Don't blow it up. Disassemble.
by MR on Feb 8, 2010 11:23 PM EST
Email
Print
I have read Prada’s well thought out and persuasive argument that we should dump Jamison now for whatever we can get. I have heard the cries from many to blow the team up for nothing more than expiring contracts if that is the best deal we are offered.
I have to disagree.
We have a team full of what EG calls “assets”. These assets apparently don’t work well together and are less than the sum of their parts. I recognize that the time has come to change course. However I don’t believe that we have a ticking time bomb and need to sprint into bad deals and end up at zero.
I love Rook’s creative if optimistic scenaria. Deals like those could set us up to be only a handful of years away from being back in the mix if things go reasonably well. However if all we are offered is expiring contracts then I say we stand pat.
Yes, you heard me. Stand pat with what we have. I would rather sink slowly into mediocrity than plunge into awfulness. I think that some of our assets will retain their value or get more valuable down the road and I don’t think we should just give them away at this time. Furthermore, I think that a measured approach to dismantling the team will get us back into contention faster than a nuclear approach.
Here are some assets that have an immediate time limit: Haywood, Miller, Foye, James.
I think Haywood is our most valuable asset and the one we are least likely to retain. I think we can get something for him as an expiring and a rental/Bird rights for another team. If offered nothing more than equal expirings at the deadline, however, I see no reason to trade him. We need some net return.
Miller and Foye could be trade bait, again if we get something in return besides expirings, but each of them could be worth re-signing to medium term contracts if the price is right. If not we can let them expire. James is in a similar boat except for the re-signing part.
The other assets that are not young potential building blocks are Jamison and Butler. I see no reason to give either of them away.
Butler seems more on a must-move-soon path, mostly because he seems to be tuning out. But his value will be just as high in the offseason or before next year’s trading deadline. And we might have more suitors.
I believe that Jamison will also retain his value next year. He will likely still be playing at a high level and the following year he is an expiring contract, so I don’t think he needs to be given away for nothing. And I believe that having a player like him on the team if we are rebuilding is a plus as well.
I think a lot of the "blow it up"-ers are reacting out of emotion, frustration, anger...all very understandable. But the falsehood at the heart of the argument--that if we start from scratch we could be in contention in a few years or even a handful of years--is pure fantasy. If we take apart this team we are looking at a 5-8 year plan minimum. Look at the Cavs. They lucked into one of the greatest players of our time and they are 7 years along with no ring.
We need to face facts. If we start over it's going to be a long road. I for one am willing to risk adding a year or two onto the teardown part in the thought that it will minimize the rebuild if we can get something for our outgoing assets.
Our mantra must be "no overpaying long term contracts" and we need to seize opportunities to trade assets in order to get better, not just in order to get rid of them.
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.
73 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
disagree
I could not disagree more,
I heard Charles Barkley talking about the wizards and I kind of had to agree.
He mentioned how Einstein said one mark of an insane person is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Caron and AJ have been with the wizards too long with too few results. Honestly, Aj’s value will plunge during the offseason, turning 35, being one of the big culprits.
The thing you have to look about blowing up a team is it’s the lesser of two evils. Caron and AJ represent losing, as much as I have loved them in DC. Don’t get me wrong I’ve been obsessed with them. But basically we have three drummings in the playoffs at the hand of the cavs, a 19-63 fiasco of a season, 3 years playing without Gil, and then this wasted season and off court distractions.
How can an organization change with out getting rid of that baggage. If we blow up, yea we’ll be awful for awhile, but I would much rather do that then “sink slowly into mediocrity” as you say. Why would you wanna see a team get progressively worse each season until their nothing only to start a rebuilding process then. Then you go through both plunging and sinking.
This season is done, frankly all I care about this offseason is MONEY! We can’t expect to get overly generous deals for AJ and Caron because teams know our situation. If we can free up cap space, retain a couple of our young players (young, mcgee, Mcguire), do well in the draft, and best case scenario sign a big FA in this class, we’d be well on the way to rebuilding.
I mean the Thunder are did the same thing, and look at them.
If we do nothing....
….we better literally do nothing. As in, don’t trade AJ, Caron, but also don’t resign Haywood, Miller or Foye.
In fact, if we are not trading Caron or AJ, I think we put them on the shelf for the rest of the season, get them to rest up, make sure they are in tip-top shape for the start of next year. Maybe we get lucky in the draft, and wind up with a franchise player.
But just no more long-term contracts. They have buried us.
by John Park Williams on Feb 9, 2010 1:31 AM EST reply actions
What are you suggesting the Wiz do then?
add a few more pieces? I’m not in favor of making dumb trades just in order to get cap relief. I want the Wiz to have 5 new players under 25 by next year. Jamison needs to be traded this year if we can get a Hickson or draft pick out of it.
I think you should always be trying to win a championship
While winning is nice, making the playoffs is fun, and having home games with any atmosphere is always a plus, but I want to win. I think you have to look at your roster and ask, can I win a championship with this current roster? Clearly that answer is no. So, can we add some pieces and/or make a trade to make this team a championship team? I say no. If you disagree, then I would understand not wanting to blow the team up. If your teams players for the most part have peaked and there is no realistic scenario in which you become a championship contender. THEN YOU BLOW UP AND START OVER. I am all for trying to maximize the value in return for your assets, but there is an opportunity cost to waiting. We need to free up cap space, dollars, and playing time
I would rather suck with the hope of building towards something than suck and have no hope.
by Blatche4MVP on Feb 9, 2010 8:08 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I have mixed feelings. One issue is that I believe MR is right that the Wizards might not get anything in return for these players than expiring contracts. Cavs want to keep Hickson, the Mavs want to keep Beaubois, Portland wants to keep Fernandez and Batum, etc.
I want to see players traded partly because I want Blatche and McGee to get more playing time, and I want other players to be given a chance to take on leadership roles. But frankly, as bad as the Wizards are, they could be nightmarishly bad if trades get them little talent in return.
They already are a lottery team. I also think their contracts are structured right now where they’ll be able to manage the coming changes to the salary caps and CBA over the next couple years.
Please nobody suggest we emulate OKC
If we want to do that then we have to get a top 5 draft pick for one of our outgoing players, which is the kind of deal I’m advocating we hold out for. What OKC did NOT do is just let everybody go for nothing. Of course to really emulate OKC we need 3 top 5 draft picks in 2 years, one of which turns into one of the prospects of the decade and all three must be on the all-nba rookie team.
The “trade everybody no matter what, even if all we get back are expiring contracts” scenario is more like emulating an expansion team.
