Summer 2014 Free Agents Thread

[go'stags]

Dat, I just don't see a lot of those guys anchoring the 5th best defense in the league. No way. The way the NBA is today, a Centers main job is to defend the rim and captain a defense. Offense is secondary, and really is wasted if they aren't good defenders.

[Ruzious]

Good posts on both sides. I think any real good strategy of using cap space considers both free agents and trades - not one or the other. For example, the Wiz could have used their space last offseason to sign Ilyasova and trade for Harden. Or, they could have used it in conjuntion with a trade for Anderson and a trade for Harden. The opportunity to get Harden was a surprise - most assumed he wouldn't be available. Those kind of things can become available when you don't expect it. Maybe the greatest player in the world becomes a free agent next offseason and has some interest in DC. Or a top 15 player becomes available. It'd be nice to be able to react rather than having used that space on another Ariza/Okafor type combo. That doesn't mean you automatically say no to acquiring a good player. It means you consider all options and how they affect your ultimate goals.

[Deeptu McPullup]

Go'Stags,

Thanks for the thoughtful and polite post.

Looking over my previous one, it came across as a bit harsh, though hopefully it's apparent that it was directed more generally than anything specifically at you because it covered the general consensus as much as anything.

You definitely raise excellent and realistic points, gaining in particular for addressing the difficulty of keeping Beal and Porter for the long haul (my current inclination might be to just try and get by with flawed bigs, but that could be more of a "you old softy" position; a very painful thing to draft those guys, watch the growth and then move one after three years or so).

Anyway, it's too late for me to reply properly now as I'm off to bed, but I'll get to it tomorrow and pick up from there (in a measured and conversational tone too).

[Rafael122]

Varejao can rebound like a mofo though. I'd seriously consider him over Okafor. He won't even try to score, just set picks, rebound and hustle.

There's 2 guys I'd like in the next 2 offseasons: Chandler Parsons and Kevin Love. But since Flip is in Minnesota now, the odds of us trading for Love are low. Parsons I believe is a 3, but apparently can play the 4 in spurts: http://www.red94.net/chandler-parsons-power/10778/

And Kevin Love will probably opt out. Wizards can use whatever they don't spend next season and go after him. That would truly give us a potent lineup of Wall/Beal/Porter/Love.

As for Webster, I've maintained all along that I doubt he comes back, especially with Porter and Ariza on the roster (if it happens). As Dat said, he'll see the writing on the wall and go elsewhere and maybe it's for the best. The last thing this team needs to start doing again is handing out like 4-5 million per year contracts like it's candy.

[Ruzious]

On Okafor, I agree with Dat in principal - if not in all of his examples. He is a likely declining 32 when it's time to ante up again. He's a good defender but hardly an all-defensive team candidate - lacking the mobility to come out and defend PF's that Nene handles - and he's a bit offensively challenged. Unless he's willing to take an enormous pay cut (way over 50%) when his contract is up, I don't see re-signing him as a smart option.

[go'stags]

Go'Stags,

Thanks for the thoughtful and polite post.

Looking over my previous one, it came across as a bit harsh, though hopefully it's apparent that it was directed more generally than anything specifically at you because it covered the general consensus as much as anything.

You definitely raise excellent and realistic points, gaining in particular for addressing the difficulty of keeping Beal and Porter for the long haul (my current inclination might be to just try and get by with flawed bigs, but that could be more of a "you old softy" position; a very painful thing to draft those guys, watch the growth and then move one after three years or so).

Anyway, it's too late for me to reply properly now as I'm off to bed, but I'll get to it tomorrow and pick up from there (in a measured and conversational tone too).

Please, there are no worries. Don't worry about "tone", at least not when addressing me. It really doesn't matter. I look forward to your response.

I do understand the desire to keep Porter around, especially if he fits in as well with Wall and Beal as I imagine he will, but having 2 flawed bigs is not a recipe IMO for post season success.

[nuposse04]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/2014-nba-free-agents

Looking at the centers on that list...I don't really like anyone outside of Cousins. It almosts makes it an absolute must considering trading for a center...drafting a center...or hoping Seraphin becomes worth a damn.

