M.C. Swag said:

---

I understand that but the pelicans were lucky that AD requested out SPECIFICALLY to the Lakers. We could just as easily have a Kawhi situation where the best offer is freaking Derozan and some role players. It's a hypothetical I don't like to play in because no matter the package, no return will be equal to Luka.

---

The Kawhi deal was much different because he only had 1 year left on his deal at that time.

DeRozan, Poeltl and 1 pick would not be 25% as good as anything Luka would get you. Especially since we have many new precedents since then.

They're at a major crossroads and I have little to no confidence in this front office

And the Brunson deal was so ****ing obvious…even at the higher numbers when we messed up on not offering him what he wanted the year prior. That move alone may be the undoing of any momentum this franchise had going…obviously hope not

shack009 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

If Luka requests out, the Mavs would be decidedly worse than the rockets RN.

---

First off, this is extremely premature and wild speculation.

Second, I don't think that would be true. A Luka trade would have to include guys who can play right now.

The most comparable recent trade is the Anthony Davis trade, in which the Pelicans got Ingram, Lonzo, and Josh Hart to go with three first rounders and a pick swap. That is three guys who could start on a good team, one of which is a top 30-40 player in the league.

The Jazz just got Markkanen, Sexton, and Agbaji (who was just drafted in the lottery) in the deal for Mitchell, plus three first rounders and two swaps. The Jazz were winning games with these guys early in the year.

OKC got SGA in the Paul George deal. They had to shut SGA down last year to ensure they lost enough games. Now SGA is one of the 15 best guys in the league.

The point is, if the Mavs were to trade Luka, which they won't, they would have to receive young players who can really play immediately. Not just Keldon Johnson, like GuitarSoup would have us believe.

---

Your obvious problem is finding the teams with adequate draft capital as well as young stars. OKC, Utah, and San Antonio have the most FRPs.

I don't think that OKC gives you SGA and a bunch of firsts for Luka. Giddy is 20 and put up 17/8/6 this year. SGA is 24 and put up 32/5/5. Is Luka better? Sure. But Luka also gets $50mm more over the life of his contract than SGA. Wann trade Luka for Chet and picks? What will OKC's picks be worth if they have Giddy+SGA+Luka?

In Utah, they have Lauri, who was a nice surprise this year, but he is 26 and his defense blows. His contract the next two years is great, though. Sexton is still young, but he has had significant injuries. He has played half his games this year and missed 71 games last year. Lauri+Sexton+Kessler+Picks for Luka? I don't think Dallas is in a great shape there, either.

Rockets have some young players, but don't have all their picks.

Dallas could definitely get better younger players than someone like Keldon, but the Spurs are also one of the only teams that could give up 3 first rounders for the next two seasons. And one of the nice things about the trade that I proposed is that the picks are from kind of ****ty teams (Charlotte, Chicago, Toronto) and many teams that you trade to give you picks that would suck. The only bonus of my deal is it got rid of all the deadweight contracts the Mavs have. Not many teams could (or would) absorb that while giving major draft capital.

What package of young players and picks from another team would you suggest?

M.C. Swag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

I understand that but the pelicans were lucky that AD requested out SPECIFICALLY to the Lakers. We could just as easily have a Kawhi situation where the best offer is freaking Derozan and some role players. It's a hypothetical I don't like to play in because no matter the package, no return will be equal to Luka.

---

The Kawhi deal was much different because he only had 1 year left on his deal at that time.

DeRozan, Poeltl and 1 pick would not be 25% as good as anything Luka would get you. Especially since we have many new precedents since then.

---

We can get lost in the minutiae but if your best example for "this is how the mavs can be good in a post Luka trade" is the package that NOLA got for AD, that kinda goes to my point. NOLA is only considered a bright future because they lucked into Zion with the 8th best odds. Only diehard Mavs fans recall that the Pels, Grizz, and Mavs all had identical records that season and a literal coin flip determined their draft slot. Then miraculously the Grizz and Pels leaped into the 1/2 overall picks. If that combination of miracles doesn't happen, no one is pointing to Ingram as a "well at least they got that guy for AD."

The Mavs currently have the rarest & hardest thing to find in the NBA; a bonefide superstar with a decade of prime ahead of him. Losing that for ANY package, will send them to the shadow realm for an undetermined number of years.