I’m ALL for trading anyone on our roster if we get back cap relief and either a high draft pick or a good young prospect.
What I’m against is trading away good players for only expiring contracts.
Basicly
I think we need to demand some real value for our outgoing players and I don’t think trading them at this moment gives the trading partner much incentive to make us a good offer. When we get down to the wire of the trading deadline then I think there will be a team that steps up and makes a good offer. I’m willing to play that game of chicken. If nobody makes a good enough offer then we keep our players and try again in the offseason or next year or keep them.
That of course is why our concentration should be on trading Haywood and James (and Miller or Foye if we get enough value from them). Because the deadline is our last chance to get real value for those trades.
by MR on Feb 9, 2010 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
This is not totally correct
What OKC did NOT do is just let everybody go for nothing. Of course to really emulate OKC we need 3 top 5 draft picks in 2 years, one of which turns into one of the prospects of the decade and all three must be on the all-nba rookie team.
Here’s a timeline of OKC’s actions pre-rebuild.
-Lost their coach to Portland
-Let Antonio Daniels, their best bench guy and a key, key piece of the 2005 team, walk for nothing.
-Traded Vladimir Radmanovc for Chris Wilcox, then re-signed Wilcox to a fairly big deal.
-Traded Ray Allen for a top-five pick, a bad contract and a tier B prospect (you are correct that they didn’t dump him for nothing)
-Let Rashard Lewis walk in free agency, eventually traded for a massive trade exception (aka dumped him for nothing)
-Used that exception on Kurt Thomas and some picks
-Dumped Delonte West and Wally Sczcerbiak, the two other pieces in the Allen deal, for literally nothing (expiring contracts)
-Dumped Luke Ridnour for Joe Smith in the Mo Williams trade
Their other picks came via a stroke of luck (Durant) and constant sucking as a result of trading their good players for little immediate value (except for Ray Allen). Now, Presti also made some shrewd-ass moves to hoard draft picks that we can’t expect, but it’s wrong to say OKC got immediate value in every single move they made. They got value in some, got nothing in others.
Now, OKC is just one model of the “blow it up” rebuild. There have been other successful projects, such as Portland, Memphis and Atlanta. Atlanta’s not a model to emulate – they basically delayed the inevitable for way too long. Memphis made a number of moves to dump their key players that brought no immediate value (Posey and Jason Williams for Eddie Jones’ expiring deal, the Gasol trade, which brought a mid-tier prospect, a complete unknown and a late first for the best big man on the market) and some that did (Shane Battier for Rudy Gay, a great move that doesn’t get enough credit, Mike Miller for the right to swap up two picks to get O.J. Mayo). It was a mixture.
Portland is probably the best comparison to us, actually. Like us, they faced a situation where all their players had little value. They got very little for their best guys. Rasheed Wallace brought Shareef Abdur-Rahim, a declining player who had multiple years left on his deal. They also had several hiccups on the rebuild with stuff like signing Darius Miles and Zach Randolph to big deals. Damon Stoudemire got bought out. Miles is still technically on their payroll. They dumped Randolph for Steve Francis, who they bought out (aka they got literally nothing for Randolph). Then, they made two amazing picks in the 06 draft, got lucky in the 07 draft and eventually got cap flexibility. To the best of my knowledge, Portland got very little value for any of their rebuilding moves. They just focused on the long-term, focused on drafting well and here they are. Now, the caveats there are that a) it took a hell of a long time, b) they literally had no choice and c) they disassembled.
I guess that brings me back to my main response, which is this: I’m advocating a disassemble too. The difference between us is that we disagree on what pieces need to leave soonest. You’re saying move the expiring contracts first so we get something for them before losing them for nothing, then keep trying on our longer-term deals until we get something. I’m saying move the long-term deals (namely, Jamison) first because of a) the impending 2011 lockout, b) the fact that Jamison blocks two of our prospects, c) there’s a team that needs Jamison now, and that’s not guaranteed going forward and d) his contract becomes less and less desirable, even if his play remains steady. (I’m sure I have other reasons, but this is off the top of my head). Then, I say focus on getting value for expirings. Finally, if you get real value for Butler, move him. If not, hold the asset and try again, because of what I wrote on the FP yesterday. Either way, it’s a disassemble, if only because, practically speaking, you can’t bring in the dynamite all at once.
Sorry, long response.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Feb 9, 2010 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you for the long, well thought out response (geez, don’t be sorry!)
I am willing to let players walk for nothing. That’s my game of chicken. It’s a risk I’m willing to take in order to try to get something for them. I just don’t want to trade them for nothing. If we goof on Haywood, Miller, Foye, James and they walk for nothing but we net a top 5 pick for Butler or AJ then I’d say that the risk was worth it. Better than trading them all for just expiring contracts, which many here and in the media have suggested we should do.
Some thoughts on some of your other points:
I don’t think Jamison is blocking prospects. He is blocking Blatche, but not McGee. I don’t think blocking Blatche is all that bad, the guy’s playing time or lack thereof is more a function of his play.
I agree with you about Butler.
I don’t think you should talk about “successful” rebuilds along the blow it up model. None of the teams you mentioned have won a ring or have even gone past the second round. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a “blow it up” project that has won a championship. Please correct me if that is not true.
by MR on Feb 9, 2010 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
well now
I would rather sink slowly into mediocrity than plunge into awfulness.
So how is last place in the division and 2nd worst record in the conference not awfulness?
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Not awfulness
At least we can occassionally enjoy great games like the comeback victory against Orlando. The Wizards at lease have been more competitive this year than they were last year. And as terrible as their record is, they have won almost as many games as last season, and we’re not even at all star weekend.
The point being, the Wizards can get a lot worse. Take away Butler and Jamison, while not getting any talent in return, the Wizards could become Nets bad.
Arguably it may be a bitter pill that needs to be swallowed (or arguably not depending on your perspective), but that pill is bitter.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 9, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think Jamison is blocking prospects. He is blocking Blatche, but not McGee.
Jamison is blocking Blatche, who is in turn taking the backup Center minutes away from McGee….
Without Jamison, Blatche would be getting the bulk of the PF minutes (32-40 minutes a night) , and McGee would be getting 20 minutes a night at Center. As it stands now, Blatche is getting about 22 minutes a night (with most of those coming at Center) and McGee is getting a sporadic 8 minutes per game..
If we take apart this team we are looking at a 5-8 year plan minimum. Look at the Cavs. They lucked into one of the greatest players of our time and they are 7 years along with no ring.
