2021-2022 ROSTER TALK: [ARCHIVED]

[Jommybone]

The Tobias Harris lust in this thread is making me queasy. Please start your own thread or get a room.

[F Gump]

If the Mavs re-sign Brunson they are already sitting at 15 contracts not including the 26th pick, taxpayer MLE, and Pinson. Who would you expect them to trade or waive to make room for the new guys? Burke seems like one of the most likely candidates to me. 3rd stringers making $3.3m are tough to swallow when they cost you $12m in tax.

1 Yes the Mavs are apparently overcommitted re roster slots, as we all know. Right now it looks like they are whittling down from 17.  (That assumes Burke stays, Kleber stays, Franky stays, Brunson signs, Pinson signs.)

2 But I think getting rid of Burke is one of the least likely "solutions" they would entertain to needing a roster slot. It's not because Burke is all-world but rather the fact that getting rid of your backup means you have to get another backup player to replace him, which doesn't leave you any added roster room.

3 The complaint about Burke's salary is irrelevant to the roster. Yes, he is a bit overpaid, but not by a big number, since the minimum is only about 1M less. It would be better to have signed him for the minimum, but ....

There is significant value in the fact that he is already here, already knows the role, has done it as well as could be expected, and is already under contract. They need to address the need for 2 more players in the 5-8 range of their pecking order, and I suspect "upgrading Burke" wouldn't even make their radar.

As for how the Mavs will get from 17 to 15, the process of working to fill in their 2 holes can change that math. For example, one idea would be Powell-Brown-26 for Holmes or Wood to upgrade the C, and then let THJ be the other wing addition they need. There are lots of others.

[mvossman]

The Tobias Harris lust in this thread is making me queasy. Please start your own thread or get a room.

To be fair, there are just as many posts on here about whether we need to hold onto Tre Freaking Burke.

[F Gump]

  The goal is to upgrade the roster, not worry about how much one player is making, especially when its not really impacting our ability to make moves. 

I greatly disagree with your view of Harris - I don't think he's nearly that special. If I squint, maybe worth 20M, but he's not an impact player at all.

"its not really impacting our ability to make moves. ".....This view on salaries, I think you are simply wrong. Every salary impacts what else you can do, and big gigantic bloat will have a massive ripple effect all through the roster.

It's not just about cap permission and being painted into a corner capwise. Owners do bail on willingness to spend. Once you're paying big tax, every extra dollar of salary has a huge gouge on an owner's willingness to get the next guy, because each added 1M will cost you 5M-6M in actual outlay.

With the Mavs, juggling the payroll to end up with adding a starter-level wing making 20 or so and a starter-level big making 15 or so, and increasing the payroll a few mill from the 175M-ish they are likely to be after Brunson signs, I can see that. But this isn't that. The 20M overpay on Harris will end up crippling what else happens, which makes no sense. If I'm the owner, I say "Find something better, this is not acceptable work."

[Jommybone]

3 The complaint about Burke's salary is irrelevant to the roster. Yes, he is a bit overpaid, but not by a big number, since the minimum is only about 1M less. It would be better to have signed him for the minimum, but ....

I would agree with this but for the discussion of Cubes being unwilling to use the TPE or TMLE due to tax/cost. If there are practical budget constraints, jettisoning Burke sounds a lot better than asking Dragic to take the minimum.

[F Gump]

To be fair, there are just as many posts on here about whether we need to hold onto Tre Freaking Burke.

I reply because I'm being addressed, but I'm not sure why Burke is such a big deal to some. As if the bottom 5 of the roster would otherwise be filled with all-stars, or stars-to-be, except Burke got in the way. Goodness.

[SleepingHero]

Westbrook is far and away the best player of the albatross contracts. And you get paid to take him. I realize he can’t shoot. At all. But he does everything else at an all-star level. Sure would be an interesting experiment. Way better than Tobias Harris.

He absolutely does not do everything else at an all-star level. His defense is horrific, not because he can't stay in front of guys, but because he just doesn't care. 

He's a tenacious rebounder, but we already have Luka for that. He can set people up, but again we already have Luka and Dinwiddie for that.

He's the Lakers problem. Let them wither away with his contract for another year.

[mvossman]

I greatly disagree with your view of Harris - I don't think he's nearly that special. If I squint, maybe worth 20M, but he's not an impact player at all.

"its not really impacting our ability to make moves. ".....This view on salaries, I think you are simply wrong. Every salary impacts what else you can do, and big gigantic bloat will have a massive ripple effect all through the roster.

