Around the NBA:2025-6

[Coolbreeze44]

Not sure where to put this.

The Mavericks’ reported GM target list includes Sam Presti, Tim Connelly, and Brad Stevens.

According to Chris Haynes, at least one of those candidates would listen to the opportunity

(Via @SiriusXMNBA )

I'm guessing Stevens would not.

[rapsuperstar31]

Not sure where to put this.

The Mavericks’ reported GM target list includes Sam Presti, Tim Connelly, and Brad Stevens.

According to Chris Haynes, at least one of those candidates would listen to the opportunity

(Via @SiriusXMNBA )

Two years in a row we have to worry about it, last year it was Detroit that wanted him. Hopefully Arod/Lore lock him in after Tim locks in Ayo, Kyle and maybe Bones.

[WildWolf2813]

it's Tim

and if he leaves, I guess I'd be OK with it, only it leaves the POBO job as a less than desirable job for the next guy since he's cleaned us out of assets.

[Q-is-here]

it's Tim

and if he leaves, I guess I'd be OK with it, only it leaves the POBO job as a less than desirable job for the next guy since he's cleaned us out of assets.

Really? Do you think Rudy, Randle, DDV, Jaden, Beringer, and this year's 1st rounder aren't assets?

It's not exactly a war chest, but I think there are assets that can be further harvested, traded, or developed.

[Mnwild1128]

there is a talent deficit in the league, definitely enough to not want 2 more teams.

at the end of the day, we see all this supposed top end talent and these teams take em and still think it's not enough and many times they're right. Nobody wants to take a guy, go full steam ahead only to find out the ceiling is low.


The Nets are in a position where they have a really good coach and the team is super green. They play anywhere from 3-5 rookies at a time. They're just searching for a top end talent. At their best, they're feisty and might steal a win. At their best, 25-27 wins is doable, but what does that do?

The league has never had more talent than right now. Roster building is not about talent. It is about fit and chemistry. So you can have good players and still suck.

[Q-is-here]

there is a talent deficit in the league, definitely enough to not want 2 more teams.

at the end of the day, we see all this supposed top end talent and these teams take em and still think it's not enough and many times they're right. Nobody wants to take a guy, go full steam ahead only to find out the ceiling is low.


The Nets are in a position where they have a really good coach and the team is super green. They play anywhere from 3-5 rookies at a time. They're just searching for a top end talent. At their best, they're feisty and might steal a win. At their best, 25-27 wins is doable, but what does that do?

The league has never had more talent than right now. Roster building is not about talent. It is about fit and chemistry. So you can have good players and still suck.

Yeah, mostly agree. We've seen how the demise of "super-friends" teams in the recent past (Brooklyn, Phoenix, Clippers) has been overtaken by mostly organic roster-builds through smart drafting and adroit trades. The fact the Wolves can barely secure a 5th or 6th seed in the West goes to show just how damn good the league is now.

[AussieWolf3]

there is a talent deficit in the league, definitely enough to not want 2 more teams.

at the end of the day, we see all this supposed top end talent and these teams take em and still think it's not enough and many times they're right. Nobody wants to take a guy, go full steam ahead only to find out the ceiling is low.


The Nets are in a position where they have a really good coach and the team is super green. They play anywhere from 3-5 rookies at a time. They're just searching for a top end talent. At their best, they're feisty and might steal a win. At their best, 25-27 wins is doable, but what does that do?

The league has never had more talent than right now. Roster building is not about talent. It is about fit and chemistry. So you can have good players and still suck.

Yeah, mostly agree. We've seen how the demise of "super-friends" teams in the recent past (Brooklyn, Phoenix, Clippers) has been overtaken by mostly organic roster-builds through smart drafting and adroit trades. The fact the Wolves can barely secure a 5th or 6th seed in the West goes to show just how damn good the league is now.

With the likely incoming expansion teams, I find this to be an interesting discussion.
I'm too young and not enough of a historian to fully know the answer to: "are there more good basketball players now than X number of years ago"

My perception is that there are undoubtedly more kids coming into the league with NBA bodies and athleticism, but are there more good players? My instinct is to say no, because the US in particular has done such a poor job of developing talent and has too many kids not playing real basketball. Europe however seems to be teaching high level, fundamental basketball- perhaps this is why most of the best NBA players aren't American?

Anyway, I'm trying to see if there is a decent analytical proxy for this question, and for that I turned to DARKO's DPM.

There are 162 players this year with a DPM higher than 0.
In 2001 --- as far back as DPM data goes --- there were 106.

I'll be interested to keep digging on this part I guess that suggests the talent pool as at least widened

[rapsuperstar31]

The league has never had more talent than right now. Roster building is not about talent. It is about fit and chemistry. So you can have good players and still suck.

Yeah, mostly agree. We've seen how the demise of "super-friends" teams in the recent past (Brooklyn, Phoenix, Clippers) has been overtaken by mostly organic roster-builds through smart drafting and adroit trades. The fact the Wolves can barely secure a 5th or 6th seed in the West goes to show just how damn good the league is now.