I don’t think you should talk about "successful" rebuilds along the blow it up model. None of the teams you mentioned have won a ring
Also – you have referred to Cleveland, and the other “rebuilding clubs” (OKC , Portland, Memphis) as not having won anything… I would counter with the fact that I would rather root for a team that has a chance, each and every year, of advancing in the Playoffs and perhaps getting the chance to play for the Championship (like Cleveland)….. and I’d rather root for a team that seems to have a clear direction in their rebuilding process; a team that is clearly getting better each year; a team that, with a little luck, another player and some additional experience, just might get to the next level (OKC, Memphis, Portland) – rather than root for a team with a mistaken idea that just one more try , with the same old players, just might bring back a miracle that happened 4 seasons ago……
Ted Leonsis says you need to ask the critical question: “Can this team–as constructed–ever win a championship?” If the answer is yes — stay the course and try to find the right formula — if the answer is no, then plan to rebuild. Don’t fake it–really do the analytics and be brutally honest. Once you decide to rebuild–bring the house down to the foundation–be consistent with your plan….."
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Feb 9, 2010 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
You have completely mis-read my entire position
I’m not advocating “one more try”. Not in any way.
I’m advocating a smarter tear down process. One that may add a year to the front end of our rebuilding effort. One that may add young prospects and/or draft picks. I think the risk/reward is worth it.
by MR on Feb 9, 2010 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
But MR, I agree with you on almost everything
EXCEPT in the case of Jamison…..
and I agree with Mike Prada here…. Right now, there is a team that wants Jamison; and the Wizards have the opportunity to get out from underneath a contract they signed just last Summer. This past Summer; when they thought the core of Arenas, Butler and Jamison could compete for a Championship. It’s now very apparent that this “core” cannot get it done.
Right now – Cleveland is interested. The Wizards can get some Cap flexibility for next year (and the year after, and the year after) – ….. NOW, I’m all for holding out to the bitter end, asking for Ilgauskas, Hickson and a First round pick…. but if Cleveland calls our bluff – I think it’s imperative that Jamison be moved for only an expiring contract.
The Owners have fired the first shot across the bow in the new CBA negotiations…. looking for shorter term contracts… some way of limiting guaranteed money… lowering the salaries of the largest stars…. and in general, bringing the Salary costs back in line with reality. Until it’s all sorted out, any team that spends on large long-term contracts is taking a huge risk that the players they obtain will be hugely overpaid in 2 years.
Second point…. Jamison, shows little degradation in his on-court production (SO FAR), but his value will nonetheless decrease, the further he progresses into his contract. His contract continues to escalate each year, but so does his age. At some point, the Wizards will have to entice a team to take Jamison off their hands by offering a pick or a prospect to TAKE Jamison’s contract.
I agree that we should hold out for value for Caron Butler…. We should try to get SOMETHING extra for any expiring contracts we trade (Haywood, James, Miller, Foye, etc…) – - – but in the case of Jamison – I think the window of opportunity to trade him will be gone on February 19th
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
The CBA and big contracts
I think it’s overstated how much Jamison’s contract will be impacted by the next CBA for a few reasons:
1. The way things are projected, there will be a long lockout during the final season of Jamison’s contract, potentially wiping it out from relevancy.
2. It’s quite possible or likely there will be a gradual transition from the current soft cap to a smaller hard cap, rather than an immediate, 100% change.
3. It’s also projected that owners will demand players with contracts signed during the current CBA will have to payback a percentage of their contracts to be more in line with the cap of the new CBA.
The owners would rather implement #3 than #2, but either one or the other or a combination of the two will inevitably be necessary (assuming the owners don’t completely cave).
In any case, again I think it’s overstated how much Jamison’s final year would impact the Wizards in 2011. If they want to be players in the free agent market maybe, but given the cap uncertainties and the long term nature of their rebuild, why be agressive in the free agent market?
The bigger issue for me is opening up playing time for Blatche who I think deserves it and McGee who needs it. But whether it’s Jamison getting traded or Haywood heading off to another team, there will be enough minutes opening up.
Now if the Wizards can get Hickson in a trade for Jamison, then absolutely the trade should be made. In fact, I think whether the Wizards can get a decent young prospect in return should be the final litmus test for whether a trade should happen, rather than just whether salary cap space is saved.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 9, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
also
Right now – Cleveland is interested. The Wizards can get some Cap flexibility for next year (and the year after, and the year after) – ….. NOW, I’m all for holding out to the bitter end, asking for Ilgauskas, Hickson and a First round pick…. but if Cleveland calls our bluff – I think it’s imperative that Jamison be moved for only an expiring contract.
One thing I agree with you is that it’s either now or never for the Wizards if they want to trade Jamison (Butler could potentially have more value over the summer).
That said, I think there’s more at stake for Cleveland than there is for the Wizards. The Wizards can successfully go through a rebuild process with Jamison on the roster. It’s not a requirement. In addition, they can financially survive the changes coming in the salary cap with Jamison’s contract as well.
The Cavs on the other hand are much more so at a do or die point. They have A LOT more to lose if they can’t win the championship this year. They have to worry about Orlando pulling out an impressive come from behind victory at Boston, and then Vince Carter exploding last night. They have to worry about a Los Angeles team that physically is much bigger than the Cavs, which is one reason to add a stretch PF. The Cavs are the #1 team in the NBA right now, but that doesn’t guarantee them a championship. If they don’t win, they may lose LBJ (who rumor has it has been asking Ferry to get Jamison). They have LOTS more to lose than the Wizards if they have to hold on to Jamison’s contract over the next couple years.
So I’d rather the Wizards hold out and call the Cavs bluff, which means accepting the possibility that they keep Jamison.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 9, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
The Wizards can successfully go through a rebuild process with Jamison on the roster. It’s not a requirement.
I agree with Johnnie on this.
If we’re stuck with AJ through the length of his contract then it expires in 2 years. I don’t really know what we’re going to be spending that money on in those 2 years anyway. We need to be building through the draft, not expensive FAs. The time we would want to sign a FA is in 3-4 years.
I think AJ will still have value as a player next year—this has been probably his best year individually of his career—and will have value as an expiring in 2 years. I don’t see the big problem if we end up keeping him past the deadline. Cleveland isn’t the only team out there.
by MR on Feb 9, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
But
The Wizards can successfully go through a rebuild process with Jamison on the roster. It’s not a requirement.
They can’t with both Jamison AND Arenas on the roster, and since Gil’s trade value is negative zilch right now, moving Jamison is more important.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Why?
