Arenas for Vince or dump Arenas for cap space?

[nate33]

I'll say it again. Would it makes sense, with the team that we have now, to sign Gilbert Arenas to a 4-year $80M contract? The answer is clearly, no.

Stop right there. Take yourself back to when this franchise hadn't signed a franchise player in how many years before Gil came here? Take yourself back to just being putting out MJ on his ass, and the PR hit this franchise took at that time.

Your full of **** completely if you think you can just erase history and use hindsight as your basis for your arguement. There is a reason we are where we are right now. You DON'T want to fire the GM who signed him to the ridiculous deal, but you wanna use that ridiculous deal for the # we'd sign him for.

Take it all the way back to 2003 when he signed here, with the talent we have right now, if someone like Arenas was even willing to come to D.C., and I think there is a very good argument for signing him here.

Edited to add: nate has gone from being somewhat reasonable in how he approaches dealing with Arenas, to a flat out hater himself. Your whole argument is that Cap Space is valuable, when our GM has shown throughout his tenure to do nothing positive with it at all.

Krisko Zero, you bash me and sound as if you disagree with me, yet your argument is actually in agreement with mine.

Yes, back in 2003, we were in desperate need of a star. Yes, that need for a face of the franchise was one of the critical factors that tipped the scales in the decision to resign Arenas to a $113M contract.

My point is that those circumstances no longer exist. We are no longer in need of face of the franchise. We have one in John Wall. We are no longer in need of a PG. We have one in John Wall. We no longer need to keep a 28-year-old around when the rest of the team averages 22. It no longer make sense to keep Arenas.

Whenever I say this, you take it personally. You seem to think by moving Arenas, we are somehow spitting in his face. That we are using him up and then discarding him like old trash. That's where you are wrong. Moving Arenas isn't only good for the Wizards, it's good for Arenas too. It's not like he won't be getting paid. He will just be playing for a franchise that actually needs a guy at his age with his skillset. It's a win-win for everyone as far as I'm concerned.

[bullitz]

There are two common denominators with your fire-sale example--two perennial contenders that the old NBA business model needed on top to survive. I don't think its a conincidence that those are the only teams that have benefitted from such deals that netted a true star.


Also, Ted's mentioned this before in an interview, the business of the NBA has to change and has to change quick. I think the new CBA will reflect a much more "home-grown" atmosphere similar to the NFL where stars rarely leave the team that drafted them. I say this because I don't believe the current NBA model (with a handful of teams capable of winning it all every season) is very sustainable. Potential and current owners are no longer willing to pay a premium to be a mid or low-level team. They want to win and that means a fundamental change in the way players are acquired and retained must change. This pertains to a more formidable salary cap as well to naturally keep salaries down.

What does this mean re: Gilbert. I think it will become increasingly less likely that stars will switch teams. The NBA right now is more similar to the gimmicky WWF than the team sports standard NFL where you know who's gonna win before the clock starts. That will not work forever. So, I don't see a star level free agent coming through DC unless we draft him.

[nate33]

I think it will become increasingly less likely that stars will switch teams. The NBA right now is more similar to the gimmicky WWF than the team sports standard NFL where you know who's gonna win before the clock starts. That will not work forever. So, I don't see a star level free agent coming through DC unless we draft him.

I think you have it exactly backwards. I think the new CBA is going to involve a harder cap and higher luxtax penalties which will lead to a fire sale of high priced stars in Summer 2012. You may be right that player movement will decrease thereafter, but there must first be a purging of contracts. That will most likely be our opportunity to act (unless we get an opportunity sooner for some other unforeseen reason). We will be a young, up-and-coming team in a major media market with a ton of cap room to spend and a star PG to help recruit.

[pancakes3]

Star fire sales happen from time to time. We will be in much better position to acquire such a star without Arenas' salary on our books.

star firesales RARELY happen, and when they do it almost always involves a disgruntled star or a small market team losing their prize player to a larger market team. This means that if we clear cap room (for the next 4 years only) we would be either getting a headcase or overpaying for a different player.

