2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[eminence]

Eminence trade grades.

Lakers - A, spectacular work, in the range of neutral for this season, but you've set yourself up very nicely going forward. With a much younger/more marketable/slightly better star.

Mavs - F, AD is a good player, and the pieces aren't of no value. But he's not Luka and you've at best kept your chances the next few seasons neutral while having no real future in ~3 years and tanking your teams marketing value. All-time stupid move with no real chance at winning in your own fans eyes unless you go out and win a title with AD as the star (does anyone really think they do it?).

Jazz - B, Nice, grab a couple seconds Danny.

Luka - A, got to move to the biggest NBA market and managed to at least make it look like he wasn't involved in the move (doesn't seem to have been). Free money and might do more for him in becoming the face of the league than going to the Finals last season.

Davis - D, Name's getting dragged currently, but the fit is alright if he comes out playing like the #1 guy he can be. Unfortunately I expect he'll always be the guy they traded Luka for in Dallas.

LeBron - B, Opportunity here. Let's be honest, the Lakers as they were weren't doing anything going forward. Here he can either discretely ask out and get in a few last PO runs elsewhere or pass the torch to Luka in LA.

Luka was better positioned to compete for a championship in Dallas than LA

He also lost out on $116 million in guaranteed money.

*An opportunity at that money. Since Dallas didn't actually sign him to that deal and apparently would rather trade him than give it to him.

But yes, there's a scenario where Luka takes a career altering injury in the next couple of seasons and that winds up biting him in the ass. If he makes it to 30 reasonably healthy he'll still get another max and the career earnings difference from a supermax will be in the low single digit %s.

[Texas Chuck]

How this will impact the business of Mavericks basketball?

The business of Mavericks basketball will probably be conducted in Vegas instead of Dallas by the end of the decade, to be honest. The only way it makes sense for the Adelsons to sign on for this trade is as a "Major League" scenario to justify moving the team.

If Adelson wanted to own an NBA team in Vegas, he wouldn't have bought the Mavericks. He would have bought one of the many teams in smaller markets.

Metro Dallas's GDP is 4x that of Vegas. Metro Vegas has 2 fortune 500 companies. Dallas has 22.

Moving to Dallas for Vegas would cause the value to decline, alot.

If they had a master plan to move to Vegas, they would have bought a Charlotte/Memphis/Cleveland level franchise.

Ehh, ideally sure. But only so many of these and only so often is one available.


The actual story is they bought the team to help them bring casinos to Dallas, not to move the Mavs to the existing casinos in Vegas.

But if that were the plan, sometimes you buy the team you can buy. And with expansion likely coming, and the Mavs went to Vegas, Dallas just gets one of the new teams.

But not the plan.

[sp6r=underrated]

The actual story is they bought the team to help them bring casinos to Dallas

I'm hoping for Dallas they fail. Casinos ==> Poorer City

https://web.archive.org/web/20140807225221/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/a-good-way-to-wreck-a-local-economy-build-casinos/375691/

The impact of casinos on neighboring property values is “unambiguously negative,” according to the economists at the National Association of Realtors. Casinos don’t encourage non-gaming businesses to open nearby, because the people who most often visit casinos do not wander out to visit other shops and businesses. A casino is not like a movie theater or a sports stadium, offering a time-limited amusement. It is designed to be an all-absorbing environment that does not release its customers until they have exhausted their money.

The Institute for American Values has gathered the best evidence on the social consequences of casinos. That evidence should worry any responsible city government.

People who live close to a casino are twice as likely to become problem gamblers as people who live more than 10 miles away. As casinos have become more prevalent, so has problem gambling: in some states, the evidence suggests a tripling or even quadrupling of the number of problem gamblers.

As to domestic expansion, that is a terrible idea. The next round of NBA expansion should be overseas not in the US. There are enough domestic teams already.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm against expansion of any kind. But Silver has been talking about it. And of course if the Mavs were to move, obviously being a top 5 market they would be a lock for an expansion team.

[ShotCreator]

Eminence trade grades.

Lakers - A, spectacular work, in the range of neutral for this season, but you've set yourself up very nicely going forward. With a much younger/more marketable/slightly better star.

