Wizards 2019 Offseason Thread

[queridiculo]

The stuck part isn't in two years, it's right now. We'll still be stuck in two years but we can be in a decent position if we've offset Wall's deal by having some productive rookie deals on the cap. And as Wall's deal gets shorter, the chances he can be moved increases.

This is where all these lost 2nd rounders are coming home to roost, barring a miracle the Wizards will be right back in the lottery next year.

Right now what scares me more than anything is that the Wizards sneak into the playoffs.

Just how desperate are the Heat, Magic and Pistons to make it in?

A loss against the Pistons tonight would be huge.

[payitforward]

...
Green - $3.9M ...
Dekker - $1M (Vet minimum)/quote]
...Jeff Green overrated ... (and) ...under-rating Dekker....

I'd say you have their $ values wrong -- which doesn't mean we shouldn't keep Jeff (at vet min salary of $2.4m). But, we should definitely keep Sam Dekker. I compare their numbers to illustrate the reasons why:

A player helps the team on offense by the points he scores & the possessions he leaves for teammates (i.e. by his scoring efficiency -- how few shots he misses) & how many he creates for them (i.e. via offensive boards & steals, & by turning the ball over infrequently).

This year, per 40 minutes, Sam has has scored 2.83 fewer points than Jeff. That's not good. & he's used only 1 less possession than Jeff. That's worse. But, in those same 40 minutes, Sam has gotten 1.42 more steals than Jeff. A steal is an extra offensive possession. So, it's still 2.83 fewer points, but now it's on 2.4 fewer possessions. Much better, obviously.

Plus, in those same 40 minutes, Sam has gotten an extra 1.42 offensive rebounds, & Jeff has had .7 more turnovers than Sam. So, now we see that Jeff's 2.83 more points have required 4.5 more possessions.

Anyone would rather have 2.83 fewer points plus an extra 4.5 offensive possessions. The Wizards effective FG% year is 53.4% -- 4.5 shots by the team is producing over 4.8 points. Allowing for TOs at the usual team rate, that becomes 4.1 points -- in effect 1.5 extra points per game. We are down 2.8 points per game to the league, so the effect of that should be obvious.

Overall, Sam's also a little better than Jeff on the other stuff (defensive boards plus assists plus blocks minus fouls).

Given all that, keep in mind that...

...he's 24, still improving, & cheap. That's a guy to sew up for a few years on an affordable deal with raises/team options. ...

[Illmatic12]

For 2019 we need to bottom out.

I'd deal Beal for the highest pick possible. Could he get us Barrett or Morant? That's my target. A long term controllable and inexpensive talent that we can build around.

Roll into next season with Barrett (via Beal), Garland (via our own pick) with Sato, Bryant, Brown and begin a true rebuild.

Bring back Wall slowly. Maybe get him a handful of games at the end of the '19-'20 season.

In '20-'21 he should be on a strict minutes limit, the meantime we can continue the tank and add one more key pick.

If we've drafted right by the '21-22 we could have reloaded with 4 fairly high lottery picks.

#4 pick + DSJ + pure cap space for Beal

I would do it - even though the draft is very week in that area. I'd then look to trade down - probably with Boston.

It would give us the ability to sign both Parker and Portis - assuming we want to sign them both.

Ruzious - Who do you like at the #4 pick in this year's draft ?
My current feeling is that there's no prospect slotted at #4 who would be worth trading Beal's production and upside.
Maybe if it was in a draft class like 2018 or 2017, but this year's crop seems fairly weak to me after Z Williamson.

[payitforward]

My current feeling is that there's no prospect slotted at #4 who would be worth trading Beal's production and upside.
Maybe if it was in a draft class like 2018 or 2017, but this year's crop seems fairly weak to me after Z Williamson.

I posted a list of the 14 guys taken at #4 & #5 from 2012-2018. It's instructive. There are two players (DeAaron Fox & JJJ) who I would take in return for Beal. You could argue about 1 or 2 others maybe.

It would be an extremely high risk move to trade Beal for this year's #4 pick.

[Ruzious]

#4 pick + DSJ + pure cap space for Beal

I would do it - even though the draft is very week in that area. I'd then look to trade down - probably with Boston.

