Dallas - SAS

[Godaddycurse]

None of these is worth losing for moving up from 11 to 8.

lets say someone you have really high on your board falls to 8 and you need to move up to get that guy, what asset would you use? Just curious which asset you find most expendable in such a scenario

I'd practice delayed gratification, but if I'm really, really high, then I'd consider your proposal, but consider the circumnstances:
1. It's a 2 player draft after that it's not clear the order after it.
2. 5 other teams passed on him, the team you're trading with (6th, doesn't think he's worth it) and you want to jump another 2 teams.
3. The player will not be a contributor in his 1st year, the player you're trading is a contributor.

The bar to pass here to rationalize this is very high, if you trust you're making the right decision, go for it.

right so what would you use to move up if its your choice of accompanying asset? lively vs PJ vs future lakers 1st

[Mavrelous]

lets say someone you have really high on your board falls to 8 and you need to move up to get that guy, what asset would you use? Just curious which asset you find most expendable in such a scenario

I'd practice delayed gratification, but if I'm really, really high, then I'd consider your proposal, but consider the circumnstances:
1. It's a 2 player draft after that it's not clear the order after it.
2. 5 other teams passed on him, the team you're trading with (6th, doesn't think he's worth it) and you want to jump another 2 teams.
3. The player will not be a contributor in his 1st year, the player you're trading is a contributor.

The bar to pass here to rationalize this is very high, if you trust you're making the right decision, go for it.

right so what would you use to move up if its your choice of accompanying asset? lively vs PJ vs future lakers 1st

Definitely PJ, he's a PF and Mavs invested max money in this position.

[wemby]

I'd practice delayed gratification, but if I'm really, really high, then I'd consider your proposal, but consider the circumnstances:
1. It's a 2 player draft after that it's not clear the order after it.
2. 5 other teams passed on him, the team you're trading with (6th, doesn't think he's worth it) and you want to jump another 2 teams.
3. The player will not be a contributor in his 1st year, the player you're trading is a contributor.

The bar to pass here to rationalize this is very high, if you trust you're making the right decision, go for it.

Just because you don't have a clear preference it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. One example would be the 2020 draft, where Haliburton was in the mix for the Warriors at 2, but once they decided to go Wiseman he slid all the way to 12. Was that a clear cut draft? Even less so than this one, where a player taken at 2 only had only played a handful of games, and the guy taken at 4 (Patrick Williams) probably would have been outside of the lottery for some teams. Yet the Mavs aggresively tried to move up to grab Haliburton once they saw him falling, they just couldn't put it together. This year it could be Fears, Queen, or whomever, I don't have the slightest idea, but there's quite a few polarizing prospects that probably range all over the place for different teams, and that is where you could see something like this happening. Most likely not, but who knows.

[Mavrelous]

I'd practice delayed gratification, but if I'm really, really high, then I'd consider your proposal, but consider the circumnstances:
1. It's a 2 player draft after that it's not clear the order after it.
2. 5 other teams passed on him, the team you're trading with (6th, doesn't think he's worth it) and you want to jump another 2 teams.
3. The player will not be a contributor in his 1st year, the player you're trading is a contributor.

The bar to pass here to rationalize this is very high, if you trust you're making the right decision, go for it.

Just because you don't have a clear preference it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. One example would be the 2020 draft, where Haliburton was in the mix for the Warriors at 2, but once they decided to go Wiseman he slid all the way to 12. Was that a clear cut draft? Even less so than this one, where a player taken at 2 only had only played a handful of games, and the guy taken at 4 (Patrick Williams) probably would have been outside of the lottery for some teams. Yet the Mavs aggresively tried to move up to grab Haliburton once they saw him falling, they just couldn't put it together. This year it could be Fears, Queen, or whomever, I don't have the slightest idea, but there's quite a few polarizing prospects that probably range all over the place for different teams, and that is where you could see something like this happening. Most likely not, but who knows.

1. Mavs offered 18 + 31 to get #10, and they also offered Brunson instead, they didn't offer a giod starter + 11 to get 8.
2. Haljburton was a COVID draft, lots of misses in this draft, Bane was a bigger miss given where he played.

We don't take extreme single example and apply it to make a bad deal look good.

[Godaddycurse]

I'd practice delayed gratification, but if I'm really, really high, then I'd consider your proposal, but consider the circumnstances:
1. It's a 2 player draft after that it's not clear the order after it.
2. 5 other teams passed on him, the team you're trading with (6th, doesn't think he's worth it) and you want to jump another 2 teams.
3. The player will not be a contributor in his 1st year, the player you're trading is a contributor.