It's not just about cap permission and being painted into a corner capwise. Owners do bail on willingness to spend. Once you're paying big tax, every extra dollar of salary has a huge gouge on an owner's willingness to get the next guy, because each added 1M will cost you 5M-6M in actual outlay.

With the Mavs, juggling the payroll to end up with adding a starter-level wing making 20 or so and a starter-level big making 15 or so, and increasing the payroll a few mill from the 175M-ish they are likely to be after Brunson signs, I can see that. But this isn't that. The 20M overpay on Harris will end up crippling what else happens, which makes no sense. If I'm the owner, I say "Find something better, this is not acceptable work."

Will have to agree to disagree.  It all comes down to a different valuation on Tobias.  I am guessing the open market would disagree with your valuation by a significant margin.  He is basically the same player that got overpaid on his current contract.

[F Gump]

I would agree with this but for the discussion of Cubes being unwilling to use the TPE or TMLE due to tax/cost. If there are practical budget constraints, jettisoning Burke sounds a lot better than asking Dragic to take the minimum.

Burke's overpay by a few dollars is mostly irrelevant, because it's so tiny of an overpay. He's making barely over the minimum.

Waiving him doesn't erase his salary, you still pay him, and then you also pay for a replacement. If you have someone who wants Burke in trade, and you have another "just in case" offense-creator who wants to come sign for the minimum, that saves a sliver, but it's a lot of work to get there without going backwards.

[KillerLeft]

Burke's overpay by a few dollars is mostly irrelevant, because it's so tiny of an overpay. He's making barely over the minimum.

This. I have never understood the Burke hatred. 

Sure, immediately after balling out in the bubble and receiving the contract, he was tried as a rotation player briefly and didn't perform. No argument. That was disappointing. But, he has veteran-level skill and experience, and (this is important) he's able to come off of the deep bench only when needed and DOES NOT bitch up the locker room about why he's not getting more of a chance. He's grateful for the role, and frankly, he's overqualified for it. Heck, he has been GOOD in that role this year. I'm having trouble remembering a Burke sighting that I didn't think was a positive for the past season. 

Kudos to Kidd for giving Green a chance down the stretch - that worked out great for the team, and for his development.

Kudos to Kidd for recognizing that Green was in over his head in the PHX series and giving Ntilikina a chance instead - that worked out great for the team, and for his development.

But, when BOTH of those guys floundered against GS in the WCF, and when the problem was so clearly that the Mavs couldn't score, I honestly think giving Burke those minutes might've helped. 

I'm fine with Burke here in the role he has. I think it's kind of a luxury, even.

[Mavs2021]

Westbrook is far and away the best player of the albatross contracts. And you get paid to take him. I realize he can’t shoot. At all. But he does everything else at an all-star level. Sure would be an interesting experiment. Way better than Tobias Harris.

100%. It´s also a difficult salary match and gets even better for the Mavs after July 1st. Before July 1st it´s 44M vs. THJ/Bertans 37M, after it would be 47M vs. 35M, so we can add more bad contracts.

Given how desperate LeBron is and how big that contract is, it´s virtually impossible to lose a Westbrook trade.

In 2023 we´d have only our top 5 core players under guaranteed contracts, but Bullock and Dinwiddie would be partial guaranteed expirings. We´d have all our future draft picks, too. We suddenly have a legit threat to generate max capspace and/or facilitate trades.

[omahen]

"Meanwhile, an NBA source said center-starved Dallas is not expected to be interested in Robinson at his hefty price tag (at least $11M per year) and have set their sights on cheaper free-agent centers."

Knicks Rumors: Mitchell Robinson Not Expected to Interest Mavericks; Bulls Linked | Bleacher Report | Latest News, Videos and Highlights

[F Gump]

"Dallas is not expected to be interested in Robinson at his hefty price tag (at least $11M per year)"

"News" -- that really is meaningless.

It's not necessarily that Mavs don't want him. It's that Mavs don't have any way to pay him more than 6.2M or so, and his salary expectation is far north of that number.

[dirkfansince1998]

This. I have never understood the Burke hatred. 

Sure, immediately after balling out in the bubble and receiving the contract, he was tried as a rotation player briefly and didn't perform. No argument. That was disappointing. But, he has veteran-level skill and experience, and (this is important) he's able to come off of the deep bench only when needed and DOES NOT bitch up the locker room about why he's not getting more of a chance. He's grateful for the role, and frankly, he's overqualified for it. Heck, he has been GOOD in that role this year. I'm having trouble remembering a Burke sighting that I didn't think was a positive for the past season. 

