So as I and some others had previously argued, we had all of the leverage in the Beal trade, yet gave up more value than was necessary when Beal had the full autonomy to choose where he wanted to go with the infamous no-trade clause, the fact that there were really o other legit suitors, his injury history in correlation to his huge salary was/is viewed as a toxic component in depreciative value lens when negotiating, especially with the implied risks from his injury history, etc, BUT MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, as this short video clip illustrates, the Wizards front office and ownership had already mutually committed to moving him and going in another direction.
All of these clear factors yielded complete leverage to us, yet we dealt from a point of weakness giving up more cumulative value than was truly necessary in that contextual situation. This doesn't happen IF
1- We have a real, experienced GM,
2- Our new owner isn't too impulsive and making quick rash decisions without taking the time to consider the attached consequences in favor of making big splashy moves to sell to the fanbase and league to portray himself as a big-time player in ownership too quickly.Had he only exercised a small modicum of patience, we very well might of had either Pascal Siakim and other pieces, or OG Anunoby and other pieces, or maybe even other solid options like Washington and Gafford. All for significantly less, leaving us with more options to work with. I get that he did create a superteam, but how it's constructed and what we have after to work with going forward is equally important to the big names on paper.
![:D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)