Wizards in the Media Thread

[fishercob]

No, that's my point. They (or to be precise, their agents) will rationally ignore the money they have in the bank and focus on what's fair for them now. They will be just as unhappy as all the other folks you cite.

OK, so they're just as unhappy as Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, Lebron, etc. Doesn't seem to be affecting their production, does it?

Who mentioned production? I'm just saying -- you won't necessarily get away with it. Instead of getting a player whose cap number is less than they are actually worth, you might get a player who skips town and you'll have to replace that player with an overpriced free agent. Depends on how the contract is structured and what the various team and player options are.

Guess I should have been clearerer.

You did not explicitly mention production, but that's the bottom line, no? And in the examples you gave, the players' unhappiness seemed to have to effect on how well they played. If the risk of signing Nick or Javale to a frontloaded contract is that they'll feel unappreciated and not want to re-sign again in 4 years, I'll take that risk. Money has a way of curing the boo hoo's (provided the new CBA allows for big raises from one deal to the next).

As an aside, can you imagine if Wiz management told Nick's or Javale's agent that they were considering such an offer but were concerned that the player in question would blow all their money early? There would be lots of "how dare you's" and claims of implied racism IMO.

[Zonkerbl]

Uh, what examples did I give? Now I'm completely lost.

And why would Wiz management say anything about a contract offer they have no intention of giving? Ow, my brain!

Now, if Nick or JaVale's agent came to Wiz management and asked for a declining contract, that's different. Now it's not a question of will the player accept it, but should management accept it. I would accept it as long as the player can't opt out. And while explaining why I wouldn't want the player to opt out, I would say straight up to the player -- I don't want you skipping town for more money, because then that defeats the entire purpose of structuring the deal this way, where you get more than you're worth in the first year.

[fishercob]

Uh, what examples did I give? Now I'm completely lost.

And why would Wiz management say anything about a contract offer they have no intention of giving? Ow, my brain!

Now, if Nick or JaVale's agent came to Wiz management and asked for a declining contract, that's different. Now it's not a question of will the player accept it, but should management accept it. I would accept it as long as the player can't opt out. And while explaining why I wouldn't want the player to opt out, I would say straight up to the player -- I don't want you skipping town for more money, because then that defeats the entire purpose of structuring the deal this way, where you get more than you're worth in the first year.

Your old screen name indicated that you didn't have a brain. Now it's hurting? Flip-flopper!!!!

I mis-spoke (typed?). You did not give examples. I gave examples and you commented on those examples.

Why would the Wiz management say anything to that effect? I'm not sure they would. But I can envision a scenario in which they would. You seemed to be cautioning against front-loading a deal b/c it would lead to unhappy players, and therefore would not be in the team's best interest.

Agent: Why don't you frontload a deal so my guy gets big money up front and you save some cap room in the out years.

Exec: It's an interesting idea that we've considered, but don't think it makes the most sense in this situation.

Agent: What about this situation makes you think it wouldn't make sense?

Exec: We're just not sure your client would be happy in the long run.

Agent: Huh? Isn't that my job to determine? But, why don't you think he'd be happy?

Exec: We know enough about him, his posse, his party and spending habits to have legit concerns that he;s not a long term planner. We don't a problem on our hands in three years with him thinking he's underpaid.

Agent: (Chuckles) Got it. I'm trying to save you money long term, but you're not interested because of how my guy's financial planning skills don't meet your standards...

To your final point, yes, I would be totally up front with the player and his agent. Tell them that because of the time value of money, frontloading a deal is a more valueable contract than a flat one or a backloaded one. The reason you're giving it to him is to manage the cap long term so that we can keep the best pieces of the core together and add talent. Essentially, taking a front-loaded deal will enable you to play on a better team AND make more money.

[Zonkerbl]

If I were an Exec I'd have to be some kind of (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to say something like "We know enough about him, his posse, his party and spending habits to have legit concerns that he;s not a long term planner." And it doesn't even have anything at all to do with the point I'm making.

I'd be like, Agent Falk, I don't trust YOU not to come back in three years and say "My client could get twice what he is getting paid right now on the free agent market."

Why does everyone think negotiating is all about belittling the other side? That's a recipe for failure.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Maybe there could be a stipulation requested and agreed to by players/agents/union to pay declining contracts with much of the early money paid directly to certificates of deposit.

Suppose a player were going to make $10M in year one, but only 10Mil over the remaining 3 years. Instead of giving that player too much, too soon, why not just pay 5Mil to the player the first year and pay $5Mil directly to a 3-yr term CD? That way, towards the end of the deal that player gets the $5Mil with interest. He's not broke or hurting for money. This could help both the teams with their cap considerations and also save players from themselves.

Couldn't that work?

[Zonkerbl]

It's not about players' inability to save. The solution is really very simple -- no free agency, restricted or otherwise, until the contract expires.

[fishercob]

It's not about players' inability to save. The solution is really very simple -- no free agency, restricted or otherwise, until the contract expires.

