u/gigantism

Dunc'd On Podcast by Nate Duncan and Danny Leroux have hosted a paywalled program covering the league for the past few years. I've transcribed the relevant section on Dallas from their Western Conference Over-Unders:

>DANNY: We'll start alphabetically, A–Z, with the Dallas Mavericks. I mentioned this at the outset. Their over/under is set at 33.5 wins. And last year, to the point you mentioned, there weren't really any teams that won roughly that many games. The New Orleans Pelicans won 26 games, the Bulls won 31, and the Warriors won 37. So there weren't many teams like this. So what I did for this exercise, for a few teams, was look at what things were like at the All-Star break. Which isn't exactly the inflection point, but it's close enough. At that point, teams with differentials in this vicinity: the Bucks, the Grizzlies before they stopped playing a big man ever...were in this range. So would Dallas be a team like that? Both of those franchises were in the low teens on offense and the mid-20s on defense. But there are a lot of ways to get to a negative 4 net rating, or something in that vicinity.

>NATE: Yeah, so I haven't done their outlook yet. I wish I could've done all of them and thought about some of this a little more, so I'm turning my eye to them for the first time. There is some news involving the Mavericks, starting with Dereck Lively II, because he's not going to be ready to start the season. They haven't given us a timeline, but I'd be shocked if it were soon. He had a second foot surgery in December, after a surgery to remove bone spurs in his right foot in July 2025, and he spent most of last season in a walking boot. Even as recently as June, he said he couldn't run. I haven't seen the exact nature of this latest surgery. It was said he had a small fracture in his foot. We haven't heard the dreaded word "navicular," but if it were something on the outside of the foot, like a Jones fracture, we wouldn't be on this kind of timeline. So I'm just speculating here, but this timeline is consistent with something navicular-adjacent. Some sort of "something is wrong overall" type injury, not just an acute one. Going back even to his second season, when he had that stress-fracture situation, the whole Belton/Bisborough thing of them working him out with a broken foot. Obviously they want a slower timeline here. Him starting on the treadmill probably just means he's on the AlterG treadmill with less than his full body weight, doing a little bit of jumping. So, I'd imagine it's going to be, at minimum, a couple of months before he debuts. This also has implications for his possible extension, and for the Mavs' overall team-building. There are guys who've come back from this kind of thing, but at this point you have to be very skeptical he's going to be a foundational piece for this team.

>DANNY: Unfortunately, I agree. Dereck Lively showed a lot of flashes in his rookie year of a center who could be very useful, the kind of center who'd typically be a good fit next to Luka Dončić, who's unfortunately no longer there. You just can't count on it. I'd find it very hard to extend Lively at a number that's anything close to the mid-level exception, just because you don't know what you're going to get from him.

>NATE: I think they should do that, honestly. I mean, obviously if it's "hey, his foot is totally screwed up, he's not on schedule to return," that's one thing. But if their information is that he's on track to return from this latest injury, I'd offer him something in that mid-level range, because that's not going to kill you. Three years in that range could really work out to be a huge value contract. And if it doesn't, it's not the end of the world. But maybe you disagree. We talked about this a little.

>DANNY: I actually do agree with you, but I think a lot of teams don't approach it that way. The Mavericks also just don't have a ton of money on their books, so that small bet isn't that big a deal for them. But for Lively, the question is how aggressive are they willing to be, because he's clearly a much better player, when healthy, than some of the guys who've been "risk mitigator" signings in the past like a Zeke Nnaji or something like that. So it's perilous, it's a challenging situation. One thing I look at is how healthy was he last year? Last year, the Mavericks got 62 combined games out of Daniel Gafford and Dereck Lively. I hope and expect that number will be higher this year. The question is how much higher. I think it'll be higher, but not that much higher. So that's a real concern for the Mavericks, even with Cooper Flagg now being taller, which is good.

>NATE: Yeah, he's 6'10" in socks. Measured at the combine at 6'7¾" in socks. That's crazy that he's that big, almost power-forward size, isn't it, Danny?