Side show bob will not change the fortunes of any franchise, lets not toss money at him assuming he will.

[Deeptu McPullup]

OK, I think this is all I got on the subject for a few days regardless of who all replies with whathaveyou. I'm burned out....

Well first of all, you keep referring to what is typically done. There are always new avenues and ways to improve. I understand that NBA GM's wont win any awards for creativity (for whatever reasons), and EG is the worst offender, but since this is a message board and we are discussing hypotheticals that will probably never happen, I don't see the problem with thinking outside of the box. (also, please don't take this as me inferring that you are telling people how to think or talk. I'm not. I really do enjoy the realistic approach you take to complex trade scenarios and it must be frustrating for a creative person like you to work within the boundaries that EGs track record has defined).

But to that point, I didn't say anything about rolling cap space over every year. rather, if we did make a move for a guy like Horford or lord-have-mercy Kevin Love, a BOYD could net us an overpaid but useful rotation veteran and another pick to help us cheaply for 4 years before they move on or are traded for another pick or two and we try again. So a BOYD could indeed roll over every couple of years, just not in taking on salary but drafting well and trading the asset.

My main point was just that there would be a limited number of offseason windows left to make something with cap space work unless we cater our strategy long term around not committing cap ( for example, giving out short term deals like Dallas did this last summer; they could continue doing that forever). That’s of course equally true of any course of action. So, it’s basically a question of the BOYD picks developing into quality or the guys you acquire in more traditional manners being quality with presumably a limited number of swings in either scenario.

A true BOYD, as we’ve used the term so far, is about cap space in exchange for a dud affixed to draft picks. Not to say that there aren’t other trades where we’re offering salary relief that are worth talking about, but if we’re bringing in someone who is overpaid but can actually play, I would suggest that we’d do well to use another term for those types of trades as the guy isn’t actually “dead”.

If Marion gets traded with the 13th pick for cap space, you’d have something of a hybrid as there’s a draft pick and Matrix is starting quality. Still, he’s not there for long, so it’s pretty much the pick versus the established guy you’d be getting if you went a different direction.

Don't see this as much of a reason not to save our bullets. So we shouldn't shoot higher just because other teams are? Who else has a young core like Wall, Beal, and presumably Porter (more on this later) to entice and build with?

While I would like to see us use cap to add a starting big next summer, my ideal position after that would actually be in favor of being over the cap and under the tax perennially. From there, we’d hopefully have some expiring deals that we rotate sort of like a low budget version of what Dallas used to do back when they were over the tax in the previous CBA. I believe that this gives us similar, though lesser, flexibility to an extended under the cap plan while fielding a much superior team over the next several years with the ability to commit to solid starters without disrupting the battle plan.

My opinion is that most of the squads working strategies built around being under the cap are going to fail in executing these plans and will end up settling (I like Houston, Cleveland and Detroit best for different reasons, but basically because they’ve got homegrown talent and the cap is an accoutrement to that).

To me, over the cap but under the tax with elite young talent under contract is the ideal place to be. All things being equal, a team that accepts being just under the tax line will be superior in the short term to one that makes it’s decisions around maintaining flexibility. Only if the under the cap team manages to pull the rabbit from the hat with the acquisition of a younger star will they then make it up in the long term. So far, a lot of the stars being acquired have been by over the cap teams.

(It should be noted that there would be a way to go in between, for example, if we brought in someone like Landry and extended Okafor with both of them expiring at the same time as Nene. Still, I’d probably rather forgo that and just score some younger starting caliber bigs over the next year or so)

As covered elsewhere, our ability to leverage large chunks of cap into another young elite player would be compromised in the long term by our default position looking to be paying three elite players on the wing (though I realize you think that’s a bad idea and I basically agree with minor caveats, but that’s a more intricate conversation that's in the next section; your objection on this point is noted and valid).