Huh? Isn't that the nature of a contract? It's not like the NBA has any sort of a problem with guys holding out. Maybe in the NFL you sign a guy to a deal with a big bonus, and in two years he outperforms his deal and asks for more money, threatens to sit out, etc. That just doesn't happen in the NBA.

[Nivek]

It's not about players' inability to save. The solution is really very simple -- no free agency, restricted or otherwise, until the contract expires.

That's already the case. Players get can have their deals extended after a certain number of years, but that just adds on to the contract -- it doesn't replace whatever's left on the deal. And they can do buyouts, but that's something different altogether.

[Zonkerbl]

Didn't PRECISELY THIS SORT OF THING just happen with Blatche's contract? Why did we renegotiate it?

[Nivek]

Didn't PRECISELY THIS SORT OF THING just happen with Blatche's contract? Why did we renegotiate it?

Wiz EXTENDED Blatche. They didn't renegotiate it, they added to it.

[nate33]

FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with fishercob. I don't think there's any serious concern with offering Nick Young a front-loaded contract rather than a flat-rate contract. These people aren't total morons. They can do basic math. By any rational analysis, the Wizards are doing Young a favor by paying him more money up front.

Like fishercob, said, just be up front and honest with him. Tell him that we think he's worth $5M a year but we want to pay him most of the money up front so we can have cap room to go after a superstar free agent in 2012. I'm sure Young would be pleased to hear that's the plan. Who wouldn't want to sign with an owner who has a long-term strategy to build a championship contender? Heck, I'd frontload it even more. Instead of $10M in Year 1 and $3.3M a year thereafter, I'd pay him $14M in Year 1 and $2M a year thereafter.

And CCJ makes a good point too. It might make sense to try and pay Young through some kind of deferred trust vehicle (whether it's CD's or through some third party money handler, it doesn't matter). My guess is that Young would decline, but at least make the offer to structure it that way. If Young whines about his salary in 2015, Leonsis could remind him that the deferred option was on the table.

[fishercob]

Didn't PRECISELY THIS SORT OF THING just happen with Blatche's contract? Why did we renegotiate it?

Wiz EXTENDED Blatche. They didn't renegotiate it, they added to it.

Indeed, and the nature of his extension was one of the reasons many of us hated the Yi trade -- the opportunity cost of the cap room (which brings this all full circle when discussing Lee's Rashard Lewis take). Without the extra cap room that Yi cost we could have front-loaded more of Blatche's deal more, thereby lessening the long term hit, making him easier to trade if we wanted, etc..

[Dat2U]

I'll take a dissenting view point. I'll agree with Michael Lee about keeping Rashard but for totally different reasons. Screw his shooting ability, locker room presence or leadership potential. Bottom line is we aren't ready to compete and therefore don't need a load of cap room. And we don't need another Hinrich type deal for bunch more of middlin' picks. Don't we have enough mid-late 1st round prospects as is? How many more do we need? Now a lottery pick is a different story but I don't see too many lottery teams offering up 2012 picks considering the nature of that draft.

So essentially why waste a get out of jail card for minimal benefits? You all know Ernie's history so a bad free agency deal is right around the corner. So lets save that card until we REALLY need it, not just so we can overpay Nick Young.

[Dat2U]

Just to follow up on Ernie's history, don't forget, despite Leonsis' claims of not being a player in free agency last season, Ernie kicked the tires on potentially signing Josh Childress before losing out to Phoenix. Imagine if that happened, we'd all be talking about amnesting Childress instead of Lewis.

[mhd]

Dat, haven't you been the biggest save cap space for Dwight proponent of all?

[willbcocks]

I can't blame someone for almost doing something based on media reports when the fact of the matter is he didn't end up doing it. Since Ted's arrival, Ernie has not made any bad free agent signings. Instead, he's turned cap space into Singleton, Crawford, and Seraphin. Obviously this isn't propelling us to a dynasty, and our biggest need now is elite talent, but we still have a need for talent across the board.

Picks in the 15-25 range can fill out the team cheaply, and if we do it enough, we might even get lucky and get an all-star level player. Or if we think we have enough to develop already, we could trade our cap space for future picks, which I think are an undervalued resource.

[Dat2U]

Dat, haven't you been the biggest save cap space for Dwight proponent of all?

As much as I would love Howard in DC, I don't see it as being realistic, especially after ending up with Vesely in the lottery. Other teams can offer more talent, in more desirable locations with better veteran players. All we have is John Wall, who's two years removed from high school, a ton a cap room and boatload of immaturity (Blatche, McGee & maybe Young). We simply don't measure up.

Our future IMO is the 2012 draft. That's going to be the best opportunity to find a star to compliment Wall

[7-Day Dray]

Dat, haven't you been the biggest save cap space for Dwight proponent of all?

As much as I would love Howard in DC, I don't see it as being realistic, especially after ending up with Vesely in the lottery. Other teams can offer more talent, in more desirable locations with better veteran players. All we have is John Wall, who's two years removed from high school, a ton a cap room and boatload of immaturity (Blatche, McGee & maybe Young). We simply don't measure up.

Our future IMO is the 2012 draft. That's going to be the best opportunity to find a star to compliment Wall

I think you're underrating our talent.

