(02-12-2022, 02:14 AM)Omega_Supreme Wrote: [ -> ]LOL now you are saying stats don't matter of course they do.
No I didn't. Stats are important but they don't paint the entire picture. I've also never argued for keeping KP so I'm not sure what you are prattling on about. If you want to be disingenuous and argue in bad faith, I'm done with this conversation with you.
(02-12-2022, 01:19 AM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]I'm judging him by the views of people that watch him play
Here's the thing about that. No one who watches him play knows what happened in contract negotiations or what other teams are threatening to outbid them for the player's service.
The list of things that writers and fans don't know about contracts when they are signed is enormous.
Who will they get to replace the player if that player is lost to another team?
Are you a team that frequently needs to overpay in general in order not to get outbid (which is usually more than half the league and includes Dallas)?
What are the future ramifications and cap issues?
Does that person currently add something that truly advances your metrics?
How does that player compliment the system on offense and defense?
Do the player's current metrics appear to be sustainable?
The list is long, and contracts are notorious for being rear-view mirror discussions. I weary of these discussions, and I promise not to write about them after this post. But hindsight is useless here, and way too many people think they know more than they do.
Did they overpay for Bertans? Sure. Did they think that at the time it was signed? Possibly. But either way, Washington thought Bertans brought something that few people had - a 3-point shooting big man that could be a game-changer. He was generating excitement in 2018-2019. Washington thought they couldn't let him walk without making it attractive to stay. They desperately needed some more player-buzz. For an organization to let an interesting player go to another team can be a public relations nightmare. Steve Nash is a classic example, and the look of that would have been much worse if Dallas had not eventually gotten a championship.
Every team has bad contracts because players disappoint you from one year to the next. But fans and writers love to drag out the "we overpaid!" argument. Some players are overpaid on every team and in every year. No team ownership gets it right every year. Far more important here is how you manage bad contracts going forward. Dallas is not so bad when you look at it that way.
I’m not buying the roster is set thing from Nico. I think he said that because he didn’t want any of the 11-15 players worrying about being cut. Also because Dragic won’t be bought out immediately.
I think it will be one of Brown, Burke or Frank and Dragic replaces them. The money owed to them next year will just be dead cap. We re-sign Brunson too and go far into the tax next year and just don’t worry about what next year’s total looks like. This is Cubans contribution. “Hey we screwed up with KP, but I’ll pony up $ to do my part to cover up this mistake”
$29 million in expiring next year. We go from like $170 million down to $150 million the following year
(02-12-2022, 09:27 AM)Jason Terry Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not buying the roster is set thing from Nico. I think he said that because he didn’t want any of the 11-15 players worrying about being cut. Also because Dragic won’t be bought out immediately.
I hope you're right about it being a bluff, but I don't think there's a role here for Dragic anymore, personally. If they get into the buyout market, I hope they look for a 5.
Even if the plan is to play small and switchable (I like that plan, if so, btw), Powell is kind of the only 5 on the roster I feel good about. Seems like they're trying to make Chriss into a full-time small ball 5, and I'm fine with that (thrilled, even) but I don't think he's ready for playoff minutes at any position yet. Kleber
can play 5, and well at times, but I just don't think you're going to make it through the season and playoffs with those three being your only playable options at center.
It feels like you need a more physical option, even if it's not someone in the regular rotation. I'm fine with MBrown not being here anymore, and I suppose you could argue that Boban is that 4th center option, but I'm not thrilled about that, either. I think they need a Favors type from the buyout market, if anything.
I agree. I think Dragic will have better options and more playing time somewhere else. But I would be on board with Dragic here if it didn't impact Brunson's minutes. It would sort of protect us if Dinwiddie does not live up to the front office's hype. Dinwiddie would also protect us if Dragic is washed. Maybe with the lack of centers our plan is to go super small?
I think he will wind up somewhere else, but I would be on board cutting a guarantee if Dragic wanted to come here.
(02-12-2022, 09:36 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I hope you're right about it being a bluff, but I don't think there's a role here for Dragic anymore, personally. If they get into the buyout market, I hope they look for a 5.