>DANNY: A point forward, at least.

>NATE: Yeah. So as I look at this roster...Lively, I'm not going to assume they'll get a ton from him. Gafford really struggled with recurrent ankle injuries last year. They've tried to trade him and reportedly couldn't get a first for him. Then Morez Johnson...some of this Lively news, I think, is part of why they brought him in; he's really kind of a four or five. Same thing with Santi Aldama, who they traded for. They still have PJ Washington on this team, and obviously Flagg. Where they're very weak is shooting. Kyrie Irving and Max Christie are really the only guys I'd characterize as shooters. I'd say everybody else on this team is a below-average positional shooter. Jett Howard on a two-way...John Poulakidas...those guys are shooters, but they're both on two-ways. And Tarik Biberović too, I don't really know much about.

>And before we really talk about how it all fits together, there's a possibility Kyrie Irving doesn't finish the season on this team. And there's also a good possibility, since the Hornets' pick is top-2 protected, that they end up playing out the string here too.

>DANNY: Very true. And if we're evaluating the Mavericks on their current merits...you brought up shooting as a limitation, another one for me is ball-handling creation. Cooper Flagg had a lot of that last year, but if you think about how a rotation runs, Flagg and Irving presumably start, and then maybe Marcus Sasser is your other guy.

>NATE: Sergio de Larrea...that's the other thing too, they're going to have incentive in the form of Zaccharie Risacher. Let's see what happens with his fourth-year team option at $17 million. They've got Morez Johnson, they've got de Larrea, so they're actually going to have young guys they'll want to get out there at some point. And again, they don't control their own pick, so they don't really have an incentive to win. They don't have an incentive to lose, but they don't have much incentive to win either. So all of that's pretty interesting to think about with this team.

>DANNY: Right. And I still do notations for all these teams on what the pick situation is, whether it's in their control. The incentives are so different now, because the reason I want to note teams that don't control their own pick is in some of the worst-case scenarios, which really only affect things on the margins, it's not that a team is incentivized to lose, it's that they have a less strong incentive to win than other teams. For example, if you're at the bottom of the league and you have your own pick, you really, really need to push to win games at the end so you're a "three-ball" team, not a "two-ball" team. So if you have a smaller incentive to win, maybe you lean a little more on your young guys, or in the case of a team like the Mavericks, you just do what's best for your franchise long-term. And that's the other element of tanking that persists: okay, say Kyrie Irving finishes the season on the Mavericks, and they're eliminated from playoff contention...

>NATE: He also has a player option next year, by the way, right?

>DANNY: True. But let's use him as an example since we're talking about the Mavericks. Unless he really wants it, you're not going to play him as much, either in minutes per game or total games, because you don't want to put unnecessary miles on him. So even though that might be a little different for teams with full control of their pick who want to be a "three-ball" team, there's still going to be some of that. You're just not pedal to the metal. You're pedaled to somewhere, but somewhere less than the metal.

>NATE: You put it in neutral, even if you're not hitting the brakes.

>DANNY: Yes, I think that's another good way to put it. So I could see Dallas in that circumstance, even though it's not as extreme as it used to be. The other angle here is even if there isn't as much incentive to lose now, there's still incentive around the league to allocate your roster in a way that maximizes your timeline. If the Mavericks are going to be at their best two to three years from now, or even further out, then a player like Kyrie Irving isn't rigidly aligned with that timeline, and there are other teams trying to win now who could give you assets that align better with your timeline. So a move like that, even though you and I both believe the Mavericks should have already made it, if it happens, it's still reasonable for it to happen in the January–February window, even if the incentive isn't as clear-cut as it used to be.

>NATE: Yeah, and I think it's just going to be really hard for this team to be a good offense. Maybe with Kyrie on the floor, I could see them approaching league average. There's also performance risk with Kyrie, in addition to the fact that he probably won't play as many minutes, probably won't play back-to-backs, for all the reasons you noted, for both him and the team. It doesn't really make sense to push now. One thing that could change that is if they're close to the play-in and the bottom of the West is as bad as I think it could be...and they just decide, "let's go for it and get Cooper Flagg some experience." Again, this is a franchise player they're on the clock with in some ways. Having another totally desultory year...well, at least last year it got him Rookie of the Year, even as they lost a ton of games, but that won't matter as much this year.

