Godymas wrote:There was a recent article shared by a former Mavericks staffer and analyst that covered some insider knowledge on how the Mavericks organization truly felt about Luka (
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1iin3k4/engelmann_the_luka_doncic_trade_my_perspective_as/).
The article is behind a paywall, but the Reddit link above summarizes some of the points. Basically the Mavericks were running their own "internal" models to evaluate how good Luka was, and per their models, they were finding that Luka's raw numbers were not actually leading the team to wins as much as you would think.
Now, I know, it's mind boggling to say "the guy leads the league in scoring and averages a triple double and is 25, BUT we don't think he can really be that much of a winner".
I think most people defaulted to putting Luka as that top 3-5 guy consistently because the #s were so eye popping, the winning was present, but I want to ask you a very legitimate question, and you need to actually think hard about it. Would you rather have Luka Doncic or Jayson Tatum? The correct answer, for those that watch basketball, is Jayson Tatum.
Why Jayson Tatum? Well it goes back to win share and what it truly says about a player. One thing that gets ignored in the WS stat is the DWS vs. OWS. I think that the bias and breakdown here is very telling of how easy a player is to build around. A player that has a more balanced DWS and OWS where the #s are maybe 60/40 (which is what Tatum has) is INFINITELY easier to build a contender around than a player that has a heavily biased OWS with a much lesser DWS (which is what Luka has). Tatum in his prime gives about 10.5 WS consistently now for 2 years and this year he's on pace for about 11 WS. Luka is actually comparable. Last year with his insane usage and minutes he gave 12 WS and before that it was about 10.5. Now WS/48 does break it down to the minutes each player plays, and Luka does lead Tatum in that regard in the regular season, but as soon as the playoffs come around Luka's winning impact seems to drop and he's playing on Tatum's level. The difference here, though, is that Tatum is a true two way player. It makes it easier to win with Jayson Tatum in the playoffs and therefore makes it much more enticing to keep Tatum over Luka.
In a redraft of the 2018 NBA draft, it used to be Luka was unanimously #1. Today, I think a lot of people might truthfully lean towards SGA. Prime SGA is a much different beast from Luka. He beats Luka in so many efficiency metrics and his defense for a guard is truly elite averaging an absurd 2 steals and 1 block a game. SGA's WS is through the roof, and the thing about SGA is, he's only getting started. Up until last year, SGA was on relatively average to horrendous teams. There was no amazing regular season to be padding those #s up for him. Luka has been on a consistently good Mavericks team basically since 2020-2021. Sure there have been some bumps, but the overall winning has been consistently more and yet SGA is already leading Luka in win shares. SGA shows true superstar level when you look at metrics like his PER, his WS/48, etc. It's a tier above what Luka has ever peaked at, the age gap is negligible.
The reality is Luka is a continuation of prime James Harden, but so far he's been worse than prime James Harden. The #s are insane, they are hall of fame caliber, but to build around such a high usage player suffers from the same difficulties that building around prime James Harden suffered. Obviously, you can build a contending team around prime James Harden, but then you're relying on the 3 to fall from those role players and when the stats deliver an outlier, you can find yourself in a game 7 against the Warriors at home with an all time great collapse.
I had this theory about Luka, something that I've discussed in the past. The theory is that Luka could one day be a 32 year old veteran in the NBA and end up with no rings, no MVPs, just All NBA and scoring accolades. I think that the reality is Dallas believed that with Luka on a supermax it was very likely that they could see a world where Luka has that sort of career and ultimately who is going to get the blame? The FO for "not building around their generational talent" when maybe, just maybe, the issue was that the "generational" talent was a highly flawed player that was not super efficient, or had issues defending. There is another controversial all time great, but the difference is he was able to become a winner, that player's name is Kobe Bryant. Kobe is controversial, his contributions to winning something feel overrated. He put up #s but the advanced metrics didn't love him as much, he had a loyal fan base in LA, and because of the pull of LA and his mimicry of Jordan's game they were able to get a contender that won with Kobe at the helm after the belief that Shaq carried Kobe for those early years. As time has gone on, people look back at Kobe and they say "well he wasn't that awesome, but he meant a lot of the culture and LA". I think Luka, had he stayed in Dallas, would have been similar, but I agree in some ways with the logic of the Mavs FO, it would have been a lot harder to win with Luka.
Now does that mean the trade was suddenly redeemed or "good"? No, because in this business having a face of your franchise that was raised by the franchise is more valuable for a big market like Dallas than winning out right. Luka was set to be a permanent fixture in the city of Dallas, his impact would have gone well beyond what he did on and off the court. Young children in the city of Dallas were already growing up loving Luka and trying to play the game of basketball to be like him. Being a legendary player for a city is incredible, the love that those players get, the fandom. However, in the city of Dallas is another very questionable sports team and I have a feeling that the Mavericks took a long hard look at a team like the Dallas Cowboys that has gone on to pay their star level, but not superstar level QB a ton of money and have gone on to have struggles finishing or winning despite great regular seasons, and the Mavericks felt that this was the obvious path for their organizations and therefore decided that the right decision to make here was to go all in and win now or forever regret keeping Dallas has a city of glory days.
And also, using WS's argument to discredit someone's impact is also an interesting choice. 
