Game 60: Houston Rockets (25-34) @ Phoenix Suns (35-24) | Saturday | 7:00PM

[Ghost of Kleine]

My tune hasn't changed all season. I called out the KD trade and I called out the Beal trade. I knew this **** would end with disaster and I was right. Sucks to be right sometimes. Maybe I'll have a team worth cheering for again sometime before I croak. That'll take Ishbia learning that buying a championship rarely works. Hopefully he's a quick study and learns from his mistakes.

I was about to post something similar before seeing this post. I still see Ishbia as a positive for this franchise and hope he'll learn quickly from this experience that overpaying for players who are past their prime will not bring a championship.

Ishbias' been great! And I'm glad to have an owner that's willing to spend and aggressively wants to win! That being said, I agree with everything in your post man that you just can't buy a championship! (at least not in basketball anymore) Especially not with the corresponding exponentially punitive and crippling assessed penalties the lague has constructed going forward. The biggest and most soon to be reflected upon mistake in this strategy that you so eloquently pointed out is simply the EXCESSIVE IMPLIED RISK attached to players (stars or otherwise) that have well documented injury histories, and are occupying a huge majority of a teams' cap flexibilty on gigantic salaries. These factors (outside of overtly eager and excitable new ownership situations) normally result in diminished percievable value. Meaning when negotiating in consideration of these implied risks and the resulting diminished value exchange, you usually can negotiate a relative bargain reduction based off the implied or assumed risks involved for the recieving party.

However, due to the interest of new and excitable ownership to make a buig splashy move, and our mediocre inexperienced GM not being a strong or established negotiator, We significantly mortgaged our imminent future sustainability in a rash and somewhat reckless hasty move. And in this lack of patience, we basically bid against ourselves in a situation wherein we actually held the vast majority of leverage. One of this front offices' worst habitual weaknesses is dealing frrom a position of weakness and taking an "End justifys the means" perspective. Then reactively trying to fix the issues absent of any diligent planning or contingencies in place.

- We have to stop being reactive and instead be proactive.
- Stop being careless and instead be cautious.
- Stop overlooking the obvious and start looking clearly and with objectivity at both short term/ long term projectable outcomes.
- Stop minimizing accountability (through lame rationalizations) and start maximizing ALL AVAILABLE AVENUES OF SUSTAINABILITY responsibly.
- Quit being spectators and instead become assertive participators.
- No more "after the fact" situational analysis. But rather proactive objective premised objective planning.

Durant Trade
We bid against ourselves as we held almost complete leverage. And Durant easily had the clout to dictate his outcome. But aside rrom overpaying, The trade was the right move for us mostly.

Beal trade
Was a clear overpay even if not by a significant margin (due to the first swap) BECAUSE OF the multiple obvious leverage factors in our favor beyond Washingtons' control as well as Beals' significantly troubling durability concerns and attached albatross cap crippling contract salary and "No Trade Clause."

O'neale trade
Although he was a solid acquisition and I'm pleased to have him as a depth piece, it still was a slight and unecessary overpay, but an overpay just the same when reflecting upon what caliber of other players were traded/acquired by teams for similar or evn less 2nds at the trade deadline by comparison over utilizing those last remaining assets for more diversified depth throughout key areas of need on our roster.

Overall, Would I do these three trades again myself IF I had been in charge? Most likely! However, I wouldn't have given up nearly as much value as our front office casually and hastily did to end up at ultimately a similar or possibly even lesser trajectory outcome just off the allure of name recognition given the clear implied risks and established overlooked/intentionally ignored factors involved that are now ironically coming back to bite us big time.

[bwgood77]

Beal trade
Was a clear overpay even if not by a significant margin (due to the first swap) BECAUSE OF the multiple obvious leverage factors in our favor beyond Washingtons' control as well as Beals' significantly troubling durability concerns and attached albatross cap crippling contract salary and "No Trade Clause."

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

[Ghost of Kleine]

Beal trade
Was a clear overpay even if not by a significant margin (due to the first swap) BECAUSE OF the multiple obvious leverage factors in our favor beyond Washingtons' control as well as Beals' significantly troubling durability concerns and attached albatross cap crippling contract salary and "No Trade Clause."

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

As I said, YES IT CLEARLY WAS! And to be fair, that's clearly your opinion that he was untradable man! We likely could've traded him to a few teams back around that time that either had similar contracts that they were looking to offload, knowing he could've been bought out and stretched for a reduced hit aside from what they'd be paying in their salary or salaries exchanged if long term. Or we could've traded Paul to Philly in a deal for Harden who at this point would most likely have offered significantly better impact through sheer availability to play and his playmaking not being a skillset of redundency. Not to mention his trade value (If things didn't work out would be much higher just based off the fact that he doesn't have a "no trade clause" nor does he have an extensive injury history with significant injury concerns that Beal has at that salary. And the Clips got Harden for what again, 3 role players/ a young prospect/ 2 1sts, a 1st swap and two 2nds? Ultimately less than what we gave up in cumulative assets for Beal and clearly the much better trade outcome result!

