Wizards 2019 Offseason Thread

[nate33]

Do you think you will decline team option on Jabari? I still hold out hope my Bucks will get him back.

They will decline the team option, but there's a very good chance that they'll try and bring him back to a longer term deal at a lower annual salary. It's hard to estimate what that salary will be until we see how he plays for the remaining 24 games of the season.

I really don't see the Bucks going after him though.

[Illmatic12]

I just don't have a great feeling about players like Bryant. it's not only a physical thing, to me he lacks certain basic fundamentals and awareness. Watch him rebound, he doesn't even know how to box out. Bobby Portis could at least rebound from day 1 in the league (career 16% reb rate vs 12% reb rate for Bryant)

TB strikes me as a typical AAU big man who never learned fundamentals. He plays hard, but he's not a freak athlete like a Montrez Harrell who can get away with just playing hard .

I can see where the pro-Bryant crowd is coming from , but I'll take the minority opinion on this one. But hopefully we can find a way to keep both Bryant and Portis on affordable deals, they could be handy trade assets down the line.

Well, I guess you're entitled to any "feeling" you like; & if something strikes you one way or another, well... I guess it just does, huh? But neither of those has any bearing whatever on whether Thomas Bryant is good, bad or indifferent.

I've watched Bryant pretty closely. He doesn't look to me like he lacks fundamentals & *certainly not* like he lacks "awareness," which I take as a polite way of saying he's dumb (at least basketball dumb -- & maybe more). He doesn't look or act dumb to me. Not in any way. I see him calling out stuff on the court all the time. I also see him box out all the time. Otherwise, feel free to explain how he managed 8 rebounds in 16 minutes, most of which was played w/ Drummond on the floor.

Btw, Bryant is averaging the same number of rebounds per 40 minutes this year as Bobby is averaging for us so far. Actually, illmatic, that's a lie. Bryant is averaging more rebounds than Bobby as a Wizard. Also more than Bobby did for the Bulls back in 2016-17 when he was Bryant's age. That's "Bobby Portis (who) could at least rebound from day 1 in the league."

But, hey, you get to be wrong about some things! It just seems like you might not want to put quite so much effort into it. For example, Montrezl Harrell doesn't just "play hard." You might note for example that he's improved significantly every year for the 4 years of his career -- what? do you think he just plays harder & harder? Is that the secret to his success? Nor, btw, do his combine numbers support the idea that he's, as you call him, "a freak athlete."

In case you wondered, btw, when CCJ wrote

Typical AAU...never learns...

I'm pretty sure it was you he was talking about. So I'm at least glad you're now saying you do want to keep Bryant.

I was taking issue to stereotype and prejudice.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

CCJ.. It's nothing to do with stereotypes. Bryant is a young player who lacks fundamentals.

I've been around a lot of youth basketball, and Bryant is the typical "blue chip" big man you see dominating in those AAU games that end up with a 150-140 score. He excels in transition and can score a lot of points, but doesn't have great fundamentals in the half court nor defensive awareness. However those weaknesses were never exposed at those lower levels, so his coaches allowed him to get away with bad habits since he was dominating offensively on pure talent. I am sure he received better coaching at IU under Tom Crean but nowadays those few years of college aren't enough.

I know Bryant has a lot of fans .. I am too! Look I like the kid, but I'm just not a fan of big men who can only play one position and don't defend. I feel like it's hard to win with frontcourt players who aren't well-rounded.

[payitforward]

...CCJ wrote

Typical AAU...never learns...

I was taking issue to stereotype and prejudice.

I'm glad you did....

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Well, I guess you're entitled to any "feeling" you like; & if something strikes you one way or another, well... I guess it just does, huh? But neither of those has any bearing whatever on whether Thomas Bryant is good, bad or indifferent.

I've watched Bryant pretty closely. He doesn't look to me like he lacks fundamentals & *certainly not* like he lacks "awareness," which I take as a polite way of saying he's dumb (at least basketball dumb -- & maybe more). He doesn't look or act dumb to me. Not in any way. I see him calling out stuff on the court all the time. I also see him box out all the time. Otherwise, feel free to explain how he managed 8 rebounds in 16 minutes, most of which was played w/ Drummond on the floor.

Btw, Bryant is averaging the same number of rebounds per 40 minutes this year as Bobby is averaging for us so far. Actually, illmatic, that's a lie. Bryant is averaging more rebounds than Bobby as a Wizard. Also more than Bobby did for the Bulls back in 2016-17 when he was Bryant's age. That's "Bobby Portis (who) could at least rebound from day 1 in the league."

