Bradley Beal - Part III

[queridiculo]

Also, let's be realistic here. Since so many Wizards fans insist on using our inablity to become a contender if we keep Beal. The reality is that with teams like the Warriors and the Nets, unless you are willing to go way into the luxury tax, you have no chance of building a championship contender. If the Nets were healthy last year the Bucks would have gotten swept. And to make a legit run at the Nets, the Bucks (who were already into the luxury tax) would have needed to add another talented starter at least.

If we are talking about Championships, explain is there any way you can build a championship team and not go way into the luxury tax? Look at the teams who have won championships. Bron/Wade/Bosh, Allen/Pierce/Rondo/Garnett, KD/Curry/Green/Thompson, Giannis/Holiday/Middleton.

Being realistic has to start with the admission that Beal is not in the same tier as the top players of the teams you mention.

He's not in the same ballpark as Curry, Giannis, or Durant.

That's really the bottom line when people talk about how much sense it makes to compensate Beal at a level that's not commensurate with his impact on winning basketball games.

At best, Beal is a second banana on a title contender.

The difference between contenders and the Wizards isn't the lack of desire to pay the luxury tax, it's the talent level.

What's the point of blowing up your salary cap for a team whose ceiling is a 2nd round exit at best?

[Frichuela]

Also, let's be realistic here. Since so many Wizards fans insist on using our inablity to become a contender if we keep Beal. The reality is that with teams like the Warriors and the Nets, unless you are willing to go way into the luxury tax, you have no chance of building a championship contender. If the Nets were healthy last year the Bucks would have gotten swept. And to make a legit run at the Nets, the Bucks (who were already into the luxury tax) would have needed to add another talented starter at least.

If we are talking about Championships, explain is there any way you can build a championship team and not go way into the luxury tax? Look at the teams who have won championships. Bron/Wade/Bosh, Allen/Pierce/Rondo/Garnett, KD/Curry/Green/Thompson, Giannis/Holiday/Middleton.

Being realistic has to start with the admission that Beal is not in the same tier as the top players of the teams you mention.

He's not in the same ballpark as Curry, Giannis, or Durant.

That's really the bottom line when people talk about how much sense it makes to compensate Beal at a level that's not commensurate with his impact on winning basketball games.

At best, Beal is a second banana on a title contender.

The difference between contenders and the Wizards isn't the lack of desire to pay the luxury tax, it's the talent level.

What's the point of blowing up your salary cap for a team whose ceiling is a 2nd round exit at best?

This. 100%. And this year he is playing much worse than that. Realistically, Beal is 28 and he’s most likely reached his peak as a player while regressing in his 3 pt shooting. I’d say it’s time to part ways and if Simmons is available I’d happily take the gamble.

[dlts20]

At least he's owning it

"In all fairness, I've been s----y all year. So, I'm not going to sit here and talk about two other guys who have really been helping our team out," Beal said. "I'll put that on me before them. I have to be better, I have to lead better, I have to produce and lead this team like I want to."

[keynote]

Any ongoing studies on the effects of long COVID on athletes?

[badinage]

Any ongoing studies on the effects of long COVID on athletes?

Hmmmm …

Hadn’t considered that.

Interesting.

If so, maybe it’s not so advisable to listen to your crackpot troll wife and heed, oh, I don’t know, actual medical guidance. Just a thought.

Unless it’s Beal who is the driving force in operation crackpot and she’s just along for wacko reinforcement.

In which case: Hmmmm again …

[prime1time]

Also, let's be realistic here. Since so many Wizards fans insist on using our inablity to become a contender if we keep Beal. The reality is that with teams like the Warriors and the Nets, unless you are willing to go way into the luxury tax, you have no chance of building a championship contender. If the Nets were healthy last year the Bucks would have gotten swept. And to make a legit run at the Nets, the Bucks (who were already into the luxury tax) would have needed to add another talented starter at least.