Or we could've flipped Paul to Miami in a trade for Lowry and still had a legit competent starting/backup guard option on an expiring deal. During that time, I proposed a bunch of potential trades wherein the recieving team gets Paul, can clear additional years, and we'd get multiple cumulative pieces back. I remember the flakers wanting him, the Clippers being intriuged, I also remember mentioning trading him/Saric/ etc (pieces) to LA for Russells' 47 million expiring contract PLUS those picks that LA gave up to move him in the Utah trade. New York had definitive interest in both Paul and Payne around that time, and I had also mentioned trades wherein Paul would go out and we'd get back some combination of Rose/ Toppin/ filler or taking back Forniers' contract/ filler in order to offload Shamet in the deal. Or something along the lines of a cumulative exchange in a Paul for Burks/ Noel/ Walker type of exchange. Charlotte was also discussed either in a Paul/ filler for Hayward type swap or a Rozier/ filler trade. Overall many options were openly discussed. And even though it can obviously be argued only from a hypothetical point due to lack of insider information, and can be argued either way (in fairness), NEITHER POSITION can truly be proven as factual or absolute.

So you can argue that he was untradable and I and others might argue that he wasn't at all. Ultimately it'll remain an unknown variable to the discussion man!

Now as to Shamet, I'd argue that he could've easily be traded in a similiar context as his following two contractual years were also unguaranteed, similar to Pauls' contract. So either could've been offloaded to a payroll heavy imminent tax paying team looking for relief in exchange for one or two (cumulatively)?? of their multi year salary deals. And I'm fairly certain that was a point of discussion as well given how very much I disliked him and his deal. And would often postulate on numerous trade possibilities to the poiunt of excess (for discussion). Not that any of this matters really because Paul and Shamet weren't sticking points in my valuation of the Beal trade. And for the record, I like Beal as a player and a talent, What I do take issue with however is the total cumulative value exchanged in the trade for him given all the factors leveraged in our favor going into the trade.

Factors leveraged clearly in our favor (that we didn't capitalize on)
1- Bradley Beals' " NO TRADE CLAUSE" AT NEARLY 50 MILLION SALARY!!
2- Bradley Beals' extensive injury history/Durability issues.
3- Bradley Beals' openly declared interest that he only wanted to play for Phoenix and considering his NO TRADE clause, He we pretty much had Washington over a barrell.
4- No other legit suitors for him: Really, Only Miami was initially interested, but then quickly pivoted to pursuing Lillard instead. This means that we basically bid against ourselves with no other competition!
5- Washingtons' ownership and their new GMs' clearly stated position in that they had unwavering/aggressive intent to finally embrace their rebuild and move on from Beal (and do right by him) in sending him to where he wanted to go, with was vehemently encouraged as well by their fanbase wanting the same thing for a long time now.

People often try to rationalize it as not being an overpay due to getting off of Pauls' and Shamets' contract in the process, when honestly that part is highly inconsequential aside from being mandatory salary fillers in ANY equitable salary exchange, AND again, either could've been bought out and stretched in a worst case scenario, AND BOTH actually offered salary reduction (relief) for the Wiz in getting clear of Beals' multiple years in his contract with BOTH Paul and Shamet basically being expiring contracts in the trade. So swapping their deals was really an inconsequential part of the deal aside from salary matching towards bringing back any big salary in exchange.

Now in fairness to Jones, the 1st swaps do somewhat lessen the value exchange loss VS the implied risk for us (IF we can actuallycompetently maximize those late 1sts)?? This is why I included in my original statement, was a clear overpay IF even slightly due to the swaps. But again, an overpay big or small is still an overpay, and when you're implied risk is so exponentially high in which you mortgage a very significant measure of your imminent future, then every cumulative value amount surrendered matters!! Especially when you have a very truncated window of opportunity to return a positive outcome that is only further restricted going forward. Now I mentioned in a previous discussion with Fishi on this topic. I view 2 2nds (under normal circumstances with an even remotely competent or invested GM) as being equivalent or equitable to a 1st. So in total, giving up.......................................................

- 6 future 2nds (to me at least) is equivalent in terms of a percieved cost controlled value asset) 3 1sts (2 for 1) cumulative value exchange.
- And for the 4 pick swaps, It's very creative (to jones' credit) I view it at least for the picks entering 2026, 2028, 2030 (considering our current cap/asset/depth siuation being so restrictive going forward as at the very least two if not all three of those later swaps yielding a potential lottery to fringe lottery value pick (2028, 2030). So for my part, I cumulatively look at it as being 3 1sts (equitable value from 2nds) and then at least 2 more high value 1sts (2028, 2030). resulting in a total cumulative of 5 1sts for Beal, who if he actually plays the majority of his contract and given his star talent level would be a mostly fair value exchange. BUT the problem in that value assessment is clearly that he doesn't play up to the value of his contract salary, cannot be traded due to his no trade clause, and will tie up over $50+ million of our cap flexibility (most likely from the bench offering no available impact frquently throughout the season over the next three years, drastically limiting what we could do to even try to maximize our competitive window with Booker!!

Undr all of these distinct considerations, it was again an overpay on our end. We just don't operate from a position of strength, leverage or even patience given the factors involved in our trades. That's why to me it was objectively an overpay............If even slightly. IF Beal stays healthy and plays equitably to his contract value than it isn't an overpay! IF he doesn't (which clearly he hasn't yet) and given his well documented history, he likly won't as he ages further, then it becomes a clear ov erpay! Seems pretty simple to me.