This is a great point that you have made many times, and it doesn't seem to have registered yet. But I must say that ever since I realized that there was no sure thing, 2-way big in this draft, I have looked at whoever we pick (probably on the perimeter) as future trade bait for a Love for a Cousins or whomever. I love Otto Porter, and I am truly excited for how he will fit with Beal and Wall. My nerd self sometimes imagines that those 3 with a PF like Horford or Love would play beautiful basketball, but I realize that is not very realistic. But I don't think that we should operate under the premise that Porter or whatever perimeter player we draft will be here for 12 years, or if we do then we shouldn't think Beal will be here for the same length. One of them will probably have to be traded in order to either acquire or pay our two way big man, and quite possibly both acquire and pay. But draft him, show him off, keep your powder dry, and you can end up with Wall, Beal, Love, picks, and room to maneuver.

This has got to be the most interesting topic that isn’t being discussed here. I don’t think anyone wants to touch this and there’s no easy answer; basically I agree, though I’d be more optimistic than you that it could work.

Suffice to say, I don’t see the real world Ernie and Ted drafting Otto with a Machiavellian design of trading Beal after his third year. Especially not after Presti netted the worst return on a young star that we’ve seen since our Webber trade. That has turned into a complete fiasco and should serve as a cautionary tale.

Trading the pick for a single high quality big now is ideal to me as it allows us to create a more complete and traditional team in the long run with the small forward position as our designated salary relief slot with serviceable and cheap being plug and play. However, if you force this trade without the value being there or only old guys are being offered, you’re throwing away talent.

I even wonder if two above average bigs would be better than one excellent small forward when you consider how dangerous it would be to utilize an interior position as your salary relief slot with cheap not equating with serviceable there. I’m kind of on the fence on that one and it’s why the Derrick Williams trade makes at least some sense (that he might stink is why it might not).

Ultimately, if Porter and Beal make the equivalent of Batum money and Wall gets a max five year deal, you’re eventually spending about $41 million in 2013 dollars during the 2017-18 season (inflation adjusted it wouldn’t change in relative terms). We might be able to afford $8 million on each of the starting bigs, which isn’t awful, though it could be even worse than that if we get a situation like we saw with Phoenix throwing max money at Gordon with Beal. There’s a lot of incentive for also-rans to overpay for elite players and teams could do worse than going $2-3 million over market rate for a guy like Bradley.

It’s not comfortable or ideal, but it might work and plays into the below….

I do understand the desire to keep Porter around, especially if he fits in as well with Wall and Beal as I imagine he will, but having 2 flawed bigs is not a recipe IMO for post season success.

Basically, by “flawed” I don’t mean Patti cake playing powder puffs so much as guys who are good at some things but not at others.

We need a defensive big and we need to score inside, but we don’t necessarily need a go-to big scoring inside who also shuts down the paint. Of course it would be nice….

But the problems we’d have in budgeting our bigs is also somewhat mitigated by Porter being a small forward with power forward length. He could compensate for a good deal of the problems we might see in having a stretch 4 in there, especially if our flawed center is more of a garbage man goon who’s deficiencies are related to skill. Porter could even develop into a premier interior scorer from the low post and through cuts in that he’s got a really big frame compared to his man. Combined with his passing, we could work some inside-out game in from the 3 and force big matchup issues on people.

There's a lot more that could be said here, but that's about all I have right now.

Good discussion.

Formatting is a process.

I’ll be damned if that don't got a ring to it.

“Punctuation is a process” would a sextacular public service announcement handsed out on fliers.

[Dat2U]

Okafor is better than Varejao because of his durability.
He is better than Robin Lopez
He is better tha Tiago Splitter
He is better than DeAndre Jordan
He is better than Bogut because of durability
Garnett and Duncan won't be in the league when he signs his next contract.
One of Monroe/Drummond is a PF
He must be better than Vucevic because Minnesota can't win games even with Kevin Love in the front court.

Varejao is clearly a better player at this stage although availability is certaintly an issue. I heard of teams willing to trade a late lottery pick for him, I've heard none of the sort for Okafor.

Okafor is not better than Tiago, who quietly had a very impressive season. I'd make the same case that Jordan had a significantly better season as well.

