Arenas for Vince or dump Arenas for cap space?

[DCZards]

4) We need a gamechanging big. To suggest that there are several ways to get such a player is utterly false. And to suggest that we could get just as many pieces to trade with late picks as opposed to top picks is also false. Could we? Sure. But, the odds are completely against it. As I mentioned before, not only do you get a shot at a top big with a high lottery pick, you also get the clout in trade value that a couple number four picks bring if you fail. "Tanking" got Orlando Howard, Clevelanf Lebron and us Wall.

Barely, you hurt your own argument my using guys like LeBron, Howard and Wall as examples. All of them were hands-down #1 picks from the jump. (Maybe except for Howard since Okafor was also an option that year.) And all are rare talents that don't come along very often. Do you know how downright lucky you have to be to get that top pick and have a surefire gamechanger waiting there to be plucked?.

Let's look at the last few drafts and how many gamechanging bigs came out of those drafts.

2005
#1 -Bogut
#10 -Bynum

I consider Bogut a game changer but you'd have to have the top pick to get him. I like Bynum as well but he was a high school kid and is still learning how to play. So if you draft a high schooler or one-year college big you'd better be willing to wait another 3-4 years before they become an impact player.

2006
#2- Aldridge
#4 - Thomas
#5 - Shelden Williams
#9 - P. O'Bryant

Yeah, maybe Aldridge is a gamechanger but he's really more of a PF/SF since he does most of his scoring from 10-15 feet. None of the others are worth tanking for.

2007
#1 - Oden
#2 - Durant
#3 - Horford
#9- Noah

This is the best group by far, especially if Oden lives up to his potential. But it will take a lot of luck to get one of the first two picks and, while Horford and Noah are excellent players, is either one of them a "gamechanger"?

2008
#2 - Beasley
#5 - K. Love
#10 - Brook Lopez

I love Lopez--and he's a gamechanger. But notice that he went with the 10th pick. Not a pick that required a team truly tanking to get.

2009
#1 - Griffin
#2 - Thabeet
#8 - Jordan Hill

Griffin may turn out to be a game changer, but we already know that Hill and Thabeet probably won't. And, again, you had to be lucky enough to have the top pick to even get Griffin.

Maybe lightening will strike twice and the Zards will again get the top pick (or second pick) in one of the next 2-3 drafts...and maybe there's a stud big man like Duncan, Shaq, Howard waiting there to be picked. But that's a lot of wishing and hoping and something that requires getting real LUCKY.

Meanwhile, you've already traded GA, a player who teamed with Wall could maybe be part of the best backcourt in the NBA. I'll take my chances building on "the bird in the hand rather than the two in the bush."

[Silvie Lysandra]

Basically, the Ruzious/barely/les approach is comparable to giving away a million dollar fortune to buy up enough lottery tickets to have a 1/4 chance of winning the jackpot, without knowing in advance if the jackpot will even be bigger than what you had to begin with. Makes sense.

[Ruzious]

Basically, the Ruzious/barely/les approach is comparable to a multi-millionaire to give away all your money and buy up enough lottery tickets to have a 1/4 chance of winning the jackpot, without knowing in advance if the jackpot will even be bigger than what you had to begin with. Makes sense.

We have a Wall, and apparently I've been talking to a wall. There's a whole lot of reasons other than winning a lotto pick to trade Arenas - that have been gone over time after time. As I've said a million times, I want the Wiz to start the season with Arenas and for him to do well. Right now, nobody's going to trade anything but crap for him, because everyone else understands that there are smarter ways to spend $80 million.

[Kanyewest]

Better yet, what college big man fits such a description that only a "tank" effort and the possibility of top pick would net?

Players aren't always readily apparent in college basketball especially one and done freshman. But waiting for that franchise big can be brutally painful. For instance, look how many bigs that Chicago has taken in the past 10 years- Elton Brand, Marcus Fizer, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Tyrus Thomas, and Joakim Noah (which they appear to have gotten right).