[Ghost of Kleine]

To my point for the argument of value exchange in the Beal trade:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nba/suns/2023/12/24/suns-bradley-beal-spills-on-frustrating-injury-in-andscape-diary/72022071007/

So, it happens over and over and over again," Beal said. "And I think that's kind of a frustrating thing, a frustrating state to be in." Beal has missed 50% of his games in these last three seasons (including this one). He's missed 96 out of 192 games in that time.Dec 24, 2023

Now again, for the record, I DO like Beal as a player and talent! But what should the equitable value be for a star player that's eating 50+ million of a teams' available cap space under a highly restrictive CBA while perennially missing close to 2/3 of the season each season. Isn't availability still the best ability?? What should the percieved value depreciation be for a $50 million dollar salaried player that won't even play for close to 2/3 of the season for the acquiring team in a very limited competitive window with the next 6-7 yrs mortgaged heavily in the balance. What is fair value in this context??

[garrick]

Beal trade
Was a clear overpay even if not by a significant margin (due to the first swap) BECAUSE OF the multiple obvious leverage factors in our favor beyond Washingtons' control as well as Beals' significantly troubling durability concerns and attached albatross cap crippling contract salary and "No Trade Clause."

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

Would you rather have Beal who eats up a massive chunk of your salary and is more often injured than not or would you rather have a couple MLE type players instead?

I like Beal but not at his massive salary & injury history and the financial implications of not being able to get under the 2nd apron.

[bwgood77]

Spoiler:

Beal trade
Was a clear overpay even if not by a significant margin (due to the first swap) BECAUSE OF the multiple obvious leverage factors in our favor beyond Washingtons' control as well as Beals' significantly troubling durability concerns and attached albatross cap crippling contract salary and "No Trade Clause."

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

As I said, YES IT CLEARLY WAS! And to be fair, that's clearly your opinion that he was untradable man! We likely could've traded him to a few teams back around that time that either had similar contracts that they were looking to offload, knowing he could've been bought out and stretched for a reduced hit aside from what they'd be paying in their salary or salaries exchanged if long term. Or we could've traded Paul to Philly in a deal for Harden who at this point would most likely have offered significantly better impact through sheer availability to play and his playmaking not being a skillset of redundency. Not to mention his trade value (If things didn't work out would be much higher just based off the fact that he doesn't have a "no trade clause" nor does he have an extensive injury history with significant injury concerns that Beal has at that salary. And the Clips got Harden for what again, 3 role players/ a young prospect/ 2 1sts, a 1st swap and two 2nds? Ultimately less than what we gave up in cumulative assets for Beal and clearly the much better trade outcome result!

Or we could've flipped Paul to Miami in a trade for Lowry and still had a legit competent starting/backup guard option on an expiring deal. During that time, I proposed a bunch of potential trades wherein the recieving team gets Paul, can clear additional years, and we'd get multiple cumulative pieces back. I remember the flakers wanting him, the Clippers being intriuged, I also remember mentioning trading him/Saric/ etc (pieces) to LA for Russells' 47 million expiring contract PLUS those picks that LA gave up to move him in the Utah trade. New York had definitive interest in both Paul and Payne around that time, and I had also mentioned trades wherein Paul would go out and we'd get back some combination of Rose/ Toppin/ filler or taking back Forniers' contract/ filler in order to offload Shamet in the deal. Or something along the lines of a cumulative exchange in a Paul for Burks/ Noel/ Walker type of exchange. Charlotte was also discussed either in a Paul/ filler for Hayward type swap or a Rozier/ filler trade. Overall many options were openly discussed. And even though it can obviously be argued only from a hypothetical point due to lack of insider information, and can be argued either way (in fairness), NEITHER POSITION can truly be proven as factual or absolute.

So you can argue that he was untradable and I and others might argue that he wasn't at all. Ultimately it'll remain an unknown variable to the discussion man!

Now as to Shamet, I'd argue that he could've easily be traded in a similiar context as his following two contractual years were also unguaranteed, similar to Pauls' contract. So either could've been offloaded to a payroll heavy imminent tax paying team looking for relief in exchange for one or two (cumulatively)?? of their multi year salary deals. And I'm fairly certain that was a point of discussion as well given how very much I disliked him and his deal. And would often postulate on numerous trade possibilities to the poiunt of excess (for discussion). Not that any of this matters really because Paul and Shamet weren't sticking points in my valuation of the Beal trade. And for the record, I like Beal as a player and a talent, What I do take issue with however is the total cumulative value exchanged in the trade for him given all the factors leveraged in our favor going into the trade.

Factors leveraged clearly in our favor (that we didn't capitalize on)
1- Bradley Beals' " NO TRADE CLAUSE" AT NEARLY 50 MILLION SALARY!!
2- Bradley Beals' extensive injury history/Durability issues.
3- Bradley Beals' openly declared interest that he only wanted to play for Phoenix and considering his NO TRADE clause, He we pretty much had Washington over a barrell.
4- No other legit suitors for him: Really, Only Miami was initially interested, but then quickly pivoted to pursuing Lillard instead. This means that we basically bid against ourselves with no other competition!
5- Washingtons' ownership and their new GMs' clearly stated position in that they had unwavering/aggressive intent to finally embrace their rebuild and move on from Beal (and do right by him) in sending him to where he wanted to go, with was vehemently encouraged as well by their fanbase wanting the same thing for a long time now.

People often try to rationalize it as not being an overpay due to getting off of Pauls' and Shamets' contract in the process, when honestly that part is highly inconsequential aside from being mandatory salary fillers in ANY equitable salary exchange, AND again, either could've been bought out and stretched in a worst case scenario, AND BOTH actually offered salary reduction (relief) for the Wiz in getting clear of Beals' multiple years in his contract with BOTH Paul and Shamet basically being expiring contracts in the trade. So swapping their deals was really an inconsequential part of the deal aside from salary matching towards bringing back any big salary in exchange.

