Trade Deadline: February 6, 2025

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SharpesTriumph said:
My post wasnt about Luka value, it was that we have no idea what FRP value teams will settle for with these supposed reports and rumors.

Nobody would've thought a Luka for Davis swap would only cost a single FRP.
Click to expand...
Totally true. We do agree though that the Mavs fucked up and likely could have gotten more for Luka but maybe they just really wanted AD. I don't think the Luka/AD trade has much bearing on the value of a FRP today into tomorrow but I definitely could be wrong.
 
blazerkor said:
AD made the all nba second team last season, he was named to the all defensive first team. His numbers this season are just as good as they were last season. So the Mavs got an all nba second teamer and a FRP for an all nba first teamer. The big problem for the Mavs in terms of value is for sure that Luka likely has 8-10 years of his best basketball in front of him and AD's best basketball is behind him. It was a shitty trade.
Click to expand...
Luka made allNBA first team the last 5 years - every year of his career except as a rookie.

AD made 2nd team last season, none the year prior, none the year prior, none the year prior, and first team his initial year in LA.

Not to mention yeah as you say he's way younger, not even at his peak while the other guys is clearly past his peak. Its by far the worst trade in NBA history.
 
blazerkor said:
AD made the all nba second team last season, he was named to the all defensive first team. His numbers this season are just as good as they were last season. So the Mavs got an all nba second teamer and a FRP for an all nba first teamer. The big problem for the Mavs in terms of value is for sure that Luka likely has 8-10 years of his best basketball in front of him and AD's best basketball is behind him. It was a shitty trade.
Click to expand...

But the Mavs are no longer hindered by having to give a $300+ million contract to a lazy PG who gives no effort on defense and who weighs as much as a PF.
I'm in the minority but I think it will overall be a good move for the Mavs in the long run.
 
BoBoBREWSKI said:
But the Mavs are no longer hindered by having to give a $300+ million contract to a lazy PG who gives no effort on defense and who weighs as much as a PF.
I'm in the minority but I think it will overall be a good move for the Mavs in the long run.
Click to expand...

You can argue that, but you can't say they made a good deal.
 
HailBlazers said:
You can argue that, but you can't say they made a good deal.
Click to expand...

I think they made a risky move given more data than what most of us have (that data being - knowledge about Luka's health, motivation and likelihood to want to remain in Dallas). From there - it is hard to say if it was a good or bad deal at this point.

Only time will tell if this was a good or bad deal, they clearly would not have done it if they thought it was a bad deal - so the only question is - is their decision process given what they know that most of us can only speculate about right or wrong? I think it is certainly too early to tell.
 
RR7 said:
What's funny is many likely would take that deal for Grant, while also saying the deal for Norm was awful awful awful. When they'd be pretty similar deals.
Click to expand...
I can't really remember what Norm's contract was at that time? But it couldn't have been as bad as Grant's right?
 
Natebishop3 said:
I might be wrong, but I think MM is saying that they didn't intend for the team to be this good this fast.
Click to expand...
I think he meant they planned on trading Simons and Grant but they weren't able to. (Prove me wrong tonight, Joe!)
 
andalusian said:
I think they made a risky move given more data than what most of us have (that data being - knowledge about Luka's health, motivation and likelihood to want to remain in Dallas). From there - it is hard to say if it was a good or bad deal at this point.

Only time will tell if this was a good or bad deal, they clearly would not have done it if they thought it was a bad deal - so the only question is - is their decision process given what they know that most of us can only speculate about right or wrong? I think it is certainly too early to tell.
Click to expand...
I don't think Dallas had a "they" in these Luka assessments. "They" just had Nico assessment with all of his impulses, bias and ways that he personally clashed with Luka. He made the decision without his staff over fear the trade wouldn't happen if he discussed with his staff. Dallas had a brand new owner that empowers their executives with a ton of power. The owners are worth 32billion so 90% of their wealth is outside the Mavs/NBA. The new Dallas owners are almost the opposite dynamic of what we usually see with NBA new owners syndrome, instead of too impulsive and interfering too much they didn't have enough oversight or checks and balances. It's been reported that Dallas ownership is now extremely shocked at all of the fallout and criticism.