Let’s say the Wizards don’t make any trades this season, or even for the next couple of years. If they choose not to resign Miller, Haywood, James and Butler (not even including Foye), they will be able to stay under the cap both in 2010 and 2011. 2011 is hard to predict, but as I said above if the next CBA is radically different than the current one (assuming their’s an agreement on one and not a lockout), they will either implement a gradual shift that takes place over multiple years, or they’ll get players to agree to payback percentages of their salaries so the big contract players that exist throughout the NBA don’t place a stranglehold on their teams.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 9, 2010 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
Because
Arenas and Jamison make a combined $31 million in 2011 and a combined $35 million in 2012 when the cap is probably going way down. You can’t have 2/3 of the cap (if not more) tied up in two players who won’t be a part of your rebuild.
I don’t really know how to put it more simply. Having one is manageable, but nowhere close to ideal. Having both is death. You simply cannot have any cap flexibility that way.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
What do they need cap flexibility for?
It’s one thing if the Wizards are hoping to sign a free agent (or two) in 2010 or 11, but if it’s all about draft picks then those 2011 and 2012 numbers will be feasible.
Again, I think 2011 is more complicated than people are making it out to be. If we are assume the owners get the drastic changes they want (a big assumption), either they’ll allow the cap to decline gradually, or players like Arenas and Jamison (and James, Wade, Bosh, Gasol, etc.) will be forced to take huge pay cuts, and thus Arenas & Jamison wouldn’t count nearly as much towards the cap.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 9, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
What do they need cap flexibility for?
Cap flexibility allowed Oklahoma City to demand multiple draft picks for the right to get Kurt Thomas off Phoenix’s hands. Cap flexibility allowed them to get Eric Maynor for nothing. Cap flexibility allowed the Clippers to get Marcus Camby for nothing. Cap flexibility allows you to sign the MLE-type veteran players who can fill out the roster while your kids develop. Cap flexibility allows you to actually pay all your great young players that you draft when they are up for extensions without having to go into the luxury tax. Cap flexibility means you don’t have to approach the tax while your fans are not showing up waiting for your team to get good.
You can’t rebuild without cap flexibility. It’s kind of fundamental.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Thanks for reminding me of another way to take advantage of cap space (besides just signing a free agent). Still, how often do you expect trades like the Kurt Thomas trade to happen in the future? In the next year, I can imagine scenarios where they’re more or less common. But in 2011 and beyond, presumably they’ll become virtually extinct because the luxury tax will end. I’d also argue while they can help, they’re unlikely to be fundamental in a team’s ascent from the bottom to the top of the NBA.
Finally, I still see a cat & mouse game happening between the Cavs and Wizards, which seems more obvious from Michael Lee’s latest blog entry. He implies that the Cavs just want to give up an expiring contract, whereas the Wizards want Hickson and/or a 1st round pick in addition. So who will be willing to give first? Or neither team will give, we’ll see. But here’s an example where lowering your expectations just to jump at an opportunity of cap savings can also hold back the rebuilding process.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 9, 2010 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
anyways...
I’m being stubborn here. I see your point about the advantage of cap flexibility.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 9, 2010 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
And...
All this is assuming a single game is even played during the 2011 season.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 9, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
MR
You constantly shoot down any mention of emulating the OKC model. While that model doesn’t guarantee success or the same results there is no way putting yourself into position to get something for nothing will really hurt a team. Basically we are like a baseball team that has been chasing a world series for too many years and depleted their farm system. We don’t have any good young assets and have 2 toxic contracts on our books. We don’t have the assets to make a trade and too much of our cap room will be caught up in 2 players that don’t mesh well and are declining. No one wants our “stars”, our young guys aren’t worth much and half our team is expiring and we don’t have the money to resign the majority of them. If we can get out of a guy like Aj’s contract we should. If the Cavs are foolish enough to trade us Hickson, all the better. I can see the sense of holding onto Caron if we don’t get anything other than an expiring but we have to assume Gil will be on the books next year and we can’t really field a legit team where Gil and AJ take up 2/3rd’s of the cap and the other 11 guys need to be bought with the other third. I for one would find a team with a bad record but some young guys with some potential way more palatable than an underachieving, no defense, aging team. You shouldn’t knock the model because regardless of Durant they mput themselves in a great position to be a young team on the rise and/or sign or trade for a superstar.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 10, 2010 12:02 AM EST up reply actions
This is why I move to change it to the "Portland model"
Because they literally tore down a team plagued by off-court issues by getting something for nothing.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I think trying to emulate the OKC model is like trying to emulate Chicago and pick Michael Jordan. It’s not a real plan, rather it’s a slim hope. Seattle/OKC did a great job and seem to be well positioned, but there are plenty of teams that have tried the same thing and failed. If you end up with Beasley, Thabeet, Aldridge, or Marvin Williams (the four #2 picks in the years surrounding Durant) then you don’t have a successful rebuild in the way they do now. It was Seattle’s good fortune to pick #2 in a year with an all-NBA caliber #2 pick…not to mention that they could easily have ended up with Oden.
To really attempt to emulate OKC we would need to stockpile draft picks, which is what I’m advocating. Trading Butler or AJ for a top 5 draft pick would be a start (a la Ray Allen). I’m all for that. Trading them for nothing I believe is bad policy.
I agree that we need to get out from under our large contracts to rebuild. I’m just willing to do that patiently in order to get a return on them. If that takes a year or two and nets us several high draft picks or good prospects then I think that is a better plan then just starting from zero.
Again what is wrong with acquiring good young players and cap flexibility
Regardless of whether they get Durant they are in a great position. They have cap space and loads of young talent irregardless. It’s a model for improving your team as a whole. Even if they had ended up with a guy like OJ Mayo they would be in a great position. Demanding a top 5 pick for AJ or CB is nice but in no way are they worth that. If we can get out from AJ’s contract we should do it. We should hold out for a piece for Butler though. What you suggest would most likely meaning a handful of more wins with us in a crappier position 2 years from now. This has been in the cards since this summer if you could read between the lines.
Prada my only reservation with the Portland analogy is that they were aided by Paul Allen buying late first rounders for a couple million. I doubt we can count on that.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 10, 2010 12:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That's a good point re: Portland
Though I wonder if Ted has deep enough pockets to consider it, especially if the rest of the team’s payroll is very down.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
gotta disagree here
Sure the Cavs haven’t won anything yet. But they are the best team in the league right now. And with LA’s injury problems, they could end up facing a far inferior team in the playoffs. LA has played more games than anyone over the last 2 years. Add to that Kobe and Gasol’s Olympic appearances, and I could seriously envision them breaking down come playoff time. I hate to say it, but outside of LA, I don’t see anyone else being a threat to Cleveland the way LeBron is playing. And that’s not even adding in the Shaq factor. While he’s been a mediocre player during the season, I think his value goes up in the playoffs.
