Arenas for Vince or dump Arenas for cap space?

[AceDegenerate]

That is all just wishful thinking then. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Wizards are going from the Clippers East to one of the most desirable teams to play on in the NBA in just a couple years.

We EARNED this reputation by SUCKING for YEARS! It will not be repaired so quickly I'm afraid.

[bullitz]

Not sure that even OKC makes that list. When is the last time someone asked to be traded to Utah cause they sure do win a bunch of games?

[WizarDynasty]

I noticed teh same people here hating on arenas are the same exact poster that were hating on Blatche. Now all of sudden the bandwagon documented Blatche haters are swinging from door knockers after he showed he was better player than their departed "hero" jamison. So again, the same people hating on Arenas are the same people who have no clue what real talent was and claimed that Jamison and Caron were legitimate allstars. So basically the point of this post is that Arenas haters== are bandwagon Blatche fans..and they are also revisionist who had man crushes on Jamison often times comparing him to Dirk Nowitski and many here claimed that Caron Butler was on the same level as Paul Pierce.
Now that there hero's have been traded, and arenas is moved to sg ( i have been pushing for arenas to be sg well before Wall got here) we all know who has been pushing that ideas for the last few years...those same people proven wrong want to hate arenas because he "hazed" some lousy bum crittenton to temper crittenton's ego just as he did with Blatche.
So again no fool is going to trade a legitimate allstar guard for a over hill washed bum like vince. Vince is basically jerry stackhouse. Rip for stackhouse huh? lol.
Yeah i think we should have definitely made a play for Outlaw but its done with. The cancer named Crittenton who showed he wasn't humble enough to accept a hazing to be accepted in the Wizards pecking order is gone and the balance of power has been equalized with my highly recommended advice of getting rid of "Haywood...Brenda--hands of stone--who many of you claimed was a top ten center in the league yet he was horrible defensive rebounder....who i always criticized while all these same arenas haters had a man crush on. Butler the bum...who i disliked and wanted gone--i even started the campaign of 6'5 w/o shoes ...most of you loved him...and Jamison...who i started a campaign to let go years ago is finally gone--comparing how poorly he was at blocking shots...bye bye.
Arenas...i have had 100 percent support for and guess what, he is still here and isn't going anywhere.

[Induveca]

PS - You also conveniently left out that CP3 specifically asked for a select few teams to be dealt to. I didn't see Washington in that list, matter fact I never seem to see Washington on anybody's list. I see the Lakers a whole lot, yup. Miami now too. New York even gets in there based on the Market size. D.C.? Not so much.

We are not on that list because Abe was the owner and we won 26 games last year. Give us a year or two with Ted at the helm and Wall on the floor and we'll be an up-and-coming 40+ win team with a bright future. (And yes, I think we can do that without Arenas as soon as 2011/12.) Free agents will put us on their short list then.

Not too wise. Changing owners will not attract free agents, for us a 2 year win streak in the midst of 30 bottom dwelling years will not vault us up the ladder for free agents. Major and more attractive markets will beat out DC for some time.

Krizko said it best, sounds like your plan is a wet dream in all honesty. One of your major hopes is a trade demand from a top 10 player with DC on his short list? Another was adding Batum and Gasol in place of Arenas.....and pay the same salary. Nate aren't you willing to back off of your position here bit? Try to see your arguments from a 3rd person perspective. You usually aren't so dug in as you've been throughout this thread.

[nate33]

Not too wise. Changing owners will not attract free agents, for us a 2 year win streak in the midst of 30 bottom dwelling years will not vault us up the ladder for free agents. Major and more attractive markets will beat out DC for some time.

Krizko said it best, sounds like your plan is a wet dream in all honesty. One of your major hopes is a trade demand from a top 10 player with DC on his short list? Another was adding Batum and Gasol in place of Arenas.....and pay the same salary. Nate aren't you willing to back off of your position here bit? Try to see your arguments from a 3rd person perspective. You usually aren't so dug in as you've been throughout this thread.

I just don't understand why you are convinced that the best possible thing we can do with $20M a year in salary is to pay a 28-year-old PG with a bad knee when we just drafted our franchise player to play the same position. Try to see your argument from a 3rd person perspective.

