01-16-2022, 03:29 PM
(01-16-2022, 02:38 PM)F Gump Wrote: I still don't understand the thinking that since JB is worth a lot, and is going to get paid what he's worth, then that somehow will make him "cost too much" for the Mavs price range. (Of course, if we are thinking JB will get paid way way more than he's worth, that's a different matter, but I don't think that's what's being said.)
The Mavs have certainly been needing better talent overall. But better talent costs more money. ~shrug~
In addition, there is no rules restriction -- the Mavs do have the ability, under the rules, to pay JB (and DFS too) whatever it takes. It's only a matter of their willingness to pay.
So as I see it, if JB is a highly talented key player, you pay him. Should Cuban be too cheap or broke to pay what it takes to put a more talented team on the floor, he needs to get out of the business.
I think the most logical defense of that thinking is unless you are 100% convinced Brunson is the long term answer as Luka’s backcourt partner (and that’s different than thinking the pairing looks pretty good so far), you want Brunson to be a positive value asset on his next contract. If the interest of other teams looks like it will drive Brunson’s next contract into negative value, there’s an argument to cash in despite it reducing the current amount of talent. Because if the pairing doesn’t work out due to limitations, paying someone to take Brunson (again, potentially negative value to contract) is unthinkable. Not that different than conversations around THJ and KP to be honest, although Brunson is probably less risky for a few reasons.
I’m in no way able to tell you where the line is for any player (including Brunson), but I sure hope the new regime is thinking in terms of risk-adjusted asset accumulation.