Now in fairness to Jones, the 1st swaps do somewhat lessen the value exchange loss VS the implied risk for us (IF we can actuallycompetently maximize those late 1sts)?? This is why I included in my original statement, was a clear overpay IF even slightly due to the swaps. But again, an overpay big or small is still an overpay, and when you're implied risk is so exponentially high in which you mortgage a very significant measure of your imminent future, then every cumulative value amount surrendered matters!! Especially when you have a very truncated window of opportunity to return a positive outcome that is only further restricted going forward. Now I mentioned in a previous discussion with Fishi on this topic. I view 2 2nds (under normal circumstances with an even remotely competent or invested GM) as being equivalent or equitable to a 1st. So in total, giving up.......................................................

- 6 future 2nds (to me at least) is equivalent in terms of a percieved cost controlled value asset) 3 1sts (2 for 1) cumulative value exchange.
- And for the 4 pick swaps, It's very creative (to jones' credit) I view it at least for the picks entering 2026, 2028, 2030 (considering our current cap/asset/depth siuation being so restrictive going forward as at the very least two if not all three of those later swaps yielding a potential lottery to fringe lottery value pick (2028, 2030). So for my part, I cumulatively look at it as being 3 1sts (equitable value from 2nds) and then at least 2 more high value 1sts (2028, 2030). resulting in a total cumulative of 5 1sts for Beal, who if he actually plays the majority of his contract and given his star talent level would be a mostly fair value exchange. BUT the problem in that value assessment is clearly that he doesn't play up to the value of his contract salary, cannot be traded due to his no trade clause, and will tie up over $50+ million of our cap flexibility (most likely from the bench offering no available impact frquently throughout the season over the next three years, drastically limiting what we could do to even try to maximize our competitive window with Booker!!

Undr all of these distinct considerations, it was again an overpay on our end. We just don't operate from a position of strength, leverage or even patience given the factors involved in our trades. That's why to me it was objectively an overpay............If even slightly. IF Beal stays healthy and plays equitably to his contract value than it isn't an overpay! IF he doesn't (which clearly he hasn't yet) and given his well documented history, he likly won't as he ages further, then it becomes a clear ov erpay! Seems pretty simple to me.

Oh yeah, I forgot you thought we could trade Chris Paul for Dejounte Murray. Paul was finished. It's weird, because I remember another post you made saying something about some trade being a good trade, but not as good as the Beal trade obviously...seems like you changed your tune. Beal is an all star caliber player and has won a scoring title, has had similar efficiency to Book (around 55% from 2 and 37% from 3)....he has had to take a back seat but for that caliber a player, I wouldn't quibble over 2nds or swaps that are unlikely to be used. The salary doesn't matter because we are over the cap regardless his whole time here except possibly his last year if KD leaves but then the cap is likely a lot higher too.

[lilfishi22]

Beal trade
Was a clear overpay even if not by a significant margin (due to the first swap) BECAUSE OF the multiple obvious leverage factors in our favor beyond Washingtons' control as well as Beals' significantly troubling durability concerns and attached albatross cap crippling contract salary and "No Trade Clause."

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

Would you rather have Beal who eats up a massive chunk of your salary and is more often injured than not or would you rather have a couple MLE type players instead?

I like Beal but not at his massive salary & injury history and the financial implications of not being able to get under the 2nd apron.

The MLE we would have available to us would be the Tax Payer MLE which is worth $5m. Depending on the tenure of an NBA player, a minimum is worth anywhere between $2.3m (5yrs e.g Eubanks) and beyond $3m (10yrs+ eg Gordon). So it's highly unlikely you're getting a couple of MLE players because that wouldn't be a great use of the MLE given a vet min is already $2.5m+ already which mean you're probably going to use the whole TPMLE on a single, higher calibre player.

These are the kind of players that signed to a deal around that TPMLE mark:

- Plumlee
- Biz
- McDaniels
- Prince
- NAW
- Troy Brown
- Seth Curry

It's not a comprehensive list nor am I suggesting we could've definitely signed them (NAW for example was already on the Minny squad) but you get the an idea of the calibre of player you're looking at.

[bwgood77]

Beal trade
Was a clear overpay even if not by a significant margin (due to the first swap) BECAUSE OF the multiple obvious leverage factors in our favor beyond Washingtons' control as well as Beals' significantly troubling durability concerns and attached albatross cap crippling contract salary and "No Trade Clause."

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

Would you rather have Beal who eats up a massive chunk of your salary and is more often injured than not or would you rather have a couple MLE type players instead?

I like Beal but not at his massive salary & injury history and the financial implications of not being able to get under the 2nd apron.

Beal, but I don't think we could have gotten a couple of MLE type of players anyway. If we kept Paul last year and Shamet we wouldn't have had the MLE. They both had negative trade value which is why we had to take on the big contract.

[garrick]

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

Would you rather have Beal who eats up a massive chunk of your salary and is more often injured than not or would you rather have a couple MLE type players instead?

I like Beal but not at his massive salary & injury history and the financial implications of not being able to get under the 2nd apron.

Beal, but I don't think we could have gotten a couple of MLE type of players anyway. If we kept Paul last year and Shamet we wouldn't have had the MLE. They both had negative trade value which is why we had to take on the big contract.

I think it was a win this season as we got off CP3's contract the question is how does it affect roster construction next season and beyond? If we just let CP3 expire this season we would be heading into next season without his 30m contract and maybe under the 2nd apron?