The reputation of teams changes with ownership and success. Portland used to be the Jail Blazers just a few years ago before Roy and Aldrich were drafted. Dallas was no man's land before Cuban arrived and traded for Nowitzki. Miami was a rotten expansion team with no success until Riley arrived and traded for Zo.

This idea that the Wizards will forever be Clippers East and we can never, ever land a decent free agent is just hogwash. Players go where they'll be successful, get seen on TV, and get paid. In Washington, with a deep-pocketed owner and a superstar PG, all that is possible. We may never have the same appeal as legendary franchises like LA, Boston, NY or Chicago, but there's no reason we can't be in the second tier of franchises. There's no reason we can't have the same appeal as Portland, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas or Orlando. We're not a tiny market like OKC or Utah. We don't pay Canadian taxes like Toronto. We don't have a notoriously apathetic fan base like Atlanta. DC isn't a horrible place to live like Cleveland, Detroit or Minnesota.

[LyricalRico]

^ Great post, nate. You said it better than I could, which is why I'm saying I agree with your post rather than re-typing something so similar that it would be the exact same thing all over again (which I guess is what is required for some people to see an opinion as valid).

[barelyawake]

I'm pretty sure I've made my stances known at this point, but that doesn't stop people from putting up strawman after strawman.

You trade Arenas for THREE reasons (not just some ten percent chance at a gamechanging big in the draft).
1) For a chance to get said big in the draft.
2) To get more assets to trade for said big.
3) For more cap to acquire more picks.
Stop making it sound like the idea is to tank for some mythical creature. It's also to get pieces to trade for players in the league. We have close to no assets. We need them in order to trade for a better frontcourt. Those who think we can win a championship with our current frontcourt are deluding themselves. As are those who think that we'll develop late first round picks to trade for a top big. Period. We aren't winning a championship with two guards as our gamechangers. Not in a league of megateams. And there is no rational way presented yet to get a gamechanging big with Arenas still on the roster. People point out there's only ten or so gamechanging bigs in the game. Yeah, well guess what? Hate to break it to you, but winning a championship is hard. We need one of those guys. So, come up with a plan to get one rather than imagine that we don't need one or that Blatche will turn into one.

[nate33]

barelyawake, now that your here, I'm just curious who you would consider to be a "gamechanging big" out of the current players in the NBA.

[Induveca]

Nate, agreed with all the points about the city and possibilities of us becoming great, I'm as excited as anyone about Leonsis being the new owner.......I know the man from a distance decently well from the mid 90s at AOL, and I am very confident he's the perfect NBA owner. I also agree we're not Utah or OKC, and we're not NY/LA/Chicago/Boston/Miami in terms of attraction no matter what.

But that's a sidenote to the real issue of this thread. You just seem to be speaking from two sides of your mouth on the issue of Arenas. In one post you say it's in our best interest to dump him for any one or a combination of:

1. Capspace flexibility.
2. The ability to sign a free agent in the class of Carmelo Anthony/Chris Paul/the next top 10 player to declare his need to be traded/go elsewhere in the next few years.
3. Two middle tier players who fill a perceived need such as Nicolas Batum and Marc Gasol.
4. There is no real need to see how Arenas plays because he had a bad knee 2 years ago and isn't close to the player he was (albeit he put up 45/13 in a single game last year while still rusty).
5. He plays no defense and you can't possibly win without a SG who plays defense. (Rip Hamilton?)

On the other hand you say:

1. You wish to see Wall and Arenas do well together this year.
2. If Wall/Arenas gel perhaps we trade him in a few years instead of immediately.

You seem to want to be risk averse, at the cost of taking the ultimate risk in losing Arenas for nothing...........it's Chris Webber all over again. Arenas for Batum and Gasol? Webber for Richmond and Thorpe............

Also the whole gamechanging big thing is silly. They come along once every 10 years, the only way to get them is to tank/be EXTREMELY lucky and basically win TWO lotteries, the lottery of extreme luck of timing and the NBA lottery. If we win, kick some ass and make ourselves attractive by fielding great players we can end up with a Gasol or a Garnett much like hte Celts and Lakers did. Their two "gamechanging bigs" came about by winning so much those two bigs and their agents helped facilitate the trades to LA/Boston. I'd prefer to take the winning route and making ourselves a magnet for free agents through success, instead of failure and luck.