The bar to pass here to rationalize this is very high, if you trust you're making the right decision, go for it.

Just because you don't have a clear preference it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. One example would be the 2020 draft, where Haliburton was in the mix for the Warriors at 2, but once they decided to go Wiseman he slid all the way to 12. Was that a clear cut draft? Even less so than this one, where a player taken at 2 only had only played a handful of games, and the guy taken at 4 (Patrick Williams) probably would have been outside of the lottery for some teams. Yet the Mavs aggresively tried to move up to grab Haliburton once they saw him falling, they just couldn't put it together. This year it could be Fears, Queen, or whomever, I don't have the slightest idea, but there's quite a few polarizing prospects that probably range all over the place for different teams, and that is where you could see something like this happening. Most likely not, but who knows.

1. Mavs offered 18 + 31 to get #10, and they also offered Brunson instead, they didn't offer a giod starter + 11 to get 8.
2. Haljburton was a COVID draft, lots of misses in this draft, Bane was a bigger miss given where he played.

We don't take extreme single example and apply it to make a bad deal look good.

I was thinking of the original lively/wallace trade when i did OP.. OKC took on bad salary (worth about a 1st) to jump 2 spots to nab wallace ahead of toronto i believe. I had PJ worth a non lotto 1st and didnt see many other available assets to substitute with.

[Mavrelous]

Just because you don't have a clear preference it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. One example would be the 2020 draft, where Haliburton was in the mix for the Warriors at 2, but once they decided to go Wiseman he slid all the way to 12. Was that a clear cut draft? Even less so than this one, where a player taken at 2 only had only played a handful of games, and the guy taken at 4 (Patrick Williams) probably would have been outside of the lottery for some teams. Yet the Mavs aggresively tried to move up to grab Haliburton once they saw him falling, they just couldn't put it together. This year it could be Fears, Queen, or whomever, I don't have the slightest idea, but there's quite a few polarizing prospects that probably range all over the place for different teams, and that is where you could see something like this happening. Most likely not, but who knows.

1. Mavs offered 18 + 31 to get #10, and they also offered Brunson instead, they didn't offer a giod starter + 11 to get 8.
2. Haljburton was a COVID draft, lots of misses in this draft, Bane was a bigger miss given where he played.

We don't take extreme single example and apply it to make a bad deal look good.

I was thinking of the original lively/wallace trade when i did OP.. OKC took on bad salary (worth about a 1st) to jump 2 spots to nab wallace ahead of toronto i believe. I had PJ worth a non lotto 1st and didnt see many other available assets to substitute with.

It was a consensus OKC overpaid, but they could easily afford it, here asset defecient Mavs are trading a starter to jump from 11 to 8, not really comparable.

[jbk1234]

This doesn't make a lick of sense for the Mavs unless they're going to blow up the roster and they're not going to blow up the roster until they've had a genuine chance to see the team healthy.

They have Klay. They don't need to duplicate his attributes and liabilities while adding Johnson's salary. They'd have to be really, really high on whoever was there at 8 to even consider some iteration of this trade. Also, there are almost more teams looking to trade back after No. 8 than there are looking to trade up.

[wemby]

I'd practice delayed gratification, but if I'm really, really high, then I'd consider your proposal, but consider the circumnstances:
1. It's a 2 player draft after that it's not clear the order after it.
2. 5 other teams passed on him, the team you're trading with (6th, doesn't think he's worth it) and you want to jump another 2 teams.
3. The player will not be a contributor in his 1st year, the player you're trading is a contributor.

The bar to pass here to rationalize this is very high, if you trust you're making the right decision, go for it.

Just because you don't have a clear preference it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. One example would be the 2020 draft, where Haliburton was in the mix for the Warriors at 2, but once they decided to go Wiseman he slid all the way to 12. Was that a clear cut draft? Even less so than this one, where a player taken at 2 only had only played a handful of games, and the guy taken at 4 (Patrick Williams) probably would have been outside of the lottery for some teams. Yet the Mavs aggresively tried to move up to grab Haliburton once they saw him falling, they just couldn't put it together. This year it could be Fears, Queen, or whomever, I don't have the slightest idea, but there's quite a few polarizing prospects that probably range all over the place for different teams, and that is where you could see something like this happening. Most likely not, but who knows.

1. Mavs offered 18 + 31 to get #10, and they also offered Brunson instead, they didn't offer a giod starter + 11 to get 8.
2. Haljburton was a COVID draft, lots of misses in this draft, Bane was a bigger miss given where he played.

We don't take extreme single example and apply it to make a bad deal look good.

