem there, and perhaps with Rose as well, would be Ainge's involvement.)

I like Rose in that he is very much a creator of offense, and that's what the opening requires.

[KillerLeft]

I like Rose in that he is very much a creator of offense, and that's what the opening requires.