ImageImageImageImageImage

Bradley Beal - Part III

Moderators: montestewart, nate33, LyricalRico

User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,432
And1: 1,593
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1181 » by doclinkin » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:43 pm

nate33 wrote:
The play on the court has never been better, with Breanna Stewart and Sue Bird leading the Seattle Storm to a championship. Most of the playoff positions weren’t decided until the final days of the season. Television ratings were up over 30 percent and the WNBA Finals Game 3 clincher had its highest rating on ESPN2 since 2010. Buoyed by the strong ratings, the network decided to up the number of games it will cover next year. Metrics also were up for league pass, merchandise sales and social media.


Making Bradley Beal's point. The product is better, the sales and ratings are higher. Social media numbers are stronger. The rest is just marketing and sales.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 12,268
And1: 3,837
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1182 » by payitforward » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:53 am

TGW wrote:That's a helluva good point, PIF.

At this point, if the NBA decided not to subsidize the WNBA, they would be accused of sexism by the SJWs. IT IS a business decision.

As for the overall point, the women, from a business perspective, are allowed to shop their services around. The WNBA isn't the only sheriff in town.

Thanks. & for sure it's a business decision. But I don't think it has anything to do with Social Justice Warriors. Or fear of being accused of sexism.

As to how much WNBA players should make... truth be told I don't know what they do make. I understand Brad's expression of solidarity with them; that's easy. &, of course, I can also & easily understand why WNBA players would look at the colossal amounts of money paid NBA players & be envious -- how not?

Beyond that, though, I don't find myself moved to care how much they're paid -- on the assumption that they're paid well from any quote unquote normal perspective.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 12,268
And1: 3,837
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1183 » by payitforward » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:07 am

nate33 wrote:After Two Decades, WNBA Still Struggling for Relevance

Half of the W.N.B.A.’s 12 teams lose money, and they benefit from revenue generated by the N.B.A.’s national television and sponsorship deals. This season, the $25 million the W.N.B.A. is getting from its primary broadcaster, ESPN, is a tiny fraction of the N.B.A.’s average $930 million payment from ESPN and TNT, which will rise to about $2.6 billion next season.

In a rare and candid moment last year, James L. Dolan, who owns the W.N.B.A.’s Liberty and the N.B.A.’s Knicks, told HBO’s “Real Sports” that he came close to handing the franchise back to the league in 2015.

“It hasn’t made money,” he said. “Its prospects of making money, at that time and even today, are still slim.”

Dolan has held on to the Liberty, though, and there seems to be little doubt of the N.B.A.’s continued support of the W.N.B.A. as a legacy investment in women’s basketball.

But the W.N.B.A. has a fundamental problem: It needs more fans — lots of them. Attendance fell to an average of 7,318 a game last season, almost two decades after reaching its peak of 10,864 in 1998, the league’s second season.



WNBA at Crossroads After Losing Nearly $12 Million Last Season
NEW YORK (AP) — As 2018 comes to a close, the WNBA is at a crossroads.

The play on the court has never been better, with Breanna Stewart and Sue Bird leading the Seattle Storm to a championship. Most of the playoff positions weren’t decided until the final days of the season. Television ratings were up over 30 percent and the WNBA Finals Game 3 clincher had its highest rating on ESPN2 since 2010. Buoyed by the strong ratings, the network decided to up the number of games it will cover next year. Metrics also were up for league pass, merchandise sales and social media.

Yet those numbers haven’t led to the league and its owners making money. The WNBA said it has lost a significant amount of money over the last 22 years, including $12 million last season.

“On average (we’ve lost) over $10 million every year we’ve operated,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told the AP in a phone interview in October.

Attendance across the league was down nearly an average of 1,000 fans per game.

I didn't realize the losses were as trivial as that. $10-12m a year in losses is chump change. Means absolutely nothing to the league, the owners, anyone.

In fact, it's worth eating that loss just to own the space in case things change. & to keep any other entrepreneurs out of it, so that if the demand curves change NBA owners are the ones who can profit -- &, even more important, that no one else can. Don't want anyone else owning a stake in basketball.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
Rainwater
Starter
Posts: 2,385
And1: 1,145
Joined: Apr 02, 2017

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1184 » by Rainwater » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:20 am

Jamaaliver wrote:
nate33 wrote:There are only two reasons people watch women's sports. Either it's because it's a rare international competition and we are rooting for our country, or it's a sport like tennis where slower and weaker players actually make things more interesting...


nate33 wrote:The bottom line is that, generally speaking, women don't watch sports unless their husbands/boyfriends are into it. And their husbands/boyfriends would prefer to watch the best of the best.



