I’d like to read about it. Any credibility to this? I hope you’re not referring to the comments section. Most of the time the stuff commenters mention are more like wish-lists than rumors.

But I actually thought it was pretty good, save for the stupid jab at Arenas in the first paragraph. His point about the Celtics was pretty spot-on, and he’s right that the expectation level has to be raised.

If not great. I’m just not convinced that they complement each other particularly well. I actually think that Arenas/Hughes had much better chemistry than Arenas/Butler. However, that doesn’t mean that each is without value in a trade. If Arenas is fully healthy and returns to form, Jamison continues to post 20-10s, and Butler keeps doing what he’s doing (hopefully without a drop-off now that Arenas is back), then I see no reason why any of them wouldn’t be sought after by other teams looking for the right piece to fit and make them contenders.

Their most valuable player, obviously, is Kevin Martin. I doubt the Kings would have actually considered offering him up for Gilbert, but even if they did, he’s practically untradeable because he’s a Base Year Compensation player until next July.

BYC is pretty complicated, but here’s a quick explanation:

Base year compensation (BYC) prevents another salary cap loophole. Without BYC, a team over the salary cap that wants to trade a player, but can’t because of the Traded Player exception (which says teams can’t take back more than 125% of the salary they trade away), could just sign the player to a new contract that fits within the desired range, then do the trade. BYC says “if you re-sign a player and give him a big raise, then for a period of time his trade value will be lower than his actual salary.”

BYC defines the salary that’s used to compare players for compliance under the Traded Player exception (see question number 68 for more information about the Traded Player exception). Usually the salary used for comparison is the player’s actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:

• The team is over the salary cap, used the Larry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20% (unless it’s the minimum salary).
• The team is over the salary cap, it extended the player’s rookie scale contract, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.

If either of the above apply, then the player is considered a base year player. A player remains a base year player for six months, or until June 30, whichever comes later. When trading a base year player, the salary used for comparison is the player’s previous salary, or 50% of the first-year salary in his new contract, whichever is greater.

Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 2004-05, after which he became a free agent. He then signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes.

Martin’s BYC status doesn’t expire until next July. He signed a 5 year, 55 million contract extension last offseason, but it doesn’t actually start until this year, so his BYC status doesn’t expire until next July. (This is the same thing that happened to Caron Butler through the 2006/07 season, by the way). Martin’s contract would count for 11 million on the Wizards’ team salary, but it’s only worth 5.5 million in a trade. With the Wizards already way over the cap, that makes it nearly impossible to take Martin’s salary on.

Other than Martin, I don’t know who the Wizards would even want. Ron Artest is crazy, and his contract runs out next offseason. Brad Miller’s deal runs through 2010. They have a number of decent young guys, but no young studs other than Martin and maybe Spencer Hawes. I doubt they could have put together a decent package without Martin included.

You’re completely entitled to making it.

But if there really are plausible alternatives out there that I haven’t considered, you should mention them, not me. You keep talking about such plausible alternatives, but don’t take the time to get more specific. There’s nothing out there saying you can’t put out alternatives yourself.

I’ll even throw one out there for you. Conceivably, the Wizards could go after a restricted free agent like Josh Smith, Emeka Okafor or Monta Ellis to replace Arenas. They’re all restricted, but they’re all young, so we could see a bright future. The issue with that strategy is twofold. First, they’d likely take up all of the Wizards’ available cap space, so any other improvements in the next two years would have to come through the same avenues that we’re using anyway (MLE, trade, etc.). Second, there’s no guarantee you even get those guys, because their teams can just match the contract.

Say we did sign Ellis, though. Here’s our lineup:

PG: Ellis/Daniels/third PG
SG: Stevenson/Mason/Young
SF: Butler/McGuire
PF: Blatche/Songaila/Pecherov
C: Haywood/Thomas/McGee

You’d probably throw in a mid-level free agent somewhere to round things out, perhaps a guy who could play PF until Blatche is ready.

That’s your team for the next two years (maybe year and a half with all of our 2010 expiring deals). There’s a huge hole at power forward, and Ellis isn’t as good as Arenas yet. In 2010, you lose AD and Etan, but you probably re-sign Haywood for a decent amount (8 million or higher), so you won’t have a huge amount of cap space. In 2011, you’ll have to re-sign Butler and Young, so we’re right back at the same situation we are at today. By that point, Butler will be 31, the same age as Jamison before last season.

It might work, but I don’t see how we’re any closer to a championship contender long-term. We wouldn’t be able to clear enough space under the cap for another stud (maybe in 2010, depending on who else we sign in 2009), leaving us mostly with the mid-level as a way to improve the roster. We’re a little further away from the tax, but not enough under the cap, aka the dread zone.

Look, I’m with you completely, but the deals are done now. Jamison probably made his comments assuming that Gilbert was going to come back fully healthy. There is certainly a case to be made that the Big 3 will rarely, if ever, be fully healthy again. Each has had their own injury troubles the last few years (although AJ, to his credit, remained fully healthy for almost the entirety of last season). That said, Ernie wants to give it another shot. Our best hope, for those of us that wanted big changes, is for Ernie to lure a good role player to help fill a need, either a wing defender or a backup big. The other hope is that Abe finally lets Ernie go over the luxury tax threshold, but I’m not holding my breathe on that one. Other than that, our arguments for a big shake-up will have a lot more credence next off-season if we’re one-and-done yet again.

He’s the only back-to-the-basket player we have next to Haywood, but unlike Haywood he averages around 40 minutes a night. He’s a 20-10 guy, which is rare to find and even harder to replace. Plus, he’s a leader. I believe (only my opinion) that his defense got better this season. I would have kept him over Arenas despite his age. And at an average of just over $12 million per season, somewhat of a bargain, if you ask me.