My Second Trade Idea - You All are Going to Hate This
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
107 comments
Now that I have a better understanding of what the salary situation is going to be for the 2010-11 season, I now realize that any trade Ernie does between now and this upcoming season's trade deadline will primarily be for clearing salary space for 2010-11. My first trade idea for DeSagana Diop simply will not work, unless Abe decides to go into the luxury tax again for that season, because I based that idea on the wrong assumption that the ShamSports salary total for the Wizards in 2010-11 included the qualifying offers for Randy Foye ($4,795,096) and Dominic McGuire ($1,060,120). Once I discovered that it does not, I then realized that the Wizards still lack enough salary flexibility to resign Brendan Haywood, Mike Miller or Randy Foye (one or the other, not both), and still remain under the luxury tax threshold. So if we do not do a trade similar to one of the ideas I am about to propose, we can either kiss both Mike Miller and Randy Foye goodbye after this season, or Brendan Haywood. Since I think it is important that we lock in our starters for 2010-11, I decided to see what Ernie might think of to remedy this situation.
Before I get to the details of my plan, allow me to outline why such a plan is necessary. According to ShamSports, the Wizards have $55,821,215 committed to the salaries of the following 8 players: Gilbert Arenas, Antawn Jamison, Caron Butler, DeShawn Stevenson (assuming he exercises his player option, a pretty good bet because of his back injury), Andray Blatche, Nick Young, JaVale McGee (assuming the Wizards exercise their team option, a good bet), and Javaris Crittenton (assuming the Wizards exercise thier team option, a good bet). Once you add in Dominic McGuire's qualifying offer, which I think will be good enough for him to stay, you are sitting at $56,881,335 for the team.
Now, the luxury tax threshold is currently set at $71.15 million, but is locked to a percentage of league revenue and therefore is expected to decrease this season and perhaps even next, depending on the economy. For conservative estimation, I am assuming that the threshold will be exactly $70 million in 2010-11. If it happens to be a bit larger, than great, but if Ernie is smart, he won't count on it. So that basically means that the Wizards will only have about $13.1 million to resign Brendan Haywood and either Mike Miller or Randy Foye. Based on the salaries that I think each will command, I just don't think that is possible.
My intuition tells me that Brendan is going to want around $10 million average per season to stay with the team. Assuming a 5 year contract that escalates at 8% a year, I calculated that to be $8,522,823 in 2010-11. That takes our total team payroll to $65,404,158, leaving us only $4.6 million to resign Mike Miller or Randy Foye. Now, I expect both players to demand at least $7 million average per season on the free agent market. If any of you think it will be more or less, please tell me so and why. The exact number they get will determine our expectations for the trade that Ernie might make. But assuming that number with a 5 year contract with 8% raises, I figure we will need to pay one of those guys $5,965,976 in 2010-11 salary. That would obviously put us back into the luxury tax.
So by now you all should see why we must clear salary for 2010-11 if we plan to keep both Haywood and one of our newly acquired guards. We need to move a chunk of salary to make space for this, and the most logical players to move are either DeShawn Stevenson ($4,151,786 2010-11 salary) or Nick Young ($2,630,503 2010-11 salary). DeShawn is the one we would probably prefer to move, because he has already hit his ceiling and is dealing with a back injury that may or may not continue to bother him for the remainder of his career. Young, on the other hand, is the one who is easier to move because of his youth and potential. When trading either of those guys, we need to remember that Young is more or less an asset and DeShawn is more or less a liability.
OK, so enough prelude. Here is my plan: we start the season with what we have, plus a small potatoes big man on a small one season contract (Rasho Nesterovic, Channing Frye, whatever). We play the first half of the season with both Miller and Foye getting significant minutes at the shooting guard position. Then we decide at some point close to the trading deadline who the better player is in terms of value to our team, considering all things like chemistry with Gilbert and likelihood of further production in our system. Once we have made our decision, we do one of the following deals to receive compensation for the player we decide we can live without:
Mike James, DeShawn Stevenson, and Randy Foye to Chicago for Brad Miller
OR
Nick Young and Mike Miller to Chicago for Brad Miller
Please check your gag reflex until the end.
Why Chicago Does Either of These Trades
Chicago is already stacked with big men, so they don't particular need Brad Miller to make their postseason push. In the first trade, Chicago can build their backcourt around Rose and Foye, making them an even more formidable threat in the playoffs. The sweetness of Foye will help them swallow the sourness of DeShawn's contract. They can immediately "Larry Hughes" Mike James.
In the second trade, they save some immediate cash and can run with Mike Miller temporarily and then turn to Nick Young to be a replacement bench scorer now that Ben Gordon is doing his thing in Milwaukee.
Why Washington Does Either of These Trades
Yes, Brad Miller is a competent center who gives us depth for our 2009-10 playoff push, but the real reason is papery and green and already spelled out above. Brad Miller's huge contract expires at the end of the season, allowing us to keep our starting lineup entact.
OK, vomit away.
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
0 recs |
107 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Funny, I was thinking of a similar trade today
Although I was trying to find a way to avoid having to throw Foye or Miller in. Unfortunately, I couldn’t come up with one.
Miller’s an ideal third big for us I think because of his game and his salary. I think trading Mike Miller for him would be more feasible than trading Foye.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 7, 2009 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Feasible in What Way?
I think trading Mike Miller for him would be more feasible than trading Foye.
I actually think the Mike Miller trade would be harder to sell Chicago, because they would only receive a one-dimensional bench scorer with less potential than Foye in exchange for their huge expiring contract, which typically nets a better player. I was thinking we may have to throw in a future draft pick to get them to do this.
The Foye trade would be a lot better for them, which means it has a better chance of actually happening. I know that we would be on the short end of such a trade, but we would be a lot better off than simply watching Foye walk away in free agency.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess mostly because I don't see Foye and Rose coexisting at all
They seem to be geared up 100% for 2010, in which case Miller as an expiring is better than Foye at a qualifying offer.
I also doubt they let Gordon walk to take back a player who plays in a similar style, but worse.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 7, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
If they are completely geared up for 2010, then they don’t trade Brad Miller at all, but simply let his huge contract expire, which is bigger than Mike Miller’s. But with Foye, that get a very talented shooting guard that still has upside that Ben Gordon no longer has. He may be worse now, but he is both younger and cheaper and probably could slide right into the role that Ben Gordon has now vacated, so they wouldn’t miss a step.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with this
as I humbly see it, is that you made faulty assumptions that led to a problem, and then thought of trades to fix that problem.
