MAVS NEWS:

[HoosierDaddyKid]

In 2023, Mark Cuban officially sold his majority stake in the Mavericks to Adelson. Cuban said that they had a handshake agreement in place where he would remain in control of the Mavericks’ basketball decisions while Dumont would be in charge of the team’s business side. “This handshake agreement was reiterated in multiple emails and orally in the presence of Dumont, Miriam Adelson, another NBA owner, and Mavericks employees,” Cuban’s legal action read. The Athletic asked Cuban if he could produce these emails. Cuban replied, “Can’t say anything at all.”

New York Times

[DallasMaverick]

A little salary exercise:

Three years from now, Coop will be eligible for his huge contract extension. 30% of the cap. Morez, assuming he's a cornerstone and plays at a high level, might also command a max contract. Maybe 20-25% of the cap?

What players would you like to see consume the remaining 45% of the cap?

[mvossman]

A little salary exercise:

Three years from now, Coop will be eligible for his huge contract extension. 30% of the cap.  Morez, assuming he's a cornerstone and plays at a high level, might also command a max contract. Maybe 20-25% of the cap?

What players would you like to see consume the remaining 45% of the cap?

Obviously no idea this far away, but I would like to point out that 45% of the cap will likely not be 45% of spending.  For this coming year cap space is 165 mil but the second apron is 222 million.  If they really did spend 45% of the cap it might only be a third of total spending.

[michaeltex]

A little salary exercise:

Three years from now, Coop will be eligible for his huge contract extension. 30% of the cap.  Morez, assuming he's a cornerstone and plays at a high level, might also command a max contract. Maybe 20-25% of the cap?

What players would you like to see consume the remaining 45% of the cap?

Not listening. Trying to enjoy the here and now...

[DallasMaverick]

Obviously no idea this far away, but I would like to point out that 45% of the cap will likely not be 45% of spending.  For this coming year cap space is 165 mil but the second apron is 222 million.  If they really did spend 45% of the cap it might only be a third of total spending.

True.

My point is that Dallas has a significant financial advantage over the next 3 years because they have cheap superstars.

Roster construction will become increasingly challenging when that window closes.

Maybe we get lucky and draft a generational talent with similarly low cost in the coming years. Or maybe not.

I’m amazed at San Antonio’s situation, as well. Several very high-level players on cheap contracts.

But eventually, they’ll get “OKC’d” or “Nuggeted” and expensive.

[mvossman]

True.

My point is that Dallas has a significant financial advantage over the next 3 years because they have cheap superstars.

Roster construction will become increasingly challenging when that window closes.

Maybe we get lucky and draft a generational talent with similarly low cost in the coming years. Or maybe not.

I’m amazed at San Antonio’s situation, as well. Several very high-level players on cheap contracts.

But eventually, they’ll get “OKC’d” or “Nuggeted” and expensive.

Yeah but getting OKC'd or Nuggeted is based on their superstars being on their 3rd contract.  If you look at most of the greats (especially recently) they won on their second contracts.  Its very difficult for a superstar to win a championship on their rookie contracts.  They are generally very young and usually start on a team that needs a lot of help (and Flagg is no different).  If you are looking for a reasonable financial window for when the Mavs go for it, it would be Flagg's second contract.

[DallasMaverick]

Yeah but getting OKC'd or Nuggeted is based on their superstars being on their 3rd contract.  If you look at most of the greats (especially recently) they won on their second contracts.  Its very difficult for a superstar to win a championship on their rookie contracts.  They are generally very young and usually start on a team that needs a lot of help (and Flagg is no different).  If you are looking for a reasonable financial window for when the Mavs go for it, it would be Flagg's second contract.

I'd argue that Dallas' situation is a little different:

1. Most top draft picks go to bad teams.  Dallas is actually a pretty good team, with no bad contracts, so the time required to build a championship-caliber team can be very short. See Spurs, San Antonio.

2. In the past, the opportunity to go way over the cap allowed teams to build rosters with well-paid superstars.  So much so, that the goal of much roster-building was to acquire a "big three".  Now, teams seem to target a "big two" with a bunch of really solid mid-priced players.  Or better yet, a couple of superstars on rookie contracts.

