Former Mavs (2019) thread - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

EricaLubarsky · 12-01-2019, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Harrison Barnes with 30 pts (6 in OT) to lead SAC to a come-from-behind OT win v DEN.

Did DAL really trade Barnes for JJAX and 'cap space'? Really?

Jax plays off-ball. He's a perfect fit here.

Barnes is a ball-dominant forward. Great guy, but bad fit next to Doncic.

Jack.Kerr · 12-01-2019, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Jax plays off-ball. He's a perfect fit here.

Barnes is a ball-dominant forward. Great guy, but bad fit next to Doncic.

Is that the story now? Last I heard, people (perhaps you) were saying that he was a skilled player (and a great guy), but a poor value with his contract.

Ball-dominant? I remember that he focused on scoring when he was the only threat they had, but I would not call him 'ball-dominant'.

Bad fit next to Luka? What kind of player is the right fit next to Luka? One who can hit the 3? Barnes does that. One who can score in the low post? Barnes does that. One who can get to the free-throw line? Barnes does that.

So what're the Mavs looking to upgrade this year? They're looking for a reliable second scorer, and they appear to need someone who could get baskets and/or FTs from easy shots inside. Unlikely that a Hardaway hot streak is going to carry them into the playoffs.

I don't think the Mavs ever intended to use that cap space; it was all about keeping payroll low to manageable.

In the end, it amounted to a Jackson-Barnes trade. Bad deal for the Mavericks.

Thespiralgoeson · 12-01-2019, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

In the end, it amounted to a Jackson-Barnes trade. Bad deal for the Mavericks.

I'd say it's more like like a Jackson-Wright trade.

It was a salary move, and a necessary one considering the bad contracts the Mavs had to take on in the KP trade. Whether or the Mavs use their cap space wisely afterward is a separate debate.

Bad deal for the Mavs? Meh, I'm not losing sleep over it. I like Barnes just fine, but let's not make him out to be more than what he is. If he was still here right now, he'd be a marginal upgrade at best.

Scoobay · 12-02-2019, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

I'd say it's more like like a Jackson-Wright trade.

It was a salary move, and a necessary one considering the bad contracts the Mavs had to take on in the KP trade. Whether or the Mavs use their cap space wisely afterward is a separate debate.

Bad deal for the Mavs? Meh, I'm not losing sleep over it. I like Barnes just fine, but let's not make him out to be more than what he is. If he was still here right now, he'd be a marginal upgrade at best.

Agree - Barnes had gone from a 4th option type of player to having to be "the man" for the Mavs - would he have just as easily swung back to being just another cog in the Mavs' current offense? We see the same struggle going on with THJ - no need for another 20 million player who's probably not going to put us over the top. Might be better for a year or two but doesn't move the needle to making us a top team.

I think Barnes is a great guy, tough player, but sending him out was the right move.

Jack.Kerr · 12-02-2019, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

I'd say it's more like like a Jackson-Wright trade.

It was a salary move, and a necessary one considering the bad contracts the Mavs had to take on in the KP trade. Whether or the Mavs use their cap space wisely afterward is a separate debate.

Bad deal for the Mavs? Meh, I'm not losing sleep over it. I like Barnes just fine, but let's not make him out to be more than what he is. If he was still here right now, he'd be a marginal upgrade at best.

I am interpreting that to mean Jackson/Wright for Barnes? Diversification of risk is good, but still that's two lesser players, neither one of whom will ever be at Barnes' level.

I see a lot of people talking about the Mavericks needing to upgrade their roster; I agree. But I don't see a blockbuster deal in the Mavs' near future, so any upgrade is going to be 'marginal'.

It seems like that by trading Barnes, the Mavs always intended to be taking one (or two) steps back now, in order to take one step forward in the future. That's losing ground, not gaining ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoobay

Agree - Barnes had gone from a 4th option type of player to having to be "the man" for the Mavs - would he have just as easily swung back to being just another cog in the Mavs' current offense? We see the same struggle going on with THJ - no need for another 20 million player who's probably not going to put us over the top. Might be better for a year or two but doesn't move the needle to making us a top team.

I think Barnes is a great guy, tough player, but sending him out was the right move.

In GS, Barnes was deferring to Curry and Thompson for sure; probably being stepped over for shots by vets and/or shothogs like Green, Iguodala, Livingston. Yes, he worked to fit in, which I think is what you want?

Were Porzingis' struggles unforeseen? At a minimum, Barnes would've been the 'other' scoring option for Doncic to feed while KP finds his footing, and a long 2/3 who'd have been a versatile defender.

If the point is that Barnes (even with his contract) was tradeable, whereas Hardaway with his millstone of a contract was not, I agree.

If the point is to re-set expectations, and to say that this team (as constructed) shouldn't be expected to advance into that playoffs, I can accept that too, despite some of the irrational exuberance expressed in GDTs.

Thespiralgoeson · 12-02-2019, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

I see a lot of people talking about the Mavericks needing to upgrade their roster; I agree. But I don't see a blockbuster deal in the Mavs' near future, so any upgrade is going to be 'marginal'.

Did you see the Porzingis trade happening? I sure didn't. We have absolutely no idea what the trade/free agent market will be like for the Mavs over the next 5 years. And even so, if every upgrade is going to be marginal, then you can do it for a hell of a lot less than what Barnes costs.

Quote:

It seems like that by trading Barnes, the Mavs always intended to be taking one (or two) steps back now, in order to take one step forward in the future. That's losing ground, not gaining ground.

