Arenas for Vince or dump Arenas for cap space?

[jimij]

Re "Success breeds success" - that's one reason whenever you see a list of teams that a star is willing to be traded to it's almost exclusively to winning teams (with the exception of the Knicks maybe). Look at the teams Paul and Bosh had on their trade lists - for the most part, they are already successful and they just want to help them win even more.

IMO keeping Gil and trying to win as much as possible over the next couple of years with a young roster gives us a much better chance at getting another top flight player to come to DC whether as a FA or in trade. As others have pointed out, even if we ditch Gil, we're not very likely to get a top pick unless we completely luck out in the lottery again since we should still have enough talent to compete especially if we add a veteran SF.

I'd rather keep Gil and go for it while maintaining fiscal sanity going forward so that our front office can be flexible with trades and FA's going forward. One bad contract isn't too bad especially if he's even 80% of what he was before. Personally, I think he'll be better than that.

[gesa2]

Reading Hoopa and then Induveca's post immediately following illustrates exactly how hard the decisions are for the Wizards organization right now. While this is a great debate here, and the logic, research and subsequent thoughtful posts are cool, all I'm left with after reading over the last week is confusion. What plan to take? I really don't know. I want to keep GIl, but I'm nowhere near sure enough to plan on making anybody else eat crow if that idea works, and will happily applaud everybody that's right if we trade him and have success. I'm just so happy that with Ted, I really believe there will actually BE a plan.

[fishercob]

The only way to have max salary in 2012 is if Arenas is traded, or if he decides to pull a Richard Jefferson and opts out of the last two years of his contract in exchange for an extension. We could also work out some kind of sign and trade with Blatche or McGee if we're angling for an elite big man like Howard (or potentially Oden).

I don't want this to get glossed over, because these are both potentially huge points.

1) Might Gil opt out with 2 years and $42M on his contract? Well, he's walked away from the final year of a deal before in an effort to get a long term deal. It's really going to depend what the CBA rules allow, but you could see a scenario where things are going well for Gil and the team and both sides want him here for the duration of his career. Maybe we sign him for 5 or 6 years at $70M-$90M and it's flat or declining. It's possible that could be attractive to both parties.

2) With Gil, Wall, Dray and McGee, the only starter "hole" is at SF. So if we upgrade up front one of those guys is in all likelihood going to be part of the package. Unless both guys "blow up," there's a reasonable chance that one won't be here for there next contract. Some tema is going to be happy to pay one of those guys $10M a year if they're losing their superstar who wants $20M. The other corollary to this is Seraphin. If he's the real deal as a rotation-quality big, there's even more reason to use Blatche or McGee in a trade for an upgrade at SF, PF or C.

[Kanyewest]

barely, John Wall's going to make other players better similar to how Steve Nash has done for Amare and Shawn Marion. Young, McGee, and Blatche all got better when the Wizards acquired Wall. So did Gilbert, if he stays.

I wonder if it was the system in regards to Marion and Amare. Amare should do fine in D'Antoni's offense.

[DCZards]

Still, for those who are concerned about Gil's locker room behavior, the thought that this team can already be competitive without Gil is actually an argument in favor of trading him because you don't want him to ruin what could be a pretty good thing.

Oh, please, lyrical. When are you going to get over the Gil is a "problem" in the locker room stuff? It just ain't so. Arguments based on talent, injuries, oncourt chemistry, etc. I can buy, but not this nonsense that seems to suggest Gil is a cancer.

If GA is a problem at all for his teammates, it's that he might be calling them at 3 in the morning to go to the Verizon Center to shot baskets and workout.

[Jericho]

I've been lurking for a while, but finally wanted to chime in on this topic.

I've seen some here go to lengths to show how teams improve after getting the #1 pick. That's not exactly rocket science. Of course you'd expect such teams to improve. For one, you're adding a talented player to a poor squad. For another, those teams have virtually no where to go but up. The vast majority of teams DO improve after a # 1 selection. And that's logical. But the question is why?

