nate33 wrote:The only argument for retaining Bertans is if you accept Wall can't be moved for the next 3 years so the next 3 years are lost years anyhow. Under that premise, one can argue that we may as well be 45-win good instead of 35-win good by signing Bertans to a 3-year deal that expires when Wall is up. That's a viable strategy if you really think that picking in the 14-20 range isn't really worse than picking in the 7-12 range. Better to just squeak into the playoffs and look like a credible organization than it is to tank relentlessly in the hopes of landing a superstar. This is doclinkin's model. Be decent, get better, build a culture, and hopefully you get lucky with a late pick or you finally earn the credibility to attract a true max-caliber free agent.
.
I definitely understand the idea of just doing The Process for the rest of Wall's deal, though if we did that, we should have already traded Beal, or at least be trying to trade him. I've defended that model, but I don't think it fits our current team.
The core problem with this is that while the culture stuff is really really hard to quantify, it exists. And a significant effect of it is that it makes your assets stronger, both objectively (positive team atmosphere, better training and development, opportunities for playoff basketball, veteran influence) and subjectively (young players tend to look like better assets when they're part of a winning team, or at least a team that isn't bad, which means when the time comes to consolidate, or trade for that disgruntled superstar, it gives you an edge in making that trade). Also it gives you leverage when it comes time to resign that star, even if you do land them in the draft (which is why Beal signed a medium term extension with a bad team despite really really really wanting to win)
And while 14-20 is kind of worse than the 7-12 range, even PIF himself has argued *repeatedly* that it's not significantly worse, which is why we argue about Clarke vs Hachimura every week (not so much because Rui Hachimura can't or won't be good or even great, but because the draft is a crapshoot especially past top 3, and you want more lottery tickets). And of course, you never know when Giannis or whoever (or possibly Ujiri) might fall in love with DC. And tanking has been drastically nerfed as a strategy. The worst record is equivalent to the 4th worst record, and the 7th worst record has only half as much of a chance to land the #1 pick as the worst record. And the 1st pick might not even be a Kevin Durant or a LeBron James! They might be an Anthony Bennett, or a Markelle Fultz, or even just a John Wall (i.e 2nd or 3rd best player on a contender).
Ultimately, trying to win every single transaction in terms of value sounds great, but "value" can be very fluid, winning more games in the short-term can have long-term value in itself (as long as you don't mortgage the future entirely), and just because it's hard to measure, doesn't mean it's not real.