I think you may be selling women's sports and their fans short.


The complicated truth isn't that women don't play/watch sports...or that they need a man in their life to enjoy them.

(That's a really awful assertion, BTW.)

It's that the NBA isn't the best partner for the WNBA, because there is so little crossover in fans. WNBA would be better off pairing with other women's team sports on their own network/streaming service rather than how they are currently being presented...as the "inferior" female version of an already existing (and more popular) men's league.



The assertion is kinda true though. No one is saying women can't enjoy sports without men because they definitely can but in comparison to women more men do watch sports and a lot of women do watch sports because their significant other does. I really don't understand how this is offensive.
Rainwater
Starter
Posts: 2,385
And1: 1,145
Joined: Apr 02, 2017

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1185 » by Rainwater » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:40 am

payitforward wrote:
nate33 wrote:After Two Decades, WNBA Still Struggling for Relevance

Half of the W.N.B.A.’s 12 teams lose money, and they benefit from revenue generated by the N.B.A.’s national television and sponsorship deals. This season, the $25 million the W.N.B.A. is getting from its primary broadcaster, ESPN, is a tiny fraction of the N.B.A.’s average $930 million payment from ESPN and TNT, which will rise to about $2.6 billion next season.

In a rare and candid moment last year, James L. Dolan, who owns the W.N.B.A.’s Liberty and the N.B.A.’s Knicks, told HBO’s “Real Sports” that he came close to handing the franchise back to the league in 2015.

“It hasn’t made money,” he said. “Its prospects of making money, at that time and even today, are still slim.”

Dolan has held on to the Liberty, though, and there seems to be little doubt of the N.B.A.’s continued support of the W.N.B.A. as a legacy investment in women’s basketball.

But the W.N.B.A. has a fundamental problem: It needs more fans — lots of them. Attendance fell to an average of 7,318 a game last season, almost two decades after reaching its peak of 10,864 in 1998, the league’s second season.



WNBA at Crossroads After Losing Nearly $12 Million Last Season
NEW YORK (AP) — As 2018 comes to a close, the WNBA is at a crossroads.

The play on the court has never been better, with Breanna Stewart and Sue Bird leading the Seattle Storm to a championship. Most of the playoff positions weren’t decided until the final days of the season. Television ratings were up over 30 percent and the WNBA Finals Game 3 clincher had its highest rating on ESPN2 since 2010. Buoyed by the strong ratings, the network decided to up the number of games it will cover next year. Metrics also were up for league pass, merchandise sales and social media.

Yet those numbers haven’t led to the league and its owners making money. The WNBA said it has lost a significant amount of money over the last 22 years, including $12 million last season.

“On average (we’ve lost) over $10 million every year we’ve operated,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told the AP in a phone interview in October.

Attendance across the league was down nearly an average of 1,000 fans per game.

I didn't realize the losses were as trivial as that. $10-12m a year in losses is chump change. Means absolutely nothing to the league, the owners, anyone.

In fact, it's worth eating that loss just to own the space in case things change. & to keep any other entrepreneurs out of it, so that if the demand curves change NBA owners are the ones who can profit -- &, even more important, that no one else can. Don't want anyone else owning a stake in basketball.


10-12 million dollar loss might be trivial but when you are losing this yearly, going on 23 years that starts to add up. We are talking about a quarter of billion dollars. The question is how long will it take for this "change" to occur? And will it cover the total money lost?
Rainwater
Starter
Posts: 2,385
And1: 1,145
Joined: Apr 02, 2017

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1186 » by Rainwater » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:09 am

doclinkin wrote:
nate33 wrote:
doclinkin wrote:

Sexist and untrue. I know woman who watch basketball, MMA, football, etc who really don't care about any man's opinion of it. Too I know more than a handful of gay women who would happily scoff and mock you for the idiocy of your statement.

