GDT Game 23 - Nuggets (9-15) at Mavs (5-18) 7:30 FSSW

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

I'm not sure he rebounds well enough and the fact that he is 30 already to be worth a 1st even to a top contender. I think where he would be most valuable is to a team like the Cavs who are going to have some tax issues. Salah's small contract combined with his rim protection is likely somewhat rare. Even then I don't see it being a 1st. But it could be something like a 2nd owed by another team to a contender. Cavs have a 2019 2nd owed to them by either the Wolves or the Lakers, whicherver is least valuable. The more valuable one goes to Portland... who also have some tax problems so maybe a 31-45 type 2nd is the best we can hope for in a Salah trade is my guess.

And Rockets have both Denver and Portland 2nd's this coming draft. Both are looking pretty solid value wise... but with it being Houston I just don't think either team wants to help the other in any way. Morey prolly answers the phone like the Rockets trolls here. By shouting Jason Terry's name 66 times into the receiver when nobody is even there.

Rather just keep him than get a middling 2nd rd pick. But I agree not likely we get a first.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

Love Cubes and the team, and will cheer for these guys forever, but we are sacrificing our future for 10 plus wins. So dumb, and we will make this season a true waste that way.

I'm not sure what they were supposed to do in a game like this. It was a blowout from the start. Was Cuban supposed to tell RC to bench Wes, Deron and Barnes the 2nd half because they were playing too good? Because the young rotational players also played good, were we supposed to bench them also and play the whole game with the deep bench reserves? How would the players react to that? That anytime they play so good that we have a chance to win they will be benched?

[Bryan_Wilson]

We will more than likely win more games than we want early. And when it's clear we won't make the playoffs they will start trading players away which will bring the wins down later in the season. I think that's the best bet right now. Because as much as we use the word "tank" you can't intentionally lose games while also keeping the vet's happy, and develop youth all at the same time.

If Wes keeps playing like this there is a real decision to be made about him going forward. He's back to being maybe the best 3 and D player in the NBA. And he has the attitude of a leader/winner. He might be someone you dangle in front of the Wolves or Pelican type teams that are tired of losing and ready to start winning. Or vet teams that need to make an adjustment like the Hawks. Korver looks like he's done as a player and he's an expiring. You could send Wes there, who would fit very well, and take back splitter and korver expirings and ask for a pick. Or you would have to suck it up and win more games but know that next year you have at least 2 pieces in Wes and Barnes plus whatever development we see from guys like DFS, Powell, Simba, and Curry.

[AO41]

DFS has looked very solid the last 3 games....at least numbers wise.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

I'm not sure what they were supposed to do in a game like this. It was a blowout from the start. Was Cuban supposed to tell RC to bench Wes, Deron and Barnes the 2nd half because they were playing too good? Because the young rotational players also played good, were we supposed to bench them also and play the whole game with the deep bench reserves? How would the players react to that? That anytime they play so good that we have a chance to win they will be benched?

Force Rick to rest veterans. This is a player's league, a top 3 pick is much more impactful for the next five to ten years than Rick ever could be. If he is not game, you fire him. I know it sounds harsh, but these are likely the games that will determine if we will be a treadmill team for the next decade, or a contender.

We can come up with bs reasons like the confidence of mediocre, low ceiling rotational players like Finley-Smith, but it is very, very likely that our future will be sacrificed by them. I don't like the system, do not get me wrong, please, but it is what it is. 99% of the last 40 champions had a franchise player they drafted.

This is clearly one of the years where we would have the chance to tank for that player, and have the highest chance to draft him. When you are talking about 18-20 win seasons, you can demolish your chances with even a small winning streak.

These games like yesterday's, have an extremely high chance to ruin our future, and winning 30 games would be just as dumb as Cuban deciding not to draft Giannis, when Donnie scouted him that well. Make no mistake, our next decade depends on this season. We are awfully, awfully close to prolonged mediocrity.

[EricaLubarsky]

Three way tie at the bottom. T-Wolves/Sixers/Mavs

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

Force Rick to rest veterans. This is a player's league, a top 3 pick is much more impactful for the next five to ten years than Rick ever could be. If he is not game, you fire him. I know it sounds harsh, but these are likely the games that will determine if we will be a treadmill team for the next decade, or a contender.