Even if the plan is to play small and switchable (I like that plan, if so, btw), Powell is kind of the only 5 on the roster I feel good about. Seems like they're trying to make Chriss into a full-time small ball 5, and I'm fine with that (thrilled, even) but I don't think he's ready for playoff minutes at any position yet. Kleber can play 5, and well at times, but I just don't think you're going to make it through the season and playoffs with those three being your only playable options at center.
It feels like you need a more physical option, even if it's not someone in the regular rotation. I'm fine with MBrown not being here anymore, and I suppose you could argue that Boban is that 4th center option, but I'm not thrilled about that, either. I think they need a Favors type from the buyout market, if anything.
Pretty much what I’m thinking too.
Really hoping we try out the small switchable plan now that playing like this is on the table in a post-KP world
Thinking about the GSW and LAC’s we need to get past over the next few years, it doesn’t feel like Maxi at 5 and DFS at 4 is too small(they trot out Morris and Draymond at 5 for whole halves of playoff games). Teams destroy us with small lineups. Totally ready to fight fire with fire. Load up on wings and ball handlers like the good teams are doing
Luka/Dinwiddie
Brunson/Dragic
Bullock/Hardaway
DFS/Bertans
Maxi/Powell
All these parts seem interchangeable and we could play a true switch everything defense. It’s not perfect and we probably need a physical bigger player like you say. It’s a step in the right direction though
(02-12-2022, 09:57 AM)Jason Terry Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty much what I’m thinking too.
Really hoping we try out the small switchable plan now that playing like this is on the table in a post-KP world
Thinking about the GSW and LAC’s we need to get past over the next few years, it doesn’t feel like Maxi at 5 and DFS at 4 is too small(they trot out Morris and Draymond at 5 for whole halves of playoff games). Teams destroy us with small lineups. Totally ready to fight fire with fire. Load up on wings and ball handlers like the good teams are doing
Luka/Dinwiddie
Brunson/Dragic
Bullock/Hardaway
DFS/Bertans
Maxi/Powell
All these parts seem interchangeable and we could play a true switch everything defense. It’s not perfect and we probably need a physical bigger player like you say. It’s a step in the right direction though
Yeah, my interest in Dragic in an already crowded backcourt is to lets get weird. We are not a true contender, so lets muck it up. I would like to see a lineup with Luka, Brunson, Goran, Bullock and Maxi...or some similar combination. Have teams think WTF. Maybe it doesn't work at all, but lets get creators and spacers on the floor.
I don't expect it to happen, but that is my interest in Goran.
(02-12-2022, 10:42 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: [ -> ]I don't expect it to happen, but that is my interest in Goran.
Look, I like the player a lot, too, but imo he's too old for any good to come out of cutting someone semi-valuable to bring him in if he's not even going to play.
You can say "cut Burke" but that's not who it would've been, imho.
Do we really want one season of Dragic more than we want continued development from Ntilikina (because I promise that's who would be gone)? You said it yourself - they're not close enough yet for such a move to pay off, short term.
Before the trade, when it would've been cutting MBrown for Dragic and there was an important, low-minute role waiting here for him, I was all about it.
(02-12-2022, 10:46 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Look, I like the player a lot, too, but imo he's too old for any good to come out of cutting someone semi-valuable to bring him in if he's not even going to play.
You can say "cut Burke" but that's not who it would've been, imho.
Do we really want one season of Dragic more than we want continued development from Ntilikina (because I promise that's who would be gone)? You said it yourself - they're not close enough yet for such a move to pay off, short term.
Before the trade, when it would've been cutting MBrown for Dragic and there was an important, low-minute role waiting here for him, I was all about it.
Yeah, I would cut Burke. I would not want to cut Frank so would bypass Goran if that was the choice. Plus, I think next year Frank probably has a tad more value to teams than Burke. Burke is who he is. Frank could at least tempt teams with upside.
(02-12-2022, 10:50 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I would cut Burke. I would not want to cut Frank so would bypass Goran if that was the choice. Plus, I think next year Frank probably has a tad more value to teams than Burke. Burke is who he is. Frank could at least tempt teams with upside.
Right. So, you're assuming that's what
they would do. I'm assuming the opposite, based on the resulting dead money for guys who wouldn't be in the rotation, and to add another guy who won't be in the rotation, for that matter.
I guess that's where the diverging opinions come from.