[bwgood77]

Would you rather have Beal who eats up a massive chunk of your salary and is more often injured than not or would you rather have a couple MLE type players instead?

I like Beal but not at his massive salary & injury history and the financial implications of not being able to get under the 2nd apron.

Beal, but I don't think we could have gotten a couple of MLE type of players anyway. If we kept Paul last year and Shamet we wouldn't have had the MLE. They both had negative trade value which is why we had to take on the big contract.

I think it was a win this season as we got off CP3's contract the question is how does it affect roster construction next season and beyond? If we just let CP3 expire this season we would be heading into next season without his 30m contract and maybe under the 2nd apron?

Yeah, if we had CP3 (or just bought him out for $15 million), we would be under the 2nd apron, but we still wouldn't have a MLE...we could probably use the tax MLE each year. I don't know if we'd get under the tax with Booker's supermax kicking in next year.

[Ghost of Kleine]

Spoiler:

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

As I said, YES IT CLEARLY WAS! And to be fair, that's clearly your opinion that he was untradable man! We likely could've traded him to a few teams back around that time that either had similar contracts that they were looking to offload, knowing he could've been bought out and stretched for a reduced hit aside from what they'd be paying in their salary or salaries exchanged if long term. Or we could've traded Paul to Philly in a deal for Harden who at this point would most likely have offered significantly better impact through sheer availability to play and his playmaking not being a skillset of redundency. Not to mention his trade value (If things didn't work out would be much higher just based off the fact that he doesn't have a "no trade clause" nor does he have an extensive injury history with significant injury concerns that Beal has at that salary. And the Clips got Harden for what again, 3 role players/ a young prospect/ 2 1sts, a 1st swap and two 2nds? Ultimately less than what we gave up in cumulative assets for Beal and clearly the much better trade outcome result!

Or we could've flipped Paul to Miami in a trade for Lowry and still had a legit competent starting/backup guard option on an expiring deal. During that time, I proposed a bunch of potential trades wherein the recieving team gets Paul, can clear additional years, and we'd get multiple cumulative pieces back. I remember the flakers wanting him, the Clippers being intriuged, I also remember mentioning trading him/Saric/ etc (pieces) to LA for Russells' 47 million expiring contract PLUS those picks that LA gave up to move him in the Utah trade. New York had definitive interest in both Paul and Payne around that time, and I had also mentioned trades wherein Paul would go out and we'd get back some combination of Rose/ Toppin/ filler or taking back Forniers' contract/ filler in order to offload Shamet in the deal. Or something along the lines of a cumulative exchange in a Paul for Burks/ Noel/ Walker type of exchange. Charlotte was also discussed either in a Paul/ filler for Hayward type swap or a Rozier/ filler trade. Overall many options were openly discussed. And even though it can obviously be argued only from a hypothetical point due to lack of insider information, and can be argued either way (in fairness), NEITHER POSITION can truly be proven as factual or absolute.

So you can argue that he was untradable and I and others might argue that he wasn't at all. Ultimately it'll remain an unknown variable to the discussion man!

Now as to Shamet, I'd argue that he could've easily be traded in a similiar context as his following two contractual years were also unguaranteed, similar to Pauls' contract. So either could've been offloaded to a payroll heavy imminent tax paying team looking for relief in exchange for one or two (cumulatively)?? of their multi year salary deals. And I'm fairly certain that was a point of discussion as well given how very much I disliked him and his deal. And would often postulate on numerous trade possibilities to the poiunt of excess (for discussion). Not that any of this matters really because Paul and Shamet weren't sticking points in my valuation of the Beal trade. And for the record, I like Beal as a player and a talent, What I do take issue with however is the total cumulative value exchanged in the trade for him given all the factors leveraged in our favor going into the trade.

Factors leveraged clearly in our favor (that we didn't capitalize on)
1- Bradley Beals' " NO TRADE CLAUSE" AT NEARLY 50 MILLION SALARY!!
2- Bradley Beals' extensive injury history/Durability issues.
3- Bradley Beals' openly declared interest that he only wanted to play for Phoenix and considering his NO TRADE clause, He we pretty much had Washington over a barrell.
4- No other legit suitors for him: Really, Only Miami was initially interested, but then quickly pivoted to pursuing Lillard instead. This means that we basically bid against ourselves with no other competition!
5- Washingtons' ownership and their new GMs' clearly stated position in that they had unwavering/aggressive intent to finally embrace their rebuild and move on from Beal (and do right by him) in sending him to where he wanted to go, with was vehemently encouraged as well by their fanbase wanting the same thing for a long time now.

People often try to rationalize it as not being an overpay due to getting off of Pauls' and Shamets' contract in the process, when honestly that part is highly inconsequential aside from being mandatory salary fillers in ANY equitable salary exchange, AND again, either could've been bought out and stretched in a worst case scenario, AND BOTH actually offered salary reduction (relief) for the Wiz in getting clear of Beals' multiple years in his contract with BOTH Paul and Shamet basically being expiring contracts in the trade. So swapping their deals was really an inconsequential part of the deal aside from salary matching towards bringing back any big salary in exchange.

Now in fairness to Jones, the 1st swaps do somewhat lessen the value exchange loss VS the implied risk for us (IF we can actuallycompetently maximize those late 1sts)?? This is why I included in my original statement, was a clear overpay IF even slightly due to the swaps. But again, an overpay big or small is still an overpay, and when you're implied risk is so exponentially high in which you mortgage a very significant measure of your imminent future, then every cumulative value amount surrendered matters!! Especially when you have a very truncated window of opportunity to return a positive outcome that is only further restricted going forward. Now I mentioned in a previous discussion with Fishi on this topic. I view 2 2nds (under normal circumstances with an even remotely competent or invested GM) as being equivalent or equitable to a 1st. So in total, giving up.......................................................

