Wizards looking to move draft pick

JoshKingsFan · Post #1 » by **JoshKingsFan** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:46 am

According to the Washington Post the Wizards might be willing to part with their 1st rounder if they can shed a salary.

How about the Kings sending Bobby Jackson and the Houston 1st to Washington for James and their 1st?

James expires the end of next season so it's not too long and we get two lotto picks. Maybe instead of choosing between Griffin and Jennings/Rubio (insert top pg) we could get both (what a nice problem to have).

The future would be bright and we'd still shed some contracts in 2010 (Brad -- if he's not traded, KT and James).

This could work especially if the McCants and Moore/Douby deals goes through.

SacTown Kings · Post #2 » by **SacTown Kings** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:57 am

I would really rather cut salary and go after Marvin Williams, however if I were Petrie and felt that are chances of getting Marvin were slim then I wouldn't mind this deal.

Post #3 » by **pillwenney** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:04 am

This just doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how dire your financial situation. You don't trade a pick that high for salary relief. It just doesn't make any sense. This report is either complete BS, or based off of a total misunderstanding. I wouldn't talk about it at all as though there were any truth to it.

Smills91 · Post #4 » by **Smills91** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:08 am

mitchweber wrote:This just doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how dire your financial situation. You don't trade a pick that high for salary relief. It just doesn't make any sense. This report is either complete BS, or based off of a total misunderstanding. I wouldn't talk about it at all as though there were any truth to it.

Maybe they don't like the outlook of this draft and the potential to save over 20 million dollars in one year may be added motivation...

Seriously...

James/Thomas/Washington pick

for

Jackson/Moore/Houston pick

THey drop 15-20 slots in the draft and would equate to over 20 million dollars next year. When you got Arenas/Butle/Jamison next season with Young/Blatch/McGee in the background you may be able to afford losing out on a 'mediocre' draft class lotto pick.

Post #5 » by **pillwenney** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:35 am

Smills91 wrote:
mitchweber wrote:This just doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how dire your financial situation. You don't trade a pick that high for salary relief. It just doesn't make any sense. This report is either complete BS, or based off of a total misunderstanding. I wouldn't talk about it at all as though there were any truth to it.

Maybe they don't like the outlook of this draft and the potential to save over 20 million dollars in one year may be added motivation...

Seriously...

James/Thomas/Washington pick

for

Jackson/Moore/Houston pick

THey drop 15-20 slots in the draft and would equate to over 20 million dollars next year. When you got Arenas/Butle/Jamison next season with Young/Blatch/McGee in the background you may be able to afford losing out on a 'mediocre' draft class lotto pick.

It's actually closer to about 15-16million when you factor in Mikki's buyout (2million next year against 20million with luxury tax factored in), and the fact that the Washington pick is going to cost a lot more. Still a nice chunk of change, but I don't see how it would be at all worth it. They only really need to move one of James/Thomas to save the bulk of that money, and while neither has a desirable contract, adding a potentially very high pick to that still just seems ridiculous. Maybe if they protected it a little, so it would be kind of like a gamble for the other team....MAYBE. Sure they'd still need to move somebody else to cover the top pick's salary, but I'm sure Crittenton and Pecherov for instance would be guys they'd be very willing to move for the right deal. This would likely qualify.

Smills91 · Post #6 » by **Smills91** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:47 am

mitchweber wrote:
Smills91 wrote:
mitchweber wrote:This just doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how dire your financial situation. You don't trade a pick that high for salary relief. It just doesn't make any sense. This report is either complete BS, or based off of a total misunderstanding. I wouldn't talk about it at all as though there were any truth to it.

Maybe they don't like the outlook of this draft and the potential to save over 20 million dollars in one year may be added motivation...

Seriously...

James/Thomas/Washington pick

for

Jackson/Moore/Houston pick

THey drop 15-20 slots in the draft and would equate to over 20 million dollars next year. When you got Arenas/Butle/Jamison next season with Young/Blatch/McGee in the background you may be able to afford losing out on a 'mediocre' draft class lotto pick.

