Arenas for Vince or dump Arenas for cap space?

[fishercob]

This debate is like a bear roaring before hibernation.

Summer League's over. Matt Barne's picture is on the front page of the site. The Wiretap recently ran a "Devin George wants to resign with the Warriors" story. It's basketball purgatory.

Once the arguments here are exhausted (which was about ten pages ago), might as well just sticky the random thoughts thread.

As to me, I'm be digesting some salmon I pawed out of the stream.

You're probably right. I find the debate an interesting one though. It's what this board is all about. This Arenas situation is a classic dilemma that every real GM faces from time to time. If nothing else, it should make one appreciate that EG's job isn't as easy as some make it out to be. On a decision like this one, EG is sure to disappoint half this board.

+1 nate. Debates like these really help test out the strength of certain ideas. I think they're really valuable in developing skills to recognize and craft good, supported arguments. These decisions are expensive and their implications far-reaching. Hearing well-articulated arguments on both sides is very useful. It's why Scalia always has one liberal clerk.

[WizStorm]

This doesn't make any sense. You said that you wouldn't sign Arenas to a 4-year $80M deal, but then you just argued why it's worth it to keep him for 4 years $80M. You didn't explain why you make a distinction between signing him and retaining him.

You made a general statement that "we've already assumed most of the risk" but I don't see how that is true. If anything, knowing what we know now, the risk of keeping Arenas is greater than the risk of signing him to the original contract 2 years ago. He now know that the injury was much more severe than originally diagnosed. And we now know that Arenas is going to play out of position.

The only tangible argument you made to justify keeping him when you wouldn't actually sign him right now is due to the fanbase "that is ready to embrace him". I'm not so sure that such a fanbase exists. I think most casual fans will be happy to embrace John Wall and forget all about Arenas.

This is why I hate responding to hypothetical situations, the context is always thrown out the window. I would say that if Gil was just some free agent with no ties to the city, given what we know about his injuries and the narrative being pushed in the media, I would not sign Gil to a 4 year, 80 million dollar deal. However, that scenario is completely moot as he is already signed to such a deal, he does have a long history with the city and most DC fans know the real story and the type of person Gil really is. To make the question even more invalid, there is no way Gil would even be seeking such a contract at the present time after the media ****.

That is why I stated before that it's not a valid question, the real question before us is what do we do with Gil now that he's already signed? The Wizards have already taken the initial risk of signing him to a long term deal knowing his injury and that is the situation that we find ourselves in now. And for all the reasons I stated in my previous post, that is why I would keep him in DC and not just pawn him off for a year of VC and then another 4 million to dump him (and possibly give up a draft pick for such a privilege).

I strongly disagree with your notion that Gil will be playing out of position. About the only time Gil was thrown into the primary, ball-handling, distributing PG was last season, and even then he wasn't that effective at running the team in such a role. When Gil was effective last season was when he was paired up with another PG (like Boykins) and was able to play a hybrid guard position like he's done every other year when he was an upper tier player in this league.

I respect your opinion that Wizards fans won't be willing to re-embrace Gil, but again I fully disagree. I give the local fans a bit more credit to see past the narrative that the media has pushed and remember Gil for all the great things he has done on the court and off the court in the community. If Gil can regain any semblance of his past (and we saw MANY instances of that last season), I have faith that the fans will, just as Ted said the city needs to do, re-embrace Gil. Gil has just too much history in the city, too much personality and too much talent for the city to keep their collective backs turned on him.

[SOUP]

Ok, here´s a better question. Do you guys see yourselves winning a championship with Gilbert Arenas?

[nate33]

This is why I hate responding to hypothetical situations, the context is always thrown out the window. I would say that if Gil was just some free agent with no ties to the city, given what we know about his injuries and the narrative being pushed in the media, I would not sign Gil to a 4 year, 80 million dollar deal. However, that scenario is completely moot as he is already signed to such a deal, he does have a long history with the city and most DC fans know the real story and the type of person Gil really is. To make the question even more invalid, there is no way Gil would even be seeking such a contract at the present time after the media ****.

Fair enough. I'm trying to come up with a hypothetical question that helps people view the dilemma in terms of pure value-for-dollar terms and to eliminate emotional attachments. You make a valid point that emotional attachments shouldn't be eliminated, or at least they should be taken into consideration as far as fan loyalty and marketing go.

