Bradley Beal - Part IV

[FAH1223]

Even if you take away the down year and the injury, I don't think he is worth the max. His ceiling is being one of the best, second-best players on a team.

He’s been making a max salary since 2016-17 though.

[Jay81]

Giving a player a massive contract after a down year is so Wizards.

...and coming off an injury

Lol we did that with Gilbert arenas and john wall

[FAH1223]

Giving a player a massive contract after a down year is so Wizards.

...and coming off an injury

Lol we did that with Gilbert arenas and john wall

John signed his supermax in Summer 2017. He was coming off the best year of his career. But he also still had 2 years left on his 5 years $80M extension he signed in 2013. That extension was his rookie max. The salary cap exploded in 2016.

If they didn't sign John to the 4 years $171M extension, he'd have became a free agent in 2019.

Gilbert was hurt when he signed that 5-year $111M deal.

[closg00]

Here's a fair question, would Beal earn himself anywhere near a Super Max contract in FA? What is Beal's value on the open market, highly paid member of a super team, or near maxed on a smaller market team?

[Illuminaire]

Here's a fair question, would Beal earn himself anywhere near a Super Max contract in FA? What is Beal's value on the open market, highly paid member of a super team, or near maxed on a smaller market team?

My read is that he has no market, the Wizards have all the leverage, and it won't matter because Leonsis.

If the cap site I'm looking at is correct, the most anyone could offer him is about 27m/year. That's also pretty close to what I think Beal is actually worth.

Unfortunately, no good team can offer that much money. And Beal is only worth adding to an already good team, one that needs a 2nd/3rd banana to catapult itself from relevant to contender. As the Wizards have aptly proved, Beal is not a superstar capable of carrying a bad team by himself, so why would a bad team overpay him?

If there were enough teams with cap space on the market, probably someone would still take a shot because bad owners gotta be true to themselves. But right now, there are barely any teams with meaningful cap space. No one can even come close to what the Wiz can offer.

[nate33]

Here's a fair question, would Beal earn himself anywhere near a Super Max contract in FA? What is Beal's value on the open market, highly paid member of a super team, or near maxed on a smaller market team?

My read is that he has no market, the Wizards have all the leverage, and it won't matter because Leonsis.

If the cap site I'm looking at is correct, the most anyone could offer him is about 27m/year. That's also pretty close to what I think Beal is actually worth.

Do you mean nobody has more than $27M on cap room? He can definitely get paid up to $41.5M because he is a 10 year vet.

[Illuminaire]

Do you mean nobody has more than $27M on cap room? He can definitely get paid up to $41.5M because he is a 10 year vet.

Yeah. Cap stuff gets weird so maybe the site I was reading has some things wrong, but it doesn't look like anyone can offer a contract that big.

I suppose a team could make moves to free up space - which would cost them talent or draft picks - and make a godfather offer. But again, the only teams even close are really, really bad. I can't fathom a sane ownership group offering Beal a bag right now.

I just don't see a combination of decent team + cap space that can make a real run at him. Theoretically, that means Washington has a ton of leverage (that they won't use).

[FAH1223]

Do you mean nobody has more than $27M on cap room? He can definitely get paid up to $41.5M because he is a 10 year vet.

Yeah. Cap stuff gets weird so maybe the site I was reading has some things wrong, but it doesn't look like anyone can offer a contract that big.

I suppose a team could make moves to free up space - which would cost them talent or draft picks - and make a godfather offer. But again, the only teams even close are really, really bad. I can't fathom a sane ownership group offering Beal a bag right now.

I just don't see a combination of decent team + cap space that can make a real run at him. Theoretically, that means Washington has a ton of leverage (that they won't use).

The Spurs are really the only team I can see freeing up that cap space to even get close...

[Kanyewest]

Gordon Hayward got 30 million per season.

DeMarr DeRozan (pre-Chicago all NBA 1st team) got 27 million per season.

Klay Thompson post ACL got 37.5 million per season.

Now, perhaps the Wizards would try to use the fact that there aren't any contenders that have significant cap space although teams like Portland, Indiana, San Antonio have 21 million plus in cap space according to https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/

A team like Miami, Brooklyn, Denver, or Philadelphia would like to do a sign and trade although not sure what Washington would be willing to take back (not even going to say the Lakers because Westbrook sign and trade for Beal is even less likely than a sign and trade for Anthony Davis).

[Illuminaire]

Gordon Hayward got 30 million per season.

