I'm not necessarily advocating getting rid of McGee, but it has become painfully obvious that something isn't really clicking here. It's such a dangerous position to be in because on one hand you have a player who is immature but has unlimited potential and then you also have a player that could possibly be a failure and could have been better used to gain assets. But let's look at both sides of this:
YOU KEEP HIM
I know got a lot of flack for suggesting that I would pay up to $14 million to keep McGee, but as I explained, it's a difficult position to be in. There are going to be teams willing to pay big money for him. If he is somebody that you believe is worth building around, you may have to go above and beyond his actual worth to keep him, in my opinion. DeAndre Jordan basically got $10-$11 million/year and put up very similar statistics than McGee over his career.
The issue though is McGee is a much better offensive player and has a higher ceiling. You can also argue that he benefits from having better teammates and coaching than McGee as well. Either way, there are teams that are looking at McGee and thinking if I can coach this guy up, I may have something and they would be willing to pay for it. If the Wizards say you know what, I don't think McGee is worth keeping, then I would have no problem with letting him walk (as long as they trade him, we will talk about that later) BUT if they want to keep him, they should be prepared for a battle. To me, I would much rather give him a long term slightly overpaid deal if I know he' s a keeper now than to wait another year or possibly two more years and have to pay him a max contract.
Also look at it this way, if his thinking is similar to Nick Young, he may believe he is going to get a big contract, which he stands a far greater chance to. If this team is not willing to pay him the amount he believes he deserves, then he could risk just accepting a qualifying offer, have a monster year and then come back next year looking for a max deal. That is not as likely, it's also risky, but the potential reward for him would be much higher than accepting a modest deal from a team that he may not even want to play for anymore.
In a way, this thinking of signing him to this sort of a deal is kind of similar to what Grunfield may have been thinking with Blatche's extension, but of course that was too premature. At this point, we have to make a decision now. Remember I'm talking about paying him for his potential, not his actual value. This league has a history of overpaying big men, including this past off-season, so why would it be any different?
YOU TRADE HIM
This is why this time, in the next two weeks, is so critical for this team's long term future. If this team decides that he is not worth keeping, you can't let it go to the end of the season, you have to trade him by the March 15th deadline. Keeping him for the off-season could be risky because a team, like the Golden State Warriors could just give him an insane contract that this team would not be willing to match and he would be gone for nothing. If we're going to get rid of him, we should get something in return. No matter what the deal is, it should included a draft pick and preferably one that is a lottery pick. I think having another lottery pick would put this team in a position to get a suitable replacement for him and possibly adding a SF or SG with the other pick. That would put this team in a much better long term plan and hopefully with good drafting (good bye Ernie), there will be two solid first round rookies here to build around Wall.
What do you all think? Is he worth trading or would you keep him? If you keep him how far are you willing to match? And how much do you think the recent issues between him and Randy Wittman will play in this decision?