Just for grins, I asked Gemini how many of the NBA champions over the past ten years had significantly underpaid stars.  Here's the reply:

Out of those 11 championship teams spanning 2016 to 2026, [b]five teams[/b] capitalized heavily on having star players playing on incredibly cheap or discounted contracts relative to their value.
In the modern NBA, "cheap" contracts for stars usually fall into two categories: [b]rookie-scale deals[/b] before a young player gets paid, or [b]unprecedented discounts/underpriced extensions[/b] signed right before a massive spike in the salary cap. [1]
The breakdown of the five champions that fits this description includes:

Champion Year
Team
Star Player(s)
Why the Contract Was "Cheap"
[b]2016[/b]
Golden State Warriors
[b]Stephen Curry[/b]
He was playing on a [b]4-year, $44 million extension[/b] signed in 2012 when there were major concerns about his ankles. He won two MVPs making roughly $11.3 million a year, which was only the 5th highest salary on his own team.
[b]2019[/b]
Toronto Raptors
[b]Pascal Siakam[/b]
While Kawhi Leonard was the primary superstar, Siakam emerged as a legitimate co-star and won Most Improved Player. Because he was drafted 27th overall, he won the 2019 championship while making just [b]$1.54 million[/b] on his rookie contract.
[b]2022[/b]
Golden State Warriors
[b]Jordan Poole[/b]
Similar to Toronto, Poole served as a vital, dynamic scoring engine next to Steph Curry during their 2022 run. He averaged 18.5 points per game in the postseason while counting for just [b]$2.16 million[/b] on his rookie deal.
[b]2025[/b]
Oklahoma City Thunder
[b]Chet Holmgren & Jalen Williams[/b]
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was the MVP-level anchor, but the Thunder secured the 2025 title because their two young co-stars, Holmgren and Williams, provided All-Star level production while still on their rookie-scale contracts.
[b]2026[/b]
New York Knicks
[b]Jalen Brunson[/b]
In one of the most famous financial sacrifices in NBA history, Brunson signed a 4-year, $156.5 million extension in 2024. By doing so, he left [b]$113 million on the table[/b] compared to what he could have made in 2025 free agency. That massive discount allowed the Knicks to trade for and afford the championship roster around him.

[Scott41theMavs]

I really like this version of DallasMaverick.

[mvossman]

I'd argue that Dallas' situation is a little different:

1. Most top draft picks go to bad teams.  Dallas is actually a pretty good team, with no bad contracts, so the time required to build a championship-caliber team can be very short. See Spurs, San Antonio.

2. In the past, the opportunity to go way over the cap allowed teams to build rosters with well-paid superstars.  So much so, that the goal of much roster-building was to acquire a "big three".  Now, teams seem to target a "big two" with a bunch of really solid mid-priced players.  Or better yet, a couple of superstars on rookie contracts.

Just for grins, I asked Gemini how many of the NBA champions over the past ten years had significantly underpaid stars.  Here's the reply:

Out of those 11 championship teams spanning 2016 to 2026, [b]five teams[/b] capitalized heavily on having star players playing on incredibly cheap or discounted contracts relative to their value.
In the modern NBA, "cheap" contracts for stars usually fall into two categories: [b]rookie-scale deals[/b] before a young player gets paid, or [b]unprecedented discounts/underpriced extensions[/b] signed right before a massive spike in the salary cap. [1]
The breakdown of the five champions that fits this description includes:

Champion Year
Team
Star Player(s)
Why the Contract Was "Cheap"
[b]2016[/b]
Golden State Warriors
[b]Stephen Curry[/b]
He was playing on a [b]4-year, $44 million extension[/b] signed in 2012 when there were major concerns about his ankles. He won two MVPs making roughly $11.3 million a year, which was only the 5th highest salary on his own team.
[b]2019[/b]
Toronto Raptors
[b]Pascal Siakam[/b]
While Kawhi Leonard was the primary superstar, Siakam emerged as a legitimate co-star and won Most Improved Player. Because he was drafted 27th overall, he won the 2019 championship while making just [b]$1.54 million[/b] on his rookie contract.
[b]2022[/b]
Golden State Warriors
[b]Jordan Poole[/b]
Similar to Toronto, Poole served as a vital, dynamic scoring engine next to Steph Curry during their 2022 run. He averaged 18.5 points per game in the postseason while counting for just [b]$2.16 million[/b] on his rookie deal.
[b]2025[/b]
Oklahoma City Thunder
[b]Chet Holmgren & Jalen Williams[/b]
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was the MVP-level anchor, but the Thunder secured the 2025 title because their two young co-stars, Holmgren and Williams, provided All-Star level production while still on their rookie-scale contracts.
[b]2026[/b]
New York Knicks
[b]Jalen Brunson[/b]
In one of the most famous financial sacrifices in NBA history, Brunson signed a 4-year, $156.5 million extension in 2024. By doing so, he left [b]$113 million on the table[/b] compared to what he could have made in 2025 free agency. That massive discount allowed the Knicks to trade for and afford the championship roster around him.