Splitter: 14.8 PER .630 TS% 115 ORtg 98 DRtg .170 WS/48
Okafor: 15.8 PER .496 TS% 100 ORtg 99 DRtg .104 WS/48
Jordan: 17.2 PER .606 TS% 113 ORtg 101 DRtg .148 WS/48

I'll give you Bogut, if only for health reasons.

Monroe & Drummond did not play a lot together this past season. Monroe has not made the transition to PF yet (I'm not sure that he can).

Vucevic plays for Orlando. You must be thinking of Pekovic.

Pekovic: 20.2 PER .572 TS% 115 ORtg 106 DRtg .163 WS/48

Pekovic is significantly better IMO.

[Dat2U]

Dat, I just don't see a lot of those guys anchoring the 5th best defense in the league. No way. The way the NBA is today, a Centers main job is to defend the rim and captain a defense. Offense is secondary, and really is wasted if they aren't good defenders.

Anchoring the 5th best defense to a 29 win season. I also remember how much impact he had in that 4-28 start... none. He's a fine role player but the love he's received here is undeserved.

Okafor is a net negative offensively. Teams dare him to take the 15 footer and time after time he obliges them. He's a solid defender but not a lock down guy by any means. He still struggles with length or superior athleticism.

The idea of extending this guy at 32 just doesn't make much sense to me.

[rockymac52]

The following events are going to happen in the next 2 years:

1. Wizards draft Porter 3rd overall
2. Wizards re-sign Webster to a 3 year/$12 million deal
3. Wizards go with a backup PG combo of AJ Price and a guy we draft at 38, hopefully Wolters
4. Wizards decline team options on Vesely and Singleton
5. Wizards let Booker and Seraphin walk as well
6. Wizards part ways with Grunfeld, or bring him back in a more advisory/consultant role next summer (NOT GM)
7. Wizards hire DC native and up and coming Asst. GM in OKC, Troy Weaver to be our new GM
8. Carmelo exercises his ETO next summer after another good, not great year by the Knicks because they're treading water and have no cap space to add any decent pieces to the roster to push them over the top
9. Weaver convinces Carmelo to play for his real hometown team, the Wizards (Weaver was the lead recruiter of Anthony at Syracuse, so this wouldn't be the first time)
10. Wizards draft a PF or C with the 15th pick in 2014 to be a backup for now, maybe starter in the future
11. Wizards split the MLE on a so-so backup C and a backup wing
12. OPTIONAL: Wizards trade Nene in a sign-and-trade deal for a more traditional rim protecting C
13. Wizards win 55+ games and contend for a championship

PG: Wall ($13.7) / Wolters ($.7)
SG: Beal ($4.5) / FA ($2)
SF: Porter ($4.3) / Webster ($4)
PF: Carmelo ($20) / Rookie ($1.7)
C: Nene ($13) / FA ($3)

Too easy.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

rocky, let's hope you are right on #6 and #7;because if you are, the rest seems more than believable and possible.

I think if Porter is drafted, there will still be a need for a big man. This suggestion is not all that earth shattering:

Sam Dalembert.

Sam averaged 14.7 points, 13.0 rebounds, 2.5 blocks per-36 minutes. His PER was 18.7. He is a better shot blocker than anyone the Wizards have. At the risk of destroying continuity, the core of the Wizards is Wall, Beal, Nene (because his contract will not easily be moved, and he's very good when healthy) and this third pick. If the pick is Porter, that makes Ariza a short timer who might opt out and Webster who might not re-sign if he receives a better $ offer. It might be easy to sign Dalembert at a bargain with cap available.

Dalembert for two years might make Okafor a trade chip, unless next season is so successful that Emeka would stay a Wizard cheaply.

Sam Dalembert played with Cousins when DeMarcus was a rookie. This move could facilitate a future trade with the Kings, especially if Trevor Ariza opts in.

[Ruzious]

You could probably get Sammy cheap for a big. Teams get tired of him, and I doubt Mil wants him back. He's a bit like Javale McGee in that he makes a lot of really low BBIQ mistakes. He's a feast or famine player. When he's on a roll, he looks great, but you know it's not going to continue. He's very inconsistent.