I wouldn't get too hung up on getting a franchise big either if the Wizards were to tank. The Wizards should just try to go for the best player available. Just go for game changing players.

Of course, I wouldn't mind trying to find out if Blatche/McGee could be those bigs.

[nate33]

Basically, the Ruzious/barely/les approach is comparable to a multi-millionaire to give away all your money and buy up enough lottery tickets to have a 1/4 chance of winning the jackpot, without knowing in advance if the jackpot will even be bigger than what you had to begin with. Makes sense.

We have a Wall, and apparently I've been talking to a wall. There's a whole lot of reasons other than winning a lotto pick to trade Arenas - that have been gone over time after time. As I've said a million times, I want the Wiz to start the season with Arenas and for him to do well. Right now, nobody's going to trade anything but crap for him, because everyone else understands that there are smarter ways to spend $80 million.

+1

That's a ridiculous analogy.

[hands11]

As to the star players, I am not advocating actively trying to lose. In fact, at the trade deadline this season, I hope the Wizards are 47-0. Instead, I am advocating trying to acquire talent that has a long term potential for giving the Wizards the greatest bang for the buck.

(continued due to apparent size restrictions)

IMO, Arenas, Kirk, Yi, and Thornton offer very little long term bang for the buck, and if the opportunity arises to move them in a good deal at the trade deadline, I sincerely hope EG pulls the trigger. Nick Young is very close to being in the above group, but I guess I could be persuaded that if he has a very good season this year, he is worth the risk of keeping. As for Blatche and McGee, as far as I am concerned, the Wizards have a season and a half to evaluate them, and if they look very good over that time, they are probably worth keeping, big contract and all.

Here is how I see it.

We have had two terrible years back to back, but in that time frame, we had lots of good thing happen that we have yet to see the result of. We have cleaned house and changed owners. There really only seems to be one remaining piece that I have concern about and that is us keeping Gil which I hope we do and it looks like we will.

Here is the list of good things we have accomplished and why fans should be pumped.

1-We got ride of EFJ and got the best coach we have seen here in many many many years.
2-We got ride of the bottle neck of GA, CB and AJ as our BIG THREE NO D - Is Dead
3-We got Dray solid minutes starting at PF where he was the focus and he excelled - long overdue
4-We got way under the cap and are in good position for whatever the new CBA brings
5-We got ride of dead wood and bad contracts - DSleezy, Mike James, AJ, ET, Ross
6-We got to see what our team would look like with a real PG(Liv) and PF(Dray) combo
7-We got the number 1 draft pick and selected what appears to be a mature leader great PG
8-We will no longer be running a team based on a SG as PG or at a min an AI type PG.
9-We got our front offensive in order. New Owner with a long term plan, deep pockets, good image.

Of all these positive things that have happened, most can be credited to EG who accomplished most of these things while running a mostly rudderless ship. Well the EFJ dump happened while Abe was still with us, but after that, he was operating in a difficult situation while the team was up for sell.

Hell, it was a little touch and go there for a moment when we were not 100% sure Ted was going to get the team. Thank God that worked out the way it did.

If you weed through all the things that have happened, there is lots of good stuff in there and the two most import are

(1) the team has a new owner and it is Ted. A guy who is youngish. He has experience owning a sport franchise more specifically the Cap who have turned it around through his leadership. He has money. He has a plan. He is good in front of a camera. Getting Ted is more important than getting Wall. But we didn't get one or the other, we got both.

(2) We got Wall - We got the #1 pick in the draft from the #5 spot. The BB Gods are shinning on us.

Just these two things along is a reason to be very very excited about the future of our team. EG under Teds leadership I believe is going to give us the best of what EG has done in the past without the moves happening that people didn't like. We will see more moves like not overpaying Hughes, Jarvis or Jefferies, and less moves like overpaying AJ, DS and Gil or trading our #5 for MM and Foye and missing out on a player like DeJuan Blair because we sold the pick for cash. Thats for you CCJ

I still believe the worst of what we saw happen with Abe and EG was greatly influence by Abe. I kind of view it as EG GMing with one hand tied behind his back. Who believes Ted would hire EFJ, the head coach, and then hire his GM ? I can't see that happening. That one move alone wasted many years in our rebuild by setting up complete dysfunction in the organization chain of command.
It had us building a loosing team because a team without defense being as important if not more important than offense is not going to win deep in the playoffs.

