BRUNSON BURNER: to NYK for 4yrs/$104M (no SnT) | NYK docked 2025 2nd for tampering

[F Gump]

Hey I hope we are cool. It was the force and certainty with which you stated your opinion that made me chime in. It just felt like you were stating it as a fact and not an opinion and maybe I misread you on that.

You may be 100% right at the end of the day. I just don't think anyone can say for certain if you are or not. 

I think it is a fact that a TPE can be seen as an "asset." But I don't think we know enough about whether the Mavs 1) want one/see one of value at this juncture or 2) if NYK is even willing to give one to the Mavs without an asset being given to NYK. 

It is 100% your right to think the Mavs are failing at negotiating and that they should be able to force NYK to do this deal. But I do not think that is the only reasonable opinion on this matter. That is all.

This was the first respectful reply I've gotten from you in this conversation, Kamm ... not that I am owed respect, but a certain dismissiveness of what I am saying has been conveyed, that fits with your regular and ongoing eagerness to absolve the FO of criticism.

I'm glad you agree that a TPE is an asset. That's a start. I hope you also agree that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to ascertain today that they definitely would not have any potential need or use for said TPE at any time over the next year. There is no way to know what trade opportunities may arise, and what rules-related obstacles such a trade may create. Remember, this would be available to use into free agency of 2023 before it expired.

It seems like your defense of the Mavs choices is a shift-the-blame thing, but if you'd take a step back, you might see that it's not a good defense, because it's still going to be a Mavs-related inability that it lands on.

1 "It is 100% your right to think the Mavs ... should be able to force NYK to do this deal".... Do you REALLY think this is how deal-making works, and how adept negotiators close deals, and what I am saying? They FORCE the other party to say yes? Good grief. But no, that is so incredibly off base.

2 One of your excuses for the Mavs inability to sell this deal is that 'maybe the Mavs don't want an asset.' Thus, it isn't their negotiating that sucks, but their desire, is the idea. But why is that a valid excuse, their own inability to see value, or to be willing to get an asset that should be easy for the taking?

3 Then you say 'But it might not be easy for the taking' -- and again, how is that a real answer, as it's on the Mavs to be talented at negotiating so that what is easy to negotiate (hey, let's both pick up an asset) is easy and not impossible.

4 Finally, you say that maybe NY's (valid) objection would be that only Dallas gets a benefit. But not so. BOTH teams get TPE's of a similar size by turning it into a SNT. And if they can't sell NY on both of us getting a little extra, instead of getting nothing, see 3. 

We can't sell them.
We can't figure out how to use one.
We can't tell if we might need one later.
We just don't want to bother.

When the benefit costs nothing in tax or salary, doesn't change the transaction (all the same players going same places), and having it won't get in the way of anything they can possibly want to do later, then I don't see any way to paint failing to do it (or be able to do it) as a plus. I really do expect excellence by the front office, for a team that wants to rise above the competition.