Bradley Beal - Part III

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

If you listen to the whole pod, Brad is pretty measured. Clearly he had a hand in the Russ trade once Russ was able to get his wish. Brad also acknowledges how bad he’s playing.

I think this was recorded a couple weeks ago before this 4-8 stretch. But it’s a good listen.

[popper]

Trade him ASAP.

[DANNYLANDOVER]

I've been on the trade Beal train for a while. Tbh, once Wall went down wit the Achilles, we should've been planning a rebuild.
Giving Beal a supermax contract will fit right in with the terrible contract decisions this franchise has made in the past.

[closg00]

At this point i'd rather Beal walk and we get nothing rather than take-up valuable cap space on a non-max player getting maxed-out money, he is only "that guy" on a weak mom and pop franchise.

[80sballboy]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10020625-wizards-bradley-beal-says-ive-been-s--tty-all-year-following-offseason-nba-rumors

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[prime1time]

To be a Wizards fan and have championship expectations is to constantly expose yourself to needless suffering. I wonder if there's another fan base who's more obsessed with rebuilding and tanking than ours. Now, once again this team is approaching a crossroads.

Is there really any reasonable argument that can be made for not signing Beal if he wants to be here? Even if it doesn't work out couldn't we just trade him? Even at the max, Beal would command trade interest from virtually every team. Here's the truth, simply rebuilding is going to get us nowhere. If we do trade Beal, it needs to be for the best possible deal and put us in the best possible position afterward. All of these people who clamor to just trade Beal and rebuild, do so in a way that shows their lack of basketball understanding. Just trading Beal and rebuilding will get this team nowhere.

At every step of building a team, you have to maximize value. Now if you're going to argue that Beal on a supermax would have no trade value - i.e. he would be an untradable contract - that's a different conversation. But it's just not true. With the ability to do a sign and trade, teams that are over the cap could match salaries and pair Beal with their stars.

Ultimately, the trade Beal crowd is lost because their position wreaks desperation. In short their position, as it sounds to me, is to trade Beal regardless of what we could get back thus perpetuating our long-term mediocrity. What happens with Beal will be the move that most impacts the next 5-7 years of this team.

The number of bad takes I've read on this forum have just been jarring. From trading Beal to get rid of Wall's contract. To trading Beal to get rid of Westbrook's contract. To letting Beal walk. To trading Beal for the opportunity to draft Jalen Suggs (for comparison purposes, Beal's first year he was 19 and he was significantly better than Suggs was at 20). We have one chance to get this right. If we get it wrong, we will perpetuate our mediocrity for years to come. This is why I'm glad that fans don't run the team.

[prime1time]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10020625-wizards-bradley-beal-says-ive-been-s--tty-all-year-following-offseason-nba-rumors

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Will another team be willing to trade for Bradley Beal on the supermax?

[prime1time]

Trade him ASAP.

These are the kind of posts that I don't understand. Why the desperation? Trading Beal because the Wizards are having a bad stretch is the worst - the worst - decision we could do. If you want to trade Beal fine. Do you not care about maximizing value? Do you not care about what offers we could receive? Do you not care about moving him at a time of strength? If the 76ers won't even trade Ben Simmons ASAP why should we trade Beal asap? I understand your frustration but dear lord Man, this is a decision that will reverberate for years to come. If done right, it legitimately has a chance to make us a potential championship contender. This is something that demands wise restraint and calm reasonableness. If we don't get an offer that we like for Beal, then I resign him. Because I know that for a team with one star like Joel Embiid or Nikola Jokic, Bradley Beal can make them championship contenders. And they would be more than willing to trade for him on a supermax contract or not.

Now, if you disagree with me, what you should be really saying is that Bradley Beal on a supermax is untradeable and we wouldn't be able to move him if need be.

[nate33]

Is there really any reasonable argument that can be made for not signing Beal if he wants to be here? Even if it doesn't work out couldn't we just trade him? Even at the max, Beal would command trade interest from virtually every team. Here's the truth, simply rebuilding is going to get us nowhere. If we do trade Beal, it needs to be for the best possible deal and put us in the best possible position afterward. All of these people who clamor to just trade Beal and rebuild, do so in a way that shows their lack of basketball understanding. Just trading Beal and rebuilding will get this team nowhere.