Kudos to Kidd for giving Green a chance down the stretch - that worked out great for the team, and for his development.

Kudos to Kidd for recognizing that Green was in over his head in the PHX series and giving Ntilikina a chance instead - that worked out great for the team, and for his development.

But, when BOTH of those guys floundered against GS in the WCF, and when the problem was so clearly that the Mavs couldn't score, I honestly think giving Burke those minutes might've helped. 

I'm fine with Burke here in the role he has. I think it's kind of a luxury, even.

Roster spots are an asset as well. And Burke is one of the Mavs worst players (in my opinion the worst fully guaranteed). He was out of the league for a reason. Not sure what you saw this season but selective memory is probably impacting all of us. I have a hard time remembering a single useful Burke minute this season. I think there are unsigned free agents and undrafted players that can give the Mavs more than 5pts on 39%FG / 32% from 3 / 48% TS. We actually saw hardship signings like Knight in the same role. Clearly outperforming Burke.
But even more important. He has no upside. Would rather give a younger player an opportunity. Or if the Mavs want a veteran. Go for a player that actually has experience on the biggest stage. Burke played a grand total of three playoff games (20min total) before he joined the Mavs. Vet by name and number of years in the league only.

[KillerLeft]

Roster spots are an asset as well. And Burke is one of the Mavs worst players (in my opinion the worst fully guaranteed). He was out of the league for a reason. Not sure what you saw this season but selective memory is probably impacting all of us. I have a hard time to remembering a single useful Burke minute this season. I think there are unsigned free agents and undrafted players that can give the Mavs more than 5pts on 39%FG / 32% from 3 / 48% TS. We actually saw hardship signings like Knight in the same role. Clearly outperforming Burke.
But even more important. He has no upside. Would rather give a younger player an opportunity. Or if the Mavs want a veteran. Go for a player that actually has experience on the biggest stage. Burke played a grand total of three playoff games (20min total) before he joined the Mavs. Vet by name and number of years in the league only.

But, that's the whole point.

They NEED to fill that spot with someone who hits a very specific target. 

I have maintained for years that young players can be "developed" in practice and behind the scenes, but a lot of folks around here claim that ONLY in-game minutes count as development. Ironically, I suspect many of those people (not you) are the same who want Burke gone. 

But then, when the "young guy" who gets that spot doesn't play, because he wouldn't, of course, they'll be pissed. 

Burke is perfect, imo. A guy who CAN play, but who has the necessary experience, maturity and understanding of how the business works to realize why he isn't. I don't think ALL non-rotation roster spots should be used that way, but I do think that on THIS team, the non-ration GUARDS should probably be that type. 

Now, Boban? A center who can't get on the court, even when it's obvious the team needs help at center? That's a different story. Give HIS roster spot to a "young guy" big, sure.

[loki]

1 Yes the Mavs are apparently overcommitted re roster slots, as we all know. Right now it looks like they are whittling down from 17.  (That assumes Burke stays, Kleber stays, Franky stays, Brunson signs, Pinson signs.)

2 But I think getting rid of Burke is one of the least likely "solutions" they would entertain to needing a roster slot. It's not because Burke is all-world but rather the fact that getting rid of your backup means you have to get another backup player to replace him, which doesn't leave you any added roster room.

3 The complaint about Burke's salary is irrelevant to the roster. Yes, he is a bit overpaid, but not by a big number, since the minimum is only about 1M less. It would be better to have signed him for the minimum, but ....

There is significant value in the fact that he is already here, already knows the role, has done it as well as could be expected, and is already under contract. They need to address the need for 2 more players in the 5-8 range of their pecking order, and I suspect "upgrading Burke" wouldn't even make their radar.

As for how the Mavs will get from 17 to 15, the process of working to fill in their 2 holes can change that math. For example, one idea would be Powell-Brown-26 for Holmes or Wood to upgrade the C, and then let THJ be the other wing addition they need. There are lots of others.

2. I don't see much need for another backup. Luka, Brunson, Dinwiddie, Ntilikina can all take minutes at the 1. All of those guys plus Hardaway, Green, Brown, and Pinson can take minutes at the 2. Depending on who they draft you might be able to add another name to that list. I'm really struggling to see the downside of losing a guy who appears in half the games for 10 minutes. 

