Bradley Beal - Part IV

[Tyrone Messby]

The irony of it all is if Beal signs a supermax he ends any chance of “building a contender” here Let’s be real, he does not care about winning just like our terrible owner. I’d take Snyder over Leonsis. That’s how much I can’t stand Ted.

snyder at least tried. He fired and hired a bunch of people to try to make something work. Ted just dosent care

Snyder might’ve been a great NBA owner slinging all that money around and trying to buy the best.

[jangles86]

Might aswell pack up shop if Beal is giving the supermax.

Trade him.

It’s just so awkward now.

[pcbothwel]

We need to step back for a second. I am in no way suggesting that Beal is a Super Max player, but people are really comparing apples and oranges. If we are talking about the ability to add talent around him, how does it actually effect that process?
1) The Super Max enables Beal to get slightly higher raises and a 5th year
2) Because of the TV deal in 2025 and massive cap jump, we can mostly say that the last 2 years of the deal wont be as punitive as would be in most scenarios.
So lets really look at the first 3 years of the deal:
- With us on the Super Max, Beal will make 43M, 46M, and 49M (138M)
- With another team for the Max, he'd make 43M, 45M, 47M (134M)

Guys... That additional 1.5M/ year is barely a Vet min player. Again, we can discuss years 4 & 5 when he'll make almost 110M, but we are talking about an environment where the cap will be 25%+ higher. When Beal is making 52M in 25-26, standard Vet Max contracts of 30% will be in the 45M range...I.E. Jamal Murray

Again, this is not a pro vs con list of Maxing Beal... but simply showing that giving the Beal the Max vs Super Max makes no tangible difference for the next 3 years in terms of team salary and his last 2 years become manageable/tradeable due to the spike in the cap.

[closg00]

I posted this in the trade thread but it probably belongs here. I'd like to be able to reference it in the future:



Going by VORP, Bradley Beal was the 123rd best player in the NBA last year. Perhaps that's unfair because of the injury, but going by BPM, which is basically per-minute VORP, Beal was the 72nd best player in the NBA last year (among guys playing 1500+ minutes).

Going by Wins Above Replacement, Beal was the 117th best player in the NBA last year. Again, that's unfair because of his injury; but going by RAPTOR, which is basically per-minute WAR, Beal was the 80th best player in the NBA.

So by objective measures, using two well-respected measurements that factor his statistical production and on/off impact, and ignoring that he missed games due to injury, Beal was maybe the 75th best player in the league last year, give or take. The 75th highest paid player in the league last year was Clint Capela, who made $17.1M. He is owed $18.2M this year. That should be a starting point in the salary negotiation.

But let's give Beal the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume last year was a total aberration and that he deserves to be assessed based on his play the previous year when he was an All-NBA player.

In 2020-21, Beal ranked 24th by VORP, partially due to the minutes load he carried. BPM was a little less kind, ranking him 30th. In 2020-21, WAR ranked him 25th and RAPTOR ranked him 29th. So by objective measures, he was roughly the 30th best player in the league on a per-minute basis, but because of his durability, he was closer to 25th. The 25th highest paid player last year was Andrew Wiggins at $31M. He is owed $33M this year. That should be the upper end of his salary in an objective salary negotiation. And honestly, it's pretty risky to assume Beal can get back to his 2020-21 production because the rule changes appeared to affect his style of play more than most.

If I was Sheppard, I'd generously offer Beal a 5-year contract starting at his player option price of $36M, but it would not have raises. Indeed, I'd have it decline in the later years in anticipation of Beal's decline with age. I'd structure it something like this:

Year 1 - $36M
Year 2 - $36M
Year 3 - $33M
Year 4 - $30M
Year 5 - $27M (team option)

This is objectively more generous than he deserves. Call it gratitude for his long service. And to be fair, Beal also deserves a little consideration for the fact that he is a pro's pro who will work hard every offseason to maintain his skills and conditioning. There's less risk on that issue than for an average player. The only real negotiation I'd make would be that last year. I might be talked into making it non-guaranteed with a player option (basically, either side could void it). Or maybe I'd be nice and just make it a straight up player option.

If Beal refused to agree to these terms, I'd call his bluff and let him go negotiate a deal with Detroit. I honestly think letting him walk would be better for the franchise than signing him to a deal significantly higher than what I propose here.

If Beal does sign the contract, it would be one with a small enough cap hit that we could continue to build around him - maybe even adding a max free agent in 2024 when Porzingis comes off the books. But more importantly, it would be a very tradeable contract if we continue to flounder as a 10th seed.

Are the wizards just bidding against themselves? Who can offer Beal $? Detroit?

