The Official Washington Wizards Thread

[nuposse87]

Dwight's adidas branding is his main reasoning for selecting certain markets. You think Dwight would consider competing against Nike with Kobe in LA? I don't see him going to LA. They don't have the current assets. Lakers would have to trade gasol for a temporary downgrade to like...houston for the assets to pull off the trade.

We really need to push to be good this year. If we do make noise, we will attract some FAs. Cousins might be the most practical big man we could get but I want to see him and Wall improve some more before we bank on our future big three bing Wall+Cousins+Beal.

[Skin'emAlive]

You really think winning is Dwight's sole motivation?

No. I dont. I should have clarified better. I think he wants to win, and go to a market where he would be more of a star ( thinking Shaq ). DC is not the place. We dont win, and we ridicule our stars at a high rate.

[stevemcqueen1]

I posted a similar observation in the nba thread. No DWill and Howard doesn't look likely... Why didn't they keep Chandler again? I think they screwed themselves.

I read they lost Chandler because of Brendan Haywood's contract. What a dumbass contract that was.

---------- Post added July-5th-2012 at 01:19 AM ----------

You really think winning is Dwight's sole motivation?

Dwight could win here. Potential transcendent PG + knockdown shooter and floor spacer SG + myriad defensive chips + Dwight Howard would be a true contender. Easily.

Eventually it will get to the point where John will be the best PG on a team that isn't completely capped out with long term commitments. If CP3 stays with the Clippers, they won't have much room for another major player. The Lakers are totally capped out. The Spurs aren't about to make some major FA signing or paradigm shifting trade so they're going with their current core to the end. The Celtics will have little near future flexibility following the JET and KG contracts, especially if Ray Allen comes back too. OKC's core is firmly set. Chicago has room for one more guy if they get creative with some trades. Brooklyn is loaded down with expensive long term contracts.

So it'll just be Wall and Beal and Nene plus some young players in D.C. Blatche, Okafor, and Ariza will almost certainly be gone in a year or two. There will be more than enough room to sign a max extension and keep Wall + a few of the promising young players, assuming none make a superstar leap--which would be tremendous.

It'll eventually get to the point where a top player looking to play with a stud PG will push to join Wall. He'll likely be the most available one in a year or two.

I think the big splash will be DeMarcus Cousins. He'd almost certainly have to come in trade if he's still good and valuable by the time his rookie deal is up. It's difficult for RFAs to leave their teams. But I could see us making a big move to get him.

---------- Post added July-5th-2012 at 01:35 AM ----------

No. I dont. I should have clarified better. I think he wants to win, and go to a market where he would be more of a star ( thinking Shaq ). DC is not the place. We dont win, and we ridicule our stars at a high rate.

Dwight could definitely win here. Dwight could win anywhere. A healthy Dwight will never miss the playoffs even if the rest of his roster was WNBA players and Cal Tech players.

Healthy Dwight could contend here. Pair him with a running mate like Nene and a couple of young guards like Wall and Beal and they'd be an absolute force. Probably the most balanced and talented core in the league.

And if Gilbert Arenas could be absolutely beloved here pre-gun crap, Dwight would be fine.

Dwight won't come here though because the timing doesn't work out. Dwight will be a FA by next summer. He'll likely be traded before then. That's not enough time for us to get our house in order to make a deal for Dwight or try and sign him in FA. His ticket out of Orlando is going to get punched soon.

[pjfootballer]

And its not times changing, lol. Celtics and Lakers are still two of the best teams in the league. Wake me up when Minnesota has a chance or Milwaukee or Sacramento or even New Orleans. The NBA has always been like this.

100% agree with you.

---------- Post added July-5th-2012 at 08:14 AM ----------

LA, NY, Boston and Chicago will always be destinations for players because of the market size and opportunities besides basketball. But ultimately, market size doesn't have diddly-squat to do with players wanting to play for certain teams. Mainly it's about winning and money. If your team has a history of winning and you can pay, they'll play for you. DC is the #9 market, yet nobody wants to come here because we suck! And have sucked for 34 years.