It would give us the ability to sign both Parker and Portis - assuming we want to sign them both.

Ruzious - Who do you like at the #4 pick in this year's draft ?
My current feeling is that there's no prospect slotted at #4 who would be worth trading Beal's production and upside.
Maybe if it was in a draft class like 2018 or 2017, but this year's crop seems fairly weak to me after Z Williamson.

Honestly a trade-down. If I was going by who I think is the 4th best player, it'd be Garland - but my guess is that he'll be there at 10, so trade down to 8 or 9 to be pretty sure to get him.

[payitforward]

#4 pick + DSJ + pure cap space for Beal

Who's DSJ? I'm guessing you mean DeAndre Jordan, right?

He means Dennis Smith Jr. who's been pretty bad so far in his short NBA career. It would be a gamble for the Wiz. If Knicks offered 3rd pick we could get Barrett or Morant and that'd be nice.

Oh duh....

How would you even make that trade legal?

[Illmatic12]

I would do it - even though the draft is very week in that area. I'd then look to trade down - probably with Boston.

It would give us the ability to sign both Parker and Portis - assuming we want to sign them both.

Ruzious - Who do you like at the #4 pick in this year's draft ?
My current feeling is that there's no prospect slotted at #4 who would be worth trading Beal's production and upside.
Maybe if it was in a draft class like 2018 or 2017, but this year's crop seems fairly weak to me after Z Williamson.

Honestly a trade-down. If I was going by who I think is the 4th best player, it'd be Garland - but my guess is that he'll be there at 10, so trade down to 8 or 9 to be pretty sure to get him.

Garland? Extra mehh.. doesn't seem worth it then.
Trading down won't be that valuable , it's not like there's a Doncic in this draft who a team would give up a haul for to move up.

If we're trading Beal , think the best play is to move him for one of the recently drafted studs who are still on rookie deals .

[Dat2U]

I would do it - even though the draft is very week in that area. I'd then look to trade down - probably with Boston.

It would give us the ability to sign both Parker and Portis - assuming we want to sign them both.

Ruzious - Who do you like at the #4 pick in this year's draft ?
My current feeling is that there's no prospect slotted at #4 who would be worth trading Beal's production and upside.
Maybe if it was in a draft class like 2018 or 2017, but this year's crop seems fairly weak to me after Z Williamson.

Honestly a trade-down. If I was going by who I think is the 4th best player, it'd be Garland - but my guess is that he'll be there at 10, so trade down to 8 or 9 to be pretty sure to get him.

Eh, it's too hit and miss after the top 3 for my tastes to gamble Beal for a hodge podge of picks. I like Garland but would rather target him with the Wizards pick if we don't get Morant.

To me Zion is the clear #1. However Barrett & Morant look like solid consolation prizes. After that it gets real dicey. I mean really dicey.

If I'm not dealing Beal for a top 3 pick, I probably start targeting young guys on rookie deals that may be an option. It may be too late to trade for someone like JJJ but that's the type of prospect I'd be looking for.

[Dat2U]

Who's DSJ? I'm guessing you mean DeAndre Jordan, right?

He means Dennis Smith Jr. who's been pretty bad so far in his short NBA career. It would be a gamble for the Wiz. If Knicks offered 3rd pick we could get Barrett or Morant and that'd be nice.

Oh duh....

How would you even make that trade legal?

NY could conceivably absorb Beal with their impending cap space. Deal probably couldn't be consummated until July but they could agree in principle before the draft.

I wouldn't do it for just the 4th & DSJ. It's a fair offer but as mentioned, it's not ideal considering the strength in this draft is the top 3 picks.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Going into the offseason, we have the following salaries on the books:

Wall - $37.8M
Beal - $27.1M
Mahinmi - $15.4M
Brown - $3.2M
Howard - $5.6M*
Draft pick - $4.1M
SUBTOTAL: $93.2M (or 87.6M if Howard declines his player option)

I'm certain we won't opt in on Parker's $20M team option because that salary alone is likely to make it impossible to retain most of the rest of the team. The luxtax threshold is $132M. That leaves $38.8M (or maybe $44.4M) to fill out the roster. We have the following players we may or may not wish to retain:

