In the coming weeks, I'm going to try (emphasis on try) and analyze our competitors in the Southeast Division and take a look at what makes them dangerous in the coming season, and what helps us sleep easier at night.  This is kind of like the community projections except that:

A) No predictions on records will be made.

B) This series will be conducted in bullet point form as opposed to paragraph form.

C) These only pertain to the Southeast Division.

D) These will generally be much more poorly written than the Community Projections.

But other than that, they're kind of the same...but not really.

Why I'm scared:

• The Hawks six top players (Bibby, Johnson, Smith, Horford, Williams, and Pachulia) are all under the age of 30 (EDIT: except Bibby, who is exactly 30), and I don't see any of them dropping off this season.
• Josh Smith.  He's pretty good.
  
• I mentioned this in the competition discussion, but I'm going to repeat it again, don't count out Acie Law in your calculation on this team.  He didn't do a whole lot last season, but with some more time in the system, I think he'll be able to do a lot more this time around.
• If this doesn't give you nightmares, nothing will:

Why I'm not scared:

• As well as they played last year, they still finished 8 games under .500.  If you think that will get a playoff spot this year, raise your hand.
• I like Mo Evans a lot, but if the Hawks think he'll be able to replicate what they lost in Josh Childress, they're going to be sorely disappointed.
• You have to think that at some point within the next year or so the Hawks will have to find a way to orchestrate the alpha-dog transition from Joe Johnson to Josh Smith.  Maybe it won't hurt team chemistry at all, but it very well could.
  
• Mike Woodson's career winning percentage: .323%
• Salim Stoudamire had the second best points per 36 average on the squad last season.  His FG%? .361.  Understandably, it doesn't look like he'll be back next season.
  

Atlanta is the real wild card in the East in my opinion.  I could see them putting it all together and angling for a 5-6 seed if Smith, Horford, Law, and Williams all take the next step.  On the other hand, they may have put expectations a little too high after their series with Boston last year and I could very well see them missing the playoffs entirely if Josh Smith and Mike Woodson start to have problems again, or if Bibby starts squabbling with someone, or a host of other problems that could come up as they try to live up to those expectations.  Right now, I've got them in the 8-10 range in the East, but a lot of that hinges on how much better Josh Smith gets now that he has that new contract.

Editor's Note: Bumping this back to the top for further discussion. -PM

Warning: Long post

One of the biggest criticisms of our offseason is that we killed our salary cap and luxury tax flexibility for a team that is not quite a championship contender.  The idea is that we're basically stuck with the club we have unless we want to go over the luxury tax. 

We've talked about ways to use our assets in 2010 to land an impact player, but haven't really discussed whether we're doomed to go over the tax if we do that.  Are we really doomed to going over the tax? 

First things first, here's our team salaries for the next five years (click on the picture to make it bigger).  The player salaries are from Sham Sports and the salary cap and luxury tax estimates are from Canis Hoopus.

Grey=Unguaranteed | Brown=Early Termination | Blue=Team option | Green=Player option | Red=Qualifying offer | Orange=My best guess

As you can see, if the salary cap and luxury tax numbers go up at the same rate, we're going to be over the luxury tax next year with 14 players.  That's even after switching Gilbert Arenas' normal first- and second-year salaries, which is my only explanation for how we went from having 3.4 million dollars under the luxury tax this year to somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million.  Having Arenas take a pay cut in Year 2 makes it more likely that we'll avoid the luxury tax next year, but from the looks of things, we'll be over it anyway.

To put it bluntly, that's really bad.  Even if the luxury tax figure ends up a little larger than that estimate and allows us to stay under with the 14 players we already have, it means that we aren't going to be able to use our draft pick next year without going over the luxury tax.  (As an aside, this is another reason why drafting a project player that plays the same position as your other project players was not smart, especially when there were other positions to fill).   For those of you who were annoyed when we sold Bill Walker to the Celtics, get ready to be even more annoyed when we sell both our draft picks. 