What I’m saying is, I don’t think they need Jamison. In fact, I think he would be a detriment to them. Sure, he’s a good outside shooter at the PF spot, but his value is in the flip shots and garbage tips he gets under the basket. In Cleveland, he won’t get as much of that with LeBron and Shaq in the game. LeBron needs the lane to drive, and Shaq is useless outside of the lane. Which means AJ becomes a spot up shooter, basically cutting his value in half.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I don’t WANT to see AJ go there. I’d be happy to see that teams chemistry go down the tubes. I’m just saying that I don’t think they’re all that desperate to make a move. Truthfully, I think the only desperation is in appeasing LeBron to keep him around. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ferry made the gamble to stand pat, thinking that the team, as currently constructed, can win the championship, which would be a better reason for LeBron to stay than trading young talent for an overpriced, aging “tweener” power forward.
But that’s just my opinion.
Keeping it together is not an option
for salary cap reasons. If we keep Butler and Jamison and resign Haywood, Miller and Foye to fair market salaries (say, $8M, $6M and $5M respectively) we project to be $12-15M above the luxtax. You may not want to give away assets for a minimal return, but it would be insanity to pay a $15M luxury tax to keep this terrible team together.
Haywood and Miller are my favorite players on the team. I think it’s in our best interests to keep both. I also think Foye would be nice to keep because he’ll probably be relatively cheap and he’s a pretty good young player with a good attitude.
In order to facilitate that, either Jamison must go, or Butler + Stevenson must go. That’s the bare minimum that must be done by the Trade Deadline. That’ll stop the vultures from circling because we will at that point have enough luxtax room to keep whomever we want. From that point forward, we can demand that other teams put forth fair offers. I’m open to trading everybody on the roster, but I want to be in position to demand a good return.
So Jamison for Z plus incentive is ideal. Or Butler + Stevenson for Josh Howard. Or Butler + Stevenson + James for Ray Allen. Or Butler + Stevenson + James + Oberto for TMac. Any of those will do.
My favorite realistic scenario is to trade Jamison + Oberto + Crittenton to Cleveland for Z + Powe. That saves almost $3M instantly and gets us a decent banger to replace Jamison at PF. If we can buy out Z at a savings of another $1.5M or so, we can get out of the luxtax completely.
To reply to your points
I’m sorry to tell you that there is no way we retain Haywood at the end of this year. I doubt we resign both Miller and Foye unless they don’t get any good offers and we sign them relatively cheaply.
First to Haywood: Why resign him unless we are moving forward with the team we’ve built, which clearly doesn’t work. He will decline in the next 3-5 years, which is the earliest we could expect to be relevant. He is a luxury we can’t afford. Someone will offer him a large deal in the offseason. We won’t match it. Why resign him at 9-10 million if we trade away AJ, Butler or both? Why would that team win anything?
As to your deals…None of them give us any real value except for the ones that give us expiring contracts. Sure we could have Powe for a year rental. We could get an overpaid Josh Howard or expiring Allen or TMac. That’s the “blow it up for nothing” scenario. A lot of smart people think that’s the way to go. I don’t.
by MR on Feb 9, 2010 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
Without Haywood, we suck anyhow
Your plan is to retain Jamison and Butler because we’ll have the cap room because Haywood is bolting. Bear in mind that we SUCK without Haywood. Always have. Haywood is the best player on the team. If Haywood is gone and the rest of this team returns, we won’t win 30 games. Why hold a team like that together?
Basically, if your conclusion is that Haywood is leaving no matter what, then the plan should be to completely blow it up and trade away Jamsion, Butler and Miller for the best return possible. The worst possible plan is to let Haywood walk and then keep Butler and Jamison around.
One other point: centers have a long shelf life. Haywood has had very few injuries, and none of them have been chronic. He also has low mileage thanks to that idiot Eddie Jordan. I wouldn’t let Haywood’s “decline” factor into any decisions on whether or not to retain him. I consider it highly likely that Haywood would remain very effective throughout the entire length of his next contract – particularly if it’s a 4-year contract.
Your plan is to retain Jamison and Butler because we’ll have the cap room because Haywood is bolting.
That is not my plan. That implies that I think we should enter the FA market. I believe we should not sign anyone unless they are cheap or young and extremely promising.
Why hold a team like that together?
I’m only suggesting we hold a player until we get a decent offer.
trade away Jamsion, Butler and Miller for the best return possible
Yes that’s what I’m advocating. Expiring contracts are not the best return. Our best return may be in the off-season or next year.
by MR on Feb 9, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
unbalanced deals
In response to MR:
The Spurs! Before Robinson and Duncan came they pretty much had to do the same thing, granted they had some nice luck in the draft, but they pretty much started from scratch and we all know how that worked out, so it can definitely happen.
I think the reason I say we trade Caron and AJ before the deadline does actually come down to cap space. I mean think about what you guys are saying. Suppose Cleveland doesn’t get AJ, then make or win the finals, would you say AJ’s value goes up or goes down? You say that you want it to be fair, that you think getting only expiring contracts in return for caron or AJ is robbery. That may be true but I would rather free up cap space then be stuck with AJ or caron another season when it will be way harder to unload either. Obviously we try and get stuff throw in with these deals (hickson, picks), but in this game of “chicken” I think it’s in our best interest to yield. If we wanna get a big name in this amazing FA class we need space. There is the option of disassembling a team and building around a proven but young player, like Wade or Bosh. But that’s fantasy if we don’t have cap space.
Click the reply button to respond to someone please
Thanks.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Thank you for demonstrating the proper use of the reply button
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
To reply to your points
The Spurs were not a blow up project or a rebuild of any kind. They were a legit championship contender for years and their best player got injured and missed almost the entire season. Their second best player missed half the season. They got the #1 pick in Duncan and we all know the rest.
No matter how much cap space we have at the end of this year we are not landing one of the marquee free agents this year.
Obviously I don’t think our only chance to trade Butler or AJ is this year (that’s the point of the original post). So I guess we disagree about AJ’s value next year. I don’t think Cleveland will be the only team who wants him.
by MR on Feb 9, 2010 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
Cleveland is the only team that wants Jamison THIS year....
I have not heard any other trade rumors swirling around Jamison regarding any other teams…. Butler? Oh yes… lots of teams expressing interest…
Jamison? only one…. Cleveland…
And their interest is based on three things….