---

I understand the situation, I was just pointing out we probably wouldn't be quite as bad as the Rockets. It's all moot, because we aren't trading Luka.

Let's just hope we luck into the #1 pick this year. Then we can pair Wembanyama with Luka and Kyrie. If Kyrie leaves (which most likely it'll be a sign and trade) and Luka demands a trade then we flip both of them for a bevy of players and picks and build around Wemby.

Other than that we are screwed.

I agree that the picks are pointless because you would expect any team Luka is on would not have a good pick. That's why the players are important.

Maybe Detroit would give up some combo of Cade/Ivey/Duren/Killian/Wiseman.

Charlotte would have to be LaMelo/PJ/Mark Williams/Nick Richards.

Maybe a random team has another guy who wants out like Jaylen Brown in Boston. So maybe you could get Brown and Brogdon and Rob Williams plus picks.

Legal Custodian said:

---

Let's just hope we luck into the #1 pick this year. Then we can pair Wembanyama with Luka and Kyrie. If Kyrie leaves (which most likely it'll be a sign and trade) and Luka demands a trade then we flip both of them for a bevy of players and picks and build around Wemby.

Other than that we are screwed.

---

I've already talked myself in to Taylor Hendricks at the 9 or 10 spot and if we don't end up with him I will riot.

I think the best case scenario a Kyrie SnT to the lakers for all the guys they just got from Utah and a 2nd rd pick. Otherwise I'm not sure what other big moves they have available.

zgolfz85 said:

---

And the Brunson deal was so ****ing obvious…even at the higher numbers when we messed up on not offering him what he wanted the year prior. That move alone may be the undoing of any momentum this franchise had going…obviously hope not

---

I thought it was pretty clear Brunson wanted to leave and go play with his Dad, no matter what

M.C. Swag said:

---

I think the best case scenario a Kyrie SnT to the lakers for all the guys they just got from Utah and a 2nd rd pick. Otherwise I'm not sure what other big moves they have available.

---

I think they like the roster they built from that trade. I doubt they'd give up Vanderbilt. Obviously the Mavs would want Reaves back too.

Their front office would be silly to give up the depth they just built that changed their season.

shack009 said:

---

PatAg said:

---

No real fan actually roots for tanking openly.

---

Come on man. If you were the Spurs this year you would want them to try to win games instead of go for the highest odds at drafting the best prospect since LeBron?

For the mavs, you would rather us try to make the playoffs to surely lose in the first round, rather than hope to keep a top 10 pick that will likely make the team better for at least the next 4 years?

---

Big difference between accepting that you will likely not make the playoffs and openly rooting against your team.

PatAg said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

And the Brunson deal was so ****ing obvious…even at the higher numbers when we messed up on not offering him what he wanted the year prior. That move alone may be the undoing of any momentum this franchise had going…obviously hope not

---

I thought it was pretty clear Brunson wanted to leave and go play with his Dad, no matter what

---

I agree with this. He wanted a more in the 2021 off-season than he had earned to that point. Then all of 21-22 it was clear he was going to leave no matter what.

shack009 said:

---

I agree that the picks are pointless because you would expect any team Luka is on would not have a good pick. That's why the players are important.

Maybe Detroit would give up some combo of Cade/Ivey/Duren/Killian/Wiseman.

Charlotte would have to be LaMelo/PJ/Mark Williams/Nick Richards.

Maybe a random team has another guy who wants out like Jaylen Brown in Boston. So maybe you could get Brown and Brogdon and Rob Williams plus picks.

---

Picks aren't pointless - just depends what you get.

LA was more willing to trade those young guys because they pulled LeBron and LBJ+Davis could bring in role players below value (Rondo, McGee, Howard, Morris, etc.) Charlotte gives up their entire team in Ball/PJ/Williams/Richards and they are not improving. For Detroit, it would matter what combo. but if they are left with Ivey and Luka, they are still going to blow.



Brogdon+Rob+Brown for Luka just barely works, and Dallas adds like $25mm to the cap. Keep Kyrie and Wood and run it? That makes sense to me, but I doubt Boston adds picks to that. Does Brown even like Kyrie?

Dallas:

Rob Williams/McGee
Wood/Maxi
Brown/Green/Hardaway
Brogdon/Hardy
Kyrie/???