It's actually closer to about 15-16million when you factor in Mikki's buyout (2million next year against 20million with luxury tax factored in), and the fact that the Washington pick is going to cost a lot more. Still a nice chunk of change, but I don't see how it would be at all worth it. They only really need to move one of James/Thomas to save the bulk of that money, and while neither has a desirable contract, adding a potentially very high pick to that still just seems ridiculous. Maybe if they protected it a little, so it would be kind of like a gamble for the other team....MAYBE. Sure they'd still need to move somebody else to cover the top pick's salary, but I'm sure Crittenton and Pecherov for instance would be guys they'd be very willing to move for the right deal. This would likely qualify.

Don't forget the incoming $$$ that a team gets from staying under the tax.

Also the Wiz need to drop about 7 million to get under the tax + the lotto pick itself adds 4-5 million in salary. So that's roughly 11 million dollars they'd need to shed next season to get under the cap.

Moore/Jackson for Thomas/James keeps us in play for 2010, we add a lotto pick in the swap and then move Miller for Rose/Robinson and go from there.

KM44 · Post #7 » by **KM44** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:12 am

It won't happen. They'll only do it if they get back a young guy in return. It's not JUST for cutting salary. They aren't stupid.

Smills91 · Post #8 » by **Smills91** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:20 am

KM44 wrote:It won't happen. They'll only do it if they get back a young guy in return. It's not JUST for cutting salary. They aren't stupid.

Okay...instead of the pick which yields a young guy, we can substitute Donte Greene into the deal.

SacKingZZZ · Post #9 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:31 am

mitchweber wrote:This just doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how dire your financial situation. You don't trade a pick that high for salary relief. It just doesn't make any sense. This report is either complete BS, or based off of a total misunderstanding. I wouldn't talk about it at all as though there were any truth to it.

You might when you look at their situation. I remember arguing about how their situation is different than ours, they have a capable and HIGHLY paid team already. A veteran team. If Arenas comes back healthy they still have a nice veteran core intact. Not only that, but a core that most likely won't or can't be moved. At least in regards to Arenas and Jamison. Then you tack on the fact that the the rookie wouldn't probably fit in if they come back healthy. I still think that they made a huge mistake in re-signing the core of a so-so team, but I bet the owner must really like it since he did re-sign them (Even with Arenas' health in major question). Maybe that sets a precedence? You know, that they don't know what the hell they're doing!? :lol:

With that said, I agree with you, I think it's total BS.

Post #10 » by **pillwenney** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:28 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:
mitchweber wrote:This just doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how dire your financial situation. You don't trade a pick that high for salary relief. It just doesn't make any sense. This report is either complete BS, or based off of a total misunderstanding. I wouldn't talk about it at all as though there were any truth to it.

You might when you look at their situation. I remember arguing about how their situation is different than ours, they have a capable and HIGHLY paid team already. A veteran team. If Arenas comes back healthy they still have a nice veteran core intact. Not only that, but a core that most likely won't or can't be moved. At least in regards to Arenas and Jamison. Then you tack on the fact that the the rookie wouldn't probably fit in if they come back healthy. I still think that they made a huge mistake in re-signing the core of a so-so team, but I bet the owner must really like it since he did re-sign them (Even with Arenas' health in major question). Maybe that sets a precedence? You know, that they don't know what the hell they're doing!? With that said, I agree with you, I think it's total BS.

Yeah, and if the pick was around like...10 at least, I wouldn't think it's so ridiculous. But we're talking about the pick with the most ping pong balls in the league right now. There are other ways to clear salary. I could see them maybe moving down to a lower spot in the lottery, but Houston's pick just seems silly to me. It's one thing to be open to trading the pick, it's another to do it to clear salary, but I don't see anything going to the extreme that this trade would require. And while I haven't done the research myself, I have to think somebody out there is able to offer a better package than that, and certainly more willing to. At some point, actual value has to be taken into account. They'd be much better off dumping one of those two and then some young guys than actually dumping their top draft pick like this.