(02-12-2022, 07:55 AM)Winter Wrote: [ -> ]Here's the thing about that. No one who watches him play knows what happened in contract negotiations or what other teams are threatening to outbid them for the player's service.
The list of things that writers and fans don't know about contracts when they are signed is enormous.
Who will they get to replace the player if that player is lost to another team?
Are you a team that frequently needs to overpay in general in order not to get outbid (which is usually more than half the league and includes Dallas)?
What are the future ramifications and cap issues?
Does that person currently add something that truly advances your metrics?
How does that player compliment the system on offense and defense?
Do the player's current metrics appear to be sustainable?
The list is long, and contracts are notorious for being rear-view mirror discussions. I weary of these discussions, and I promise not to write about them after this post. But hindsight is useless here, and way too many people think they know more than they do.
Did they overpay for Bertans? Sure. Did they think that at the time it was signed? Possibly. But either way, Washington thought Bertans brought something that few people had - a 3-point shooting big man that could be a game-changer. He was generating excitement in 2018-2019. Washington thought they couldn't let him walk without making it attractive to stay. They desperately needed some more player-buzz. For an organization to let an interesting player go to another team can be a public relations nightmare. Steve Nash is a classic example, and the look of that would have been much worse if Dallas had not eventually gotten a championship.
Every team has bad contracts because players disappoint you from one year to the next. But fans and writers love to drag out the "we overpaid!" argument. Some players are overpaid on every team and in every year. No team ownership gets it right every year. Far more important here is how you manage bad contracts going forward. Dallas is not so bad when you look at it that way.
I actually agree with you but he is also ignoring the fact that Bertans is paid on par with other guys with his skillset, i.e. Duncan Robinson, Joe Harris, etc.
He is paid at the market rate range for elite shooters in his class and as you said Washington probably saw it that way as well at the time since he brought an elite skill to the table.
(02-12-2022, 07:55 AM)Winter Wrote: [ -> ]No one who watches him play knows what happened in contract negotiations or what other teams are threatening to outbid them for the player's service.
....
Did they overpay for Bertans? Sure. Did they think that at the time it was signed? Possibly.
I like your post, but then you go onto to say the bolded. That's my entire point and the referenced articles just reinforce that. It doesn't matter if the people posting know the contract negotiations are all the factors that went into the contract. It's an overpay. It's a bad contract. The referenced articles were posted to highlight that very point. It doesn't matter what the contract negotiations were like or any of the factors you listed and who was or wasn't privy to them. It doesn't matter if other 3PT specialists have similar bad contracts. Two wrongs don't make a right. Really great players can have bad contracts (Klay) and so can really bad players and everything in between. Players can also live up to the money they are earning on a perceived bad contract (Paul).
The Mavericks took a bad contract and turned it into two bad contracts. From a cap standpoint it looks like this:
'22-23: $33.8m (KP) vs $34m (SD/DB)
'23-24: $36.6m (KP) vs $27m-35.8m (SD/DB)
'24-25: $0(KP) vs 16m /w an ETO (DB)
These players on these contracts might be more useful to the Mavericks on the court. That's certainly Cuban's line of thinking. We can certainly argue the merits of what the team's ceiling is now versus before the trade. They might be easier to move than KP's contract because of their size but they are going to be a negative value to whoever you are moving them to. Again, that's my point. So the Mavericks paid to move off of KP's bad contract only to inherit two more bad contracts that they'd need to pay to move off if they felt so inclined. Sending out an asset and kicking some of the KP contract money a year further down the road is why I'd consider this a bad trade for the Mavericks.
The big question is, what did this accomplish? You got rid of KP. The biggest positive. You have more depth for for a run at a four seed. Yes.
You broke one bad contract into two which gives you more flexibility. Sure. Are you any closer to adding top flight talent next to Luka and putting together a contender. Well, that's the debate.
And for a thought exercise for DB compared to other similar skillset players on contracts in the same range. Put all those guys on the playground and make yourself captain of both teams. Which guy is picked last? And again, a bad contract for one player doesn't make an equally bad contract for another player, suddenly good. For better and worse, the NBA is a copycat league. Lot's of guys got overpaid because Steph and Klay changed the game. The problem is none of those guys in that DB contract range have near the versatility to that skillset and DB is probably at the bottom of the list in that regard.