Does anyone here really believe if it was Ted and Ernie, that we could have sold the Blair pick ?
Do you really think we would have signed DSleezy bidding against no body ?

This league is to competitive to make mistakes and under Abe as owner, there is a long history of not only mistakes, but big costly mistakes. From many years Wes Unseld as a key front office person or coach to dumping our only decent GM in recent memory ( Nash ) to letting go of Wallace and Wallace.

This is new day and it ALL STARTS WITH TED being the owner of our team.

Again, most view EG as a decent GM with some questionable moves. I like his patience. I like most of his selections. Dray, McGee, etc. Even DS was a good addition for one year for almost nothing. It was the resigning of him longer term that was the wrong move. Well, again, imagine EGs good stuff with less of his back moves. I believe that is what we have in Ted and EG so I have more faith then ever that we will make more right moves than before.

Then add to that they have Flip. Then add we have Wall.

It is a great day to be a Wizards fan. We are finally REALLY REBUILDING. We have a solid foundation for the first time in over 25 years. I never believed in the first rebuild with Abe, EG, EFJ and Gil but

I believe in Ted, EG, Flip and Wall That matches against the best that is out there.

[DCZards]

We have a Wall, and apparently I've been talking to a wall. There's a whole lot of reasons other than winning a lotto pick to trade Arenas - that have been gone over time after time. As I've said a million times, I want the Wiz to start the season with Arenas and for him to do well. Right now, nobody's going to trade anything but crap for him, because everyone else understands that there are smarter ways to spend $80 million.

There's no question Gil is overpaid...especially given his health the last couple of years, and his D sucks. But if you look at the money that's being thrown at players like Rudy Gay, Richard Jefferson, Hakim Warrick, Frye, even Amare one thing becomes obvious once again---most NBA players are overpaid. Yes, $80 million is a lot to pay but, assuming he's healthy, Gil is a "gamechanger." So why be so eager to dump a bona fide gamechanger only to then "hope" that another one drops in your lap. There may be a time and reason for trading GA someday, but right now the reasons I'm hearing, which are almost solely monetary, ain't getting it for me.

[doclinkin]

4) We need a gamechanging big. To suggest that there are several ways to get such a player is utterly false. And to suggest that we could get just as many pieces to trade with late picks as opposed to top picks is also false. Could we? Sure. But, the odds are completely against it. As I mentioned before, not only do you get a shot at a top big with a high lottery pick, you also get the clout in trade value that a couple number four picks bring if you fail. "Tanking" got Orlando Howard, Clevelanf Lebron and us Wall.

Barely, you hurt your own argument my using guys like LeBron, Howard and Wall as examples. All of them were hands-down #1 picks from the jump. (Maybe except for Howard since Okafor was also an option that year.) And all are rare talents that don't come along very often. Do you know how downright lucky you have to be to get that top pick and have a surefire gamechanger waiting there to be plucked?.

More to the point consider the last few NBA champions. Neither the Lake Show nor Boston drafted their game changing two-way Bigs (neither of whom were number one picks). They traded for them. Ditto Detroit & Miami. Only San Antonio won with the franchise Big they lucked into in the draft. Most of them traded assets of significantly less value than any top 5 lotto pick.

Granted, recent history would suggest that perhaps the best value would be to have an expiring contract of significant size, and a smattering of other interesting assets to pool with the player. Then you can swap out in an instant upgrade.

Fair enough, but how long do you expect to tank, or more importantly how quickly do we expect to be champs contenders? MJ took 6 years. LeBJ hasn't won in seven. Truth is by the time John Wall has seized command of his game and hit peak stride it may serve the team best to have a 20 million dollar expiring contract like Gil's.

