MAVS NEWS:

[mvossman]

The main benefit is that you're not restricted in any salary matching rules at all if you're operating under the salary cap. 

Over the cap you're limited to 125%+100k in every trade deal, versus under the cap, you can absorb any salary you want up to your cap space limit.

I thought you couldn't do the full MLE if you are operating under the cap?

[Chicagojk]

The Dallas Mavericks have extended a qualifying offer to Moussa Cisse, making him a restricted free agent, a person familiar with the situation says.
Cisse played on a two-way contract as a rookie last season and averaged 4.5 points, 5.7 rebounds & 1.2 blocks in 38 games.

Doesn't guarantee him or Nemhbard are back.   Both will need to fight and earn it, but good signs.  Both showed really well in last years lost season.

[Scott41theMavs]

The Dallas Mavericks have extended a qualifying offer to Moussa Cisse, making him a restricted free agent, a person familiar with the situation says.
Cisse played on a two-way contract as a rookie last season and averaged 4.5 points, 5.7 rebounds & 1.2 blocks in 38 games.

Doesn't guarantee him or Nemhbard are back.   Both will need to fight and earn it, but good signs.  Both showed really well in last years lost season.

Good deal.

[F Gump]

I thought you couldn't do the full MLE if you are operating under the cap?

If you are operating under the cap, by definition you have the ability to do even bigger than the full MLE. Then you get an MLE in addition.

[Scott41theMavs]

If you are operating under the cap, by definition you have the ability to do even bigger than the full MLE. Then you get an MLE in addition.

The room MLE, which is quite a bit smaller than the non-tax.

The situation that isn’t great and raises the over/under question is if the team has less cap room (say, before signing their own FAs to bigger deals than their cap holds) than the amount of the NTMLE. If they just want to target one (expensive) player who they don’t already have rights to, they’re better off operating over the cap.

Edit: I think I missed the “operating under the cap” qualification you yourself used, which means you had my commentary presumed in what you posted. Oh well.

[SleepingHero]

I thought you couldn't do the full MLE if you are operating under the cap?

Like FGump said, you have access to the room MLE, plus all the additional capspace before you become an over the cap team.

I see the confusion my bad. Teams operating under the cap only have access to the Room MLE, but there really isn't a scenario where a team should use that because the NTMLE is always better. So teams should typically operate as an over the cap team for FA, but the question was for trades originally.

In trades however, under the cap teams have the least restrictions. But they are menial.

[mvossman]

Like FGump said, you have access to the full MLE, plus all the additional capspace before you become an over the cap team.

I see the confusion my bad. Teams operating under the cap only have access to the Room MLE, but there really isn't a scenario where a team should use that because the NTMLE is always better. So teams should typically operate as an over the cap team for FA, but the question was for trades originally.

In trades however, under the cap teams have the least restrictions. But they are menial.

So I guess Gump's point was that if the team does not have at least full MLE space below the cap available then they would make sure they operate over the cap.

[SleepingHero]

So I guess Gump's point was that if the team does not have at least full MLE space below the cap available then they would make sure they operate over the cap.

Yes basically. But there are times when they can't or choose not to. Typically when the team is rebuilding and there is a cheap owner, I can see why they wouldn't be particularly motivated to try and use the full MLE. 

But answering the original question, being an under the cap team is the best for trades as they can just absorb whatever salary is needed.

[DanSchwartzgan]

So I guess Gump's point was that if the team does not have at least full MLE space below the cap available then they would make sure they operate over the cap.

Additionally, they would give up the TPE to operate under the cap.  So why?

[F Gump]

Like FGump said, you have access to the room MLE, plus all the additional capspace before you become an over the cap team.

I see the confusion my bad. Teams operating under the cap only have access to the Room MLE, but there really isn't a scenario where a team should use that because the NTMLE is always better. So teams should typically operate as an over the cap team for FA, but the question was for trades originally.

In trades however, under the cap teams have the least restrictions. But they are menial.