Why would Ernie exercise Crittendon’s $2.3 million option if it meant that he couldn’t resign Foye/Miller? That wouldn’t make sense. If he doesn’t exercise that option, then he has $15.4 to sign Haywood and either Miller or Foye, which should be enough, or close enough to not kead to a big luxury tax hit.
The second (hopefully) faulty assumption is that Ernie will trade whoever he has to in order to get under the luxury tax threshold.
by disgrunted on Jul 7, 2009 4:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I Hadn't Thought of That
That could work, but then you would have a hole at backup shooting guard. Crittenton may be inexperienced, but he doesn’t cost much more than the vet minimum, and I would want at least a vet to take his place on the depth chart.
The second (hopefully) faulty assumption is that Ernie will trade whoever he has to in order to get under the luxury tax threshold.
Ask yourself, will Abe really pay the luxury tax for two seasons in a row? I hope he will too, but I strongly doubt it.
…which should be enough, or close enough to not kead to a big luxury tax hit.
Remember, there is a big difference between going into the tax a little bit and staying clear of it. Once you cross that line, you forfeit any money you would receive from the tax payers. It’s a pretty sharp line you cross financially.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction
This statement:
That could work, but then you would have a hole at backup shooting guard.
Should read:
That could work, but then you would have a hole at backup point guard.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who exactly is going to pay Haywood $10M a season?
Next year he will be 30. Never made an allstar game, a season removed from not playing, generates NO fan excitement (generally if you are going to sign a player for $10M you want that to translate to ticket sales), the salary cap will be going down thus decreasing the available pot, and Haywood will be competing against maybe the most talented free agent class of all time…
Also, who is going to give Miller/Foye over the Mid Level – see most of the reasons above
Lastly, if we are only over the salary cap by a small amount there are many ways to get under. For example, buyout Stevenson. If we offer him $2.5M, then all he would have to do is sign a vet min contract to make the money he lost back, and could sign for extra years to guarantee more money
by Blatche4MVP on Jul 7, 2009 4:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All very good points. Some possible counters
When you look at some other centers who have received >$10 million in recent years, you come up with names like Dampier, Dalembert, Kaman, an old Ilgauskas, Murphy, Ratliff, an unproven Chandler and Curry. I think that’s where the worry about Haywood’s asking price comes from.
There are also going to be a ton of teams with cap room that whiff on the top free agents and will feel pressured to make some sort of move.
Lastly, there aren’t too many defensive-oriented centers on the market that will be available in 2010, yet there could be several teams (Chicago, Cleveland if Shaq and Z leave, Dallas if they dump Dampier, Detroit if they trade Rip, Miami, Minnesota, New York if they miss on LeBron and others, Phoenix, Oklahoma City and Sacramento) who potentially have lots of cap room that need centers. Other than Haywood, your choices are:
-Ilgauskas
-38-year old Shaq
-Brad Miller
-Dampier
-Kwame
-36-year-old Camby
-broken-down Jermaine O’Neal
-Darko
-Joel Pryzbilla
-Mehmet Okur
Other than Okur and possibly Pryzbilla, Haywood looks pretty good there.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 7, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As to the Stevenson point
Couldn’t agree more. If we can’t find a trade for him, buying him out makes a lot of sense considering our backcourt logjam.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 7, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Generally Agree
But of all the players you listed “Dampier, Dalembert, Kaman, an old Ilgauskas, Murphy, Ratliff, an unproven Chandler and Curry” who is worth the money they got? Maybe Chandler, Maybe Z. If I am a GM I don’t want to sign a guy and compare him and his contract to Dampier/Kaman/Dalembert
by Blatche4MVP on Jul 7, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was more that
Haywood’s better than those guys for the most part, so there’s risk that he’s actually worth the money.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 7, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I love his D, but the guy has never averaged over 30 mins a game, gets you 10 and 8, and had trouble beating out Etan Thomas as a starter. I thin Haywood gets a ton of love on this blog (and its deserved, I think he is very underrated) but at 30 is he really a $10M a year player? With that contract is he worth signing? Wouldn’t we just let him walk?
I guess it really just takes one team, but that would have to a be a specific team. A need for a starting center, lots of cap space but missed out on all other big names, AND built to win now. Don’t have the time to break down all the options, just saying there is a good chance there is not a big market for Haywood.
Having said that, if we square up against the Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals, Haywood plays out of his mind and for the most part plays with Howard than all bets are off
by Blatche4MVP on Jul 7, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he's worth $10 million either
Probably $7-8 million. I guess all I’m saying is Haywood would be more worth $10 million plus than Dalembert, Dampier or some others.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 7, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and at 7.5M for Haywood
we really dont have salary cap a problem any more. We dont need to make any panic trades to free up salary cap sapce. Unless the trade makes us better this year, I am not willing to make any trades. Lets sign a big and see what this team has come playoff time.
by Blatche4MVP on Jul 7, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All it Takes
Is one NBA general manager to offer him $10 million per season. Than Ernie’s hands will probably be tied, unless Abe breaks the bank for another season. I hope the latter happens, but I anticipate the former to be more likely.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Are Thinking Like the Average NBA Fan
Only casual fans think things like 10 and 8 matter without context. Most general managers tend to dig a little deeper than that. Mark Cuban hired college professors to come up with advanced stats like adjusted plus/minus. Guess who has the highest APM rating on the Wizards, and 38th highest in the NBA? Guess who also is scheduled to lose their starting center, Erik Dampier, in 2010 (assuming the team cuts his unguaranteed $13 million payout, a pretty good bet)?
Rockets general manager Daryl Morey uses advanced stats like APM and other on/off stats to calculate potential free agents to sign. That’s how he targeted Shane Battier, whose PER is much worse than Brendan Haywood’s. BTW, Haywood’s last healthy season in 2007-08, he registered an 18.3 PER, not exactly something to laugh at. And Morey just found out that his franchise center might have a career ending foot injury. Hmm.
I think the market for 7’0" 270 lbs. centers with 18.3 PERs and 4.46 APM ratings might just be pretty big in 2010. Either way, I wouldn’t want to risk it.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you have the correct definition of "worth."
“Worth” is what someone, ANYONE, will pay him. Any contending team that has a need for a solid defensive presence who gives you 28 minutes a game and can hold his own against Shaq, Howard, etc., might be willing to pay close to $10M. If one team will do it, then most likely ANY team that wants him will have to do it. Now, this all depends on Haywood’s season. If he lays an egg then yes, 6 or 7M might be more realistic. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but who knows.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Jul 8, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miami
would sign Haywood in a heartbeat. He’s definitely a Pat Riley type. And don’t rule out San Antonio. They would love to have someone like him next to Duncan.
by CJHutch on Jul 8, 2009 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets just wait for next years salary cap
According to ESPN the luxury Tax is almost guaranteed to be below the $70M and could be below $60M. Not the salary cap, but the Luxury Tax could be below $60M. There may not be any teams will the salary cap space to sign our free agents. Haywood might be forced to take a lot less money.