DeMarr DeRozan (pre-Chicago all NBA 1st team) got 27 million per season.

Klay Thompson post ACL got 37.5 million per season.

Interesting comparisons. I'm not sure they're fully applicable to Beal's situation. I mean, I'm 100% certain Bradley and his agent will argue they are! But in a practical sense, I would argue they don't reflect Beal's value or market.

Hayward: Free Agent | 27 | Best year | 30m
DeRozan: Extension | 27 | Best year | 27m
Thompson: Extension | 29 | Title defense | 35m
Beal: Free Agent/Extension | 29 | Down year | ???

Hayward and DeRozan received massive paydays during their prime, after career best years. They were players on an upward trajectory where the signing team could reasonably assume they would maintain their production for the life of the contract. Both teams believed they could win big if they added or kept those players, respectively. They were wrong, but the belief was rational at the time.

Thompson is the best comparable, in terms of age and production. But he's obviously benefiting from being part of a team that had one 2/3 finals and came darned close in the third, with an owner who was willing to go deep into the luxury tax to keep a winning core together. His 5 year extension (capping out at 42m!) is an aberration, not the standard. It's also not a contract anyone else would have offered Klay.

Beal is older and coming off a down year. He's already less attractive of a potential signee than Hayward or DeRozan were at the time they received their bag. Meanwhile, there are no teams with enough cap room to even equal Beal's current contract, without first dumping contracts (which always carries its own cost, usually in draft picks or other useful players). So it's very hard to find a team that has both the means to give Beal 30m+ AND could make a rational argument that doing so makes them a contender.

Could it happen? Sure. I just think it's incredibly unlikely.

[Illuminaire]

I didn't really touch the sign-and-trade aspect because that's a completely different beast. In that scenario, Washington does have leverage and would actually have incentive to use it to extract value.

[nate33]

Gordon Hayward got 30 million per season.

DeMarr DeRozan (pre-Chicago all NBA 1st team) got 27 million per season.

Klay Thompson post ACL got 37.5 million per season.

Interesting comparisons. I'm not sure they're fully applicable to Beal's situation. I mean, I'm 100% certain Bradley and his agent will argue they are! But in a practical sense, I would argue they don't reflect Beal's value or market.

Hayward: Free Agent | 27 | Best year | 30m
DeRozan: Extension | 27 | Best year | 27m
Thompson: Extension | 29 | Title defense | 35m
Beal: Free Agent/Extension | 29 | Down year | ???

Hayward and DeRozan received massive paydays during their prime, after career best years. They were players on an upward trajectory where the signing team could reasonably assume they would maintain their production for the life of the contract. Both teams believed they could win big if they added or kept those players, respectively. They were wrong, but the belief was rational at the time.

Thompson is the best comparable, in terms of age and production. But he's obviously benefiting from being part of a team that had one 2/3 finals and came darned close in the third, with an owner who was willing to go deep into the luxury tax to keep a winning core together. His 5 year extension (capping out at 42m!) is an aberration, not the standard. It's also not a contract anyone else would have offered Klay.

Beal is older and coming off a down year. He's already less attractive of a potential signee than Hayward or DeRozan were at the time they received their bag. Meanwhile, there are no teams with enough cap room to even equal Beal's current contract, without first dumping contracts (which always carries its own cost, usually in draft picks or other useful players). So it's very hard to find a team that has both the means to give Beal 30m+ AND could make a rational argument that doing so makes them a contender.

Could it happen? Sure. I just think it's incredibly unlikely.

If the Wizards were competent, they would force Beal to agree to a deal starting at roughly $30M the day after Beal declines his extension. Beal can't do better than that anywhere else, and frankly, he isn't worth more than that given his age, injury, and steadily declining 3P%.

Beal had his opportunity to get more by opting in on his player option but chose not to do so despite a lackluster free agency market with little money available. Beal took the gamble, and now he should reap the consequences. It's a business, and leverage works both ways.

If Beal can be signed to a deal starting at $30M, that lasts at least 2 years, it will boost his trade value and allow the Wizards to shop him for a good return come December 15th.

Unfortunately, as we all understand all too well, the Wizards have low self esteem and are unwilling to play hardball, even though players play hardball with them all the time.

[Frichuela]

Gordon Hayward got 30 million per season.

DeMarr DeRozan (pre-Chicago all NBA 1st team) got 27 million per season.

