Summer 2012 Free Agents Thread - Part II

[Hoopalotta]

Sev, of all the stuff you laid out, I think the best "don't make the Okaforiza trade, do this instead" path would have been your fourth option, the disgruntled superstar possibility. If not disgruntled superstar, just maintain some cap flexibility during the season and see if it helps our leverage with a trade. However, that is by no means without risk and downside.

Okafor might be someone who contributes on the court, in the locker room, and ultimately, as a trade piece. That, or he could play well enough to make Nene a guy the Wizards get value for in a trade.

This is what I'm feeling is most likely, though probably not during the upcoming season.

[GhostsOfGil]

I don't understand the "Jordan can create his own shot" statement. Of the people who qualified, he ranked second to last in points per play. Yes, he can get his shot off at any time, but he does so at a historically inefficient rate. I'd rather anyone (sans Ves) force a 15 footer than let JC "create." His poor shot selection overshadows his ability to get his shot off.

[nate33]

I don't understand the "Jordan can create his own shot" statement. Of the people who qualified, he ranked second to last in points per play. Yes, he can get his shot off at any time, but he does so at a historically inefficient rate. I'd rather anyone (sans Ves) force a 15 footer than JC "create." His poor shot selection overshadows his ability to get his shot off.

I don't think it's quite so cut and dry. Yes, he is an inefficient player and we should not design an offense where Jordan Crawford consistently "creates shots" in one-on-one coverage. But that doesn't mean that his shot creation skills are completely unhelpful. There will be times when the offense breaks down, or when they are holding for a last shot, when it helps to have a guy create on his own. I'd rather Crawford take that shot than, say, Chris Singleton.

[GhostsOfGil]

I don't understand the "Jordan can create his own shot" statement. Of the people who qualified, he ranked second to last in points per play. Yes, he can get his shot off at any time, but he does so at a historically inefficient rate. I'd rather anyone (sans Ves) force a 15 footer than JC "create." His poor shot selection overshadows his ability to get his shot off.

I don't think it's quite so cut and dry. Yes, he is an inefficient player and we should not design an offense where Jordan Crawford consistently "creates shots" in one-on-one coverage. But that doesn't mean that his shot creation skills are completely unhelpful. There will be times when the offense breaks down, or when they are holding for a last shot, when it helps to have a guy create on his own. I'd rather Crawford take that shot than, say, Chris Singleton.

Fair enough. ^ I guess I'm a little skeptical about containing the bolded statement.

[Nivek]

I don't understand the "Jordan can create his own shot" statement. Of the people who qualified, he ranked second to last in points per play. Yes, he can get his shot off at any time, but he does so at a historically inefficient rate. I'd rather anyone (sans Ves) force a 15 footer than JC "create." His poor shot selection overshadows his ability to get his shot off.

I don't think it's quite so cut and dry. Yes, he is an inefficient player and we should not design an offense where Jordan Crawford consistently "creates shots" in one-on-one coverage. But that doesn't mean that his shot creation skills are completely unhelpful. There will be times when the offense breaks down, or when they are holding for a last shot, when it helps to have a guy create on his own. I'd rather Crawford take that shot than, say, Chris Singleton.

I'd rather the team just run its offense or a set play to get a shot than give the ball to Crawford and ask him to "create."

[VictorPage44]

My point applies from 2006 (the start of the last CBA) onward. That was when the rookie scale was implemented along with the rules that give advantages to the team trying to retain a free agent.

Any free agent who is able to get max or near max money upon completion of their rookie deal will always stay with their existing team. If they want to move, they must first play a fifth season under the Qualifying Offer, when they will be paid much less than a max salary.

The quickest avenue to unrestricted free agency while also maximizing salary potential is to serve out the 4 year rookie contract, sign a 3 year max extension, and then become an unrestricted free agent just at the time when max salaries rise (a 7 year vet max salary is much higher than a 6-year vet max salary).

Ok, so excuse my ignorance, but what does getting traded have to do with any of that?

Seems to me that only covers part of the equation: If a player tries to force a trade when he's a restricted free agent (again correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm not a cap expert).

Still leaves open the possibility for the team to want to trade the player, either for a better situation (Miami Big 3/vs Mike Beasley-- If Beasley had his head on straight, he'd be the PERFECT example) or maybe because the organization cant control the player -- like a Rodman situation. Cousins is as good a candidate as we have right now for that type of scenario, .

It doesnt happen all the time, for obvious reasons, but it's happened before and will happen again. Maybe you were speaking in generalities for emphasis, and I took it the wrong way, but the fact that I can name 15 Hall of Fame bigs who were traded when they still had gas in the tank doesnt speak well for your point.