I think there are just way way too many variables to make a salary cap trade this summer. The health of our team, how Foye and Miller fit in, how Haywood looks, the salary cap/luxury tax (both in terms of teams ability to sign our players and our willingness to pay the tax), how Blatche and McGee play, how Nick Young plays. There are just too many factors to dump good players (nick young, foye, miller) this summer
by Blatche4MVP on Jul 8, 2009 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
That is why I advocated doing one of those two trades at this season’s trading deadline. At that point, we will know a lot more about our team, including whether Mike Miller or Randy Foye is the best player at shooting guard for us.
BTW, if you are right about the luxury tax threshold being very low (below $60 million? For real?), then neither of these trades will be enough. At that point, I would hope that Abe simply swallows the tax pill again next season and doesn’t require Ernie to make any drastic changes.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure
you have seen this by now, but the new numbers are
SalCap – $57.7 million
LuxTax – $69.92 million
by CJHutch on Jul 8, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And next year's projections (2010-11 season) are even more dire
Salary Cap 2010-11 season projected to be somewhere around $50.4 – $53.6 Million
Luxury Tax 2010-11 season is projected to be somewhere around $61.2 – $65 Million…..
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 8, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There must be something wrong with me
But I don’t hate either deal. Brad Miller is overpaid but could be useful for us (decent jumper, good passer) and is another big body who has a particular talent for annoying Shaq.
From the Bulls perspective, the big question for this deal is could Young co-exist with Rose any better than Ben Gordon did?
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jul 7, 2009 4:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Reason Both Trades Suck
Brad Miller is a nice backup center, maybe even a decent starting center, but he is not in our long term plans. His contract expires after this season, so he would essentially be a salary dump; a way to get Stevenson’s or Young’s 2010-11 salary off of the books.
If we win the NBA Finals this season, then he might prove valuable to that end. But if not, we have to let him walk anyway. So it is not something to get excited about. It would help us keep our starting lineup intact for 2010-11, however.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok - I get the sentiment here
but some things are being left off….
Mike James, DeShawn Stevenson, and Randy Foye to Chicago for Brad Miller
leaves the Wizards with only 11 players. (Gilbert Arenas, Antawn Jamison, Caron Butler, Andray Blatche, Nick Young, JaVale McGee, Dominic McGuire, Brad Miller, Brendan Haywood, Mike Miller and Javaris Crittenton) Where do your calculations count the incoming Draft picks and/or minimum veteran contracts to get the Wizards to the League mandated 13 roster slots
OR
Nick Young and Mike Miller to Chicago for Brad Miller
Same problem here… except you have 12 players under contract.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 7, 2009 5:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
and to Rooks Point
If we have to sign 1 or 2 more players to get to 13, they will be putting us further over the salary cap this year. If we are willing to do that, why not just save that money and pay the tax next year and keep a better team this year?
by Blatche4MVP on Jul 7, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2010/2011 Salaries
Gilbert Arenas $17,730,693
Antawn Jamison $13,358,905
Caron Butler $10,811,960
DeShawn Stevenson $ 4,151,786
Andray Blatche $ 3,260,331
Nick Young $ 2,630,503
JaVale McGee $ 1,601,040
Javaris Crittenton $ 2,275,997
Dominic McGuire $ 1,060,120
SUBTOTAL (9 players) $56,881,335
Brendan Haywood $ 8,500,000 (Assuming you can sign him for that amount)
1st Round Draft Pick $ 1,099,100 (Assumes a pick at # 20)
2nd Round Draft Pick $ 473,604
SUBTOTAL (12 players) $66,954,039
Projected Luxury Tax $71,000,000
Remaining Balance $4,045,961 – to sign either Miller or Foye
Not enough to get it done, in my opinion.
Any trades that just swap like salaries for the 2010-11 season will have the same problem.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 7, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But That's the Point
Neither of my trades swap like salaries for 2010-11. Brad Miller’s contract expires after 2009-10, but dumps Stevenson’s or Young’s 2010-11 salary. You understand that’s the point, right?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same problem
Dump Stevenson’s salary (along with Mike James and Crittenton) , in addition to not re-signing Brad Miller
2010/2011 Salaries
Gilbert Arenas $17,730,693
Antawn Jamison $13,358,905
Caron Butler $10,811,960
Andray Blatche $ 3,260,331
Nick Young $ 2,630,503
JaVale McGee $ 1,601,040
Javaris Crittenton $ 2,275,997
Dominic McGuire $ 1,060,120
SUBTOTAL (8 players) $52,729,549
Brendan Haywood $ 8,500,000 (Assuming you can sign him for that amount)
1st Round Draft Pick $ 1,099,100 (Assumes a pick at # 20)
2nd Round Draft Pick $ 473,604
Veteran Minimum contract $1,000,000 (roughly, depending on number of years service)
SUBTOTAL (12 players) $63,802,253
Projected Luxury Tax $71,000,000
Remaining Balance $7,197,747 – to sign either Miller or Foye
That IS enough to get it done, in my opinion; but will not necessarily field the best team.
Another good illustration why draft choices are the best, and cheapest way to add talent to a team.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 7, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here Are Our Options to Remain Under the Luxury Tax Threshold
These are the options as I see them. This is not factoring in other potential trades, just the two in this FanPost and the cost of doing nothing. I am factoring in a luxury tax threshold of $70 million. I think $71 million is too liberal an estimate, it assumes that it will not go down from last season despite the worst economy since at least the early 1980s.