So how about this hypothetical: What if Arenas was our free agent? What if his contract expired this summer and he was demanding a new 4-year $80M deal, and if we didn't offer it, he was promising to leave and join Orlando? Would you offer the contract if you were GM?

If not, then you should be pretty darn close to agreeing to an Arenas for Carter deal. The only real difference in those two scenarios would be one throwaway season of Carter replacing Arenas. (And I argue that, given our need at swing man and our overload at the PG position, we wouldn't be substantially worse with Carter in the lineup anyhow.)

[Kanyewest]

Um, did u forget who our GM is? $17 mil for pick? Throwing away $4 mil on Yi and not getting some asset in return. EG has proven to be totally incompetent and reckless when it comes to spending money. Yes, with Leonsis in charge there will be checks & balances in place to prevent some of EG's spending. However, after seeing what EG has done thus far, I'm not very hopeful that he'd make good use of our future cap space.

Didn't the Wizards get $6 million in cash considerations from the Bulls? Didn't the Wizards get $3 Million in cash considerations from the Nets?

[verbal8]

This is why I hate responding to hypothetical situations, the context is always thrown out the window. I would say that if Gil was just some free agent with no ties to the city, given what we know about his injuries and the narrative being pushed in the media, I would not sign Gil to a 4 year, 80 million dollar deal. However, that scenario is completely moot as he is already signed to such a deal, he does have a long history with the city and most DC fans know the real story and the type of person Gil really is. To make the question even more invalid, there is no way Gil would even be seeking such a contract at the present time after the media ****.

Fair enough. I'm trying to come up with a hypothetical question that helps people view the dilemma in terms of pure value-for-dollar terms and to eliminate emotional attachments. You make a valid point that emotional attachments shouldn't be eliminated, or at least they should be taken into consideration as far as fan loyalty and marketing go.

So how about this hypothetical: What if Arenas was our free agent? What if his contract expired this summer and he was demanding a new 4-year $80M deal, and if we didn't offer it, he was promising to leave and join Orlando? Would you offer the contract if you were GM?

If not, then you should be pretty darn close to agreeing to an Arenas for Carter deal. The only real difference in those two scenarios would be one throwaway season of Carter replacing Arenas. (And I argue that, given our need at swing man and our overload at the PG position, we wouldn't be substantially worse with Carter in the lineup anyhow.)

If Arenas were a free agent demanding a 4/$80 million deal, would you S&T him for Vince Carter? I think the answer is no. However attached to a decent incentive, there is a strong argument to pull the trigger.

[Wizardspride]

Ok, here´s a better question. Do you guys see yourselves winning a championship with Gilbert Arenas?

That's a difficult question to answer. At least it is for me.

There are many variables such as who else is added to the team in the coming years etc.

So to answer your question I would have to say "No" as the team is presently constructed.

But you never know what may happen.....

[nate33]

If Arenas were a free agent demanding a 4/$80 million deal, would you S&T him for Vince Carter? I think the answer is no. However attached to a decent incentive, there is a strong argument to pull the trigger.

The answer is no because I'd rather just let Arenas walk. But the answer is yes in that I'd make the Carter S&T rather than sign Arenas for $80M.

I think the S&T hypothetical clouds the issue. It distracts from the cold calculation on whether we're better off with Arenas or without. I understand that my hypothetical or resigning Arenas to a 4-year deal isn't a perfect analogy, but I think that one season (a throwaway season in which we have no chance of competing anyhow) of Carter in place of Arenas is a very minor distinction which does not factor heavily in the decision.

[SOUP]

Ok, here´s a better question. Do you guys see yourselves winning a championship with Gilbert Arenas?

That's a difficult question to answer. At least it is for me.

There are many variables such as who else is added to the team in the coming years etc.

So to answer your question I would have to say "No" as the team is presently constructed.

But you never know what may happen.....

That being said, why keep him and get a worse pick in the lottery?
`
Cap Flexibility + better prospects for the future. You guys need to start thinking about the big picture, yes you got John Wall, great (damn you), now Arenas needs to go.

[jivelikenice]

So how about this hypothetical: What if Arenas was our free agent? What if his contract expired this summer and he was demanding a new 4-year $80M deal, and if we didn't offer it, he was promising to leave and join Orlando? Would you offer the contract if you were GM?