We can come up with bs reasons like the confidence of mediocre, low ceiling rotational players like Finley-Smith, but it is very, very likely that our future will be sacrificed by them. I don't like the system, do not get me wrong, please, but it is what it is. 99% of the last 40 champions had a franchise player they drafted.

This is clearly one of the years where we would have the chance to tank for that player, and have the highest chance to draft him. When you are talking about 18-20 win seasons, you can demolish your chances with even a small winning streak.

These games like yesterday's, have an extremely high chance to ruin our future, and winning 30 games would be just as dumb as Cuban deciding not to draft Giannis, when Donnie scouted him that well. Make no mistake, our next decade depends on this season. We are awfully, awfully close to prolonged mediocrity.

Tanking games intentionally is EXACTLY how you get stuck on the mediocrity treadmill... Stab your players in the back, watch them walk the first chance they get. Stab your coach in the back, watch even scrub players pass on Dallas as a FA destination.

Draconian management styles aren't going to fix what's wrong with this team -- this is basketball, not war. Acting like a dick isn't going to get you any closer to being a contender if nobody wants to play for you.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Tanking games intentionally is EXACTLY how you get stuck on the mediocrity treadmill... Stab your players in the back, watch them walk the first chance they get. Stab your coach in the back, watch even scrub players pass on Dallas as a FA destination.

Draconian management styles aren't going to fix what's wrong with this team -- this is basketball, not war. Acting like a dick isn't going to get you any closer to being a contender if nobody wants to play for you.

Yeah I agree with this. Why would Barnes resign here if this is what we would do to him and others in order to get a higher draft pick? Guys like Matthews might demand a trade if we treated him like that. And if word gets out that Matthews is demanding a trade, then every team in the NBA knows it as well, and good luck getting his proper value in a trade if that were to happen. And no way would any vet sign here over other destinations if we did this. Lastly, I'm just picturing the absolute worst disrespect of all... in that if Dirk came back and was having a good game offensively and we were winning, you would have RC sit the guy who is a couple hundred points away from 30k for his career even if he does not want to sit? And you would fire him if he didn't?

I'm a huge Fultz fan but he's not Lebron or Shaq. No1 in this draft is the obvious transcendent talent. Some people still have Jackson as the best player. Some people like Smith more than Fultz. Some people like Ball more than everyone, his shot is working even if it's ugly and he's infinitely better as a passer than the field. Giles was considered the best till the emergence of some of the others but he will be back soon and he might be considered the best by the end of the year if he shows no decline from his injuries. This is a great draft not because there is the next Lebron, but because it's much deeper talent wise than most. So as much as I want Fultz, it's not like getting the 7-8th pick is the end of the world because we didn't get a top 3, there could be 10-12 guys who would be top 5 picks in most drafts. And there could be guys at the top of the 2nd who would have been borderline lotto's some years. So as much as I want Fultz it's probably more important to me anyway to get another pick, especially borderline late lotto area. Picking up multiple picks in the top 40 in addition to our pick(s) would really make me happy for this particular draft.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Tanking games intentionally is EXACTLY how you get stuck on the mediocrity treadmill... Stab your players in the back, watch them walk the first chance they get. Stab your coach in the back, watch even scrub players pass on Dallas as a FA destination.

Draconian management styles aren't going to fix what's wrong with this team -- this is basketball, not war. Acting like a dick isn't going to get you any closer to being a contender if nobody wants to play for you.

Amen.

First off, you have no guarantee of your draft position no matter what your record is. Getting a top 5 pick, all you can ask for, is still very likely right now.

Also, the team isn't going to stink it out on seats for soldiers night. Reality check.

Finally, Matthews, Barnes, Powell, and Mejri playing well only helps the future of the team...not hurt it. Those guys playing well absolutely has an impact on who you draft since they are under contract past this season. And them playing well increases their trade value. These are all positives that one win isn't going to change.

[Thebo]

Mavs are currently on 20-win season pace. No reason to ring the alarm. I also think Cuban said 'we're not tanking' because he considers top5 pick as good as top1 pick. To get top5 pick there has not been any reason to tank.