Mavs - F, AD is a good player, and the pieces aren't of no value. But he's not Luka and you've at best kept your chances the next few seasons neutral while having no real future in ~3 years and tanking your teams marketing value. All-time stupid move with no real chance at winning in your own fans eyes unless you go out and win a title with AD as the star (does anyone really think they do it?).

Jazz - B, Nice, grab a couple seconds Danny.

Luka - A, got to move to the biggest NBA market and managed to at least make it look like he wasn't involved in the move (doesn't seem to have been). Free money and might do more for him in becoming the face of the league than going to the Finals last season.

Davis - D, Name's getting dragged currently, but the fit is alright if he comes out playing like the #1 guy he can be. Unfortunately I expect he'll always be the guy they traded Luka for in Dallas.

LeBron - B, Opportunity here. Let's be honest, the Lakers as they were weren't doing anything going forward. Here he can either discretely ask out and get in a few last PO runs elsewhere or pass the torch to Luka in LA.

Luka was better positioned to compete for a championship in Dallas than LA

He also lost out on $116 million in guaranteed money.

And this trade is the single positive Lakers front office move made in probably 4 years.

Luka’s career is worse in every way other than the enormous amount of fans he just gained.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm against expansion of any kind. But Silver has been talking about it. And of course if the Mavs were to move, obviously being a top 5 market they would be a lock for an expansion team.

Thanks for the explanation BTW. Anyway if the Adelsons somehow buy the Mavs and move them to Vegas this hits me as real bad for the NBA.

I live in SF now (12+ yrs) and one thing older locals tell me is the Raiders never got back many of their fans after going to LA and it was chronic problem that eventually caused them to have to leave again.

And if the Mavs left, gap and then a new Dallas franchise no guarantee all the Mavs fans comeback.

[sp6r=underrated]

Am I a hater for thinking Durant is approaching Bonds without steroids likeability.

Even sans roids Bonds was better at baseball than Durant was at hoops but both are no question hall of famers. But I find Durant's personality as grating as Bonds was in his day. He's just a total ass and it seems to show up on most teams he plays for.

Do you agree or am I hater?

I was thinking about this because of the Durant-Payton thing and Durant endless tweets going at random fans.

I absolutely love Durant's tweeting lol.

Read on Twitter

His tweeting reminds me of Musk's tweeting.

[eminence]

I'm against expansion of any kind. But Silver has been talking about it. And of course if the Mavs were to move, obviously being a top 5 market they would be a lock for an expansion team.

Yeah, no chance Dallas would wind up without a team even if for whatever reason Mavs ownership was dying to move. Dallas is a great market now and going forward (I'd probably put it 4th for the near future behind NYC/LA/SF, slightly ahead of Chicago/Houston).

I'd be fine with a 2 team expansion to 32 teams cause it's a useful number for scheduling type stuff, but there's not much reason for expansion beyond that. Market coverage of the US/Canada is fine.

Overseas expansion is theoretically nice, but very difficult, with travel being exponentially harder so you'd have to add a whole division at once, and even then travel would wind up ridiculous.

[Special_Puppy]

Am I a hater for thinking Durant is approaching Bonds without steroids likeability.

Even sans roids Bonds was better at baseball than Durant was at hoops but both are no question hall of famers. But I find Durant's personality as grating as Bonds was in his day. He's just a total ass and it seems to show up on most teams he plays for.

Do you agree or am I hater?

I was thinking about this because of the Durant-Payton thing and Durant endless tweets going at random fans.

I absolutely love Durant's tweeting lol.

Read on Twitter

His tweeting reminds me of Musk's tweeting.

YMMV but I generally find Durant's tweets way funnier than Musk's

[itsxtray]

As to domestic expansion, that is a terrible idea. The next round of NBA expansion should be overseas not in the US. There are enough domestic teams already.

The logistics of overseas travel aren't realistic right now. This is about the NFL, but just look at what they have to do to play in London, and they only play once a week.

Watch on YouTube

[ronnymac2]

All this talk about the new DAL owners playing 5D chess to get a casino okayed or move the franchise sounds so goofy to me.

We've just seen the Chargers, Rams, A's, and Coyotes use the "Major League" strategy to justify moving their teams over the past decade. If it can happen in other sports, there's nothing goofy about the idea of it happening in the NBA.

