THE CRUCIFIX: Cato: Wood isn't thrilled w/ his role...Will depart in the summer

[KillerLeft]

There is value to dumping those contracts and opening up roster spots,

Is there? They were all about to expire, anyway, yeah? What benefit is McGee providing that's superior to, say, Trey Burke? I actually think he'd be a help right now. 

I would agree with you if they had used that signing to greater effect, but now McGee and (according to many on this board) Wood are just a waste of time. 

I suppose it could look better if/when Wood is used to bring in someone we all like better, but man, I  have a hard time talking myself out of thinking mystery door #18 (or the 2nd round pick, if 18 really would've been Hardy), along with some measure of cost control, might've been the best choice of all.

And to be clear, I'm saying this from the perspective of the hindsight we have to this point. I'm not claiming I was against the move at the time.

[mvossman]

Is there? They were all about to expire, anyway, yeah? What benefit is McGee providing that's superior to, say, Trey Burke? I actually think he'd be a help right now. 

I would agree with you if they had used that signing to greater effect, but now McGee and (according to many on this board) Wood are just a waste of time. 

I suppose it could look better if/when Wood is used to bring in someone we all like better, but man, I  have a hard time talking myself out of thinking mystery door #18 (or the 2nd round pick, if 18 really would've been Hardy), along with some measure of cost control, might've been the best choice of all.

And to be clear, I'm saying this from the perspective of the hindsight we have to this point. I'm not claiming I was against the move at the time.

Just to be clear, it was 26 right?  Not 18.  And I think it would almost definitely have been Hardy there, so it's even harder for me to get worked up over what might have been when we probably already have it.

[Mavs2021]

Just to be clear, it was 26 right?  Not 18.  And I think it would almost definitely have been Hardy there, so it's even harder for me to get worked up over what might have been when we probably already have it.

On the other hand you could also have traded down from 26, maybe acquired 33+37 and picked Hardy + Koloko/Nembhard, who all look pretty good. There is definitely a strong case to be made, that the strategy was poor again, if the end result is Wood walking for nothing.

Koloko is probably better than McGee already. You don´t have to give up future assets. Maybe you use the full exception to sign Jalen Smith. Smith is averaging 11/7 compared to Wood at 16/8.

I think there is a strong case to be made that Koloko, Smith plus two future second round picks (you get to keep) is a superior outcome to Wood/McGee minus a first round pick.

[KillerLeft]

Just to be clear, it was 26 right?  Not 18. 

Yeah, you're probably right. I must be remembering 18 from the Green draft, sorry. 

And I'm not "worked up"...I just grow tired of decision after decision that doesn't yield pay dirt. Luka was a score of a generation type, and it's starting to look like Green was a solid pick, too. Better than solid, even! I have a lot of confidence that Hardy is going to add significant value in the future, and I adore the extensions for both DFS and Kleber. So it's not like I'm completely down on everything they're doing. 

I suppose on some level I'm bringing baggage from the disastrous swing and miss on Porzingis into every subsequent setback, but...to be real, that's kind of the reality of where they are. Watching Brunson walk away for nothing doesn't help. It's difficult not to let one disappointment influence the tone of the next situation, especially with disappointments that significant. 

Here's the best way to say it, I guess. If THIS (how they're choosing to use Wood) was how they intended to "take a swing" on him, then I feel like I probably would not have chosen to take that swing if I had been in their shoes. I thought the swing was valuable (while still a gamble) at the time, but only because I was viewing the player (and his potential) in a drastically different way than they did.

[mvossman]

Yeah, you're probably right. I must be remembering 18 from the Green draft, sorry. 

And I'm not "worked up"...I just grow tired of decision after decision that doesn't yield pay dirt. Luka was a score of a generation type, and it's starting to look like Green was a solid pick, too. Better than solid, even! I have a lot of confidence that Hardy is going to add significant value in the future, and I adore the extensions for both DFS and Kleber. So it's not like I'm completely down on everything they're doing. 

I suppose on some level I'm bringing baggage from the disastrous swing and miss on Porzingis into every subsequent setback, but...to be real, that's kind of the reality of where they are. Watching Brunson walk away for nothing doesn't help. It's difficult not to let one disappointment influence the tone of the next situation, especially with disappointments that significant. 