Boston:

C: Horford
PF: Tatum
SF: Williams
SG: Smart
PG: Luka / White

Doing this kills Boston's depth, so they may say no here. Horford is old. Tatum and Luka are the only two players that can score now. Boston saves $25mm, but they still aren't below the cap to sign a 3rd scorer.

PatAg said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

And the Brunson deal was so ****ing obvious…even at the higher numbers when we messed up on not offering him what he wanted the year prior. That move alone may be the undoing of any momentum this franchise had going…obviously hope not

---

I thought it was pretty clear Brunson wanted to leave and go play with his Dad, no matter what

---

We had an opportunity to sign him for cheap the season before and earlier into his last season. Even at the beginning of the drama we could've easily signed him. It wasn't until we'd snubbed him a handful of times until he wanted out

https://sports.yahoo.com/report-mavericks-seriously-considering-shutting-down-luka-doncic-kyrie-irving-172114251.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHCaNY4uE2ax3ib9EQFro5rtmhU74ba6DQ598xMJ2gDxWPHS9IXZrbdYJoLNU9nvARg6jXERvWui0wHNPZ8AaH5Moy80oiszAMU3Lo_8cdqozdksxGGKEXMPtSOqI0F6STPR810ZLUnaWGI6jGUQu9biBT_jLsENbFFZQXhvlr-X

The Mavs actually are a serious organization. Don't mess around. Make sure you lose these next two to Sacramento and Chicago. Losing the last game against SA would just be gravy.

zgolfz85 said:

---

PatAg said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

And the Brunson deal was so ****ing obvious…even at the higher numbers when we messed up on not offering him what he wanted the year prior. That move alone may be the undoing of any momentum this franchise had going…obviously hope not

---

I thought it was pretty clear Brunson wanted to leave and go play with his Dad, no matter what

---

We had an opportunity to sign him for cheap the season before and earlier into his last season. Even at the beginning of the drama we could've easily signed him. It wasn't until we'd snubbed him a handful of times until he wanted out

---

Did we really though?

Man I disagree on Brunson. He was great in 20-21 other than the playoff series. And Rick didn't play him as much as he should have. He averaged 12-13 points on 52% shooting, 40% 3 point shooting, 80% free throw shooting, and a great assist/turnover ratio. His advanced stats were also good that year. And that was with Carlisle not playing him as much as he should have. He also massively passed the eye test. It was obvious he was at minimum going to be a good player in the league and had a chance to be special.

The playoff series was very bad but that shouldn't overshadow his whole season. Plus, I blamed ric for part of that for just choosing to not play one of our better players of the season.

Like I said, it was obvious he was going to be a good player and had s chance to keep improving. But even if he was just good, and never improved much, 4/55 would still be a decent contract. That's peanuts in the NBA. I would've been more than fine offering him that even after the playoff series. This isn't hindsight. One of the main reasons I was thrilled that Carlisle was gone was that I thought Brunson would have much more freedom and playing time.

That's what you pay your front office to do. Know the players who could break out and get them signed to team friendly deals before they break out. And if they dont break out but are still good players, then that's fine as well if they are in a 4/55. That was a massive mistake by the front office. Anyone who watched every mavs game that year saw brunson's ability and potential if he got a coach that allowed him to do more, and I think would've been fine with a 4/55 if they realized how cheap of a contract that is in today's nba.

I'm biased bc I've been a huge Brunson fan ever since his rookie year. But that's my two cents.

It's so interesting to me how so many foreign athletes are so honest with the media. You gotta lie to us about shit like this bro. Lying to the public is the American way. https://t.co/InQuBFSZjU

— 🦦✨America Is Musty✨🦦 (@DragonflyJonez) April 5, 2023

mavsfan4ever said:

---

Man I disagree on Brunson. He was great in 20-21 other than the playoff series. And Rick didn't play him as much as he should have. He averaged 12-13 points on 52% shooting, 40% 3 point shooting, 80% free throw shooting, and a great assist/turnover ratio. His advanced stats were also good that year. And that was with Carlisle not playing him as much as he should have. He also massively passed the eye test. It was obvious he was at minimum going to be a good player in the league and had a chance to be special.

The playoff series was very bad but that shouldn't overshadow his whole season. Plus, I blamed ric for part of that for just choosing to not play one of our better players of the season.

