Here's basically where I'm at.
If the Mavs offer him more money than the Knicks, and he still leaves, then there was nothing they could have done. He just plain doesn't want to be here, and I can't be mad that at the FO.
BUT if the Mavs offer only equal money, or worse, even less, then that's a huge mistake. The Mavs need to be able to say they did everything they could to keep Brunson. If they didn't do everything they could, then it's silly to blame Brunson or his dad or Leon Rose or anyone else.
The NBA gives each team one and only one tool to protect their rosters from being poached by other teams- the ability to pay their guys more the other team. If the Mavs don't use that one tool at their disposal, then that's on them. And it's a bad decision. It's a huge step backwards.
I want to share the optimism that Brunson's production can be so easily replaced. If that's so, then I've got no problem at all letting him walk. But I just don't see it. And I also don't see how letting him walk preserves any roster flexibility either. In fact, I think it actually makes us LESS flexible, because we lose him as possible trade asset as well as losing his production on the court. Yes, trading a guy making 30 million a year is hard. But it is NOT impossible. We just did it earlier this year. It IS impossible however to trade someone who is not on your roster.
|