Change has to come from Cuban

[mvossman]

Don´t worry Pat Riley and Spoelstra will teach him how to be a winner. 

I can´t decide between Cuban being a devious bastard that has gone full-blow Sterling or being the dumbest owner in all four major leagues. 

We pay THJ/McGee/Bertans $38M for the next three years.

Is that really any better than paying Porzingis the same until 2024?

We could have just signed Markkanen. Retained Brunson.

Yeah we made the WCFs, but realistically we are in worse shape now than if we had just kept Porzingis. Markkanen was the perfect Porzingis insurance.

I wish you would stop saying we could have simply signed Markkanen.  He was a restricted free agent and cost a young prospect, a protected first and a second.  We did not have the assets to trade for him.  This FO has made enough fuck ups, you don't need to invent more.

[KillerLeft]

I feel like there is some hyperbole here.  Brunson wanted to run his own team and was never going to do that on a team with Luka.  You also had the added dimension of his daddy being part of another organization.  It's not that "eye-brow raising" that he wanted to go to New York.

Sure, that's valid. 

But, it's also not an occurrence that should remotely be rationalized as "unavoidable" and the negative impact of it can't be written off as it is done routinely here.

[SleepingHero]

There was a time he wanted to stay in Dallas and would stay in Dallas, if they treated him right.

The time was right after he shit the bed in the playoffs under RC and wanted a max extension, which at the time many of us would've raised eyebrows at.

But you're right, the Mavs didn't believe in him. They didn't treat him correct. He left. But he's not irreplaceable, This FO just refuses to do it.

---

I wish you would stop saying we could have simply signed Markkanen.  He was a restricted free agent and cost a young prospect, a protected first and a second.  We did not have the assets to trade for him.  This FO has made enough fuck ups, you don't need to invent more.

THIS.

Like just stop at THJ/Bertans/Mcgee. No reason to invent a Markkanen angle where there isn't one.

[mvossman]

Sure, that's valid. 

But, it's also not an occurrence that should remotely be rationalized as "unavoidable" and the negative impact of it can't be written off as it is done routinely here.

Agreed, and I definitely did not agree with the post you were replying to.  Suggesting the Brunson is a JAG who got paid because of 3 playoff games sounds like sour grapes more than anything.  But this organization has a fairly good record of holding onto guys that they want to hold onto.  I think Brunson was a special case.  The real mistakes were made earlier.  The original contract (no restriction) and not offering the extension in the offseason.

[omahen]

Agreed, and I definitely did not agree with the post you were replying to.  Suggesting the Brunson is a JAG who got paid because of 3 playoff games sounds like sour grapes more than anything.  But this organization has a fairly good record of holding onto guys that they want to hold onto.  I think Brunson was a special case.  The real mistakes were made earlier.  The original contract (no restriction) and not offering the extension in the offseason.

I would add, the last mistake was not trading him. If you decide he is not a long term fit but just a trade asset, you go through with it. Everything about his contract and how this would limit his value was known in advance. His family relations and ties to NY were known in advance. But Mavs miscalculated again thinking NY, who was certainly trying to trade for Brunson at TDL, will have to come back to them in the summer.

[F Gump]

1 I don't like the Brunson outcome at all -- I feel like he's a MAJOR asset who got away.
2 I think "willingness to spend" and "cap planning" were major factors in the outcome.
3 I think there were other choices that COULD have been made along the way, that would have certainly led to a different outcome.
4 I think the reason they made some of the choices was prudence, but some was also just cheapness imo.

BUT --  I'm not convinced those choices were as obvious at the time, or as predictable, or as rational, or even as egregious to the future, as they became in hindsight.

For example, focusing on the initial contract, part of the equation from the outset must have been the combo of being cautious (not getting burned on a bad deal to a draftee) and perhaps not expecting to keep Brunson for the long term (using the assumption that Luka would outplay him and Brunson couldn't ever be a starter here). Having him locked up for 4 years at the minimum salary then becomes much preferable to 3 years at the minimum followed by some sort of big jump in cost or walkaway.

They may have also figured that, if he somehow becomes an outlier talent for a 6-footer,  having Bird Rights should protect them where they will get value back in return (it's super rare that a team has near-max cap room AND the player wants to go there).

BUT MOST SIGNIFICANTLY - they may have weighed the reality that RFA doesn't protect you from an offer you find too rich for your blood. And indeed, I would argue THIS is really the bottom line of what happened, that RFA wouldn't have mattered anyhow because the Mavs did not want to pay that for Brunson. (That was a big evaluation mistake imo. We will see.)