This hypotheticial makes no sense because if Arenas was a free agent, I can make the decision to let him walk. If my only option was to take him on at $80 mil for 4 yrs or take on Vince for his remaining contract, the choice is easier; VC....

[WizStorm]

Ok, here´s a better question. Do you guys see yourselves winning a championship with Gilbert Arenas?

That's a difficult question to answer. At least it is for me.

There are many variables such as who else is added to the team in the coming years etc.

So to answer your question I would have to say "No" as the team is presently constructed.

But you never know what may happen.....

That being said, why keep him and get a worse pick in the lottery?
`
Cap Flexibility + better prospects for the future. You guys need to start thinking about the big picture, yes you got John Wall, great (damn you), now Arenas needs to go.

And exactly WHY does Arenas just HAVE to go? Wizards aren't in any financial trouble and already have cap flexibility with him on the roster. I don't foresee a max free agent magically walking through that door that transforms the franchise the minute that Arenas' contract is off the books. Gil's has a great work ethic and has been a great teammate, so I don't see any chance of him polluting the locker room, unlike other players some fans want to see in his place. I simply just don't get this great NEED to have Gil off the team and pronto.

As for your initial question, I can easily see Gil being part of a championship roster, he would just need other great players around him (like John Wall could be in the future and with a legitimate low post threat). Last year I could ask the very same question about a team winning a championship with Bosh and many (including me) would've said no. Now it's a different story as he's not expected to be "the man" in leading the championship effort.

[Induveca]

Nate, after hearing your logic on this issue for the past few months.........I hope to God Leonsis is being truthful about his 100% opposite view on the subject.

Over the past few months you've stated time and time again your great desire to acquire Carmelo Anthony. To me, it seems your logic here is skewed much like Knick fans and Donnie Walsh these past few years. From your statements and arguements, it seems like you just want to dump Arenas for the chance to sign a "game changer" next year.

Only problem is, there isn't one............if Anthony doesnt sign an extension soon (and odds are he does), then who else is there better than Arenas with higher upside? What will happen is we offer the max to Anthony, and he says no and goes elsewhere. Don't forget we are still the Clippers east, and DC DOES NOT have the nightlife and vibe to attract free agents like a Miami, New York or Chicago.

There is a reason we didn't even consider offering Boozer/Stoudemire/James contracts this year and instead spent our cash on Hinrich/Yi etc. DC is not an attractive place for free agents just yet. Hopefully Leonsis can change that.

Your logic here is extremely flawed. Taking emotion completely out of the equation it's a very simple scenario to dissect:

"Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"

In this case it doesn't even really apply though because there are not two more players "in the bush" who approach Arenas' talent level, and even if they do appear we are competing against 25+ other teams to sign them, and we're bottom of the barrel in terms of attracting free agents.

Very flawed logic. Cap space does not equal success........lots of cap space means you are fielding a poor team ill equipped to compete and making a poor gamble on the future. Take this from a man who lived back in New York City from 2006-2009.

[nate33]

I agree that cap space plus a crappy team does not equal success. One only has to look at NY and NJ to see this. But I submit that cap space plus a superstar PG plus a couple of very promising big men makes us a much better destination.

I think your "nightlife argument" is completely irrelevant. Washington may not be New York or Miami, but it's not Salt Lake City either. There are enough clubs in Washington DC to keep a young adult entertained. And there are enough road trips in an NBA schedule to keep things interesting.

Washington DC, with John Wall, Ted Leonsis and a ton of cap space, will be an attractive destination for free agents. Maybe we don't land Melo or Howard, but we can still get, say, Marc Gasol and Nicholas Batum for less money that what we'd pay Arenas. And that doesn't even factor the advantages of having more BOYD money and a higher draft pick next year because of a worse record.

[Induveca]

And exactly WHY does Arenas just HAVE to go? Wizards aren't in any financial trouble and already have cap flexibility with him on the roster. I don't foresee a max free agent magically walking through that door that transforms the franchise the minute that Arenas' contract is off the books. Gil's has a great work ethic and has been a great teammate, so I don't see any chance of him polluting the locker room, unlike other players some fans want to see in his place. I simply just don't get this great NEED to have Gil off the team and pronto.

