We're right in the middle of the doldrums for the Mavs offseason, so I figured I'd share some prominent national NBA podcast reactions to Mavs offseason moves to foster some discussion.
Nate Duncan and his guest host John Hollinger (ex-Grizzlies front office, inventor of PER, currently with The Athletic) do a weekly episode catching up on league narratives, and the last portion of their most recent podcast was particularly Mavs-heavy (bundled in some Suns for context):
NATE: We got a few other things here. We got extensions for Brooks and Naji Marshall. We got the Lakers being sold again. We got more Clippers circumvention stuff going on. We probably only have time for one more topic. Any of these you want to hit on? Your guy Dillon Brooks getting paid. Is that where we're going?
JOHN: Dillon. 45th pick in the draft Dillon Brooks getting $72 million. Suns might have gotten a little high on their own supply here.
NATE: Mat Ishbia? What?
JOHN: Just, you know, extended for the year beyond this. 3 years for 72. I don't know what kind of market Dillon was going to face after this season, because he's not everyone's cup of tea. And I get sort of why they did it. He's a culture guy for them and stuff. But they went out a long way. I mean, they're going out to...this takes him into his 30s. Going into a guy's 30s when he's not...he's a good player, but he's not an All-Star, and historically that's been a dangerous move to make.
And you already have this kind of disaster extension for Booker looming out there, which runs through 2030 as well. So again, I think the Suns have just overcommitted themselves and burned through assets. For a team that'll be fine this year...they play hard, and they've got some shooting, but I don't know...40 and 42?
NATE: But he was under contract for this year, right?
JOHN: Yes, correct. None of that was impacted by this. This is entirely about what he was going to get a year from now, and what kind of year he'd have had this year.
NATE: Right. What are you locking in? Like, "Oh man, all right, fine, we're a championship contender this year, we just need to keep him around, and for the first couple years of this deal we won't contend without him" or something. But there just isn't that argument here. Quite frankly, they should have been exploring the trade market for him. If they could have gotten a first-round pick, they should have taken it. Obviously that's not the way Mat Ishbia is going to be thinking. And yeah, they've done some other nice stuff around the margins with this group.
But my comment about the Brooks and Marshall deals is this is why the league is basically expensive in an unprecedented way right now, because deals like this, you just didn't really need to do them. It doesn't seem that horrible at the time. It's like a slight raise, going up more than the cap is most likely going to. And it's like, "Oh, this is just what you do." But no, this shouldn't be what you do, but it's what everyone does, and that's why every team is basically right at the tax line or above these days. It's a perfect example of why the league is where it is right now, much more so than, "Oh, the second apron penalties, no one could ever possibly deal with these second apron penalties."
JOHN: Yeah. It's because you're paying Daniel Gafford $18 million, PJ Washington $21 million, and Naji Marshall $18 million a year from now, and you could've gotten that in free agency for $8m.
NATE: And again, Brooks and Marshall have both been pretty good players.
JOHN: Absolutely. Naji Marshall's been underpaid his whole career, so kudos to him. Undrafted player getting a $51-million-ish extension.
NATE: Especially given where Dallas is. That's the other thing too. To lock him up through his age-30, 31, 32 seasons...it does decline slightly, but nonetheless, for where Dallas is, I can't say...I think some of their player evaluation stuff has been interesting. But the way they're handling their finances just hasn't been the way I'd want to be doing it going forward. With Marshall, you get what you could for him on a $9.4 million expiring contract at this point. Let the other team give him that next contract. And also, by the way, if you can't get a first for him on a $9–10 million expiring contract, that might be an indication that maybe you shouldn't give him this extension.
JOHN: That's a tell. The market's telling you what's going to happen in free agency. But I think when you're already committed to seven other power forwards, it's important to get that eighth one locked down.
NATE: Well, he's small-forward sized. He just shoots like a power forward. Maybe even a center.
Oh, I did want to ask you this. I don't think we ever got a chance to get to it after the Lu Dort trade. Is Risacher like...you saw him up close a lot. I talked about this with Brad Rowland a little bit too. But is there just no chance for him? Was it right for Atlanta to just totally give up on him at this point? I know they want flexibility for next season, but do you think he just doesn't really have a chance to be a high-level player?
JOHN: Define high level.
NATE: Like a starting small forward.
JOHN: Could he be a fifth starter? Yeah, I could see that. Could he be more than that? I kind of don't see that. I just don't think there's enough juice on the offensive end. In terms of handles, shooting, he's just not skilled enough, and he's not a crazy athlete. He has pretty good size, but he's not that physical or thick. He'll get better in some of these areas, obviously. He's still pretty young. For Dallas, in their position, to get him for free, I think was the right move. But I have a hard time seeing him getting beyond being a good role player, because I just don't think there's the level of shot creation that type of player would require. And if he's not going to be that guy, there's not something else to draw on.
NATE: He could be like a 3-and-D guy.
JOHN: That's what he'd have to be, but that guy is a fifth starter, right?
NATE: Well, at small forward, it's not. I mean, that's a $30-million-a-year player.
JOHN: Could he be as good as Jaden McDaniels? I think probably not.
NATE: Yeah, I don't think he's flashed that level of defense. But this is my theory. feel free to refute it, you watch him more than I do. Could he, in a pinch, guard a team's best player? More often he'd be the second guy. He shoots it, he could do some stuff handling in transition. He shot 37% from three last year on decent volume, and I think the shot's going to be acceptable for a 3.
So I could see him shooting it well enough, doing a bit of a drive-and-transition game, and being at least a number 2 perimeter defender. It's really that last part where I have the most question. I think he'll be adequate on offense. You never know how a guy's shooting is going to evolve, but he shoots it like he thinks he's going to make it, and he shot above league average last year on decent volume from three. So yeah, the question is really: can he at least be a number-two defensively, or is he bad on defense?
JOHN: Kind of in between those two things, yeah. He's not a defensive playmaker, but given his size, he can move pretty well. You'd hope he can be something. Some of it's just physicality, guys kind of go through him right now. He's got a ways to go on all those things. I will say, where he's had his most impact has definitely been in transition.
Yeah. So let's see how Dallas plays. I don't know if they've...I mean, we'll see what Kyrie looks like when he's back, and Coop...the faster Dallas plays, the better that'll be for him because that's been where he's made his most impact. Especially when he was playing with Trae, he could get some easy hit aheads and stuff.
NATE: Yeah, all right, well, it'll be interesting. That type of player, the 3-and-D archetype, is one of the hardest to project. He's not an unbelievable athlete around the rim, particularly as a two-foot leaper, and doesn't do a ton as a help defender either. But yeah, I thought it was obviously a worthy gamble for Dallas.
I generally agree with them that the Naji extension was a bit aggressive. Who was giving Naji an above-MLE deal next year? What about Naji's playstyle or age indicates he would fit well with Coop? Some of those same complaints I have for PJ remaining on the team instead of getting traded. Though I'd argue their market value is probably higher than $8m like Hollinger said. That said, I also think the Risacher deal was a worthy flyer, if a bit of a pricey (in terms of contract) one.
