(12-29-2021, 08:54 PM)RedFlag41 Wrote: [ -> ]What do you think about the idea of trading Jalen Brunson and Reggie Bullock to the Lakers for THT and Kendrick Nunn.
JB will provide scoring for the Lakers off the bench or in the starting line up, RB will, provide defense and shooting.
THT has the potential to be a better fit alongside Luka with defense some scoring and playmaking. Kendrick Nunn will replace JB as a scoring guard off the bench.
I know one person here who'd love this.
I think Brunson is the best player in that deal by a mile, but if they know he's leaving and LA is where he wants to be, I guess. Unfortunately, we just don't have the info we need to gauge such things.
Nah -- there's no way I help the Lakers like that. And if we are open to trading Brunson, I'm confident we can do better.
(12-29-2021, 06:50 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]If they don't trade THJ for an expiring or trade Brunson, it will take a lot of work to get under the tax next year.
It's a job that may not be worth doing. Maybe they just opt for having the best players they can sign (including JB and DFS)? They don't have to get under the tax line.
(12-29-2021, 09:42 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]They don't have to get under the tax line.
Whoa! Do you think paying the tax for this team is an option they'll consider, or am I misunderstanding?
(12-29-2021, 09:01 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I know one person here who'd love this.
I think Brunson is the best player in that deal by a mile, but if they know he's leaving and LA is where he wants to be, I guess. Unfortunately, we just don't have the info we need to gauge such things.
THT is so overrated. People expected him to make a big leap this year and even with all injuries, Covid and all that stuff (which give him more PT) he is still just an okay player. People need to understand that the Lakers media overhype all their spare players. THT is okay but he is not as good as Brunson. Why is everybody trying to trade Brunson??
(12-29-2021, 09:44 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Whoa! Do you think paying the tax for this team is an option they'll consider, or am I misunderstanding?
I am also very interested in this discussion (do we need a separate thread @"Kammrath")?
I have look at the salary cap over and over and its hard for me to picture how the Mavs would get out of paying tax next year. They would have had to have known this was in the cards for 1 year. My guess is that they planned to do tax one year and get out of it before year 2 to avoid the repeater penalties.
In 2023 they have 20 mil in marginal talent coming off the books, the tax line will be higher, THJ's salary will be lower or they might move him but there is still Maxi, DFS, JB that might be getting new deals between now and then.
Trading Brunson is a real possibility and option for the Mavs due to his contract situation. The Mavs may think that it is better to get something for him rather than losehim for nothing.
Trading JB, RB for THT and KN is an idea I thought if the Mavs want players who are more salary-friendly for them, as JB will command significant money next year.
It is just an idea, I am not advocating for trading Brunson for the sake of trading him.
Luka/Brunson
X/Ntilikina
DFS/Green
Porzingis/Kleber
Y/Powell
With Thimothy, Bullock, Brown (2x), Burke, WCS, TPE and picks as our trade pieces. Would any team want to dump a bad contract here?
For X (secondary ballhandler that can go get his when needed and knows how to drive/kick) I could see: McCollum, Levert, Gordon and Dragic fitting the mold.
For Y I really have no clue, since most centers aren't albatrosses on their respective team.
(12-29-2021, 09:44 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Whoa! Do you think paying the tax for this team is an option they'll consider, or am I misunderstanding?
I'm always a little surprised that you feel Cuban has a hard stance on this. First half of the ownership he paid the tax and he didn't while we were essentially rebuilding.
Not saying he's necessarily going to now, I don't really think this roster is worth it (although we can always make trades over the cap to improve), but I feel as if we ignore all the years he willingly paid the tax for Dirk and co.
(12-29-2021, 09:44 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Whoa! Do you think paying the tax for this team is an option they'll consider, or am I misunderstanding?
Listened to the end of yesterdays locked on podcast on my drive home. Jake Kemp mentioned that Cuban might be willing to pay the tax just to send Luka the signal that he is all in on winning. And also to save face and show that he knows what he is doing.
But just for one year. Resign DFS and Brunson. Avoid the repeater tax in the following summer when Kleber, Powell, Boban, Burke and Brown expire.
Personally I agree with you. I just don´t see it. Nothing he did in the last few offseasons suggests that he is willing to pay the tax again.