One should be happy Mavs are as low as they are now. Healthy Dirk and you would flirt with 8th seed. At the same time people are starting to hope to see Dirk back so his bad defense and old age could help Mavs lose more games. Matthews finding his role (where he is not trying to create things), DWill starting to pass the ball, Powell starting to click... all these things are falling in place, so it is about time to throw Dirk in the mix and make everyone adjust again.

Tanking could make sense if you are eyeing LeBron or even Anthony Davis, but currently... It is difficult to say who is going to be franchise player. 76ers have not gotten far with aforementioned tanking mentality. I am not even sure they are tanking anymore, they simply seem to be that bad because of bad culture.

Another solution, as aforementioned, trade Matthews and everything besides Barnes. Take back bad salaries and picks. Get lucky and draft franchise player who plays alongside Barnes and bunch of bad contracts you can not trade without giving up assets. So, you have franchise player and Barnes. This is going to make you a contender for a decade? How is it working for Pelicans who have Davis + Holiday? How about Kings who have had Boogie for however long and tried various number 2 options alongside him? One can argue Portland has Lillard and McCollum - I do not see them reaching contention at their current pace.

Most contenders have had three serious players, not franchise + Barnes.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Thebo

Mavs are currently on 20-win season pace. No reason to ring the alarm. I also think Cuban said 'we're not tanking' because he considers top5 pick as good as top1 pick. To get top5 pick there has not been any reason to tank.

One should be happy Mavs are as low as they are now. Healthy Dirk and you would flirt with 8th seed. At the same time people are starting to hope to see Dirk back so his bad defense and old age could help Mavs lose more games. Matthews finding his role (where he is not trying to create things), DWill starting to pass the ball, Powell starting to click... all these things are falling in place, so it is about time to throw Dirk in the mix and make everyone adjust again.

Tanking could make sense if you are eyeing LeBron or even Anthony Davis, but currently... It is difficult to say who is going to be franchise player. 76ers have not gotten far with aforementioned tanking mentality. I am not even sure they are tanking anymore, they simply seem to be that bad because of bad culture.

Another solution, as aforementioned, trade Matthews and everything besides Barnes. Take back bad salaries and picks. Get lucky and draft franchise player who plays alongside Barnes and bunch of bad contracts you can not trade without giving up assets. So, you have franchise player and Barnes. This is going to make you a contender for a decade? How is it working for Pelicans who have Davis + Holiday? How about Kings who have had Boogie for however long and tried various number 2 options alongside him? One can argue Portland has Lillard and McCollum - I do not see them reaching contention at their current pace.

Most contenders have had three serious players, not franchise + Barnes.

I certainly agree with a lot of this but you are cherry picking the bad teams that failed through the draft. GSW, Celtics, OKC and some others have benefited greatly through the draft.
A few bad contracts that come back with decent picks is at least netting some assets for the future and gives Donnie and Cuban some flexibility on draft day. It doesn't really matter if they are tradable or not because they'll expire by the time we'd be attractive to top tier FAs.
I guess it comes down to whether there are better realistic options through free agency the next few years or through the draft and how exactly Cuban and Donnie want to rebuild. They haven't exactly been too successful either way so who knows.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Finally, Matthews, Barnes, Powell, and Mejri playing well only helps the future of the team...not hurt it. Those guys playing well absolutely has an impact on who you draft since they are under contract past this season. And them playing well increases their trade value. These are all positives that one win isn't going to change.

See, to me, there is only one way you can win in the NBA, by drafting your franchise player after a bad year. Again, I did some research a couple months ago, with the exception of the 2004 Pistons, every NBA champion from the last basically 40 seasons, had at least one franchise player whom they got in the lottery.

It is very, very obvious that it is not Cuban, not Donnie, nor Rick who is going to make the biggest impact for our team's immediate future, but whether we have that one player, or not. And if we start winning - I agree with you guys, no need to panic just yet -, we can absolutely destroy that chance.

There is no guarantee, sure, but if we would have the worst record, we would have a roughly 70% chance to pick in the top 3, and once you are there, you have about 50% chance of drafting a superstar. 58% with the top pick, I think like 30% with the second pick, and 58% with the third.

That doesn't mean the third pick is better, of course, it's still a small sample size (like 50+ drafts?), but these numbers show that with a top 3 pick, you have a great chance. So I do not agree with your statement that our long-term players playing well is good for our future, unless your goal is to not, or barely make the playoffs, that is.