Here's the best way to say it, I guess. If THIS (how they're choosing to use Wood) was how they intended to "take a swing" on him, then I feel like I probably would not have chosen to take that swing if I had been in their shoes. I thought the swing was valuable (while still a gamble) at the time, but only because I was viewing the player (and his potential) in a drastically different way than they did.

Its very possible that they were hoping (like the rest of us) that being on a competing team would alter who he is as a defender and were hoping to move him into the starting lineup relatively soon.  And then they discovered that a lot of his defensive issues are less about effort (or at least less about effort affected by meaningful games) and more about limited BBIQ.

[mvossman]

On the other hand you could also have traded down from 26, maybe acquired 33+37 and picked Hardy + Koloko/Nembhard, who all look pretty good. There is definitely a strong case to be made, that the strategy was poor again, if the end result is Wood walking for nothing.

Koloko is probably better than McGee already. You don´t have to give up future assets. Maybe you use the full exception to sign Jalen Smith. Smith is averaging 11/7 compared to Wood at 16/8.

I think there is a strong case to be made that Koloko, Smith plus two future second round picks (you get to keep) is a superior outcome to Wood/McGee minus a first round pick.

You can look at just about any move a franchise makes and cherry pick some other option in hindsight and say the original move sucked.  Its that kind of thinking that makes someone always angry.

And I have no idea why we are bringing McGee into this?  No doubt that was a fail, but the conversation is around the Wood trade.

[KillerLeft]

Its very possible that they were hoping (like the rest of us) that being on a competing team would alter who he is as a defender and were hoping to move him into the starting lineup relatively soon.  And then they discovered that a lot of his defensive issues are less about effort (or at least less about effort affected by meaningful games) and more about limited BBIQ.

Sure, but unless I'm missing something about your point, that doesn't address mine. 

I would not have traded anything for Wood or even wasted this time on him had I thought of him as needing to play in a two-big system, even in the best-case scenario of what that means. I was excited because I thought that best-case, if it worked, they'd have a starting center, and one that presented them with significant and rare advantage over opponents. 

Now, maybe they thought of him like I did, too, and they've just pivoted since he got here. But (and I've argued against this thinking a ton in the past with other players people were convinced needed more time, so I get how it can come across) I just don't see evidence that the role I envisioned for him (which could be a bench role, easily) has gotten much of a chance. This leads me to believe what they're doing with him NOW was kind of the plan, which is what Dan has been saying all along, and I'm just saying I would've been out on this player in that role from jump street. Even if it works, it doesn't really work.

[KillerLeft]

And I have no idea why we are bringing McGee into this?  No doubt that was a fail, but the conversation is around the Wood trade.

Right, but people are quick to say trade was to dump those other guys, not to get Wood. I'm not sure I agree, but that's a common argument lately. To me, that "value" is based on how the roster spots are used. Hardy is a win, so that's a roster spot better spent than any of the outgoing guys for sure. 

But, if "dumping" guys on the last years of their deals (I know not all of them were, but there wasn't a lot of long term money removed) was just to get the team in even deeper on a three year deal for McGee (who I'd like to have less than ANY of the outgoing players, even Boban) and a one year rental for Wood...idk, man. Pretty underwhelming, and easy to argue that it might even be a move backwards, imo. 

Again, they're one good Wood trade away from shining a different light on all this, but they let Brunson walk, and that's WAY more catastrophic than it would be to let Wood walk for nothing, so I think it's safe to say my eyes are a little bit open on this one. Not expecting the worst, but much more prepared for it this time around.

[Mavs2021]

You can look at just about any move a franchise makes and cherry pick some other option in hindsight and say the original move sucked.  Its that kind of thinking that makes someone always angry.

Well it´s not like you do anything different, you just don´t see it. I´m merely pointing out scenarios you don´t even consider. You said well we got the guy we wanted at #37 anyway, so there is no loss. Of course there is a loss.We had to give up a 1st round pick and two future 2nd round picks to get Wood and Hardy at#37. If Wood walks for nothing in 12 months, what did we accomplish? Yeah I think the move was absolutely justifiable in the moment, but you can´t always make moves without already thinking 2-3 steps ahead.