Let's not forget that the 2001-2002 Wizards improved 18 games after selecting Kwame Brown. And we know it wasn't because of Brown. That might be a unique situation, but it goes to show that all improvement is not just because of one guy. Each team is different, and each situation is different. Even among the small sample of teams, some took big leaps and others took small leaps. And then there's the Thunder/Sonics who actually regressed with Durant. Durent wasn't the #1 pick, but has the talent to be one. The excuse was that was an anomoly. That the Sonics dumped Lewis and Allen. But let's not forget the top 5 players from last year's Wizards team in games started are gone. This is a different team from last year's squad.

The short answer is that I believe many here are vastly overrating the Wizards chance of success in 2010-2011. That's not unique. You go to any team board, and most fans inflate the quality of their squad. I don't see the Wizards as a playoff team. It COULD happen. But it would basically require everyone to be at the top of their potential. And that's just not how things practically go. You never get your best case scenario for all players. Let's also not ignore a few facts:

(1) The Wizards have a grand total of 2 proven NBA players. Those two are Heinrich and Arenas. And both are natural PGs who won't be playing that position for the Wiz. Other guys may yet prove themselves, but no one else has done it over a full season.

(2) After the trades, with both McGee and Blatche playing well, the Wizards stank last season. They did not have Arenas. They did not have Wall. but they did have a decent PG (Livingston) and other quality players no longer with the squad.

(3) This team has no depth. only 4 guys who you think might do anything: Wall, Arenas, Blatche, and McGee. Maybe toss in Heinrich for 5. And that's it. Yi, Thornton, Nick Young. Are these guys supposed to be rotation players on a playoff team?

(4) Defense seems highly suspect.

I don't doubt that if the "Big 4" all do well, that the Wizards will do decent. But most rookies aren't awesome from the get go. Plenty of young guys who play well at the end of one season don't carry it over to the next. Arenas has barely played at all the last 3 years. Lots of things could go wrong.

I like the core of the team. Blatche and McGee bring nice upside that most lower tier teams don't have. Wall is hopefully a franchise player. But the team needs more talent. And it's 4-5 years from being a real championship contender. Arenas will not be a major factor at that time. So if can be moved for a reasonable return, so be it. It makes sense to go that route.

[Silvie Lysandra]

I

That the Sonics dumped Lewis and Allen. But let's not forget the top 5 players from last year's Wizards team in games started are gone. This is a different team from last year's squad.

Again, I reiterate that losing Butler, Miller, Foye, and Jamison were addition by subtraction. Butler and Miller were both below average while Blatche had surpassed Jamison starting from about game 1. Haywood is the only real loss here that would actually have a negative impact on the W&L record.

(1) The Wizards have a grand total of 2 proven NBA players. Those two are Heinrich and Arenas. And both are natural PGs who won't be playing that position for the Wiz. Other guys may yet prove themselves, but no one else has done it over a full season.

(2) After the trades, with both McGee and Blatche playing well, the Wizards stank last season. They did not have Arenas. They did not have Wall. but they did have a decent PG (Livingston) and other quality players no longer with the squad.

Foye is not a quality player.
Miller was not a quality player last year.
Livingston I feel was overrated last year (13/6/3 over 36 is okay, and he shot very well, but teams aren't beating down this guy's door, are they?), he's maybe a fringe starter.

Are you saying Oberto, Singleton, and Boykins are quality players?

Fact is, I consider Seraphin (and for now I'm assuming he comes this season), Booker, Yi, Hinrich as improvements over Oberto, Singleton and Boykins in terms of a supporting cast.

(4) Defense seems highly suspect.

Jamison was such a net negative defensively that our defense *improved* despite also trading Haywood and Butler (who had a very good counterpart PER). We were low-mid 20s defensively pre-trade, we finished 18th. We have at least 3 bona-fide quality defenders in Blatche, Hinrich and Young. McGee could make strides, Seraphin and Booker seem pretty good for his age there, and I do think Arenas will be at least average defensing SGs.

Arenas will not be a major factor at that time. So if can be moved for a reasonable return, so be it. It makes sense to go that route.

[/quote]

That remains to be seen. He hasn't played much the past few years - which means he has less wear and tear on his body. So if the knee is healthy, he might have a year or two more of peak play more than he would otherwise.