But, hey, you get to be wrong about some things! It just seems like you might not want to put quite so much effort into it. For example, Montrezl Harrell doesn't just "play hard." You might note for example that he's improved significantly every year for the 4 years of his career -- what? do you think he just plays harder & harder? Is that the secret to his success? Nor, btw, do his combine numbers support the idea that he's, as you call him, "a freak athlete."

In case you wondered, btw, when CCJ wrote


I'm pretty sure it was you he was talking about. So I'm at least glad you're now saying you do want to keep Bryant.

I was taking issue to stereotype and prejudice.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

CCJ.. It's nothing to do with stereotypes. Bryant is a young player who lacks fundamentals.

I've been around a lot of youth basketball, and Bryant is the typical "blue chip" big man you see dominating in those AAU games that end up with a 150-140 score. He excels in transition and can score a lot of points, but doesn't have great fundamentals in the half court nor defensive awareness. However those weaknesses were never exposed at those lower levels, so his coaches allowed him to get away with bad habits since he was dominating offensively on pure talent. I am sure he received better coaching at IU under Tom Crean but nowadays those few years of college aren't enough.

I know Bryant has a lot of fans .. I am too! Look I like the kid, but I'm just not a fan of big men who can only play one position and don't defend. I feel like it's hard to win with frontcourt players who aren't well-rounded.

Great, illimatic.

I was around a kid getting the best instructor and the best tutelage. I'm not mad at you. Just the advantage of the privileged people who do become complete players seems unfair vs that of the typical blue chipper.

I think the problem is that money drives the AAU funnel to NCAA. Offense makes money. Flattery and coddling recruits.

I hope the G-League becomes increasingly instructional. One year of Tom Crean or Mark Turgeon is not sufficient.

Bruno Fernando and Eric Paschal are men. Grown men. Staying on campus will help Jalen Smith, but like Diamond Stone, guaranteed money awaits.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

I was taking issue to stereotype and prejudice.

CCJ.. It's nothing to do with stereotypes.

Fine, & I believe that it has nothing to do with "prejudice" -- but it's wall to wall "stereotypes." Hence...

Bryant is a young player who lacks fundamentals. ...I've been around a lot of youth basketball, and Bryant is the typical "blue chip" big man you see dominating in those AAU games that end up with a 150-140 score. He excels in transition and can score a lot of points, but doesn't have great fundamentals in the half court nor defensive awareness. However those weaknesses were never exposed at those lower levels, so his coaches allowed him to get away with bad habits since he was dominating offensively on pure talent. I am sure he received better coaching at IU under Tom Crean but nowadays those few years of college aren't enough.

I know Bryant has a lot of fans .. I am too! Look I like the kid, but I'm just not a fan of big men who can only play one position and don't defend. I feel like it's hard to win with frontcourt players who aren't well-rounded.

How can you possibly compare a guy playing in the NBA & putting up big numbers (which you can't deny, obviously) to a "typical... big... dominating... AAU games"??? AAU players whose weak fundamentals & lack of defensive awareness "were never exposed at" the AAU level usually don't even excel in college. & they sure as hell don't make it to the NBA -- & excel there at 21.

Plus, generalities about college coaching not being enough are irrelevant. Even if what you write is true overall (which i don't doubt), & even though you've had exposure to youth basketball (which I don't doubt either), none of that applies in this case: we have an actual player & actual numbers in front of us. It may be good reason to be skeptical of some guy who comes along in the future. Sure. But Bryant is posting a 70% TS% in the NBA! Plus, tho he is a good transition player, he also can shoot the three. He gets assists, he blocks shots, he doesn't over-foul (an indication of lack of defensive awareness/bad positioning). He's 21.

I'd also say that your inaccurate description of Montrezl Harrell is similar evidence of taking the wrong view. Harrell hasn't just played harder & harder. He's actually gotten better & better. That fact is a better context for thinking about Bryant than the one you use.

We'll get a chance to see how he develops. I'm sure we both wish the best for this kid.

[Illmatic12]

I was taking issue to stereotype and prejudice.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

CCJ.. It's nothing to do with stereotypes. Bryant is a young player who lacks fundamentals.

