Part with Parsons?

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

All trades that don't work out are misguided. If Rondo wanted to be here, then things would be different now.

That trade is probably at least a minor win if Rondo gives 100% and behaves himself... I bet he'd still be in a Mavs jersey today too.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

All trades that don't work out are misguided. If Rondo wanted to be here, then things would be different now.

I disagree. Trades can not work out for many reasons. Rondo wanting to be here would've only mitigated slightly the fact that he's living off his name, isn't the player he was and hurts spacing. With all the red flags this one was particularly misguided.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by spreedom

That trade is probably at least a minor win if Rondo gives 100% and behaves himself... I bet he'd still be in a Mavs jersey today too.

Except he's known for giving 100% only at select times. Mainly playoffs time.

[Thespiralgoeson]

I was (mildly) in favor of the rondo trade at the time, but looking back on it, even IF had given 100%, I think we still gave up way too much for such a limited player.

So it was definitely a mistake, but I don't begrudge the Mavs for doing it. I remember thinking that the Mavs had to do something that season, and that seemed like it was the best move available. Obviously it wasn't, but hindsight is 20/20.

[Thebo]

Rondo trade was not a bad one. Did it ruin the season? Yes. But the Mavs had plans to sign him last summer. This trade was done to see if he was able to fit in. Would you have taken half a season of Rondo or 4-years 40+M Rondo?

And if you are trying to make a case that without that trade Mavs would not have tried to sign Rondo last summer, then who would have played point for Mavs if D-Will had sticked to his deal with the Nets? Mavs would have offered money to Rondo.

I think Parsons' storyline has been interesting to follow all season long. Most interesting turn of events happened here. I had the feeling that at least during the playoffs most of us were on board with re-signing Parsons. I do not know what happened, but with the last games of Finals, everyone started to consider more and more parting with Parsons. It was interesting to notice since nothing particular happened.

I voted no. Mainly because I do not really like his attitude. I have always criticized his lack of effort on rebounding and defense. He also has a Rondo effect where he can simply play a role of spectator for the first 3 quarters and then show up in the fourth. I do not think he can be alpha dog anywhere, I am not sure he would be even able to carry the team as a second option. Can he score? Yes. But I would like something more out of second best player.

Of course he has done everything possible to anger Mavs fans with his tweets and selfies with DeAndra... I am not sure whether it is the culture we have today or his personality... It may very well be that Mavs see that he is not taking this organization seriously and therefore are reluctant to pay him what he asks for. Quite possible that Parsons' ego took a beating when Matthews was earning more than him last season.

[rimrocker]

If some other team offers Parsons a max deal Cuban should probably make him a part of the organization for life because that would make Parsons a marketing genius as far as I'm concerned.
Parsons may never bring Cuban a championship as a player but could probably make him a lot of money in the long-term.....even if Cuban has to pay him max money as a player for a few years.

Just curious...has an injury plagued non-all-star FA ever received a max deal?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by ddh33

I just want know if the Mavs would reverse course and go back to Parsons if one of their big fish said no? Would they be willing to go back to him, even if he were getting a raise? Are they willing to simply let him walk?

That answer would tell me something about this front office right now.

It might also tell you something about how much faith our medical staff has in Parsons' knees. No reason to think this is only about money or player potential -- it could simply be a matter of health/durability.

Occam's razor... Why else would the FO be so ready to move on from a guy that they were planning on making a cornerstone player?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Thebo

I think Parsons' storyline has been interesting to follow all season long. Most interesting turn of events happened here. I had the feeling that at least during the playoffs most of us were on board with re-signing Parsons. I do not know what happened, but with the last games of Finals, everyone started to consider more and more parting with Parsons. It was interesting to notice since nothing particular happened.

Two recent events give pause:

1) Parsons said he won't sign for less than max... Considering the cap spike, I think most of us would agree that he's probably worth more than the $15.3 he was due to make this upcoming season -- but $22m? That seems like a bit of a stretch for a guy who has shown flashes of All-Star potential, but hasn't been able to put together a full season in a Mavs uniform. I was thinking something more in the ballpark of $18m, and bet the FO was too.

2) The Mavs said they were making Whiteside & Conley their top priorities this summer... We're fans, our imaginations run wild -- we think about the possibilities with those two, and whatever love we had for Parsons wanes. We start to fixate on his flaws, his knees, the risk... Fan bias weakens in the face of better options.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Occam's razor... Why else would the FO be so ready to move on from a guy that they were planning on making a cornerstone player?