[stevemcqueen1]

Big media markets are less important than ever. The NBA has a very national market and it's stars get noticed everywhere.

I like GACOLB's article about it. There are only four truly big media markets, everyone else is pretty much the same. Yet not all of the star player play in New York, L.A., Boston, and Chicago. The two best and most visible players in the sport play in two small markets. But the entire country follows them and watches them, there is no limit to their branding power.

The only thing that truly matters for FA draw is elite tradition/ability to contend. Everything comes from winning. Money, prestige, branding power, legacy. If the Wizards started winning they'd be able to draw FAs. It's that simple really. It's nice to live in a city like New York or L.A. But it's a lot nicer to win lots of games, which is why somebody like Kevin Durant never even thought about testing the water in free agency to escape Oklahoma City. There is enough fiscal parity around the league that any team can max out a player and every team gets a significant advantage to keep their own elite players in town if they deem it cost effective.

Only the disgruntled stars in bad situations leave their teams. It's all about having a competent FO to build a truly competitive organization to attract players thinking you'll provide a better situation than their previous one.

Blame the specific mistakes of the FO's in Cleveland and Toronto and Denver and Utah, not the markets in which those teams are based.

[Skin'emAlive]

100% agree with you.[COLOR="Gold"]
Mainly it's about winning and money. If your team has a history of winning and you can pay, they'll play for you. DC is the #9 market, yet nobody wants to come here because we suck! And have sucked for 34 years.

You put it much better than i could. We either need a guy to become a superstar with us, or a competent FO. I think our best shot is Wall's progression this upcoming season. Beyond the fact that we have primarily sucked for 34 years, dont think other star players in the league didnt take notice of the way our FO handled the whole Arenas situation. I remember reading about many guys who thought he was done wrong. We need a guy to step up in spite of our terrible FO in a bad way. Until we can "grow" our own superstar, we arent going to attract any quality free agents here. (D12)

Now.. if by some miracle, Howard doesnt get traded this offseason, and Wall lights the league on fire through before the trade deadline... maybe we have a chance of landing him.

[Thinking Skins]

Big media markets are less important than ever. The NBA has a very national market and it's stars get noticed everywhere.

I like GACOLB's article about it. There are only four truly big media markets, everyone else is pretty much the same. Yet not all of the star player play in New York, L.A., Boston, and Chicago. The two best and most visible players in the sport play in two small markets. But the entire country follows them and watches them, there is no limit to their branding power.

The only thing that truly matters for FA draw is elite tradition/ability to contend. Everything comes from winning. Money, prestige, branding power, legacy. If the Wizards started winning they'd be able to draw FAs. It's that simple really. It's nice to live in a city like New York or L.A. But it's a lot nicer to win lots of games, which is why somebody like Kevin Durant never even thought about testing the water in free agency to escape Oklahoma City. There is enough fiscal parity around the league that any team can max out a player and every team gets a significant advantage to keep their own elite players in town if they deem it cost effective.

Only the disgruntled stars in bad situations leave their teams. It's all about having a competent FO to build a truly competitive organization to attract players thinking you'll provide a better situation than their previous one.

Blame the specific mistakes of the FO's in Cleveland and Toronto and Denver and Utah, not the markets in which those teams are based.

Then why do teams like NY, LA, Boston, and Chicago never seem to lack stars? Given, their respective front offices seem to sometimes lack the ability to put together competent rosters, but star players want to play there,, and the owners there generally have the free money to throw at the big name players. I mean, the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks and Bulls have 4 of the top 6 finals appearances in NBA history. You think that's an anomaly?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Then why do teams like NY, LA, Boston, and Chicago never seem to lack stars? Given, their respective front offices seem to sometimes lack the ability to put together competent rosters, but star players want to play there,, and the owners there generally have the free money to throw at the big name players. I mean, the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks and Bulls have 4 of the top 6 finals appearances in NBA history. You think that's an anomaly?