KG happened because he was disgruntled. Ray Allen shook loose because the supersonics collapsed like a dying star. Gasol's trade is so bizarre and singular an event the most plausible explanation is an elaborate and devious conspiracy theory. Iverson - headcase. Shaq? feud + age. From Joe Johnson, McGrady, and Baron Davis onwards, it's a string of overpaying for talent either by signing or trading for. We're about to see it happen again with Bosh, Stoudemire, and Johnson if they ink 20+mil deals.

in fact the only times i can think of a team getting a star externally where it has worked out well in the past 10 years was our original deal with arenas and Nash going to phoenix. 2x in 10 years. The odds of our cap room working for us, especially when competing with megamarkets like NYC, Chicago, and LA are definitely against us.

i mean, in the next 4 years, who can we realistically pry away? Paul? Deron? not with Wall in the picture. Howard? Gasol? you can bet the losers of the LBJ sweepstakes (knicks, nets, bulls, clippers, heat) will be able to outbid us for them. what other talent is out there in the next 4 years?

i'm with fish. gil and wall form the best bet to foster a basketball culture - to get butts in the seats - to indoctorinate a generation of fans (local young 20-somethings don't give two poops about the NBA). if ted kill the hype now and condemn us for a string of 30-win seasons all in the name of cap room is a horrific misstep all in the name of dollars. the armchair economist in me would say that doing that is ignoring the enormous aspect of "externalities" in the sports industry.

[fishercob]

I think it will become increasingly less likely that stars will switch teams. The NBA right now is more similar to the gimmicky WWF than the team sports standard NFL where you know who's gonna win before the clock starts. That will not work forever. So, I don't see a star level free agent coming through DC unless we draft him.

I think you have it exactly backwards. I think the new CBA is going to involve a harder cap and higher luxtax penalties which will lead to a fire sale of high priced stars in Summer 2012. You may be right that player movement will decrease thereafter, but there must first be a purging of contracts. That will most likely be our opportunity to act (unless we get an opportunity sooner for some other unforeseen reason). We will be a young, up-and-coming team in a major media market with a ton of cap room to spend and a star PG to help recruit.

I'm guessing that the reformed CBA will have another one-time amnesty opportunity a la The Allan Houston Rule. How can in not with the orgy of spending that's about to take place in the next few weeks? Perhaps we use that opportunity to unload Gil if need be.

[willbcocks]

Don't confuse the two goals. It's not about turning a profit quickly. It's specifically about selling tickets, filling the building, etc. While replacing Gil with a low-salary alternative helps the bottom line, it does nothing to achieve Ted's stated goal of selling tickets immediately.

I disagree. I think short term there will be little difference in the number of tickets sold--Gil's image will hurt the team as much as the extra wins he gives them helps ticket sales. And long term I think moving Gil is best for the team's W/L column, so it's better for long term sales. On top of the 60 million savings.

WHy is it any more premature to make a positive statement than it is to make a negative one -- especially after we've already seen with our own eyes how effective a healthy, increasingly comfortable Gil was. He scored 45 in the 24th game of the season. He had 19 and 14 dimes in his final game pre-suspension. he was pretty much a terror on offense once he got his sea legs.

I think any statement about Gil's health over the next 3 years is premature. We know he has an injury history but looked ok last year, a little slower, even at the end, but with improvement. Your original statement, though, was that the history is a non issue, which is what I dispute.

First of all, you snipped plenty of what I wrote; those two passages didn't relate directly to one another. I don't make him out to be dumb at petty at all. I think he'd legitimately consider the wisdom keeping Ernie as the leader of the front office were her reverse course on the Gil's worth with essentially no new information about his health. You portrayal of Ted above reads to me like he's Ernie's daddy just happy that his son is learning life's lessons (not your goal, I'm sure). I think Ted could care less if Ernie internalized the message of today's "One to Grow On." He wants to make sure the guy he's trusting with his and his partners' money is the right man for the job.