Portis - RFA - Bird Rights
Sato - RFA - Bird Rights
Dekker - RFA - Bird Rights
Bryant - RFA - Early Bird Rights + Gilbert Arenas Provision
Randle - RFA - Non-Bird Rights
Parker - UFA - Non-Bird Rights
Ariza - UFA - Bird Rights
Green - UFA - Non Bird Rights

Those with Bird Rights can be paid whatever we want. Those with Early Bird Rights can be matched up to 175% of their original salary. Those with Non-Bird Rights can be paid 120% of their current salary. Bryant has the Gilbert Arenas provision, which means no contract offer can exceed the MLE over the first 2 years of the deal, and we can use the MLE to match it. Basically, we're going to have to use a portion of the MLE to pay him, which means that we will only have whatever is leftover available to use to retain Jeff Green. We could also use the Bi-Annual Exception on Green which pays up to $3.9M

The TLDR version is that it appears that we have enough cap exceptions to pay everybody what their market price will be, except possibly Jeff Green, depending on the contract of Bryant. So the real question is, how much will these guys cost in total, and will that cost exceed the luxury tax?

My first stab at it looks something like this:

Sato - $9M (Just above the MLE which is probably what other teams will offer)
Bryant - $5M (Not many teams are in need of a center, and Bryant's defensive issues are starting to get exploited)
Green - $3.9M (Bi-Annual Exception. Green might get more elsewhere but he likes it here.)
Randle - $1M (Vet minimum)
McRae - $1M (Vet minimum)
Dekker - $1M (Vet minimum)

That leaves $16M for 2 more players, or $22M for 3 more players if Howard opts out. That money will go to one or more of Ariza, Parker or Portis. I don't know who we're going to get and what they're going to cost. That will depend on the next 28 games plus the draft. It doesn't look like we'll be able to retain all three, and I suspect they're highly inclined to retain Ariza.

It will help greatly if Howard opts out, and I think he might. We can also free up $10M more in cap room by stretching Mahinmi, but I think that's unlikely. The last thing we need is a $5M a year cap charge for the next 3 years when we're already paying Wall not to play.

A million times THANK YOU, nate33! The big question is whether the talent the Wizards wish to keep can be retained. It's all about the cap, which you understand and I darn sure do not. I'm grateful for this post.

Seems to me the best bet WOULD BE TO PLAY HOWARD HEAVY PLAYOFF MINUTES if the Wizards make it.

There's a really good chance that he could actually become energized by the opportunity of redemption. HOWARD HAS ALWAYS BEEN PERCEIVED TO BE NICE. That's not good, per se. Smiling too much (?) makes people (Kobe for one, perhaps?) think you're soft. I mean Howard would be much more marketable. If I were a coach, I would play a healthy Howard and instruct him to TRY TO BE a heel. Flagrant 1 somebody. Flex the muscles. Run and rebound. Can only help. That would get Howard paid LARGE.

I think I'd probably sign-and-trade a player who gets an Otto Porter/NJ offer (too rich for the Wizards to match and sustain DUE TO JOHN WALL'S EG contract). Suppose Bryant or Satoransky get a ridiculous offer. Perhaps, it would be possible to throw Mahinmi in as an expiring, in exchange for a lesser dollar deal.

I don't know much about cap.

I THINK WINNING will help things, greatly. Parker might be the one NOT retained. THE WIZAARDS NEED TO SIGN PORTIS with the quickness.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Thanks for making that post - maybe sticky it.

I think you're probably close on the costs - though they usually end up being higher than I expect. Hopefully you're right about Bryant. Portis - despite his faults - puts up the numbers that usually get players paid - high volume scoring and rebounding. He might take up that full 16 mil.

If the Wizards really really wise, they'd try to get both Oubre and Portis under contract.

Brought back a once-angry Ariza. You can bring back Kelly at the right contract. I KNOW it will never happen.

LIKEWISE, the cheapest good C will be Javale McGee. He's got limitations but he's also got strengths.

