What's new

Dallas trading Luka to the Lakers for Anthony Davis! Utah involved.

I dont really believe this. I just think teams will always feel pressure when they have a top 5 player and the Lakers have looming max cap-space to steal your guy.

I think the most logical explanation is what is reality.

Nico is probably a power hunger FO member who didnt like Doncic much and didnt want to be beholden to him and his demands in the future (because when you have a star like that they probably run the organization more than you do). He sees a 2-3 year window to win and wants to try around the team he built. If it fails, he probably gets fired and moves onto something else outside of being a FO member. If it works he gets to be a genius.

Im just perplexed he didnt push harder to at the very least get Knecht.
It would be a little hard to talk about building a team around defense and then push for Knecht.
 
Complete list of people in the world who think this was a sensible well-executed trade:
Nico Harrison
Cy

I bet Nico retracts first.
To be clear I think the trade makes sense in terms of win now and a team building philosophy. I don't think the Mavs got fair value and should have pushed for more assets to be included.

I've heard multiple people express that sentiment.
 
To be clear I think the trade makes sense in terms of win now and a team building philosophy. I don't think the Mavs got fair value and should have pushed for more assets to be included.

I've heard multiple people express that sentiment.
Ok I thought you were fully behind this, seeing how you have made several positive comments and few if any critical ones.
 
To be clear I think the trade makes sense in terms of win now and a team building philosophy. I don't think the Mavs got fair value and should have pushed for more assets to be included.

I've heard multiple people express that sentiment.

This is a sensible take. I don't hate it from a "win now" standpoint. I am not 100% convinced they're better off this year come playoff time without Luka freaking Doncic but AD does suit their current makeup and a 2-4 year window.

The "fair value" piece doesn't even seem debatable. They must be putting just extraordinary value on AD's benefit to their success in the near-term future. Simply can't comprehend this part.

The backlash from the fans has also been eye-opening. I suppose "winning cures all" but my Mavs' fan friends are acting like the fanbase has turned permanently.
 
Complete list of people in the world who think this was a sensible well-executed trade:
Nico Harrison
Cy

I bet Nico retracts first.
Put me on the list.

Sometimes there are trades that you have to make even if they look bad at first glance. This is one of those.

As talented as he is, Luka was turning into a headache and his career will be downhill from here.
 
Put me on the list.

Sometimes there are trades that you have to make even if they look bad at first glance. This is one of those.

As talented as he is, Luka was turning into a headache and his career will be downhill from here.
So a list of three which includes Cy and Tremendous Upside. First time for everything, I suppose.
 
An interesting philosophical question is if the Mavs win a ring in the next 3 years, but after that go through a down period, was the trade good?

Is having a top 5 player and just having sustained success and hope better than actually winning a title?
 
An interesting philosophical question is if the Mavs win a ring in the next 3 years, but after that go through a down period, was the trade good?

Is having a top 5 player and just having sustained success and hope better than actually winning a title?
I kind of think it is. My belief is that it's mostly illegal to trade a potential top 15-20 player of all time unless they ask out at that age.
 
An interesting philosophical question is if the Mavs win a ring in the next 3 years, but after that go through a down period, was the trade good?

Is having a top 5 player and just having sustained success and hope better than actually winning a title?
I had a similar philosophical question. Would you rather draft a guy that is good enough that he demands a super max contract, but flawed enough that you can't build a good enough team around them to contend. Or would you rather draft a bust that you can move on from quickly and have a better chance at contending sooner.
 
I had a similar philosophical question. Would you rather draft a guy that is good enough that he demands a super max contract, but flawed enough that you can't build a good enough team around them to contend. Or would you rather draft a bust that you can move on from quickly and have a better chance at contending sooner.
The first because you can get assets for moving on. It is always better to hit on a pick, even marginally than completely miss. Missing on so many picks doomed Philly, even when the got one right. So much waste and carelessness.
 
Back
Top