Well sure. IF Cousins demands a trade and IF he wears out his welcome in Sacramento and IF they don't think that his production on the court outweighs the headaches off the court and IF Cousins wants to come in Washington, then, MAYBE we can work out a deal. But that's a heck of a lot of if's. Way to many for it to be a viable strategy.

The truth is, any GOOD big man stays with his team for a minimum of 7 years. Name one GOOD big man who has left his team within his first 7 years in the league under the 2006 CBA system.

If Cousins is obtainable, chances are it's because he isn't very good.

Zach Randolph was traded 3 times. And your equation doesnt account for 2nd round picks either.

IF it's not Demarcus Cousins, IT WILL BE someone else. Human nature hasnt changed because of the 2006 CBA.

Pau Gasol is another, traded in his 7th year with Memphis.

[nate33]

Zach Randolph was traded 3 times. And your equation doesnt account for 2nd round picks either.

IF it's not Demarcus Cousins, IT WILL BE someone else. Human nature hasnt changed because of the 2006 CBA.

Pau Gasol is another, traded in his 7th year with Memphis.

Who cares about 2nd round picks? We're talking about Cousins here. And Pau Gasol was traded in his 7th year because he was about to become an unrestricted free agent and bolt. That's my point. Nothing happens until the 7th season.

The Zach Randolph situation I supposed is the best hope. Though Randolph played 6 years in Portland before they finally got fed up with his attitude. And he was a disaster in New York.

[nate33]

I don't understand the "Jordan can create his own shot" statement. Of the people who qualified, he ranked second to last in points per play. Yes, he can get his shot off at any time, but he does so at a historically inefficient rate. I'd rather anyone (sans Ves) force a 15 footer than JC "create." His poor shot selection overshadows his ability to get his shot off.

I don't think it's quite so cut and dry. Yes, he is an inefficient player and we should not design an offense where Jordan Crawford consistently "creates shots" in one-on-one coverage. But that doesn't mean that his shot creation skills are completely unhelpful. There will be times when the offense breaks down, or when they are holding for a last shot, when it helps to have a guy create on his own. I'd rather Crawford take that shot than, say, Chris Singleton.

I'd rather the team just run its offense or a set play to get a shot than give the ball to Crawford and ask him to "create."

Of course, Nivek. So would I. But it's not always that simple. Sometimes the defense sniffs out the offensive play and stops it. Then you are stuck with somebody having the ball with 5 seconds left on the shot clock and no play to run. Outside of Wall and maybe Nene, I'd rather that somebody be Crawford than anybody else currently on the roster.

[Severn Hoos]

Roy Hibbert is illustrative here. He's certainly very good, but I would say he's not an elite big man. Portland had to give him a Max contract to even get his signature on the offer sheet, and there's a good chance Indiana matches. Now, you can argue whether or not Hibbert is worth a max deal. But any big man who is better than Roy (i.e., top-5 or 10 at his position) will be a no-brainer match for his current team.

[theboomking]

Sev, I stopped worrying about the Okaforiza deal when it dawned on me those guys are still tradeable assets. EG took them on and if the Wizards do better they will be associated with success. Things change quickly. Okafor could come in healthy and Ariza motivated. Trades bring opportunities. Nene really impressed in DC after his image had taken a few hits in Denver.
.

Even if Ariza and Okafor suck, they are going to have value next year as trade chips. I would expect two, truly expiring contracts would bring back better than what we got for Lewis.

[Hoopalotta]

I don't understand the "Jordan can create his own shot" statement. Of the people who qualified, he ranked second to last in points per play. Yes, he can get his shot off at any time, but he does so at a historically inefficient rate. I'd rather anyone (sans Ves) force a 15 footer than let JC "create." His poor shot selection overshadows his ability to get his shot off.

Well, you see, Ghosts, there might be times at the office where you need to say something like "Steve, you see that stapler over there? Yeah? Well, I'd like you to pick it up and pop a staple right through my left cheek. I think it might help me concentrate and finally get the Peterson file sorted out."

Ok, no, that wasn't what I was trying to say at all.

What I meant to say was that there might be times during a basketball game where you need to say something like "Jordan, you see that basketball over there? Yeah? Well, I'd like you to pick it up and pop a 29 foot jumper off the dribble with fifteen seconds on the shot clock. I think it might help finally beat the Spurs."

Not sure how I got those entirely dissimilar situations mixed up.

Ok, more seriously, I can see Nate's point in general, but it just seems to me that Jordan is just a little too far gone into chuckerhood to where I'm not hopeful about his potential for redemption. Also, I worry about how he's going to feel about a diminished role and team chemistry.

