MAVS NEWS:

[mvossman]

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.

The superstar is the offensive engine.  Every champion had one.  Going down the list you have Brunson, Shai, Tatum, Jokic, Curry, Giannis, Labron, Kawhi, etc.  None of those guys won a championship on their first contract because they were very young and started on a lottery team.  Those examples provided show that its helpful to get a key contributor on a good contract.  I don't disagree with that at all, but it has nothing to do with timeline.

If I had to guess the general board consensus on where this team will finish this season, I'm guessing it would be the play-in.  Now take away Flagg and all of the offseason additions.  That is essentially the team Flagg got drafted to.  I think it would be really hard to argue that is not a bad team.  On top of that, the Mavs gave away most of their assets in building around Luka.  They are not only lacking in talent, they are also lacking in assets.

The OP suggested that our best window to contend is during Flagg first contract.  I don't think that is the case.  Historically it has been very rare and required a unique situation that I don't believe applies to the Mavs.  Building a champion is a marathon, not a sprint.  I don't think the right mindset for this FO is to hurry the process in fear of Flagg's extension.