What's new
By:

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

Saint Cy of JFC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HermanG said:
Complete list of people in the world who think this was a sensible well-executed trade:
Nico Harrison
Cy

I bet Nico retracts first.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tremendous Upside said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top