Option 1 – Trade Scenario #1
Salaries
Gilbert Arenas $17,730,693
Antawn Jamison $13,358,905
Caron Butler $10,811,960
Brendan Haywood $ 8,522,823
Mike Miller $ 5,965,976
Andray Blatche $ 3,260,331
Nick Young $ 2,630,503
Javaris Crittenton $ 2,275,997
JaVale McGee $ 1,601,040
20th Overall Pick $ 1,099,100
Dominic McGuire $ 1,060,120
5 Year Vet Minimum $ 992,680
2nd Round Pick $ 473,604
Total $69,791,052
Depth Chart
Center Brendan Haywood, 5 Year Veteran, JaVale McGee
Power Forward Antawn Jamison, Andray Blatche
Small Forward Caron Butler, Dominic McGuire
Shooting Guard Mike Miller, Nick Young
Point Guard Gilbert Arenas, Javaris Crittenton, 20th Pick
Inactive/D-League 2nd Round Pick
Option #2 – Trade Scenario #2, Release Javaris Crittenton
Salaries
Gilbert Arenas $17,730,693
Antawn Jamison $13,358,905
Caron Butler $10,811,960
Brendan Haywood $ 8,522,823
Randy Foye $ 5,965,976
DeShawn Stevenson $ 4,151,786
Andray Blatche $ 3,260,331
JaVale McGee $ 1,601,040
20th Overall Pick $ 1,099,100
Dominic McGuire $ 1,060,120
5 Year Vet Minimum $ 992,680
4 Year Vet Minimum $ 915,852
2nd Round Pick $ 473,604
Total $69,944,870
Depth Chart
Center Brendan Haywood, 5 Year Veteran, JaVale McGee
Power Forward Antawn Jamison, Andray Blatche
Small Forward Caron Butler, Dominic McGuire
Shooting Guard Randy Foye, DeShawn Stevenson
Point Guard Gilbert Arenas, 20th Pick, 4 Year Veteran
Inactive/D-League 2nd Round Pick
Option #3 – No Trade, Release Javaris Crittenton, Let Miller/Foye Walk, Sell Our First Round Draft Pick
Salaries
Gilbert Arenas $17,730,693
Antawn Jamison $13,358,905
Caron Butler $10,811,960
Brendan Haywood $ 8,522,823
Miller/Foye $ 5,965,976
DeShawn Stevenson $ 4,151,786
Andray Blatche $ 3,260,331
Nick Young $ 2,630,503
JaVale McGee $ 1,601,040
Dominic McGuire $ 1,060,120
2nd Round Pick $ 473,604
0 Year Vet #1 $ 473,604
0 Year Vet #2 $ 473,604
Total $70,514,949
Depth Chart
Center Brendan Haywood, JaVale McGee, 0 Year Veteran
Power Forward Antawn Jamison, Andray Blatche
Small Forward Caron Butler, Dominic McGuire
Shooting Guard Miller/Foye, Nick Young, DeShawn Stevenson
Point Guard Gilbert Arenas, 2nd Round Pick
Inactive/D-League 0 Year Veteran
Under Option #3, we would still need to hope that the luxury tax threshold is a bit higher than $70 million. And we would have a gaping hole at point guard, probably filled by our 2nd round draft pick, or perhaps Randy Foye (who is not very good at PG), or perhaps DeShawn Stevenson. We would have no money to sign a first round draft pick, and would have to sell it or trade it for a future pick.
This is why I think a trade would be beneficial.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in Mind
These are all 2010-11 potential rosters and salaries. If we did trade scenario #1 or #2, we would also have Brad Miller as backup center for 2009-10.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except
the Projected Luxury Tax for the 2010-11 season are supposed to be somewhere around $60 – $65 Million
That’s the Luxury Tax number…..
Kinda throws everyone’s thinking out of whack – doesn’t it…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 8, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So Ernie May Need to Do Something Even More Drastic
And everyone thought my trade ideas sucked. Wait until they see what Ernie might have to do in order to cut salary to get under that threshold.
All is not lost. If the economy recovers, the actual number might be closer to what it is now instead of what is projected.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yikes
This actually gives me an idea that I’m going to explore in another post. I’m thinking that, if they get under the tax this year, even at a loss for some key talent, they could really cash in and go way over in 10/11 to take advantage of the teams that are basically going to sell away all of their best talent to avoid taking a tax hit.
Essentially, delay the all-in move one year.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is Going to Be Hard
I’m curious to see what ideas you come up with. Ernie is $6 million in the tax right now, and any trade he makes will have to bring back at least 80% of the salary he gives up. That means he would have to trade about $30 million in salary to get back only $24 million.
He could do that if he traded both Arenas and Jamison, or Jamison, Buter, and James. Other than that, I don’t see how he can possibly avoid the tax at this point.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great minds
I was thinking the same thing – except my thoughts were about the Wizards cashing in at the Trade Deadline THIS year - – - -There should be some teams, out of the Playoffs, and desperate to shed salary before next year….
Because, as you have pointed out so many times before, after the Trade Deadline, it gets really hard to shed salary for the upcoming year.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 8, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're suggesting the same thing
Because you have to match salary anyway at the deadline, any deal for an expiring at this year’s trade deadline would add a ton to their 10/11 tax bill.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at it this way
Abe can afford to go all in – He’ll just leave the mess behind for Teddy to pick up….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 8, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
If you do trade #1 instead of trade #2, you have a couple of million dollars worth of cushion from Stevenson’s salary that you can use to sign a few scrubs to minimum unguaranteed contracts in order to get up to the required roster count.
With trade #2, you have a lot less wiggle room. So you may need to hope that the threshold is a bit higher, and you may need to sell your draft picks and sign scrubs instead to get it done. But at least you understand the problem we face and recognize the need to do something, I’m assuming.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The salaries for free agents
will be lower next year and the year after if revenues (and the salary cap) continue to shrink. At least I hope so. So your $10mil for BH and $7.5mil for Foye/Miller may be the dreams of their agents. Comparing bad deals from non-recession years may not predict future deals.
OTOH it takes only 2 bidders to raise a price.
by MR on Jul 7, 2009 5:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
But
If Ernie does not prepare himself for the possibility that Brendan may get an offer of $10 million per season from some other team, then he may be handcuffed to do anything and may have to watch Brendan walk. Do we want to risk that? You tell me.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same Goes For Miller/Foye
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
Allowing Brendan to walk, might be the best thing for the team…. fiscally speaking.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 7, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Might Be Right
But I have looked at the advanced stats and I have seen what not having him has done to our team, and I think we should sacrifice in other areas to keep him. He is the MVP of this team, IMO. His adjusted plus/minus for the past two seasons combined is 4.46 points per 100 possessions. That’s the best on the Wizards; better than multiple All-Star Antawn Jamison, better than multiple All-Star Caron Butler. Incidentally, Dwight Howard’s APM is 4.48 points per 100 possessions. Can we afford to let a defensive anchor like Brendan Haywood walk out the door?
I say no, let’s make a trade to keep him and Miller/Foye. Let’s give the starting lineup of Arenas, Miller/Foye, Butler, Jamison, and Haywood at least two full seasons to prove themselves. If it doesn’t work, then we can let Caron exit via free agency and rebuild with what we have left. But I want at least two full seasons with that lineup to see what we can do.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to call you out, but...