At every step of building a team, you have to maximize value. Now if you're going to argue that Beal on a supermax would have no trade value - i.e. he would be an untradable contract - that's a different conversation. But it's just not true. With the ability to do a sign and trade, teams that are over the cap could match salaries and pair Beal with their stars.

I sincerely believe you are wrong here. People said the same thing about Wall when he signed his deal.

Beal, at $45M a year, posting an ORtg of 102, is a negative value contract comparable to John Wall or maybe Porzingis. Even if he returns to his form from the last 3 seasons, he is, at best, a moveable contract, like a Khris Middleton or Tobias Harris, but not one with value. But teams only want Middleton and Harris at their price if they already have a Giannis or Embiid.

[queridiculo]

Is there really any reasonable argument that can be made for not signing Beal if he wants to be here? Even if it doesn't work out couldn't we just trade him? Even at the max, Beal would command trade interest from virtually every team. Here's the truth, simply rebuilding is going to get us nowhere. If we do trade Beal, it needs to be for the best possible deal and put us in the best possible position afterward. All of these people who clamor to just trade Beal and rebuild, do so in a way that shows their lack of basketball understanding. Just trading Beal and rebuilding will get this team nowhere.

At every step of building a team, you have to maximize value. Now if you're going to argue that Beal on a supermax would have no trade value - i.e. he would be an untradable contract - that's a different conversation. But it's just not true. With the ability to do a sign and trade, teams that are over the cap could match salaries and pair Beal with their stars.

I sincerely believe you are wrong here. People said the same thing about Wall when he signed his deal.

Beal, at $45M a year, posting an ORtg of 102 is a negative value contract comparable to John Wall or maybe Porzingis. Even if he returns to his form from the last 3 seasons, he is, at best, a moveable contract, like a Khris Middleton or Tobias Harris, but not one with value. But teams only want Middleton and Harris at their price if they already have a Giannis or Embiid.

Best case scenario, Beal plays like he did in 2019 and 2020.

Is there still room for improvement? Undoubtedly.

He can get back to being a good 3-pt shooter and with a bit more room to operate I am sure he'll be able to get back to being a deadly finisher inside.

However, the main thing this franchise needs to come to terms with is, Beal cannot be the best player on a contending team, period.

It's foolish to continue to pretend that there's a scenario where that's not true, and all the Wizards are doing is setting themselves up for yet more disappointment.

[tontoz]

If i have to choose between paying Beal the max or letting him walk i let him walk without hesitation.

We've seen this team without him. His absence wasn't a big deal.

[nate33]

I ask again, who are we bidding against?

A max contract next year starts out at $42.5M. Other teams can offer 4 years with 5% raises, we can offer 5 years with 8% raises. But for a team to have $42.5M in cap room available for Beal, all the other salary on their books cannot amount to more than $77M, and that number has to include $900K cap holds for 12 roster spots.

What team can scrape together $42.5M in cap room and would be willing to give it to Beal? The only teams that could conceivably get there without sacrificing good players are Detroit and San Antonio; and neither are interested in a 29-year-old SG making $45M a year. Nobody else can scrape together much more than $20M in cap room.

It wouldn't surprise me if Sheppard and Beal reach an impasse, and Beal ultimately opts in on the final year of his existing contract at $36.4M, and then we go through this entire exercise again in 2023.

[payitforward]

Is there really any reasonable argument that can be made for not signing Beal if he wants to be here? Even if it doesn't work out couldn't we just trade him? Even at the max, Beal would command trade interest from virtually every team. Here's the truth, simply rebuilding is going to get us nowhere. If we do trade Beal, it needs to be for the best possible deal and put us in the best possible position afterward. All of these people who clamor to just trade Beal and rebuild, do so in a way that shows their lack of basketball understanding. Just trading Beal and rebuilding will get this team nowhere.