I've been around a lot of youth basketball, and Bryant is the typical "blue chip" big man you see dominating in those AAU games that end up with a 150-140 score. He excels in transition and can score a lot of points, but doesn't have great fundamentals in the half court nor defensive awareness. However those weaknesses were never exposed at those lower levels, so his coaches allowed him to get away with bad habits since he was dominating offensively on pure talent. I am sure he received better coaching at IU under Tom Crean but nowadays those few years of college aren't enough.

I know Bryant has a lot of fans .. I am too! Look I like the kid, but I'm just not a fan of big men who can only play one position and don't defend. I feel like it's hard to win with frontcourt players who aren't well-rounded.

Great, illimatic.

I was around a kid getting the best instructor and the best tutelage. I'm not mad at you. Just the advantage of the privileged people who do become complete players seems unfair vs that of the typical blue chipper.

I think the problem is that money drives the AAU funnel to NCAA. Offense makes money. Flattery and coddling recruits.

I hope the G-League becomes increasingly instructional. One year of Tom Crean or Mark Turgeon is not sufficient.

Bruno Fernando and Eric Paschal are men. Grown men. Staying on campus will help Jalen Smith, but like Diamond Stone, guaranteed money awaits.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

Agreed with the issues you raised re: AAU basketball. Imo the only solution is integration of a European-style academy system for the elite youth players, that gives them exposure to the G-League. It looks like we'll be seeing these changes made by the 2023 draft (according to Adam Silver) so hopefully more progress is made.

There's no good reason why a talented golf or tennis player can get go pro at age 16, or a baseball player can enter the minor league system after HS, while elite basketball prospects are forced to deal with the draconic NCAA.

BTW.. let's see where Bruno Fernando is in 2 years. I have a feeling he will be a better NBA player than Bryant

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The NCAA is a billionaire bully.

It blocks young people's dreams and forces them to play college. FBI gets involved like with Kansas and DeSousa currently being investigated. The farce is about the system pimping for their profit off young people.

The NBA Player's Association fights for $$ and percentage of basketball related income, BRI. They've established power in the form of guaranteed contracts to players.

The league doesn't want to dilute their strength by allowing random youth who CAN PLAY to dislodge the Ian Mahinmi comfortable veteran who has earned a fat stack of cash via job security.



Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

[dangermouse]

We should absolutely re-sign Bryant to as cap friendly, long term deal as we possibly can.

"Low awareness/basketball IQ" "Lack of fundamentals" and "raw prospect" were all said about Clint Capela when he was drafted. Obviously Capela was the better defender even then, but conversely Bryant is the better shooter (and has better offensive game all around I would argue).

Not saying Bryant will turn out to be Capela, or if he will develop and be as good, but the similarities are there and we should take the chance that he puts it all together. I think he has a nice ceiling as a young C.

[The Consiglieri]

Whatever offseason decisions the Wizards make they just have to make sure that they consider how that player is going to fit with Zion Williamson.

Q, I truly believe that the Wizards could JUST MISS THE PLAYOFFS AND SOME HOW THEY END UP BEING THE FIRST PICK.

I'm calling it early.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

The league, has really been kind to us in the lotto at time. It will probably be either the wizards, the pells, the knicks and the cavs, some mix of them in the top 3.

The league has a interest in the knicks getting better and the cavs and the wizards have always been treated well in the lotto when they needed it, they might slide the pells in just to be cute.

Up until the 2001 lottery the wizards dropped far more often then they stayed at slot and they NEVER moved up. Even after 2001 by and large that pattern continued. We got a little luck in what 2010, 2012, and 2013, and odd little aberration, other than that and '01, we've always actually gotten shafted.

[payitforward]

The league, has really been kind to us in the lotto at time...

Up until the 2001 lottery the wizards dropped far more often then they stayed at slot and they NEVER moved up. Even after 2001 by and large that pattern continued. We got a little luck in what 2010, 2012, and 2013, and odd little aberration, other than that and '01, we've always actually gotten shafted.

Shafted? We moved up from 3 to 1 in '01; from 6 to 1 in 2010; from 8 to 3 in 2013. In 2012 we moved down 1 spot from 2-3. That's a net of 12 spots we've moved up in the last 18 drafts. Tell me what team did better?

Had we stayed @#3 in 2001, we probably would have gotten Pau Gasol rather than Kwame Brown! So our move up hurt rather than helping.
Had we stayed at #6 in 2010, we most likely would have taken Greg Monroe b/c of the Georgetown connection. He went next, at #7.
Had we stayed at #8 in 2013, we'd likely have Kentavious Caldwell-Pope.

