Why is that more reasonable to believe?

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a GM who had made several good moves (presumably to cover for Luka's weaknesses), then decides to make what was widely considered the worst move in league history? There are dumb GM's then there are "all-time bad GM's," which Nico did not look like until 5 months ago. And I'm not on his payroll; defending him does nothing for me. Don't care if people like him or don't.

But can you at least admit it appears weird? Is it possible you want to say believing this doesn't make sense is irrational simply because "Nico's dumb" is a more palatable stance to take?

Sir, you forgot about the trade bounty known as Austin Rivers. Closes the gap easily.


Upon revisiting that trade I definitely thought "Man, Stern effed up."

I think stupid is weird, so yeah it's weird. Far easier to believe that the guy that traded KP for what he got, acquired Grant Williams for what he spent, and let Brunson walk is capable of making a stupid decision than it is to believe the league forced the Mavericks to trade Luka to maximize the value of the Lakers when they got sold.

Quote:

---

A two-year deal from Dallas approaching the $12 million range is widely expected for D'Angelo Russell … largely because the whole league knows that the Mavericks can only offer the former All-Star guard a two-year pact that starts at the $5.7 million taxpayer midlevel exception.

Word is that the Mavericks, though, have not abandoned hope of creating roster room for re-signing Dante Exum even if they seal their anticipated deal with the Brooklyn free agent.

Russell would be the Mavericks' 15th and final standard contract once he comes to terms, but the Mavericks are expected to explore the trade market for 2023 first-round pick Olivier-Maxence Prosper in search of a team willing to absorb his contract and potentially open a spot to bring back Exum for additional backcourt depth.

---

Marc Stein

Just posted the '26 season thread as FA begins at midnight tonight and the new league calendar officially flips!

https://texags.com/forums/52/topics/3547945/replies/70467905

I would disagree on what the foundational value of the NBA is. The foundational value is that it's entertaining, and that people can choose a group of people to represent themselves. That's why the NBA is vastly more popular than the WNBA (which is also filled with competitive athletes, and is actually MORE exclusive than the NBA), and why we even have people following a team that many feel betrayed them in the worst way. All that aside, we have plenty of examples of companies selling a product that doesn't deliver what is advertised. Companies literally do cost-benefit analyses of whether to provide a superior product or one that is more profitable (maybe most infamously exemplified with Ford and the Pinto). Doesn't it make sense that if the league thought it could get away with advertising itself as more competitive than it actually was, while profiting off of the lie, it would?

All that aside, I'm not saying everything is fake/scripted, WWE style (which, oddly enough, some adults still treat as real).

I'm saying SOME things are controlled, at least in crucial, pivotal moments. From the administration's perspective, who cares if some people suspect the lottery is not 100% legit? The "frozen envelope" for Ewing didn't result in widespread boycotts and riots, after all. The athletes are still amazing, they're still playing the games for real, and the storylines resulting from actual drama and emotions put butts in seats, and eyes on screens. There's no need to astroturf that.

But Occam's razor would suggest that if the league thought there was more money in particular players playing on particular teams, they would at least be strongly inclined to do all they could to make that a reality. Fans do not care that much about fairness, after all, or else there would be no bandwagonners.

And the dumb explanations by Nico et al. after the fact (which also made no sense from a reputational standpoint) were controversial, even if they we're disgusting. Controversy in general is good in the entertainment industry.

I think people are tired of thinking of this whole travesty, so I can get off my pulpit if no one wants to hear any more. But I hope you can see why some would think there is a possibility this whole saga was manufactured without having to make logical leaps.

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/mavericks/2025/06/30/dangelo-russell-mavericks-free-agency/

DANManman said:

---

Why is that more reasonable to believe?

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a GM who had made several good moves (presumably to cover for Luka's weaknesses), then decides to make what was widely considered the worst move in league history? There are dumb GM's then there are "all-time bad GM's," which Nico did not look like until 5 months ago. And I'm not on his payroll; defending him does nothing for me. Don't care if people like him or don't.

But can you at least admit it appears weird? Is it possible you want to say believing this doesn't make sense is irrational simply because "Nico's dumb" is a more palatable stance to take?

---

He did, and attempted to do, a lot of dumb things beyond the "good moves to cover for luka's weaknesses" before the Luka trade

So why did we not get tyus jones for 7M?!

And we'd have had another Duke guy

zgolfz85 said:

---

So why did we not get tyus jones for 7M?!

---

You don't have $7M.