If we are talking about Championships, explain is there any way you can build a championship team and not go way into the luxury tax? Look at the teams who have won championships. Bron/Wade/Bosh, Allen/Pierce/Rondo/Garnett, KD/Curry/Green/Thompson, Giannis/Holiday/Middleton.

Being realistic has to start with the admission that Beal is not in the same tier as the top players of the teams you mention.

He's not in the same ballpark as Curry, Giannis, or Durant.

That's really the bottom line when people talk about how much sense it makes to compensate Beal at a level that's not commensurate with his impact on winning basketball games.

At best, Beal is a second banana on a title contender.

The difference between contenders and the Wizards isn't the lack of desire to pay the luxury tax, it's the talent level.

What's the point of blowing up your salary cap for a team whose ceiling is a 2nd round exit at best?

It's time to stop beating around the bush and discuss the real issue. This notion that the NBA teams should approach roster construction as championship or bust is ridiculous. I have had great and exciting years as a Wizards fan and I have never seen the Wizards win a championship. Wall standing on the table after game 6. Gil's Wizards beating the Bulls. The notion that a second-round exit at best is trash and unworthy is just a mentality I can't get behind. A second-round exit for this organization would be something of note. Especially because the alternative guarantees nothing.

What's wrong with a run like the Memphis Grizzlies had with Conley/Gay/Randolph/Gasol? That is a better run than this organization has had in 35+ years. The history of the Wizards is one of constantly tearing down one non-championship contending team after another, while never even coming close to building a championship. Taking your championship or bust approach to its logical end, I must ask. Do you believe in long-term tanking ala OKC and Philly?

[prime1time]

Funny how when Beal plays well against one of the best defenses in the league, this thread is very silent. Dinwiddie literally gave us nothing and Beal carried us to a W.

[Frichuela]

Funny how when Beal plays well against one of the best defenses in the league, this thread is very silent. Dinwiddie literally gave us nothing and Beal carried us to a W.

Agreed. Beal played like his all star self last night, no question. We need him to keep this up to be competitive. This team is built around him for such reason. Someone posted that Brad has been hitting 37% of his 3s in the last 7 games. Let’s hope his shooting form is back.

[DCZards]

As I wrote about a week ago, I don’t think the fan base wants Beal gone. What they want is for BB to start playing like he has the last few years.

We’re beginning to see that over the last couple of weeks.

What I liked is that when Beal was playing poorly he owned it.

[dckingsfan]

Is the choice between Beal gone and Beal on a max contract extension a false choice?

I think most on this board would like to see Beal play great now.

I think most on this board would not like to see Beal get a max extension.

Can you want both?

[gambitx777]

I think Beal when he plays like Beal is fairly paid in the mid 30s. Once you get in to max territory that's probably a not that great at besto and untradable at worst contract.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[FAH1223]

I think Beal when he plays like Beal is fairly paid in the mid 30s. Once you get in to max territory that's probably a not that great at besto and untradable at worst contract.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

He's making the max right now.

He's going to have 10 years of service so he's getting the max for that category in 2022. It's not even a supermax per se.

[DCZards]

Is the choice between Beal gone and Beal on a max contract extension a false choice?

I think most on this board would like to see Beal play great now.

I think most on this board would not like to see Beal get a max extension.

Can you want both?

Yes…you can absolutely want both.

Just as there are Zards fans on this board (and not on this board) who both want to see Beal play great AND get a max extension.

Different strokes for different folks.

[gambitx777]

I think Beal when he plays like Beal is fairly paid in the mid 30s. Once you get in to max territory that's probably a not that great at besto and untradable at worst contract.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

He's making the max right now.

He's going to have 10 years of service so he's getting the max for that category in 2022. It's not even a supermax per se.