>But I think these guys are close to a bottom-five offense. They just don't have enough shooting. Gafford, I don't know how effective he'll be if he's even still on the team. Morez Johnson is a rookie. Whenever Kyrie's off the floor, they're really not going to have enough shooting. As I said, he and Max Christie are their only shooters. Their backup playmaking...I like Sergio de Larrea, but rookie point guards usually suck. He's someone who'll probably get more run as the season goes on, as will Marcus Sasser. So there is talent on this roster, and especially with this 6'10" thing, I remain very high on Cooper Flagg...I think he's going to shoot it better, and he's also going to have the ball a lot. Ultimately, we'll also see what Dusty May is like as a coach — penciling him in as a rookie coach, slightly below average, not saying he'll necessarily be good or bad.

>So ultimately, with all the injury issues and possible trades, even though I really believe in Cooper Flagg, I don't know that they have another above-average starter on the team outside of him and Kyrie. So I've got to go under the 33.5. If this were last year's team, I'd say, "oh yeah, they could win 37 games". But especially without the incentive to push at the end of the year, I think these guys are under.

>DANNY: They're under for me as well. And this isn't a clear one. I don't think it'll be one of my best bets, because there are plenty of scenarios where they could be in the play-in vicinity and just push, with Cooper Flagg being that guy. If he's the second-best young player in the league, he can propel that. And we both really want to see him do more defensively. They still have too many forwards, and all that. But him being taller might make it easier, and him having a new head coach could potentially shift things too. But just the way Masai Ujiri has built this roster, there are a lot of other guys there. They haven't done the sorting I thought needed to happen, with guys like PJ Washington still around, and they've even brought in more power forwards somehow. So I think they could go over, but I think the under is the right play.

>NATE: And I think the way they'd have to do that is defensively, with Lively out and a bunch of young guys. Gafford's never been a great pick-and-roll defender, but again, I don't know what shape he'll be in. So I don't feel super strongly about this, but the under's got to come from somewhere. Since it seems like I'm leaning over on most of these other teams, I'll take the under here.

Overall, I think I'm inclined to agree with them. 33.5 is a very low number, but different roster dynamics like a potential Kyrie trade, the sheer lack of ball-handling creation, and the lack of proven shooting will result in a tall task for Dusty to sort out. And the pick situation creates incentives that are ultimately going to force certain priorities too relative to other teams. Unless Coop takes a Luka-like leap into top 5 or top 10 territory, my expectations are low.

We're right in the middle of the doldrums for the Mavs offseason, so I figured I'd share some prominent national NBA podcast reactions to Mavs offseason moves to foster some discussion.

Nate Duncan and his guest host John Hollinger (ex-Grizzlies front office, inventor of PER, currently with The Athletic) do a weekly episode catching up on league narratives, and the last portion of their most recent podcast was particularly Mavs-heavy (bundled in some Suns for context):

> NATE: We got a few other things here. We got extensions for Brooks and Naji Marshall. We got the Lakers being sold again. We got more Clippers circumvention stuff going on. We probably only have time for one more topic. Any of these you want to hit on? Your guy Dillon Brooks getting paid. Is that where we're going?

> JOHN: Dillon. 45th pick in the draft Dillon Brooks getting $72 million. Suns might have gotten a little high on their own supply here.

> NATE: Mat Ishbia? What?

> JOHN: Just, you know, extended for the year beyond this. 3 years for 72. I don't know what kind of market Dillon was going to face after this season, because he's not everyone's cup of tea. And I get sort of why they did it. He's a culture guy for them and stuff. But they went out a long way. I mean, they're going out to...this takes him into his 30s. Going into a guy's 30s when he's not...he's a good player, but he's not an All-Star, and historically that's been a dangerous move to make.