Bros there's a new thread…

shack009 said:

---

Bros there's a new thread…

---

Y'all coulda told me earlier

Foundational means that it underlies all of the other aspects of a business. When you say "The NBA makes more money than the WNBA." It doesn't understand what foundational means. If the NBA and the WNBA are both fair competitive leagues then the foundation is the same and the differentiation are the things built on top of those, i.e. superior athleticism and skill.


Why would the league stop at just dictating where the players go? If the league possesses the power and willingness to use it that you say they do, then why would they potentially expose the scheme by making such an unbelievably stupid trade, when they could accomplish the same goal by crafting a more fair trade and build the team through multiple transactions? Why wouldn't they craft a more believable explanation as to why the Mavericks traded Luka and avoid alienating a fanbase in the 4th largest media market in the NBA and among (if not THE) fastest growing? Your justification for the trade, need for viewership, doesn't even hold water, because the league JUST signed an 11 year TV deal that doubles their TV revenue that lasts for the next 11 years and doesn't start until next season. The leagues revenue for the last 5 years has grown at >7% per year. That doesn't compare as well to the last decade (9%), but absolutely blows out of the water the 4.5% growth they had during the decade preceding that.


The Frozen Envelope isn't real. There were no riots, because it's as baseless as your claim that the league orchestrated the trade. No evidence that it occurred other than Ewing went to New York. No evidence that your version of events happened other than Luka went to LA. It is a speculation by a random fan that caught on with no evidence that it actually occurred.

The Knicks had the same chance of winning the lottery as any team in the tumbler and they won. If the Clippers had won the claim would have been "It was rigged, the league wants the Clippers to be good now that they moved to LA last year." If the Kings had won the conspiracy would have been "The made sure Ewing when to the Kings, because they want to jumpstart the fanbase now that they're moving from Kansas City to Sacramento next season." Nearly half the outcomes have a plausible explanation of why the league would desire to rig the lottery even if the lottery was performed fairly.


Occam's Razor means the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true explanation. Nico is stupid. Nico made a stupid trade. Nico says stupid things solely requires that Nico is stupid. Your version of reality requires that the league is both dishonest and incompetent, that Ernst and Young is willing to risk their reputation over a basketball game, that the lottery administrator is willing to risk their entire business by performing a rigged lottery demonstrating to the world that they know how to do when their lotteries are awarding prizes in the billions of dollars. That Nico says and does stupid things, not because he's stupid, but because it's helpful to the league to have one of their GM's look like an absolute doofus.


They're not "logical leaps" they are anti-logic.

hph6203 said:

---

-The league bought the Hornets in December 2010. The league wanted to keep the team in New Orleans so as not to damage the perception of the league. The sale was also delayed, because the league shut down in the 2011 offseason. After re-opening the league collected bids and was officially sold 5 months later.

-Chris Paul in the midst of the turmoil was on the final year of his contract with a player option the following year. At the beginning of the season/end of the lockout he made it clear he would be opting out and not resigning with the team. (Different)

-The GM of the Hornets negotiated a trade with the Lakers that returned less than the perceived value of Chris Paul and the owner (the league) when presented with the trade vetoed the package. (Different)

-The team that ultimately lost their franchise player was sold. (Different)

-The team that traded their franchise player tied for the third worst record and had a 1 in ~7 chance of getting the first pick. If the team with the best chance had won people would be saying the league funneled Davis to Jordan, if the second best chance had won it would be the league wanted a good team in DC, if the 3rd best chance had won it would've been the league wanted to make up for Lebron leaving. (Different)


The fact the Lakers are now being sold doesn't increase the similarities between the two scenarios. It is the opposite of what happened. The league didn't maximize the value of the team being sold, the player being traded was traded because he asked to be traded.



I'm going to reiterate over and over that you all should stop trying to rationalize the trade as a conspiracy and just accept that our GM is stupid enough to operate on a platitude like "defense wins championships." Guy just sat in an introductory press conference for Flagg and said "I think the fans will now see the vision." And also said that they were able to get Flagg because "Fortune favors the bold." He is. A doofus.

---

You all need to get over the Nico hate. The Mavericks were never going to win a championship under Luka Doncic.


Defense does win championships...and Nico's vision is to transform the Mavericks into a top 5 defensive team in the NBA.

They were already there when they acquired Anthony Davis, but injuries robbed us of seeing what Derek Lively, Gafford, Kyrie and AD could all be at the same time.

The one game Kyrie, Gafford and AD played they set a franchise record for most blocks in game.

Adding Cooper Flagg only accelerates the Mavs timeline into being a defensive first team for the first time in their franchise history.