I connected the two because I saw dissonance between them. Here's what you originally said:

Here's the other thing: how on earth does Ernie walk into Ted's office and tell him to trade Gil because of his injury history?? Ted's first response is going to be "you mean, you signed this guy to a deal worth $111M of your boss's money knowing he was hurt and now we need to move him because of his injury history?" Ernie would look preposterous to the new boss he's trying to impress. Any version of "I didn't know the extent..." is unacceptable from the guy with whom the buck supposedly stops.

This would be very poor management. It would encourage EG to hide past mistakes instead of owning up to them and fixing them. A good manager would applaud EG for this, not chastise him.

Note that I am not an EG supporter. I would prefer a new GM, but am not calling for his head like Dat or others. I do think that Ted will keep him, and it's in that context that I disagree with your assessment of Ted's reaction to EG trying to trade Gil.

[bullitz]

I think it will become increasingly less likely that stars will switch teams. The NBA right now is more similar to the gimmicky WWF than the team sports standard NFL where you know who's gonna win before the clock starts. That will not work forever. So, I don't see a star level free agent coming through DC unless we draft him.

I think you have it exactly backwards. I think the new CBA is going to involve a harder cap and higher luxtax penalties which will lead to a fire sale of high priced stars in Summer 2012. You may be right that player movement will decrease thereafter, but there must first be a purging of contracts. That will most likely be our opportunity to act (unless we get an opportunity sooner for some other unforeseen reason). We will be a young, up-and-coming team in a major media market with a ton of cap room to spend and a star PG to help recruit.

I seriously doubt NBA owners, most of whom have at least one "overpaid" player on their roster, and who are a major party to negotiations are going to mortgage their future by agreeing to a system without taking into consideration contracts that are "grandfathered" in. I don't think there'll be a luxtax at all if there is a true hard cap. The owners will likely institute a gradual hard cap so as to not punish themselves with the contracts they agreed to under a flawed system that they let go too far.

[bullitz]

I think it will become increasingly less likely that stars will switch teams. The NBA right now is more similar to the gimmicky WWF than the team sports standard NFL where you know who's gonna win before the clock starts. That will not work forever. So, I don't see a star level free agent coming through DC unless we draft him.

I think you have it exactly backwards. I think the new CBA is going to involve a harder cap and higher luxtax penalties which will lead to a fire sale of high priced stars in Summer 2012. You may be right that player movement will decrease thereafter, but there must first be a purging of contracts. That will most likely be our opportunity to act (unless we get an opportunity sooner for some other unforeseen reason). We will be a young, up-and-coming team in a major media market with a ton of cap room to spend and a star PG to help recruit.

I'm guessing that the reformed CBA will have another one-time amnesty opportunity a la The Allan Houston Rule. How can in not with the orgy of spending that's about to take place in the next few weeks? Perhaps we use that opportunity to unload Gil if need be.

Exactly. The owners will have the say in the next CBA. The bottomline is they won't agree to something that harms the majority of them, and will use whatever remedy they choose to protect themselves.

[nate33]

Star fire sales happen from time to time. We will be in much better position to acquire such a star without Arenas' salary on our books.

i mean, in the next 4 years, who can we realistically pry away? Paul? Deron? not with Wall in the picture. Howard? Gasol? you can bet the losers of the LBJ sweepstakes (knicks, nets, bulls, clippers, heat) will be able to outbid us for them. what other talent is out there in the next 4 years?

The losers in the LBJ sweepstakes are going to blow their wads on second tier stars. I can guarantee that Miami, New York and Chicago will fill up their rosters. I think it's 95% likely that the Nets will too. By next year, we will be the most attractive destination with a major media market, a stockpile of young talent and cap space.