You trade for Noel and give up future assets in the process. First thing you do is bench him immediately. Second thing you do is have your head coach tell him through the press that Dalembert will start over him. Goddamn Sleepy Sammy. So yes the trade itself was good, but if you have no overall plan, then it´s still a bad trade with the benefit of hindsight.

Same as extending THJ was a bad decision on itself (imho), but it becomes catastrophic, if it becomes part of the reason, you botch the extend Brunson.

Also what happened to "two smaller contracts" are easier to trade than a big contract. So which contract is easier to move right now. Bertans 51/3 or Porzingis 70/2. And that´s before we even get into the discussion that only a complete moron would have offered Porzingis the full five year max with a player option. With a professional front office that contract is expiring this season already.

And I think we are FAR beyond the point where Cuban gets any benefit of the doubt for the moves. 

mvossman



And I have no idea why we are bringing McGee into this?  No doubt that was a fail, but the conversation is around the Wood trade.

Same as drafting Koloko might impact the decision to sign McGee. Though with this franchise it probably does not.

[mvossman]

Well it´s not like you do anything different, you just don´t see it. I´m merely pointing out scenarios you don´t even consider. You said well we got the guy we wanted at #37 anyway, so there is no loss. Of course there is a loss.We had to give up a 1st round pick and two future 2nd round picks to get Wood and Hardy at#37. If Wood walks for nothing in 12 months, what did we accomplish? Yeah I think the move was absolutely justifiable in the moment, but you can´t always make moves without already thinking 2-3 steps ahead.

You trade for Noel and give up future assets in the process. First thing you do is bench him immediately. Second thing you do is have your head coach tell him through the press that Dalembert will start over him. Goddamn Sleepy Sammy. So yes the trade itself was good, but if you have no overall plan, then it´s still a bad trade with the benefit of hindsight.

Same as extending THJ was a bad decision on itself (imho), but it becomes catastrophic, if it becomes part of the reason, you botch the extend Brunson.

Also what happened to "two smaller contracts" are easier to trade than a big contract. So which contract is easier to move right now. Bertans 51/3 or Porzingis 70/2. And that´s before we even get into the discussion that only a complete moron would have offered Porzingis the full five year max with a player option. With a professional front office that contract is expiring this season already.

And I think we are FAR beyond the point where Cuban gets any benefit of the doubt for the moves. 

Same as drafting Koloko might impact the decision to sign McGee. Though with this franchise it probably does not.

You are misquoting me.  I did not use the Hardy pick as an argument for the Wood trade in hindsight.  Killer wanted to know what would have been behind the non trade door and I merely suggested that it would probably be the Hardy pick (an assertion you probably agree with).

You are agreeing that the move was justifiable at the time, and we still don't know the end result anyways.  For all of the fuckups this franchise has made that we can bitch about, the Wood trade should be near the bottom of the list.

The McGee signing (which I hated from the beginning) was about veteran leadership and a known quantity taking some wear and tear off the big rotation (which has failed miserably).  That is not a position you can fill with a second round big project.

[KillerLeft]

The McGee signing (which I hated from the beginning) was about veteran leadership and a known quantity taking some wear and tear off the big rotation (which has failed miserably).  That is not a position you can fill with a second round big project.

Absofreakinglutely you can. Agreed sooooo much.

[mvossman]

Absofreakinglutely you can. Agreed sooooo much.

I'm confused by this answer as it seems to be contradicting itself.  Are you saying we could draft a second round big as a veteran presence?

[KillerLeft]

I'm confused by this answer as it seems to be contradicting itself.  Are you saying we could draft a second round big as a veteran presence?

I sped read your post, sorry. 

Don't care about adding "veteran leadership" to a team coming off of a WCF season, especially not in the form of a player that moves the team's approach to basketball closer to the stone age every time you play him. 

For leadership, I would've recommended holding onto the team's already in place leader and 2nd best player, even if it took drastic tactics, up to and including nuking New York city (I kid). In lieu of that, I think Dragic was the big missed opportunity here. Even Kemba Walker is more valuable from this angle than McGee, imo.

What I meant to agree with is that the "wear and tear" concerns could've been addressed by a 2nd round pick...veteran minimum...whatever. 

I'd add that not employing Javale McGee is its own reward, regardless of what they felt their needs were at the time. 29 teams won that transaction.