You can't win in the NBA without a superstar, don't you agree? That is - by far - the most important puzzle. It's a player's league. Again, I wish that would not be the case, but it is, unfortunately. Tanking does work amazingly well, and it will be obvious in a couple of years, that it works amazingly well even for teams like the Wolves and the Sixers. I'm not saying they will win a championship, but they will contend!

That's what it's all about, to give yourself a chance, and for that, you always need a true franchise player on your roster. OKC as an example for tanking not working out? Laughable. They not only made the finals, but if Presti is not an idiot, and gives the 15 million max to Harden instead of the 13,8 (annually), they are likely champions now.

Tanking (being bad, call it what you want) not only works, it's the only way. Just answer me this, who played a biggest part in our championship run? You know it was Dirk, the guy whom we drafted in the lottery, after a bad year. We were extremely lucky to be able to draft him that low, there is a misniscule chance of getting that lucky again with a 6th-8th pick.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Thebo

Another solution, as aforementioned, trade Matthews and everything besides Barnes. Take back bad salaries and picks. Get lucky and draft franchise player who plays alongside Barnes and bunch of bad contracts you can not trade without giving up assets. So, you have franchise player and Barnes. This is going to make you a contender for a decade? How is it working for Pelicans who have Davis + Holiday? How about Kings who have had Boogie for however long and tried various number 2 options alongside him? One can argue Portland has Lillard and McCollum - I do not see them reaching contention at their current pace.

Most contenders have had three serious players, not franchise + Barnes.

Yeah I agree with all of what u said except this part. Because you assumed we only would have Barnes + the one franchise draft pick. If we took on 1 or multiple contracts or traded "everyone except Barnes" we would have more than just Barnes and a franchise player I would hope because we would have received multiple picks now or going forward and or other young players that would hopefully pan out themselves or flipped for something else. Of course it's called a lotto for a reason we could absolutely end with nothing but we could also end with some nice players too.

Not to mention that if we did indeed land on a franchise player and had Barnes and multiple other assets from the trades you suggest. Then by the time that franchise player was indeed ready to be a franchise player those contracts would be gone, like Rim said, or they would prolly be in the final year of their deals making them expiring contracts and very easy to move with minimal assets used. And we would only need to move them if a free agent decided to come here, and I think we would be willing to lose a pick if the right FA said he wanted to join Barnes and the franchise pick. That would give us the 3 players you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

That doesn't mean the third pick is better, of course, it's still a small sample size (like 50+ drafts?), but these numbers show that with a top 3 pick, you have a great chance. So I do not agree with your statement that our long-term players playing well is good for our future, unless your goal is to not, or barely make the playoffs, that is.

You can't win in the NBA without a superstar, don't you agree? That is - by far - the most important puzzle. It's a player's league.

You are assuming that every player we are playing and developing now will be here though. Are you saying that getting a win every now and then is not worth raising the trade values of all of our assets to get maybe an additional 1st in a draft like this one? I think you are putting too many eggs into the basket of the top 3 pick fixing things. If you ignore the other elements of building a team and just rely on a top 3 pick getting you a superstar then if you miss that's going to put u 5 steps further back than what you would have been if you used all the avenues available to you to build the team. The Mavs got into this mess by ignoring the draft largely, the way to fix it is not to focus on the draft and ignore the other areas, like asset development, and free agency.

[Thebo]

Originally Posted by rimrocker

I certainly agree with a lot of this but you are cherry picking the bad teams that failed through the draft. GSW, Celtics, OKC and some others have benefited greatly through the draft.

I was not cherry picking teams that have failed through draft. I was picking out teams that have one franchise player and one star/very good/reliable player like you would have in the likes of top1 pick + Barnes. This was supposed to be difference between treadmill and contender teams.

As it stands now, Celtics have not done anything particular through their draft assets. If anything, they are prime example what you have when you are missing that franchise guy.

For the record, I am not arguing against the idea of getting franchise guy through the draft. In the situation Mavs have now, I find it unclear strategy that does not guarantee contention any more than the other path.

When it comes to Wolves and 76ers contending... Lets first see them make it to the playoffs. Wolves certainly have talent for it but without watching the games I can not say if Thibs is purposely letting talent destruct teamwork so they could lose more games and get a good pick in the draft.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by Thebo

As it stands now, Celtics have not done anything particular through their draft assets. If anything, they are prime example what you have when you are missing that franchise guy.