[Dat2U]

I can't blame someone for almost doing something based on media reports when the fact of the matter is he didn't end up doing it. Since Ted's arrival, Ernie has not made any bad free agent signings. Instead, he's turned cap space into Singleton, Crawford, and Seraphin. Obviously this isn't propelling us to a dynasty, and our biggest need now is elite talent, but we still have a need for talent across the board.

Picks in the 15-25 range can fill out the team cheaply, and if we do it enough, we might even get lucky and get an all-star level player. Or if we think we have enough to develop already, we could trade our cap space for future picks, which I think are an undervalued resource.

True, you cannot blame someone for something that didn't happen, but I gotta take issue with the comment that Ernie hasn't made any bad free agent signings.

Antonio Daniels - 6 yr deal (about 2 years too long)
Darius Songaila - 4 yr deal. Couldn't rebound to save his life. Gave us basically nothing.
DeShawn Stevenson - Gave us two of worst playoff performances in recent memory.

He also re-signed many of his own free agents.

Gilbert Arenas - Nothing needs to be said
Antawn Jamison - "aka lets 'go all in' on mediocrity", aka "The Leader of Men"
Andray Blatche - if we could only go back in time, lol

As for filling out the roster with picks in the 15-25 range, what exactly does that accomplish? How's that a solid strategy for building a contending team? We need stars not a bunch of future role players or future Spain ACB League all-stars. We've already loaded up on low first rounders. I really think that strategy has run it's course. It's the top 5 draft picks that make the difference, with these late 1st rounders your basically just shopping for shiny pennies.

Adding future picks is a fine strategy, but again, with $30+ mil in cap room your talking about overkill. It shouldn't cost $10 million in cap space to buy a pick. I'm afraid jettisoning Lewis and leaving Ernie with all that cap room in a weak free agency pool could lead to some very bad choices. I'd rather keep the sorry roster as is, waive Nick bye bye, stink up the joint in an abbreviated season if there is one and enjoy the benefits of a large number of lottery balls in a game changing draft. Any cap room available from losing Nick could be used towards acquiring future picks but otherwise I'd avoid doing anything that might artificially inflate our win total.

[Nivek]

Antonio Daniels - 6 yr deal (about 2 years too long)

5 years actually. Still too long, of course. Then he dealt him in the deal that brought Mike "Delusional" James and Javaris Crittenton.

Darius Songaila - 4 yr deal. Couldn't rebound to save his life. Gave us basically nothing.

Yep. Songaila rode basically one good season to a lucrative career. Wiz signed him to be a pick-and-pop partner with Daniels.

DeShawn Stevenson - Gave us two of worst playoff performances in recent memory.

The initial deal -- the one for the league minimum -- was good. The follow-up deal wasn't good. I tried to defend it for awhile, but it was a deal for the wrong reasons. It was a "show everyone we'll reward good play" contract, not a "this guy is really good and will be a quality player for us" contract.

He also re-signed many of his own free agents.

Gilbert Arenas - Nothing needs to be said

I think this one is defensible. Arenas was a flake, but he was also a serious baller -- one of the elite offensive threats in the league. He had a knee injury from which thousands of athletes make full recoveries. There just was no reason to think Arenas would be constantly injured and then would shoot himself in the foot.

Antawn Jamison - "aka lets 'go all in' on mediocrity", aka "The Leader of Men"

Classic NBA deal -- one of the "this is what's wrong with how these guys do business" contracts. Jamison never should have been a max salary guy in the first place, but he got the phat deal because of per game scoring and rebounding. The re-sign the Wizards did was essentially based on his previous deal, and it was a bad move when considering the combination of Jamison's age and production.

Andray Blatche - if we could only go back in time, lol

Yep.

As for filling out the roster with picks in the 15-25 range, what exactly does that accomplish? How's that a solid strategy for building a contending team? We need stars not a bunch of future role players or future Spain ACB League all-stars. We've already loaded up on low first rounders. I really think that strategy has run it's course. It's the top 5 draft picks that make the difference, with these late 1st rounders your basically just shopping for shiny pennies.

Adding future picks is a fine strategy, but again, with $30+ mil in cap room your talking about overkill. It shouldn't cost $10 million in cap space to buy a pick. I'm afraid jettisoning Lewis and leaving Ernie with all that cap room in a weak free agency pool could lead to some very bad choices. I'd rather keep the sorry roster as is, waive Nick bye bye, stink up the joint in an abbreviated season if there is one and enjoy the benefits of a large number of lottery balls in a game changing draft. Any cap room available from losing Nick could be used towards acquiring future picks but otherwise I'd avoid doing anything that might artificially inflate our win total.

I agree -- the Wiz don't need more role players and bench guys. They need some elite talent. Everyone on the roster except Wall is expendable and replaceable. No one is worth worrying about if they depart. Keep 'em if it's a low price -- otherwise find someone else.

Wall looks like he's a building block. "Could-Be's" include McGee and Blatche. I don't think Blatche will be, but I'd be willing to give him another 20 games before dumping him. McGee probably won't be either, but I'd give him another season.