nate33 wrote:JonathanJoseph wrote:miller31time wrote:Not thrilled with this move but something had to be done. Arenas in Washington just wasn't going to work. When you have a franchise player at point guard, it just doesn't make any sense to have an oft-injured, under-performing, grossly-paid veteran taking up the other guard slot.
We get out of Gil's contract a year early and the last year of Shard's contract isn't fully guaranteed so I'm okay with this from a monetary standpoint.
From a lineup standpoint, it's not bad. Shard will spread the floor for Wall to drive. He'll help open things up for us.
Maybe this is just the 1st move with more to come...
But it makes sense to have an under-performing, grossly overpaid veteran PF on the roster? 1 year of cap space in the big picture of 4 years is a ridiculous trade off.
Yes, it makes sense because the new grossly overpaid veteran is only owed $50M, not $80M (actually it's $30M versus $60M if you assume a full year lockout in 2011). And the new grossly overpaid vet will be taking minutes from other short-timers who aren't part of the team's future either.
People need to chill out. It is what it is. Management opted for a minor downgrade on the court in exchange for a major upgrade on balance sheet (which significantly improves cap flexibility in 2012 and 2013.) One can debate whether the benefits outweigh the cost, but let's not act like it's some kind of wild, stupid, heinous act of GM malpractice. It's a perfectly logical move.
Hold up. For starters, it is much more than a minor downgrade on the court. And whether or not it was a major upgrade on the balance sheet is far from decided and not likely accurate. If you are looking at this from a balance sheet perspective, Rashard Lewis is one of the worst player/contracts in the NBA, so it's difficult to pick him up and say that's it's accretive to the balance sheet by anything other than a technicality.
Let's assume for example that the Wiz held onto Arenas through the season. If he stays healthy and is owed only about 3 years, $60M, he has significantly more trade value than he does today (if only for the balance sheet analysis plus the reduction of health risk). If Arenas is worth pennies on the dollar today, he'd be worth at least $.10 on the dollar if not closer to $.50 with a year of healthy play and less money remaining on his contract, no?
Even then, just trading for someone who didn't tie up $20M in cap space for 3 seasons would have been far, far more accretive to the balance sheet then making this move. Your analysis assumes that this move was the best "balance sheet" move that could be made. Given the way Grunfeld played this hand, I'd say that analysis is extremely flawed. Bottom line is that we just traded a significant asset at its lowest value.