Gafford, Lively, and Kyrie were already on the roster though. You can keep Luka and still be a strong defensive team overall if you construct the roster correctly. It's like Nico totally didn't understand that reality.

Look, man. Believe what you want.

But you're wrong about the foundation of the NBA. It's foundation is that it's entertaining, and I can't believe I have to spell that out. If it wasn't entertaining, it wouldn't sell, and it wouldn't even exist in the form it does.

People don't make claims simply based on whether they can produce paper trails. This isn't a court of law; we can use circumstantial evidence to back claims here. And, there are no stakes either way. But again, I'm done.

I would just suggest being more graceful to those who don't agree with you in the future. I didn't say you weren't thinking straight, and respect your position, even if I don't agree, but the sentiment obviously isn't mutual. I explained my logic; if you can't see, it, then it is what it is. You can consider what I said "out there," or " hard to believe," but it's not illogical just because you don't believe it.

If you want someone to take you seriously then you need more than "I've got a gut feeling." Pattern recognition is more often wrong than it is right and when you say "This is what happened." You need more than that.


I want you to imagine what happens to the NBA if it's not just your gut feeling that Luka was forced to the Lakers by the league, but there is definitive proof that it happened. What happens to the fandom in Dallas? Destroyed. Now imagine what people in Indiana, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Charlotte, Orlando think when they recognize that the league is not fair. That their team is at a demonstrable disadvantage not just due to geography, but because it has the potential to be pilfered for the benefit of the largest markets in the league by the entity tasked with making the competition fair. Does their fandom erode? Do you lose viewership. Obviously. How does the league operate when they can't run profitable teams in smaller markets that operate as a foe for the larger markets to draw eyes to? It doesn't.

That's what foundational means.

In the last 10 years 4 champions have had defenses outside the top 5 (15, 8, 11, 10). In the last 10 years 3 champions have had an offense outside the top 5 (17, 7, 11).

Sometimes sayings are just things people on TV say, because it makes them sound wise. "Defense wins championships, and I'm an appreciator of defense, because most people aren't and you have to be a more refined viewer to really appreciate defense and it's really rarely understood that defense wins championships."

Spaceship said:

---

Gafford, Lively, and Kyrie were already on the roster though. You can keep Luka and still be a strong defensive team overall if you construct the roster correctly. It's like Nico totally didn't understand that reality.

---

When your best player is overweight and refuses to play defense you are never going to be an elite defensive team.

The 80's Pistons, The 90's Bulls, the Rockets back to back championships under Hakeem, the Tim Duncan Spurs, the 2010's Golden St Warriors.....all of these teams that won multiple titles were consistently the top defensive teams in the league.

The Mavs best defensive finish in franchise history was 4th in the 2006-07 season. That is also the season they set a franchise record for victories going 67-15.

[You can contact us if you want to post again. -Staff]

hph6203 said:

---

In the last 10 years 4 champions have had defenses outside the top 5 (15, 8, 11, 10). In the last 10 years 3 champions have had an offense outside the top 5 (17, 7, 11).

Sometimes sayings are just things people on TV say, because it makes them sound wise. "Defense wins championships, and I'm an appreciator of defense, because most people aren't and you have to be a more refined viewer to really appreciate defense and it's really rarely understood that defense wins championships."

---

52-30 is the best record the Mavs ever had under Luka....and when they traded him they were 26-23.

James Harden, Luka Doncic, Allen Iverson. All of these guys are incredible Hall of Fame caliber offensive players who give little on defense....and between the 3 of them (as the best player) we are talking about 2 Finals Appearances....both losses.

The Mavericks weren't going anywhere building around a star who gave no effort on the defensive side of the ball.
Luka has 3 (maybe 4) seasons of being an elite player before he drops off. If the Lakers don't win a title in the next three years I doubt that Luka will ever win as the best player.

Jokic being a world renowned defender. Steph Curry putting the clamps on people on the regular. Dirk Nowitzki built a wall around the paint.

hph6203 said:

---

Jokic being a world renowned defender.

---

HPH,

Multiple.....plural. More than one.

Yeah...you can get A championship with a roster that is average defensively.

The teams that are dynastic were almost all consistently the best defensive teams in the NBA.

Patrick Dumont and Nico Harrison are pivoting the Mavericks away from being an offense first team to a defensive oriented ballclub.

Patrick Dumont did not want to pay a supermax contract to a coddled superstar who couldn't stay in shape, didn't play defense, and never gave the Mavericks one season of playing 90% of his games.

If Luka regularly played 75-82 games each season the Mavericks would have consistently won over 55 games.
They never won 55 in the Luka era.

