(04-14-2023, 02:51 AM)JamesConway912 Wrote: I could not disagree more. I think they
1 certainly gave up something of value for Wood with the 1st round pick
2 should not evaluate a young player / draftee on his first year impact
3 there were other ways to get rid of the contracts of Sterling Brown, etc but just like the Brunson-situation they preferred to save the money
4 the way they treated Wood was a recipe for disaster from the beginning
The trade blew up im their faces which almost had to expected when they announced they would give him the Noel-treatment (benching him from the start in a contract year). Just mismanaged the whole thing from day 1. I don’t know what else to say to you.
+ It’s baffling that they somehow came to the conclusion that promising McGee the starting spot in the offseason was a good idea. That also played a big role in the Wood-fiasco as it set the tone from day 1.
They didn't give up a 1st round pick for Wood. I'd argue the majority of the value of the pick given up was for dumping 10m in salary. That isn't free or easy to do. Conceptually, I agree with your overall strategy but the Mavs operate in strange ways. Judging the trade for how Kidd and company treated Wood is weird as is judging the trade based on how McGee was treated. It's revisionist history. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the board loved the trade when it happened.
Would you be happier had the Mavs selected Hardy with that FRP? They'd have the 2SRPs they spent to get Hardy. No Wood for the season. And then they'd have the four cast offs which they would have had to jettison in some shape form or fashion.
If Wood had signed an extension or a new contract this offseason, is the trade a success?