(12-30-2021, 11:45 AM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]I'm always a little surprised that you feel Cuban has a hard stance on this. First half of the ownership he paid the tax and he didn't while we were essentially rebuilding.
Not saying he's necessarily going to now, I don't really think this roster is worth it (although we can always make trades over the cap to improve), but I feel as if we ignore all the years he willingly paid the tax for Dirk and co.
The usual consensus is that winning the championship changed all that, much as when the Florida Marlins won the World Series years ago.
(12-30-2021, 11:45 AM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]I'm always a little surprised that you feel Cuban has a hard stance on this. First half of the ownership he paid the tax and he didn't while we were essentially rebuilding.
Well, I don't think we have enough info yet to feel one way or the other, so that's not really the impression I meant to convey. But, I
do wonder about it.
He was vocal about his disdain for the 2011 CBA. He didn't think it fixed the problems owners were having financially. Around the same time, I remember an interview in which he begrudgingly admitted that he had lost over $100 million on the Mavericks since buying them. I know we as fans admired that part of his early tenure and I'm sure he's aware of that, but I remember getting the impression that he was deeply embarrassed about it, like he thought other owners were laughing at him about it, kind of. I got the impression that he felt shame for operating the team at a $100 million loss.
The fact is that since that CBA, the Mavericks have never paid the tax. That's a decade. Now, were there any teams during that period that
deserved a tax-paying approach? No, and that's a valid argument. Maybe the Mavs' extremely poor team-building during that decade made the idea of becoming a tax-paying team moot. But, maybe the desire not to pay the tax might've caused some of the poor team-building choices, on the other hand. It's a little "chicken and egg" imo. Tough to tell.
We are going to have answers to these questions very soon, imo. I'd say by this time next season we'll know considerably more.
Calling THT overhyped is silly. He has missed half the season and the Westbrook Lakers are a mess. JB is a more polished scorer, THT is a much better all around player. JB is also much closer to being a finished product than THT. THT's 3P ball still isn't there but he's a versatile defender who is comfortable handling the rock and using his size to finish around the rim. He also just turned 21. Even though they have a pretty good drafting track record of late, it's not Lakers hype. He's just a good prospect with a lot of tools in the toolbox. THT and DFS on defense would be a thing of beauty. He also make about as much as Powell or Bullock. I know who I'd rather be committing those dollars to. That range is also the most I'd pay for JB.
I don't think Lakers will trade THT unless they can attach Westbrook to it. They have a lot of issues, but Westbrook is the main one they need to address.
(12-30-2021, 11:54 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]But just for one year. Resign DFS and Brunson. Avoid the repeater tax in the following summer when Kleber, Powell, Boban, Burke and Brown expire.
I mean, I'd be cool with this, as it's better than just letting DFS and/or Brunson walk for nothing, but won't we all have the same opinion about Kleber? It's always going to be about improving for the fans, not saving money. We're dangerously close to a point when the team needs to get worse to get better, really. It's not what people want to hear, but I don't see any other way.
I, personally, wouldn't want to pay the tax for this current roster or put my team in any danger of paying the repeater tax if something good fell into my lap in the near future.
This is what happens when you have two max contracts attached to players you don't
know work well together, imo. We all thought they would fit, but it seems pretty clear that they don't. Something needs to be done about that, and the longer they wait to deal with it the worse this is going to get.
(12-30-2021, 11:56 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I don't think we have enough info yet to feel one way or the other, so that's not really the impression I meant to convey. But, I do wonder about it.
He was vocal about his disdain for the 2011 CBA. He didn't think it fixed the problems owners were having financially. Around the same time, I remember an interview in which he begrudgingly admitted that he had lost over $100 million on the Mavericks since buying them. I know we as fans admired that part of his early tenure and I'm sure he's aware of that, but I remember getting the impressing that he was deeply embarrassed about it, like he thought other owners were laughing at him about it, kind of. I got the impression that he felt shame for operating the team at a $100 million loss.
The fact is that since that CBA, the Mavericks have never paid the tax. That's a decade. Now, were there any teams during that team that needed to be tax teams? No, and that's a valid argument. Maybe the Mavs' extremely poor team-building during that decade made the idea of becoming a tax-paying team moot. But, maybe the desire not to pay the tax might've caused some of the poor team-building choices, on the other hand. It's a little "chicken and egg" imo. Tough to tell.