I understand the reasoning: since odds are stacked against landing a superlative Big in the draft, and since that's the keystone piece in most championship teams well then do everything you can to increase those odds. Swell the %'s.

Thing is we haven't ever seen it work. What team has tanked their way to a championship? Boston is about the closest we can come up with: sucking for decades trying to land a Len Bias, a Tim Duncan, then eventually packaging a handful of high picks to a team stuck in the middle of nowhere.

IF Gil would be good for Wall, and Wall is the best asset we have, it makes more sense to me to maximize the assets we have. It's no rosy-eyed assessment to say that Gil's value has never been lower. It will surely never be as high as it was at his peak (until perhaps he becomes a large-dollar expiring deal) but it's not a bad gamble to think that it can improve from it's current depth.

At this point, given that the owner says outright he wants to keep him (at the least to rehab his value, see if we can make it work with one of the potentially most dynamic backcourts in the game) we make a virtue of necessity and ask the question instead: IF it could work, HOW could it work with both Gilbert and John Wall. What is our time frame.

Eh. I'll start a new thread for pie-eyed optimists for that. Suffice to say I understand the arguments for dropping our biggest contract and starting with a clean slate, I just don't see it as anything more than a gamble. And given that there are strong potential benefits for keeping the cat, I'm on the 'virtue of necessity' bus.

For those who want to hop on board (admission is free) I'll lay out a few of the sightseeing spots in the brochure:

Gil and John Wall have the potential to play as an unstoppable engine of evisceration against opposing defenses. Granted Gil has lost half a step, he may be somewhat gunshy about attacking the interior, but at his peak he was the most dominant outside-in player in the league. His offense put entire teams in foul trouble. As the off-ball player in this offense he has the luxury of simply running balls-out and attacking as soon as he has the ball. No decision-making necessary other than Go get it. Putting him next to Johnny Ballgame overloads opponent defenses into system crash after the fouls begin to mount. After Larry we always wanted to put Gil next to another ballhandling attack guard who has a defensive aptitude. Here it is. If this works we'll have more than a few nights of standing out the seats in 'can you believe that [mess]' type of awe.

We haven't seen Gil back after rehab. It usually takes a year and half to regain your quicks. Gilbert has had a long time to work his body, all we need now is the timing. Add to that the practice floor intensity of Gil vs John and Gil vs Hinrich and Hinrich vs Wall and I suspect we'll see positive dividends of keeping this crew together as a unit. Each helps improve the flaws in each other's game. Consider the dialogue between JWall and his boy Bledsoe in the Clippers game. Wall said: 'there's no competition when we're on the same team, but in practice and now that we're in the league against each other we always said "Let's make each other better.'" Let's make each otehr better. Go at each other every scrimmage, go for the kill. I for one would pay serious admission to watch that battle. It's the Point Guard version of Mike vs Scottie every practice. If we get any footage from this, those dvds become instant classics.

Given that the East is reconfiguring in a few possible superpowers and a few also-rans. We have a squad that may prove tricky for even the top teams to handle, when it's clicking. No one can match our top-gear speed (provided we can secure a rebound). There's a likelihood that we'll be able to scratch our way into the playoffs. Yes this dings our chances at a top talent, but the benefit of the playoffs are manifold. This is how young players become instant veterans. YOu see the effort that it takes to raise your game, and develop the desire the passionate resolve to fight yourway back to that stage. This is where defensive intensity is learned. First you win, then you get good. Playoffs are the crucible that forges teams into a strong unit.

If lotto is your only hope, Wizards fans understand that shxt happens. Often you land in the lotto not because of the overall talent of a given year, but because of a momentary derailment of that talent. Occasionally ill luck proves an asset when you have a solid team missing a key player for a stretch. No need to try for losses. It sends the wrong message. But shxt happens, and when all are recovered suddenly you are twice as strong, twice as deep. Karma rewards you for the effort.