The two sentences I bolded pretty much summarize my frustration with the "Trade Arenas" argument. It's a foolish business decision with no sound business logic behind it.

It's like me having a world class programmer who went on medical leave for 6 months, who knows the business in and out and is ready to come back to the office and continue the amazing work he did for me for 3-4 years. He can jump in immediately and contribute at the highest of levels. Only issue is I pay him 200k. Business partner suggests "why not just hire a temp for a year, and see what people are jumping ship from other companies next year....maybe they can program at an even higher level?" My response would be, "That makes no damn sense. A bird in the hand....."

So what do I do? Tread water for a year with an unknown quantity who I know won't contribute in a year? He'll take all of his vacation time, put in a half assed effort.......and take all of his sick days guaranteed. I may be paying less, but I'm getting what I'm paying for.......and it's pulling down the rest of my development staff.

Or I can take the known quantity who is ready to contribute just as he did prior to his medical leave, and watch him prove he deserves his salary again and raise up the talent level of those around him. It's a no brainer. A decent analogy is Apple hiring Steve Case to run the show and tossed Steve Jobs out to pasture when he became ill. With Jobs at the helm the company is capable of EPIC things. With Steve Case, sure he'd make them money but the creativity is just not there.......all business, no major vision....no ability to compete except in a vacuum.

I'm rambling, but it's just the type of decision/suggestion which would get members of my former management teams demoted/marginalized/ignored or on the road to being fired.

[LyricalRico]

That being said, why keep him and get a worse pick in the lottery?

Cap Flexibility + better prospects for the future. You guys need to start thinking about the big picture, yes you got John Wall, great (damn you), now Arenas needs to go.

This.



And nobody is saying that cap space alone is the magic bullet that will let us sign a superstar. As was proved this season, we can do a number of things with cap space to improve the team that do not involve free agents. With all the spending this summer, you can bet that the new CBA will have lots teams handcuffed in the near future. We will have the cap space to acquire assets by helping teams avoid the tax or by facilitating trades, thus accelerating the rebuilding.

Then you have to consider that Gil is likely to put up numbers and increase our win total, but the team still isn't going anywhere in the East. So why trade trade good draft picks for worse ones? Just to see Gil make a few shots so you can pleasure yourself to memories of the time the Wiz were in first place for half a season? C'mon folks, a little less nostalgia and a little more strategic thinking. Better picks, when used well, means a faster rebuilding track.

Lastly, anybody who thinks that Gilbert will be a 100% benign locker room presence is a fool. Maybe he's not the cancer that local radio says he is, but a person doesn't have to have cancer to be seriously ill. If we know that the team isn't going anywhere either way, why not err on the side of caution and make sure that nothing gets in the way of John Wall's development?

All of those points have one thing in common - the reasoning that removing Gil from the equation accelerates the rebuilding process. This team is nowhere near doing anything. Why waste a few more years gawking while a less explosive Gil chokes our cap and costs us lottery picks just because you like the guy? Once his contract is up, he's not going to be a part of this team anyway. So why delay the inevitable, especially when it can help us speed up our longterm plan?

Can you imagine what OKC (the team everybody wants to emulate) would be like if they had never traded Ray Allen? If they said "hey, we've got so many memories tied up in this guy and he's still a 20ppg scorer, so we can't trade him"? They would not have had the success they had last season and may still be a couple of seasons away from that kind of success. They bit the bullet, flattened everything down to the bottom, and started building from there. Yes, they were lucky in some cases, but they also had to be in a situation to take advantage of that luck. I want the Wizards to be in the same situation.

No, I can't predict what specific opportunities will be out there to use our cap space on. Nobody can. But I can predict that this team is going nowhere with Arenas on it. I would rather take a chance on accelerated greatness than sure mediocrity any day.

(And please don't respond to this post with "yeah, but Carter sucks and he'll give us the same problems Gil would" because I don't believe Carter would ever play for us. He would be traded again or bought out before the season started IMO.)

[nate33]

Can you imagine what OKC (the team everybody wants to emulate) would be like if they had never traded Ray Allen? If they said "hey, we've got so many memories tied up in this guy and he's still a 20ppg scorer, so we can't trade him"? They would not have had the success they had last season and may still be a couple of seasons away from that kind of success. They bit the bullet, flattened everything down to the bottom, and started building from there. Yes, they were lucky in some cases, but they also had to be in a situation to take advantage of that luck. I want the Wizards to be in the same situation.