It may be sexist but it is not untrue. There are of course exceptions, which is why I said "generally speaking". If what I'm saying isn't true, then there would be women's sports leagues making money right now. There aren't. The number of people willing to pay to watch women's sports events is vanishingly small.



Nielsen disagrees with you. The trick is finding those audiences where and how they choose to watch. Their studies suggest there is a rising tide of viewership both for womens sports and among women in general. They turn up for event viewing, yes, for the USA Women's soccer. For Tennis. For the olympics. But the point is in these cases the storyline is what drives viewership. That is simply marketing. Which speaks to Bradley Beal's point. If you pour some money into marketing you may find the right way to tap into this market. There is money to be made even in America, even with our apparently more chauvinist outlook. Austraiia hosts 53,000 people in the women's championship game of Aussie Rules Football. England fills Wembley stadium with 40k butts in seats for the women's football finals. There's a market there if we can put in work to grow it.


I want to read this full article, the article you provided is only a snippet. I could believe that there is growing viewership of women and women's sport since title nine; however, I still don't think this on the level or equal that of men's viewership or men's sports. I would love to compare viewership stats of men's European soccer and women's European soccer or Australian men's football with women's football.

Speaking as a millennial and from a personal perspective, Nate for the most part is correct, most of the women I know don't really watch sports or just watch it with a significant other. Hell, my ex didn't watch football unless I watched it. There are just some things you just watch because your partner watches it and you want to spend time together. It's part of being in a relationship.

Additionally, I really do think we are using the word chauvinist too liberally. It would be chauvinist if one said ALL women watch sports ONLY because of men and they COULD NOT enjoy it on their own. Obviously this not what is being said.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,432
And1: 1,593
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1187 » by doclinkin » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:52 pm

Rainwater wrote:
doclinkin wrote:
nate33 wrote:It may be sexist but it is not untrue. There are of course exceptions, which is why I said "generally speaking". If what I'm saying isn't true, then there would be women's sports leagues making money right now. There aren't. The number of people willing to pay to watch women's sports events is vanishingly small.



Nielsen disagrees with you. The trick is finding those audiences where and how they choose to watch. Their studies suggest there is a rising tide of viewership both for womens sports and among women in general. They turn up for event viewing, yes, for the USA Women's soccer. For Tennis. For the olympics. But the point is in these cases the storyline is what drives viewership. That is simply marketing. Which speaks to Bradley Beal's point. If you pour some money into marketing you may find the right way to tap into this market. There is money to be made even in America, even with our apparently more chauvinist outlook. Austraiia hosts 53,000 people in the women's championship game of Aussie Rules Football. England fills Wembley stadium with 40k butts in seats for the women's football finals. There's a market there if we can put in work to grow it.


I want to read this full article, the article you provided is only a snippet. I could believe that there is growing viewership of women and women's sport since title nine; however, I still don't think this on the level or equal that of men's viewership or men's sports. I would love to compare viewership stats of men's European soccer and women's European soccer or Australian men's football with women's football.

Speaking as a millennial and from a personal perspective, Nate for the most part is correct, most of the women I know don't really watch sports or just watch it with a significant other. Hell, my ex didn't watch football unless I watched it. There are just some things you just watch because your partner watches it and you want to spend time together. It's part of being in a relationship.

Additionally, I really do think we are using the word chauvinist too liberally. It would be chauvinist if one said ALL women watch sports ONLY because of men and they COULD NOT enjoy it on their own. Obviously this not what is being said.


No it's chauvinist to make a broad generalization based on gender. Show me the data that women only like sports because of a husband. Or even 'generally' only do. Because why, because you and nate say so? Ok thats the vote of you and nate vs me and Bradley Beal. I know women who coach volleyball, soccer, youth football and tennis. I know women who play flag football, jiu jitsu, ultimate, and high level golf from the men's tees. In DC today I have heard three conversations today between women who were on a rush from the Nats win yesterday. This summer it was the USWNT Soccer that was provoking conversation all summer long. Two years ago it was the Caps. My coworker won't shut up about the Golden State Warriors, and she discovered the squad because of politics and Stef being a good dad when he brought his daughter to a press conference. It has nothing to do with husbands, and everything to do with hype. My mom is randomly a diehard UConn Huskies fan, men's and women's teams. I'd agree women, like other human beings, like to watch sports played at a high level. (We can argue whether the women's game measures up, and I'd probably agree the NBA is leagues better than most any other sport, men's or women's). But wanting to watch sports that has nothing to do with the fact that they know someone who has a ****. Or is one...
DCZards
Head Coach
Posts: 7,464
And1: 1,960
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1188 » by DCZards » Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:58 pm

Ever since the Nat's returned to DC I've shared a National's half-season ticket plan with 4 co-workers. Three of them are women. And they are REALLY into the Nats. They buy extra game tickets on top of the 6-7 games they get through our plan.