As for whether the Mavs could have signed him to a 55M contract at a time when he would have accepted it, I am skeptical that such a window really existed. He wasn't a 55M player at the beginning, and there were serious doubts he was even a keeper. I think he developed his high value very late, and so close to free agency that he was going to inevitably roll the dice. The addition of SD that freed his game, and the games vs UT without Luka, made him a huge pile of money because he showed potential to be way more than a useful 2nd banana.

[KillerLeft]

the Mavs did not want to pay that for Brunson. (That was a big evaluation mistake imo. We will see.)

For me, this ends the discussion. 

I think once the trade deadline passed with him on the roster, taking into account what he meant to that playoff run and the other assets (or lack thereof) on hand, there was no actual choice to be made. 

If he had left for NY by turning down an even better offer from Dallas, I'd probably be over it by now.

[chaparral]

Change has to come from Cuban

This is a good topic, and I can see good points from multiple posters.  But instead of turning this into a we lost JB thread or Cuban hired a know nothing GM because he wants to be the one in control.  We should look to what Cuban, Nico and the Kidd can change now, so not to lose another asset (Wood) for nothing. 

We just played Denver 2 games in a row where the Nuggets were short both game there 3 best players - Jokic, Murray and Gordan.  In the 1st Game Wood had 28pts and 8rbs in 26 minutes.  But in the 2nd game he only played 17 minutes and only had 5pts with 7rebs, Why?  In the 1st Denver game wood had 16 shot attempt's and in the 2nd game he only had 3.

What are Cuban and the new MBT doing with Wood this season?  Are they purposely deflating his time on the court, thinking they can resign him for cheap or are they going to push another asset out the door for nothing?

Brunson is gone, Wood is on the clock.  Change has to come from Cuban - Good Topic Hakeemfann...

[Kammrath]

What are Cuban and the new MBT doing with Wood this season?  Are they purposely deflating his time on the court, thinking they can resign him for cheap or are they going to push another asset out the door for nothing?

It is THE question of this season so far. Nobody knows the answer precisely, but whatever is happening is super frustrating as a fan to watch.

[mvossman]

I would add, the last mistake was not trading him. If you decide he is not a long term fit but just a trade asset, you go through with it. Everything about his contract and how this would limit his value was known in advance. His family relations and ties to NY were known in advance. But Mavs miscalculated again thinking NY, who was certainly trying to trade for Brunson at TDL, will have to come back to them in the summer.

The issue with trading him is that I think it was out that he wanted to go to NY.  That means NY was your only reasonable trading partner and they were planning on getting in free agency.  That means the only value you are getting is the cost of them clearing cap space (which didn't turn out to be much).  I am skeptical this team makes it through the first round if they trade Brunson for minor assets.  So which would you rather have, a WCS appearance or cap clearing assets from NY?  I think you could make the argument either way.

[F Gump]

We just played Denver 2 games in a row where the Nuggets were short both game there 3 best players - Jokic, Murray and Gordan.  In the 1st Game Wood had 28pts and 8rbs in 26 minutes.  But in the 2nd game he only played 17 minutes and only had 5pts with 7rebs, Why?  In the 1st Denver game wood had 16 shot attempt's and in the 2nd game he only had 3. ...

"Why?"

There is an EASY explanation. People just don't want the truth, however, and prefer to come up with absurd theories of coaches sabotaging their own team, or of them being too stupid to be able to see who is better (or playing better) than whom.

In this 2nd game, Wood was playing like suck. The lack of shots was on Wood, and came from him "being a step slow" (aka being sleepy, distracted, not having his head in the game, just going through the motions, or however you want to understand it). Eventually, in an attempt to win, the minutes that they wanted to give to Wood went to Bertans instead, who was playing well and was a major plus (+21), and Wood was invited to take his tired/lazy/sleepy/disinterested/unfocused hiney to the bench and "nap" there. It was bad enough that it was mentioned rather than buried.

That's the immediate situation and explanation. I suspect that out of sight, there's even more of this ilk to be known that had been kept out of sight.

[Branduil]

The time was right after he shit the bed in the playoffs under RC and wanted a max extension, which at the time many of us would've raised eyebrows at.

But you're right, the Mavs didn't believe in him. They didn't treat him correct. He left. But he's not irreplaceable, This FO just refuses to do it.

Is he replaceable? Like, I do think a competent FO could replace him, but a competent FO doesn't lose players like that in the first place.