Maybe he just isn't that good. Of our five-man units, those with Parsons as SF rank among the bottom. His offense is okay but he was a ball killer and his fairly effective offense didn't make up for his wretched rebounding and poor defense. Plus, this is Rick's team. Rick wants defense and without even mediocre rebounding, we were physically unable to be an up-tempo team that would maximize Parsons' effectiveness and hide Parsons' defensive liabilities. Parsons would be decent on a Don Nelson/Dantoni team. It just seems like we want to go in a different direction with defense, rebounding, and grit based on who were targeting in free agency.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by mac222b

Except he's known for giving 100% only at select times. Mainly playoffs time.

Fair point... had we gotten even average (for Rondo) effort, I think that trade's probably a win to at least some degree. I mean hell, his effort isn't appreciably worse than Deron, who gives it.... well, a lot less than 100% until the last five minutes of the game. Rondo's just a different kind of player who has different strengths. But overall, considering the result the trade obviously ended up a bad one.

Though it is worth mentioning how terrible it appears the draft class is this year and that Ainge used our pick to draft-and-stash a guy. At pick number sixteen! There's a really good chance Powell is better than whoever we would have gotten in the draft, so I'm not that bent out of shape about the deal overall, especially knowing that Dirk was strongly behind it.

Originally Posted by rimrocker

Just curious...has an injury plagued non-all-star FA ever received a max deal?

Come on now, let's not act like Parsons is going to be the worst player ever to get a huge, possibly bad contract. Bradley Beal is looking at the max and PLENTY of underachieving or otherwise injury-prone guys have gotten huge deals. All Star designation is kind of a random criterion for this sort of conversation.

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Maybe he just isn't that good. Of our five-man units, those with Parsons as SF rank among the bottom. His offense is okay but he was a ball killer and his fairly effective offense didn't make up for his wretched rebounding and poor defense. Plus, this is Rick's team. Rick wants defense and without even mediocre rebounding, we were physically unable to be an up-tempo team that would maximize Parsons' effectiveness and hide Parsons' defensive liabilities. Parsons would be decent on a Don Nelson/Dantoni team. It just seems like we want to go in a different direction with defense, rebounding, and grit based on who were targeting in free agency.

While I agree that Parsons is far from a perfect player, when he was healthy and playing regular minutes, I'd say he was definitely the best player on this team. Obviously those "when he was healthy" and "playing regular minutes" qualifiers can't be overlooked, but I think a lot of us are going a little overboard in burying Parsons the player here. He opted out, which I think we all saw as a foregone conclusion when he signed the deal in the first place. I think a lot of people (myself included) looked at him as a 4yr/$80M type of player right before his injury. Is $22M per year really that much of a stretch if $20M seemed reasonable?

And let's keep in mind, again, that the second knee injury was a total fluke, and had it occurred a month earlier we would likely have had Parsons at 100% going into the playoffs. That turns all of this into a totally different conversation.

I know most people are pissed that he's probably leaving, but let's not act like he's a mediocre player.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by spreedom

And let's keep in mind, again, that the second knee injury was a total fluke, and had it occurred a month earlier we would likely have had Parsons at 100% going into the playoffs. That turns all of this into a totally different conversation.

I know most people are pissed that he's probably leaving, but let's not act like he's a mediocre player.

Fluke or not, the dude has missed: 16 games and playoffs in his first year and 21 games and playoffs this year. That has to at least be partly in the discussion. My whole judgement of him, however, is based exclusively on him being healthy.

I'm absolutely not saying that he's mediocre, either. I just think he's a terrible fit here. Spurs get less talented guys who fit their team and they've thrived on it. Every player has strengths and weaknesses. Parsons' strengths just don't give us much and his weaknesses are glaringly apparent. He's not a bad player, but he's a bad fit for both our current roster and the roster we're apparently trying to build.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Fluke or not, the dude has missed: 16 games and playoffs in his first year and 21 games and playoffs this year. That has to at least be partly in the discussion. My whole judgement of him, however, is based exclusively on him being healthy.

I'm absolutely not saying that he's mediocre, either. I just think he's a terrible fit here. Spurs get less talented guys who fit their team and they've thrived on it. Every player has strengths and weaknesses. Parsons' strengths just don't give us much and his weaknesses are glaringly apparent. He's not a bad player, but he's a bad fit for both our current roster and the roster we're apparently trying to build.