That's all to keep the team we currently have through the 2009/2010 season, but what if we make an upgrade in 2010, as discussed here?  For the purposes of this exercise, let's say we traded Etan Thomas, Antonio Daniels, Nick Young and a first-round pick in the 2010 draft to Atlanta for Joe Johnson and some minimum-salary guy like Randolph Morris.  Here's how our payroll structure would look:

Our depth chart would be as follows:

PG: Arenas/Brown

SG: Johnson/Stevenson

SF: Butler/McGuire

PF: Jamison/Songaila/Blatche

C: Haywood/Pecherov/McGee/Morris

About the same, except thinner in the backcourt and younger up front.  But our payroll in 2009 remains the same, albeit with one less player.  Going with 13 players is what we did last season, and that proved to be a mini-disaster.

More importantly, let's look at what happens after 2010.  We have only eight players under contract and only 18 million dollars under the luxury tax to fill those spots(ignore the 9).  We also have no first-round pick, since we traded it to Atlanta.  18 million dollars may not be enough to re-sign Johnson and Haywood, much less sign four other players to fill out the roster.  Clearly, our only recourse is to go over the luxury tax...

Unless we dump some salary right now. 

In Antonio Daniels, Etan Thomas and Darius Songaila, we have three guys making mid-level money or more that are likely not major parts of our future.  At the very least, they're either overpaid or they hurt our long-term flexibility.  Etan and AD are probably worth keeping because of their expiring contract value in 2010 (plus who backs up Arenas without AD?). 

That leaves Songaila as a guy who could be moved.  In our player evaluation of him, I made the case that while his numbers as a whole looked bad this year, he was playing extremely well down the stretch and was our best backup big (whereas Andray Blatche filled that role in the first four months of the season).  On the other hand, he's not getting any better and plays the same position as our best prospect, a guy who we're counting on heavily in the future.  Combine that with his salary, which goes all the way until 2011, and that he has some value around the league (well, more than Etan or AD at least because his contract is smaller), trying to move him, either now or at the trade deadline, for a player whose contract expires after next season seems somewhat realistic and prudent. 

I took a look for players expiring this year that make about as much as Darius Songaila and I came up with the following list:

• Damon Jones: 4,460,186
• Joe Smith: 4,795,000
• Zaza Pachulia: 4,000,000
• Steven Hunter (opt-out clause): 3,862,600
• Jeff Foster: 5,500,000
• Desmond Mason: 5,300,000
• Greg Bucker: 4,010,005 (non-guaranteed contract in 2010)
• Fabricio Oberto: 3,600,000 (non-guaranteed contract in 2010)
• Anthony Parker: 4,550,000

I strongly doubt a team would swap a big for another big with a longer contract, so unless they fall off like crazy next year, we can probably rule out Smith, Pachulia, Hunter, Foster and Oberto.  The Raptors aren't trading Anthony Parker as long as he's their starting shooting guard, so I don't think that's going to happen.  That leaves Damon Jones, Greg Buckner and Desmond Mason.  Cleveland has plenty of bigs, so I don't see them being an ideal trade partner, though I suppose they'd trade a guy like Jones who does nothing for them if they could (especially if they move Anderson Varejao or Smith for bigger pieces).  Memphis isn't looking to add salary, so I doubt Songaila would be of much use to them.

Then, there's Desmond Mason.  Milwaukee traded for Richard Jefferson and drafted Joe Alexander, so they are overloaded at the small forward position.  Meanwhile, at power forward, all they have is Charlie Villanueva, and he plays a lot smaller than his frame.  As for us, Mason can play behind Caron Butler, giving us a backup small forward that we need.  I'd probably rather make that trade at the deadline so we can see how Andray is playing this year and how healthy Etan is, but then again, Milwaukee might not be contending then, so I'd even do it before the season.  Seems like a win-win.

Say we make that trade.  Here's our salary situation.

Now, we're over 4 million dollars under the luxury tax next season.  We can use that money on two draft picks, or if we're really concerned about our youth, we can use our first-round pick, sell our second-round selection, and use the remaining money to sign a veteran. 