We've seen crazy power hungry GM's before ruin championship teams, remember Jerry Krause who created an environment where Jordan and Phil felt pushed out of the Bulls and eventually walked away.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
I don't think Dallas had a "they" in these Luka assessments. "They" just had Nico assessment with all of his impulses, bias and ways that he personally clashed with Luka. He made the decision without his staff over fear the trade wouldn't happen if he discussed with his staff. Dallas had a brand new owner that empowers their executives with a ton of power. They are worth 32billion so 90% of their wealth is outside the Mavs/NBA. The new Dallas owners are almost the opposite dynamic of what we usually see with NBA new owners syndrome, instead of too impulsive and interfering too much they didn't have enough oversight or checks and balances. It's been reported that Dallas ownership is now extremely shocked at all of the fallout and criticism.

We've seen crazy power hungry GM's before ruin championship teams, remember Jerry Krause who created an environment where Jordan and Phil felt pushed out of the Bulls and eventually walked away.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about the GM in Dallas - but the trade does not happen if the ownership group does not sign on it - so they is the correct term.

Everything else is a conjunction of assumptions I am not privy to. I am still going with "it's too early to tell".

As for Mr. Jerry Krause, sure he was a part of the decisions that broke that team, but he was also the one that built that 6 times championship team...
  • Drafted Scottie Pippen while he played at Central Arkansas
  • Signed Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, and Toni Kukoc
  • Hired Phil Jackson as an assistant and later as head coach
  • Brought in Luc Longley and Steve Kerr
So, I am not sure what this has to do with anything here, either the Dallas Mavericks are right or they are wrong to make this move - only time will tell, but it is not, imho, an absolute no brainer of a bad deal. It's a risky move for sure.
 
blazerkor said:
What would reuniting Rob with Ime look like... is Cam Whitmore worth what Joe is saying. We'd have to waive Jeff Green unless we made another trade that sent more players out than it returned.
View attachment 70935
Click to expand...
Whitmore seems ok. Not yet 21, about 7 rebounds and 2 stocks per 36. His FT shooting went up in his second year but 3 pt shooting went down. He would probably be a good player off the bench for us? I don't really know what Joe and Chauncey think about Williams. There are quite a few games when it is not back to back and he still doesn't play.
 
update on ESPN.com


Feb. 5
6:44 p.m. ET: With the Golden State Warriors moving on from their pursuit of Kevin Durant, it appears they have a new player in their sights, as ESPN's Shams Charania reported on NBA Countdown: "The Heat are getting closer and closer. We are nearing the end of this saga between Jimmy Butler and the Miami Heat. ... The Warriors' priority, from what I'm told, has been Jimmy Butler."
 
andalusian said:
I don't know anything about the GM in Dallas - but the trade does not happen if the ownership group does not sign on it - so they is the correct term.

Everything else is a conjunction of assumptions I am not privy to. I am still going with "it's too early to tell".

As for Mr. Jerry Krause, sure he was a part of the decisions that broke that team, but he was also the one that built that 6 times championship team...
  • Drafted Scottie Pippen while he played at Central Arkansas
  • Signed Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, and Toni Kukoc
  • Hired Phil Jackson as an assistant and later as head coach
  • Brought in Luc Longley and Steve Kerr
So, I am not sure what this has to do with anything here, either the Dallas Mavericks are right or they are wrong to make this move - only time will tell, but it is not, imho, an absolute no brainer of a bad deal. It's a risky move for sure.
Click to expand...

He traded for pippen, didn't draft him. BUT he did absolutely steal him from the Sonics on draft day. Including trading a pick that they eventually got back for Brad Sellers (BJ Armstrong).
 
julius said:
He traded for pippen, didn't draft him. BUT he did absolutely steal him from the Sonics on draft day. Including trading a pick that they eventually got back for Brad Sellers (BJ Armstrong).
Click to expand...

Well, that's like saying that the Blazers did not draft LMA or Roy, they traded for them on draft day (which they did). But the historical records show that that Bulls targeted him before the draft and made the trade for the right pick they believed they would be able to get him - so by all intent and purposes, they drafted him.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
I can't really remember what Norm's contract was at that time? But it couldn't have been as bad as Grant's right?
Click to expand...

