MAVS NEWS:

[michaeltex]

Not one of those examples involve a superstar on their first contract, so I'm not sure what the point is?

What is the argument for Mavs being a good team prior to Flagg?  They were a lottery team when Flagg was drafted and shortly after traded away one of the two best players for air.  This team would definitely be a lottery team without Flagg.  There is a lot of work to be done.

Respectfully,

How to define superstar vs star vs key contributor? These terms usually apply in arrears, after the player has posted accomplishments, championships and/or awards.

Most of the list (Siakem, Poole, Holmgren, Williams) were key to winning their respective championships despite not being the face of the team. Even Curry and Brunson were on sub-market deals. (I understand the Curry contract, I think something is skanky about the Brunson contract.)

Wemby took a below market extension (max vs super max) for the Spurs, so it will be interesting to see if his "investment" pays off. It could provide a whole new dialogue of "you help us and we'll help you", as long as team management proves competent and trustworthy. I think if Luka had suggested a couple years ago that he'd take less than 5 @ $70M, then maybe we'd be in a different place now.

I don't think we can say the team was good or bad prior to Flagg. Given all the injuries during the 24-25 season, which continued into the 25-26 season, I don't think we ever knew what the team was like. I do know this team, without Kyrie or AD (essentially) or Lively, still played the most "clutch" games of any team last season. So they were at least competitive, which, to me, says there is perhaps a lot of potential that just needs health and a few tweaks to release.