Like I said, it was obvious he was going to be a good player and had s chance to keep improving. But even if he was just good, and never improved much, 4/55 would still be a decent contract. That's peanuts in the NBA. I would've been more than fine offering him that even after the playoff series. This isn't hindsight. One of the main reasons I was thrilled that Carlisle was gone was that I thought Brunson would have much more freedom and playing time.

That's what you pay your front office to do. Know the players who could break out and get them signed to team friendly deals before they break out. And if they dont break out but are still good players, then that's fine as well if they are in a 4/55. That was a massive mistake by the front office. Anyone who watched every mavs game that year saw brunson's ability and potential if he got a coach that allowed him to do more, and I think would've been fine with a 4/55 if they realized how cheap of a contract that is in today's nba.

I'm biased bc I've been a huge Brunson fan ever since his rookie year. But that's my two cents.

---

I'm a big Brunson fan as well, but the fact is that he got shut down against the Clippers in 20-21. Its not because Rick didnt trust him, or didnt play him as much as he should have. It was a bad matchup for him, and he wasn't getting it done. Maybe he just got unlucky and it was a temporary dip in his form, but he has always struggled against bigger mobile defenders. He did have a good year, and he seemed to have figure out how to operate with Luka on the offense.
Playoff series do matter, because while the regular season is important, your flaws tend to get truly exposed in the playoffs. Personally, I would have paid him in that offseason if we could, but to me it seems very obvious he intended to go to NY the whole time.

Look at the "Relative Defensive Rating" for the recent history (negative numbers indicate you are in the top half of the league)

2004: 4.5 (52-30)
2005: -2.0 (58-24)
2006: -1.2 (60-22)
2007: -3.3 (67-15)
2008: -1.4 (51-31)
2009: 0.1 (50-32)
2010: -1.3 (55-27)
2011: -2.3 (57-25)
2012: -2.3 (36-30 - lockout season)
--------------
2013: 0.6 (41-41)
2014: 2.0 (49-33)
2015: 0.8 (50-32)
2016: 0.6 (42-40)
2017: 0.0 (33-49)
2018: 0.9 (24-58)
2019: 0.3 (33-49)
2020: 1.1 (43-32)
2021: 0.7 (42-30)
2022: -2.6 (52-30)
2023: 1.8 (37-42)

M.C. Swag said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Hard to fault the Mavs with Brunson. He made clear from the start that he had no desire to stay in Dallas. Plenty to fault to go around after by not getting someone else that could make their own play. Dragic was practically begging for Dallas to pick him up, and the front office turned their nose up at him.

---

I actually disagree and here's why. After the Mavs lost to the Warriors in the WCF, Cuban was specifically asked about Brunson. The reporter (Marc Stein) asks; "Why are you so confident about the Brunson situation?" and Cuban replies...."We can pay him the most money. And I think he wants to be here."

Cuban SAID that. And then proceeded to offer Brunson LESS money than the Knicks. So did Cuban cheap out? Was he misinformed? or did he simply lie?

Either way, I don't care because all 3 reasons are bad. If Brunson REALLY wanted to go to NY, fine, but at least make him say no to a better offer. Give him $27m/yr for 5 years ($5m more annually than the Knicks offer) offer sheet and MAKE HIM SAY NO to that. But he didn't do that.

Cuban simply allowed the 2nd best player on the roster, N HIS PRIME, to walk FOR NOTHING. That's gross incompetence.

Edit: Here's the interview (skip to 2:17).

.@mcuban reflecting on the 2021-22 Dallas Mavericks season with Marc Stein. @dallasmavs | 📺 BSSW | #dALLasIN | #NBAPlayoffs | @TheSteinLine pic.twitter.com/YZROfVsnq0

— Bally Sports Southwest (@BallySportsSW) May 27, 2022

---

Bump

PatAg said:

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

Man I disagree on Brunson. He was great in 20-21 other than the playoff series. And Rick didn't play him as much as he should have. He averaged 12-13 points on 52% shooting, 40% 3 point shooting, 80% free throw shooting, and a great assist/turnover ratio. His advanced stats were also good that year. And that was with Carlisle not playing him as much as he should have. He also massively passed the eye test. It was obvious he was at minimum going to be a good player in the league and had a chance to be special.