I would agree with the idea that he's not a perfect fit on this roster, but honestly a lot of that has to do with Dirk and his limitations and the fact that Parsons doesn't really help cover for any of them. I'd still support bringing him back if the other pieces around them (mostly a rim-protecting center) were right.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by spreedom

I would agree with the idea that he's not a perfect fit on this roster, but honestly a lot of that has to do with Dirk and his limitations and the fact that Parsons doesn't really help cover for any of them. I'd still support bringing him back if the other pieces around them (mostly a rim-protecting center) were right.

He's definitely a horrible fit next to Dirk, rebounding-wise... Not only does he not grab enough boards to make up for Dirk's declining abilities, but he's actually regressed in the two seasons that he's been here:

12-13: 5.3
13-14: 5.5
14-15: 4.9
14-16: 4.7

For comparison, a washed-up Shawn Marion grabbed 6.5 RPG in his last year with Dallas.

[jacktruth]

My main issue with Parsons is that the mavs win% is the same with him and without him. That doesn't say max player to me. They made a push at the end of the season to make the playoffs WITHOUT him.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

My main issue with Parsons is that the mavs win% is the same with him and without him. That doesn't say max player to me. They made a push at the end of the season to make the playoffs WITHOUT him.

5-man lineups with Parsons at the 3
0.432 Williams-Matthews-Parsons-Nowitzki-Pachulia
0.571 Barea-Matthews-Parsons-Nowitzki-Pachulia
0.300 Williams-Felton-Parsons-Nowitzki-Pachulia
0.500 Barea-Felton-Parsons-Nowitzki-McGee

Overall raw +/- from NBA.com
-0.1

best advanced-net +/- guys on the roster
Dirk +13.4
Mejri +6.6
Matthews +5.9
Jenkins +2.4
Anderson +0.8
>Parsons +0.8

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Underdog

He's definitely a horrible fit next to Dirk, rebounding-wise... Not only does he not grab enough boards to make up for Dirk's declining abilities, but he's actually regressed in the two seasons that he's been here:

12-13: 5.3
13-14: 5.5
14-15: 4.9
14-16: 4.7

For comparison, a washed-up Shawn Marion grabbed 6.5 RPG in his last year with Dallas.

And the team has yet to make up for the loss of Marion's rebounding. That's why Anderson makes more and more sense IF he can get to 6 rpg. That is still yet to be determined for sure.

[sefant77]

To explain it in a easy way:
We have two gigantic holes, PG and C (no, i dont want Deron back). And a young guy able to fill a roleplayer/hustler role at SF.

So im fine with going for the two missing pieces in the S5. Re-Signing Parsons means that either at PG or C the Mavs are going to have a significant downgrade.

My guess is the FO likes Conley-Wes-Anderson-Dirk-Hassan much more than Deron-Wes-Parsons-Dirk-Hassan with Deron missing his typical 30 games and Parsons with broken knees. First unit is much better balanced...

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

And the team has yet to make up for the loss of Marion's rebounding. That's why Anderson makes more and more sense IF he can get to 6 rpg. That is still yet to be determined for sure.

If you snag Whiteside and have Anderson at the 3, you are suddenly doing very well on rebounding

Whiteside
2nd in rebounding rate among all players

Anderson
2nd in rebounding rate among SGs/ 10th among SFs

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

If you snag Whiteside and have Anderson at the 3, you are suddenly doing very well on rebounding

Whiteside
2nd in rebounding rate among all players

Anderson
2nd in rebounding rate among SGs/ 10th among SFs

That's really what we need next to Dirk -- save that 38-year-old frame from some wear & tear.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Hindsight being 20/20, Anderson should have played a lot more last season. Especially if you are going to convince guys like Conley/Whiteside that he is your starting SF.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by sefant77

To explain it in a easy way:
We have two gigantic holes, PG and C (no, i dont want Deron back). And a young guy able to fill a roleplayer/hustler role at SF.

Deron isn't my first choice going forward as the Mavs' point guard, but if we sign Whiteside and miss out on Conley, I'd be okay overpaying Deron for one year (maybe with a team option or partial guarantee on year two) for the sake of stability and lack of available free agent point guards. Next summer's FA class is pretty loaded at point guard: Curry, RWB, CP3, Lowry, Schroeder, Rose, Teague, Jrue, George Hill, Shaun Livingston... not all obtainable guys or even great options, but that's a market inefficiency we could look to exploit while trying to make incremental improvements to the long-term roster.