1. They need to either win the Championship this year, or come extremely close (otherwise LeBron James will walk).
2. They need a “stretch-four”…. and Jamison is the best one out there….
2. Apparently LeBron James WANTS Jamison on his team.
If the Wizards retain Jamison – thinking they should be able to get more this Summer…. only two things can happen:
1. Cleveland wins the Championship – showing LeBron that Jamison was not (and is not) needed…
OR
2. Cleveland loses LeBron James to Free Agency – and therefore is in full rebuild mode – with no need for an aging Jamison…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Agreed that Cleveland may not be interested in AJ after this year (although they might be if they keep LBJ). I’m betting that other teams will be.
by MR on Feb 9, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
Who?
What other teams will want Jamison at his price and age this summer or next year? I love Jamison to death and he’s my favorite player in the league but having his contract here for the next 2 seasons after this one will not help the rebuilding process in any way. It can only slow it down.
I also hate Cleveland and would hate to see them win the championship but im looking at whats best for this team and we need to give them Jamison and get as much as we can from them while they want him because no one else ever will.
I'm not convinced the Cav's want Jamison at this point
We keep hearing that the Wiz and Cavs are trying to make a deal, but what are the obstructions at this point? I think that Danny Ferry isn’t really as in love with AJ as we might think. They could go after Stoudemire in Phoenix or Iggie in Philadelphia. There are players available that can help the Cavs more for the long term than Jamison can. My fear is that if the Cavs don’t want Jamison than no one does.
The Cavs want Jamison
It’s just that the Wizards don’t want to give up Jamison. The Wizards have had an offer on the table for weeks now and could’ve taken it but they’re hesitant to let Jamison go.
And you’re right, if the Cavs in fact don’t want Jamison no one does. But I believe they do.
The Cavs want Jamison, but I think the bigger issue is the deal they’ve been willing to offer only includes Ilgauskas, while the Wizards want Hickson as well.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 10, 2010 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
Once Amare finds a new home
there might be interest in Jamison.
by MR on Feb 10, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
Well
Jamison’s contract and age situation is waaay different from Amare. Although they are similar as players. I can’t imagine that any of the teams looking at Stoudemire now would want Jamison.
Lots of the teams who want Amare want his contract more than him the player
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Do we know there has been a signifant deal for AJ on the table?
I can see EG and Ferry playing chicken over Hickson. Personally I know pretty much no one would agree with this but I think Hickson is gonna be an absolute stud and we should push for him. I would be willing to do pretty much anything short of trading McGee or Blatche for him. Getting out of AJ’s contract without taking one another long term one is pretty good. Trading Old for young is pretty much always good and I think Hickson will be averaging 18-10 within 2 years. Kill me for this if you want but I would even give them NY if we got Hickson and a first rounder. Or give up our second rounder this year(Cleveland is without one and might be tempted to ass Kurt Thomas who is being shopped for a 2nd) or Foye or something.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 10, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
I'd give up Nick for Hickson and a first too
Nothing more though.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I’ve seen a couple sources say that the Cavs and Wizards have talked recently but the Wizards want “too much” and the Cavs don’t want to give up Hickson or draft picks.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 10, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
It's funny
The Wiz want too much? The two sides disagree. Why isn’t that the Cavs wanting too much? They want our best player in exchange for an old broken down center whose only plus is that his contract is expiring, then we’re supposed to release him so he can rejoin the Cavs for a playoff run. But if we want any talent in return we’re asking for too much.
by MR on Feb 10, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
I've noticed that too
The bad NBA teams should be happy to give up their good players for expiring contracts. That seems to be the way so many think.
I just found some online roundtable among Cavs bloggers (I guess), where they pretty much lay out their perspectives on trade scenarios for their team. Ultimately, they argue if Jamison is part of the package, Hickson can be included. While if it’s just Murphy, no way Hickson is part of the deal.
It seems funny to me that Wizards fans are willing to give up Jamison just for an expiring contract, while Cavaliers fans are willing to add Hickson, yet neither Grunfeld nor Ferry have been willing to budge.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 10, 2010 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
The bad NBA teams should be happy to give up their good players for expiring contracts. That seems to be the way so many think.
And to be clear I’m generally speaking about national sports journalists or “league sources” here.
by Johnnie Futbol on Feb 10, 2010 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
It's because bad teams need payroll flexibility
To aid them in the climb back to respectability. Otherwise, they’ll both suck and have no options.
It can be taken to an extreme, sure, but there’s a reason behind it. The bottom line is that you run into trouble analyzing trades in this league when you assume that playoff teams and crappy teams value the same thing.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I think we all understand that
but rebuilding teams need young talent too.
I really can’t remember a trade of an all-star bubble player for nothing but expiring contracts before. (Although I’m sure you could list a few for me)
It’s not like AJ is on a four year contract. There is next year, when we’ll suck it up. Then the following year he is a big fat expiring contract.
by MR on Feb 10, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
That young talent tends to come in the form of lottery picks from sucking
And those guys are often preferable to getting someone else’s young talent because you can more easily mold them. They don’t come with baggage from their previous NBA stops.
As to the talent for expirings question, off the top my head:
-Sheed in 04 (they got the 17th pick back too)
-Artest (they got Donte Greene too)
-Mike Bibby (they got Shelden Williams too)
-Chauncey Billups (they got AI for his contract, not his production)
-Baron Davis in 04 (I forget what the Hornets got, but it was all contracts)
-Chris Webber in 05 (the Kings actually got long-term contracts for him)
-Richard Jefferson to Milwaukee in 08 (the Nets got Bobby Simmons, who wasn’t even expiring)
-Vince Carter from Toronto to NJ in 05 (forget exactly what Toronto got back, but it was basically nothing)
-Stephon Marbury to NY in 04 (at the height of his zenith)
-Vince Carter to Orlando this year (they swapped prospects – Lee to NJ, Anderson to ORL)
-Allen Iverson to Denver in 06 (they got Andre Miller’s long deal and Joe Smith’s expiring, as well as a low draft pick that Philly turned into Jason Smith)
That’s just off the top of my head. Some of those guys aren’t all-stars, and some of those guys got back slightly more than expiring deals, but the point still stands: you often don’t get much more than cap relief for good players, and that can work out in your favor if you use the space you get shrewdly.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
this makes our Kwame for Butler trade seem that much better
now we have to trade Butler for a Kwame back
Young needs to stay here.