I.e., overall in the 3 drafts where we moved up & got Kwame Brown, John Wall & Otto Porter -- instead of Pau Gasol, Greg Monroe & Caldwell-Pope -- you could argue that overall we didn't gain anything, certainly not much, given how bad Brown was & how good Gasol has been.

OTOH, had we stayed @ #2 in 2012, rather than moving down 1 spot, it's quite possible we'd have taken Michael Kidd-Gilchrist over Beal.

Viewed that way, our net of 12 moves up really didn't help. I'd be willing to bet that -- with very few exceptions -- it's been that way overall for pretty much all teams that have moved up & down.

[The Consiglieri]

The league, has really been kind to us in the lotto at time...

Up until the 2001 lottery the wizards dropped far more often then they stayed at slot and they NEVER moved up. Even after 2001 by and large that pattern continued. We got a little luck in what 2010, 2012, and 2013, and odd little aberration, other than that and '01, we've always actually gotten shafted.

Shafted? We moved up from 3 to 1 in '01; from 6 to 1 in 2010; from 8 to 3 in 2013. In 2012 we moved down 1 spot from 2-3. That's a net of 12 spots we've moved up in the last 18 drafts. Tell me what team did better?

Had we stayed @#3 in 2001, we probably would have gotten Pau Gasol rather than Kwame Brown! So our move up hurt rather than helping.
Had we stayed at #6 in 2010, we most likely would have taken Greg Monroe b/c of the Georgetown connection. He went next, at #7.
Had we stayed at #8 in 2013, we'd likely have Kentavious Caldwell-Pope.

I.e., overall in the 3 drafts where we moved up & got Kwame Brown, John Wall & Otto Porter -- instead of Pau Gasol, Greg Monroe & Caldwell-Pope -- you could argue that overall we didn't gain anything, certainly not much, given how bad Brown was & how good Gasol has been.

OTOH, had we stayed @ #2 in 2012, rather than moving down 1 spot, it's quite possible we'd have taken Michael Kidd-Gilchrist over Beal.

Viewed that way, our net of 12 moves up really didn't help. I'd be willing to bet that -- with very few exceptions -- it's been that way overall for pretty much all teams that have moved up & down.

I specifically referenced each of those exceptions. The Wizards spent a ton of time in the lottery as the bullets and their luck in the lottery was horrific. Have you only paid attention since '01 or are you really young?

1989: Results: Neutral
1991: Results: -1
1992: Results: -2
1993: Results: -3
1994: Results: Neutral
1995: Results: -2
1998: Results: Neutral
1999: Results: -1
2000: Results: -1
2001: Results: +2
2002: Results: Neutral
2003: Results: Neutral
2004: Results: -2
2005: Results: -3
2009: Results: -3
2010: Results: +4
2011: Results: -2
2012: Results: -1
2013: Results: +5
2016: Results: Neutral

Asked and answered. If, like me, you've been watching the Wizards/Bullets since the mid-eighties, you know are lottery luck has been absolute bollocks for the vast majority of our history. If you only started watching the past decade, you might think it aint too bad, but read the results and weep. Since I've been watching:

Draft Slot has risen: 3 times
Draft Slot has stayed the same: 6 times
Draft Slot has fallen: 11 times

And I had my eyes most fixed as a kid on this into my twenties in a time period in which we climbed up the draft once, stayed neutral 3 times, and fell 9 times. Since then we've had a bit more luck in my thirties, climbing another two times, and falling just 2 more times, but read it and weep man, our draft lottery history is god awful. Just celebrating the good 2010 draft, and the awful 2013 and 2001 draft climbs, while ignoring the litany of drops we've had or neutral results doesn't make much sense, especially when you consider that 8 of our 11 draft slot drops were multiple slots rather than just one, including in loaded drafts like the Shaq '92 and Webber '93 drafts which were brutal falls, the loaded '95 class, and the Harding/Step Curry '09 class, our slot fall in '09 was directly tied to the motivation our moron GM had to make his hideous trade of our pick for Mike Freaking Miller and Randy Foye. Two years later another gut punch lead us directly to draft bust Jan Vesely (maybe we make that same selection anyway since our idiot in chief was obsessed with drafting him going back to the '10 class Vesely ended up not declaring for).