[DCZards]

The reputation of teams changes with ownership and success. Portland used to be the Jail Blazers just a few years ago before Roy and Aldrich were drafted. Dallas was no man's land before Cuban arrived and traded for Nowitzki. Miami was a rotten expansion team with no success until Riley arrived and traded for Zo.

This idea that the Wizards will forever be Clippers East and we can never, ever land a decent free agent is just hogwash. Players go where they'll be successful, get seen on TV, and get paid. In Washington, with a deep-pocketed owner and a superstar PG, all that is possible.

There's no reason we can't have the same appeal as Portland, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas or Orlando. We're not a tiny market like OKC or Utah. We don't pay Canadian taxes like Toronto. We don't have a notoriously apathetic fan base like Atlanta. DC isn't a horrible place to live like Cleveland, Detroit or Minnesota.

We agree here, nate. I think people underestimate DC as a lure for NBA players. In fact, while, yes, the Redskins own this area, as far as sports is concerned I've always believed DC is first and foremost a basketball town. A new and improved fan focus and experience (and some perks for the players) under Ted could turn things around quickly and make DC a very appealing address for quality NBA free agents. But winning also matters--for TV, fans, and especially, those same quality players. I'm convinced that that winning can start with the Wall/Arenas combo...and that things will fall into place after that.

[nate33]

You just seem to be speaking from two sides of your mouth on the issue of Arenas. In one post you say it's in our best interest to dump him for any one or a combination of:

1. Capspace flexibility.
2. The ability to sign a free agent in the class of Carmelo Anthony/Chris Paul/the next top 10 player to declare his need to be traded/go elsewhere in the next few years.
3. Two middle tier players who fill a perceived need such as Nicolas Batum and Marc Gasol.
4. There is no real need to see how Arenas plays because he had a bad knee 2 years ago and isn't close to the player he was (albeit he put up 45/13 in a single game last year while still rusty).
5. He plays no defense and you can't possibly win without a SG who plays defense. (Rip Hamilton?)

On the other hand you say:

1. You wish to see Wall and Arenas do well together this year.
2. If Wall/Arenas gel perhaps we trade him in a few years instead of immediately.

You seem to want to be risk averse, at the cost of taking the ultimate risk in losing Arenas for nothing...........it's Chris Webber all over again. Arenas for Batum and Gasol? Webber for Richmond and Thorpe............

Okay, I can see how you are confused. Let me try to restate my stance in a different way.

1. I like Arenas and still think he is a very good player. Once the gun incident fades from memory, he may even be worth his contract on the right team in the right situation assuming he doesn't have any major setbacks with his knee. We are not the right team in the right situation.

2. Because of #1 above, I would not sacrifice any significant assets to dump Arenas. I will only pull the trigger if we can trade him for expiring contracts plus or minus insignificant filler pieces.

3. I think his current perceived value is negative (meaning worth less than expiring contracts). If we retain him for a while, I expect that he will play his way into being worth expiring contracts, but there's a risk with every day that he plays that he gets hurt. There's also a chance that his trade value suffers because he isn't as good off the ball.

4. There's a very small chance that he plays so well that he become worth expiring contracts plus additional assets. I think the chances of that are much smaller than the chances of an injury or a failure at the SG position. Therefore, once he achieves a value of expiring contracts, it's in our best interests to trade him at that point and not gamble with playing him further because the downside odds are much higher than the upside odds.

5. If somebody is offering expring contracts now, it must be because they are gambling that his value will improve over time. Basically, we get what I consider to be his likely max value, without risking any injury that could tank his value. Therefore, if an expiring contract offer is on the table, we should take it immediately.

6. If nobody is offering expiring contracts now, we should keep him and play him. I will enjoy watching him play alongside Wall for that period of time. But when somebody calls us at the Trade Deadline and offers an expiring contract, I would let him go. Again, as per point #1 above, we are not the right team for a $20M a year player like Arenas. With a little patience, we will have the opportunity to spend that $20M in ways that will help our franchise win a championship in the future. That may be by a series of BOYD to stockpile picks and expiring contracts, followed by a major trade. Or it could be the outright signing of a free agent like Melo or Dwight Howard. Or it could be the signing of lesser free agents like NIcholas Batum and Kendrick Perkins after having reaped the advantages of higher draft picks due to our worse record sans Arenas.