Okay, it seems that most of us agree, we need to get ahold of young players and draft picks! Are you serious about Nick Young though?! I wouldn’t trade young for all of king midas’ silver! Young is a young player who can get his OWN shot. I feel that you may be underestimating his value. If he can get his own shot now, just imagine how dominant he’d be with more minutes. I feel that if we get a good draft, keep young, keep mcgee, and keep mcguire…then that right there is a solid start. As for Hickson, I would love to have him, but if that means giving up Nick Young, it’s too high of a price. I actually would rather see blatche go in exchange for Hickson if we had to choose somebody else to throw in with AJ, I feel that AJ and Blatche for Hickson and a 1st round pick is fair, considering everybodies situation
by macattack777 on Feb 10, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
Young, productive bigs >>> young, unproductive (for the most part) wings
Therefore, Blatche >>>>>> Young.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Hickson is more of a sure thing and his skill set is rare in the NBA
While it is much easier to find someone with NY’s skill set and consitency issues. I’m not advocating giving up on NY but if adding NY changes the deal from Z for AJ to Z and Hickson and a first for AJ and NY I would do it. I can assure you I don’t suggest trading NY lightly.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 10, 2010 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
Great players win championships
I’m actually not in the camp that believes that anything short of winning a championship isn’t worth pursuing, but the reality of the NBA is that great players win championships. Consider 1991-2007 — for 17 years, only one team that didn’t have either Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq or Duncan won the title. Or consider that only the Pistons (three times) have won one in 30 years (at least) without a player that has won an MVP.
If we take apart this team we are looking at a 5-8 year plan minimum. Look at the Cavs. They lucked into one of the greatest players of our time and they are 7 years along with no ring.
The Cavs have been in contention for several years, and have only had one losing season with James. Drafting a great player is the best way to get good fast. And it only takes a 2-4 years for that method to pay off. For example, here are all the players in the top 12 in PER drafted since 2000:
Cavs draft James: Win 50 games in 3rd year
Miami drafts Wade: Win 59 games in 2nd year (and championship in 3rd)
Orlando drafts Howard: Win 52 games in 4th year
New Orleans drafts Paul: Win 56 games in 3rd year
Denver drafts Anthony: Win 49 games in 2nd year
Ok City drafts Durant: On pace to win 48 games in 3rd year
Toronto drafts Bosh: Win 47 games in 4th year (Tho I’d argue Bosh is a step below the rest)
(I left off Oden because he’s barely played)
This suggests stockpiling top 5 picks is the best bet for getting into contention, and that it can pay off pretty quickly.
Here's an interesting alternative on Jamison to Cleveland
Via Chris Sheridan, instead of sending Z and begging up to cut him so they can pick him back up, the Cavs could sign Wally Sczcerbiak to one of those sham contracts (like with Keith Van Horn and the Mavericks in the Kidd trade) and send him with Hickson for Jamison. This way, Cleveland keeps their precious backup center, and it essentially becomes Hickson for Jamison. I like Hickson, but they can’t believe he’ll ever be as good as Antawn.
I’d also prefer if Cleveland somehow made the sham contract partially guaranteed, so we could cut Sczcerbiak and eliminate our luxury tax bill this year. Wally can’t complain, because he’d be getting millions of dollars to do nothing.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
agreed Prada
What do you make of this “Cleveland doesn’t trust the Wizards to cut him” rumor. Is there any truth to that? If we are doing anything to make them think that then we are just idiots in my opinion. What does playing that game do for us?
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 10, 2010 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
Well written MR but I gotta disagree on certain parts
I agree with some of your points, especially on Caron. Your philosophy, especially as it regards to AJ, I can’t quite wholeheartedly agree with. While there are different philosophies on rebuilding there seems to hardly be any doubt we do need to rebuild. When the Wiz didn’t trade AJ last year they set up a Championship or bust course for this franchise. It obviously busted. I don’t think you take the salary cap enough into consideration when you advocate holding onto AJ. Let’s say they hold onto AJ and CB because they can’t get any prospects or picks for them(very likely they won’t get anything serious and I see no need to trade CB for just an expiring). Well that means as Steadyhand broke down so well that our team next year could let everyone walk, replace them with dudes making the Vet. Minimum and still be in Luxury tax territory. So basically our next owner would be paying luxury tax, forgoing the extra money for being under the tax line, and fielding a really crappy team that will struggle to make moves. I’m not normally frugal with other peoples money but I can’t honestly expect someone to shell out tons of money to field a loser. Someone has to go.
It’s easy to say "we’re trading our best player for nothing" but that doesn’t really take into account all the factors that contribute to value. Sadly contract length, Age, and the quality of the team factor into value. To only go by on court production as of now is only seeing one aspect of a players value. AJ might have value to a team that is willing to go over the cap(or even more over as the case would most likely be) to get that one last piece to win a Championship. Unfortunately only one of the contending teams in the league has a legit need for his skill set so we only have one suitor who’s bargaining leverage gets better daily while our’s gets worse(for them JJ is playing well and they can’t stop winning; for us AJ is looking worse and worse). I think you might be overvaluing AJ’s worth in the big picture and undervaluing the worth of walking away from a huge long term contract without taking on any bad salary. Sure Ray Allen netted a 5th pick but AJ isn’t Allen, the Celts had a legit need for Allen’s skills to make a Championship run, and OKC had to take on Wally’s really bad but shorter contract.
Next year if we keep AJ we will have even less leverage in the trade market as we will have a crappier, older team than we did this season and our cap situation will only be worse. It’s tough for me to envision any scenario where AJ has more value this summer or beyond than he does now. We do know for a fact that our bargaining position will only get worse after this season. If we can get rid of his contract without taking a bad one on however we have so many more options to improve our team next year. We can play hardball with CB this year and bring him back, sign enough guys to field a team and still be a little under the cap. If you are under the cap your whole trade market is improved as you can now take on more salary. Where before you were limiting your options because you had to take as much salary back now you have a lot more options. Also if you can dump AJ without taking any bad contracts back that makes things easier when we try and figure out what to do with Arenas next year. Personally I say keep Arenas and play him unless you get a decent deal(cap relief, any kind of prospect, no bad long term deals) but if AJ is off the books we could take a slightly lesser deal than we normally would if Arenas turned out to be a headache next season. Basically keeping AJ only limits our abilities to improve next year. Does having more options always mean those opportunities are realized? No of course not but as a rule of thumb I’d rather have options than be bent over a barrel which is what would happen if we bring AJ, CB, and Gil back next year. I understand your point on patience but being patient in this case only hurts us long term as our assets are only diminishing and we have a very real salary cap situation that needs to be dealt with not ignored and allowed to get worse.