Probably, the sequence of events should be:
Beal hits FA
Beal gets offers
Wiz counter-offers

What will probably happen is:
Beal hits FA
Wizards offers a 5-year Super Max
Beal accepts

[payitforward]

We need to step back for a second. I am in no way suggesting that Beal is a Super Max player, but people are really comparing apples and oranges. If we are talking about the ability to add talent around him, how does it actually effect that process?
1) The Super Max enables Beal to get slightly higher raises and a 5th year
2) Because of the TV deal in 2025 and massive cap jump, we can mostly say that the last 2 years of the deal wont be as punitive as would be in most scenarios.
So lets really look at the first 3 years of the deal:
- With us on the Super Max, Beal will make 43M, 46M, and 49M (138M)
- With another team for the Max, he'd make 43M, 45M, 47M (134M)

Guys... That additional 1.5M/ year is barely a Vet min player. Again, we can discuss years 4 & 5 when he'll make almost 110M, but we are talking about an environment where the cap will be 25%+ higher. When Beal is making 52M in 25-26, standard Vet Max contracts of 30% will be in the 45M range...I.E. Jamal Murray

Again, this is not a pro vs con list of Maxing Beal... but simply showing that giving the Beal the Max vs Super Max makes no tangible difference for the next 3 years in terms of team salary and his last 2 years become manageable/tradeable due to the spike in the cap.

Only one question: why should we offer Brad either the Max or the Super Max? Why shouldn't we let the market determine Brad's current value?

[Kanyewest]

We need to step back for a second. I am in no way suggesting that Beal is a Super Max player, but people are really comparing apples and oranges. If we are talking about the ability to add talent around him, how does it actually effect that process?
1) The Super Max enables Beal to get slightly higher raises and a 5th year
2) Because of the TV deal in 2025 and massive cap jump, we can mostly say that the last 2 years of the deal wont be as punitive as would be in most scenarios.
So lets really look at the first 3 years of the deal:
- With us on the Super Max, Beal will make 43M, 46M, and 49M (138M)
- With another team for the Max, he'd make 43M, 45M, 47M (134M)

Guys... That additional 1.5M/ year is barely a Vet min player. Again, we can discuss years 4 & 5 when he'll make almost 110M, but we are talking about an environment where the cap will be 25%+ higher. When Beal is making 52M in 25-26, standard Vet Max contracts of 30% will be in the 45M range...I.E. Jamal Murray

Again, this is not a pro vs con list of Maxing Beal... but simply showing that giving the Beal the Max vs Super Max makes no tangible difference for the next 3 years in terms of team salary and his last 2 years become manageable/tradeable due to the spike in the cap.

Only one question: why should we offer Brad either the Max or the Super Max? Why shouldn't we let the market determine Brad's current value?

It depends on Beal's willingness to accept less money to play for a contender or simply start over somewhere else. And how much risk Beal is willing to take by holding out.

Also have to wonder if the Wizards had already essentially pre-agreed to this either when Beal was a free agent last time around when he signed the 2+1 extension or when he could have exercised his trade demands around the 2021 NBA draft.

Ultimately, Wizards management/ownership isn't willing to take their chances in letting Beal walk.

[FAH1223]

It's Brad's birthday

Read on Twitter

Let's see that trade request!

[Frichuela]

It's Brad's birthday

Let's see that trade request!

Amen. Special birthday wish: to PHI in which we get Maxey please

[nate33]

Letting Beal walk for nothing (and leaving us with $35M in cap room) is better than paying Beal a max.

Beal on a max contract will have negative value. He'll essentially be the Tobias Harris of the last two seasons.

[Tyrone Messby]

Letting Beal walk for nothing (and leaving us with $35M in cap room) is better than paying Beal a max.

Beal on a max contract will have negative value. He'll essentially be the Tobias Harris of the last two seasons.

Facts. #SoWiz

The majority of the Wiz fanbase is either going to take a break or heavily resent their "star" player. Only in Washington baby!

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Letting Beal walk for nothing (and leaving us with $35M in cap room) is better than paying Beal a max.

Beal on a max contract will have negative value. He'll essentially be the Tobias Harris of the last two seasons.

I agree. In fact, keeping him negates future progress with Davis and Kispert.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bealbr01.html

Beal saw his scoring and PER enjoy a huge spike upward when his USG% went from 24 to 34. He's in seasons past been a high volume shot taker and a bit of a ball stopper. I suspect there are many better players who just need the same opportunities.

I think he's massively overrated.

Career PER, career WS/minute are why I say so. VORP, I need to understand better. To my eyes he's above average but not even a building block per se.



Sent from my SM-A536U using RealGM mobile app

[FAH1223]

Watch on YouTube

[queridiculo]

Letting Beal walk for nothing (and leaving us with $35M in cap room) is better than paying Beal a max.

Beal on a max contract will have negative value. He'll essentially be the Tobias Harris of the last two seasons.

Facts. #SoWiz

The majority of the Wiz fanbase is either going to take a break or heavily resent their "star" player. Only in Washington baby!

Eh, break, shmake, it's just business as usual, nothing we haven't seen before, and before that, and before that and...

It'll be band aid after band aid for the next three years, followed by a Beal trade request when his value is at its lowest and his contract neigh unmovable without assets attached.

Rinse and repeat.

Welcome to D.C., the forever basketball purgatory.

[queridiculo]

Watch on YouTube

You know, the crazy thing is that it's not even about whether Beal is worth it or not, he's clearly not as far as I am concerned.