[Kanyewest]

The Redskins have a comparative advantage in free agency in that: they are willing to pay and overpay for free agents. Dan Snyder would not have the ability to pay more money for someone like LeBron James. Fewer players would choose not to come to the Redskins if it wasn't for the money (and maybe that would be a good thing!)

Yes, the Wizards fans show up when it's on the line, but it's not a big market like LA or NY to these athletes. That's a big reason I bet why Pau Gasol had the Lakers on his short list of teams that he wanted to go to, not to mention that they had a player and a coach who had won championships who few years before that. Yes DC is a nice town with stuff to do. But it's not reputable for nightlife/women- maybe that's the primary reason why LeBron, Wade, and Bosh chose Miami.

The Wizards have to get to be competitive if they want to get a top notch player who wants to play here. Washington isn't Utah or OKC but then again the Wizards aren't NY and LA;. All things being equal with other cities such as Orlando, Philly, and Boston, players who demand trades will only want to go to teams that are in a position to win. And I agree that the Wizards can get there, although I don't see how tanking necessarily gets us to that road.

[LyricalRico]

If we win, kick some ass and make ourselves attractive by fielding great players we can end up with a Gasol or a Garnett much like hte Celts and Lakers did. Their two "gamechanging bigs" came about by winning so much those two bigs and their agents helped facilitate the trades to LA/Boston. I'd prefer to take the winning route and making ourselves a magnet for free agents through success, instead of failure and luck.

Revisionist much?

Actually, LA got Bynum in the lottery because they missed the playoffs in 2005 and then they benefited from the Memphis owner wanting to dump salary more than he wanted to win. Besides, the year before Pau got to LA they were beaten in the first round of the playoffs and I haven't seen anything saying he forced his way to LA because they were already winners.

As for Boston they had been a lottery team for several years, which is the only reason why they had the assets to trade for Allen and KG. And since (aside from a couple years with Pierce/Toine) they'd been sucktastic for a while, your claim that KG forced his way to Boston because they had already proven themselves to be winners doesn't hold water.

So each team either drafted a big in the lottery, or had assets to trade for big because they had been a lottery team. And even the Gasol situation was more about the owner wanting to save money than it was about him forcing his way to a contender. All of those would be legitimate options on an Arenas-less Wizards team. Could they be options if we still had Gil? Probably, but I think the options increase with the extra $20M in space to maneuver and stockpile assets or take back contracts in trades.

[Kanyewest]

That may be by a serious of BOYD to stockpile picks and expiring contracts, followed by a major trade. Or it could be the outright signing of a free agent like Melo or Dwight Howard. Or it could be the signing of lesser free agents like NIcholas Batum and Kendrick Perkins after having reaped the advantages of higher draft picks due to our worse record sans Arenas.

Carmelo Anthony is most likely going to sign an extension one way or the other. If he doesn't sign with the Nuggets, look for the Nuggets to trade Anthony who would then certainly sign an extension with his new team. Dwight Howard is more possible than Anthony, which I consider impossible, but if Orlando gets Chris Paul then no.

The lesser free agents sound even less exciting especially since the Wizards could potentially acquire those kind of players in the draft using BOYD or even with their own draft pick. I wouldn't use Kendrick Perkins as an example of player I would want to acquire if I was advocating trading Arenas for expirings, if you are that concerned about Arenas's health. In all likelihood, Batum is going to resign with Portland as they see him as a cornerstone and they seem to have no shortage of cash.

[fishercob]

Okay, I can see how you are confused. Let me try to restate my stance in a different way.

1. I like Arenas and still think he is a very good player. Once the gun incident fades from memory, he may even be worth his contract on the right team in the right situation assuming he doesn't have any major setbacks with his knee. We are not the right team in the right situation.

2. Because of #1 above, I would not sacrifice any significant assets to dump Arenas. I will only pull the trigger if we can trade him for expiring contracts plus or minus insignificant filler pieces.

3. I think his current perceived value is negative (meaning worth less than expiring contracts). If we retain him for a while, I expect that he will play his way into being worth expiring contracts, but there's a risk with every day that he plays that he gets hurt. There's also a chance that his trade value suffers because he isn't as good off the ball.