We are going to have answers to these questions very soon, imo. I'd say by this time next season we'll know considerably more.
All fair. I remember when Cuban was talking about how he only made an operational profit the two years we went to the finals but also kind of assumed that was par for the course and all these owners were just holding on to these assets that were appreciating like crazy. The Mavs have appreciated 2.5 billion over the 20 years he's owned them so I think he was always happily taking those small losses year over year (and he can afford the tax...).
(12-30-2021, 12:06 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, I'd be cool with this, as it's better than just letting DFS and/or Brunson walk for nothing, but won't we all have the same opinion about Kleber? It's always going to be about improving for the fans, not saving money. We're dangerously close to a point when the team needs to get worse to get better, really. It's not what people want to hear, but I don't see any other way.
I, personally, wouldn't want to pay the tax or put my team in any danger of paying the repeater tax if something good fell into my lap based on the roster right now.
This is what happens when you have two max contracts attached to players you don't know work well together, imo. We all thought they would fit, but it seems pretty clear that they don't. Something needs to be done about that, and the longer they wait to deal with it the worse this is going to get.
Maxi is a tough one. One of my favorite players. One of our best shooters and defenders but he seems banged up a lot and he seems best in a bench role. Can you resign him at his current contract value or a little less? He'll be 31 when he becomes a free agent. The last year of his current deal is also non-guaranteed so they have a decision to make prior to 7/3/22.
(12-30-2021, 12:07 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]All fair. I remember when Cuban was talking about how he only made an operational profit the two years we went to the finals but also kind of assumed that was par for the course and all these owners were just holding on to these assets that were appreciating like crazy. The Mavs have appreciated 2.5 billion over the 20 years he's owned them so I think he was always happily taking those small losses year over year (and he can afford the tax...).
Ya Cuban and other rich guys are not honest ab how they make money. They can break even in terms of P&L and their club as an asset appreciates every year. If they have losses they can write those off as tax write-offs. The salary cap and CBA makes it engineered for teams to make money.
Case and point Cubes paid $285 million for Mavs in 2000 with his Yahoo money and now its worth like 3 bil? I think they are doing just fine.
(12-29-2021, 09:44 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Whoa! Do you think paying the tax for this team is an option they'll consider, or am I misunderstanding?
Of course it's an option, or at least it needs to be. Plus, it would make Cuban a flat-out liar if "avoid the tax at all costs" has become their priority.
It's idly assumed that the tax line will be the Mavs cap on spending. I think (hopefully, perhaps) that's way off base.
Keep in mind that Cuban's issue with being a taxpayer has always been stated as 'it's not the money, but it's the fact that taxpayer status hampers the ability to add talent and build a winning roster.'
While it's true there are some pluses in opportunity during free agency in being way below the tax line, what has to be weighed against it is the cost (in talent) you're paying to receive those pluses.
In this case, the Mavs (as is being argued in this thread by some) need to consider which MLE-or-better talent to let walk, in order to dodge tax. But unless they can be confident in being able to recoup that talent (Brunson and DFS) and more by jettisoning the pair and gaining some theoretical pluses for free agency, they've gone backwards in building the talent base. I think they are smart enough to avoid that mistake - but, I may be wrong, of course.
You certainly have to say 'no' if the contract price tag gets absurd, of course. You can't be saddled with max deals on them, for example.
But if the prices are reasonable, the tax line shouldn't be an override. There's no 'missing star' free agent alternative looming for them with 2 max deals already on the books.
(12-30-2021, 11:25 PM)StepBackJay Wrote: [ -> ]Case and point Cubes paid $285 million for Mavs in 2000 with his Yahoo money and now its worth like 3 bil? I think they are doing just fine.
That's only relevant to him if he sells the team. Plus, Cuban seems intent on keeping the Mavs as a legacy asset means the growing "fair market value" of the Mavs won't ever be realized by him at all.
The reality is that a prized appreciating asset can't eat up your other assets, to keep it going year over year, no matter who you are, unless you plan to sell in the foreseeable future. If it's growing solidly, you can break even or even absorb a bit of negative at times, but you really need to figure out how it can offer you a reasonable amount of cash flow.
From that angle, the tax does matter. But if he doesn't want to pay tax like the big boys, when it's needed, Cuban needs to get out. This is a big market team with a strong fan base - no excuses.