No, I can't predict what specific opportunities will be out there to use our cap space on. Nobody can. But I can predict that this team is going nowhere with Arenas on it. I would rather take a chance on accelerated greatness than sure mediocrity any day.

Well said. I really just don't see much upside in retaining Arenas.

[WizStorm]

Well said. I really just don't see much upside in retaining Arenas.

This coming from the same guy that started a thread questioning just how clutch a player Gilbert Arenas is during his peak years.

[fishercob]

Can you imagine what OKC (the team everybody wants to emulate) would be like if they had never traded Ray Allen? If they said "hey, we've got so many memories tied up in this guy and he's still a 20ppg scorer, so we can't trade him"? They would not have had the success they had last season and may still be a couple of seasons away from that kind of success. They bit the bullet, flattened everything down to the bottom, and started building from there. Yes, they were lucky in some cases, but they also had to be in a situation to take advantage of that luck. I want the Wizards to be in the same situation.

No, I can't predict what specific opportunities will be out there to use our cap space on. Nobody can. But I can predict that this team is going nowhere with Arenas on it. I would rather take a chance on accelerated greatness than sure mediocrity any day.

Well said. I really just don't see much upside in retaining Arenas.

Meh. OKC would be no worse off. Green is mediocre and moving Allen had nothing to do with them getting their hands on Durant. Plus, they only got out of Allen's deal a year sooner by taking on Wally's fat deal. There would have been plenty of opportunities to move Allen down the line, and for a better return.

Furthermore Allen was 32 when they dealt him. Gil is 28. He's got the knee, but also a lot less mileage on his legs from his protracted absences, so let's call that even. Gil's much closer to the player at his peak than Ray was when SEA dealt him. As far as I'm concerned, the OKC comparison is a reason to keep Gil around for a bit.

Nate, the upside in keeping Gil is an all-star backcourt mate for Wall. Why overthink that?

[SOUP]

I agree that cap space plus a crappy team does not equal success. One only has to look at NY and NJ to see this. But I submit that cap space plus a superstar PG plus a couple of very promising big men makes us a much better destination.

I think your "nightlife argument" is completely irrelevant. Washington may not be New York or Miami, but it's not Salt Lake City either. There are enough clubs in Washington DC to keep a young adult entertained. And there are enough road trips in an NBA schedule to keep things interesting.

Washington DC, with John Wall, Ted Leonsis and a ton of cap space, will be an attractive destination for free agents. Maybe we don't land Melo or Howard, but we can still get, say, Marc Gasol and Nicholas Batum for less money that what we'd pay Arenas. And that doesn't even factor the advantages of having more BOYD money and a higher draft pick next year because of a worse record.

In the Nets defense they weren´t completely relying on capspace to solve their problem. They have an amazing young core that underachieved last season, and will be much improved with a legit coach and good coaching staff. Cap flexibility is never something negative to have, we had it, we exercised some of it, signed good young players on reasonable deals, and will be players at the trade deadline. We are more focused on the development of Lopez and Favors, we have the youngest team in the NBA, and a new awesome owner. This is the right direction, thinking about the big picture, a CHAMPIONSHIP, not a first or second round exit in the playoffs. NY got plain lucky by turning a FA David Lee into some decent prospects in return. But they were pretty much screwed for relying solely on capspace, signed Amare to that UGLY contract, and will remain a 1st and 2nd round playoff team for another two decades.

Wizards should get rid of Arenas to help the bigger picture, if you debate otherwise you are a fanboy (sorry).

[DCZards]

Can you imagine what OKC (the team everybody wants to emulate) would be like if they had never traded Ray Allen? If they said "hey, we've got so many memories tied up in this guy and he's still a 20ppg scorer, so we can't trade him"? They would not have had the success they had last season and may still be a couple of seasons away from that kind of success. They bit the bullet, flattened everything down to the bottom, and started building from there.

Exccuse me. But wasn't Ray Allen traded for the fifth pick in the draft--Jeff Green? That's a big difference from trading GA for Carter (a player you believe will never play for the Zards) just so the Wizards can get that mythical "cap space." Cap space which may or may not yield a quality player. I believe "a bird in the hand (Arenas) is worth two in the bush."