> And you already have this kind of disaster extension for Booker looming out there, which runs through 2030 as well. So again, I think the Suns have just overcommitted themselves and burned through assets. For a team that'll be fine this year...they play hard, and they've got some shooting, but I don't know...40 and 42?

> NATE: But he was under contract for this year, right?

> JOHN: Yes, correct. None of that was impacted by this. This is entirely about what he was going to get a year from now, and what kind of year he'd have had this year.

> NATE: Right. What are you locking in? Like, "Oh man, all right, fine, we're a championship contender this year, we just need to keep him around, and for the first couple years of this deal we won't contend without him" or something. But there just isn't that argument here. Quite frankly, they should have been exploring the trade market for him. If they could have gotten a first-round pick, they should have taken it. Obviously that's not the way Mat Ishbia is going to be thinking. And yeah, they've done some other nice stuff around the margins with this group.

> But my comment about the Brooks and Marshall deals is this is why the league is basically expensive in an unprecedented way right now, because deals like this, you just didn't really need to do them. It doesn't seem that horrible at the time. It's like a slight raise, going up more than the cap is most likely going to. And it's like, "Oh, this is just what you do." But no, this shouldn't be what you do, but it's what everyone does, and that's why every team is basically right at the tax line or above these days. It's a perfect example of why the league is where it is right now, much more so than, "Oh, the second apron penalties, no one could ever possibly deal with these second apron penalties."

> JOHN: Yeah. It's because you're paying Daniel Gafford $18 million, PJ Washington $21 million, and Naji Marshall $18 million a year from now, and you could've gotten that in free agency for $8m.

> NATE: And again, Brooks and Marshall have both been pretty good players.

> JOHN: Absolutely. Naji Marshall's been underpaid his whole career, so kudos to him. Undrafted player getting a $51-million-ish extension.

> NATE: Especially given where Dallas is. That's the other thing too. To lock him up through his age-30, 31, 32 seasons...it does decline slightly, but nonetheless, for where Dallas is, I can't say...I think some of their player evaluation stuff has been interesting. But the way they're handling their finances just hasn't been the way I'd want to be doing it going forward. With Marshall, you get what you could for him on a $9.4 million expiring contract at this point. Let the other team give him that next contract. And also, by the way, if you can't get a first for him on a $9–10 million expiring contract, that might be an indication that maybe you shouldn't give him this extension.

> JOHN: That's a tell. The market's telling you what's going to happen in free agency. But I think when you're already committed to seven other power forwards, it's important to get that eighth one locked down.

> NATE: Well, he's small-forward sized. He just shoots like a power forward. Maybe even a center.

> Oh, I did want to ask you this. I don't think we ever got a chance to get to it after the Lu Dort trade. Is Risacher like...you saw him up close a lot. I talked about this with Brad Rowland a little bit too. But is there just no chance for him? Was it right for Atlanta to just totally give up on him at this point? I know they want flexibility for next season, but do you think he just doesn't really have a chance to be a high-level player?

> JOHN: Define high level.

> NATE: Like a starting small forward.

> JOHN: Could he be a fifth starter? Yeah, I could see that. Could he be more than that? I kind of don't see that. I just don't think there's enough juice on the offensive end. In terms of handles, shooting, he's just not skilled enough, and he's not a crazy athlete. He has pretty good size, but he's not that physical or thick. He'll get better in some of these areas, obviously. He's still pretty young. For Dallas, in their position, to get him for free, I think was the right move. But I have a hard time seeing him getting beyond being a good role player, because I just don't think there's the level of shot creation that type of player would require. And if he's not going to be that guy, there's not something else to draw on.

> NATE: He could be like a 3-and-D guy.

> JOHN: That's what he'd have to be, but that guy is a fifth starter, right?

> NATE: Well, at small forward, it's not. I mean, that's a $30-million-a-year player.

> JOHN: Could he be as good as Jaden McDaniels? I think probably not.