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

In this 2nd game, Wood was playing like suck. The lack of shots was on Wood, and came from him "being a step slow" (aka being sleepy, distracted, not having his head in the game, just going through the motions, or however you want to understand it).

I guess SD and THJ weren't a step slow.
These guys were quick enough on their feet but couldn't stop anything either.

And they weren't a step slow in offense either. Too many times these two called their number as quickly as they can (THJ specially).
Naturally, those who are reliant on ball rotation (like bigs) are going to get less shots, if the ball stops with the guards.

So, no, the lack of shots IS NOT on Wood.
The supposed offensively gifted guards took most of the shots.

As I have mentioned before, the pairing of Wood and THJ isn't a good one. THJ's FGAs directly co-relates with Wood's FGAs. Go look it up. THJ takes more, Wood's attempts decreases and vice versa. The only time Wood and THJ had a fair number of shots is on the game against the Rockets. Still, THJ managed to hoist more than Wood (with a Klay Thompson like number of attempts from 3 for 5-14 shooting).

Add SD's shot hunting and there's your simple explanation why Wood had 3 attempts.

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt for your sleepy, distracted, going thru the motions part of your observation on why Wood only had 17 minutes, but that's not even based on fact either -- the more likely reason was Bertans was doing well, and DP's supposed defense was needed in the final stretch.

BUT for the attempts on how he only had 3, that's not exactly on Wood.

[F Gump]

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt for your sleepy, distracted, going thru the motions part of your observation on why Wood ......

That is not my "observation." That explanation [expanded by me to offer possible details] came from me listening to the answer, when the coach was asked the question of "why did Wood only play 17 minutes" and decided to answer it. It is FACTUALLY why (according to the coaches) Bertans was given additional minutes, and Wood was asked to sit.

I am speculating (not observing), using "educated guess" method, that this is not new.

I am reminded of the reports we got from Houston that Wood seemed to have higher priorities than basketball, such as playing video games, with the result that coaches and teammates were eager to see him go. This could certainly be something happening here in that same motif.

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

I am speculating (not observing), using "educated guess" method, that this is not new.

Alright fair enough.
Just seems like your earlier posts points to Wood's supposed flaws in character as to why he only had a few shots in.
Minutes yes, you have a point there, but the lack of shots? that's not on Wood.
At least, not entirely.

[F Gump]

Fair enough - it is my speculation that, as a big being asked to be certain places on the floor and do certain things in order to get the ball, leading to shots, his being "a step slow" in getting there led to fewer touches and, consequently, fewer shots. But whether that's the case or not, I can't say for sure.

I doubt SD and THJ were part of the equation on Wood's lack of shots, since they each shot a more-or-less average number of shots they usually take. Awful game in converting them, no question, but normal quantity.

However, looking at the box score, there were two "culprits" who took way more shots this game than they usually do, and that's apparently where Wood's shots went. It was dastardly, wasn't it, of Bertans to shoot 7 times (when he usually takes 4) and Green to shoot 9 (when he usually takes 3). Those extra 9 shots they took, and the ones Wood didn't (usually takes 11, this time 3) line up perfectly.

Of course DB/JG were a combined 13-16 (81%), 83% on 3s, an uber-efficient combined 39 points on 16 shots, and a combined +34 (when Wood was -3), so is it possible this was a good coaching choice after all?

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

Fair enough - it is my speculation that, as a big being asked to be certain places on the floor and do certain things in order to get the ball, leading to shots, his being "a step slow" in getting there led to fewer touches and, consequently, fewer shots. But whether that's the case or not, I can't say for sure.

I doubt SD and THJ were part of the equation on Wood's lack of shots, since they each shot a more-or-less average number of shots they usually take. Awful game in converting them, no question, but normal quantity.

However, looking at the box score, there were two "culprits" who took way more shots this game than they usually do, and that's apparently where Wood's shots went. It was dastardly, wasn't it, of Bertans to shoot 7 times (when he usually takes 4) and Green to shoot 9 (when he usually takes 3). Those extra 9 shots they took, and the ones Wood didn't (usually takes 11, this time 3) line up perfectly.

Of course DB/JG were a combined 13-16 (81%), 83% on 3s, an uber-efficient combined 39 points on 16 shots, and a combined +34 (when Wood was -3), so is it possible this was a good coaching choice after all?

Please correct me if I am wrong here as I am too lazy to look it up.
Bertans wasn't taking away shots from Wood because they barely share the floor together. Bertans took away minutes, but not shots.