[VictorPage44]

The discussion expanded to 2nd round picks when you said "name one good big..." and when you said "no good bigs ever..."

I mean any trade of a top tier big, early in his career is going to be about character and fit (obviously). Deron Williams situation shows precident has been set for trading the guy in the 6th year. Maybe next time it's the 5th year. Speaking of which, where does Derrick Favors figure into all of this? Point is you dont know, and the CBA rules are not a good indicator because anything can and will happen. Yes, THIS time the big man was traded 6th/7th year. That doesnt mean it wont happen sooner next time.

Does the Beasley situation not apply either? Eventually, there's gonna be a Beasley that makes the leap on his second team. Who's to say it WONT be Beasley either? He'll likely move this offseason, since he was coming off the bench last year (and still averaging 18ppg). If he goes to the right team, Beasley will be very good.

[nate33]

No. There is no precedent. Under the new CBA, teams don't lose top line talent to free agency (or lopsided trade) until the 7th season (or perhaps in the middle of the 6th season if there is a credible threat that the player will bolt). This whole issue came up because of the notion that we can somehow acquire Cousins. It's a pipe dream. Cousins won't be available for at least 4 more years, and probably not for 5 (and it might be as long as 7 years if Cousins elects to sign a full 5-year max deal when his rookie contract expires). That's way too far down the road to plan for at this time. Let's stop wasting time discussing it.

The only way to acquire Cousins in the foreseeable future is to give fair value. Which means John Wall.

[VictorPage44]

No. There is no precedent. .

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Sorry for wasting your time.

[nate33]

Ok, more seriously, I can see Nate's point in general, but it just seems to me that Jordan is just a little too far gone into chuckerhood to where I'm not hopeful about his potential for redemption. Also, I worry about how he's going to feel about a diminished role and team chemistry.

Just for clarity. I'm not saying I like Crawford. I'd like to see him replaced with a better player. Certainly, if Beal demonstrates the ability to create his own shot with some reasonable efficiency, then I'd be comfortable cutting the cord with Crawford.

All I'm saying is that we need more than one guard who is capable of creating off the dribble. For now, the only guy besides Wall that can do that is Crawford. If he plays on the 2nd unit, and can be reeled in a bit (bench him every time he shoots with more than 15 seconds on the shot clock unless it's a layup), he's the best we've got for the time being. Dumping him and replacing him with Cartier Martin is going to cause some offensive problems.

[GhostsOfGil]

Well, you see, Ghosts, there might be times at the office where you need to say something like "Steve, you see that stapler over there? Yeah? Well, I'd like you to pick it up and pop a staple right through my left cheek. I think it might help me concentrate and finally get the Peterson file sorted out."

What I meant to say was that there might be times during a basketball game where you need to say something like "Jordan, you see that basketball over there? Yeah? Well, I'd like you to pick it up and pop a 29 foot jumper off the dribble with fifteen seconds on the shot clock. I think it might help finally beat the Spurs."
Not sure how I got those entirely dissimilar situations mixed up.

[nate33]

No. There is no precedent. .

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Sorry for wasting your time.

VictorPage44, this whole argument has gone so far off tangent that we are losing site of the primary point: that Cousins isn't available for trade or free agency unless we give fair value.

This whole discussion began when a Cousins trade was proposed involving Seraphin and a pick and whatever other filler we could throw in. That's ridiculous. You can't get a good young big for a collection of second tier talent and role players.

There are a few examples of good young bigs being traded (such as Derrick Favors) but in those trades, there was equal or better value going the other way. Either that, or there was something very wrong with the big man in question (Zach Randolph) or he was about to bolt via free agency (Gasol, Bosh). But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about acquiring Cousins in the next year or so ( and assuming he hasn't totally broken down mentally). Not gonna happen.

[VictorPage44]

We just used #3 on Beal, he better be able to create his own shot.

[nate33]

We just used #3 on Beal, he better be able to create his own shot.

Yeah, I forgot about Beal when I first argued in favor of Crawford. The more I think about it, the more I think Crawford is probably expendable. I'd prefer to give Beal a season to acclimate to the NBA before relying on him to create, but I'm sure he'll figure it out either way.

[VictorPage44]

I dont want to give up on Crawford yet either. Keep him at least 20 games. All anyone else is saying, is "The way he's headed, he's likely gonna get traded with this new management approach".

I dont want Bradley Beal learning anything from Jordan Crawford.

We can end the Cousins discussion. I get your point and I dont agree with it.