Those adjusted plus/minus figures are from last year, when Brendan played 6 games. His 07/08 (career year) numbers were negative (just barely, but Jamison’s and Butler’s were meaningfully positive).
I think everyone is giving Haywood WAAAY too much credit for the slip down to 19 wins last year. Why not give Mason credit? Or Jordan? Or Stevenson’s health? The reality is that last year’s team quit 11 games in, so you can throw that 19-win figure in the garbage.
by steadyhand on Jul 7, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
There is something fishy going on. The 2 year APM is supposed to factor in all of the 2007-08 season, the 2008 playoffs (double-weighted), and then the 2008-09 season to come up with the 4.46 rating. But it shows a N/A for 2008-09, a -1.16 for the 2008 playoffs, and a -0.29 for the 2007-08 season. There must be a miscalculation somewhere.
Regardless, I’m not ready to “throw that 19-win figure in the garbage”. There was more than one factor for the Wizards falling through the basement last season, but almost any analyst would tell you that the thing the Wizards lacked the most was an inside presence, especially on defense. And they didn’t quit 11 games in, and even if they did, they got there by going 1-10. No way does that happen if Haywood is manning the paint.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could just mention how his APM and on/off numbers were ridiculous from 2005-2008
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 7, 2009 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Help Me Out Here
What site are you using for that? I firmly believe that, but I need a better reference than basketballvalue.com.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually don't have APM numbers
But for on/off stuff, 82games is where to go. I’m guessing his APM is quite strong based on his on/off numbers.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 7, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but almost any analyst would tell you that the thing the Wizards lacked the most was an inside presence, especially on defense.
Yes, but they’ve been saying that for years.
by MR on Jul 8, 2009 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've Been Saying That For Years Too
And that is one of the reasons why Haywood is so valuable to us. His play on defense holds this team together. If we lose him, and don’t replace him with somebody at least as competent as he is, then we jeopardize everything we have tried to build up until now. Mike Miller, Randy Foye, and a healthy Gilbert Arenas will make us better offensively, but without a Brendan Haywood defensive force in the middle, we will have to score over 125 points a game just to have a chance. No way does that get us anywhere in the playoffs. We will be more lopsided than the D’Antoni Suns were a few seasons ago.
And as much as we would like Haywood to be cheaper, the fact is we don’t get to set the market price. As Prada mentioned above, there are so many big men that are less talented than Haywood who have received contracts even bigger than $10 million per season. It is not just a couple of GMs who have been doling out these huge contracts. The fact is there is a high premium in this league for big men who can do the things that Haywood does. If we let him go, we will be hard pressed to find a player as good at what he does for a smaller price.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 7:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh my goodness yes
He’s not worth $10M now, in his prime. His one year as a solid starter two years ago resulted in point and rebound totals very similar to Kwame Brown’s performance in year 3 out of high school. Yes, he plays smarter and defends better, but let’s not get carried away and be the dopes who overpay him (and you’re probably right that someone will). I’m willing to bet that McGee will be better than Haywood in 2010/11. If you give Brendan a deal for $10M+ per for over 4 years do you think there’s any chance McGee stays in DC if he reaches his potential? We’ll be giving McGee up for pennies on that dollar at best, while Haywood becomes untradeable as a declining center getting paid 8 figures.
Brad Miller is actually a great example to hold up — he’s a 2-time all-star and at age 30 was on the U.S. national team. Now, at 33, he’s backing up Joakim Noah. What are you going to get from a guy who peaked at 10 and 7 when he’s 34? Usually they’re out of the league, but Haywood’s defense will make him a veteran center who can contribute some valuable minutes and fouls against good bigs off the bench (coincidentally, what the Wiz need now).
In order for me to consider Brendan worth even $8M a year, he has to improve on his 07/08 performance this year (possible but unlikely). And that’s only if McGee doesn’t progress significantly as a center.
by steadyhand on Jul 7, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Suppose That Means That You Would Let Him Walk
I strongly believe that some GM is going to give him $10 million per season. You are making a big mistake in comparing Brendan Haywood to Kwame Brown. Brendan had a 18.3 PER in 2007-08, 10th highest among NBA centers. Kwame never had a PER higher than 15.7. But hey, if you think Brendan is expendable, than that’s your opinion. All I can say is that I think that would be a terrible loss. But that’s only my opinion.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 7, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
has anyone thought
of losing JAMISON’S salary after the season? You can’t tell me that’s not at least on Ernie’s mind. Realistically, Jamison is a 34 year old player with a TON of miles on him. Now, I have heard how he won’t decline much because he doesn’t play above the rim. While that 2nd part is true, it doesn’t take into account the reason he is so good at rebounding. He is a very quick jumper. That will decline. I wonder if we may not be better off “trading down” with Jamison, either at the trade deadline if we aren’t up to snuff, or next summer. By trading down, I mean getting a few contributors whose salaries add up to his.
by CJHutch on Jul 8, 2009 8:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Now is Probably Not the Time to Do This
The best time to have traded Jamison would have been at last season’s trade deadline. Abe and Ernie obviously want to keep the core of Arenas, Butler, and Jamison together to see what they can do when they are all healthy. Jamison still has three seasons left on his contract and Butler still has two.
If it becomes obvious that we cannot compete for a championship these next two seasons, then I will advocate breaking up the core at the 2011 trade deadline. At that point, the most logical person to trade would be Butler, because he would have an expiring contract that season and is the youngest next to Arenas. In fact, even if we want to resign Butler in 2011, it may be impossible depending on if and for how much we resign Haywood and if and for how much we resign Miller/Foye.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
for the most part
I share your thoughts here. BUT (that’s a big but), what if Jamison starts to shows his age this year? Maybe not in his play, but in his durability? Do we really want to roll the dice on keeping him as a major part of our nucleus if it looks like he may not last that long at his current production level? I don’t really know the answer to this, or necessarily think any of it will come to fruition. I’m just throwing it out there to chew on.
by CJHutch on Jul 8, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Becomes a Catch-22
If he shows his age, we won’t be able to trade him because of his huge salary. If he doesn’t show his age, we won’t want to trade him, because we will probably be competing for a championship, or at least a deep playoff push.
The best case scenerio is that we win a championship either this season or next. The second best case scenerio is that we realize we won’t win a championship this season or next, Jamison is still very productive, and we can get a lot of value from him in a trade.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OR
option 3 – another team views Jamison’s character and abilities as the missing piece to their own championship run and makes us an offer for him we can’t pass up.
