Slim Charless wrote:Revived wrote:Its funny how a smart team like the Mavs were able to acquire a star player without giving up the farm and just one measly 1st rd pick and still maintained assets to trade for and acquire guys like Gafford and Washington.
Can you imagine if Suns made the trade for Kyrie instead and gave up just a 1st for him like Mavs did? So we keep Mikal and Cam.
Kyrie
Booker
Bridges
Johnson
*Gafford
*I think Ayton still gets traded.
Best part of this the Suns would still have lot of assets left to improve the bench and potentially upgrade from Cam Johnson if wanted.
Beal is a better player than Gafford and we got him for less. I know this year hasn't been the best, but Beal is legit. That was 1 of JJ's few good moves.
Jones does deserve a little credit for his creativity in doing pick swaps, so I'm happy to give him that. And overall, Beal is surely a much better player (although significantly more costly) and I have become somewhat fond of him for his willingness to actually show effort, grit, and an actual give a **** attitude more than our other two stars! But I'm sorry man that for my part, I just can't agree that we got him for less than what we gave up for Beal man considering that all the Mavs gave up to get him was Richaun Holmes salary and a 2024' first (least favorable of Thunder/Mavs pick).
https://www.si.com/nba/wizards/news/how-the-dallas-mavericks-and-washington-wizards-are-faring-following-daniel-gafford-trade And Beal (although clearly the much better overall talent) will cost us upwards of $53-57 million over the next three seasons while Gafford (although the lesser talent) will only cost them upwards of $13-14 million over the next three seasons. But the point is we gave up around 43+ million in salaries and cumulatively around 4 pick swaps and 6 future 2nds (I count every two 2nds as equitable value equal to one non lotto first/ standard first at .50% of 1st round value) so more or less three future first in terms of value (cost controlled under new CBA). And I know that 1st swaps are better than giving up straight firsts, BUT..........................in the coming year ranges of 26, 28, and 2030, We'll likely be pretty bad, and none of those firsts we'll have control over! They could very likely be lottery- high lotto ranges with Washington having discretion over them. Those three pick swaps cumulatively should hold significantly more value alone than the 2024 1st from either Dallas or OKC as top seeded playoff teams for this year.
Don't get me wrong, I've come around on liking Beal by a fair margin! HOWEVER, I still don't like the cumulative value that we gave up for him in that deal CONSIDERING OUR LEVERAGE in that:
1- Beals'
"no trade clause" basically gave him full authority to choose exactly where he wanted to go!
2- He outright stated that he only wanted Phoenix, and post statement Washington really HAD NO THER SUITORS.
3- Washingtons' ownership/front office was very open about their and their fanbases aggressive desire to move him (get off his salary) and finally begin their long overdue rebuild. There new GM (Dawkins) and executive (Michael Winger) both were adamant about trading Beal in order to expedite their rebuild plans:
https://theathletic.com/5144396/2023/12/18/roadmap-rebuild-wizards-roster-improvement/The Wizards’ new regime was determined to move Beal’s contract, and did so, trading Beal to Phoenix in June, marking the official start of Washington’s teardown.
4- Once Beal openly chose Phoenix (with his no trade clause factor) the only curious suitor at the time in Miami quickly pivoted to Lillard pursuit, and again there were really no other suitors/competition for us to bid against, And we bid against ourselves as his only legitimate suitor.
5- Bradley Beals' huge contract in conjunction with his well documented injury history/ durability issues are clearly a depreciative value factor for any team investing in him, and clearly we did nothing to leverage this factor either. As good as Beal is for a star talent, there's an obvious reason that only maybe two teams were remotely showing interest in him. And one team bailed without much fight leaving only us. that glaring factor (that we've experienced just this season) being his contract salary in relation to his injury issues. So the implied risk involved is massive that whichever team acquiring him WILL NOT get anywhere near equitable value/ production for his contract or salary!
That's 5 clear and significant factors that Jones (not surprisingly) ignored that could've been easily leveraged in our favor, meaning basically we held all of the leverage with Washington really having none. So regardless of swaps being a creative strategy, we still significantly overpaid given the context of the situation and corresponding implied risks involved to us. The cumulative value given up therefore is significantly more than what the Mavs gave up for Gafford, even though Beal is an astronomically better overall talent all things considered. And again, I've become a fan of Beal, just not the cumulative value given to get him when in truth we held all the leverage! ................................................Just as we did with KD, only difference in that trade is that KD didn't have a "no trade clause" AND actually did have other interested suitors.
But all things considered, it does make sense that Jones would aggressively/creatively find a way to offload every available asset (especially draft) that we have in both the KD and Beal trades as we all know full well of him how much he dislikes the draft and doesn't value it at all nor is he even willing to do proper scouting. Just like he does the absolute minimum each free agency and trade deadline. aside of course from surrendering assets whenever possible to resign players he just recently let walk for nothing. All par for the course knowing Jones and his aversion to actually doing his job like other GMs.