> NATE: Yeah, I don't think he's flashed that level of defense. But this is my theory. feel free to refute it, you watch him more than I do. Could he, in a pinch, guard a team's best player? More often he'd be the second guy. He shoots it, he could do some stuff handling in transition. He shot 37% from three last year on decent volume, and I think the shot's going to be acceptable for a 3.

> So I could see him shooting it well enough, doing a bit of a drive-and-transition game, and being at least a number 2 perimeter defender. It's really that last part where I have the most question. I think he'll be adequate on offense. You never know how a guy's shooting is going to evolve, but he shoots it like he thinks he's going to make it, and he shot above league average last year on decent volume from three. So yeah, the question is really: can he at least be a number-two defensively, or is he bad on defense?

> JOHN: Kind of in between those two things, yeah. He's not a defensive playmaker, but given his size, he can move pretty well. You'd hope he can be something. Some of it's just physicality, guys kind of go through him right now. He's got a ways to go on all those things. I will say, where he's had his most impact has definitely been in transition.

> Yeah. So let's see how Dallas plays. I don't know if they've...I mean, we'll see what Kyrie looks like when he's back, and Coop...the faster Dallas plays, the better that'll be for him because that's been where he's made his most impact. Especially when he was playing with Trae, he could get some easy hit aheads and stuff.

> NATE: Yeah, all right, well, it'll be interesting. That type of player, the 3-and-D archetype, is one of the hardest to project. He's not an unbelievable athlete around the rim, particularly as a two-foot leaper, and doesn't do a ton as a help defender either. But yeah, I thought it was obviously a worthy gamble for Dallas.

I generally agree with them that the Naji extension was a bit aggressive. Who was giving Naji an above-MLE deal next year? What about Naji's playstyle or age indicates he would fit well with Coop? Some of those same complaints I have for PJ remaining on the team instead of getting traded. Though I'd argue their market value is probably higher than $8m like Hollinger said. That said, I also think the Risacher deal was a worthy flyer, if a bit of a pricey (in terms of contract) one.

Nothing has really been going on with the Mavs lately, so I figured I'd share some prominent national NBA podcast reactions to Mavs offseason moves to foster some discussion.

Dunc'd On Podcast by Nate Duncan and Danny Leroux have hosted a paywalled program for a few years now. I've transcribed the relevant section on Dallas:

> NATE: ...same [criticism with Phoenix's Dillon Brooks extension] with Dallas and Naji Marshall. Now, there's no indication we've heard that they've tried to trade him. Usually there'll be some kind of leak — like Daniel Gafford, it's gotten out that they've tried to trade him and haven't been able to get a first for him, in part due to his health issues.

> PJ Washington — they also extended him, that was under the previous regime. I wasn't, you know, I'm not going to argue that I was so against that. He's also 28. Naji Marshall — this will be his age 29, 30, and 31 seasons. It's a three-year, $52 million deal.

> Yeah, we have it projected to decline. But Naji Marshall signed the deal that Dillon Brooks should have been willing to sign, right? Marshall's just a tough fit because of his lack of shooting. I've always really liked him — part of that was based on the shooting improvement he showed his last year in New Orleans. And on the $10 million-a-year deal he's on, it's pretty reasonable. If he'd been making $15–17 million a year over the last couple of years, would I have supported that? Yeah, maybe. I mean, he still really should probably be a bench player, because he doesn't quite shoot it well enough and he does kind of need the ball. But his floater game is interesting, but that just works more off the bench.

> And so again, you just get back to this idea of, well, where are you going, what are you doing? They are, in theory, trying to win, but they also just got Cooper Flagg, and they got some other young talent in the door recently that I think they want to get a look at. Marshall's also basically a power forward — he'll guard small forward, but shooting-wise, he's a power forward, so that's another issue.