The Mavs are going to be better under AD, Kyrie and Flagg than they ever were under Luka....and this has the Nico haters terrified.
It's Steve Nash Part II....and just like Nash....I expect Doncic to still be a great player...but the Mavs will do better without him.

They pivoted to being an old ballclub. The defensive centerpiece is a guy who will be lucky to play half their games from here on out. And speaking of centerpiece, he doesn't want to play center

Last 11 titles have had a top 5 player in the league on the team. That's the common thread

hph6203 said:

---

Kellso said:

---

You all need to get over the Nico hate. The Mavericks were never going to win a championship under Luka Doncic.

---

So we've moved the goal post from can't win a championship to can't be a dynasty. At least you admit you're wrong. Big step. Not sure how you're going to build a dynasty with a 33 and 34 year old as your center pieces though.

---

6 edits....Damn my man.

Nico Harrison plan is to transform the Mavericks into something they've never ever been....which is a great defensive team. The teams that win multiple championships are typically the top defensive teams in the league.
Top offensive teams from the 2000's like the Kings, Suns and the Mavs usually flamed out in the 2nd round, or WCF.

The 25-26 Mavs will be the best defensive team they've ever had in franchise history.
I'm going on record. I think Nico is a genius. I think the Mavs new ownership is going to take the Mavs to the next level.

I love Mark Cuban, and everything he contributed to the Mavs and the city of Dallas. I'm glad he's still involved with the franchise.
All that being said……. I'm happy there has been a change of ownership. Cuban's first 12 years owning the franchise were incredible. But the Mavericks franchise had gotten stale since the 2011 Championship.

Once Cuban became a certified celebrity (the 2011 title validated everyone in the Mavs organization) the Mavs slowly descended to being a middle tier franchise for a good 10 years before they hired Nico Harrison.

From 2012 to 2021 the Dallas Mavericks won no playoff series. They always struck out on major free agents. Donnie Nelson had no great relationships with American players or agents…which is why he was always banking on the next Euro.

The Mavs have not had a 55 win season since 2011. Since winning the 2011 Championship they've only had 3 teams exceed 50 wins. The 14-15 Mavs (50), the 21-22 Mavs (52), and the 23-24 Mavs(50)

The Mavericks were going to accomplish the same thing the 76ers did under Allen Iverson....one Finals appearances and no championships. Luka and AI were going to get their shots and points...but these offense only guys are not the type of players you want to build a team around.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

They pivoted to being an old ballclub. The defensive centerpiece is a guy who will be lucky to play half their games from here on out. And speaking of centerpiece, he doesn't want to play center

---

If your whole argument is that Anthony Davis sucks and will only play 40 games a season....then I don't know what to tell you. Anthony Davis is already the best defensive player the Mavericks have ever had in Franchise history.

As disastrous as last season was....the AD haters (like yourself) will never want to admit that the Mavs were 7-3 in the first 10 games that AD played....and this was with no Kyrie and injuries to almost every other starting player.

God works in mysterious ways.

Cooper Flagg will be everything that Luka wasn't:
- He will play elite level defense. He won't be whining. He will be in shape. He will not run out of gas in the 4th quarter of games.
Will he be able to score like Luka? Probably not. But that is not Coopers game.

His game reminds me of Anthony Davis or Kawaii Leonard. I don't expect Flagg to become an elite scorer until his 3rd or 4th year.
I'm not sure if Cooper will help all that much on the offensive side of the ball in his rookie year. He will impact the defensive side of the ball immediately.

Cooper Flagg will not make us forget Luka….but he will be the Jason Terry to Steve Nash.
There are still plenty of Steve Nash fans here in Dallas (I'm one of them) but Jason Terry is the one that became the legend in Dallas.

Terry helped lead the Mavs to their first two Western Conference Championships in 2006 and 2011. Steve Nash made the Hall of Fame (as will Luka) but he never made the Finals.

The Mavericks are going to be better under AD, Kyrie and Flagg than they ever were under Luka.

12 outside the top 5 offenses. 12 outside the top 5 defenses. Average offensive ranking 4.8. Average Defensive ranking 5.2. What you're doing is identifying teams that were lopsided to one side of the ball and saying "SEE: offense not as important" but in reality what you'll find is that you cannot be BAD at offense or defense and expect to win a championship. It can happen, but it is rare.

It is a bias of recollection. People remember teams with elite offenses, but bad defenses, because they are fun to watch. People don't remember elite defenses with bad offenses that don't win championships, because it is murder on the eyes.