I just think people don't see that we have a *lot* more than most "rebuilding" teams to work with, and that compared to what a guy like Paul, Williams, James or Melo had to work with, we're in very good shape.

[AceDegenerate]

^- I see that (Je)Rico decided to join under another account.

You seem to state matter-of-factly what Arenas will or won't be, when the reality is nobody knows and anybody who claims to is wrong.

I can state just as matter-of-factly that Arenas will lead this team to a championship next season, doesn't make what I'm saying any more right or wrong than you.

Also, as I've pointed out here numerous times before; Not you or anyone else has the formula for a "Championship Contender". It's all LUCK. You can guarantee only 2 Franchises will be successful in the NBA; the Lakers and Celtics. The Celtics were bad for a pretty long time too before they got LUCKY again. That's the only consistency you'll find throughout NBA History in "building a championship contender".

The Wizards will be a "Championship Contender" when LUCK is on their side, and the chips fall their way. The only thing you can build in the NBA is a Competitive Team that plays the right way. I'm sick of everybody acting like they have the formula for a "Championship Contender".

[gesa2]

Man I want RC Buford to buy me some lottery tickets then, because he is LUCKY! Somehow he's arranged at least 2 completely different teams around one top player without living in Boston or LA. Detroit too, what a LUCKY town. Never had more than one all NBA player, still fell into championships in 2 different eras.

[AceDegenerate]

Man I want RC Buford to buy me some lottery tickets then, because he is LUCKY! Somehow he's arranged at least 2 completely different teams around one top player without living in Boston or LA. Detroit too, what a LUCKY town. Never had more than one all NBA player, still fell into championships in 2 different eras.

Actually, you further prove my point. A LOT of LUCK went into everything you just stated. Want to talk about Tim Donaghy again? NBA Games both Regular Season & Playoffs were Ref'd by a Crooked Ref for years, How can you tell me Lucky doesn't play a factor?

[Silvie Lysandra]

RC Buford still lucked into a franchise big due to one bad season due to injury. At the same time, Kevin Garnett was drafted #5 in that same draft. Again, swap Duncan and KG - how much do their career arcs change?

[barelyawake]

Chaos, the reason Ruz (my friend) needs a break is because your argument is friggin ridiculous. Let us remind everyone what the argument is (because my friend CCJ has seemed to forgotten). We both believe Wall will add ten to fifteen more wins (by his play and by making everyone better). That is not the debate. The debate is on top of those wins, chaos believes this team is better than last year's team (both minus Arenas and Wall). That means he believes yi will be better than Aj. Booker will be better than butler and Josh Howard. Armstrong will be better than Haywood. Thorton better than Mike Miller. Etc et friggin cetera. Seriously, putdown the friggin koolaid.

[Illuminaire]

Edit: Eh. No more posting when I'm sleep deprived. I'm too negative then.

[montestewart]

Chaos, the reason Ruz (my friend) needs a break is because your argument is friggin ridiculous. Let us remind everyone what the argument is (because my friend CCJ has seemed to forgotten). We both believe Wall will add ten to fifteen more wins (by his play and by making everyone better). That is not the debate. The debate is on top of those wins, chaos believes this team is better than last year's team (both minus Arenas and Wall). That means he believes yi will be better than Aj. Booker will be better than butler and Josh Howard. Armstrong will be better than Haywood. Thorton better than Mike Miller. Etc et friggin cetera. Seriously, putdown the friggin koolaid.

I don't fully agree with his propositions, but I don't know that he's really saying all of that. To cite one example, why would it matter if Yi was better or worse than AJ? AJ started, and Yi will be a bench player.

It will be hard for this year's team not to be significantly better than last year's team, both before the trades and after the trades. Who knows whether this year's team is better than last year's Wizards (sans Arenas) player for player, but last years team was broken (I'd like to know who is claiming Butler and Jamison were good last year?), had injuries (seriously, it's not so outlandish to imagine Booker topping last year's contribution from Howard), a lot of turnover, new system installed in season, and a few other distractions (death of owner, uncertain ownership, suspension of star player).

