2021-2022 ROSTER TALK: [ARCHIVED]

[F Gump]

Whoa! Do you think paying the tax for this team is an option they'll consider, or am I misunderstanding?

Of course it's an option, or at least it needs to be. Plus, it would make Cuban a flat-out liar if "avoid the tax at all costs" has become their priority.

It's idly assumed that the tax line will be the Mavs cap on spending. I think (hopefully, perhaps) that's way off base.

Keep in mind that Cuban's issue with being a taxpayer has always been stated as 'it's not the money, but it's the fact that taxpayer status hampers the ability to add talent and build a winning roster.'

While it's true there are some pluses in opportunity during free agency in being way below the tax line, what has to be weighed against it is the cost (in talent) you're paying to receive those pluses.

In this case, the Mavs (as is being argued in this thread by some) need to consider which MLE-or-better talent to let walk, in order to dodge tax. But unless they can be confident in being able to recoup that talent (Brunson and DFS) and more by jettisoning the pair and gaining some theoretical pluses for free agency, they've gone backwards in building the talent base. I think they are smart enough to avoid that mistake - but, I may be wrong, of course.

You certainly have to say 'no' if the contract price tag gets absurd, of course. You can't be saddled with max deals on them, for example.

But if the prices are reasonable, the tax line shouldn't be an override. There's no 'missing star' free agent alternative looming for them with 2 max deals already on the books.