Trading superstars happens, but it always happens a certain way, and in those instances, there is usually a "conspiracy" in the sense that each side uses media contacts to portray things a certain way. None of the familiar hallmarks exist here.

The Mavs have been flooding the media with excuses for what they've done.

A cursory search on Google shows he was a speaker at that Sloan Analytics event, so we know he's a data dork who probably doesn't have a clue how to build a real basketball team.

They are literally coming off a Finals appearance.

I don't even think management gave an ultimatum. They obviously gave their okay, but like...there's zero evidence that the new owners generated this idea.

If they weren't on board with this idiotic move, they could have told him no, or fired him if he refused to back down.

Obviously teams can and have moved...but that doesn't seem like what's going on here.

The Mavs excuses are awful and not thought-out well. They're doing nothing to quell the (deserved) backlash they are receiving from Mavs fans and others.

RE: Finals Appearance...That assistant front office guy who I think is in Detroit now seems to have had a real influence. Left to his own devices, Harrison seems lost.

The owners are obviously culpable in this move, too. But there's no evidence that they are the ones who put Harrison in a corner and forced him to make a desperation move. Maybe I'm wrong and something new comes out though.

[MartinToVaught]

The owners are obviously culpable in this move, too. But there's no evidence that they are the ones who put Harrison in a corner and forced him to make a desperation move. Maybe I'm wrong and something new comes out though.

I just don't think a move this massive is something a GM can initiate by themselves and talk the owners into. This isn't a normal trade, players of Luka's caliber normally don't get traded unless they demand it.

This comment from Harrison's disaster of a press conference stands out to me:

Read on Twitter

I think he knows he's just the fall guy for a controversial move that the league and owners wanted. He'll take all the blame - notice how Mavs fans are chanting "Nico needs to go," not "sell the team" or "fire Adam Silver" - the Mavs will fire him in a year or two, and he probably already has a job lined up with the Lakers and his buddy Pelinka after that.

[Doctor MJ]

It's interesting. I enjoy a good conspiracy theory every now and again. I also don't have blinders on when seeing the NBA for what it is - and it's not a basketball league.

Yet, I unironically believe that there is no conspiracy here - certainly not on the league level, and not even on the franchise level. All this talk about the new DAL owners playing 5D chess to get a casino okayed or move the franchise sounds so goofy to me.

Trading superstars happens, but it always happens a certain way, and in those instances, there is usually a "conspiracy" in the sense that each side uses media contacts to portray things a certain way. None of the familiar hallmarks exist here.

I think what happened is that this Nico Harrison guy just isn't very smart. I mean, I watched his awkward press conference with Jason Kidd this afternoon. This is the same Nike executive that (in)famously screwed up the company's presentation to the soon-to-be second biggest draw of the generation in Steph Curry. He seems awkward and lacking in charisma. A cursory search on Google shows he was a speaker at that Sloan Analytics event, so we know he's a data dork who probably doesn't have a clue how to build a real basketball team.

It's likely that he ideologically sees team-building in a certain way (which somewhat rationally rejects Luka's real issues, i.e. poor defense and conditioning) and became hyper-focused on nabbing a certain archetype (AD) to the detriment of:

1. Long-term team building (long-term issue)
2. Alienating a fanbase with literally no forethought/planning on how to couch this as a positive in any believable way (long-term and short-term issue)
3. Emotional drain and breach of continuity for current roster and why that is important (short-term issue)
4. Overrating AD's ability to address short-term need (short-term issue)

I mean, they lost by like, 50 points today. It never seemed like Luka was disliked by the current roster. Was no consideration given to chemistry? This guy talks about culture, but...

The only "conspiracy" is between Harrison and Pelinka w/ the very real Nike/Kobe connection, but it's not some hidden relationship, because the guy literally spoke about it today.

I don't even think management gave an ultimatum. They obviously gave their okay, but like...there's zero evidence that the new owners generated this idea.

I think Harrison is just a dumb-dumb.

So I've been thinking a lot about Harrison, and now with me realizing for the first time - guess I just missed it before - that HE was the guy who lost Nike Steph Curry primarily because he came into a meeting completely unprepared.

He really seems like a guy who never should have been consider for an NBA GM role, and in terms of owners go, that part's on Cuban.