Not one of those examples involve a superstar on their first contract, so I'm not sure what the point is?

What is the argument for Mavs being a good team prior to Flagg?  They were a lottery team when Flagg was drafted and shortly after traded away one of the two best players for air.  This team would definitely be a lottery team without Flagg.  There is a lot of work to be done.

[Smitty]

@NevaMiss24
Cooper Flagg’s Year 2 PREDICTION:

27.5 PPG
6.4 RPG
4.2 APG
1.8 SPG
1.7 BPG

51% FG
33% 3PT
83% FT


This was in my X feed this morning and I thought it'd be a decent topic to discuss. Here's AI because I wanted an unbiased starting point:

Cooper Flagg won the NBA Rookie of the Year award by posting historic first-year numbers, averaging 21.0 points, 6.7 rebounds, and 4.5 assists per game for the Dallas Mavericks. 
Three NBA players who achieved similar or comparable all-around rookie statistics include:

LeBron James: During his 2003-04 rookie campaign with the Cleveland Cavaliers, he posted comparable stat-line averages of 20.9 points, 5.5 rebounds, and 5.9 assists per game.

Luka Dončić: As a rookie with the Mavericks in 2018-19, he put up similar perimeter and playmaking numbers, averaging 21.2 points, 7.8 rebounds, and 6.0 assists per game.

Tyreke Evans: In his 2009-10 debut season, he averaged a near-identical all-around scorecard of 20.1 points, 5.3 rebounds, and 5.8 assists per game.


So, then I looked into year two for each of those players...

LeBron James: 27.2 points, 7.4 rebounds, and 7.2 assists. 3PT percentage increased from 29.0% to 35.1%.
Luka Doncic:  28.8 points, 9.4 rebounds, and 8.8 assists. 3PT percentage decreased from 32.7% to 31.6%.
Tyreke Evans:  17.8 points, 4.8 rebounds, and 5.6 assists. 3PT percentage increased from 25.5% to 29.1%.

Another note just because... USG%:

Rookie Year:
Flagg - 26.9%
LeBron - 28.2%
Luka - 30.5%
Evans - 26.2%

Year 2:
Flagg - ???
LeBron - 29.7%
Luka - 36.8%
Evans - 25.3%


Another note... Giannis, who Flagg has been compared to some.. It wasn't until his 4th season, at age 22, that he had similar usage as the guys above. In 2016-2017 he had a USG% of 28.3% (Identical to LeBron's rookie year). Averaging 22.9 points, 8.8 rebounds, and 5.4 assists. While still being a terrible 3PT shooter (27.2%). The following year he jumped to 31.2% USG%. Averaging 26.9 points, 10.0 rebounds, and 4.8 assists. 3PT percentage increased to 30.7%.


Ton of numbers... My takeaway is that Coop is probably closer to LeBron and year 4-5 Giannis, than he is Luka, simply because I don't see Flagg ever being that ball dominant. To use the best-case comparison... Lebron (who played 42.4 mpg Year 2, which is +2.9 mpg jump):

+6.3 ppg
+1.9 rbs
+1.3 ast
+1.5% USG%
+6.1% 3PT%


Flagg's Year 2 numbers ??:
27.3 points, 8.6 rebounds, and 5.8 assists per game. 35.6% 3PT.




It's the dead zone of the offseason so these are the type of posts you get.

[Chicagojk]

Kyrie Mavs highlights

https://x.com/slicorey/status/2077482820205789628

Boylan talks Sergio

https://x.com/noahweber00/status/2077578301707534596

https://x.com/noahweber00/status/2077579685026840677

Trying not to get pulled in with summer league stuff, but Sergio is making it hard.

[mvossman]

Kyrie Mavs highlights

https://x.com/slicorey/status/2077482820205789628

Boylan talks Sergio

https://x.com/noahweber00/status/2077578301707534596

https://x.com/noahweber00/status/2077579685026840677

Trying not to get pulled in with summer league stuff, but Sergio is making it hard.