One woman is single and goes to her Nats games with her daughter or a female friend. Another one of the women complains about how she can't get her husband to attend the Nats games with her. So she usually goes with a female friend.

I go to Nats (and Wizards) games with my wife...who is a HUGE sports fan. In fact, she's more of a NFL football fan than I am.
Rainwater
Starter
Posts: 2,385
And1: 1,145
Joined: Apr 02, 2017

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1189 » by Rainwater » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:45 pm

doclinkin wrote:
Rainwater wrote:
doclinkin wrote:

Nielsen disagrees with you. The trick is finding those audiences where and how they choose to watch. Their studies suggest there is a rising tide of viewership both for womens sports and among women in general. They turn up for event viewing, yes, for the USA Women's soccer. For Tennis. For the olympics. But the point is in these cases the storyline is what drives viewership. That is simply marketing. Which speaks to Bradley Beal's point. If you pour some money into marketing you may find the right way to tap into this market. There is money to be made even in America, even with our apparently more chauvinist outlook. Austraiia hosts 53,000 people in the women's championship game of Aussie Rules Football. England fills Wembley stadium with 40k butts in seats for the women's football finals. There's a market there if we can put in work to grow it.


I want to read this full article, the article you provided is only a snippet. I could believe that there is growing viewership of women and women's sport since title nine; however, I still don't think this on the level or equal that of men's viewership or men's sports. I would love to compare viewership stats of men's European soccer and women's European soccer or Australian men's football with women's football.

Speaking as a millennial and from a personal perspective, Nate for the most part is correct, most of the women I know don't really watch sports or just watch it with a significant other. Hell, my ex didn't watch football unless I watched it. There are just some things you just watch because your partner watches it and you want to spend time together. It's part of being in a relationship.

Additionally, I really do think we are using the word chauvinist too liberally. It would be chauvinist if one said ALL women watch sports ONLY because of men and they COULD NOT enjoy it on their own. Obviously this not what is being said.


No it's chauvinist to make a broad generalization based on gender. Show me the data that women only like sports because of a husband. Or even 'generally' only do. Because why, because you and nate say so? Ok thats the vote of you and nate vs me and Bradley Beal. I know women who coach volleyball, soccer, youth football and tennis. I know women who play flag football, jiu jitsu, ultimate, and high level golf from the men's tees. In DC today I have heard three conversations today between women who were on a rush from the Nats win yesterday. This summer it was the USWNT Soccer that was provoking conversation all summer long. Two years ago it was the Caps. My coworker won't shut up about the Golden State Warriors, and she discovered the squad because of politics and Stef being a good dad when he brought his daughter to a press conference. It has nothing to do with husbands, and everything to do with hype. My mom is randomly a diehard UConn Huskies fan, men's and women's teams. I'd agree women, like other human beings, like to watch sports played at a high level. (We can argue whether the women's game measures up, and I'd probably agree the NBA is leagues better than most any other sport, men's or women's). But wanting to watch sports that has nothing to do with the fact that they know someone who has a ****. Or is one...


Again, No one is saying women are ONLY watching sports because of men because women are totally capable of enjoying sports or anything without men and vice versa. What we are saying is that there are MANY women that do watch sports just because of a significant other, there is a difference and i don't believe that is chauvinist.