The Celtics have amazing assets, which allowed them to play very competitive basketball and build up their role players. They are in an AMAZING position with the Nets pick, and I think they might even have their next one, or the 2019 one?

[mac222b]

They may have a really tough call to make on Wes. If its a potential lottery team like the Pelicans or the Wolves it'll come down to protections. Tough to pass up a top 3-5 protected 1st(and requisite salary dump)from those teams. Rolls over to unprotected 2018. Anything less than that its probably better to keep Wes.

[Thebo]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

The Celtics have amazing assets, which allowed them to play very competitive basketball and build up their role players. They are in an AMAZING position with the Nets pick, and I think they might even have their next one, or the 2019 one?

Celtics own swap rights for '17 and 1st round pick in '18. Celtics have nice position in terms of draft assets but by your argument this all means nothing if they are not able to draft franchise player. It is still too early to judge how good Brooklyn's pick is going to be. I think it may end up just outside of top5.

Originally Posted by mac222b

They may have a really tough call to make on Wes. If its a potential lottery team like the Pelicans or the Wolves it'll come down to protections. Tough to pass up a top 3-5 protected 1st(and requisite salary dump)from those teams. Rolls over to unprotected 2018. Anything less than that its probably better to keep Wes.

Pelicans and Wolves are not in a position where they need to dump any salary. Both team have similar problem where no free agent wants to go there.

Obviously, if someone offered top5 protected pick for Matthews, you pretty much would have to take it. But coming back from the fantasy land, it is more realistic to see top10 protected for next three years and then unprotected. Unless you are dealing with Nets, no team is going to give unprotected in the second year, if at all.

You also have to take into account that Matthews may add value to that team and when right now Wolves/Pelicans pick would land you top7 pick, then after half a season you may end up with ~15th pick.

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

Then by the time that franchise player was indeed ready to be a franchise player those contracts would be gone, like Rim said, or they would prolly be in the final year of their deals making them expiring contracts and very easy to move with minimal assets used.

By the time salary dumps expire and franchise player is ready to be franchise player, you may end up in a situation where Barnes is in his last year or second to last year contract and walks because of tanking mentality/lack of loyalty (if we are talking about trading Matthews)/better options elsewhere. You may end up in Durantless OKC version which is not too bad, but still not contending.

It is fun to give arguments to different sides but it is really too early to talk about trades, not to mention what plans Cuban has or who are Mavs' draft targets.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Thebo

For the record, I am not arguing against the idea of getting franchise guy through the draft. In the situation Mavs have now, I find it unclear strategy that does not guarantee contention any more than the other path.

That's why either strategy might not necessarily work for us but we have to do something. I don't see a 1 or 2 tier FA coming here for a hell of a long time so I'd rather have the pieces to attract one. You are correct the Celts haven't completely capitalized on that yet but they are in a pretty darn good situation to make that happen.
On the other hand we could have two lotto picks this year in a strong draft class and still come up empty.

I just think we have some very tradable assets that could net us draft picks that could either be used for the right player in the draft or for primary pieces or sweeteners in deals that can net us a young star to go with Barnes and whomever we draft next season with our pick. The bad contracts coming back are irrelevant since we won't be attracting any top tier FAs. Even if we draft the next LeBron it would take several years to develop so unless there is a concern of spending Cuban's money, I don't see how taking on a few bad contracts would affect the rebuild process....at least not in a negative way.

No matter what the strategy is I don't see us contenting for at least 3 years.

[Budapest Maverick]

Sure, a high lottery pick doesn't guarantee success, but it is pretty much the only way to win in this league, if you take a look at the past 40+ champions. So if you turn this around, not relying on the lottery, ever, pretty much guarantees that you do not win a championship. No one says we should suck for five years straight, but we should absolutely suck this year. I mean, there is no real argument against it. We are not making the playoffs.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

You are assuming that every player we are playing and developing now will be here though. Are you saying that getting a win every now and then is not worth raising the trade values of all of our assets to get maybe an additional 1st in a draft like this one? I think you are putting too many eggs into the basket of the top 3 pick fixing things. If you ignore the other elements of building a team and just rely on a top 3 pick getting you a superstar then if you miss that's going to put u 5 steps further back than what you would have been if you used all the avenues available to you to build the team. The Mavs got into this mess by ignoring the draft largely, the way to fix it is not to focus on the draft and ignore the other areas, like asset development, and free agency.