As I said he's fairly paid in the mid 30s if you get into what his max will be that's probably a bad contract.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[dlts20]

I still rather keep Beal. I think the recent Beal is more of the real Beal. I just don't love most of the rest of the roster. That's the issue

[payitforward]

Thing is... Bradley Beal -- playing at the level of the last 2-3 years not at this year's level -- is still NOT worth a supermax contract. Period. He's a terrific player; that's not open to question. But, he's not a superstar.

& that is the "reasonable argument... for not signing Beal" to a supermax contract. In fact, that's what "a negative value contract" means -- a contract that overpays a player.

If every player on your roster is overpaid, then you have a bad team. By definition. Or you are way way into lux tax territory. It's one or the other -- or both!

How many players in your estimation are worthy of a supermax? Are there any secondary players who are worthy of getting a supermax?

The notion that every player on your roster is overpaid, is so abstract that is has no meaning....

First off, no fight here, ok? This is just something to think about calmly & based on both reason & data.

How many players...? I can't give you an exact number but very few.

Secondary players? No supermax contracts for them.

This is a capped league. The reason for a cap is to increase competitiveness. If you will pay absolutely any amount of $$ for your roster, no limits, while also, obviously, paying any amount of $$ in luxtax & its penalties, why then, for sure, the cap means nothing to you.

If there's some limit to how much you'll go over the tax &/or for how long, then the more players you over-pay the less good your team is. For the obvious reason. The extra money you are paying leaves you less money to pay other players. So they won't be as good.

The way the NBA works as currently organized is primary and secondary stars get max contracts. Then you fill your team up with ring chasing vets who get the minimum and young players. The young players and the vets provide the surplus value....

Respectfully, I don't agree. I don't think that's how it works. Tho, of course, there are examples that resemble this. But, in general, no.

Here' is how I think it actually works: "surplus value" -- i.e. play that's worth more than what you pay for it -- can be gotten from two places & 2 places only: from superstars & from guys on rookie contracts. Rookie contracts are controlled by the CBA; that's why they under control. Superstars give you something you can get no other way. Thus they are worth whatever they can get.

Are there exceptions? Of course! A player has a significant productivity jump while in the middle of a multi-year contract -- fantastic! But, there are just as many examples in the other direction (e.g. Davis Bertans).

The goal of building a team is to win a championship, Not to pay everyone what they are worth....

I'll say! If you pay every player exactly what they're worth, then -- in a capped league -- you will have an average team.

There are a limited number of primary and secondary stars in the league. Primary players provide more value than a supermax. Secondary players don't. But you can't win a championship without them. And there aren't enough secondary stars for everyone who wants one to have one. So the law of supply and demand will come into play. ...

Is there more demand for a superstar than for a secondary player? Yes. Is it easier to find a secondary player than a superstar? Yes. Then they will make less. *That* is how "the law of supply and demand" comes into play. You left out the "demand" part.

...Also, let's be realistic here. ...The reality is that ...unless you are willing to go way into the luxury tax, you have no chance of building a championship contender....

Let's assume this is true -- & it may well be 90+% of the time. That does not mean that if you "go way into the luxury tax," you will build a championship contender! If you go way in for players who aren't as good as the players another team goes all in for, your team won't be as good as that other team. That's true by definition.

...Here's a thought experiment, let's say Beal is generous and says "I'll resign for 35 million instead of 45 million so we can have money to build the team." Would that change your mind? And if so why? What would we do with those 10 million dollars that would be so franchise-altering?

What makes you think this is a stumper?

The answer is obvious. You'd have $10m extra to spend elsewhere in your roster, so that you have a better player at 1 or more other positions.

Does this mean you'll be a championship contender? Of course not! But you'll be better than you would be if you didn't have that 1 or more better players.

Honestly, unless I've written all the above in an incomprehensible way, I don't see how you or anyone can disagree with it. If you have more $$ to spend on a car, you can get a better car. Doesn't mean you will; you may choose to pay more for a car b/c you like it more than some other car. But, paying more for it won't make it better.

Peace!