Keep in mind – I’m not saying any of this because I am a proponent of AJ. I’m just of the ilk that NO player on a 19 win team, or a team that can’t get past the 1st round of the playoffs for that matter, should be deemed untouchable.
by CJHutch on Jul 8, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Don't Have to Convince Me That No Player is Untouchable
If you were reading this blog a year ago, you would have seen me propose a trade in which we sign and trade Arenas and rebuild around Butler and Jamison. I’m glad we didn’t do that trade now, but mostly because of how bad the receiving piece turned out to be last season (Jermaine O’Neal) than any regret over offering up Arenas. If the right deal comes along, I wouldn’t be against trading anyone on this team. But unless the deal blows my socks off, the time is not right, IMO.
Prada had a really good article awhile back about how continuity and consistency can produce a championship. If that’s the case, our team should be well positioned to make our run. We should at least give it a shot, considering that Ernie has already made the bed for us.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other thing is
The time was right at the trade deadline because we could have gone enough under the cap to possibly sign Millsap or Lee. I don’t really see too many chances where the time is right going forward.
They certainly could present themselves, and I wrote a long post examining some of those possibilities, but I don’t think it should be on our radar right now.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
like I said
I pretty much agree with both of you. I would have traded Jamison for Stoudemire. But short of a big body/perennial all star at the same position, it makes no sense to trade him now.
And I DEFINITELY agree on the continuity. That was my biggest reason for being happy when Grunfeld arrived. Any real GM knows teams win because of chemistry (short of a lightning strike offseason where you can land Garnett AND Allen.) And chemistry isn’t acquired in one season. It’s good to finally have a GM that realizes this.
Now, how long do you WAIT for that continuity and consistency? Cuz Ernie’s been singing the same song for 4 or 5 years now.
by CJHutch on Jul 8, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please, If You Can Think of a Better One, Please Do
I don’t like the reality of these trade scenarios, but I can’t think of what else Ernie can do to not pay the tax.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Luxury Tax Threshold is Set at $69.9 Million This Season
This reinforces my opinion that the threshold will be around $70 million next season. I am cautiously optimistic that the economy recovers slightly over the course of the next 12 months, but probably not enough to significantly raise the threshold from where it is set now.
This is even more reason to try and trade DeShawn Stevenson or Nick Young. Even if Haywood and Foye/Miller would be willing to resign for less than I have estimated, it would be better to have some wiggle room in case the threshold declines even further.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This may be
a bit off topic, but as far as Foye and/or Miller not being here next year for one reason or another, has anyone taken into account that we would have effectively mortgaged our future for a one year run that we weren’t fully geared up for?
by CJHutch on Jul 8, 2009 11:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It Hasn't Been Fully Explored Here
Some conversation started along those lines after we missed on Rubio and passed on Blair. But it didn’t go that far because we all know that Ernie and Abe want to “win now” and everyone decided that is wasn’t worth crying over spilled milk.
One can only hope that Abe realizes that by trying to hold onto Arenas and Jamison last summer, he has effectively handcuffed the team’s future unless he allows for us to go into the luxury tax for another season. I hope that becomes the case. I’m just not betting on it.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know this sounds very Un-Sexy
Why cant we just give this current team a run out. Everyone can agree we have improved and there will always be weakness in our line -up. That is up to Flip and the coaching staff to fix/cover up. Lets see how this teams plays together before we add/subtract to the current roster.
by ccrun1800 on Jul 8, 2009 2:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Now that I've seen the cap numbers for 10/11 come out
I’m leaning closer to this line of thinking. If we go under the tax now, we can be in great position to go way over in 10/11 when teams are begging to give away their all-stars to get under the tax.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Seems Paradoxical
We are already knee-deep in the tax. I’m really struggling to think of a way we can both leave our current team intact and get under the tax for this season. So you’ve really got me curious about your upcoming post.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still trying to figure it out myself
The good news is that the Foye/Miller trade helped get us closer below the tax line this year, so it was a positive step.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I'm kind of operating under the assumption
That Abe will let us go over the tax once, not twice. Otherwise, they could take the small hit this year, using the $5.4 million windfall Mike Lee discussed (from the selling of the Blair pick and the check from teams over the tax in 08/09).
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Four Years of Windfall
Posted this elsewhere, but the Wizards have received 10.3 million in Luxury Tax distribution payments and 3.25 million in sold draft picks since 2005-2006, not including the savings from the draft and stash of Veremeenko. The Wizards have a 13.5 million total windfall from 2005-06 to 2008-09 and given that these four years can be seen as part of the same roster-building period (Butler completed the core with his arrival in August 2005) it only makes sense that if during this roster-building campaign we’ve saved 13.5 million dollars then we should be willing to spend at least that amount in luxury tax payments as we enter the “win now” stage with this group.
by morethesamewiz on Jul 8, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Don't Think it Works Like That
The Wizards have had their star player and major merchandise generator sidelined for the past two seasons. They haven’t made it past the first round once in the past 4 seasons, so there hasn’t been a lot of extra revenue coming in from playoff attendance. This is not New York either, where you can rely on a lucrative TV rights deal. That cash Abe has saved has probably gone straight to financing the day-to-day operations of this franchise. I highly doubt that it is just sitting in a bank account somewhere waiting for Abe to simply write a check off of it.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to say
That money saved isn’t a profit. I forget where the Wizards stood on the latest Forbes list for most profitable teams, but I know they definitely weren’t near the top.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a saving though
Its not a profit, but it is a savings that the Wizards have generated by a decision each of the past four years not to go into luxury tax territory, and what are they saving up for? I would hope that they are not saving for the sake of saving, but saving so that they can spend at the opportune time. It takes a very well-constructed roster to compete for a championship while not paying the luxury tax. We don’t have that well-constructed roster, we have two contracts in Arenas and Jamison that pay well above their current market value. We aren’t the San Antonio Spurs with the HOF’er Duncan and the draft-and-stashes turned great players who give more than their salary’s worth. We are what we are, and to get a ring with Arenas and Jamison we are going to have to go over the tax.
by morethesamewiz on Jul 8, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree with you
I’m just saying that recent events make me think Abe is only going over the tax once at the opportune time. It probably will take getting under the tax this year to go way over it next year.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Think You're Missing the Point
Abe runs a business, and all of that money goes towards his bottom line. His profit may be more or less that amount of money, or he might not have made a profit at all. It is not like it is just sitting there in a savings account waiting to be used on something.