Link:

https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Washington-Wizards/30/Lottery-History

[Dat2U]

My standing on Bryant & Portis is that the Wizards starting C of the future probably isn't on the roster yet, but that doesn't mean I'd be opposed to bringing one of the two back on a cheap deal.

I can't see bringing both back. Gotta get something else in the mix other than Bryant/Portis and Mahinmi. I assume Howard will be bought out if he opts in.

Also I can't see bringing both Parker & Portis back, it's one or the other. I don't think they are playable together defensively.

That is, if your serious about winning some games next season. If tanking is the goal then you can basically bring back the entire roster plus this year's lottery pick.

[nate33]

1989: Results: Neutral
1991: Results: -1
1992: Results: -2
1993: Results: -3
1994: Results: Neutral
1995: Results: -2
1998: Results: Neutral
1999: Results: -1
2000: Results: -1
2001: Results: +2
2002: Results: Neutral
2003: Results: Neutral
2004: Results: -2
2005: Results: -3
2009: Results: -3
2010: Results: +4
2011: Results: -2
2012: Results: -1
2013: Results: +5
2016: Results: Neutral

That's actually not so bad.

The nature of the lottery is that upward moves tend to be rare and big (+3, +4, +6, etc.) and the compensating downward moves are a bunch of teams each moving down 1 spot. So in a typical year, one would expect a neutral or a -1, or maybe a -2, and once every 5 or so years you get that big +5. It also matters where you finish. Finishing late in the lottery gives you better chance to move up. After all, the 14th team CAN'T drop and can only rise, while the 1st place team can only fall.

Looking at the numbers you posted, the Wizards have broken even since 2001 (a couple of big upward moves compensating for many small downward moves). Our luck in the 90's was pretty lousy though. If you look at just the last 5 trips to the lottery, the team has been very fortunate.

By the way, assuming we finish with the 7th worst record (which is where we stand now) our weighted odds are that we will move 0.782 slot upward. If we did the lottery 1000 times, we would average out with a +0.78. The chances are greater than not that we will drop a spot, but if we do end up moving up, it will be a significant upward jump of +3, +4, +5 or +6.

[payitforward]

...Since I've been watching:

Draft Slot has risen: 3 times
Draft Slot has stayed the same: 6 times
Draft Slot has fallen: 11 times

And I had my eyes most fixed as a kid on this into my twenties in a time period in which we climbed up the draft once, stayed neutral 3 times, and fell 9 times. Since then we've had a bit more luck in my thirties, climbing another two times, and falling just 2 more times, but read it and weep man, our draft lottery history is god awful. Just celebrating the good 2010 draft, and the awful 2013 and 2001 draft climbs, while ignoring the litany of drops we've had or neutral results doesn't make much sense, especially when you consider that 8 of our 11 draft slot drops were multiple slots rather than just one, including in loaded drafts like the Shaq '92 and Webber '93 drafts which were brutal falls, the loaded '95 class, and the Harding/Step Curry '09 class, our slot fall in '09 was directly tied to the motivation our moron GM had to make his hideous trade of our pick for Mike Freaking Miller and Randy Foye. Two years later another gut punch lead us directly to draft bust Jan Vesely (maybe we make that same selection anyway since our idiot in chief was obsessed with drafting him going back to the '10 class Vesely ended up not declaring for).

I think what you may be missing is that every single team goes down more often than it goes up.

Think about it: when one team goes up, every team above it goes down! Overall, the total number of places up or down by all teams is equal by definition, but when, for example, the #8 team goes up to #3, the teams that were previously #s 3-7 drop to 4-8. One team goes up 5 places, & 5 teams go down 1 place each.

In fact, from 2001 until now, we are up 6 spots overall. &, as I mentioned, our 2-spot jump in 2001 hurt us, while it's possible that our 1 spot drop in 2012 helped us.

As to 2009, if we hadn't dropped, if we'd been #2 instead of #5, there is no way we would have taken Steph Curry. No one would have. In fact, the most sensible point of view is that we'd have done exactly what the Grizz did with the #2 pick -- take Hasheem Thabeet!

[FAH1223]

My standing on Bryant & Portis is that the Wizards starting C of the future probably isn't on the roster yet, but that doesn't mean I'd be opposed to bringing one of the two back on a cheap deal.

I can't see bringing both back. Gotta get something else in the mix other than Bryant/Portis and Mahinmi. I assume Howard will be bought out if he opts in.