I know we are living in an equal society (or in a society that is attempting to move towards equality might be a better statement) so to say any gender might do something more than another might be wrong or taboo but sometimes that might just be the case. I am pretty certain a lot more women watch the Bachelor/bachelorette or watched Desperate housewives (when that was on) in comparison to men and do believe a lot of men watched those shows because of their significant others or because some important woman in their life did, that was the case with me and my mom. (and this is not say men are not capable of enjoying and watching such shows with out women because they definitely can). Admitting these truths is not chauvinist it is just the reality of the world we live in (And these realities is how many companies market and advertise towards target groups and admitting and understanding these realities might help us increase viewership among women). Can these realities change and is it changing, yes; but is that currently the case, no.
Rainwater
Starter
Posts: 2,385
And1: 1,145
Joined: Apr 02, 2017

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1190 » by Rainwater » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:00 pm

DCZards wrote:Ever since the Nat's returned to DC I've shared a National's half-season ticket plan with 4 co-workers. Three of them are women. And they are REALLY into the Nats. They buy extra game tickets on top of the 6-7 games they get through our plan.

One woman is single and goes to her Nats games with her daughter or a female friend. Another one of the women complains about how she can't get her husband to attend the Nats games with her. So she usually goes with a female friend.

I go to Nats (and Wizards) games with my wife...who is a HUGE sports fan. In fact, she's more of a NFL football fan than I am.


The question is not if women can enjoy sports because they can but the question is in comparison to men who watches more sports, Men or women? I just don't understand why people can't just say or are afraid to say more men watch sports than women and to admit this truth is suddenly chauvinist.
DCZards
Head Coach
Posts: 7,464
And1: 1,960
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1191 » by DCZards » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:30 pm

Rainwater wrote:
DCZards wrote:Ever since the Nat's returned to DC I've shared a National's half-season ticket plan with 4 co-workers. Three of them are women. And they are REALLY into the Nats. They buy extra game tickets on top of the 6-7 games they get through our plan.

One woman is single and goes to her Nats games with her daughter or a female friend. Another one of the women complains about how she can't get her husband to attend the Nats games with her. So she usually goes with a female friend.

I go to Nats (and Wizards) games with my wife...who is a HUGE sports fan. In fact, she's more of a NFL football fan than I am.


The question is not if women can enjoy sports because they can but the question is in comparison to men who watches more sports, Men or women? I just don't understand why people can't just say or are afraid to say more men watch sports than women and to admit this truth is suddenly chauvinist.


Yes, more men watch sports than women. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But that's not really the issue. The issue is the degree to which women watch sports because of their husband or significant other. I think we underestimate the degree to which women are into sports, regardless of whether or not their male partner is a sports fan.
Rainwater
Starter
Posts: 2,385
And1: 1,145
Joined: Apr 02, 2017

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1192 » by Rainwater » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:31 pm

DCZards wrote:
Rainwater wrote:
DCZards wrote:Ever since the Nat's returned to DC I've shared a National's half-season ticket plan with 4 co-workers. Three of them are women. And they are REALLY into the Nats. They buy extra game tickets on top of the 6-7 games they get through our plan.

One woman is single and goes to her Nats games with her daughter or a female friend. Another one of the women complains about how she can't get her husband to attend the Nats games with her. So she usually goes with a female friend.

I go to Nats (and Wizards) games with my wife...who is a HUGE sports fan. In fact, she's more of a NFL football fan than I am.


The question is not if women can enjoy sports because they can but the question is in comparison to men who watches more sports, Men or women? I just don't understand why people can't just say or are afraid to say more men watch sports than women and to admit this truth is suddenly chauvinist.


Yes, more men watch sports than women. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But that's not really the issue. The issue is the degree to which women watch sports because of their husband or significant other. I think we underestimate the degree to which women are into sports, regardless of whether or not their male partner is a sports fan.



I agree, there are a lot of great female sports fans who are fans regardless of their significant other but there are also a lot who are fans because of their significant other. I don't know which is more but both these things can exist, it doesn't have to be one or the other. In my case most of the women I know are fans because of their significant other.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,432
And1: 1,593
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1193 » by doclinkin » Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:09 pm

Nate said generally speaking women are not interested in sports UNLESS their husband or boyfriend is. That's BS. If he had stopped his statement before the word 'unless' I've been fine with it. Yes men are demonstrably statistically the majority audience for most sports. The women I know do who attend sports events do so regardless of any man's interest. That's the sexist aspect. Are there social reasons driving women's interest in sports when they do attend? Hey Sure. Maybe. But same deal for guys as well. I will watch a Caps game nearly never, but many times in their Cup run I found myself in a crowd of folks watching on a big screen.