Unless you have looked at the financial books of the Wizards, I don’t think it is fair to assume that Abe can just use that money now however he pleases. It might not even be there.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 8, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does Abe Pollin really want to win a title or not
Because if he does then why in heck won’t he go over the luxury tax twice. I know spending isn’t the be all and end all in the NBA, but it should be clear to him (and that’s Ernie Grunfeld’s job is to make it clear to him) that this team needs to be willing to spend more to acquire some more talent to get this team to this level. As currently constituted it can’t happen. Without another major acquistions it won’t happen (or is very unlikely).
Look at the machinations that are being devised on this forum to pay the tax this year and not next. And none of them equal this team winning the second NBA title Abe Pollin professes to desire. I know the economy stinks and he was hurt like everyone else, but it is time to roll the dice and spend some more. That or Mr. Pollin needs to stuff it when he talks about wanting to win another championship.
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jul 8, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too Many Unknowns to Speak Authoritatively
How much money does Abe actually have? Are the Wizards a profitable organization? What if Abe is already losing money with the Wizards? Can he afford to pay $85-90 million annually on player payroll? How much is Flip making? How much is his staff making? What if Abe goes deep into the tax and the Wizards still don’t win a championship? Would it still be worth it to lose all of that money? Would it be worth it to leave so much less for his kids and grandkids?
All of these things are difficult for average Joe’s and Jane’s like us to understand. We think rich people like Abe have bottomless pockets and unlimited buying power. But there are limits to everyone, and millions of dollars is still a lot of money to be wasting.
The bottom line for me is that I do not think it is unreasonable for Abe to only want to go into the luxury tax one year. The Spurs have won 4 titles in the last 10 years and I don’t think they went into the tax one time, so it can be done. And we are a lot better off than some teams who don’t even exceed the salary cap year to year, let alone the luxury tax threshold. If Abe hints that he’ll pay the tax another season, then great. But until that time, I’m going to assume he hates the luxury tax as much as he said he does.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 9, 2009 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All fair points but . . .
If I am not mistaken the Spurs did go into the lux tax two of the years, but they didn’t go in very far.
Also the Spurs have Tim Duncan which allows them to get extra talent in for cheap because players go their to get a ring. We don’t have a Tim Duncan we can’t get people for the vet minimum that are worth more than that. The Wizards are in a good position but not quite there yet.
At this point it seems the management is betting on everything going perfect for the Wizards to get where we want them to go.
The Big 3 have to all play 70+ games. The Arenas we saw at the end of last year is the Arenas we see this year. Brendan Haywood stays healthy while playing 32 minutes a game. Mike Miller recovers his form. Randy Foye makes our bench better. Andray Blatche finally gets it. JaVale McGee is ready to give his 20 minutes a game (and teams don’t crush during that time).
That’s what has to go right for this team to be an Eastern Conference contender. That’s a lot of ifs and maybes.
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jul 9, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Might Not All Be About This Season
What if some of those things happen, but not all of them, and the Wizards advance to the Eastern Conference Finals and lose in 6 games? That wouldn’t be ideal, but wouldn’t it be enough to establish our franchise’s credibility, so that we can get free agents to come here for less in order to get that ring? Wouldn’t that be wiser than overpaying free agents now when there will be so many that will be willing to play for less when the luxury tax threshold comes crashing down next season?
These are things that we as fans should consider.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 9, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even then, I don't see how we win much more than 50 games
Poor interior defense relative to other contenders. Poor defense period.
We’ll be good, but not as good as the top three in the East. It’s pretty optimistic to think so.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 9, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
Defense is 70-80% coaching and scheme, 20-30% skill of individual defenders. I think you are overly pessimistic if you don’t think that Flip and his crew can’t get this team to at least play average defense.
You practically made this point for me when you brought up how good Orlando was this past season despite poor individual defenders in the starting lineup. With a healthy Brendan Haywood anchoring the paint, why couldn’t we at least be 14th-15th in overall defense?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 9, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that we can be average
But that’s still poor relative to Orlando, Cleveland and Boston.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 9, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But What If Our Offense is a Lot Better
Couldn’t we at least make it to the conference finals and lose in 6 games, like I said? My point was that we could build from there.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 9, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think an optimistic scenario
(Though still realistic), would be to have us be a top-three offense and a defense somewhere between 15th and 20th.
This is how that stacks up to the other contenders in the East:
-Cleveland: Top five defense, offense between 5th and 10th
-Orlando: Top-five defense (remember, they were 1st last year), offense between fifth and 10th
-Boston: Top-five defense, offense between 7th and 12th.
Unless Cleveland’s offense or Orlando’s defense take major tumbles, I don’t think we compare just yet, even if our defense improves.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 9, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your point is true
but in my view all those things I listed have to go right for this team to even make the second round much less make the conference finals.
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jul 9, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We Can Do Better Than That
In 2004-05, our Wizards had the 10th best offense and the 19th best defense. We made it to the second round before getting swept by the Miami Heat. If we stay healthy, we should be able to do better than that. I’m not saying we can win a championship this year without any more changes, but we should at least be able to win a few games in the second round and have a reasonable chance of advancing to the conference finals. Once there I think we have the talent and the coaching to win a couple of games at home. Once we do something like that, the door opens up for free agents to start taking us seriously.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 10, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We also beat a Bulls team that was missing two starters
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 10, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missing Starters on Other Teams
Is exactly how the Orlando Magic were able to get all the way to the NBA Finals. So you are basically saying there is a reasonable chance it happens, as long as we stay healthy.
If we don’t stay healthy, then all bets are off in any case.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jul 10, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year was a perfect storm in terms of starters missed for injury
Counting on that to happen again is not going to work.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 10, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Big 3 have to all play 70+ games. The Arenas we saw at the end of last year is the Arenas we see this year. Brendan Haywood stays healthy while playing 32 minutes a game. Mike Miller recovers his form. Randy Foye makes our bench better. Andray Blatche finally gets it. JaVale McGee is ready to give his 20 minutes a game (and teams don’t crush during that time).
That’s what has to go right for this team to be an Eastern Conference contender. That’s a lot of ifs and maybes.
I don’t think any of that is too far fetched, and I don’t think AB and JVM have to be most-improved players either. I think all we need is for everyone to be averagely healthy and everyone to play their average ability/level. That will put us right in the mix at the top of the conference.
by MR on Jul 9, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I was going to pull the trigger on one of these
it would be the first one. Randy Foye isn’t really all that essential of a piece so I wouldn’t lose sleep over trading him before seeing what we had. But keep in mind that that would mean we ended up trading the 5th pick and Darius Songaila for the Miller Boys and the opportunity to jettison some bad contracts. That trade just keeps looking meeker and meeker. But I do think you’re right that what we give up would make it easier for the Bulls to swallow that Stevenson pill. And if we can’t keep both Miller and Foye after next season anyway, we may as well get some kind of value out of Foye and keep Young Nick around to hopefully develop.