> So I don't think he really fits with the next really good version of this team. I would have tried to trade him, and then hey, if all you could get for him was maybe some seconds or whatever, well, that would probably indicate his value isn't that high. If he's really a guy at that position making $17 million a year, you probably should be able to get a first for him when he's making $9 million. And if you can't, that's an indication you spent too much. But they never explored his market — despite the fact that they have a bunch of other guys they want to get looks at, like they just traded for Zaccharie Risacher, right? And they don't even have to worry about getting relegated either. So to me, this should have been a chance to pick up an asset. They never explored his trade value, and instead decided to just overpay him with an extension — another guy who just doesn't really fit that well with Cooper Flagg.

> And that's unfortunately been the through-line from the Nico Harrison era to the Masai Ujiri era — guys who aren't really going to fit that well with Cooper Flagg. Marshall fits right into that. And I think this, again, is just going to end up being a bad contract. A guy who's like the 30th-best small forward in the league right now, paying him above the mid-level. It'll be about the mid-level by the end of the contract, but that's just not good business, especially when you didn't have to do it now.

> DANNY: Yeah. And I brought up the two teams with a history of this "death by a thousand cuts" thing — because it was, you know, the Dwight Powell deals and all those.

> NATE: Well, the Nuggets would like a word too.

> DANNY: Sure, sure, sure.

> NATE: Death by a thousand sword thrusts, because they gave out big extensions. Zeke Nnaji is probably the biggest one that falls in there.

> DANNY: But yeah. Yeah. So different regime, but similar problem for the Mavericks. Naji Marshall — we're coming into his age-29 season, he's already under contract through age 30, 31, 32, and that's exactly the time these players who can't shoot often lose some of their athleticism. Yes, his game is more strength-based, but — first of all, you shouldn't be keeping them, you should be trading them. And then, should you be extending them at all? And then, if so, at what price? So it's three decision mistakes rolled into one overall choice, and that's bad management. That's not to say the Mavericks are a disaster overall, that they're poorly run, but this is a decision I do not agree with.

One thing I'll quibble with Nate and Danny here is that I do remember there being reports that the Mavs discussed Naji deals with the 76ers, but those talks faltered because they weren't able to fetch a first. Which to me does bring me to a point I agree with. Who on earth in free agency would give a non-shooting, non-defending PF who needs to have the ball to derive his on-court value? It's giving Poeltl and Quickley and Gafford vibes.

The other moves the Mavs have made this off-season, I liked in isolation but didn't understand the overall roster direction. The Naji move was one I just straight didn't like in isolation.

The way I see it, there are only three centers on the roster: Gafford, Lively, and Cisse. Their skillsets as rim rollers basically mean they have to play 5 exclusively. Lively is perpetually hurt and may not even be the same player when he does come back. Cisse is not really a proven commodity yet despite being productive down the stretch (against many tanking teams).

Gafford, for my money, is the only proven center on the team, yet the Mavs apparently are itching to trade him after a rough injury-plagued season accompanied by horrible guard play when his value is at a nadir? I know Gafford wasn't brought in by Masai, but it seems like a serious mistake to sell low on a two-way center who was a starter for a Finals team fairly recently.

They paid the equivalent of a 1st round pick to get him but now can't get a similar return. But he's proven he can contribute to a high-level winning team and is now on a cost-controlled deal, which to me should have boosted his value if anything. I think that with a new medical staff and Kyrie (and Sergio 🤞), Gafford could have a comeback year. Then see what his value is at the deadline.

> You said at your season-ending press conference that the second apron wouldn't prevent you from keeping this version of the Thunder together. But if we saw changes, it would be finances that would force a transaction, like the one we saw with Lu Dort. Is that still the case?

> Presti: Yes, that's accurate. We were comfortable being over the second apron with this team and how we were uniquely constructed. We have been consistent with that view for a few years now.

> This was a financial decision. The impression I have been given is that the savings generated this summer, and from being out of the tax the last several years, will be re-allocated to future teams. Along with other new well-documented revenue streams, this will allow us to make more basketball-related decisions over the next several years.

> We have a team that is capable of contention. And as I understand it, the decisions this summer have positioned us financially to maintain a team of this caliber.

Source