11-25-2021, 08:38 AM
(11-24-2021, 03:53 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: Brunson, despite his faults (there actually aren't many, at this point) looks like he might be a primary guy. It's just that he's on a team with Luka. I'm not saying it's BAD to have him playing behind or with Luka, especially if you're the Mavs, but I do think he's much more valuable in trade than people realize. HE is the player who can move the needle in a trade, should the Mavs choose to try, imo, and the Spurs would be among the 5-6 teams most likely to claw their way to the front of the line in my estimation.Very interested in your thoughts on this. Considering that his salary is so tiny (by NBA standards) and that the acquiring team would only be getting a rental, I had pretty much bought into the idea put forward by some of the pundits that the Mavs don't think he will fetch much of anything, so they might as well keep him for the rest of the season.
Of course, there could be a multi-player trade, where the Mavs would, in addition to giving up Brunson, presumably offload salary in exchange for a higher-salaried player that they think approaches Brunson's on-court (as opposed to contract) value. Maybe that's what you have in mind. That scenario has more moving parts, and is more complicated, but certainly there is precedent for such things. However, since the possibility still exists that the acquiring team will only have the benefit of his services for a few months, I wonder how many teams will want to part with their own valued player and maybe take on a guy(s) they didn't really want, on that basis.
Totally not saying you are wrong. I agree that Brunson has on-court value that substantially exceeds his contract. I had more or less accepted the idea that, due to the NBA rules on trades, it would be tough to turn him into anything of material value. Am I confused about the rules? Or are you saying that there might be complications, but it's not impossible, and it might be worth a try?