[Shams] PJ Washington extends with Dallas 4/90

HornetJail · Post #1 » by **HornetJail** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 3:39 pm

Read on Twitter

pretty fair deal as long as PJ keeps doing what he's been doing in Dallas

OGSactownballer · Post #2 » by **OGSactownballer** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 3:43 pm

Deadline trade for sure.

Post #3 » by **gswhoops** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 3:45 pm

Good deal for both sides.

Post #4 » by **Mavrelous** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:01 pm

My opinion of him is well known, had the trade not happened, there was a solid chance he doesn't accept this extension because he'd be looking for 30/yr at least.

the_process · Post #5 » by **the_process** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:01 pm

Cooper playing the 3 full time I take it? Is that really the kids best position?

Post #6 » by **gswhoops** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:02 pm

the_process wrote:Cooper playing the 3 full time I take it? Is that really the kids best position?

He's probably better at the 4 right now, but his ceiling is higher at the 3 IMO.

Post #7 » by **MoneyTalks41890** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:03 pm

Good for PJ because this year is probably rough for him statistically until Kyrie is back.

LightTheBeam · Post #8 » by **LightTheBeam** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:05 pm

Well the new owners are at least definitely prepared to spend heavily.
Between AD, Kyrie, PJ, Gafford, Klay, Flagg. That team is already very very expensive.

Interested to see what Lively extension gets done next year.

Post #9 » by **Texas Chuck** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:11 pm

I mean based on that playoff run I get why Dallas did this. But if Cooper isn't a star, they are loading up the roster with a lot of contracts for solid but not really difference making players which combined with not controlling their own picks will have them in just no man's land.

Like everything else it comes down to AD/Kyrie health and level of play in the next 2 seasons and Flagg beyond that.

But with them trying to win now, better to have him than not. And now if they want to start Christie or Klay to let Flagg start his career in a more natural position or to get more consistent shooting on the court, they can without worrying about how it impacts future contract talks.

Don't get it really for PJ. I think a deal like this is still waiting for him in a year. But locking up a bunch of money can never be terrible I guess.

Post #10 » by **gswhoops** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:12 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:I mean based on that playoff run I get why Dallas did this. But if Cooper isn't a star, they are loading up the roster with a lot of contracts for solid but not really difference making players which combined with not controlling their own picks will have them in just no man's land.

Like everything else it comes down to AD/Kyrie health and level of play in the next 2 seasons and Flagg beyond that.

But with them trying to win now, better to have him than not. And now if they want to start Christie or Klay to let Flagg start his career in a more natural position or to get more consistent shooting on the court, they can without worrying about how it impacts future contract talks.

Don't get it really for PJ. I think a deal like this is still waiting for him in a year. But locking up a bunch of money can never be terrible I guess.

Maybe it's because I'm more naturally risk-averse, but to me if you're not an obvious max guy and you get a chance to lock in a "fair" deal now, you should probably take it rather than roll the dice and risk injury/underperformance.

Post #11 » by **Texas Chuck** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:16 pm

gswhoops wrote:Maybe it's because I'm more naturally risk-averse, but to me if you're not an obvious max guy and you get a chance to lock in a "fair" deal now, you should probably take it rather than roll the dice and risk injury/underperformance.

Oh if I were in his position, I'm signing the extension for sure.

louc1970 · Post #12 » by **louc1970** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:18 pm

I am not a fan of Washington, so I see it as an overpay for the 4th/5th player on the team. Then again< i need to adjust to the new spending these owners are doing.

toooskies · Post #13 » by **toooskies** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:27 pm

OGSactownballer wrote:Deadline trade for sure.

... except the extension gives him enough of a raise to make him ineligible to be traded for six months, and six months from now is after the trade deadline.

Post #14 » by **Texas Chuck** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:35 pm

toooskies wrote:
OGSactownballer wrote:Deadline trade for sure.

... except the extension gives him enough of a raise to make him ineligible to be traded for six months, and six months from now is after the trade deadline.

Yeah the Gafford deal was done in such a way as to keep him tradable. Washington not so. I think the organization sees Washington as core, incorrectly or not, and Gafford as a player they like and they wanted to hold on any value he might have(not sure he has much after the extension).

I don't think the team has ever seriously entertained trading PJ.

Billl · Post #15 » by **Billl** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 4:37 pm

Seems like a win-win. With a rising cap, a 90M deal starting a year from now is the cap equivalent of a 83M deal starting this year. That's completely fair for a decent starter. For that 29-30 season, the MLE is projected to start at $17.4M which is kinda insane.

HornetJail · Post #16 » by **HornetJail** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 5:25 pm

Billl wrote:Seems like a win-win. With a rising cap, a 90M deal starting a year from now is the cap equivalent of a 83M deal starting this year. That's completely fair for a decent starter. For that 29-30 season, the MLE is projected to start at $17.4M which is kinda insane.

yeah comparing these deals to the MLE is how I keep these crazy numbers straight.

an MLE starting next season is 4/65M. Is PJ Washington worth a contract 40% above the MLE? I think it's up for debate, and that depends very heavily on whether Dallas is getting an engaged PJ Washington or a lazy/distracted PJ Washington.

The former is without a doubt, worth that money. The bad side of PJ that Charlotte saw from time to time, especially when there wasn't a lot to play for, was nowhere close.

daoneandonly · Post #17 » by **daoneandonly** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 5:26 pm

My favorite Maverick, hence my favorite player in the league until we see what Coop really is. I like this one and one of the few smart moves Nico Nitwit has done.

Now, if they can trade Gaff for a starting-quality SG and Klay, Caleb, or Naji for a guy who can play spot-up minutes at the 5 when Lively and AD will inevitably miss time, this team could be on to something.

babyjax13 · Post #18 » by **babyjax13** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 5:30 pm

I like PJ a lot, I am not sure I like this contract. But with cap spikes it is probably fine, I feel like that is usually the result.

giberish · Post #19 » by **giberish** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 6:02 pm

This is solid 4th/5th starter money which is where PJ is as a player, so that makes sense.

Does feel like Dallas has extra quality in the PF/C rotation and not as much on the perimeter.

Post #20 » by **oldncreaky** » Wed Sep 3, 2025 6:21 pm

louc1970 wrote:I am not a fan of Washington, so I see it as an overpay for the 4th/5th player on the team. Then again< i need to adjust to the new spending these owners are doing.

I am a fan of PJ Washington, but still see this as a bit of an overpay. Not a lot, but a bit.

Under the current CBA, if you are going to avoid going far over the second apron at 134% of the cap, your spending looks something like
1. 95% of the cap for the starters
Allows for 2 max contracts, 1 guy making about 15% of the cap, and a couple of guys on MLE level deals

2. 30% of the cap for the second string
Allows for a couple of guys making MLE deals, a couple on rookie scale contracts, 1 min salary guy

3. 10% of the cap for the third string
Just min salary contracts

In this construct, once you get to the 4th/5th starter or the first couple off the bench, player salaries really get squeezed. It gets hard to pay more than the NTMLE for these players unless you are saving money elsewhere. This is the tier I'd have PJ in, and at a little over 12% of the cap he's just a tad too rich for me.