- 6 future 2nds (to me at least) is equivalent in terms of a percieved cost controlled value asset) 3 1sts (2 for 1) cumulative value exchange.
- And for the 4 pick swaps, It's very creative (to jones' credit) I view it at least for the picks entering 2026, 2028, 2030 (considering our current cap/asset/depth siuation being so restrictive going forward as at the very least two if not all three of those later swaps yielding a potential lottery to fringe lottery value pick (2028, 2030). So for my part, I cumulatively look at it as being 3 1sts (equitable value from 2nds) and then at least 2 more high value 1sts (2028, 2030). resulting in a total cumulative of 5 1sts for Beal, who if he actually plays the majority of his contract and given his star talent level would be a mostly fair value exchange. BUT the problem in that value assessment is clearly that he doesn't play up to the value of his contract salary, cannot be traded due to his no trade clause, and will tie up over $50+ million of our cap flexibility (most likely from the bench offering no available impact frquently throughout the season over the next three years, drastically limiting what we could do to even try to maximize our competitive window with Booker!!

Undr all of these distinct considerations, it was again an overpay on our end. We just don't operate from a position of strength, leverage or even patience given the factors involved in our trades. That's why to me it was objectively an overpay............If even slightly. IF Beal stays healthy and plays equitably to his contract value than it isn't an overpay! IF he doesn't (which clearly he hasn't yet) and given his well documented history, he likly won't as he ages further, then it becomes a clear ov erpay! Seems pretty simple to me.

Oh yeah, I forgot you thought we could trade Chris Paul for Dejounte Murray. Paul was finished. It's weird, because I remember another post you made saying something about some trade being a good trade, but not as good as the Beal trade obviously...seems like you changed your tune. Beal is an all star caliber player and has won a scoring title, has had similar efficiency to Book (around 55% from 2 and 37% from 3)....he has had to take a back seat but for that caliber a player, I wouldn't quibble over 2nds or swaps that are unlikely to be used. The salary doesn't matter because we are over the cap regardless his whole time here except possibly his last year if KD leaves but then the cap is likely a lot higher too.

Are you sure about that man? Because that honestly doesn't sound at all accurate to me! I think that you might be remembering something entirely different than what I suggested for Paul to the Spurs? I believe The trade premise that I mentioned involving Paul was actually based upon something around Mcdermott/ Collins/ Bassey/ fillers (and 2nds) based upon the premise of Pops' relationship/ mutual respect for Paul and his role in being able to help lead/mentor their young team. As for Dejounte Murray, wasn't he traded almost a full yr prior to Atlanta for Gallo, and 3 firsts and a pick swap? So again, Murray wouldn't have even been on the spurs roster when I was suggesting trading Paul to the spurs for some combination of Mcdermott/Collins/Bassey/ 2nds?

I'd have to honestly see my post wherein I contextually suggested trading Paul for Murray man to verify it was suggested it was not instead the consolidsation trade for the 3 players and 2nds that I mentioned! Again, IF I remembver things correctly, I premised the idea of Paul being of interest to Pop for the reasons mentioned briefly above, as well as the friendship and mutual respect. These perspectives apparently don't seem all that outlier honestly as they're circulating a bit too:
https://www.si.com/nba/spurs/trade-rumors/gregg-popovich-san-antonio-spurs-trade-golden-state-warriors-chris-paul-rumors

Could Gregg Popovich’s San Antonio Spurs Trade For Golden State Warriors' Chris Paul?

The idea of pairing Victor Wembanyama with Chris Paul isn't a new one, but now that the season is underway and Golden State is firmly in the playoff picture, it might take more than just visual appeal to bring the veteran to the San Antonio Spurs.
MATT GUZMAN
DEC 11, 2023 7:00 AM EST

Golden State Warriors point guard Chris Paul takes no prisoners, suffers no fools and is "there to win."

Those are the characteristics of the long-time NBA veteran as given to him by San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. It's high praise, yes, but it's also deserved. The pair have had a long history in the league, even being paired up for the 2013 All-Star Game. But even more than that, Paul is currently in his 19th season — just eight years shorter than Popovich's head-coaching tenure — making the pair quite familiar with one another on the court. Safe to say, Paul remembers it vividly.

“I think I have played against San Antonio more than any other team my whole career,” the point guard said. “I’ve played them in the playoffs a number of times. I was in that division for most of my career. Pop, man, we got a great relationship. ... He just does the work.”

As many times as they've faced off against each other, it makes sense that Popovich knows Paul's playing style about as well as Paul knows his coaching style. Even Monty Williams — the Phoenix Suns' coach during Paul's tenure there — worked under Popovich for a brief period of time at the beginning of his career. The veteran Spurs coach has left his impact on countless figures throughout the league.

But what if he could take it a step further, specifically in regards to Paul? The idea of pairing Paul with new Spurs frontman Victor Wembanyama was one tossed around prior to the season. It was almost a dream scenario. A 7-4 power forward who towers over defenders and constantly calls for lobs at the rim combined with a point guard so good at facilitating that he's earned a religious moniker — "Point God" — does seem to be a match made in heaven. But it wasn't that easy.