We've got something interesting here. It's unfinished, untempered, unformed, but developing. I don't see the quick path to Championship, that's where we all agree, but I see a few avenues of incursion towards there. I see the strong potential for improvement, and ultimately opportunities that will open up after we see the new structure of the league etc. I'm more full of interest than of doubt. And for now seeing Gilbert push John and vice versa, I can't see any stronger benefit by missing this opportunity.

Looks like nowadays, again, the Wiz were ahead of the curve in relying on three equal Allstars. You need them to even consider competing. We've potentially got two. I can't see that as a bad thing.

[Kanyewest]

We have a Wall, and apparently I've been talking to a wall. There's a whole lot of reasons other than winning a lotto pick to trade Arenas - that have been gone over time after time. As I've said a million times, I want the Wiz to start the season with Arenas and for him to do well. Right now, nobody's going to trade anything but crap for him, because everyone else understands that there are smarter ways to spend $80 million.

So you want to trade Arenas so the Wizards have better finances? Fair enough. While Arenas is overpaid now, he certainly was underpaid in his previous contract with the Wizards.

Then again, Arenas does bring attention to this franchise which brings wealth to the franchise. According to the Wall Street Journal and Nielsen, there is a 31% drop in local TV ratings when Gilbert doesn't play. That's worth a lot of money. I would also assume that ticket sales are correlated to whether Arenas plays. Therefore, trading Arenas doesn't necessarily give the Wizards any more financial flexibility, even if they acquired additional cap space.

You think the last 30 games is the best that Arenas is going to be? I disagree. Arenas was getting re-acclimated with playing after playing 20 games over 2 years. There was going to be some rust and mistakes; his shot wasn't even where it was at when he was playing on one leg. Of course, there will be growing pains for Arenas even this time around after only playing 30 games this past season but I expect that he will become more consistent and efficient.

Arenas also has two better teammates in Wall and Blatche than in Jamison and Butler. While Arenas has been below average defensively, he gets a chance to redeem himself with a better defensive lineup overall despite the loss of Haywood. The loss of Jamison is addition by subtraction defensively.

Yes, the Wizards are rebuilding and someone in Gilbert Arenas's caliber should be playing on a contender. But the Wizards aren't getting any building blocks for him. And despite Arenas woes defensively, he fills a need as a shooter to spread the court of Wall, and a playmaker to lessen the burden of John Wall.

Cap space is overrated right now especially since the Wizards are rebuilding. Do the Wizards really want to go out and spend $35 million on someone like Travis Outlaw, Drew Gooden, or Richard Jefferson.

The best case for trading Arenas is to tank. But I'm not entirely sure if the Wizards are good, mediocre, or just amazingly sucky. There are too many unknowns right now such as how good John Wall is, if Blatche is the real deal, or if McGee can translate his summer league play into the regular season.

For now, I would keep Arenas because you might have something special in a combo of Arenas/Wall. Yes, I understand that Arenas is a below average defender but offensively he's about as good of option that the Wizards are going to get with cap space. His 3 point shooting compliments John Wall and he's still an above average slasher despite the knee injuries and who knows if Arenas regains even more of his quickness in another offeason working out with Tim Grover.

[DCZards]

So you want to trade Arenas so the Wizards have better finances? Fair enough. While Arenas is overpaid now, he certainly was underpaid in his previous contract with the Wizards.

Then again, Arenas does bring attention to this franchise which brings wealth to the franchise. According to the Wall Street Journal and Nielsen, there is a 31% drop in local TV ratings when Gilbert doesn't play. That's worth a lot of money. I would also assume that ticket sales are correlated to whether Arenas plays.

Kanye, you raise a good point that gets overlooked. We've talked a ton about how much GA costs the Zards ($80 mil) but there's been little or no mention of how much income Ted and the franchise will make from having GA in a Zards uni. A dynamic backcourt of GA/Wall will mean more fannies in the seats, better TV ratings, more appearances on national TV, more merchandise sales (the young kids who spend money on merchandise love guard play) and ultimately more income for the franchise. Losing (or tanking) on the other hand means the needle in the opposite direction.