I still find it hard to believe that he came up with the idea to trade Luka and convinced ownership for this. Maybe that's what happened, but I'd think that any ownership group would either be the ones pushing to trade a franchise player they dislike, or they'd have huge concerns with getting rid of the guy who sells all the merch.

But I do think the simplicity of thought that goes into the "defense wins championships" thinking and the lack of bidding war generation smacks of a guy who doesn't really have a deep grasp of how modern basketball teams work.

It's of course still within the realm of possibility that when all is said and done the trade isn't that damaging...but I wouldn't recommend any NBA teams look to hire Harrison again at this point.

[LeoClark]

Luka’s great but who’s playing C for LA?

[Ambrose]

First, it’s not like we’re talking about comparable contracts going forward. The Mavs were about to have to make the choice for a 350 mill extension with Luka. That’s not the situation with AD.

Second, let’s not confuse injury proneness in an extreme athlete with obesity due to refusing to take staying shape seriously no matter what help the franchise offers.

But again, to be clear, I’m not saying I would have wanted to do this trade, it’s just a matter of what best explains why the Mavs did what they did.

I don’t think the Mavs did this to purposefully destroy the franchise, and I think it quite unlikely they did it to make the Lakers happy.

By contrast:

Do I think the size of the upcoming contract extension probably loomed large in ownerships concerns regardless of made sense for the basketball team? Yup.

Do I think Luka being in bad physical shape was on their mind? Yup.

Do I think Mavs ownership and management came to dislike Luka as a person and this factored in? Yup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with what you are saying but this trade is not a rational move - when you think about maximizing the value of the Mavericks basketball team while balancing very real financial / health risk constraints

That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy - it could be emotional. It could be bad decision making. But when teams with multi billion dollar valuations and individuals with a lot to lose / gain make moves that aren’t “rational” - then those moves should be investigated by the league. I’m not surprised unfortunately that the media isn’t really calling for this.

Presuming that we know the full story here is foolhardy IMO

Good thoughts and I'll go so far as to say:

Emotions are part of this, just as they were when the Brooklyn Nets decided to not give Kyrie that last extension. Billionaires aren't used to kowtowing to anyone, and they resent when their employees act like divas who hold all the cards.

This is of course very different from the fan perspective where no one matters as much as the franchise player and so whatever he's like to actually work with, it doesn't matter because keeping him happy is the most important thing. This also explains how an owner can make a deal that seems clearly bad from a basketball perspective, but in terms of them enjoying their purchase, it makes all the difference.

It seems like a fairly wild assumption to say Luka is a diva.

[Doctor MJ]

I agree with what you are saying but this trade is not a rational move - when you think about maximizing the value of the Mavericks basketball team while balancing very real financial / health risk constraints

That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy - it could be emotional. It could be bad decision making. But when teams with multi billion dollar valuations and individuals with a lot to lose / gain make moves that aren’t “rational” - then those moves should be investigated by the league. I’m not surprised unfortunately that the media isn’t really calling for this.

Presuming that we know the full story here is foolhardy IMO

Good thoughts and I'll go so far as to say:

Emotions are part of this, just as they were when the Brooklyn Nets decided to not give Kyrie that last extension. Billionaires aren't used to kowtowing to anyone, and they resent when their employees act like divas who hold all the cards.

This is of course very different from the fan perspective where no one matters as much as the franchise player and so whatever he's like to actually work with, it doesn't matter because keeping him happy is the most important thing. This also explains how an owner can make a deal that seems clearly bad from a basketball perspective, but in terms of them enjoying their purchase, it makes all the difference.

It seems like a fairly wild assumption to say Luka is a diva.

Why did Rick Carlisle take it when Luka would yell at him in the middle of the game? Because Luka is a diva.

Why did Luka think he'd be able to get away with ignoring the training wishes of the Mavs? Because Luka is a diva.

Why does Luka think he can just stand around yelling at refs whenever there's a call he doesn't like as the opponent scores on the other end without getting benched? Because Luka is a diva.

Any time someone behaves in a way that they simply know would get someone else in trouble with their employers, counting on their star status to get away with it, THAT is what diva behavior is. And Luka has made this quite obvious.

[Ambrose]

Good thoughts and I'll go so far as to say:

Emotions are part of this, just as they were when the Brooklyn Nets decided to not give Kyrie that last extension. Billionaires aren't used to kowtowing to anyone, and they resent when their employees act like divas who hold all the cards.