3. If it's relevant to how much luxury tax Cuban has to pay, it could very well be relevant to the roster. You can compare Burke to the minimum salary, but if they are starting at 17 players they won't add anyone else after moving him. The trade would be Burke and cash to cover his contract (plus a little extra) to be absorbed by a non-taxpaying team with a TPE (or cap space). That's an easy $10m in net savings.

I would also prioritize upgrading the top end of the roster rather than "upgrading Burke". However, that doesn't mean that the bottom half of the roster is somehow untouchable. I certainly expect them to try landing an upgrade at center through trade, but I think they are going to have a hard time pulling it off. If no major deal happens, it seems unavoidable that guys like Burke and Brown will be on the chopping block.

[KillerLeft]

I would also prioritize upgrading the top end of the roster rather than "upgrading Burke". However, that doesn't mean that the bottom half of the roster is somehow untouchable.

Absolutely, Burke is NOT "untouchable." I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't think anyone is arguing to the contrary. 

In fact, I'd go as far as to say he's quite attractive to the right team on the "throw-in" level, as he's a guy who CAN play who has a quite reasonable contract. He really could be traded soon - wouldn't surprise me in the least. 

I think the argument is with some people who look over this roster and get their blood up about Burke's presence on it, for some reason I just don't get.

[dirkfansince1998]

But, that's the whole point.

They NEED to fill that spot with someone who hits a very specific target. 

I have maintained for years that young players can be "developed" in practice and behind the scenes, but a lot of folks around here claim that ONLY in-game minutes count as development. Ironically, I suspect many of those people (not you) are the same who want Burke gone. 

But then, when the "young guy" who gets that spot doesn't play, because he wouldn't, of course, they'll be pissed. 

Burke is perfect, imo. A guy who CAN play, but who has the necessary experience, maturity and understanding of how the business works to realize why he isn't. I don't think ALL non-rotation roster spots should be used that way, but I do think that on THIS team, the non-ration GUARDS should probably be that type. 

Now, Boban? A center who can't get on the court, even when it's obvious the team needs help at center? That's a different story. Give HIS roster spot to a "young guy" big, sure.

So why Burke and not one of the hardship players that outperformed him?
Boban is just as useful (not at all) on the court but at least offers the Luka/locker room role. As mentioned. They want to keep Pinson and Boban for that reason. Both bring the same kind of maturity and aren´t complaining about their role. If they are keepers I don´t see a spot for Burke.

[loki]

Absolutely, Burke is NOT "untouchable." I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't think anyone is arguing to the contrary. 

In fact, I'd go as far as to say he's quite attractive to the right team on the "throw-in" level, as he's a guy who CAN play who has a quite reasonable contract. He really could be traded soon - wouldn't surprise me in the least. 

I think the argument is with some people who look over this roster and get their blood up about Burke's presence on it, for some reason I just don't get.

Maybe I've overlooked a few posts because I haven't noticed any hatred for Burke. Sure, some people don't think he's very good, myself included. That's different than being offended by his presence though.

All I see is that the Mavs have a roster crunch and are facing a massive tax bill. Burke is glued to the bench and overpaid. Moving him seems to be one of the most obvious things they could do this summer.

[KillerLeft]

So why Burke and not one of the hardship players that outperformed him?
Boban is just as useful (not at all) on the court but at least offers the Luka/locker room role. As mentioned. They want to keep Pinson and Boban for that reason. Both bring the same kind of maturity and aren´t complaining about their role. If they are keepers I don´t see a spot for Burke.

See, Burke offends me the least of all those players. I think it's because he has NBA skill in some really important areas. Like it or not, the dude can flat out score. 

Pinson, who I wouldn't mind keeping around somehow, is not remotely on Burke's level as a player. 

The Boban point is simple: even when the team NEEDS help at HIS position, playing him wasn't even a thought. Why? BECAUSE HE CAN'T BE PLAYED. That, to me, is NOT the situation with Burke at all. That's the difference. 

If your overall point is that the Mavs have too many players in this type of role, I can get behind that, maybe. But, I'll just never agree that Burke is somehow the poster child for this point.

---

All I see is that the Mavs have a roster crunch and are facing a massive tax bill. Burke is glued to the bench and overpaid. Moving him seems to be one of the most obvious things they could do this summer.

Well, if he's overpaid, then it's certainly not by much. If moving him is something they want to do, it will be pretty easy to accomplish.