For my liking I hope Bryant, Portis, and Parker are each resigned to great deals. Beal is a wildcard. He might be the means of making this team MUCH BETTER in the long run if he is traded.

[Ruzious]

I am on the trade Beal for a boat-load train. But gotta keep in mind that it's harder to do what Philly did - and it took them a historically bad run of seasons to get where they are. Now, the odds are tougher on the bottom 3 to get the top pick, and I'm guessing the NBA will make it more dificil in the future. Being below average might be better than bottoming out.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

I'd say you have their $ values wrong -- which doesn't mean we shouldn't keep Jeff (at vet min salary of $2.4m). But, we should definitely keep Sam Dekker. I compare their numbers to illustrate the reasons why:

The salaries are wrong, but just barely. A minimum salary player who is a 3-year vet or older is only charged the cost of a 2-year vet, which is $1.6M. Green's actual paycheck may be for $2.4M a year, but he only costs Ted (and the salary cap, and the luxtax) $1.6M. The league pays the rest.

It's compensation so that older players don't get squeezed in favor of young players by teams trying to minimize the cost of their end-of-bench vet minimum contracts.

[payitforward]

Would you really put it past Ted and Ernest to just roll with Parker's $20 million for the 2019 season?

Not exercising Parker's team option checks multiple boxes in the Ernieverse.

- recent lottery pick (no.2!!!!)
- young
- potential
- injury prone (if things go sideways he's already got an alibi)
- maintain salary cap flexibility
- addresses a need (PF), can play multiple positions

Yeah, the Wizards are going to feel the squeeze, but they've almost go $30 million in insurance money to play with before going deep into the tax starts hurting Leonsis bottom line.

I don't put it past them, but I don't see why they would. That would make him unrestricted at the end of next year. If he had a good season, he's gone b/c we can't afford him. If he had a bad season, why did we spend the $$

If they like him, they'll be better off working with his agent to create an incentive-laden longer deal. Now, if his agent thinks there's a greater fool who's going to come along & give him that kind of money, he won't be interested. In that case we can't keep him anyway; we can't afford to match a big salary for him.

The insurance money makes no difference -- they get it either way. It's not an incentive to spend, & it isn't a buffer against the tax either.

[nate33]

1. Ernie will do anything he needs to do, pay any amount he has to pay, to keep at least one of Portis & Parker. Otherwise, he'll have made himself look like a bozo (pick a guy #3 in the draft, max him, then give him away for no return). Ernie never does anything that reveals his mistakes. No matter how much he gives 1 or both those guys, however bad the overpay(s) he will still have kicked the can down the road, which is all that matters to him.

Ernie won't do anything. He won't go $10M over the luxtax, for example. And that's what it would probably cost to retain all three of Ariza, Portis and Parker, assuming Sato is also kept.

2. Yes, Bobby Portis is certainly worth more than $7-9m. That's pitched too low in the current NBA. But, $16m -- what he wants -- is too high, I agree. But the fact that he turned down 4 yrs/$50m doesn't mean Ernie can't sign him for @$12m a year. It'll just be for 2 years instead of 4. That's a good bet for Bobby & his agent. Salaries will continue to rise.

I agree that Portis will probably cost too much. I think he is the guy that is likely to get priced out of the Wizards salary range.

3. If someone gives Jabari Parker a 3 year contract for $15-18m a year -- a guy who has PROVEN he's a bust over almost 5 years in the league -- they are nuts. I don't think anybody is quite that nuts.

It would be nuts to give him that, right now, today. But if he plays for the next 30 games as well as he played the last 2, then the calculation starts to change. The Parker that I have seen for the last 2 games is a difference maker - a guy worth $15M. The only question is whether or not that guy I've seen for the past 2 games is likely to remain that guy for the next 2-4 seasons. Making that gamble right now would be wildly reckless. But making it after 30 games of very good play is merely a gamble. It could work out, or maybe it doesn't. But at least there's a plausible chance of it working out. There's no reason to discuss it further right now. Let's wait 30 games and see how things look.

4. But, if Bobby goes elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ernie offer Parker a $15m 1-year contract -- good faith, make good. But, keep in mind: that's what his $20m contract with the Bulls was! Moreover, they played him 27 minutes a game for the first 39 games of the season. He was so bad that they proceeded to make him inactive.