Here's the kicker, though.  Say we made that same trade with Atlanta for Joe Johnson, draft a point guard with our pick and then sign someone like Jason Collins to the bi-annual exception to back up Haywood.  Here's how things break down:

Our depth chart would be as follows:

PG: Arenas/2009 first-rounder/Brown

SG: Johnson/Stevenson

SF: Butler/McGuire

PF: Jamison/Blatche/Morris

C: Haywood/Collins/Pecherov/McGee

That's a solid team, especially if Blatche takes another step forward.  A little young up front, but we could always renounce Pecherov's rights next year and sign another power forward for cheap.  More importantly, it gives us more flexibility in 2010 to re-sign everyone and still stay under the tax.  We have one less roster spot to fill and 2 million dollars more to fill it.  Not ideal, but it's better than what we'd have if we kept Songaila.  Even if the combined extensions for Haywood and Johnson come close to equaling that number annually, we can backload their deals and get creative filling the last two or three spots. 

Obviously, there are lots of contingencies, and we could make life easier on ourselves by trading for someone cheaper than Johnson (say, Rip Hamilton), but trading Songaila for any expiring contract seems like the best way to give ourselves that little bit of flexibility necessary to make a far bigger move and still stay under the luxury tax.

I hate to disappoint many of you, but I don't see the Wizards making any major changes to their roster this season.  Other than potentially signing someone like Bonzi Wells for a one-year minimum contract, what you see is what you'll probably get for the duration of this season.  

Considering their payroll structure, a major move this season doesn't make sense.  Their projected 2009/10 payroll is likely going to place them above the luxury tax threshold even if they do nothing.  They also don't really have any assets that are valuable this season.  Unless you count Dominic McGuire and Dee Brown, the Wizards have no players whose contracts expire in the offseason.  Additionally, with the possible exception of Andray Blatche, the Wizards don't really have any youngsters who have shown much, unless Nick Young's rookie season or Dominic McGuire's Summer League campaigns count.

Many see this as a bad thing, but not me.  Truthfully, we're not close enough to be making that final move to put us over the top.  We haven't laid much of a foundation, having won 45, 42, 41 and 43 games in the past four years.  One could argue that necessitates making a big move, but as indicated above, we simply don't have the assets right now.  Any move will likely involve a key member of our team, and that's not something we should be doing.

The picture changes, however, after the end of next season.  Suddenly, we're armed with three players (Brendan Haywood, Antonio Daniels and Etan Thomas) who give us a combined 20 million dollars in expiring contracts.  We're also likely armed with youngsters like Young, McGuire and maybe Pecherov, McGee and a potential 2009 first-rounder who have shown enough to be used as legitimate sweetners in a trade.  Finally, if we stay healthy this year, we'll likely win more than 45 games and create a more solid foundation for which to take that next step. 

That, combined with the allure of the 2010 free agent class, should allow us to make a trade for a strong player on a team looking to the future.  It's very difficult to say exactly which players will fit the bill, but this post will try to target some guys who could provide us with missing ingredients (perimeter defense, rebounding, versatility, etc.) that can turn us into legitimate contenders. 

The key, though, is to not trade any of our core guys.  That's why the Lakers' trade for Pau Gasol was successful and the Mavericks' trade for Jason Kidd wasn't.  By "core guys," I'm talking about players who are essential for their respective teams, not necessarily the best players on the club. 

So who is part of the Wizards' core?  Here's how I'd break it down.

• Gilbert Arenas: Pretty self-explanatory
• Caron Butler: Ditto.
• Antawn Jamison: It's mostly because of his contract.  Still, every time Jamison gets hurt, this team suffers tremendously.  I imagine he's going to start a slow decline next year, but even so, his value is extremely important both on and off the court.
• Brendan Haywood: This is a tough one for me.  On the one hand, Haywood represents six million of the Wizards' 20-million dollars of expiring contracts in 2010, but on the other hand, Haywood's the only real center on the team and the only strong interior defender.  He also doesn't really need to score a ton to be effective on the other end, so in this respect, he blends well with the Big 3.  The only way I'd trade him is if a real superstar (e.g. Amare Stoudamire, Yao Ming, etc.) is out there.  For these second-tier guys that will be discussed, it's not worth trading Haywood.
• Andray Blatche: I'm also going to put Blatche in this group because his contract is too small to account for his upside.  He's not only our best prospect, but he's also locked up to a long-term deal for only three million dollars a season.  Like Haywood, if a megastar was available, I'd consider trading Blatche, but for these second-tier guys, I'm hoping our other young guys are good enough to be sweetners.

Outside of those five guys, I'd trade anybody. 

So who do I have in mind?  Make the jump for some possibilities.

Continue reading this post »