Did the Lakers and Celtics have stars in the 90's? Did the Bulls have stars between the Jordan and Rose eras? And the Knicks are probably the most overrated franchise in history. Was Allan Houston a star?

[stevemcqueen1]

Then why do teams like NY, LA, Boston, and Chicago never seem to lack stars? Given, their respective front offices seem to sometimes lack the ability to put together competent rosters, but star players want to play there,, and the owners there generally have the free money to throw at the big name players. I mean, the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks and Bulls have 4 of the top 6 finals appearances in NBA history. You think that's an anomaly?

The only team from a major market that's never experienced a protracted down period is the Lakers. The Clippers, Bulls, Celtics, Knicks, and Nets have all gone through long dry spells where they were bereft of star players.

The Lakers have typically had strong management and ownership and their primary appeal is their constant ability to contend. They built most of their winning core through the draft and through trades--great FO work. Shaq is the only major FA they've lured over the years. Is that supposed to be evidence of some larger trend that big markets have superior drawing power because of their media reach? I don't think so. There were a million factors that went into Shaq's decision to leave LA.

I think the fact that the big market teams have the most titles is due more to the fact that A.) the Lakers and Celtics racked up titles in an uncompetitive pre-merger period of the league's history & the fact that the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls all drafted five of the game's ten greatest players and great players dominate championships: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Russell, Kobe.

Chicago in particular has never been a big free agent draw. They built their dynasty and their current group through the draft and trades.

[pjfootballer]

LA, NY, Boston and Chicago will always be destinations for players because of the market size and opportunities besides basketball. But ultimately, market size doesn't have diddly-squat to do with players wanting to play for certain teams. Mainly it's about winning and money. If your team has a history of winning and you can pay, they'll play for you. DC is the #9 market, yet nobody wants to come here because we suck! And have sucked for 34 years.

Big media markets are less important than ever. The NBA has a very national market and it's stars get noticed everywhere.

I like GACOLB's article about it. There are only four truly big media markets, everyone else is pretty much the same. Yet not all of the star player play in New York, L.A., Boston, and Chicago. The two best and most visible players in the sport play in two small markets. But the entire country follows them and watches them, there is no limit to their branding power.

The only thing that truly matters for FA draw is elite tradition/ability to contend. Everything comes from winning. Money, prestige, branding power, legacy. If the Wizards started winning they'd be able to draw FAs. It's that simple really. It's nice to live in a city like New York or L.A. But it's a lot nicer to win lots of games, which is why somebody like Kevin Durant never even thought about testing the water in free agency to escape Oklahoma City. There is enough fiscal parity around the league that any team can max out a player and every team gets a significant advantage to keep their own elite players in town if they deem it cost effective.

I think I essentially said the same thing right above you.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I think the big market teams ability to attract top-of-the-line front office personnel is more important and vital than their ability to attract top free agents.

[Warhead36]

The NBA, due to the very nature of the sport of basketball, is both very easy and very hard to win in. It's easy in the sense that, all you really need is one great player. It's hard to get that player yes, but once you get him, building a winner is fairly simple. It isn't like NFL or MLB or even NHL when you need a lot of complimentary parts and pieces. That's why you see the same teams every year. They're able to get that one great player and then everyone else flocks to them. The rich continue to get richer in this dynamic. Get a great player, and then other great players are more likely to join him. Then you're pretty much set to always win until great player(s) age or get hurt(unfortunately that's what happened to us with Gil).