San Antonio would have to cross multiple fences to make a Paul deal happen. First, it'd have to convince the veteran to be apart of a newly-established "rebuild" — though the Spurs' effort does have much higher potential than the average squad fresh off of a No. 1 pick — and second, it'd have to part ways with core pieces. It might have been an easier task in the offseason, especially with Paul having no team and by proxy, no leverage. But now that he's with Golden State, the Warriors have the right to demand what they deem a fair payback.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/article/Gregg-Popovich-s-request-to-Dejounte-Murray-10937820.php

Gregg Popovich’s request to Dejounte Murray: Study Chris Paul
By Jabari Young,
San Antonio Express-News
Updated Feb 16, 2017 12:18 p.m.

As Murray is in the middle of his rookie season, Popovich wants him to study Chris Paul, one of the best point guards in the NBA.

“He’s elite,” said Popovich of Paul. “He’s a helluva player.”

Added Murray: “That’s actually one of the point guards who I take some game from outside of Tony Parker. I watch Russell Westbrook, but I watch Chris Paul the most.”

Starting from the first time the Spurs played the Los Angeles Clippers this season, Popovich instructed Murray to watch Paul closely. He wanted the rookie to study how Paul controls the game, especially on the offensive end. “He said watch every single play,” said Murray. “He knows where everyone is going to be at all times. He knows the defense. He knows the offense. He knows everything.”

“He’s got to start that process,” said Popovich. “Educating himself, looking around, seeing what good players do, what their style is, and it’ll help him develop his game. He’s got to be himself obviously, but he can add to his game. Somebody like Chris Paul, who is so clever and so competitive, is a good person for him to watch.”

So irregardless of perspectives being different, I think you get the idea that POP did have respect, admiration, a close friendship with (as indicated in the pic above) and a good history with Paul. And that's what I predominantly based the premised mutual trade interest upon! That and the fact that Pauls' contract basically represented no long term commitment either. But would've been a perfect fit to mentor their young roster and expedite their advancement/progression. And apparently I wasn't/ still am not alone in that perspective.

[Ghost of Kleine]

Spoiler:

Overpay? Chris Paul was pretty much untradable. Shamet probably had negative trade value. I doubt many teams would have wanted Beal with the contract, but I'm sure any team well over the cap contending would have loved to trade something for him if it wasn't a great player or star. I think Miami wanted him...and others teams had interest but lucky for us (for those who don't hate him), we were able to get him.

As I said, YES IT CLEARLY WAS! And to be fair, that's clearly your opinion that he was untradable man! We likely could've traded him to a few teams back around that time that either had similar contracts that they were looking to offload, knowing he could've been bought out and stretched for a reduced hit aside from what they'd be paying in their salary or salaries exchanged if long term. Or we could've traded Paul to Philly in a deal for Harden who at this point would most likely have offered significantly better impact through sheer availability to play and his playmaking not being a skillset of redundency. Not to mention his trade value (If things didn't work out would be much higher just based off the fact that he doesn't have a "no trade clause" nor does he have an extensive injury history with significant injury concerns that Beal has at that salary. And the Clips got Harden for what again, 3 role players/ a young prospect/ 2 1sts, a 1st swap and two 2nds? Ultimately less than what we gave up in cumulative assets for Beal and clearly the much better trade outcome result!

Or we could've flipped Paul to Miami in a trade for Lowry and still had a legit competent starting/backup guard option on an expiring deal. During that time, I proposed a bunch of potential trades wherein the recieving team gets Paul, can clear additional years, and we'd get multiple cumulative pieces back. I remember the flakers wanting him, the Clippers being intriuged, I also remember mentioning trading him/Saric/ etc (pieces) to LA for Russells' 47 million expiring contract PLUS those picks that LA gave up to move him in the Utah trade. New York had definitive interest in both Paul and Payne around that time, and I had also mentioned trades wherein Paul would go out and we'd get back some combination of Rose/ Toppin/ filler or taking back Forniers' contract/ filler in order to offload Shamet in the deal. Or something along the lines of a cumulative exchange in a Paul for Burks/ Noel/ Walker type of exchange. Charlotte was also discussed either in a Paul/ filler for Hayward type swap or a Rozier/ filler trade. Overall many options were openly discussed. And even though it can obviously be argued only from a hypothetical point due to lack of insider information, and can be argued either way (in fairness), NEITHER POSITION can truly be proven as factual or absolute.

So you can argue that he was untradable and I and others might argue that he wasn't at all. Ultimately it'll remain an unknown variable to the discussion man!

Now as to Shamet, I'd argue that he could've easily be traded in a similiar context as his following two contractual years were also unguaranteed, similar to Pauls' contract. So either could've been offloaded to a payroll heavy imminent tax paying team looking for relief in exchange for one or two (cumulatively)?? of their multi year salary deals. And I'm fairly certain that was a point of discussion as well given how very much I disliked him and his deal. And would often postulate on numerous trade possibilities to the poiunt of excess (for discussion). Not that any of this matters really because Paul and Shamet weren't sticking points in my valuation of the Beal trade. And for the record, I like Beal as a player and a talent, What I do take issue with however is the total cumulative value exchanged in the trade for him given all the factors leveraged in our favor going into the trade.