[Mavs2021]

The McGee signing (which I hated from the beginning) was about veteran leadership and a known quantity taking some wear and tear off the big rotation (which has failed miserably).  That is not a position you can fill with a second round big project.

If anyone actually bought into Joel McShaqtin being a leadership authority they should be fired on the spot and never work in basketball again, not even selling shoes at Foot Locker. They could have signed Drummond, Howard or Whiteside for the minimum and they have the same excellent leadership skills, if you know what I mean.

The leaders in LA and GS were LeBron, Rondo, Steph, Igoudala and Draymond, not f´m McGee. He´s so valued that he´s been on nine different teams in the last eight years. Look I´m sure he´s a nice guy, but there is no veteran leadership, when nobody respects you. This alleged leadership was over the moment Luka saw through him. They have a better chance for Kemba Walker to be that leader for Luka.

[Scott41theMavs]

I'd add that not employing Javale McGee is it's own reward

Simply beautiful.

[mvossman]

I sped read your post, sorry. 

Don't care about adding "veteran leadership" to a team coming off of a WCF season, especially not in the form of a player that moves the team's approach to basketball closer to the stone age every time you play him. 

For leadership, I would've recommended holding onto the team's already in place leader and 2nd best player, even if it took drastic tactics, up to and including nuking New York city (I kid). In lieu of that, I think Dragic was the big missed opportunity here. Even Kemba Walker is more valuable from this angle than McGee, imo.

What I meant to agree with is that the "wear and tear" concerns could've been addressed by a 2nd round pick...veteran minimum...whatever. 

I'd add that not employing Javale McGee is it's own reward, regardless of what they felt their needs were at the time. 29 teams won that transaction.

I am not a fan of the signing or the reason for the signing, but given their mindset (it is what it is) they were not going to fill that role with a second round big, especially if the planned on starting him (another reason/decision I disagreed with).

[mvossman]

If anyone actually bought into Joel McShaqtin being a leadership authority they should be fired on the spot and never work in basketball again, not even selling shoes at Foot Locker. They could have signed Drummond, Howard or Whiteside for the minimum and they have the same excellent leadership skills, if you know what I mean.

The leaders in LA and GS were LeBron, Rondo, Steph, Igoudala and Draymond, not f´m McGee. He´s so valued that he´s been on nine different teams in the last eight years. Look I´m sure he´s a nice guy, but there is no veteran leadership, when nobody respects you. This alleged leadership was over the moment Luka saw through him. They have a better chance for Kemba Walker to be that leader for Luka.

I don't disagree.  It was a dumb signing in many ways.  Its the first time I have ever seen Luka disrespect one of his own teammates so blatantly.  We only needed a vet min center.  It made no sense to give McGee that contract or start him.  This is an FO decision worthy of bitching about, but that horse has been dead for a while.

[KillerLeft]

You know who's figured this out? Sacramento, that's who.

If Kidd coached there, he'd be trying to make Sabonis/Holmes work. They figured out that Sabonis has an advantage when he plays at center and now they're having their best, most exciting start in years.

[mvossman]

You know who's figured this out? Sacramento, that's who.

If Kidd coached there, he'd be trying to make Sabonis/Holmes work. They figured out that Sabonis has an advantage when he plays at center and now they're having their best, most exciting start in years.

I'm not sure why we are praising Sacramento?  They traded away a potential 22 year generational talent so they could ride the mediocre train for years.  Sabonis is clearly a center and I seriously doubt Kidd would be putting Holmes (who has completely fallen off a cliff) in the same lineup.

[KillerLeft]

I'm not sure why we are praising Sacramento?  They traded away a potential 22 year generational talent so they could ride the mediocre train for years.  Sabonis is clearly a center and I seriously doubt Kidd would be putting Holmes (who has completely fallen off a cliff) in the same lineup.

Well, "we" aren't praising them for that trade. "We" are on record trashing that trade with a vengeance. 

But, you say "Sabonis is clearly a center," yet IND tried to play him with Turner for years. YEARS. It took Carlisle landing there for them to admit one of them had to go, finally. 

And, think what you want, but I can 100% promise you that people here would be calling Sabonis a PF if he played here. They said it with Porzingis, now they're saying it with Wood. I agree that he's "clearly a center." Wood, too, is clearly a center. Maybe not a good enough one, but a center.