At every step of building a team, you have to maximize value. Now if you're going to argue that Beal on a supermax would have no trade value - i.e. he would be an untradable contract - that's a different conversation. But it's just not true. With the ability to do a sign and trade, teams that are over the cap could match salaries and pair Beal with their stars.

I sincerely believe you are wrong here. People said the same thing about Wall when he signed his deal.

Beal, at $45M a year, posting an ORtg of 102, is a negative value contract comparable to John Wall or maybe Porzingis. Even if he returns to his form from the last 3 seasons, he is, at best, a moveable contract, like a Khris Middleton or Tobias Harris, but not one with value. But teams only want Middleton and Harris at their price if they already have a Giannis or Embiid.

Thing is... Bradley Beal -- playing at the level of the last 2-3 years not at this year's level -- is still NOT worth a supermax contract. Period. He's a terrific player; that's not open to question. But, he's not a superstar.

& that is the "reasonable argument... for not signing Beal" to a supermax contract. In fact, that's what "a negative value contract" means -- a contract that overpays a player.

If every player on your roster is overpaid, then you have a bad team. By definition. Or you are way way into lux tax territory. It's one or the other -- or both!

[payitforward]

...It wouldn't surprise me if Sheppard and Beal reach an impasse, and Beal ultimately opts in on the final year of his existing contract at $36.4M, and then we go through this entire exercise again in 2023.

That might be the best scenario, in fact. For both parties.

[FAH1223]

...It wouldn't surprise me if Sheppard and Beal reach an impasse, and Beal ultimately opts in on the final year of his existing contract at $36.4M, and then we go through this entire exercise again in 2023.

That might be the best scenario, in fact. For both parties.

I doubt that happens. Too much $$$$ is at stake and if he gets hurt, he loses hundreds of millions.

They may reach an impasse at lower number but still going to be close to the 10 year veteran max of $235M over 5 years.

Woj is very close to his agent, Mark Bartelstein, and on his podcast has basically said all parties know where this situation is headed. It's going to end in a big contract that makes all parties happy.

[nate33]

...It wouldn't surprise me if Sheppard and Beal reach an impasse, and Beal ultimately opts in on the final year of his existing contract at $36.4M, and then we go through this entire exercise again in 2023.

That might be the best scenario, in fact. For both parties.

I doubt that happens. Too much $$$$ is at stake and if he gets hurt, he loses hundreds of millions.

They may reach an impasse at lower number but still going to be close to the 10 year veteran max of $235M over 5 years.

Woj is very close to his agent, Mark Bartelstein, and on his podcast has basically said all parties know where this situation is headed. It's going to end in a big contract that makes all parties happy.

When did he say this? I agree that all parties had an idea where this was going as of last summer. But have they taken into account that Beal isn't even approaching an All-Star level of performance this season? (And he is certainly no where near the realm of an All-NBA caliber player.)

[FAH1223]

That might be the best scenario, in fact. For both parties.

I doubt that happens. Too much $$$$ is at stake and if he gets hurt, he loses hundreds of millions.

They may reach an impasse at lower number but still going to be close to the 10 year veteran max of $235M over 5 years.

Woj is very close to his agent, Mark Bartelstein, and on his podcast has basically said all parties know where this situation is headed. It's going to end in a big contract that makes all parties happy.

When did he say this? I agree that all parties had an idea where this was going as of last summer. But have they taken into account that Beal isn't even approaching an All-Star level of performance this season? (And he is certainly no where near the realm of an All-NBA caliber player.)

3 weeks ago

Read on Twitter

[prime1time]

Is there really any reasonable argument that can be made for not signing Beal if he wants to be here? Even if it doesn't work out couldn't we just trade him? Even at the max, Beal would command trade interest from virtually every team. Here's the truth, simply rebuilding is going to get us nowhere. If we do trade Beal, it needs to be for the best possible deal and put us in the best possible position afterward. All of these people who clamor to just trade Beal and rebuild, do so in a way that shows their lack of basketball understanding. Just trading Beal and rebuilding will get this team nowhere.

At every step of building a team, you have to maximize value. Now if you're going to argue that Beal on a supermax would have no trade value - i.e. he would be an untradable contract - that's a different conversation. But it's just not true. With the ability to do a sign and trade, teams that are over the cap could match salaries and pair Beal with their stars.