[dobrojim]

Dalembert would be a massive violation of our attempts to have
high BBIQ players. One 6er fan near me at a game a couple years
ago said he's the dumbest player he's ever watched. After watching
him foul out against in like 10 minutes of playing time in a game this
year, I think there is something to what he said.

[Rafael122]

2014 Salaries:

Nene - $13 million
Beal - $4.5 million
Porter - $4 million
Wall - $13 million (assuming max deal)
Webster - $5.3 million
Maynor - $2 million
Rice - $885K?

Options:
Vesely - $4.4 million
Singleton - $2.6 million

W/out picking up the options, we're sitting at $41 million in total salary.

W/options, we're at roughly $48 million

Expected cap is $62.1 million for next offseason. So we could have anywhere between $12 to $15 million in cap space. Webster's deal makes it likely Ariza won't be here next year, and there's still the question of whether they will bring Okafor back. I don't know if we'll have the room to sign Cousins or someone of that ilk.

[LyricalRico]

^ Have to assume they decline the Singleton/Vesely options, so that's only $41M right? If the cap is $62M, then that's more than max cap space.

[Rafael122]

^ Have to assume they decline the Singleton/Vesely options, so that's only $41M right? If the cap is $62M, then that's more than max cap space.

I think so...but our math could be off. October 31 is the deadline for next year's options to be picked up. We'll see what happens then.

[Rafael122]

Bumped: Sham Sports has updated their salary tables. Here's the Wizards:

http://data.shamsports.com/content/page ... izards.jsp

John Wall's contract is going to be very interesting. If we sign him to a max, that leaves us with roughly $12 million in cap space, if he takes a slightly lesser deal, it would give us an opportunity to go after another max guy but you run into the problem of having 3 guys making at least $10 million. Hopefully Ernie uses this as a pitch, Wall is still young enough that barring injuries he'll get another max contract down the road anyway.

[fishercob]

Something to keep in mind: as many have pointed out, the 2014 free agent class doesn't set up all that well for us. But in summer of 2015, all of these guys stand to be unrestricted (age at the start of the 15-16 season in parentheses):

Kevin Love (27)
Lamarcus Aldridge (30)
Paul Millsap (30)
Marc Gasol (30)
Boozer (nearly 34)
Omer Asik (29)
Deandre Jordan (27)
Tyson Chandler (33)

There are some less attractive targets on that small list and some very attractive ones.

2016:
Durant (28)
Horford (30)
Noah (31)
Hibbert (29)
Bosh (32)
Love (28)
Ryan Anderson (28)
Thad Young (28)
Nene (34)
Brook Lopez (28)

[Severn Hoos]

I'm floored by the sidebar article from that shamsports page:

It's official - Keith Bogans will earn $5,058,198 next year. All guaranteed. Keith Bogans.

Happy? You should be.
Keith Bogans has an uncanny knack for being in the right place at the right time. He has become throughout his NBA career the archetypal three-and-D wing role player, the kind of piece you want around star point guards or big men (or both), who'll defend opposing stars for a few pesky minutes a night and not risk anything more offensively than taking some open threes. Yet despite not being significantly above average at either, and in no way any more of a stand-out talent in relation to the dozens of other suitable candidates for the role, Bogans's medicority is nonetheless a sure thing, a known commodity, a risk-free contributor who'll neither say nor do nothing confrontational. Teams like that, and, because of this, he has time and again landed starting roles, often on competitive teams. In a talent vacuum, he's not worth this opportunity or luxury, yet by continuing to land these gigs, Bogans is doing something right.

Normally, of course, this role doesn't earn very much. Keith has mostly been a rookie salary player throughout his career, only rarely exceeding it, and this reflect his minimal contributions. None of this is meant pejoratively - Bogans plays a role, plays it fairly well, and yet the role is small and replacable, so so is its salary.

This, however, is all change in light of Keith's new contract.