4. There's a very small chance that he plays so well that he become worth expiring contracts plus additional assets. I think the chances of that are much smaller than the chances of an injury or a failure at the SG position. Therefore, once he achieves a value of expiring contracts, it's in our best interests to trade him at that point and not gamble with playing him further because the downside odds are much higher than the upside odds.

5. If somebody is offering expring contracts now, it must be because they are gambling that his value will improve over time. Basically, we get what I consider to be his likely max value, without risking any injury that could tank his value. Therefore, if an expiring contract offer is on the table, we should take it immediately.

6. If nobody is offering expiring contracts now, we should keep him and play him. I will enjoy watching him play alongside Wall for that period of time. But when somebody calls us at the Trade Deadline and offers an expiring contract, I would let him go. Again, as per point #1 above, we are not the right team for a $20M a year player like Arenas. With a little patience, we will have the opportunity to spend that $20M in ways that will help our franchise win a championship in the future. That may be by a series of BOYD to stockpile picks and expiring contracts, followed by a major trade. Or it could be the outright signing of a free agent like Melo or Dwight Howard. Or it could be the signing of lesser free agents like NIcholas Batum and Kendrick Perkins after having reaped the advantages of higher draft picks due to our worse record sans Arenas.

nate, this is well-reasoned post, though I obviously disagree with some of it.

It strikes me that much of your argument that "we are not the right fit for Arenas" is heavily based on the fact that he's a point guard. Is he though? Wasn't the criticism of him in the first place that he wasn't a natural/pure PG -- that he's a natural scorer and not a distributor?

During Livingston's revelation last year there was a lot of discussion about playing him and Gil together because of Liv's size and pure playmaking abilities (I don't recall if you were intrigued by that possibility or not, though your vocal support of moving Gil for expirings has only been since this summer, I think). Wall's only a few inches shorter, but he's longer and worlds more athletic.

It's not as if Gil off the ball is some hair-brained experiment. The guy played the two (off of Jason Gardner -- much less of a purge PG that Wall) on an Arizona team that lost in the national championship (to that loaded Duke team -- Jay Williams, Duhon, Boozer, Battier, Dunleavy).

I think we are the right team and the right situation for Gil.

1) Expectations are low. If we win 30 games this year, no one is going to burn the city down

2) He has an emotional connection to the fanbase and the city. Lord knows this is a forgiving city ("Damn bitch set up me, but I'll still be re-elected Mayor one day!") and I expect Gil's being re-embraced by the fans is important to him

3) Ted -- compassionate, yet tough. I expect him to help get the best out of Gil

4) We have so much young and *cheap* talent on the roster, that Gil's big salary isn't a burden, and it won't be next year either. While it has the potential to be in the future, there's a ton that can happen before that point to mitigate the issue -- moving Hinrich, growing revenues to offset tax payment, new CBA and the associated implications that we can't predict or fathom right now.

5) John Wall -- As Ted said yesterday, he expects Wall to "add years to Gilbert's career." Players can have renaissances when they get running mates. Ray Allen seemed a hell of a lot more important when he was playing with All-Star teammates. Look what Nash did for Amare and Joe Johnson.

So I think we have reason to believe that Gil can be Gil off the ball and that this is the right situation for him. What do you think about those aspects of the argument, and are there other underlying reasons for your pro-trade rationale that I failed to identify?

[Kanyewest]

If we win, kick some ass and make ourselves attractive by fielding great players we can end up with a Gasol or a Garnett much like hte Celts and Lakers did. Their two "gamechanging bigs" came about by winning so much those two bigs and their agents helped facilitate the trades to LA/Boston. I'd prefer to take the winning route and making ourselves a magnet for free agents through success, instead of failure and luck.

Revisionist much?

Actually, LA got Bynum in the lottery because they missed the playoffs in 2005 and then they benefited from the Memphis owner wanting to dump salary more than he wanted to win. Besides, the year before Pau got to LA they were beaten in the first round of the playoffs and I haven't seen anything saying he forced his way to LA because they were already winners.

As for Boston they had been a lottery team for several years, which is the only reason why they had the assets to trade for Allen and KG. And since (aside from a couple years with Pierce/Toine) they'd been sucktastic for a while, your claim that KG forced his way to Boston because they had already proven themselves to be winners doesn't hold water.