No, what I'm saying is this, without a top 3 pick*, it doesn't matter what our other assets are doing, not in the great scheme of things, if your goal is to win a championship. Conversely, them doing well - very obviously, I add - massively jeopardizes our chances of getting a top 3 pick.

* Obviously, we are talking more about a franchise player here, but your chances of drafting that guy outside of the top 3 are slim, whereas in the top 3 it's like 50%, or close to it.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

The idea that ownership and coaching don't matter is hilariously misguided. Sure, a superstar on any team makes a big difference, but it isn't everything. And the Sixers have been tanking for years only to be as good as we are this season. Full rebuilds take years, and there is little point or reason to panic over the upcoming draft.

A top 5 pick is basically as guaranteed as you can get at this point in the season, so I don't even know what all of the bitching is about.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

The idea that ownership and coaching don't matter is hilariously misguided.

I didn't say that. Don't strawman me please.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Everything you said in your long post translated into exactly that. That only getting a superstar matters.

"It is very, very obvious that it is not Cuban, not Donnie, nor Rick who is going to make the biggest impact for our team's immediate future, but whether we have that one player, or not. And if we start winning - I agree with you guys, no need to panic just yet -, we can absolutely destroy that chance."

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Everything you said in your long post translated into exactly that. That only getting a superstar matters.

"It is very, very obvious that it is not Cuban, not Donnie, nor Rick who is going to make the biggest impact for our team's immediate future, but whether we have that one player, or not. And if we start winning - I agree with you guys, no need to panic just yet -, we can absolutely destroy that chance."

No, not even close. I was just being factual. in my opinion, Dirk was much more "impactful" for the franchise in the last 15+ years than Cuban or Rick. Same with Lebron, Duncan, Wade, Bryant, Shaq, or any true franchise players. That doesn't mean coaching and ownership is not important, it's just that having a franchise player is more important, and that player impacts the team's record more than the coach or the owner.

If you are not interested in actual discussion, and your only goal is to discredit my post, just put me on the ignore list, please. I am very much interested in having a discussion with you, but if you are resorting to strawman arguments, that will never happen. If you choose to not put me on your ignore list, argue my points, and don't strawman me please, thank you.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

No, not even close. I was just being factual. in my opinion, Dirk was much more "impactful" for the franchise in the last 15+ years than Cuban or Rick. Same with Lebron, Duncan, Wade, Bryant, Shaq, or any true franchise players. That doesn't mean coaching and ownership is not important, it's just that having a franchise player is more important, and that player impacts the team's record more than the coach or the owner.

If you are not interested in actual discussion, and your only goal is to discredit my post, just put me on the ignore list, please. I am very much interested in having a discussion with you, but if you are resorting to strawman arguments, that will never happen. If you choose to not put me on your ignore list, argue my points, and don't strawman me please, thank you.

And if your only goal is to complain after every win, then why even post here at all? It's borderline trolling IMO.

Your facts are your opinions. You also said there was a 0% chance that Barnes would become a star as a fact because of history. He is a looong way from 0....

I mean, force Rick to sit the veterans? Seriously? How can anyone have a reasonable discussion about that? The way Mark Cuban loses this team, coach, and franchise would be to do that.

[G-Man]

All this talk about top 3 picks ignores the fickle reality of the NBA. In the 90's the Mavs were as bad as any team has ever been. We got top five picks year after year. We drafted the "three J's", in Jamall Mashburn, Jim Jackson and Jason Kidd. All were decent players but only Kidd was good enough to lead a team to the Finals. Then 2 of them got hurt and they all got traded. Conversely, we got Dirk with the 9th pick. Paul Pierce went tenth that year and were the best 2 in that draft. The vast majority of teams that get bad enough to collect great picks in consecutive years manage to stay bad. I think there is something to be said against allowing a culture of losing to develop.

Look at Boston. They had the NBA's ultimate winning culture, from Bill Russell to Larry Bird to Pierce. They, when the last "big Three" got old, they decided to get bad. They have great assets, but will they ever be winners anytime soon? maybe, but very possibly, maybe not. Same thing with the Lakers...are the picks they are getting for stinking changing anything? Not so far.