Factors leveraged clearly in our favor (that we didn't capitalize on)
1- Bradley Beals' " NO TRADE CLAUSE" AT NEARLY 50 MILLION SALARY!!
2- Bradley Beals' extensive injury history/Durability issues.
3- Bradley Beals' openly declared interest that he only wanted to play for Phoenix and considering his NO TRADE clause, He we pretty much had Washington over a barrell.
4- No other legit suitors for him: Really, Only Miami was initially interested, but then quickly pivoted to pursuing Lillard instead. This means that we basically bid against ourselves with no other competition!
5- Washingtons' ownership and their new GMs' clearly stated position in that they had unwavering/aggressive intent to finally embrace their rebuild and move on from Beal (and do right by him) in sending him to where he wanted to go, with was vehemently encouraged as well by their fanbase wanting the same thing for a long time now.

People often try to rationalize it as not being an overpay due to getting off of Pauls' and Shamets' contract in the process, when honestly that part is highly inconsequential aside from being mandatory salary fillers in ANY equitable salary exchange, AND again, either could've been bought out and stretched in a worst case scenario, AND BOTH actually offered salary reduction (relief) for the Wiz in getting clear of Beals' multiple years in his contract with BOTH Paul and Shamet basically being expiring contracts in the trade. So swapping their deals was really an inconsequential part of the deal aside from salary matching towards bringing back any big salary in exchange.

Now in fairness to Jones, the 1st swaps do somewhat lessen the value exchange loss VS the implied risk for us (IF we can actuallycompetently maximize those late 1sts)?? This is why I included in my original statement, was a clear overpay IF even slightly due to the swaps. But again, an overpay big or small is still an overpay, and when you're implied risk is so exponentially high in which you mortgage a very significant measure of your imminent future, then every cumulative value amount surrendered matters!! Especially when you have a very truncated window of opportunity to return a positive outcome that is only further restricted going forward. Now I mentioned in a previous discussion with Fishi on this topic. I view 2 2nds (under normal circumstances with an even remotely competent or invested GM) as being equivalent or equitable to a 1st. So in total, giving up.......................................................

- 6 future 2nds (to me at least) is equivalent in terms of a percieved cost controlled value asset) 3 1sts (2 for 1) cumulative value exchange.
- And for the 4 pick swaps, It's very creative (to jones' credit) I view it at least for the picks entering 2026, 2028, 2030 (considering our current cap/asset/depth siuation being so restrictive going forward as at the very least two if not all three of those later swaps yielding a potential lottery to fringe lottery value pick (2028, 2030). So for my part, I cumulatively look at it as being 3 1sts (equitable value from 2nds) and then at least 2 more high value 1sts (2028, 2030). resulting in a total cumulative of 5 1sts for Beal, who if he actually plays the majority of his contract and given his star talent level would be a mostly fair value exchange. BUT the problem in that value assessment is clearly that he doesn't play up to the value of his contract salary, cannot be traded due to his no trade clause, and will tie up over $50+ million of our cap flexibility (most likely from the bench offering no available impact frquently throughout the season over the next three years, drastically limiting what we could do to even try to maximize our competitive window with Booker!!

Undr all of these distinct considerations, it was again an overpay on our end. We just don't operate from a position of strength, leverage or even patience given the factors involved in our trades. That's why to me it was objectively an overpay............If even slightly. IF Beal stays healthy and plays equitably to his contract value than it isn't an overpay! IF he doesn't (which clearly he hasn't yet) and given his well documented history, he likly won't as he ages further, then it becomes a clear ov erpay! Seems pretty simple to me.

Oh yeah, I forgot you thought we could trade Chris Paul for Dejounte Murray. Paul was finished. It's weird, because I remember another post you made saying something about some trade being a good trade, but not as good as the Beal trade obviously...seems like you changed your tune. Beal is an all star caliber player and has won a scoring title, has had similar efficiency to Book (around 55% from 2 and 37% from 3)....he has had to take a back seat but for that caliber a player, I wouldn't quibble over 2nds or swaps that are unlikely to be used. The salary doesn't matter because we are over the cap regardless his whole time here except possibly his last year if KD leaves but then the cap is likely a lot higher too.

Part 2 response to ...........

It's weird, because I remember another post you made saying something about some trade being a good trade, but not as good as the Beal trade obviously...seems like you changed your tune.

I'm not exactly sure what post/trade discussion you're referring to in order to accurately respond to your comment quoted above man? I'd have to see it to answer as to it's context and my perspective. But as for me changing my tune, I've always liked the trade and Beal (as a player himself). But have openly stated that I've never liked the total cumulative value that we surrendered in that deal specifically due to the reasons that I've outlined above, and have repeatedly mentioned in previous posts regarding this trade. I also believe that I've been fairly consistent in my perspective regarding us overpaying (in terms of asset value exchange) If even by a slight margin! as stated repeatedly in my previous posts too. I've consistently stated that I felt that we overpaid if evebn by a slight margin in all of the KD,Beal, and O'neale trades. It may not have been by a significant measurable margin, but overpaying by even a little bit is still overpaying! And when you're in a very restrictive situation with your imminent future mortgaged and basically no flexibility, almost no remaining assets to utilize impending compounding penalties and an aging, injury prone big three with a history of durability issues, it's just not at all practical nor good business to be so casual or flippant with the very few remaining avenues for improvement left to us for the coming 6-7 yrs or so. And then rationalizing it by saying................................... "It's ok because we're not likely to use them anyways"! That's like making a really bad decision, but then saying it's ok because we're not capable of making better ones or are just too lazy or indifferent to put the work in and do better. Every surrendered or casually wasted asset adds up in the grand scheme of things towards us actually getting over the hump and winning a championship! Those assets should've been better conserved and appropriated for further lgit bench depth which will absolutely be our undoing in the post season.