So each team either drafted a big in the lottery, or had assets to trade for big because they had been a lottery team. And even the Gasol situation was more about the owner wanting to save money than it was about him forcing his way to a contender. All of those would be legitimate options on an Arenas-less Wizards team. Could they be options if we still had Gil? Probably, but I think the options increase with the extra $20M in space to maneuver and stockpile assets or take back contracts in trades.

You could actually argue that the Celtics were in win now mode except for the 2006-07 where they made the obvious effort to tank for Oden/Durant. I remember them being one of the teams who wanted to trade for Allen Iverson. It wasn't even guaranteed that they would get KG when they traded for Ray Allen, especially because the Celtics refused to trade Rajon Rondo.

KG (who previously refused to be traded there) forced his way to Boston because the Celtics already had 2 players that had led their team to the Conference Finals. Even Boston has had more playoff success than the Wizards even before they got KG and Allen. So let's repeat the Boston model by signing Shaq and Iverson, and get a top tier superstar will want to play in DC!

That Lakers pick was in the lottery but it was only the 10th pick which is a likely outcome for this Wizards team. Although, one would have to think that someone like Andrew Bynum would be picked higher had he gone to a year of college.

Funny that the Wizards need space to maneuver but when you are the Lakers, you gust add another gigantic salary commitment like that. They were a team that can afford to give Kwame Brown $8 million a year in the first place which is a reason why they had an expiring contract.

[hands11]

The way the Wizards get on that list is to get to the NBA finals since I'm afraid that DC isn't a big market like NY.

DC is a way bigger market that most admit. You just wait. Let Ted get his team going and then lets talk.

I'm old enough to remember the Bullets winning it all. They were the talk of the town. They even had a song - Bullet Fever - that was song like you sing the Redskins song.

Even the mighty Skin have shown, when a team looses over and over and doesn't have a great owner, the fan base falls away and the town is not viewed as favorably. It took longer for the Skins because they won more recently and won more, but it did happen. I don't hear that.. The Redskins have the best fans statement like I used to.

Between Abe and the Danny, DC has sucked for sports period for a long time. Not just Basketball.

But with Ted, we have the Caps on the map and we have a buz. He will do the same for the WIz.
Now if Danny can follow his lead, this will be one of the top sports cities if not THE top sports cities in the country.

[Induveca]

Rico,

First off I never mentioned Bynum, he was a #10 pick (Jeffries was #11, after we went 37-45). Neither of those picks were part of some master plan.

What I did mention was Gasol, and by all accounts he wanted to go to LA or a few other major markets when that went down.

As for KG, you know darn well he agreed to Boston because of three things:

1. Ray Allen had signed.
2. They had Paul Pierce.
3. The idea of the "big three" enticed Garnett, he agreed after REJECTING an earlier deal, after they acquired Allen.

Revisionist? I'm just stating facts. Maybe you should read closer and not get into Bynum when he was never mentioned.

That all being said, let's all just pray luck falls whichever way towards this semi-cursed franchised and we make some noise in the NBA over the next few years. I can't take more prolific losing seasons and letdowns.

[Induveca]

You just seem to be speaking from two sides of your mouth on the issue of Arenas. In one post you say it's in our best interest to dump him for any one or a combination of:

1. Capspace flexibility.
2. The ability to sign a free agent in the class of Carmelo Anthony/Chris Paul/the next top 10 player to declare his need to be traded/go elsewhere in the next few years.
3. Two middle tier players who fill a perceived need such as Nicolas Batum and Marc Gasol.
4. There is no real need to see how Arenas plays because he had a bad knee 2 years ago and isn't close to the player he was (albeit he put up 45/13 in a single game last year while still rusty).
5. He plays no defense and you can't possibly win without a SG who plays defense. (Rip Hamilton?)

On the other hand you say:

1. You wish to see Wall and Arenas do well together this year.
2. If Wall/Arenas gel perhaps we trade him in a few years instead of immediately.

You seem to want to be risk averse, at the cost of taking the ultimate risk in losing Arenas for nothing...........it's Chris Webber all over again. Arenas for Batum and Gasol? Webber for Richmond and Thorpe............

Okay, I can see how you are confused. Let me try to restate my stance in a different way.