What turned the Mavs around was not just the drafting of Dirk. It was Dirk, Cuban's willingness to spend money and make deals, and 3 very good coaches in Nellie, who taught the team how to win again, Avery, who made them play defense, and Carlisle, who put it all together. You have to have all those factors. And in fact, when the Mavs got all those things right, they only needed one superstar.

My point is, it takes a lot more parts than just one, or two, or even three superstars. All the teams the Mavs beat in their championship run had more talent. OKC had KD, Harden and Westbrook. Miami's big 3 went to the finals 4 straight years. Tanking to get stars is not really a proven way to win championships. Having a winning culture is. I'd be careful before I just threw that away.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

There is no guarantee, sure, but if we would have the worst record, we would have a roughly 70% chance to pick in the top 3, and once you are there, you have about 50% chance of drafting a superstar. 58% with the top pick, I think like 30% with the second pick, and 58% with the third.

That doesn't mean the third pick is better, of course, it's still a small sample size (like 50+ drafts?), but these numbers show that with a top 3 pick, you have a great chance. So I do not agree with your statement that our long-term players playing well is good for our future, unless your goal is to not, or barely make the playoffs, that is.

I won't go back into the benching vets part because I already stated earlier how I felt about that but I think you are overlooking a flaw in the top 3 pick stance you are taking. And that is you are basing it on an average of those 50 drafts and not on the talent of this particular draft. There are drafts like in '13 where it was thought to be a historically bad draft. There are also drafts like Lebron's draft which had a lot of talent. When you average drafts like those together you get a magical top 3. Just the fact that it shows #3 pick has a higher % than #2 should show you that using those numbers isn't the best course. Because all that tells me is that on the "average draft" You have a guy most ppl take #1 and then you have the team at #2 who takes whoever the high upside player is that ends up busting some. Then the team at #3 just decided "hey lets just take the best guy on the board since the top guy is gone".

I'll put it another way. If I told you when Wes shoots between 18-20 shots the Mavs win 70% of those games. And in game 1 he is shooting 2/15 midway through the 4th. How much of a priority is it for us to get Wes 3-5 more looks based on what the average says? It's pretty far down the list. Now on game 2 let's say Wes is shooting 15/20 midway through the 4th. Should we stop giving him the ball because the average says so? Of course not. So why when everyone is saying this is a deep draft and there is no Lebron, are you stuck on "top 3" based on the average of both good and bad drafts? This is why I don't think you should be bothered if we get a top 3-7 pick in THIS particular draft. Because it could honestly have 10-12 players that we would all love to have

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by G-Man

All this talk about top 3 picks ignores the fickle reality of the NBA. In the 90's the Mavs were as bad as any team has ever been. We got top five picks year after year. We drafted the "three J's", in Jamall Mashburn, Jim Jackson and Jason Kidd. All were decent players but only Kidd was good enough to lead a team to the Finals. Then 2 of them got hurt and they all got traded. Conversely, we got Dirk with the 9th pick. Paul Pierce went tenth that year and were the best 2 in that draft. The vast majority of teams that get bad enough to collect great picks in consecutive years manage to stay bad. I think there is something to be said against allowing a culture of losing to develop.

Look at Boston. They had the NBA's ultimate winning culture, from Bill Russell to Larry Bird to Pierce. They, when the last "big Three" got old, they decided to get bad. They have great assets, but will they ever be winners anytime soon? maybe, but very possibly, maybe not. Same thing with the Lakers...are the picks they are getting for stinking changing anything? Not so far.

What turned the Mavs around was not just the drafting of Dirk. It was Dirk, Cuban's willingness to spend money and make deals, and 3 very good coaches in Nellie, who taught the team how to win again, Avery, who made them play defense, and Carlisle, who put it all together. You have to have all those factors. And in fact, when the Mavs got all those things right, they only needed one superstar.

My point is, it takes a lot more parts than just one, or two, or even three superstars. All the teams the Mavs beat in their championship run had more talent. OKC had KD, Harden and Westbrook. Miami's big 3 went to the finals 4 straight years. Tanking to get stars is not really a proven way to win championships. Having a winning culture is. I'd be careful before I just threw that away.