"Teams operating under the cap only have access to the Room MLE, but there really isn't a scenario where a team should use that because the NTMLE is always better. So teams should typically operate as an over the cap team for FA"

Not sure what you are thinking of here. But if a team is way under the cap, they spend their cap room first (and perhaps use some of it to retain Bird rights to re-sign a player) until they are out of cap room, and they have a big advantage since they can pay more than other teams. Then AFTERWARDS once their cap room is spent, they spend the Room MLE and minimum salary exceptions to go beyond.

They don't always go over, and they don't have to use Room MLE.

Because the salary floor is very punitive to be below when the season starts, they will spend at least 90% of the cap for sure.

If a team is barely under the cap, then the norm is that they will operate as an over-cap team if the Big MLE is greater than the amount they are under the cap. It's a question of what offers them the biggest possible ability to spend on a desired player.

If we are talking about DAL, they are close enough to the cap where there's no benefit to being an under-the-cap team. They will have way more flexibility using "exceptions" (all of which are "permissions" in various ways to exceed the spending limits, aka "cap", to add a player to the roster). FWIW you don't have to make a declaration - you just pick how you will operate, and work accordingly under the rules.

[KillerLeft]

Interesting, given Smitty's timing on extension talk...

Mike Curtis
https://x.com/MikeACurtis2/status/207213...50717?s=20

"Max Christie and Naji Marshall are changing their jersey numbers, per a #Mavs spokesperson:

Christie will switch from No. 00 to No. 0, previously worn by Dante Exum in 2025-26.

Marshall is changing his number from No. 13 to No. 3, previously worn by Anthony Davis in 2025-26."

[Chicagojk]

Interesting, given Smitty's timing on extension talk...

Mike Curtis
https://x.com/MikeACurtis2/status/207213...50717?s=20

"Max Christie and Naji Marshall are changing their jersey numbers, per a #Mavs spokesperson:

Christie will switch from No. 00 to No. 0, previously worn by Dante Exum in 2025-26.

Marshall is changing his number from No. 13 to No. 3, previously worn by Anthony Davis in 2025-26."

In addition, Marshall got a tattoo on his back with him in a mavericks jersey that he just showed online. Poulikidas better be heading to the tattoo shop today

[Smitty]

Interesting, given Smitty's timing on extension talk...

Mike Curtis
https://x.com/MikeACurtis2/status/207213...50717?s=20

"Max Christie and Naji Marshall are changing their jersey numbers, per a #Mavs spokesperson:

Christie will switch from No. 00 to No. 0, previously worn by Dante Exum in 2025-26.

Marshall is changing his number from No. 13 to No. 3, previously worn by Anthony Davis in 2025-26."

Well, these two have not been in trade rumors like Gafford, PJ, and Klay have. We've talked a lot about them being extension eligible. Both are GOOD players. If you're not offering them extensions, don't you have to move them now or at the TDL? Value is much lower at the TDL, since they would then be UFA's in the summer. Kinda feel like the writing is on the wall. The Mavs will look to extend both now...?

Some notes from a few articles:

The maximum contract extension Max Christie is eligible for is a four-year deal worth $92.8 million.

"De’Andre Hunter makes about $24.0 million a year. Christie is already outperforming him this season. He’s shooting 42.3% from deep, while Hunter is at 30.5%. Hunter’s deal has been viewed as one of the tougher contracts in that tier.

"Other players in that range include Aaron Gordon, Dillon Brooks, Kyle Kuzma, and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. It’s a mixed bag. Some of those deals age well. Others don’t. Some pay for past production. Others bet on future growth. "The Dallas Mavericks have to decide which category Max Christie falls into.''

Our view? As a shooter and scorer, Christie is right where he needs to be to get that payday.

And as a defender? Christie is 6-5 and does solid work guarding three positions.

He's a two-way player.

But ...

He's also a role player.

DallasHoopsJournal comes to the conclusion that the right number should be around $23 million per season, noting that "locking him up near that number would reflect what the league already pays for this type of player.''

We see no sense in Dallas avoiding paying market value for a building block on the rise. Max is worth the max that he's eligible for on his next contract.



"Naji Marshall is currently eligible for a maximum contract extension of roughly $93 million over four years. However, his true market worth as a two-way wing is projected to be slightly lower, with reports indicating his next deal could fall in the $45 million to $60 million range over three years."