With the likely incoming expansion teams, I find this to be an interesting discussion.
I'm too young and not enough of a historian to fully know the answer to: "are there more good basketball players now than X number of years ago"

My perception is that there are undoubtedly more kids coming into the league with NBA bodies and athleticism, but are there more good players? My instinct is to say no, because the US in particular has done such a poor job of developing talent and has too many kids not playing real basketball. Europe however seems to be teaching high level, fundamental basketball- perhaps this is why most of the best NBA players aren't American?

Anyway, I'm trying to see if there is a decent analytical proxy for this question, and for that I turned to DARKO's DPM.

There are 162 players this year with a DPM higher than 0.
In 2001 --- as far back as DPM data goes --- there were 106.

I'll be interested to keep digging on this part I guess that suggests the talent pool as at least widened

NAW was almost out of the league, Bones was out of the league, 24 ppg scorer that gets double teamed most games Cam Thomas gets waived twice in a month. I think there is enough talent in the league for 2 more teams. Hopefully Vegas doesn't become another LA/Miami where all the star players want to go there and play. We don't need another team that steals players.

[AussieWolf3]

Yeah, mostly agree. We've seen how the demise of "super-friends" teams in the recent past (Brooklyn, Phoenix, Clippers) has been overtaken by mostly organic roster-builds through smart drafting and adroit trades. The fact the Wolves can barely secure a 5th or 6th seed in the West goes to show just how damn good the league is now.

With the likely incoming expansion teams, I find this to be an interesting discussion.
I'm too young and not enough of a historian to fully know the answer to: "are there more good basketball players now than X number of years ago"

My perception is that there are undoubtedly more kids coming into the league with NBA bodies and athleticism, but are there more good players? My instinct is to say no, because the US in particular has done such a poor job of developing talent and has too many kids not playing real basketball. Europe however seems to be teaching high level, fundamental basketball- perhaps this is why most of the best NBA players aren't American?

Anyway, I'm trying to see if there is a decent analytical proxy for this question, and for that I turned to DARKO's DPM.

There are 162 players this year with a DPM higher than 0.
In 2001 --- as far back as DPM data goes --- there were 106.

I'll be interested to keep digging on this part I guess that suggests the talent pool as at least widened

NAW was almost out of the league, Bones was out of the league, 24 ppg scorer that gets double teamed most games Cam Thomas gets waived twice in a month. I think there is enough talent in the league for 2 more teams. Hopefully Vegas doesn't become another LA/Miami where all the star players want to go there and play. We don't need another team that steals players.

That almost (maybe ?¿) Proves my point, there are guys --- particularly American athletes--- who can run the floor and score, but they lack enough all around basketball skills to be relied on to get rotation minutes.

I would estimate that every team has at 1 player that simply isn't an NBA baller, and some teams have multiple of those players in their rotation! Hell,. competitive teams like Denver this year and LAL last year have/had this problem.

I would think that if the league is really ready for two more teams, than this wouldn't be the problem.

[Q-is-here]

With the likely incoming expansion teams, I find this to be an interesting discussion.
I'm too young and not enough of a historian to fully know the answer to: "are there more good basketball players now than X number of years ago"

My perception is that there are undoubtedly more kids coming into the league with NBA bodies and athleticism, but are there more good players? My instinct is to say no, because the US in particular has done such a poor job of developing talent and has too many kids not playing real basketball. Europe however seems to be teaching high level, fundamental basketball- perhaps this is why most of the best NBA players aren't American?

Anyway, I'm trying to see if there is a decent analytical proxy for this question, and for that I turned to DARKO's DPM.

There are 162 players this year with a DPM higher than 0.
In 2001 --- as far back as DPM data goes --- there were 106.

I'll be interested to keep digging on this part I guess that suggests the talent pool as at least widened

NAW was almost out of the league, Bones was out of the league, 24 ppg scorer that gets double teamed most games Cam Thomas gets waived twice in a month. I think there is enough talent in the league for 2 more teams. Hopefully Vegas doesn't become another LA/Miami where all the star players want to go there and play. We don't need another team that steals players.

That almost (maybe ?¿) Proves my point, there are guys --- particularly American athletes--- who can run the floor and score, but they lack enough all around basketball skills to be relied on to get rotation minutes.

I would estimate that every team has at 1 player that simply isn't an NBA baller, and some teams have multiple of those players in their rotation! Hell,. competitive teams like Denver this year and LAL last year have/had this problem.

I would think that if the league is really ready for two more teams, than this wouldn't be the problem.

Here is a very tangible example: Rebounding specialists. There used to be a place in the NBA for elite rebounders that couldn't do much else (think Kenneth Faried or Chris Dudley), but now there is no way those guys would get minutes because bigs these days need to have other skills besides just being a big bodied banger that crashes the glass. Andre Drummond, a former lottery pick and one-time all star early in his career, has barely hung on as a backup Center with a skill-set and game that would have made him a sure-fire starting Center and likely multiple-time all-star back in the 90s and aughts.

As for the Europeans, they are one of the reasons the NBA is more skilled that ever. It's a far more international league now than it was 20+ years ago.