Our plan should be to continue to do BOYD trades every summer to acquire expiring contracts and picks while maintaining salary flexibility to make a mid-season trade for a disgruntled or overpaid stars. Something will come along.

[Severn Hoos]

Also, Ted's mentioned this before in an interview, the business of the NBA has to change and has to change quick. I think the new CBA will reflect a much more "home-grown" atmosphere similar to the NFL where stars rarely leave the team that drafted them. I say this because I don't believe the current NBA model (with a handful of teams capable of winning it all every season) is very sustainable. Potential and current owners are no longer willing to pay a premium to be a mid or low-level team. They want to win and that means a fundamental change in the way players are acquired and retained must change. This pertains to a more formidable salary cap as well to naturally keep salaries down.

What does this mean re: Gilbert. I think it will become increasingly less likely that stars will switch teams. The NBA right now is more similar to the gimmicky WWF than the team sports standard NFL where you know who's gonna win before the clock starts. That will not work forever. So, I don't see a star level free agent coming through DC unless we draft him.

I see nate beat me to it, but I also think you have it backwards, as it relates to teams being able to keep players for most/all of their careers. After all, first you have the team draft a player and he's automatically locked in for 4 years if the team wants him. At that point, he's a restricted Free Agent - the team can match any offer for him. Now, the player could accept the Qualifying Offer, play out the next season, then be unrestricted. But he'd have to leave a lot of money on the table, assuming he's a true (max-worthy) star. And even then, his original team still has the advantage in terms of being able to offer an additional year and higher annual raises. And of course, because the current/original team can exceed the cap to re-sign him, a limited number of teams will be under the cap enough to even make a max-level offer - thus further limiting his options and strengthening the position of the original team.

Add in the way the NBA has closed other loopholes like the "Arenas Rule" for 2nd rounders, and I think they have done everything they can to keep players on one team for the majority of their careers.

What you're seeing this year is kind of a perfect storm with 3 guys from the same draft class (could have been 4 if Melo had also taken the 3-year contract in '07 when James, Bosh, and Wade did) all becoming max-worthy UFAs at the same time. So several teams did all they could to get cap space just in the hope of signing one of them. But it's not like this happens every year. We already expect Melo to re-sign next year, and Wade looks like a lock to return to Miami. It's still possible that James returns to the Cavs, and only Bosh is pretty well guaranteed to change teams. But even then, the Raptors got 7 years out of him - that's longer than many NFL careers, and certainly good value for a draft pick.

So when I look at it, I see Duncan, Kobe, & Pierce all winning championships with the teams that drafted them. I see Garnett staying with the team that drafted him for over a decade, only leaving at the tail end of his career in a move that was as much about appreciation for what he'd done than what the T-wolves got in return. Dirk has only ever been a Mav and will probably retire a Mav. I expect Howard to play out his entire career in Orlando. And it will be a long time (if ever) before Durant leaves the Thunder. A few superstars have moved around (Nash, Kidd, Shaq) - but to me they're more the exception than the rule. A LOT of 2nd tier stars have moved and/or may move again this summer (Ray Allen, Boozer, Joe Johnson, Pau Gasol, Kenyon Martin, Billups) - but even then, most of their previous moves were via trade, so the original team at least had some say in the matter, and theoretically got some value in return.

So not to be pedantic, but I really do think the NBA has done a good job seeing to it that the drafting team has every advantage in keeping their stars in place. The fact that a couple of lousy markets with historically mediocre teams (Cleveland & Toronto) may lose their superstars is hardly a shock or an indictment of the system. I'd be much more concerned that the new CBA will make it harder for a team to keep a superstar, not easier.

[fishercob]

Our plan should be to continue to do BOYD trades every summer to acquire expiring contracts and picks while maintaining salary flexibility to make a mid-season trade for a disgruntled or overpaid stars. Something will come along.

I don't disagree with this at all. I just don't think we need to trade Arenas for nothing to execute it -- at least not yet.