Klay Thompson post ACL got 37.5 million per season.

Interesting comparisons. I'm not sure they're fully applicable to Beal's situation. I mean, I'm 100% certain Bradley and his agent will argue they are! But in a practical sense, I would argue they don't reflect Beal's value or market.

Hayward: Free Agent | 27 | Best year | 30m
DeRozan: Extension | 27 | Best year | 27m
Thompson: Extension | 29 | Title defense | 35m
Beal: Free Agent/Extension | 29 | Down year | ???

Hayward and DeRozan received massive paydays during their prime, after career best years. They were players on an upward trajectory where the signing team could reasonably assume they would maintain their production for the life of the contract. Both teams believed they could win big if they added or kept those players, respectively. They were wrong, but the belief was rational at the time.

Thompson is the best comparable, in terms of age and production. But he's obviously benefiting from being part of a team that had one 2/3 finals and came darned close in the third, with an owner who was willing to go deep into the luxury tax to keep a winning core together. His 5 year extension (capping out at 42m!) is an aberration, not the standard. It's also not a contract anyone else would have offered Klay.

Beal is older and coming off a down year. He's already less attractive of a potential signee than Hayward or DeRozan were at the time they received their bag. Meanwhile, there are no teams with enough cap room to even equal Beal's current contract, without first dumping contracts (which always carries its own cost, usually in draft picks or other useful players). So it's very hard to find a team that has both the means to give Beal 30m+ AND could make a rational argument that doing so makes them a contender.

Could it happen? Sure. I just think it's incredibly unlikely.

If the Wizards were competent, they would force Beal to agree to a deal starting at roughly $30M the day after Beal declines his extension. Beal can't do better than that anywhere else, and frankly, he isn't worth more than that given his age, injury, and steadily declining 3P%.

Beal had his opportunity to get more by opting in on his player option but chose not to do so despite a lackluster free agency market with little money available. Beal took the gamble, and now he should reap the consequences. It's a business, and leverage works both ways.

If Beal can be signed to a deal starting at $30M, that lasts at least 2 years, it will boost his trade value and allow the Wizards to shop him for a good return come December 15th.

Unfortunately, as we all understand all too well, the Wizards have low self esteem and are unwilling to play hardball, even though players play hardball with them all the time.

This 100%, which reflect Terd insecurities and low self esteem.

[Kanyewest]

Gordon Hayward got 30 million per season.

DeMarr DeRozan (pre-Chicago all NBA 1st team) got 27 million per season.

Klay Thompson post ACL got 37.5 million per season.

Interesting comparisons. I'm not sure they're fully applicable to Beal's situation. I mean, I'm 100% certain Bradley and his agent will argue they are! But in a practical sense, I would argue they don't reflect Beal's value or market.

Hayward: Free Agent | 27 | Best year | 30m
DeRozan: Extension | 27 | Best year | 27m
Thompson: Extension | 29 | Title defense | 35m
Beal: Free Agent/Extension | 29 | Down year | ???

Hayward and DeRozan received massive paydays during their prime, after career best years. They were players on an upward trajectory where the signing team could reasonably assume they would maintain their production for the life of the contract. Both teams believed they could win big if they added or kept those players, respectively. They were wrong, but the belief was rational at the time.

Thompson is the best comparable, in terms of age and production. But he's obviously benefiting from being part of a team that had one 2/3 finals and came darned close in the third, with an owner who was willing to go deep into the luxury tax to keep a winning core together. His 5 year extension (capping out at 42m!) is an aberration, not the standard. It's also not a contract anyone else would have offered Klay.

Beal is older and coming off a down year. He's already less attractive of a potential signee than Hayward or DeRozan were at the time they received their bag. Meanwhile, there are no teams with enough cap room to even equal Beal's current contract, without first dumping contracts (which always carries its own cost, usually in draft picks or other useful players). So it's very hard to find a team that has both the means to give Beal 30m+ AND could make a rational argument that doing so makes them a contender.

Could it happen? Sure. I just think it's incredibly unlikely.

Hayward got 30 million per season from Charlotte coming off an injured season and Derozan got 27 million per season from Chicago coming off a solid season with the Spurs - comparable to Beal's last session. I think Beal value is higher than either although there just don't seem to be as many players with cap space

I thought those guys would have gotten significantly less.

[Benjammin]

To be fair, there is every reason for this franchise to have low self-esteem but that shouldn't be the reason we pay Beal an extra $5 to $10 million per season.