This is of course very different from the fan perspective where no one matters as much as the franchise player and so whatever he's like to actually work with, it doesn't matter because keeping him happy is the most important thing. This also explains how an owner can make a deal that seems clearly bad from a basketball perspective, but in terms of them enjoying their purchase, it makes all the difference.

It seems like a fairly wild assumption to say Luka is a diva.

Why did Rick Carlisle take it when Luka would yell at him in the middle of the game? Because Luka is a diva.

Why did Luka think he'd be able to get away with ignoring the training wishes of the Mavs? Because Luka is a diva.

Why does Luka think he can just stand around yelling at refs whenever there's a call he doesn't like as the opponent scores on the other end without getting benched? Because Luka is a diva.

Any time someone behaves in a way that they simply know would get someone else in trouble with their employers, counting on their star status to get away with it, THAT is what diva behavior is. And Luka has made this quite obvious.

Two of those three can be described as being overly competitive. The other is something we're being told about 2nd hand. I do think you instantly diving into that angle makes a lot of things make sense in hindsight though. Either that or your bar for a diva is significantly lower than mine.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Luka was better positioned to compete for a championship in Dallas than LA

He also lost out on $116 million in guaranteed money.

*An opportunity at that money. Since Dallas didn't actually sign him to that deal and apparently would rather trade him than give it to him.

But yes, there's a scenario where Luka takes a career altering injury in the next couple of seasons and that winds up biting him in the ass. If he makes it to 30 reasonably healthy he'll still get another max and the career earnings difference from a supermax will be in the low single digit %s.

I think it goes without saying that it was an opportunity. An opportunity that was almost a forgone conclusion for any star of Luka's ilk since these supermax contracts have been shelled out.

Billionaires don't even see $116 million as non-material, just look at how owners react to not wanting to spend with championship cotenders. I certainly don't think Luka will necessarily see the loss as "low single digit %" and nothing more.

The additional $116 million not going into the market is a missed opportunity to be invested in the market.

[eminence]

He also lost out on $116 million in guaranteed money.

*An opportunity at that money. Since Dallas didn't actually sign him to that deal and apparently would rather trade him than give it to him.

But yes, there's a scenario where Luka takes a career altering injury in the next couple of seasons and that winds up biting him in the ass. If he makes it to 30 reasonably healthy he'll still get another max and the career earnings difference from a supermax will be in the low single digit %s.

I think it goes without saying that it was an opportunity. An opportunity that was almost a forgone conclusion for any star of Luka's ilk since these supermax contracts have been shelled out.

Billionaires don't even see $116 million as non-material, just look at how owners react to not wanting to spend with championship cotenders. I certainly don't think Luka will necessarily see the loss as "low single digit %" and nothing more.

The additional $116 million not going into the market is a missed opportunity to be invested in the market.

He's eligible for the 35% max in year 11 regardless and is signed through year 8. He'll sign a 30% 2+1 deal after '26 and then he'll sign a 'super max' starting in '29. He'll miss 5% of the cap in '27/'28, ~16 million. Not 116M.

He'll make it back and more playing for the Lakers.

[Doctor MJ]

It seems like a fairly wild assumption to say Luka is a diva.

Why did Rick Carlisle take it when Luka would yell at him in the middle of the game? Because Luka is a diva.

Why did Luka think he'd be able to get away with ignoring the training wishes of the Mavs? Because Luka is a diva.

Why does Luka think he can just stand around yelling at refs whenever there's a call he doesn't like as the opponent scores on the other end without getting benched? Because Luka is a diva.

Any time someone behaves in a way that they simply know would get someone else in trouble with their employers, counting on their star status to get away with it, THAT is what diva behavior is. And Luka has made this quite obvious.

Two of those three can be described as being overly competitive. The other is something we're being told about 2nd hand. I do think you instantly diving into that angle makes a lot of things make sense in hindsight though. Either that or your bar for a diva is significantly lower than mine.

When someone's overly competitive nature causes them to belittle those tasked with being their boss, this is diva behavior.

When someone's overly competitive nature causes them to hurt their own competitive chances, this is diva behavior.

When someone is visibly overweight, there's literally no doubt that that's not what the team wants, and he knows this, so it's diva behavior.