Are we thinking of the same Harrison Barnes? The Harrison Barnes I saw play here for 2 1/2 years was a big "meh." Seriously, how much better do you think we would be with Barnes in the lineup right now? How much ground do you think we lost? I'm not sure we lost any at all. If losing Harrison Barnes is some kind of major difference-making blow for your team, then your team was never very good and wasn't going anywhere to begin with.

Quote:

Good enough is the enemy of great, and a schedule skewed toward sub-.500 teams should be taken with a grain of salt.

Does that mean we'd be "great" with Harrison Barnes, but we're only "good enough" now? As I said, Harrison Barnes is nobody's difference between good and great. If he was, then you were definitely not great, and you probably weren't that good.

We just had two blowout wins against two of the best teams in the league- Rockets and Lakers. For a team that was expected to barely be .500 this year and struggle for the 8th seed, I'd say we're way ahead of schedule.

EricaLubarsky · 12-02-2019, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Does that mean we'd be "great" with Harrison Barnes, but we're only "good enough" now? As I said, Harrison Barnes is nobody's difference between good and great. If he was, then you were definitely not great, and you probably weren't that good.

We just had two blowout wins against two of the best teams in the league- Rockets and Lakers. For a team that was expected to barely be .500 this year and struggle for the 8th seed, I'd say we're way ahead of schedule.

Well said.

Jack.Kerr · 12-03-2019, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Did you see the Porzingis trade happening? I sure didn't. We have absolutely no idea what the trade/free agent market will be like for the Mavs over the next 5 years. And even so, if every upgrade is going to be marginal, then you can do it for a hell of a lot less than what Barnes costs.

Man, you can only rely on the ineptitude of NYKs' management so much, and perhaps not for much longer. I'd prefer a more systematic approach, and I can live with incrementalist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Are we thinking of the same Harrison Barnes? The Harrison Barnes I saw play here for 2 1/2 years was a big "meh." Seriously, how much better do you think we would be with Barnes in the lineup right now? How much ground do you think we lost? I'm not sure we lost any at all. If losing Harrison Barnes is some kind of major difference-making blow for your team, then your team was never very good and wasn't going anywhere to begin with.

That's what I would've liked to've seen. Yeah, I think they'd be better. Interesting (to me) to see HB used properly as a 3, bookended by Luka and KP, instead of.....a 20-year old Bullet shooting his way out of Dallas, Mes Watthews shooting his way out of Dallas, 40-year old Dirk shooting his way into NBA history, and 19 year-old Luka shooting for ROY.

As it is, pretty much anyone watching thinks they need to upgrade the talent alongside KP and LD. Disclosure: At the time of the HB trade, I thought KP would be well further along by now, didn't anticipate that he wouldn't be able to shoulder the load. As it's playing out, HB would be more valuable as KP finds his groove.

JAX may turn into a nice role player, but he doesn't look like a starter, even less so on a playoff contender; same for Wright, Curry, and Boban, in descending degree of potential. They traded a proven, legit starter in Barnes for journeymen reserves. That, IMO, is moving the wrong way, from a talent standpoint. I'll reserve judgment on the 'value' aspect for awhile longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Does that mean we'd be "great" with Harrison Barnes, but we're only "good enough" now? As I said, Harrison Barnes is nobody's difference between good and great. If he was, then you were definitely not great, and you probably weren't that good.

No, the point was that they downgraded the talent on the roster with the Barnes <-> Jackson trade (Fantasy Per 36 numbers, be damned.) The anticipation (among fans, at least) was that they'd make a significant acquisition in free agency. The results, Wright, Boban, Curry, were more afterthought piecemeal patches than 'significant', and for almost equal money (~$24M). Jackson, Wright, Boban, Curry all offer some journeyman skills, but none of them look to be legit starters, and none of them will play at the level of a player like Barnes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

We just had two blowout wins against two of the best teams in the league- Rockets and Lakers. For a team that was expected to barely be .500 this year and struggle for the 8th seed, I'd say we're way ahead of schedule.

Two quality wins, I agree. And it's fine to enjoy them, and the nice 13-6 record (for what it is, coming with a favorable schedule against sub-.500 teams). The next 10 games are going to provide a gravity test, however, and I think that talent wins out in the NBA more often than not.

Thespiralgoeson · 12-03-2019, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

No, the point was that they downgraded the talent on the roster with the Barnes <-> Jackson trade (Fantasy Per 36 numbers, be damned.) The anticipation (among fans, at least) was that they'd make a significant acquisition in free agency. The results, Wright, Boban, Curry, were more afterthought piecemeal patches than 'significant', and for almost equal money (~$24M).

*shrug* Dunno what to tell ya. I think you are about the only one who thinks we lost much talent with Barnes. I don't think Barnes has that much talent or that we're noticeably less talented with Barnes than with Jackson/Wright. Talent does win out in the NBA. But Barnes isn't that talented, so I'm not concerned about the loss of his talent.

Quote:

Jackson, Wright, Boban, Curry all offer some journeyman skills, but none of them look to be legit starters, and none of them will play at the level of a player like Barnes.

Seriously, are we actually talking about the same person? Because "some journeyman skills" and "not a legit starter" is pretty much how I think of Barnes. He'd be a nice sixth man. When you say that none of them will "play at the level of a player like Barnes," the rest of us are sitting here scratching our heads thinking, "... that guy?" Seriously, "the level of a player like Barnes???"