I don't expect the Wizards to go far next year, but why would anyone be shocked if they made the playoffs, considering all that happened last year and all the unknowns this year? That team last year was in its death throes, with aging players and a bad model. This team is young and up and coming, using a different model. I'm not saying that Wall/Arenas/Booker/Blatche/McGee is better than Wall/Arenas/Butler/Jamison/Haywood, but that's mostly because Haywood's better than McGee, until McGee proves otherwise. Maybe he'll do that this year, maybe he'll never do that at all.

I guess I can understand Ruzious' aggravation, but I find these threads (this and the Championship thread) to be full of great reading, with a wide range of greatly detailed views.

And why do people keep talking about drinking kool-aid like it causes delusions? It caused death in Jonestown; the delusions prefaced the kool-aid suicides, not vice versa (an unlikely scenario). Are you concerned that Chaos is suicidal? (Chaos is Suicidal would be a fine name for a band.)

[barelyawake]

For all that you can say about last year's team, they had years to develop chemistry and were proven NBA players -- several all-stars. To go out on a limb and claim that suddenly a completely stripped down team, with late pick rookies and other team's castoffs, is going to be better than the team we assembled is balls to the wall crazy. Period. Again, remember we are taking both wall and arenas out of the equation. We are talking about the shattered mess that is our bench and the rest of our team (minus wall's contribution in making them better). I don't think people get the argument or they would see how bat crazy it is.

[gesa2]

RC Buford still lucked into a franchise big due to one bad season due to injury. At the same time, Kevin Garnett was drafted #5 in that same draft. Again, swap Duncan and KG - how much do their career arcs change?

swap San Antonio's management and drafting with Minnesota's, and see how their career arcs would have changed. San Antonio's entire team is composed of cast offs and low draft picks, except for Tim Duncan. (after Robinson and Sean ELliott retired at least, and they accounted for just the first championship)

[montestewart]

For all that you can say about last year's team, they had years to develop chemistry and were proven NBA players -- several all-stars. To go out on a limb and claim that suddenly a completely stripped down team, with late pick rookies and other team's castoffs, is going to be better than the team we assembled is balls to the wall crazy. Period. Again, remember we are taking both wall and arenas out of the equation. We are talking about the shattered mess that is our bench and the rest of our team (minus wall's contribution in making them better). I don't think people get the argument or they would see how bat crazy it is.

That's part of why I don't fully embrace such an approach, but sans Wall and Arenas is a hypothetical. The Big-3 approach, with little emphasis on defense, was a model that had passed its expiration date and was a bit flawed to begin with. I'm just being open to the possibility that the old model was less than the sum of its parts at the end, and the new model might be greater than the sum of its parts, and that such an improvement will center on Wall, but that well-coached youth and defense with Wall-Arenas-Blatche as options 1-3 could surprise. Sure, I'm still looking for tough interior defense, I'm still looking for the low post bull on offense, I'm still looking for a 3P sharpshooter (although Hinrich and Arenas are quite good), I'm still wondering who's going to be the real SF, and I'm still wondering which (if any) among the bench players (Booker, Seraphin, Thornton, Young, Yi) will exceed expectations. But I'm open to the possibility that most of the elements are in place for an interesting run that might exceed expectations (mine are currently running in the 32-36 wins area).

[gesa2]

For all that you can say about last year's team, they had years to develop chemistry and were proven NBA players -- several all-stars. To go out on a limb and claim that suddenly a completely stripped down team, with late pick rookies and other team's castoffs, is going to be better than the team we assembled is balls to the wall crazy. Period. Again, remember we are taking both wall and arenas out of the equation. We are talking about the shattered mess that is our bench and the rest of our team (minus wall's contribution in making them better). I don't think people get the argument or they would see how bat crazy it is.

I'll be surprised if we win more than 35 games next year, but it will be infinitely better to watch us lose playing hard playing as a team and trying to find our selves than it was to watch us lose the way we did last year before the trades.

[montestewart]

I'll be surprised if we win more than 35 games next year, but it will be infinitely better to watch us lose playing hard playing as a team and trying to find our selves than it was to watch us lose the way we did last year before the trades.

I get the feeling a lot of people around here feel the same.

[Hoopalotta]

Edit: Eh. No more posting when I'm sleep deprived. I'm too negative then.

Oh, for Pete's sake! I should've quoted you before.