[prime1time]

Thing is... Bradley Beal -- playing at the level of the last 2-3 years not at this year's level -- is still NOT worth a supermax contract. Period. He's a terrific player; that's not open to question. But, he's not a superstar.

& that is the "reasonable argument... for not signing Beal" to a supermax contract. In fact, that's what "a negative value contract" means -- a contract that overpays a player.

If every player on your roster is overpaid, then you have a bad team. By definition. Or you are way way into lux tax territory. It's one or the other -- or both!

How many players in your estimation are worthy of a supermax? Are there any secondary players who are worthy of getting a supermax?

The notion that every player on your roster is overpaid, is so abstract that is has no meaning....

First off, no fight here, ok? This is just something to think about calmly & based on both reason & data.

How many players...? I can't give you an exact number but very few.

Secondary players? No supermax contracts for them.

This is a capped league. The reason for a cap is to increase competitiveness. If you will pay absolutely any amount of $$ for your roster, no limits, while also, obviously, paying any amount of $$ in luxtax & its penalties, why then, for sure, the cap means nothing to you.

If there's some limit to how much you'll go over the tax &/or for how long, then the more players you over-pay the less good your team is. For the obvious reason. The extra money you are paying leaves you less money to pay other players. So they won't be as good.

The way the NBA works as currently organized is primary and secondary stars get max contracts. Then you fill your team up with ring chasing vets who get the minimum and young players. The young players and the vets provide the surplus value....

Respectfully, I don't agree. I don't think that's how it works. Tho, of course, there are examples that resemble this. But, in general, no.

Here' is how I think it actually works: "surplus value" -- i.e. play that's worth more than what you pay for it -- can be gotten from two places & 2 places only: from superstars & from guys on rookie contracts. Rookie contracts are controlled by the CBA; that's why they under control. Superstars give you something you can get no other way. Thus they are worth whatever they can get.

Are there exceptions? Of course! A player has a significant productivity jump while in the middle of a multi-year contract -- fantastic! But, there are just as many examples in the other direction (e.g. Davis Bertans).

The goal of building a team is to win a championship, Not to pay everyone what they are worth....

I'll say! If you pay every player exactly what they're worth, then -- in a capped league -- you will have an average team.

There are a limited number of primary and secondary stars in the league. Primary players provide more value than a supermax. Secondary players don't. But you can't win a championship without them. And there aren't enough secondary stars for everyone who wants one to have one. So the law of supply and demand will come into play. ...

Is there more demand for a superstar than for a secondary player? Yes. Is it easier to find a secondary player than a superstar? Yes. Then they will make less. *That* is how "the law of supply and demand" comes into play. You left out the "demand" part.

...Also, let's be realistic here. ...The reality is that ...unless you are willing to go way into the luxury tax, you have no chance of building a championship contender....

Let's assume this is true -- & it may well be 90+% of the time. That does not mean that if you "go way into the luxury tax," you will build a championship contender! If you go way in for players who aren't as good as the players another team goes all in for, your team won't be as good as that other team. That's true by definition.

...Here's a thought experiment, let's say Beal is generous and says "I'll resign for 35 million instead of 45 million so we can have money to build the team." Would that change your mind? And if so why? What would we do with those 10 million dollars that would be so franchise-altering?

What makes you think this is a stumper?

The answer is obvious. You'd have $10m extra to spend elsewhere in your roster, so that you have a better player at 1 or more other positions.

Does this mean you'll be a championship contender? Of course not! But you'll be better than you would be if you didn't have that 1 or more better players.

Honestly, unless I've written all the above in an incomprehensible way, I don't see how you or anyone can disagree with it. If you have more $$ to spend on a car, you can get a better car. Doesn't mean you will; you may choose to pay more for a car b/c you like it more than some other car. But, paying more for it won't make it better.

Peace!

How do you break down the top 20 players in the league? And what would you pay them? You don't have to list each player but enough to give a feel for the groupings.