And don't forget Michael Finley and Steve Nash are guys the Mavs got through trades...not the draft. They were a big three with Dirk...not just a big one. That's why I made the point that Matthews and Barnes playing well actually means something for the future.

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

And don't forget Michael Finley and Steve Nash are guys the Mavs got through trades...not the draft. They were a big three with Dirk...not just a big one. That's why I made the point that Matthews and Barnes playing well actually means something for the future.

Our two best draft picks in the 90s were catalysts in bringing Dallas its only championship...everyone seems to forget about that part of the 90s. Fin and Nash brought us nothing.

Not arguing but just throwing stuff into a discussion on a very boring sports night

[rimrocker]

Originally Posted by Budapest Maverick

No one says we should suck for five years straight, but we should absolutely suck this year. I mean, there is no real argument against it. We are not making the playoffs.

I personally think our best chance of landing a future superstar is through the draft but tanking for a high pick is not the way to go...not even this year.
We have some nice young talent and I'd certainly advocate an extreme youth movement the rest of the season but they should certainly not attempt to purposely lose.
If Barnes, DFS, Anderson, Powell, Curry, Brussino, Matthews, Mejri, Gibson and Hammons can achieve 35 wins as our primary core this season we should be delighted as Mavs fans because that means there has been tremendous progress with our current youth and we'd be that much farther ahead.

Now if Dirk, DWill, Bogut, Barea and Harris all end up playing 35mpg to net us 35 wins then I'd be disappointed as a Mavs fan because I'd see that as a blown opportunity to develop youth.

I guess it's a semantic thing because some would consider an extreme youth movement as tanking but I'd call it taking a huge step forward toward the rebuild movement and expediting the process. If the end result is the first pick in the draft then it means we need help and a Fulz, Smith or Jackson would be a big help taking us forward the next season. If the end result is the 8th spot in the POs then the high draft pick might not be needed and someone in the mid to late teens would be acceptable.

I would gladly trade an opportunity to land a top 3 pick for a PO spot with our current youth as our primary core.

[Thebo]

Originally Posted by G-Man

Look at Boston. They had the NBA's ultimate winning culture, from Bill Russell to Larry Bird to Pierce. They, when the last "big Three" got old, they decided to get bad. They have great assets, but will they ever be winners anytime soon? maybe, but very possibly, maybe not. Same thing with the Lakers...are the picks they are getting for stinking changing anything? Not so far.

I would argue that given the circumstances, Lakers has made better use of their picks than Boston. But it may just be me and I like Clarkson/Randle/Russell more than Olynyk, Smart and Brown. I am not counting Bradley because he was drafted before Boston became bad.

Lakers were not purposely bad, they were stuck with Kobe and trying to milk that money train as much as possible. Actually, when you start analyzing Celtics' roster, they have fooled everyone into thinking that they are rebuilding through draft and collecting many picks has done them any good. Horford and Thomas are doing most of the work and were not drafted by Boston. Boston is lucky that Brooklyn has lucked out and has not gotten anything through free agency. If they would have gotten something nice, we would not be saying that Boston is in such a good position.

Now, I do not fault Boston to being bad at drafting. I think they are example what happens when overall draft quality has been bad. I also think that Horford joined Boston because of the winning culture that they have had over the years. Nothing else makes sense to me because in terms of performance, Hawks and Celtics were at similar level.

[Budapest Maverick]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

And if your only goal is to complain after every win, then why even post here at all? It's borderline trolling IMO.

Your facts are your opinions. You also said there was a 0% chance that Barnes would become a star as a fact because of history. He is a looong way from 0....

I mean, force Rick to sit the veterans? Seriously? How can anyone have a reasonable discussion about that? The way Mark Cuban loses this team, coach, and franchise would be to do that.

So you are saying Dirk was NOT the most impactful member of the franchise in the last 15 years? Yeah, I said that about Barnes, and he is proving me right basically all season. He played like a star for about 5 games, most of which was in the first week. If you think 20 points on 53%TS is a star, I don't know what to tell you.

I did not ask you to have a reasonable discussion with me about forcing Rick to sit veterans, we were talking about other things. You don't agree with that, fine, then that's not the point we are going to argue about. If you would not be biased against me, this would not be a problem. I don't have a problem with you just because we did not agree, why not try to be less childish?