For everyone advocating that we trade Willie, remember we won't have Randolph and Kosta next year. Bagley and Giles haven't seen a minute of NBA action, and Skal has yet to prove anything.
I'm not against trading Willie. I'm against trading him for "something". As I (and others) have mentioned multiple times, we already have a lot of young players that will need time. If we trade Willie for a pick/prospect that's unlikely to see much playing time, what exactly are we gaining?
Yes. Willie will expect to get paid. If we exchange him for a player who will be on a rookie contract for a few more years, we save some dough. Plus, the other player might be more tradable with a smaller contract. Plus, we open up more playing time for Bagley, Giles, and Skal. I understand the arguments.
From my perspective, unless we see these guys play some meaningful minutes, it would be foolish to anoint them. Sure, the FO and the coaching staff is paid to have an idea about their potential, and if they think they're going to be the future, trading Willie for something might make sense. I don't think that will help the team much in any case.
Money saved will not be very useful. We will be so far below the minimum, that we'll be forced to throw money at some FAs (did very very rough calculations on hoopshype, and minus Willie, we have around 43M committed to our 9 core guys. This include Yogi and Belli. Assuming a minimum of around 90M, we'll be forced to offer around 47M to up to 6 guys). Given that more than half the league will have cap space next year, we'll not be attracting any top tier talent. So, we shall be overpaying mid level guys. 47M may not seem a lot in NBA money, but which players do we hope to attract that we'll want to play above the core guys. If no name really pops up, do we want to pay them so much money to sit around? And is Willie really a worse option in that case?