Now as to what you said about roster construction. Any team that LBJ is on is constructed in the way that I mentioned. His success is evident. The Nets are constructed the way I mentioned. The Warriors are constructed the way I mentioned. This brings me to my next point. Even if you disagree with the method, the reality is that it has been succesful.

[Benjammin]

The Wiz are now 4-0 without Bradley.

Sent from my motorola edge plus using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

Wow... what a very nice win in the Garden! Ok... let me see if I can calm down enough to respond to you, prime.

First, on roster construction: I did say that there are examples of exactly what you suggest. But, you were calling this "the way the NBA works," & it's not. Moreover, if you have, LeBron, one of the 2 or 3 greatest players in the last 50 years, for sure you have more options elsewhere on your roster. Only one team has LeBron.

The Nets are a good example of your point -- OTOH, note that they haven't won a thing.

But, the Warriors are certainly not an example! They drafted at least 9 of the players on their current roster. Last year, 13 guys played for them who they had either drafted or picked up as cast offs or acquired 1 or 2 years into their career.

As to how I "break down the top 20 players in the league," I imagine my list is more or less the same as yours or nate's or anyone else's. Can that really be what you're asking? Ok, why not...? Off the top of my head & in no particular order: Jimmy Butler, Giannis, Jokic, LeBron, Kawhi, Harden, Gobert, Steph, Luka, LIllard, Durant, Brandon Clarke (just joking!), Chris Paul, Ben Simmons, Embiid, Paul George, Kyrie (tho I dislike him), Anthony Davis...

...let me pause for a moment: obviously I'm not listing everybody who's having a great year this year, or who had a great year last year (in which case, Michael Porter Jr would be on the list). I'm listing players who have established themselves at that level. In that sense, for example, I might add Russ to the list. He's not great any more, but overall he's been one of the best players in the league over the last dozen years. Similarly, there are a few young guys who look like they might add themselves to that list but to my mind haven't quite established that as for sure, so I hold back from listing them.

How much would I pay any one of the guys on that list? In principle, & without considering context (who else is on my roster & how much am I paying in salary overall), those are all guys who anyone could justify as worth a supermax. That doesn't mean I'd give it to all of them -- at least not equally willingly. & of course any individual case would have to be decided with context in mind (the rest of the roster -- & other things as well some of which aren't purely a function of basketball talent: economics might enter in, that and more).

As to whether you or anyone agrees with my list 100%, who cares? & anyway the person who disagrees may well be right! There's probably someone I've forgotten; I'm sure there's things to be said about taking off one or more my names. & I've left out bunches of guys who are on the way up & will no doubt shoulder some veteran off the list.

Brad's not on the list; that's obvious. Doesn't mean he isn't a terrific player.

[keynote]

First, on roster construction: I did say that there are examples of exactly what you suggest. But, you were calling this "the way the NBA works," & it's not. Moreover, if you have, LeBron, one of the 2 or 3 greatest players in the last 50 years, for sure you have more options elsewhere on your roster. Only one team has LeBron.

The Nets are a good example of your point -- OTOH, note that they haven't won a thing.

But, the Warriors are certainly not an example! They drafted at least 9 of the players on their current roster. Last year, 13 guys played for them who they had either drafted or picked up as cast offs or acquired 1 or 2 years into their career.

Re: the Dubs: it's true that the bulk of their rotation is homegrown. But their status as a contender allowed them to sign Otto Porter to a surplus contract. He's not getting as many touches as he was in his DC days, but veteran players who put up 39% from 3PT + decent defense, rebounding and passing don't sign 1 year, $2M deals *unless* they're signing with a contender.

So, to modify your previous statement, the three typical classes of surplus contracts are 1) superduper stars worth more than the max, 2) rookie deal players, and 3) solid vets who take less than the MLE to join a contender. Every now and then, a GM signs a non-superstar, non-ring chasing FA to a surplus deal, but that's rare, and the surplus value is usually fairly modest relative to the TCV.