I would be very surprised to see a fat, 1-year offer for Portis. We just don't have the luxtax room to be offering big money up front. If anything, I think EG will go the other way and try to get Portis a little cheaper by signing him to a very long-term deal.

That's not the way I'd go. If I offered him anything at all it would be a 3-year contract with a cheap first year & team options for years 2 & 3, & quite big raises for each of those years. Make him prove something.

You can't have multiple team options in the same contract (except on a rookie 1st round pick contract).

[payitforward]

I'd say you have their $ values wrong -- which doesn't mean we shouldn't keep Jeff (at vet min salary of $2.4m). But, we should definitely keep Sam Dekker. I compare their numbers to illustrate the reasons why:

The salaries are wrong, but just barely. A minimum salary player who is a 3-year vet or older is only charged the cost of a 2-year vet, which is $1.6M. Green's actual paycheck may be for $2.4M a year, but he only costs Ted (and the salary cap, and the luxtax) $1.6M. The league pays the rest.

It's compensation so that older players don't get squeezed in favor of young players by teams trying to minimize the cost of their end-of-bench vet minimum contracts.

Right, but doesn't the full $2.4m count against the cap/tax? Whoever writes the check?

In any case, I didn't mean the salaries -- though I can see how one would take it that way. I meant how much money it's worth paying each of them. I want to tie Dekker up on a cheap, incentive-laden deal w/ team options. IMO, he's a much more valuable asset than Green.

I could be wrong, of course. It wouldn't be the first time. But, I don't think I'm wrong about his productivity. He's been terrific for us.

[payitforward]

I would do it - even though the draft is very week in that area. I'd then look to trade down - probably with Boston.

It would give us the ability to sign both Parker and Portis - assuming we want to sign them both.

Ruzious - Who do you like at the #4 pick in this year's draft ?
My current feeling is that there's no prospect slotted at #4 who would be worth trading Beal's production and upside.
Maybe if it was in a draft class like 2018 or 2017, but this year's crop seems fairly weak to me after Z Williamson.

Honestly a trade-down. If I was going by who I think is the 4th best player, it'd be Garland - but my guess is that he'll be there at 10, so trade down to 8 or 9 to be pretty sure to get him.

I think you suggested this a week or so ago, no? I agreed then, & I agree now. For reasons I've described too many times to repeat here!

[nate33]

I'd say you have their $ values wrong -- which doesn't mean we shouldn't keep Jeff (at vet min salary of $2.4m). But, we should definitely keep Sam Dekker. I compare their numbers to illustrate the reasons why:

The salaries are wrong, but just barely. A minimum salary player who is a 3-year vet or older is only charged the cost of a 2-year vet, which is $1.6M. Green's actual paycheck may be for $2.4M a year, but he only costs Ted (and the salary cap, and the luxtax) $1.6M. The league pays the rest.

It's compensation so that older players don't get squeezed in favor of young players by teams trying to minimize the cost of their end-of-bench vet minimum contracts.

Right, but doesn't the full $2.4m count against the cap/tax? Whoever writes the check?

In any case, I didn't mean the salaries -- though I can see how one would take it that way. I meant how much money it's worth paying each of them. I want to tie Dekker up on a cheap, incentive-laden deal w/ team options. IMO, he's a much more valuable asset than Green.

I could be wrong, of course. It wouldn't be the first time. But, I don't think I'm wrong about his productivity. He's been terrific for us.

No. A vet minimum player will only cost a maximum of $1.6M against the cap.

[Ruzious]

My current feeling is that there's no prospect slotted at #4 who would be worth trading Beal's production and upside.
Maybe if it was in a draft class like 2018 or 2017, but this year's crop seems fairly weak to me after Z Williamson.

I posted a list of the 14 guys taken at #4 & #5 from 2012-2018. It's instructive. There are two players (DeAaron Fox & JJJ) who I would take in return for Beal. You could argue about 1 or 2 others maybe.

It would be an extremely high risk move to trade Beal for this year's #4 pick.

Beal for the 4th pick isn't the trade we were talking about.