The rebuilding Boston Celtics insisted upon Jason Terry (and, primarily, his salary) being included in the Paul Pierce / Kevin Garnett trade with the Nets. Either he or Courtney Lee . Brooklyn could afford it and were prepared to pay it, but, in light of all their recent roster turnover, they didn't have the necessarily medium-size expiring contracts that are so useful in trade scenarios that would have facilitated it. In order to provide the necessary salary to match, then, they had to sign and trade someone.

Into the breach steps Bogans, who will now earn $5,058,198 in 2013-14. The salary is fully guaranteed, as the first year of a sign-and-trade always has to be, and even though the 2014-15 ($5,285,838) and 2015-16 ($5,285,838) salaries are fully unguaranteed with no guarantee date, the huge price hike for a man who would have done well to earn the veteran's minimum of $1,399,507 this year is noteworthily enormous. The latter two years are largely token, and are only include because sign-and-trades require a contract of either three or four years in length, yet in a further bonus, they provide Boston with a similarly huge trade chip. As Brooklyn found out, you need contracts in the $3-$6 million range that are either expiring or unguaranteed in order to maximise your trade machination possibilities. And Boston now has one. It'll cost them a few wasted million on a player not deserving of it, but this is a small price to pay. (Sort of.)

In dealing with this website's self-imposed mandate for overevaluating salary minutiae, it is worth noting quite how this situation has come to pass.

You can only sign-and-trade your own free agents who were on your roster on the final day of the previous season, and you can only do so with some form of Bird rights. Non-Bird rights - the rather weak version of Bird rights afforded to any player who qualifies for them by not changing teams as a free agent for one season - suffice for this purpose, as non-Bird rights are still Bird rights. (This is confusing, and is a result of a mix-up between actual CBA terms and the colloquialisms and allegories widely used in their analysis. It suffices here, however.) Yet the non-Bird exception isn't very useful. It only allows you to re-sign a player to a new salary that begins at either 120% of the player's previous annual salary, or 120% of the minimum, whichever is greater. And considering that Keith earned the minimum last year, he could thus only sign under the non-Bird exception for $1,399,507 / 100 * 120 = $1,679,408. Not nearly enough.

More useful are early Bird and full Bird rights. With full Bird rights, which come from not changing teams as a free agent for three seasons, you can re-sign your own free agents to a contract starting at the maximum, and with early Bird rights, which come from not changing teams as a free agent for two seasons, you can re-sign your own free agents to a contract starting at the value of that season's Mid-Level exception.

This latter point is what enriched Keith Bogans, and what saved the Pierce/Garnett deal. Via a technicality, or two, Bogans qualified for early Bird rights.

Bogans was signed to a guaranteed remainder-of-the-season minimum salary deal on February 1st 2012, yet he suffered a season-ending injury a week later, and was waived on February 14th. As we've seen in previous posts, partial seasons count as full seasons for Bird clock and years-of-experience purposes, so those thirteen days nonetheless count towards a Bird clock - nevertheless, the fact that he was waived would, you'd think, reset it again.

However, it doesn't. Not necessarily. Without signing an NBA contract with anyone else in the interim, Bogans re-signed with the Nets on July 19th 2012, and played the full season with the Nets without being waived again. He therefore was able to complete two seasons (the partial one suffices as a whole one) without changing teams as a free agent, and thus was an Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, and was eligible for the non-Bird exception. It is true that Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents must not have cleared waivers in order to be so eligible for early Bird rights, yet an extra caveat is that that only needs to be true of their most recent contract. Therefore, even though he was once waived, by completing his 2012/13 contract without ever being waived, and not signing with a different team in between the two, Bogans qualified for early Bird rights. And early Bird rights were the only thing allowing him to earn MLE money in a sign-and-trade.

Only by signing Keith Bogans for five meaningless games, then, were Brooklyn able to trade for Pierce and Garnett. We needn't lie and pretend this was the plan; it's more a fortituous happenstance. Yet whatever brought them here, this technicality has redefined the team.

The lesson, as always - no transaction is too trivial. There are team building ramifications to everything. So never stop looking for them.