You always have to take summer league with a huge grain of salt.  There have been guys that struggled in summer league and turned out to be really good NBA players (Brunson being the obvious Mavs example) and there have been many guys that looked great and turned out to be nothing.  But sometimes you see a player that just has it.  Sergio is one of those dudes.

[Razzmatazz_Hopskidillydoo]

And reportedly, Sergio watched film of the Grizz and had a word with Boylan on how to approach the Memphis game.
Sergio got all nerdy for a summer league game -- the type of nerdy stuff you'd only see from fans.
Larry isn't just a very good player the Mavs picked at 25, they actually picked an MFFL!

[FireNicoHarrison]

You always have to take summer league with a huge grain of salt.  There have been guys that struggled in summer league and turned out to be really good NBA players (Brunson being the obvious Mavs example) and there have been many guys that looked great and turned out to be nothing.  But sometimes you see a player that just has it.  Sergio is one of those dudes.

Yes but i don't take Brunson as a real comparison.
He was just one of a kind trajectory.

Sergio played good all 3 games, you can see what he has.

A lot of people are hyped for Carr, but his ceiling is low than Sergio.
But yes, maybe CC will become a better player. That's hard to know now.

[michaeltex]

Not one of those examples involve a superstar on their first contract, so I'm not sure what the point is?

What is the argument for Mavs being a good team prior to Flagg?  They were a lottery team when Flagg was drafted and shortly after traded away one of the two best players for air.  This team would definitely be a lottery team without Flagg.  There is a lot of work to be done.

Respectfully,

How to define superstar vs star vs key contributor? These terms usually apply in arrears, after the player has posted accomplishments, championships and/or awards.

Most of the list (Siakem, Poole, Holmgren, Williams) were key to winning their respective championships despite not being the face of the team. Even Curry and Brunson were on sub-market deals. (I understand the Curry contract, I think something is skanky about the Brunson contract.)

Wemby took a below market extension (max vs super max) for the Spurs, so it will be interesting to see if his "investment" pays off. It could provide a whole new dialogue of "you help us and we'll help you", as long as team management proves competent and trustworthy. I think if Luka had suggested a couple years ago that he'd take less than 5 @ $70M, then maybe we'd be in a different place now.

I don't think we can say the team was good or bad prior to Flagg. Given all the injuries during the 24-25 season, which continued into the 25-26 season, I don't think we ever knew what the team was like. I do know this team, without Kyrie or AD (essentially) or Lively, still played the most "clutch" games of any team last season. So they were at least competitive, which, to me, says there is perhaps a lot of potential that just needs health and a few tweaks to release.

[Scott41theMavs]

Respectfully,

How to define superstar vs star vs key contributor? These terms usually apply in arrears, after the player has posted accomplishments, championships and/or awards.

Most of the list (Siakem, Poole, Holmgren, Williams) were key to winning their respective championships despite not being the face of the team. Even Curry and Brunson were on sub-market deals. (I understand the Curry contract, I think something is skanky about the Brunson contract.)

Wemby took a below market extension (max vs super max) for the Spurs, so it will be interesting to see if his "investment" pays off. It could provide a whole new dialogue of "you help us and we'll help you", as long as team management proves competent and trustworthy. I think if Luka had suggested a couple years ago that he'd take less than 5 @ $70M, then maybe we'd be in a different place now.

I don't think we can say the team was good or bad prior to Flagg. Given all the injuries during the 24-25 season, which continued into the 25-26 season, I don't think we ever knew what the team was like. I do know this team, without Kyrie or AD (essentially) or Lively, still played the most "clutch" games of any team last season. So they were at least competitive, which, to me, says there is perhaps a lot of potential that just needs health and a few tweaks to release.

I'm thinking that many of the players on "those teams" who pre-dated Flagg will no longer be Mavs by the TDL, if not much earlier.

[mvossman]

Respectfully,

How to define superstar vs star vs key contributor? These terms usually apply in arrears, after the player has posted accomplishments, championships and/or awards.

Most of the list (Siakem, Poole, Holmgren, Williams) were key to winning their respective championships despite not being the face of the team. Even Curry and Brunson were on sub-market deals. (I understand the Curry contract, I think something is skanky about the Brunson contract.)

Wemby took a below market extension (max vs super max) for the Spurs, so it will be interesting to see if his "investment" pays off. It could provide a whole new dialogue of "you help us and we'll help you", as long as team management proves competent and trustworthy. I think if Luka had suggested a couple years ago that he'd take less than 5 @ $70M, then maybe we'd be in a different place now.

