Quote:
Originally Posted by tap2390
Perception is the WORST reason to overpay a player who is redundant and a poor fit next to your actual best player. The Patriots and Spurs are both great examples of teams that know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em when it comes to players. Paying JB $25-30m a year will absolutely handicap our franchise.
Edit: want to add I have a lot of respect for the posters arguing very valid points as to why we should keep JB. I respectfully dissent.
|
Can't compare the NFL to the NBA. In the NFL, everyone other than a QB is completely replaceable. As for the Spurs, I'll admit that I haven't followed them that closely in recent years, but I can't ever recall them letting go of someone so important. Certainly not when they were in the title picture anyway. Minor role players, sure, but not their second best player.
As for handicapping the franchise, can you be more specific? Because I honestly don't see how it would change anything since we're going to be over the cap either way. I mean, the Mavs were willing to offer him 22 million a year. How much would and extra 5-8 million really hinder the Mavs?
And letting guys walk for the sake of future "flexibility" is classic Plan Powder. Have we still not learned our lesson about this? Has letting a good, important part of the starting lineup walk in free agency EVER worked in our favor? Even once? I feel like it has always been disastrous for the Mavs.
You can always clear salary if you need to. Hell, look how quick the Knicks did just to steal Brunson. Clearing salary is easy. But replacing your second best player when you have no cap room and almost no trade assets? That's extremely difficult, if not impossible.
I'm not saying I
like paying Brunson that much. But having a bad contract seems the far lesser evil than going back to square one with having only one ball handler outside of Luka.