(02-12-2022, 11:25 AM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]I like your post, but then you go onto to say the bolded. That's my entire point and the referenced articles just reinforce that. It doesn't matter if the people posting know the contract negotiations are all the factors that went into the contract. It's an overpay. It's a bad contract. The referenced articles were posted to highlight that very point. It doesn't matter what the contract negotiations were like or any of the factors you listed and who was or wasn't privy to them. It doesn't matter if other 3PT specialists have similar bad contracts. Two wrongs don't make a right. Really great players can have bad contracts (Klay) and so can really bad players and everything in between. Players can also live up to the money they are earning on a perceived bad contract (Paul).
The Mavericks took a bad contract and turned it into two bad contracts. From a cap standpoint it looks like this:
'22-23: $33.8m (KP) vs $34m (SD/DB)
'23-24: $36.6m (KP) vs $27m-35.8m (SD/DB)
'24-25: $0(KP) vs 16m /w an ETO (DB)
These players on these contracts might be more useful to the Mavericks on the court. That's certainly Cuban's line of thinking. We can certainly argue the merits of what the team's ceiling is now versus before the trade. They might be easier to move than KP's contract because of their size but they are going to be a negative value to whoever you are moving them to. Again, that's my point. So the Mavericks paid to move off of KP's bad contract only to inherit two more bad contracts that they'd need to pay to move off if they felt so inclined. Sending out an asset and kicking some of the KP contract money a year further down the road is why I'd consider this a bad trade for the Mavericks.
The big question is, what did this accomplish? You got rid of KP. The biggest positive. You have more depth for for a run at a four seed. Yes. You broke one bad contract into two which gives you more flexibility. Sure. Are you any closer to adding top flight talent next to Luka and putting together a contender. Well, that's the debate.
And for a thought exercise for DB compared to other similar skillset players on contracts in the same range. Put all those guys on the playground and make yourself captain of both teams. Which guy is picked last? And again, a bad contract for one player doesn't make an equally bad contract for another player, suddenly good. For better and worse, the NBA is a copycat league. Lot's of guys got overpaid because Steph and Klay changed the game. The problem is none of those guys in that DB contract range have near the versatility to that skillset and DB is probably at the bottom of the list in that regard.
And again you are ignoring the sample size of multiple GM's paying the same rate for guys with that skillset. If he was paid 30 million that would be an overpay. There are various examples that suggest he is paid the average rate for players with his skillset and again you keep ignoring that important point.
Doug McDermont - 14 Million
Buddy Hield - 16 Million
Joe Harris - 16 Million
Duncan Robinson - 18-20 Million
Luke Kennard - 16 Million
Tim Hardaway Jr. - 20 Million
Erick Gordon - 18 Million
Again please explain why he is an overpay when others with the same specialist skillset are paid in that range?
The only thing you continue to do is talk about how others view him when this is not about that. This is about how the GM views them at the time because again, he has a unique high coveted skillset in the NBA. The stats and numbers suggest he is paid in the range and on average for elite shooting.
(02-12-2022, 12:06 PM)Omega_Supreme Wrote: [ -> ]And again you are ignoring the sample size of multiple GM's paying the same rate for guys with that skillset.
No I'm not. Learn to read.
(02-12-2022, 11:25 AM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]The big question is, what did this accomplish? You got rid of KP. The biggest positive. You have more depth for for a run at a four seed. Yes. You broke one bad contract into two which gives you more flexibility. Sure. Are you any closer to adding top flight talent next to Luka and putting together a contender. Well, that's the debate.
Why is it a debate? It doesn't appear we were going to get close to championship by keeping KP. You don't seem to be arguing that.
If you have to rid yourself of KP, do it as soon as you can and use whatever you have to re-tool.
As for the bottom part of your post, players change every season. People said Tim Hardaway had a terrible contract when we acquired him. Two years later, he had a very good contract. It was the SAME contract. He's the one that changed. Andrew Wiggins might be another example.
Salaries are based on two things. Performance and projected performance. If the projections are out of synch, it is suddenly a bad contract. But no one know what's going to happen, and every team has this problem at some point. Why complain about it? If Bertans can contribute to the team play, are we not better off?