The playoff series was very bad but that shouldn't overshadow his whole season. Plus, I blamed ric for part of that for just choosing to not play one of our better players of the season.

Like I said, it was obvious he was going to be a good player and had s chance to keep improving. But even if he was just good, and never improved much, 4/55 would still be a decent contract. That's peanuts in the NBA. I would've been more than fine offering him that even after the playoff series. This isn't hindsight. One of the main reasons I was thrilled that Carlisle was gone was that I thought Brunson would have much more freedom and playing time.

That's what you pay your front office to do. Know the players who could break out and get them signed to team friendly deals before they break out. And if they dont break out but are still good players, then that's fine as well if they are in a 4/55. That was a massive mistake by the front office. Anyone who watched every mavs game that year saw brunson's ability and potential if he got a coach that allowed him to do more, and I think would've been fine with a 4/55 if they realized how cheap of a contract that is in today's nba.

I'm biased bc I've been a huge Brunson fan ever since his rookie year. But that's my two cents.

---

I'm a big Brunson fan as well, but the fact is that he got shut down against the Clippers in 20-21. Its not because Rick didnt trust him, or didnt play him as much as he should have. It was a bad matchup for him, and he wasn't getting it done. Maybe he just got unlucky and it was a temporary dip in his form, but he has always struggled against bigger mobile defenders. He did have a good year, and he seemed to have figure out how to operate with Luka on the offense.
Playoff series do matter, because while the regular season is important, your flaws tend to get truly exposed in the playoffs. Personally, I would have paid him in that offseason if we could, but to me it seems very obvious he intended to go to NY the whole time.

---

Agree he struggled in the playoffs that year. That would be a big red flag if we were going to have to pay him 4/100 that summer. But the contract would've been 4/55. I'm fine giving great regular season players who may struggle in the playoffs against certain matchups 4/55. And that's assuming he wouldn't get better (which he did and which the front office should've known was more likely than not).

That's why not offering him 4/55 that summer is so frustrating. I agree with everyone saying we should've made him say no last summer as well. He probably would have still gone to NY at that point in my opinion, but we still should've made him say no. But the summer before is just as infuriating to me.

But that's what we get when we have a shoe guy as our GM. I'm ready for both Kidd and Nico to be gone.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

PatAg said:

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

Man I disagree on Brunson. He was great in 20-21 other than the playoff series. And Rick didn't play him as much as he should have. He averaged 12-13 points on 52% shooting, 40% 3 point shooting, 80% free throw shooting, and a great assist/turnover ratio. His advanced stats were also good that year. And that was with Carlisle not playing him as much as he should have. He also massively passed the eye test. It was obvious he was at minimum going to be a good player in the league and had a chance to be special.

The playoff series was very bad but that shouldn't overshadow his whole season. Plus, I blamed ric for part of that for just choosing to not play one of our better players of the season.

Like I said, it was obvious he was going to be a good player and had s chance to keep improving. But even if he was just good, and never improved much, 4/55 would still be a decent contract. That's peanuts in the NBA. I would've been more than fine offering him that even after the playoff series. This isn't hindsight. One of the main reasons I was thrilled that Carlisle was gone was that I thought Brunson would have much more freedom and playing time.

That's what you pay your front office to do. Know the players who could break out and get them signed to team friendly deals before they break out. And if they dont break out but are still good players, then that's fine as well if they are in a 4/55. That was a massive mistake by the front office. Anyone who watched every mavs game that year saw brunson's ability and potential if he got a coach that allowed him to do more, and I think would've been fine with a 4/55 if they realized how cheap of a contract that is in today's nba.

I'm biased bc I've been a huge Brunson fan ever since his rookie year. But that's my two cents.

---

I'm a big Brunson fan as well, but the fact is that he got shut down against the Clippers in 20-21. Its not because Rick didnt trust him, or didnt play him as much as he should have. It was a bad matchup for him, and he wasn't getting it done. Maybe he just got unlucky and it was a temporary dip in his form, but he has always struggled against bigger mobile defenders. He did have a good year, and he seemed to have figure out how to operate with Luka on the offense.
Playoff series do matter, because while the regular season is important, your flaws tend to get truly exposed in the playoffs. Personally, I would have paid him in that offseason if we could, but to me it seems very obvious he intended to go to NY the whole time.