I didn't say this was a good deal, I objected to your notion in points 1 & 2: 2 player draft, no clear order, because 5 other teams passed on someone you should be comfortable letting 2 more teams pick ahead of you.

We don't put words in someone's mouth that they didn't say to make a bad argument look good (strawman).

[Texas Chuck]

Also, there are almost more teams looking to trade back after No. 8 than there are looking to trade up.

Curious what this is based on?

[jbk1234]

Also, there are almost more teams looking to trade back after No. 8 than there are looking to trade up.

Curious what this is based on?

Obviously, it will differ draft to draft, but increasingly you're seeing reports of teams willing or open to trading back. That's right around where teams boards start to flatten out.

[Chinook]

The eighth pick is right around where you can draft a guy who doesn't have to be a projected starter, so I'm more than good with the team drafting a PG or C there. I'm not against getting a forward, but it would be able fit, not just getting a body. They have bodies already.

If the Spurs think their BPA will be there if they trade down, they should do so. I don't love this deal (I'd rather the Spurs just get a future first, and Johnson is still doing his job on the team), but if they think this helps them, they could go the other way.

[One_and_Done]

I doubt the Spurs have interest in this.

[wemby]

1. Mavs offered 18 + 31 to get #10, and they also offered Brunson instead, they didn't offer a giod starter + 11 to get 8.

BTW, it was Brunson + 18 + 31.
https://www.fieldhousefiles.com/p/podcast-tim-macmahon-unpacks-his-luka-book
“The Mavericks tried to get Haliburton in the draft,” MacMahon shared. “They tried to trade Jalen Brunson, 18 and 31 for Tyrese Haliburton, and they offered it to every team until Haliburton went off the board, including the New York Knicks, who had the eighth overall pick. They called (Knicks president) Leon Rose, "Hey, we got your godson. We got him. You want him? And the Knicks wanted Obi Toppin.”

[Mavrelous]

1. Mavs offered 18 + 31 to get #10, and they also offered Brunson instead, they didn't offer a giod starter + 11 to get 8.

BTW, it was Brunson + 18 + 31.
https://www.fieldhousefiles.com/p/podcast-tim-macmahon-unpacks-his-luka-book
“The Mavericks tried to get Haliburton in the draft,” MacMahon shared. “They tried to trade Jalen Brunson, 18 and 31 for Tyrese Haliburton, and they offered it to every team until Haliburton went off the board, including the New York Knicks, who had the eighth overall pick. They called (Knicks president) Leon Rose, "Hey, we got your godson. We got him. You want him? And the Knicks wanted Obi Toppin.”

No, it wasn't, MacMahon is wrong here, or misspoke, and if it was, that's an example of a terrible trade not a good one, as Brunson alone is better than Haliburton.

[wemby]

1. Mavs offered 18 + 31 to get #10, and they also offered Brunson instead, they didn't offer a giod starter + 11 to get 8.

BTW, it was Brunson + 18 + 31.
https://www.fieldhousefiles.com/p/podcast-tim-macmahon-unpacks-his-luka-book
“The Mavericks tried to get Haliburton in the draft,” MacMahon shared. “They tried to trade Jalen Brunson, 18 and 31 for Tyrese Haliburton, and they offered it to every team until Haliburton went off the board, including the New York Knicks, who had the eighth overall pick. They called (Knicks president) Leon Rose, "Hey, we got your godson. We got him. You want him? And the Knicks wanted Obi Toppin.”

No, it wasn't, MacMahon is wrong here, or misspoke, and if it was, that's an example of a terrible trade not a good one, as Brunson alone is better than Haliburton.

So McMahon got it wrong because "Mavrelous" says so, "trust me bro". Gotcha.

[Mavrelous]

BTW, it was Brunson + 18 + 31.
https://www.fieldhousefiles.com/p/podcast-tim-macmahon-unpacks-his-luka-book
“The Mavericks tried to get Haliburton in the draft,” MacMahon shared. “They tried to trade Jalen Brunson, 18 and 31 for Tyrese Haliburton, and they offered it to every team until Haliburton went off the board, including the New York Knicks, who had the eighth overall pick. They called (Knicks president) Leon Rose, "Hey, we got your godson. We got him. You want him? And the Knicks wanted Obi Toppin.”

No, it wasn't, MacMahon is wrong here, or misspoke, and if it was, that's an example of a terrible trade not a good one, as Brunson alone is better than Haliburton.

So McMahon got it wrong because "Mavrelous" says so, "trust me bro". Gotcha.

If you want to comeback why ignore the secomd part?
Your only example is for a jump much higher than 3 spots and a trade that is terrible in retrospect...