I sincerely believe you are wrong here. People said the same thing about Wall when he signed his deal.

Beal, at $45M a year, posting an ORtg of 102, is a negative value contract comparable to John Wall or maybe Porzingis. Even if he returns to his form from the last 3 seasons, he is, at best, a moveable contract, like a Khris Middleton or Tobias Harris, but not one with value. But teams only want Middleton and Harris at their price if they already have a Giannis or Embiid.

Thing is... Bradley Beal -- playing at the level of the last 2-3 years not at this year's level -- is still NOT worth a supermax contract. Period. He's a terrific player; that's not open to question. But, he's not a superstar.

& that is the "reasonable argument... for not signing Beal" to a supermax contract. In fact, that's what "a negative value contract" means -- a contract that overpays a player.

If every player on your roster is overpaid, then you have a bad team. By definition. Or you are way way into lux tax territory. It's one or the other -- or both!

How many players in your estimation are worthy of a supermax? Are there any secondary players who are worthy of getting a supermax?

The notion that every player on your roster is overpaid, is so abstract that is has no meaning. The way the NBA works as currently organized is primary and secondary stars get max contracts. Then you fill your team up with ring chasing vets who get the minimum and young players. The young players and the vets provide the surplus value. The goal of building a team is to win a championship, Not to pay everyone what they are worth. There are a limited number of primary and secondary stars in the league. Primary players provide more value than a supermax. Secondary players don't. But you can't win a championship without them. And there aren't enough secondary stars for everyone who wants one to have one. So the law of supply and demand will come into play.

Also, let's be realistic here. Since so many Wizards fans insist on using our inablity to become a contender if we keep Beal. The reality is that with teams like the Warriors and the Nets, unless you are willing to go way into the luxury tax, you have no chance of building a championship contender. If the Nets were healthy last year the Bucks would have gotten swept. And to make a legit run at the Nets, the Bucks (who were already into the luxury tax) would have needed to add another talented starter at least.

If we are talking about Championships, explain is there any way you can build a championship team and not go way into the luxury tax? Look at the teams who have won championships. Bron/Wade/Bosh, Allen/Pierce/Rondo/Garnett, KD/Curry/Green/Thompson, Giannis/Holiday/Middleton.

Here's a thought experiment, let's say Beal is generous and says "I'll resign for 35 million instead of 45 million so we can have money to build the team." Would that change your mind? And if so why? What would we do with those 10 million dollars that would be so franchise-altering?

[nate33]

The notion that every player on your roster is overpaid, is so abstract that is has no meaning. The way the NBA works as currently organized is primary and secondary stars get max contracts. Then you fill your team up with ring chasing vets who get the minimum and young players.

Yes. That's the way it works. But unfortunately, because that's the way it works, the teams that are unfortunate enough to be paying a 2nd tier star a supermax contract end up capped out with no chance at a title. They end up like OKC with Westbrook (after Durant and Harden left). Or like KAT in Minnesota. Or like Blake Griffin in Detroit. The way out of that trap is NOT to pay the guy the max. And as I've said several times, in this particular case, there aren't any other suitors so the odds remain high that Beal can be retained at a lesser cost. Why should we be paying him more than Chicago paid Derozan?

Here's a thought experiment, let's say Beal is generous and says "I'll resign for 35 million instead of 45 million so we can have money to build the team." Would that change your mind? And if so why? What would we do with those 10 million dollars that would be so franchise-altering?

Possibly. It might be the difference between adding another star like a KAT or Kyrie Irving to play with Beal, versus adding a mediocre guy like Montrez Harrell. The bottom line is that it helps a great deal to have some wiggle room under the cap and luxtax to make future trades. With Beal at $45M, there will be no wiggle room, ever.

[tontoz]

Beal has never made 1st or 2nd team All-NBA. He made the 3rd team for the first time last year.

This year he probably won't make the All-Star game (which he has made only 3 times).

Paying $40+ million for a guy like that on a non-contending team makes no sense.