As for the WNBA the point is how to drum up a larger audience of both men and women. Beal suggests marketing better, and I'd agree. Numbers are up in viewership and social media, which suggests there is interest. It may take improved play and that next wave of viewership. Likely it would take a compelling rivalry or star. Men's Basketball has grown but had been heading the way of Horseracing or boxing until the Magic vs Bird era. Then MJ came along.

Is the WNBA likely to catch up to any of the major men's sports? No. But could the league do a better job finding an audience for it? Yes. Since viewership is up and their broadcast partners are willing to put them onscreen more often.

Personally I think we would do well to have more international 'friendlies' with overseas teams vs WNBA squads maybe even, say, a world tournament of professional teams. Us vs the World seems to drive up interest, as one storyline. It'd be more compelling than the Wiz scrubs vs the Long Lions. Anyway, if the point is that the women ought to split profits with the 'governors' 50/50 and you claim they are losing money then how does it hurt to split those phantom profits? Half of zero is zero. Unless that accounting is some stealth ninja bs, another example of billionaires crying poor. I dunno.

I liked the article, and how invested Brad is in our local squad. It'd be cool if more players from the NBA visibly supported their WNBA equivalent.
DCZards
Head Coach
Posts: 7,464
And1: 1,960
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1194 » by DCZards » Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:34 am

It was great seeing Beal and Wall at the Mystics game tonight. They were even leading the cheers at one point. Here's the thing though: Beal and Wall (especially Wall) are regulars at Mystics games. They just didn't show up for the championship run.

Another good reason, at least for me, to love this pair of Wizard guards.
DCZards
Head Coach
Posts: 7,464
And1: 1,960
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1195 » by DCZards » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:17 pm

Wizards Offer Bradley Beal Three-Year, $111M Extension In Any Form He Wants

The Washington Wizards continue to prefer signing Bradley Beal to a contract extension rather than entertain trade offers.

"Bradley Beal has two years left on his deal and the Wizards have not given up hope on signing him to an extension," said Adrian Wojnarowski on a podcast with Zach Lowe.

"They have had a three-year, $111 million extension on the table for him to take in any form. Does he want two years? Three years? Any form he wants. They're waiting for him. They are nowhere near the idea of moving Bradley Beal. They want to continue to try to rebuild around him. Get John Wall back healthy."

Beal is widely considered the next potentially gettable player on the trade market.

"If he got on the market would bring back an absolute ransom because if you want to improve your team in a dramatic way, he'd be the guy. But Washington is not doing that. They still want to re-sign him."
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 12,268
And1: 3,837
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1196 » by payitforward » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:28 pm

Obviously, tho he is not on the market, teams have called to inquire about him, & they've given Tommy an idea of what he might bring. I'm sure Tommy listens when they call. For one thing, you do want to know what he's worth. For another, it's normal, respectful business practice: you don't shut down your peers when they want to discuss such a subject. One day, you will want to be heard.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
closg00
RealGM
Posts: 20,683
And1: 2,566
Joined: Nov 21, 2004

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1197 » by closg00 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:04 pm

The Wizards are groveling from a position of weakness, Ernie's parting gift
Tank 19/20, trade Brad, Top-5 pick in 2020.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 54,328
And1: 8,508
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1198 » by nate33 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:42 am

closg00 wrote:The Wizards are groveling from a position of weakness, Ernie's parting gift

It's just a repeat of the same old story. It's not like Sheppard is calling Beal's agent every day.

The Wizards have a standing offer on the table. There is no groveling.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 12,268
And1: 3,837
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1199 » by payitforward » Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:57 pm

Agreed. Not only that, but I assume everyone knows that this is not the offer Brad would agree to -- he's bound to try to make All-NBA & qualify for even more $$.

In fact, I took this to be an offer intended to underline the franchise's sense of, & desire to continue, relationship with Beal. Not exactly "pro forma," that's not quite the right phrase, but not given with the thought that Brad would pick it up.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
FAH1223
RealGM
Posts: 10,894
And1: 3,798
Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Location: Laurel, MD
       

Re: Bradley Beal - Part III 

Post#1200 » by FAH1223 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am

Read on Twitter
Image

Return to Washington Wizards