[nate33]

I think it will become increasingly less likely that stars will switch teams. The NBA right now is more similar to the gimmicky WWF than the team sports standard NFL where you know who's gonna win before the clock starts. That will not work forever. So, I don't see a star level free agent coming through DC unless we draft him.

I think you have it exactly backwards. I think the new CBA is going to involve a harder cap and higher luxtax penalties which will lead to a fire sale of high priced stars in Summer 2012. You may be right that player movement will decrease thereafter, but there must first be a purging of contracts. That will most likely be our opportunity to act (unless we get an opportunity sooner for some other unforeseen reason). We will be a young, up-and-coming team in a major media market with a ton of cap room to spend and a star PG to help recruit.

I'm guessing that the reformed CBA will have another one-time amnesty opportunity a la The Allan Houston Rule. How can in not with the orgy of spending that's about to take place in the next few weeks? Perhaps we use that opportunity to unload Gil if need be.

If we had cap space at the time, that would be an opportunity to pick up some bargains. When guys like Okafor, Iguodola, Rip Hamilton, Kirilenko flood the market, we could pick a bunch of them up. Heck, there may be guys like Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay and Carlos Boozer available once teams like NJ and NY get the opportunity to "Allan Houston" their 2010 free agency mistakes.

[willbcocks]

Anyway, to summarize my points:

-Gil is a great offensive player with a big contract who is 28 and has an injury history. He is not a good fit for a rebuilding team that has only 2 starter quality players, aged 23 and 19.

-Replacing Gil with nothing benefits us in a few ways: fewer wins so better draft position, more play time for youngins, cap space that can be used to acquire assets for our future. Also, "nothing" plays better defense than Gil, and I really want to establish a defensive team.

-Trading Gil is better for Gil. He could use a new start, both for personal and professional reasons.

-We have no idea if other teams are interested or not. If they are, it will be for the same reasons people are interested here--they think he will return to the Gil of old. For this reason, I disagree that we have nothing to lose by waiting and seeing what happens--we have a whole lot to lose if Gil gets re-injured or has lost a step. Then he becomes unmovable. NOTE: If he's already unmovable, then we have nothing to lose, but in this thread we are assuming he is.

-I have no idea what our FO is thinking. I'll leave that to our metaphysical analysts.

-The main driver of ticket sales will be our #1 pick and Wall dancer. Not a player arrested for bringing guns into the locker-room and our teams average, at best, record.

[bullitz]

So not to be pedantic, but I really do think the NBA has done a good job seeing to it that the drafting team has every advantage in keeping their stars in place. The fact that a couple of lousy markets with historically mediocre teams (Cleveland & Toronto) may lose their superstars is hardly a shock or an indictment of the system. I'd be much more concerned that the new CBA will make it harder for a team to keep a superstar, not easier.

Perhaps you both missed my point. The fact that it may be somewhat difficult for stars to switch teams does not preclude owners from being even more greedy and further restricting player movement. The system currently does not do enough to discourage a team from overpaying because the only punishment is paying more money via lux tax. Restricting movement even further could be key to keeping costs down (if team B can't overpay free agent x, team A does not have to pay an ridiculous sum to player x to keep him on the team because all teams, regardless of their financial position, are similarly situated) in addition to a hard salary cap. This is all speculation and my opinion on what is likely to happen and you two have your opinions. It can play out in more than one way. My point is that I don't see any fire-sales in the next CBA. They're not good for business.

[Zonkerbl]

If I'm an NBA owner, I LOVE the luxury tax. There is no such thing as a "hard" salary cap. The luxury tax is the best possible way to keep salaries down, by directly punishing owners for overspending. If I was an owner I would say "let's just get rid of the salary cap altogether and make the luxury tax two dollars for every dollar you go over it." It would make the negotiations much simpler -- just figure out what the luxury cap is. With a salary cap the players can start playing on owners' desire to hold on to stars like Larry Bird to get all sorts of crazy exemptions written into it. Look at the craziness of the current system. The luxury tax is the VAT of CBAs -- simple and self-regulating.