So, while keeping GA certainly costs the Zards money, it also makes them money. Ted knows this. He ain't no fool.

[verbal8]

It seems to me the arguments for dumping Arenas are tanking and cap space. I think this may be the worst possible draft to tank for. If the CBA is not resolved, I think you could see very few Freshmen or even Sophmores declaring. The draft will basically be foreign guys who aren't ready, Seniors and Juniors trying to sneak into the 1st round due to a weak draft. It doesn't seem to me to be worth wasting a season for. At this point last year we had already heard a lot about this John Wall guy I don't hear much hype about the expected draft class.

For the cap space argument, I think dumping Hinrich would free up pretty much close to max cap space. If it was done right the trading partner may even throw in an incentive. There does not seem to be a combination of players to target like Bosh/James combo this off-season, so I don't see the need for more than max cap space.

For the long term, hopefully the Wizards will not be in a position to have cap space in 2013, because Blatche and McGee will have earned big contracts. At that point it is probably better to have a big expiring than what would probably be a slightly bigger than MLE space after the cap holds for Blatche and McGee. I admit there is an advantage in 2012, but I am not sure who the target would be. And who is to say it would be hard to move Arenas at that point.

[JonathanJoseph]

Lots of good stuff in this thread for an offseason discussion.

I wanted to chime in, again, on this topic of "gamechanging" bigs. Because I don't see how the Wiz could possibly be in a better situation than they are currently. We have TWO of them currently on the roster.

Yes, Blatche needs to prove some things and McGee needs to prove a lot of things and get a lot better, but both of these guys are potentially "gamechanging" bigs who are way ahead of the curve relative to where they are supposed to be.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say that Blatche will emerge as a 18/9/4, inside/out big who can defend in the post by this season. Like I said, Blatche needs to "grow up" literally and figuratively, but how far is that from what people will consider a "gamechanging" big? That's definitely one of the top 10 4's in the NBA and possibly top 5.

McGee has farther to go than Blatche, but let's put his development in perspective. Everyone considers Joakim Noah a legit 5, but he averaged 10/11/1.6 last year as a 25 year old. As a 24 year old in his 2nd season, he was 6.7./7.5/1.4 in 24 minutes per game.

Last season as a 21 year old, McGee averaged 6.4/4.1/1.7 in 16 minutes per game. In the last stretch, McGee averaged 24 minutes/game (the same number as Noah in his second year) and his numbers over that stretch were 13.3/8.5/3. Even rebounding, which is one of McGee's weaknesses, he's ahead of Noah when comparing 2nd seasons. Mark Gasol broke out at age 25 (15/9.5/1.6). Jermaine ONeal couldn't get playing time until he was 24. Bynum is still up an down at 22. Just have some patience, McGee is well ahead of the curve and very much a potential "gamechanging" big.

As Doc eloquently noted, the Wall/Arenas backcourt has the potential to be literally unstoppable given NBA handchecking rules and another few years of seasoning for Blatche and McGee might make them the "gamechanging" bigs some think they are looking for. That's why there is no need to trade Arenas.

[nate33]

Food for thought:

Chris Paul is asking to be traded. He'll probably be traded for pennies on the dollar. A few weeks ago, I said that you never know when the next Pau Gasol situation comes along. Well, here it is. Obviously, Chris Paul isn't the right fit for us, but I think his situation makes my point.

In year or two, once we're a 40-45 win up-and-coming team, the next Pau Gasol/Chris Paul situation will take place. We could be in perfect position to snatch him up if we have the cap space and to absorb some salary and some stockpiled picks as incentive. And the way for that to happen is to dump Arenas and acquire future picks with BOYD deals every offseason.