You and I both agree that Championship contenders need to find a transcendent player. Lets look at what keeping AJ on the books would do to help us find that player. By my reckoning there are 3 ways to acquire any player: Draft; Free Agency; or Trade. Admittedly for any of those 3 scenarios there is a lot of luck and/or being in the right place at the right time but that’s just the way it is. For drafting that guy I can’t say AJ would really help. With him off the books we have more options to trade up if neccesary. Personally I doubt AJ’s play would make us win too many more games than we would without him but still we would probably be picking a little higher the next 2 years assuming he can stay healthy/productive. So is keeping AJ really hindering us from drafting a super star the next 2 years? Probably not but it sure as hell won’t help us draft that guy. Obviously having AJ’s contract is not going to help us sign a guy in the next 2 years and if we trade him for an expiring now that contract would be just as expired 3 years from now when that contract is up. As for trading for that guy obviously AJ hurts us. It’s not like anyone is clamoring for his contract so it’s not like he’s gonna be the centerpiece of a trade for a quality player much less a superstar. Having him on the books hurts our ability to stockpile draft picks or young players. If we are even say 4-5 mil under the cap next year we could very easily use that space to acquire a young piece or a draft pick by renting out that space or trading for more salary than we give up. So even if a guy becomes available we won’t have the ammo to get him and then def. wouldn’t have the young guys left over to do something with said player. If we can get out from under AJ’s contract and make a smart move or signing or 2 we will be way better off in 2 years than if we had just play out his last 2 years. There is no way that having AJ on the books helps us acquire a superstar in the next couple years.
All that being said obviously I want us to push for more in any trade and I don’t see the advantage in trading CB this year for nothing more than expirings. I really want Hickson but if I was given the choice between keeping AJ or making the Z-AJ trade I would trade AJ 100 times out of 100. The Wiz made a gamble 2 years ago(I was of the opinion at the time that it was an ill advised gamble) and it blew up in our face. You gotta expect some fallout from that. We have to get out of either AJ’s or Gil’s contracts before next season starts if we can get a deal that expires this year we are way better off than being in an even worse spot this summer and blindly hoping someone will bail us out. The longer we wait the less bargaining leverage we have so the deals will only get worse and I can’t justify expecting a Owner to shell out so much money to be one of the worst teams in the league. Keeping AJ on our books the next 2 years hinders our ability to acquire good young talent. At first glance AJ for Z obviously sucks but when you fully consider all the factors it’s really not a bad trade. It’s basically us getting a get out of salry cap jail for free card. You are right to point out it is gonna take some years to rebuild this thing but keeping AJ only hurts us and adds 2 years to however long it will take. The Market for AJ is only going to get worse and a simple unavoidable fact is that we need to get rid of one of the big 3 before next year and if I am only getting expirings I would rather dump AJ than Caron as Caron’s trade market might improve.
Sorry to be long winded. You made your points well and I respectfully disagree as I don’t think you are taking into account salary cap implications. It’s easy to say be patient and hope that there might be some sort of miracle trade but that’s ignoring that waiting prevents us from resigning a single FA from our team this year and forces our next owner to bleed cash for 2 years. Getting better in the NBA is made up of hard choices like this.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 10, 2010 6:08 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Great response, BAB
Thanks, a lot of good points.
I think there is one main difference going on between what I’m advocating and say what steadyhand’s “Status Quo” post posits, which I think you are echoing.
Steadyhand (and many others here, I don’t mean to single him/her out) seems to think that if we trade everyone but Young, McGee, Mcguire etc. and start over from almost zero that we will be in a playoff position in 2012/13. I think that is fantasy. The top tier free agents aren’t coming to a complete teardown rebuilding team. Relying on ping pong balls gives us about a 5% chance of landing that transcendent player that will blossom 5 years later. Nobody is trading us a transcendent player.
So the way I look at it we’re in for say a 6 year rebuild no matter what (Arenas’ situation obviously impacts that but we don’t know how at this time).
What I’m saying is that I’m willing to make that 6 year plan into a 8 year plan. The risk is that we have to wait out our bad contracts rather than trade them. The potential reward is 2-5 draft picks or good young prospects.
There is no rush to start over. Let’s see if we can get a head start.
I can understand if those people who think that we are a nuclear option and 3 years away from contending think that is wrong headed. If I thought we could dump everyone and be back in the mix in 3 years then I’d agree. But I don’t.
I think that the “dump everyone for only salary relief” plan is essentially the same as starting with an expansion franchise. Expansion teams are not contending in 3 years.
Well I can only speak for myself
But I think the risk reward scenario when it comes to AJ is a really poor one for us. I don’t think his trade value will go up. I think it is way more likely that his will go down and we have to surrender an asset just to unload him. In the meantime we are trying to improve our team(I mean the team as a whole in any long term way) with one hand tied behind our backs due to our salary cap situation. If we just go into the next season, let our guys walk, sign our 2 draft picks and 4 guys to the minimum we are still in the luxury tax and a losing team so thats a huge chunk of money for the team to lose for the second year in a row. In addition we have little flexibility to make lopsided moves. For Butler I think it is worth the risk not to trade him for expirings. With Jamison I don’t. I think if we are under the cap next year by a decent amount(5M) we are way more likely to acquire those additional pick or young prospects your talking about, Thats the only real disagreement. I think you are right to throw some water on the people who think it will be easy or think we will automatically end up with a Durant I just feel we are way more likely to get good young assets in the next 2 years if we are under the cap. Basically taking less than you think AJ is worth now might mean us getting better value in our next several trades resulting in a net positive. At the very least I think it’s kinda unrealistic to expect any owner to take a big financial loss to field a horrible team. If we do get one that wants to spend I’d rather him take the money he’s not paying for the luxury tax and buy some late first rounders like Paul Allen did. Here’s to hoping thats a moot discussion because we get Hickson too.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 10, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
I still don't see how waiting 2 years improves our chances
What I was trying to prove with my Status Quo post was that I don’t think waiting does anything but add a few extra years of sucking. Whenever we start, we’re going to end up being terrible for 2-3 years and then improving from there. The reason to start now (even if we have to take back a less-bad contract or two for Arenas) is because we should know that not starting now only postpones the inevitable “plunge into awfulness”. The longer we have the Big 3’s contracts, the more potentially beneficial rebuilding moves we miss out on (while winning 25-35 games a year, tops).
Your approach could work — I just think it’s more likely to postpone the awfulness, or worse, to prolong sub-mediocrity indefinitely.
by steadyhand on Feb 11, 2010 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