The main thing this franchise ought to ask itself is, is Bradley Beal worth it to us, and there's not a single metric that would make the case for 29 year old Bradley Beal getting the bag.

The team isn't winning with him, they're not on a trajectory to future success and he's a 10 year vet coming off arguably his worst season since his third year in the league.

I could totally understand a perennial 50+ win Wizards team making the case for max money for the reason of continuity, but what the **** exactly are the Wizards so invested in staying the course for.

It's pure lunacy, Titanic captain level arrogance, the Wizards are jumping down a cliff face without a parachute wondering what's going to happen.

Who knows, maybe this is the year the Wizards prove the million monkey theorem and Beal will strap the team on his back with a MVP level effort for 90+ games.

Chances are, it's not.

We've seen this.

We've been there.

The real question is, why can't Leonsis admit that he's wrong for once and just do what's in the best interest of the fans.


Tear.

That.

Mothersucker.

Down.

[9 and 20]

Watch on YouTube

I listened to these two nerds and they are 100% right on how Beal's contract will turn out. Simmons at one point says that Beal puts you in the 7th seed no man's land area and that no one wants to be in no man's land. Little does he know, Leonsis dying to be that 7 seed. Then the bald guy says having, in succession, maxed out Wall, then maxed out Westbrook, then one year of a break, and then maxed out Beal is impressive.

[queridiculo]

Watch on YouTube

I listened to these two nerds and they are 100% right on how Beal's contract will turn out. Simmons at one point says that Beal puts you in the 7th seed no man's land area and that no one wants to be in no man's land. Little does he know, Leonsis dying to be that 7 seed. Then the bald guy says having, in succession, maxed out Wall, then maxed out Westbrook, then one year of a break, and then maxed out Beal is impressive.

Guess they forgot Arenas, back to back to back terrible decisions on max contracts.

[9 and 20]

Watch on YouTube

I listened to these two nerds and they are 100% right on how Beal's contract will turn out. Simmons at one point says that Beal puts you in the 7th seed no man's land area and that no one wants to be in no man's land. Little does he know, Leonsis dying to be that 7 seed. Then the bald guy says having, in succession, maxed out Wall, then maxed out Westbrook, then one year of a break, and then maxed out Beal is impressive.

Guess they forgot Arenas, back to back to back terrible decisions on max contracts.

Yeah they mentioned Arenas too. That was a while ago though, relatively. They were talking about 3 of the last 4 years, they've had Wall, Westbrook, and then likely a maxed out Beal. 3 out of the last 4 years having an untradeable contract that is one of the worst in the league.

It's an impressive display of hardheadedness and dumbassery to jump right back in the poo-filled pool right after we free ourselves from the Wall/Westbrook contracts.

[gesa2]

Watch on YouTube

I listened to these two nerds and they are 100% right on how Beal's contract will turn out. Simmons at one point says that Beal puts you in the 7th seed no man's land area and that no one wants to be in no man's land. Little does he know, Leonsis dying to be that 7 seed. Then the bald guy says having, in succession, maxed out Wall, then maxed out Westbrook, then one year of a break, and then maxed out Beal is impressive.

That’s not really fair. We didn’t max out Westbrook, we used him to launder Wall’s contract into some value, and did it successfully. Beal will still be a mistake at the max, but we’d be really lucky to handle the end of it as well as we did Wall.

[pcbothwel]

We need to step back for a second. I am in no way suggesting that Beal is a Super Max player, but people are really comparing apples and oranges. If we are talking about the ability to add talent around him, how does it actually effect that process?
1) The Super Max enables Beal to get slightly higher raises and a 5th year
2) Because of the TV deal in 2025 and massive cap jump, we can mostly say that the last 2 years of the deal wont be as punitive as would be in most scenarios.
So lets really look at the first 3 years of the deal:
- With us on the Super Max, Beal will make 43M, 46M, and 49M (138M)
- With another team for the Max, he'd make 43M, 45M, 47M (134M)

Guys... That additional 1.5M/ year is barely a Vet min player. Again, we can discuss years 4 & 5 when he'll make almost 110M, but we are talking about an environment where the cap will be 25%+ higher. When Beal is making 52M in 25-26, standard Vet Max contracts of 30% will be in the 45M range...I.E. Jamal Murray

Again, this is not a pro vs con list of Maxing Beal... but simply showing that giving the Beal the Max vs Super Max makes no tangible difference for the next 3 years in terms of team salary and his last 2 years become manageable/tradeable due to the spike in the cap.

Only one question: why should we offer Brad either the Max or the Super Max? Why shouldn't we let the market determine Brad's current value?

Mostly agree. I think a 5 year deal on the 30% Max would be a fair deal all things considered, but would love him at anything under that.
I was just pointing out that the difference in the 4 year max from another team and our 5-year max is negligible unless you are scratching for every dollar in hopes of obtaining a max cap spot for another FA. If one deal is good or bad, then the other is basically the same.
The real issue with these deals is the last year or 2, but if we see a cap in the 150M+ range then its not as much a concern. Similar to 2016, many teams will have a ton of cap space and moving his contract would be very easy assuming he doesn't fall off a cliff.

[closg00]

Watch on YouTube