[BanndNDC]

- Gil will still be the main driver of ticket sales. The team as constituted isnt good enough for it to be Wall and people here are a lot more forgiving of Gilbert than it might appear.

- Trading Arenas for nothing to a division rival would set a horrible precedent to start an ownership term off on. It would confirm the worst fears ingrained in many bullets/wizards fans. we would be reminded of it regularly. and it goes against public pronouncements and stated theories on team building (not getting anything in return).

- Cap room for this team is fool's gold. our gm will simply waste it on over paid role players or do nothing with it.

- It's too hard to get "stars" in this league. a large majority of the league is overpaid. we dont need cap room. the better play is to wait and see if a wall/arenas backcourt works because it has the potential to be special. as long as the knee is not in worse shape than we thought there's not much downside and a whole lot of upside in not trading arenas for nothing.

- Orlando is clearly trying to play us. All the leaks have been from the Orlando side and seem to designed to make arenas for carter straight up a self-fulfilling prophecy that they reluctantly agree to. Getting played in such a transparent manner would be pathetic. Almost as pathetic as pulling the trigger early on #5 for miller/foye because EG was afraid it wouldnt be there on draft night. As long as Arenas' knee is not completely shot there will be further opportunities to trade him down the line.

[willbcocks]

- Trading Arenas for nothing to a division rival would set a horrible precedent to start an ownership term off on. It would confirm the worst fears ingrained in many bullets/wizards fans. we would be reminded of it regularly. and it goes against public pronouncements and stated theories on team building (not getting anything in return).

I realize Gil was a much bigger deal and the face of the franchise for a few years, but we did just trade 'Tawn, our face for the last 2 years, to our most hated of rivals, and everyone is thrilled with that trade.

[BanndNDC]

I realize Gil was a much bigger deal and the face of the franchise for a few years, but we did just trade 'Tawn, our face for the last 2 years, to our most hated of rivals, and everyone is thrilled with that trade.

Jamison was a Prime Minister. Arenas was an Emperor/King. Just because he abdicated doesn't mean he's worthless. Jamison was (rightly or wrongly) never truly loved or embraced, and we all know/knew it.

that was also then, when we were right up against the luxury tax and the season was over. not now, when we are under the salary cap and season is just beginning.

[AceDegenerate]

Come on see. willbcocks shows no evidence that he actually watches Wizards basketball. What Wizards fan compares Antawn Jamison and Gilbert Arenas as the faces of the franchise. The only way is you are talking in literal terms, then yes Jamison was probably always the "Face" of the franchise being the Team Captain and all. When it comes to basketball however, there is absolutely NO comparison.

[DCZards]

Anyway, to summarize my points:

Gil is a great offensive player with a big contract who is 28 and has an injury history. He is not a good fit for a rebuilding team that has only 2 starter quality players, aged 23 and 19.

I hear ya as far as the injury history is concerned but I don't understand why GA's age keeps get brought up as some kind of problem. It ain't like he's 30-something and it's not unheard of for teams with players in their early 20s to also have starters (in this case a star) who are 6-8 years older. In fact, sometimes it introduces an element of oncourt stability to have a veteran out there.

The main driver of ticket sales will be our #1 pick and Wall dancer. Not a player arrested for bringing guns into the locker-room and our teams average, at best, record.

Not sure why you feel the need to put the focus on Gil's arrest and guns, but I can assure you that GA still has a LOT of fans in this area who are more than willing to give him a second chance. And, while Wall will indeed be the big drawing card for the Zards, a ton of fans will still come out to see GA play. The Wall draw/appeal will wear out pretty quickly if the team sucks, but a winning team and an exciting Wall-Arenas backcourt will put butts in the seats all season long.