I don't think we can say the team was good or bad prior to Flagg. Given all the injuries during the 24-25 season, which continued into the 25-26 season, I don't think we ever knew what the team was like. I do know this team, without Kyrie or AD (essentially) or Lively, still played the most "clutch" games of any team last season. So they were at least competitive, which, to me, says there is perhaps a lot of potential that just needs health and a few tweaks to release.

The superstar is the offensive engine.  Every champion had one.  Going down the list you have Brunson, Shai, Tatum, Jokic, Curry, Giannis, Labron, Kawhi, etc.  None of those guys won a championship on their first contract because they were very young and started on a lottery team.  Those examples provided show that its helpful to get a key contributor on a good contract.  I don't disagree with that at all, but it has nothing to do with timeline.

If I had to guess the general board consensus on where this team will finish this season, I'm guessing it would be the play-in.  Now take away Flagg and all of the offseason additions.  That is essentially the team Flagg got drafted to.  I think it would be really hard to argue that is not a bad team.  On top of that, the Mavs gave away most of their assets in building around Luka.  They are not only lacking in talent, they are also lacking in assets.

The OP suggested that our best window to contend is during Flagg first contract.  I don't think that is the case.  Historically it has been very rare and required a unique situation that I don't believe applies to the Mavs.  Building a champion is a marathon, not a sprint.  I don't think the right mindset for this FO is to hurry the process in fear of Flagg's extension.

[Smitty]

The superstar is the offensive engine.  Every champion had one.  Going down the list you have Brunson, Shai, Tatum, Jokic, Curry, Giannis, Labron, Kawhi, etc.  None of those guys won a championship on their first contract because they were very young and started on a lottery team.  Those examples provided show that its helpful to get a key contributor on a good contract.  I don't disagree with that at all, but it has nothing to do with timeline.

If I had to guess the general board consensus on where this team will finish this season, I'm guessing it would be the play-in.  Now take away Flagg and all of the offseason additions.  That is essentially the team Flagg got drafted to.  I think it would be really hard to argue that is not a bad team.  On top of that, the Mavs gave away most of their assets in building around Luka.  They are not only lacking in talent, they are also lacking in assets.

The OP suggested that our best window to contend is during Flagg first contract.  I don't think that is the case.  Historically it has been very rare and required a unique situation that I don't believe applies to the Mavs.  Building a champion is a marathon, not a sprint.  I don't think the right mindset for this FO is to hurry the process in fear of Flagg's extension.

I guess it depends on how you define contender. You are picking out the best player on the eventual Champs roster. I don't think the OP has the same definition of contention. LeBron, Luka, Wemby and many more have been on 'contenders' on their rookie deal. Making it to the Conference Finals/Finals is contending IMO.

[mvossman]

I guess it depends on how you define contender. You are picking out the best player on the eventual Champs roster. I don't think the OP has the same definition of contention. LeBron, Luka, Wemby and many more have been on 'contenders' on their rookie deal. Making it to the Conference Finals/Finals is contending IMO.

I would argue LeBron and Luka are cautionary tales.  Those franchises rushed their rebuilds and never won with their superstars (unless they returned years later).  Wemby is a unique situation.  That org had the #11 pick and then a generational #1 pick (similar to Mavs), but then they shamelessly tanked for two more seasons and got the #4 pick and the #2 pick (not an option for the Mavs).  They also had a bundle of picks they could use for a big trade (something else the Mavs don't have).

I'm not saying its impossible for this team to be contending during Flagg first contract.  I'm simply saying I don't think the FO should be operating under the mindset that it is their best window to compete.

[windjc]

I would argue LeBron and Luka are cautionary tales.  Those franchises rushed their rebuilds and never won with their superstars (unless they returned years later).  Wemby is a unique situation.  That org had the #11 pick and then a generational #1 pick (similar to Mavs), but then they shamelessly tanked for two more seasons and got the #4 pick and the #2 pick (not an option for the Mavs).  They also had a bundle of picks they could use for a big trade (something else the Mavs don't have).

I'm not saying its impossible for this team to be contending during Flagg first contract.  I'm simply saying I don't think the FO should be operating under the mindset that it their best window to compete.

Are you always negative? You act like the Mavs are in a terrible situation. I’d argue they have steadily improved their situation ever since the Luka trade. 

My god. Just let them work.