[JonathanJoseph]

One more note on Arenas' contract. It's really not that bad even assuming Arenas doesn't get any better than he was last season (which I doubt anyway). Here's a list of players making more than Arenas this season:

Yao Ming (worse injury problems than Arenas)
Michael Redd (injured and nothing but a volume shooter)
Andrei Kirelinko
Rashard Lewis
Kevin Garnett (whose career as a reliable NBA player is sadly over. Can't beat father time)

Here are some other players making $14M+
Kenyon Martin
Elton Brand
Peja Stojackavich
Zach Randolph

And lets put the need for cap space into perspective. Which NBA teams currently have more cap spac than Les Boulez?

Kings
TWolves
Nets

end of list. Teams with about the same amount of cap space?

Knicks
Clippers
Bulls

[AceDegenerate]

Food for thought:

Chris Paul is asking to be traded. He'll probably be traded for pennies on the dollar. A few weeks ago, I said that you never know when the next Pau Gasol situation comes along. Well, here it is. Obviously, Chris Paul isn't the right fit for us, but I think his situation makes my point.

In year or two, once we're a 40-45 win up-and-coming team, the next Pau Gasol/Chris Paul situation will take place. We could be in perfect position to snatch him up if we have the cap space and to absorb some salary and some stockpiled picks as incentive. And the way for that to happen is to dump Arenas and acquire future picks with BOYD deals every offseason.

Yay for Wet Dreams!

You know what also COULD happen? We DON'T trade Arenas and he starts the season with the Wizards.

He and Wall have outstanding chemsitry, lead the team to 50 Wins and pull some amazing upsets in the Playoffs on our way to the NBA Championship!

Then we all wake up, and get back to reality.

You don't run your franchise based on pipe dreams.


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.

[nate33]

It seems to me the arguments for dumping Arenas are tanking and cap space. I think this may be the worst possible draft to tank for. If the CBA is not resolved, I think you could see very few Freshmen or even Sophmores declaring. The draft will basically be foreign guys who aren't ready, Seniors and Juniors trying to sneak into the 1st round due to a weak draft. It doesn't seem to me to be worth wasting a season for. At this point last year we had already heard a lot about this John Wall guy I don't hear much hype about the expected draft class.

For the cap space argument, I think dumping Hinrich would free up pretty much close to max cap space. If it was done right the trading partner may even throw in an incentive. There does not seem to be a combination of players to target like Bosh/James combo this off-season, so I don't see the need for more than max cap space.

These are pretty good points. From a draft standpoint, the downside of keeping Arenas for one more year is minimal. I'm still most concerned about his trade value dropping due to injury, attitude, bad chemistry at SG, or a new CBA that causes owners to close their wallets. That's why I say we should trade him as soon as his trade value rises enough to be worth expirings. If he's not worth that now, then we keep him and trade him sometime in the next two years.

If we do keep Arenas, I'd push hard for a Hinrich trade by the Trade Deadline. I'd rather see Young get minutes instead of Hinrich; and I'd prefer to have Hinrich's salary off the books by this summer.

[verbal8]

Food for thought:

Chris Paul is asking to be traded. He'll probably be traded for pennies on the dollar. A few weeks ago, I said that you never know when the next Pau Gasol situation comes along. Well, here it is. Obviously, Chris Paul isn't the right fit for us, but I think his situation makes my point.

In year or two, once we're a 40-45 win up-and-coming team, the next Pau Gasol/Chris Paul situation will take place. We could be in perfect position to snatch him up if we have the cap space and to absorb some salary and some stockpiled picks as incentive. And the way for that to happen is to dump Arenas and acquire future picks with BOYD deals every offseason.

Paul's list apparently is the Lakers, Knicks and Magic. All of those teams could use an elite PG. The Knicks are on his list due to a chance of getting Carmelo, next year. The Lakers are champs and generally willing to spend money to keep the team winning. The Magic are not afraid to open the checkbook and made it to the finals last year. So it seems the point is with the exception of a potential big free agent signing, it takes winning to attract a star player demanding a trade.

[nate33]

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.

[nate33]

If Paul happened to be a big man, I'd be willing to bet that OKC would be included on his short list.

In a year or two, we'll be OKC.

[Kanyewest]

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.