1. I like Arenas and still think he is a very good player. Once the gun incident fades from memory, he may even be worth his contract on the right team in the right situation assuming he doesn't have any major setbacks with his knee. We are not the right team in the right situation.

2. Because of #1 above, I would not sacrifice any significant assets to dump Arenas. I will only pull the trigger if we can trade him for expiring contracts plus or minus insignificant filler pieces.

3. I think his current perceived value is negative (meaning worth less than expiring contracts). If we retain him for a while, I expect that he will play his way into being worth expiring contracts, but there's a risk with every day that he plays that he gets hurt. There's also a chance that his trade value suffers because he isn't as good off the ball.

4. There's a very small chance that he plays so well that he become worth expiring contracts plus additional assets. I think the chances of that are much smaller than the chances of an injury or a failure at the SG position. Therefore, once he achieves a value of expiring contracts, it's in our best interests to trade him at that point and not gamble with playing him further because the downside odds are much higher than the upside odds.

5. If somebody is offering expring contracts now, it must be because they are gambling that his value will improve over time. Basically, we get what I consider to be his likely max value, without risking any injury that could tank his value. Therefore, if an expiring contract offer is on the table, we should take it immediately.

6. If nobody is offering expiring contracts now, we should keep him and play him. I will enjoy watching him play alongside Wall for that period of time. But when somebody calls us at the Trade Deadline and offers an expiring contract, I would let him go. Again, as per point #1 above, we are not the right team for a $20M a year player like Arenas. With a little patience, we will have the opportunity to spend that $20M in ways that will help our franchise win a championship in the future. That may be by a series of BOYD to stockpile picks and expiring contracts, followed by a major trade. Or it could be the outright signing of a free agent like Melo or Dwight Howard. Or it could be the signing of lesser free agents like NIcholas Batum and Kendrick Perkins after having reaped the advantages of higher draft picks due to our worse record sans Arenas.

Appreciate the thoughtful response. While I still don't agree with you, it makes a lot more sense to me now when I attempt to view it from your perspective.

I am not too concerned about the salary or risk injuries, simply because we have flexibility regardless of Arenas' contract (if Grunfeld stops with the Yi and Hinrich type pickups), and Gil looked to be getting stronger throughout the season. I'm hoping his downtime while having a completely rested knee has helped him physically to the point where it can no longer be a concern much like Amare Stoudemire.

If we dump Yi/Hinrich etc we can have the best of both worlds. We can get equivalent production from much lower salary guys. With Arenas I keep him purely to have a mentor for Wall on the court, and someone that will keep Wall in envy/awe. Uber-talented people NEED that when coming in as new players/employees whatever.........helps keep them grounded and in check.

Add to that the possibility of an unbelievably exciting and dynamic backcourt capable of dropping amazing numbers WITH Blatche and McGee still developing? I'll go that route.

But I understand your POV much better now. I just think it's overly pessimistic, and your improvement scenarios either make us much worse for a longer period of time, or just aren't plausible outside of a miracle.

[fishercob]

Yes, the Wizards fans show up when it's on the line, but it's not a big market like LA or NY to these athletes. That's a big reason I bet why Pau Gasol had the Lakers on his short list of teams that he wanted to go to, not to mention that they had a player and a coach who had won championships who few years before that. Yes DC is a nice town with stuff to do. But it's not reputable for nightlife/women- maybe that's the primary reason why LeBron, Wade, and Bosh chose Miami.

First off, what has the size of the New York market ever brought the Knicks? That franchise has won nothing in a decade, and they just whiffed on the top tier free agents. They'll score a lot this year, but they'll have terrible defense.

Second, I have no recollection of Gasol having a short list. I seem to remember the trade coming out of nowhere and it being motivated by Heisley's desire to save money. Memphis was terrible at the time and he figured he could lose just as easily without paying Pau big money as he could by paying him. LA offered a big enough expiring as well as a recent mid-first rounder, a future first and the rights to part of the same gene pool they were trading. You can see Heisley's logic, awful as it was.

Remember, the Lakers weren't "The Lakers" when Pau got traded there. Their previous three seasons had two first round exits and a lotto appearance. I really don't think Pau and his agents conspired to get him to LA. They just wanted out of Memphis.