So, maybe I was actually low on both guys when I posted these numbers:

If the Mavs do keep Max and Naji, both extension eligible… what do we think their market value is?
Max: 4/$72m ?
Naji: 4/$60m ?
More? Less?

[mvossman]

Well, these two have not been in trade rumors like Gafford, PJ, and Klay have. We've talked a lot about them being extension eligible. Both are GOOD players. If you're not offering them extensions, don't you have to move them now or at the TDL? Value is much lower at the TDL, since they would then be UFA's in the summer. Kinda feel like the writing is on the wall. The Mavs will look to extend both now...?

Some notes from a few articles:

The maximum contract extension Max Christie is eligible for is a four-year deal worth $92.8 million.

"De’Andre Hunter makes about $24.0 million a year. Christie is already outperforming him this season. He’s shooting 42.3% from deep, while Hunter is at 30.5%. Hunter’s deal has been viewed as one of the tougher contracts in that tier.

"Other players in that range include Aaron Gordon, Dillon Brooks, Kyle Kuzma, and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. It’s a mixed bag. Some of those deals age well. Others don’t. Some pay for past production. Others bet on future growth. "The Dallas Mavericks have to decide which category Max Christie falls into.''

Our view? As a shooter and scorer, Christie is right where he needs to be to get that payday.

And as a defender? Christie is 6-5 and does solid work guarding three positions.

He's a two-way player.

But ...

He's also a role player.

DallasHoopsJournal comes to the conclusion that the right number should be around $23 million per season, noting that "locking him up near that number would reflect what the league already pays for this type of player.''

We see no sense in Dallas avoiding paying market value for a building block on the rise. Max is worth the max that he's eligible for on his next contract.



"Naji Marshall is currently eligible for a maximum contract extension of roughly $93 million over four years. However, his true market worth as a two-way wing is projected to be slightly lower, with reports indicating his next deal could fall in the $45 million to $60 million range over three years."



So, maybe I was actually low on both guys when I posted these numbers:

So Grimes and Sexton are worth 10 mil but Max is 23?  I don’t see the argument where Max is worth more than MLE.

[FireNicoHarrison]

Max is a 10M player...

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

I wouldn't be signing either of those guys (Max or Naji) to an extension. Might be stuck with two more players like they seem to be with PJ and Gafford.

[KillerLeft]

I don't struggle with the abstract idea that Christie COULD end up being worth the MLE, or that he might get it. I struggle with the thought of giving it to him early and hoping he continues improving. I think buyer's remorse would be a real possibility in that scenario. Not a given, but more possible than I'd be comfortable with.

And, I struggle with extending Marshall at all, at any price, with the way I perceive his fit with Flagg. I understand the Mavs front office and coach might feel differently, but I'd at least want to see it work on the court before giving him the deal. No argument whatsoever with him being a valuable player deserving of a raise. My issue with him is strictly based on my opinion of his fit here in Dallas.

[Smitty]

So Grimes and Sexton are worth 10 mil but Max is 23?  I don’t see the argument where Max is worth more than MLE.

It wasn't my argument, but Grimes is 26. A career 11 ppg guy and just signed for 4/$60m. Maybe he is-what-he-is at this point?

Max is probably in the "Some pay for past production. Others bet on future growth" category they mentioned? Still, just 23 and has improved every season.

I've never advocated for him getting a max extension. I've said that anything around or slightly above the MLE range feels like the sweet spot to me.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

All your posts are showing up as black font on a black background @smitty

[DallasMaverick]

I don't struggle with the abstract idea that Christie COULD end up being worth the MLE, or that he might get it. I struggle with the thought of giving it to him early and hoping he continues improving. I think buyer's remorse would be a real possibility in that scenario. Not a given, but more possible than I'd be comfortable with.

And, I struggle with extending Marshall at all, at any price, with the way I perceive his fit with Flagg. I understand the Mavs front office and coach might feel differently, but I'd at least want to see it work on the court before giving him the deal. No argument whatsoever with him being a valuable player deserving of a raise. My issue with him is strictly based on my opinion of his fit here in Dallas.

It’s a similar dilemma the Mavs faced with Brunson. How good will he be? And what’s his fit with Luka here?

Maybe we should wait to see what he becomes before we offer him the big money…