---

Agree he struggled in the playoffs that year. That would be a big red flag if we were going to have to pay him 4/100 that summer. But the contract would've been 4/55. I'm fine giving great regular season players who may struggle in the playoffs against certain matchups 4/55. And that's assuming he wouldn't get better (which he did and which the front office should've known was more likely than not).

That's why not offering him 4/55 that summer is so frustrating. I agree with everyone saying we should've made him say no last summer as well. He probably would have still gone to NY at that point in my opinion, but we still should've made him say no. But the summer before is just as infuriating to me.

But that's what we get when we have a shoe guy as our GM. I'm ready for both Kidd and Nico to be gone.

---

We don't know what conversations were held. What evidence is there that he would have taken the 4/55 you say we should have offered.

PatAg said:

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

PatAg said:

---

mavsfan4ever said:

---

Man I disagree on Brunson. He was great in 20-21 other than the playoff series. And Rick didn't play him as much as he should have. He averaged 12-13 points on 52% shooting, 40% 3 point shooting, 80% free throw shooting, and a great assist/turnover ratio. His advanced stats were also good that year. And that was with Carlisle not playing him as much as he should have. He also massively passed the eye test. It was obvious he was at minimum going to be a good player in the league and had a chance to be special.

The playoff series was very bad but that shouldn't overshadow his whole season. Plus, I blamed ric for part of that for just choosing to not play one of our better players of the season.

Like I said, it was obvious he was going to be a good player and had s chance to keep improving. But even if he was just good, and never improved much, 4/55 would still be a decent contract. That's peanuts in the NBA. I would've been more than fine offering him that even after the playoff series. This isn't hindsight. One of the main reasons I was thrilled that Carlisle was gone was that I thought Brunson would have much more freedom and playing time.

That's what you pay your front office to do. Know the players who could break out and get them signed to team friendly deals before they break out. And if they dont break out but are still good players, then that's fine as well if they are in a 4/55. That was a massive mistake by the front office. Anyone who watched every mavs game that year saw brunson's ability and potential if he got a coach that allowed him to do more, and I think would've been fine with a 4/55 if they realized how cheap of a contract that is in today's nba.

I'm biased bc I've been a huge Brunson fan ever since his rookie year. But that's my two cents.

---

I'm a big Brunson fan as well, but the fact is that he got shut down against the Clippers in 20-21. Its not because Rick didnt trust him, or didnt play him as much as he should have. It was a bad matchup for him, and he wasn't getting it done. Maybe he just got unlucky and it was a temporary dip in his form, but he has always struggled against bigger mobile defenders. He did have a good year, and he seemed to have figure out how to operate with Luka on the offense.
Playoff series do matter, because while the regular season is important, your flaws tend to get truly exposed in the playoffs. Personally, I would have paid him in that offseason if we could, but to me it seems very obvious he intended to go to NY the whole time.

---

Agree he struggled in the playoffs that year. That would be a big red flag if we were going to have to pay him 4/100 that summer. But the contract would've been 4/55. I'm fine giving great regular season players who may struggle in the playoffs against certain matchups 4/55. And that's assuming he wouldn't get better (which he did and which the front office should've known was more likely than not).

That's why not offering him 4/55 that summer is so frustrating. I agree with everyone saying we should've made him say no last summer as well. He probably would have still gone to NY at that point in my opinion, but we still should've made him say no. But the summer before is just as infuriating to me.

But that's what we get when we have a shoe guy as our GM. I'm ready for both Kidd and Nico to be gone.

---

We don't know what conversations were held. What evidence is there that he would have taken the 4/55 you say we should have offered.

---

Brunson has publicly stated he would have signed the extension if it was offered but the Mavs wanted to use him as trade bait instead so they never offered it until after the deadline (as signing an extension would have made him trade ineligible).

Source: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/jalen-brunson-reportedly-wouldve-signed-with-mavericks-for-55-5m-who-are-paying-royally-for-their-mistake/

I mean, maybe Cuban is just a complete dumbass and all the fans are smarter... But reading between the lines sure seems like Brunson made it clear he was going to New York so whatever "official" offer Mavericks made didn't mean anything.

I didn't realize people didn't know we fumbled the Brunson situation because we blatantly did

How dry is our powder though?

Tim Hardaway Sr. and Mark Cuban running their mouths a bunch today. What morons.