[closg00]

Gordon Hayward got 30 million per season.

DeMarr DeRozan (pre-Chicago all NBA 1st team) got 27 million per season.

Klay Thompson post ACL got 37.5 million per season.

Interesting comparisons. I'm not sure they're fully applicable to Beal's situation. I mean, I'm 100% certain Bradley and his agent will argue they are! But in a practical sense, I would argue they don't reflect Beal's value or market.

Hayward: Free Agent | 27 | Best year | 30m
DeRozan: Extension | 27 | Best year | 27m
Thompson: Extension | 29 | Title defense | 35m
Beal: Free Agent/Extension | 29 | Down year | ???

Hayward and DeRozan received massive paydays during their prime, after career best years. They were players on an upward trajectory where the signing team could reasonably assume they would maintain their production for the life of the contract. Both teams believed they could win big if they added or kept those players, respectively. They were wrong, but the belief was rational at the time.

Thompson is the best comparable, in terms of age and production. But he's obviously benefiting from being part of a team that had one 2/3 finals and came darned close in the third, with an owner who was willing to go deep into the luxury tax to keep a winning core together. His 5 year extension (capping out at 42m!) is an aberration, not the standard. It's also not a contract anyone else would have offered Klay.

Beal is older and coming off a down year. He's already less attractive of a potential signee than Hayward or DeRozan were at the time they received their bag. Meanwhile, there are no teams with enough cap room to even equal Beal's current contract, without first dumping contracts (which always carries its own cost, usually in draft picks or other useful players). So it's very hard to find a team that has both the means to give Beal 30m+ AND could make a rational argument that doing so makes them a contender.

Could it happen? Sure. I just think it's incredibly unlikely.

If the Wizards were competent, they would force Beal to agree to a deal starting at roughly $30M the day after Beal declines his extension. Beal can't do better than that anywhere else, and frankly, he isn't worth more than that given his age, injury, and steadily declining 3P%.

Beal had his opportunity to get more by opting in on his player option but chose not to do so despite a lackluster free agency market with little money available. Beal took the gamble, and now he should reap the consequences. It's a business, and leverage works both ways.

If Beal can be signed to a deal starting at $30M, that lasts at least 2 years, it will boost his trade value and allow the Wizards to shop him for a good return come December 15th.

Unfortunately, as we all understand all too well, the Wizards have low self esteem and are unwilling to play hardball, even though players play hardball with them all the time.

Yes, instead the Wizards will wildly pay more than what he could get in open FA, AND make it a 5-year deal when he shouldn't get more than a 3-year deal.

[nate33]

To be fair, there is every reason for this franchise to have low self-esteem but that shouldn't be the reason we pay Beal an extra $5 to $10 million per season.

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[nate33]

Hayward got 30 million per season from Charlotte coming off an injured season and Derozan got 27 million per season from Chicago coming off a solid season with the Spurs - comparable to Beal's last session. I think Beal value is higher than either although there just don't seem to be as many players with cap space

I thought those guys would have gotten significantly less.

Yeah, and the Hayward move turned out to be a really bad deal for Charlotte.

The DeRozan moved turned out well, because DeRozan ended up having a career season after the signing.

I'm content with using the DeRozan deal as a reference. Beal at $27M works for me.

[9 and 20]

I don't fault Beal for getting his bread at all, but yeah, we are a disgrace. 40 years of losing with no end in sight. Terd is itching to sign us up for 5 more years of being hamstrung and tied to an aging, slowly (we hope) declining little guard. Gil and Wall haven't even been gone that long before we can't help ourselves and do it again.

[Illuminaire]

Hayward got 30 million per season from Charlotte coming off an injured season and Derozan got 27 million per season from Chicago coming off a solid season with the Spurs - comparable to Beal's last session. I think Beal value is higher than either although there just don't seem to be as many players with cap space

I thought those guys would have gotten significantly less.

Yeah, and the Hayward move turned out to be a really bad deal for Charlotte.

The DeRozan moved turned out well, because DeRozan ended up having a career season after the signing.

I'm content with using the DeRozan deal as a reference. Beal at $27M works for me.

The Charlotte signing was also a sign-and-trade, in a situation where Boston had no intention of bringing Hayward back. They shopped around to find someone that wanted him, signed the deal and got some assets back.

That's quite a bit different than the Wizards saying "we'll give you 30, if you want more, good luck out there."