As for Green, I am almost at the point where every JG attempt is a quality shot. And I said this before, JG's attempts are taken within the flow of the game and nothing seems forced, if anything he needs to shoot more. JG doesn't shoot early in the shot-clock nor would shoot mildly/highly contested jumpers, if anything his shots are absolute must takes. I see no problem with this. On the other hand, SD, while it's good that he is aggressive, often gets his blinders on as soon as he makes a move. This is where Luka has an advantage over him, you don't know what Luka's about to do until the last second. As for THJ, well.. THJ takes shots away from everyone. I think no one here cares if Wood gets 3 attempts a game if THJ is hitting quality shots, but he isn't. And if he isn't, the better choice on offense should obviously be to someone who can. THJ doesn't seem to recognize that.

Just to sum up:
When THJ's attempts go up, Wood's attempts go down.
And vice versa.
Look it up, it's there.

[omahen]

The issue with trading him is that I think it was out that he wanted to go to NY.  That means NY was your only reasonable trading partner and they were planning on getting in free agency.  That means the only value you are getting is the cost of them clearing cap space (which didn't turn out to be much).  I am skeptical this team makes it through the first round if they trade Brunson for minor assets.  So which would you rather have, a WCS appearance or cap clearing assets from NY?  I think you could make the argument either way.

The New York scenario was pretty predictable and often mentioned on this board from summer of 2021 on. I don't think it was out he wanted to NY only, but it is also obvious teams will not spend a fortune for a guy that can just walk in the summer. A lottery protected FRP was realistic market value. Besides, his salary alone wouldn't bring much (unless pick was the only goal), you had to include another one and Mavs only had bad salaries or players they didn't want to part with. My point - all of this was predictable. Mavs gambled and they lost.

I don't agree with the takes that Brunsons value was known only after TDL. Sure, his 100+ mil value was determined by a good playoffs run. But it was known in the first month of the season he is worth the 55 mil extension. Mavs, watching him daily and with a ton of information we don't have, should evaluate that even sooner. Decision he didn't have the 55 mil extension on the table in November or even sooner, was just part of Mavs gamble. The gamble they lost.  

I am skeptical this team makes it through the first round if they trade Brunson for minor assets. 

No one knew in February Mavs will make it to WCF  Sure, I likely wouldn't trade Brunson for lottery protected FRP. Unless there was a parallel move. For example getting our pick back and then using the whole lot on a star. I have no idea if KP trade could look differently if Mavs would include picks. I have no idea if there was another move possible using for example THJ contract. 

But, if I wouldn't trade Brunson, the highest offer he would be getting would come from Dallas. Cuban the idiot said sometimes in early summer, Mavs can pay him more money than anyone else. And then he offers less than NY. I totally agree with KL - if Mavs offered most money and Brunson still walked, I would be ok. They would try everything possible. But they didn't. They basically publicly said, they are not prepared to pay that much. Money was more important than winning. 

If Brunson was so dead set on going to NY, than Mavs could at least be smart enough to pull a PR move and publicly offer something like 110 mil. But truth likely is, they were affraid he would accept it.

[omahen]

To add, based on the moves that were made. McCullom or LeVert could likely be had pretty easily and both would make a lot of sense on Mavs team without Brunson. LeVert was expiring salary and 2022 lottery protected pick. McCullom and Nance cost a bunch of expiring and 2022 pick. Don't forget Mavs also had the 11 mil TE to play with.

So, if Mavs traded Brunson for just their 2023 pick and pulled one of those trades, they would have a Brunson replacement and all their picks available in summer of 2022.

[mvossman]

To add, based on the moves that were made. McCullom or LeVert could likely be had pretty easily and both would make a lot of sense on Mavs team without Brunson. LeVert was expiring salary and 2022 lottery protected pick. McCullom and Nance cost a bunch of expiring and 2022 pick. Don't forget Mavs also had the 11 mil TE to play with.

So, if Mavs traded Brunson for just their 2023 pick and pulled one of those trades, they would have a Brunson replacement and all their picks available in summer of 2022.

The Mccullom trade included Josh Hart, who was not expiring.  Not sure we had something equivalent to that.  I don't think we could match that package even with a protected first from Brunson.

I don't see Levert being a legit replacement for Brunson.  Don't see him leading this team to multiple playoff wins with Luka out.  I also think that just because a player was traded for X, doesn't suggests we could get him for X.  The team that paid X could possibly be willing to pay more for X but didn't have to.  Once you attempt to acquire that player there is a potential bidding war, and the cost can easily be more.