I get the keeping your "stars" (or maybe just "really good" all-stars) so that the team doesn't completely bottom-out, but at the same time it's clear that half of these haven't aged well. Though it's probably not much better to have a declining star (or an overpaid "really good" player) with a crippling contract in a league that has a salary cap. I'm looking at you, Gobert.
I can't (and won't) fault a player for taking a supermax contract because that's just ridiculous, life-changing money. But doing so really handcuffs a team in their ability to put together a championship contending team where one guy alone is taking up 1/3 of the salary cap. The NBA built an "advantage" for teams to offer a super max, but it's really a massive double-edged sword since these deals tend to take the player beyond their prime years.
On a side note, isn't it ironic that 3 of these players were at one time or another a member of the Rockets while under these supermax contracts? Of course Wall and Westbrook were traded for each other, but still kind of funny.
What a shame that a guy like Beal is going to get a max contract. Definition of a chucker with 0 defense that doesn't move the needle one bit.
I doubt that the Beals think it’s a shame. And the Wizards don’t have to offer it to him.
Right, they don't have to offer it to him, but what alternative do they have? Let him leave and get nothing in return? He at least makes them decent.
Perhaps they're more concerned with riding the treadmill of mediocrity rather than just do a complete reset. Which is a problem several bad teams have when re-signing their stars. You need some player(s) to build your team around, but if the best player is taking up 1/3 of the cap space and the rest of the roster is not good, then how can the roster reasonably be turned over to make the team a playoff team, or even a contender?
What a shame that a guy like Beal is going to get a max contract. Definition of a chucker with 0 defense that doesn't move the needle one bit.
I doubt that the Beals think it’s a shame. And the Wizards don’t have to offer it to him.
Right, they don't have to offer it to him, but what alternative do they have? Let him leave and get nothing in return? He at least makes them decent.
Perhaps they're more concerned with riding the treadmill of mediocrity rather than just do a complete reset. Which is a problem several bad teams have when re-signing their stars. You need some player(s) to build your team around, but if the best player is taking up 1/3 of the cap space and the rest of the roster is not good, then how can the roster reasonably be turned over to make the team a playoff team, or even a contender?
If your best player is Bradley Beal, you're not going to be a contending team. But if you let Beal walk, you're not going to be able to sign someone who's better. So you might as well sign Beal.
That's just the reality of a 30-team league. Everyone would love their best player to be Giannis, Jokic or Curry. But most teams will have a best player on the level of Gobert, Lillard, DeRozan, or Siakam.
If your best player is Bradley Beal, you're not going to be a contending team. But if you let Beal walk, you're not going to be able to sign someone who's better. So you might as well sign Beal.
That's just the reality of a 30-team league. Everyone would love their best player to be Giannis, Jokic or Curry. But most teams will have a best player on the level of Gobert, Lillard, DeRozan, or Siakam.
That's the logic, for sure. It hasn't worked out so well for some teams, though. If the Wizards' front office is competent, they'll need to weigh the pluses and minuses. They have the option of trading Beal for assets. I have no idea what they could get for him, and it's unlikely that they would get a single player as good as Beal. But if they give him the super max, their ceiling is limited to whatever Beal can accomplish as their franchise player. That may not even be a playoff spot. _________________ Internet Argument Resolved
If your best player is Bradley Beal, you're not going to be a contending team. But if you let Beal walk, you're not going to be able to sign someone who's better. So you might as well sign Beal.
That's just the reality of a 30-team league. Everyone would love their best player to be Giannis, Jokic or Curry. But most teams will have a best player on the level of Gobert, Lillard, DeRozan, or Siakam.
That's the logic, for sure. It hasn't worked out so well for some teams, though. If the Wizards' front office is competent, they'll need to weigh the pluses and minuses. They have the option of trading Beal for assets. I have no idea what they could get for him, and it's unlikely that they would get a single player as good as Beal. But if they give him the super max, their ceiling is limited to whatever Beal can accomplish as their franchise player. That may not even be a playoff spot.
I could definitely see it being a tough call for a GM. The average GM only lasts with a team for 5 years. So you have to weight whether letting a star go might be better for the long term of the bad but bad for you, if the owner and fans get frustrated by the lack of value you get in a trade for him.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