Not sure it makes a difference. Their goal was to get under the luxury tax threshold and they achieved it in that trade by dumping Norm and RC.
So I think the comparison is valid. Blazer fans want Joe to dump salaries this time around
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
andalusian said:
Well, that's like saying that the Blazers did not draft LMA or Roy, they traded for them on draft day (which they did). But the historical records show that that Bulls targeted him before the draft and made the trade for the right pick they believed they would be able to get him - so by all intent and purposes, they drafted him.
Click to expand...
Yeah wherever the player ends up at the end of draft day is effectively the team that drafted them.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
I can't really remember what Norm's contract was at that time? But it couldn't have been as bad as Grant's right?
Click to expand...
He had signed a 5/90 new deal with us. So no, definitely not as big as Grant's. His was roughly 13% of the cap, Grant's is roughly 20%. However, Grant has "normal" size for a wing. Powell is an undersized SG. Grant's a better defender than Powell ever was. Powell is a great shooter. He's otherwise never really offered a whole lot else in regards to rebounding and playmaking. It's not a direct apples to apples comparison, of course. But that deal still gets panned as beyond god awful on here. What we had was someone overpaid, and he was also in a spot where he was blocking a 22 year old Anfernee Simons. Similar to Grant being overpaid, and potentially blocking Deni and Toumani. And that deal was so horrible, but people would be ecstatic for the same return for Grant.
Anyways, it's been beaten to death, I don't wanna derail this thread more. Just find it amusing.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Not sure it makes a difference. Their goal was to get under the luxury tax threshold and they achieved it in that trade by dumping Norm and RC.
So I think the comparison is valid. Blazer fans want Joe to dump salaries this time around
Click to expand...
The difference is Norm was younger and playing better and signed a contract just months earlier regarded as a good value deal.

The Grant deal was poor value the day it was agreed to.

Also of course the Blazers were in a very different strategic position at that time with Norm than they are today.

There is no reason to be flirting with luxury tax during a rebuild as the Blazers have been the last few years.

Grant's contract is more similar to Evan Turner or Allen Crabbe overpaid deals than it is to Norman's good deal. Hopefully Grant's contract doesn't prevent our team from building around our youth in the next 4 years as the Turner/Crabbe deals did with Dame.
 
RR7 said:
He had signed a 5/90 new deal with us. So no, definitely not as big as Grant's. His was roughly 13% of the cap, Grant's is roughly 20%. However, Grant has "normal" size for a wing. Powell is an undersized SG. Grant's a better defender than Powell ever was. Powell is a great shooter. He's otherwise never really offered a whole lot else in regards to rebounding and playmaking. It's not a direct apples to apples comparison, of course. But that deal still gets panned as beyond god awful on here. What we had was someone overpaid, and he was also in a spot where he was blocking a 22 year old Anfernee Simons. Similar to Grant being overpaid, and potentially blocking Deni and Toumani. And that deal was so horrible, but people would be ecstatic for the same return for Grant.
Anyways, it's been beaten to death, I don't wanna derail this thread more. Just find it amusing.
Click to expand...
It obviously wasn't a bad deal as today Norm is a borderline allstar and hes better than EVERY SINGLE ONE of the players that Cronin used all that "salary" flexibility on in Grant/Ayton/Ant/Thybulle/Nurk/Brogdon.

Crazy that people are still defending that horrible Clippers trade today.

You also forgot to mention that BLEDSOE and DIDI are still on our salary cap TODAY!
 
SharpesTriumph said:
It obviously wasn't a bad deal as today Norm is a borderline allstar and hes better than EVERY SINGLE ONE of the players that Cronin used all that "salary" flexibility on in Grant/Ayton/Ant/Thybulle/Brogdon.

Crazy that people are still defending that horrible Clippers trade today.

You also forgot to mention that BLEDSOE and DIDI are still on our salary cap TODAY!
Click to expand...
Sure, and when Grant signed his deal he was also a "borderline all star" with a season similar to Powell's career best season this year. Glad for Norm. Seems like a nice guy. Glad we didn't keep him around as a 28 year old 6'3" SF.
 
RR7 said:
Glad we didn't keep him around as a 28 year old 6'3" SF.
Click to expand...
Congrats - we've had a 6'3" SG in Simons in his place ever since earning more.

I'd much rather have Norm here than Simons. He'd be the perfect 3rd guard with Sharpe/Scoot.

Could have got a nice haul for Simons years ago.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
The difference is Norm was younger and playing better and signed a contract just months earlier regarded as a good value deal.
Click to expand...

They wanted to clear cap space at the time to get under the luxury tax. You all want to clear cap space now for various reasons, but it's still the same thing. I see very little difference
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Congrats - we've had a 6'3" SG in Simons in his place ever since earning more.

I'd much rather have Norm here than Simons. He'd be the perfect 3rd guard with Sharpe/Scoot.

Could have got a nice haul for Simons years ago.
Click to expand...

By himself? Please define a nice haul.
 
What did we do at last year's trade deadline? Did it happen day before or day of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top