But the Miller/Young trade?? NO. As I see it, Miller needs to be our starting 2 guard this year. We can give up Young or Foye, and we should give up James and/or Stevevson (preferably both), but Miller looks like the only guy capable of playing SG next to Arenas this season.
Actually, as I write this, I like the first one more and more. What we need to be getting rid of in this trade is Young or Foye (as a sweetener), Stevenson (he’s the bitter part), and James (his contract baits them into taking Stevenson). I think that combination of 3 guys could actually get a trade done for us.
by kseandoyle on Jul 8, 2009 8:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting idea
But I think the Bulls are saving their cap space as well. They want to make a run at Wade or Bosh next offseason, so having Miller’s expiring contract there is important. Miller also helps them this year.
I was listening to Czaban and Co. yesterday. They somewhat dismissed Paul Milsap as an option. I didn’t realize Milsap was available. I think, if I was Ernie, I would watch the Boozer thing. If the trade with Chicago falls apart, the Jazz are rumored to not want to get into luxury tax territory with a big extension for Milsap. I don’t particularly love the Wizards core, and they need a big man like Milsap, some offensive game, solid defensively, and will hustle and grab boards. While driving today, I was contemplating
a) If the Boozer-Hinrich 3 team deal falls apart, then
b) I think the Wizards should try to pursue Milsap with an offer, but
c) We know they don’t want to spend, so they need to clear a contract, so
d) Trade Antawn Jamison to Orlando (well, anymore that you can save money), but why Orlando? They’ve lost their 4 from last year (Hedo) and their top backup big (Gortat). They need a 4. Jamison doesn’t work as a 4 for many teams, but in their open offense keying off of Dwight, he might. Antawn and VC know each other well, and he could fit into the offense. With Orlando having done a sign and trade for Hedo and gaining that trade exception, they could afford this deal (probably needs some more contracts to balance out, but it’s within the realm of possibility). Of course, maybe Orlando prefers say, a Drew Gooden and saving cash, but I was randomly ruminating anyways.
I think Milsap makes a ton of sense for them, only if they can move Jamison. He offers them their best post option and a guy to attack the glass. Offensively, a starting 5 of Arenas/Miller/Butler/Milsap/Haywood looks solid, with a good shooter, some slashers, and some big men. They could go small with Milsap as the 5, Miller/Butler filling the forward spots. I’d like to see them go after a quick point guard as well, a cheap type of guy that can perhaps handle the defensive chores against the Aaron Brooks of the world a bit better.
Anyhow, this won’t happen. Ernie seems intent on seeing all the guys play together. I agree this is a playoff team when healthy, but I don’t think it’s a championship caliber group, which is what you’d hope for.
by toonsterwu on Jul 10, 2009 11:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that the Wizards don't have the money for Millsap
They can only offer the MLE, and I doubt Millsap takes that.
As for Orlando, why would they want Jamison when they already have Rashard Lewis? They also can’t use the exception because it’s for seven million dollars and can only be used for one player. Jamison makes more than seven million dollars.
The trade that made sense for Jamison would have been to send him to Cleveland for Wally’s expiring deal. Then, the Wizards could have made a run at Millsap (maybe).
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 10, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
twas just a random thought anyways
I thought that you were allowed to combine the exception with say, another contract to balance out the difference. probably thought wrong.
leaving aside the contract aspect, the Magic need a 4. Lewis is their 3. Unless they want to get superbly weaker and go with Lewis as the 4, Pietrus/Carter at the 2/3. That would leave them extremely suspect to matchup exploitation. I expect them to take a run, with the exception or the MLE, at a 4. They just don’t have the regular season depth right now to really worry, IMO.
by toonsterwu on Jul 10, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis was their four all year and they went to the Finals
It’s a huge key to their success. Why can’t Pietrus and Carter play together?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 10, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it depends on how you define 3/4
Hedo handled the tougher defensive assignments, meaning that when there was a quality big, he was often handling it, so that’s what I judged it on since neither really has a low post game (and Hedo has more of a low-post game). That said, the bigger issue is that with Hedo and Rashard, they had 2 6’10" guys that could cause matchup problems. Pietrus/Carter isn’t going to be the matchup problem that Hedo/Rashard was, as good as Vince is.
Anyhow, that’s just my 2 cents. Without Gortat and Hedo, they need some more height inside.
by toonsterwu on Jul 10, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what I remember
Hedo handled the tougher defensive assignments, meaning that when there was a quality big, he was often handling it
I’m pretty sure that’s false. Lewis always guarded the inside guy. Turkoglu was defending perimeter players. Lewis guarded Gasol in the Finals, for example.
I hear where you’re coming from with the “matchup problem,” but I think it’s overstated. The bottom line is, can Vince pass as well as Hedo? He’s pretty close, and he’s a much better scorer, so I think it makes Orlando much more dangerous.
I also think they’re a bit thin inside, but if they sign Ratliff and plug Bass in as a small-ball center (which is what Dallas did a lot with a lot of success … Kidd/Terry/Howard/Dirk/Bass was their best lineup this year), they’ll be fine.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 10, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay
I guess that’s what they were labeled as, but I just tended to see Hedo handle more of the tougher defensive assignments against bigs, and Lewis floating around on the perimeter. In some respects, they’ve sort of developed the Duke offense for the next level in that they really only have one big man and 2 3’s.
by toonsterwu on Jul 10, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless Portland comes up with a big offer...
Milsap’s chances of getting that big contract are slipping away fast. I think only Portland and Memphis have any room left under the Salary Cap…. So the chances of Milsap going anywhere hinge on a Sign-and-Trade … The same thing applies to David Lee.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 10, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Milsap
but I’m not sure he’s an upgrade over Jamison. Unless we got something more back in that scenario, I don’t see how it makes us better. However, if we’re looking to lower our age mean, then I can understand it.
Basically, does this proposal fall under the “Win Now” category, or “Long term” category?
by CJHutch on Jul 10, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
considering i was wrong about the exception rule
this can’t happen, but in imagination land, I’d say it helps the Wizards win now and compete long term. It’s definitely a move to get younger, but I think Milsap is a better fit for the Wizards team than Jamison is. Milsap would be that aggressive rebounding, solid defensive big man that has some offensive game.
by toonsterwu on Jul 10, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would agree, but that ship has sailed
Because in order to have the room to sign Millsap, the Wizards needed to trade Jamison to Cleveland for Wally’s expiring deal. They didn’t.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 10, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