Also I can't see bringing both Parker & Portis back, it's one or the other. I don't think they are playable together defensively.

That is, if your serious about winning some games next season. If tanking is the goal then you can basically bring back the entire roster plus this year's lottery pick.

Bryant will be re-signed since he’s 21 and subject to the Arenas rule.

Portis is a RFA with a QO of like $6M? He could be on that for next year.

[NYG]

What is the overall feeling on trading Bradley Beal?

[dangermouse]

What is the overall feeling on trading Bradley Beal?

I think most of the board would like to see him traded, for the right price. What that price is differs between users. But I think a lot of us are keen for some sort of rebuild while Wall is out.

[NYG]

What is the overall feeling on trading Bradley Beal?

I think most of the board would like to see him traded, for the right price. What that price is differs between users. But I think a lot of us are keen for some sort of rebuild while Wall is out.

I’m a Knicks fan so not trolling or anything, but how do most feel about the Lakers young pieces when it comes to Beal?

[nate33]

What is the overall feeling on trading Bradley Beal?

Most of us think Wall is 2 years away from being a useful player (if he ever is useful again). And with his cap hit destroying the ability to acquire any free agency talent, the best course is to take these 2 years to rebuild. Rebuilding would require trading Beal.

But understand that Beal is one of the very best trade assets in the league. He is currently the 13th leading scorer in the league and has actually been the 4th leading scorer since Wall went out. He is averaging 27.7 points, 6.4 assists and 5.4 rebounds without Wall on a TS% of .583. We're no longer talking about a pretty good second-fiddle. The guy is moving into legit, first-rate, carry-a-team territory. He's not in the same tier as Harden and Durant, but he's every bit as good as Oladipo, Kemba, Aldridge, etc. And he's only 25-years old and hasn't missed a game in 2 years.

The Wizards want A LOT in return for him. And the package should be heavy on picks, not players at the end of their rookie deals who may end up departing because of the Wizards' luxtax constraints. If Tobias Harris on an expiring deal was worth two 1sts (including Miami's likely lotto pick) and two 2nds, then Beal with 2 years left on his deal and a year younger is worth even more.

All that said, although us fans see the wisdom in trading Beal and rebuilding, I don't think management thinks the same way. I really don't think they're going to trade Beal. He's an All-NBA-caliber player with a GREAT attitude who is still young and improving. Those guys don't come along often, particularly to Washington. I think management will keep him regardless, and if it means they stay stuck in 40-win mediocrity for a few years because there is no way to build a team around him, so be it. Tanking and rebuilding is always easier on fans than it is on owners trying to sell season tickets.

[popper]

What is the overall feeling on trading Bradley Beal?

Most of us think Wall is 2 years away from being a useful player (if he ever is useful again). And with his cap hit destroying the ability to acquire any free agency talent, the best course is to take these 2 years to rebuild. Rebuilding would require trading Beal.

But understand that Beal is one of the very best trade assets in the league. He is currently the 13th leading scorer in the league and has actually been the 4th leading scorer since Wall went out. He is averaging 27.7 points, 6.4 assists and 5.4 rebounds without Wall on a TS% of .583. We're no longer talking about a pretty good second-fiddle. The guy is moving into legit, first-rate, carry-a-team territory. He's not in the same tier as Harden and Durant, but he's every bit as good as Oladipo, Kemba, Aldridge, etc. And he's only 25-years old and hasn't missed a game in 2 years.

The Wizards want A LOT in return for him. And the package should be heavy on picks, not players at the end of their rookie deals who may end up departing because of the Wizards' luxtax constraints. If Tobias Harris on an expiring deal was worth two 1sts (including Miami's likely lotto pick) and two 2nds, then Beal with 2 years left on his deal and a year younger is worth even more.

All that said, although us fans see the wisdom in trading Beal and rebuilding, I don't think management thinks the same way. I really don't think they're going to trade Beal. He's an All-NBA-caliber player with a GREAT attitude who is still young and improving. Those guys don't come along often, particularly to Washington. I think management will keep him regardless, and if it means they stay stuck in 40-win mediocrity for a few years because there is no way to build a team around him, so be it. Tanking and rebuilding is always easier on fans than it is on owners trying to sell season tickets.

Sadly I think you are right. We could get a sizable quality haul for Beal but mgmt will hold on to him and when he leaves at the end of his contract we will get nothing.

Edit - I’m hoping Beal requests trade ASAP