(02-12-2022, 10:53 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Right. So, you're assuming that's what they would do. I'm assuming the opposite, based on the resulting dead money for guys who wouldn't be in the rotation, and to add another guy who won't be in the rotation, for that matter.
I guess that's where the diverging opinions come from.
Really curious to see how the FO and coaching staff approach this. We will see. Your assumption is more conventional wisdom.
The rotation aspect of this I’m hoping Kidd opens time up for everyone. Everyone slides down a spot. THj more 3 than 2. DFS more 3/4 than 3. Maxi more 5 than 4…….leaving Luka, JB, SD, Dragic to take the 1-2 minutes. Frank as the developmental 5th guard. Giving us needed depth since we would have post-ACL SD and old Dragic
Could see us using Luka-Brunson-Dragic at the same time some as well
The Dragic as veteran team leader that rides the bench and plays few minutes role like JJB is on the table too
There’s also the dead money aspect. Would Cuban cheap out and cut the better player Frank? Or would he take the financial hit and cut Burke?
(02-12-2022, 12:14 PM)Winter Wrote: [ -> ]Why is it a debate? We couldn't get close by keeping KP. You don't seem to be arguing that.
If you have to rid yourself of KP, do it as soon as you can and use whatever you have to re-tool.
As for the bottom part of your post, players change every season. People said Tim Hardaway had a terrible contract when we acquired him. Two years later, he had a very good contract. It was the SAME contract. He's the one that changed. Andrew Wiggins might be another example.
Salaries are based on two things. Performance and projected performance. If the projections are out of synch, it is suddenly a bad contract. But no one know what's going to happen, and every team has this problem at some point.
Why debate? It's a message board, silly. I wanted to be off of KP as bad as anyone, even when he was putting up good numbers. I just wonder if this was the best move for the Mavericks. I tend to think long term though and how the affects the retool. I do believe the team needs a major overhaul and when you compare it to other teams that drafted similar talent to Luka in a similar timeframe, Mavs are behind. A lot of that due to missing on KP and I don't really find fault in the Mavericks for the attempt. They've just made the degree of difficulty on the course correction more difficult and that's for a front office that is very challenged in the first place.
Re: Players change every season. Addressed in my post too, see the Paul reference. Tim's a good example too. I think he and Carlisle closed the gap on the perceived value of his contract. I'd argue he was still overpaid and we should have let someone else overpay him this offseason but his contract structure helps moving forward. I'm seriously impressed by Wiggins but I'd still call that an overpay.
That might be an oversimplification to how salaries are derived, some applicable to DB, some not. I guess I have an equally simplistic litmus test on contract value though. haha.
If I am Brunson, stuff like this would make me seriously consider the point of signing with Dallas, just so they can trade me to whatever shitty situation happens somewhere. Why not just sign where they value me as a core piece and not a tradeable contract. From Cato:
" if Dallas does trade for a star in the coming offseasons, as this move sets them up for, re-signing Brunson and featuring him as the team’s most appealing available player seems like the most logical move."
(02-12-2022, 12:54 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]If I am Brunson, stuff like this would make me seriously consider the point of signing with Dallas, just so they can trade me to whatever shitty situation happens somewhere. Why not just sign where they value me as a core piece and not a tradeable contract. From Cato:
" if Dallas does trade for a star in the coming offseasons, as this move sets them up for, re-signing Brunson and featuring him as the team’s most appealing available player seems like the most logical move."
It's part of the business though and Jalen certainly understands that because of his dad. I'd personally look at it as more of a complement. I'm getting a huge contract and I'm still in demand. Further his biggest outright suitors are not going to be ideal situations from a winning standpoint (New York and Detroit).
(02-12-2022, 01:00 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]It's part of the business though and Jalen certainly understands that because of his dad. I'd personally look at it as more of a complement. I'm getting a huge contract and I'm still in demand. Further his biggest outright suitors are not going to be ideal situations from a winning standpoint (New York and Detroit).
Not saying he should sign somewhere else for less money. But the bigger the contract the Mavs give him, less of an asset will he be. I doubt anyone will believe in very high ceiling.
As for Detroit. They might very well soon become more relevant the Mavs, who seem to be going nowhere. Detroit will add a top four pick and has huge flexibility going forward.
NY is sort of like Dallas, but it is New York, attractive destination and all his links there. And he would be the PG.