As far as the big market teams go, other then the Lakers they've all had pretty long stretches of futility. The Bulls for basically 10 years(Jordan retirement II to the drafting of Rose)were largely mediocre, save for a couple playoff births. The Celtics were the same way, couple playoff runs but pretty much a non contender and nobody wanted to go there until they traded for Allen which made KG want to go there. And the Knicks were a joke until like a year or two ago. The Lakers have been extremely fortunate that they basically transitioned from Magic/Kareem/Worthy to Kobe/Shaq.

[Destino]

Im not redefining what a big market is. Miami is a big market, or a place where players want to play. And Detroit was major back then, its a cesspool now where no one wants to go.

Minnesota wont be signing any big time free agents any time soon.

Big market doesn't mean "where players want to play". It means a large media (TV in particular) market. Miami has not traditionally been a place "players want to play" either. Lebron and Bosh are there because of Riley and Wade not because of the city of Miami.

Minnesota has the same size market (thanks GACOLB) but like you said isn't considered a prime destination for players. The number of households with TVs isn't what makes a franchise great.

As for your earlier statements surrounding JLin... you really think that story doesn't get covered in Milwaukee? I think an over night sensation that takes his team from out of the playoff hunt and puts them right back into it is a major news story no matter what city he plays for. He averaged 20.9pts and 8.4assists in January Could you kindly point out the last time the NBA has seen a complete after thought of a player popped up and put up those numbers?

The fact that he was Asian (China is a big media market) made an already incredible situation that much more news worthy. He would have been a news story in any city that had a team battling for a playoff spot.

---------- Post added July-5th-2012 at 12:51 PM ----------

Question for you guys. What is the significance of the NBA salary cap being that it doesn't match up with the Luxury Tax Threshold? For instance the cap is 58 million and the tax kicks in at 70 million... so what is the down side of a team spending 68 million?

[stevemcqueen1]

Question for you guys. What is the significance of the NBA salary cap being that it doesn't match up with the Luxury Tax Threshold? For instance the cap is 58 million and the tax kicks in at 70 million... so what is the down side of a team spending 68 million?

My guess is that it's to encourage teams to use some of the available cap exceptions.

The league wants teams to keep its own great players generally speaking, and remain competitive while doing so. That's good for everyone. So my guess is they give you a big contract of room to use things like the Bird exception to keep a great player without discouraging them with the spectre of the luxury tax.

The reason I think it makes sense to set the soft cap lower is so that teams can only spend so much on dumbass laissez faire UFA deals before they have to structure their spending along the guidelines of the exceptions. None of the exceptions really provide for wanton/crippling overspending. Those contracts are probably some of the best values in the league. In a way, it saves teams from themselves.

I actually think the NBA's cap structure is brilliant. It's better and more fair to bad teams than the NFL's salary cap structure (which encourages extreme highs and lows in spending), which is impressive because the NBA has fully guaranteed contracts and nowhere near the NFL's revenue sharing might.

[Destino]

My guess is that it's to encourage teams to use some of the available cap exceptions.

The league wants teams to keep its own great players generally speaking, and remain competitive while doing so. That's good for everyone. So my guess is they give you a big contract of room to use things like the Bird exception to keep a great player without discouraging them with the spectre of the luxury tax.

The reason I think it makes sense to set the soft cap lower is so that teams can only spend so much on dumbass laissez faire UFA deals before they have to structure their spending along the guidelines of the exceptions. None of the exceptions really provide for wanton/crippling overspending. Those contracts are probably some of the best values in the league. In a way, it saves teams from themselves.

I actually think the NBA's cap structure is brilliant. It's better and more fair to bad teams than the NFL's salary cap structure (which encourages extreme highs and lows in spending), which is impressive because the NBA has fully guaranteed contracts and nowhere near the NFL's revenue sharing might.

I differ from you in that I hate the NBA's salary situations. Teams like the Miami Heat offend my sense of competition and any agreement that allows them to exist is a complete failure.

Having said that I don't see why the tax line isn't simply the same as the cap line. Makes nose sense to pronounce something a salary cap but have the penalty exist one star player salary higher.