I don't like that trade for us. I'd rather have Snell, Malachi and Garrett than Porter on a max. Tony Snell is RFA on team with 111M payroll next season. I think we can get him without the Bucks matching. We will have to overpay 3/36 or thereabouts or even 4/50 then frontload contract to threaten to send them into the luxury. That's more appealing than 100M to Porter and having to give up assets to get him. (even if that was possible). But I think you are underrating Porter. He's a very good player and there's a dearth of quality wings. He's assigned to the best opponent: DeRozan, LeBron, etc. and he's a lethal three point shooter. The Wizards aren't doing that deal. If Malachi emerges as a starter this season then it changes the parameters. Until then he's unproven with limited trade value. He's worth far more to us than what we can retrieve on the trade market.
Vet free agents and filling out the roster
- Thread starter ovrush
- Start date
I suppose as long as we are not missing out on other opportunities you can take a shot. But I think Kings have a far better chance of getting Snell without the Bucks matching than getting Porter in a S&T. And if you look at where the Kings are in their development curve we are in asset acquisition mode. Why should we want to give up a Malachi or Temple or rights to Bogdan or whomever in a S&T??? If the Kings can get Otto without Wizards matching then let's do it but those chances to me are nil.
You are right there's limit to upside of Porter-Wall-Beal but there's a premium on players of Porter's type. Who's going to guard Jaylen Brown, Tatum, LeBron, DeRozan in the East if they unload Porter? I think the Wizards will conclude they have no choice to keep him and try to get creative in other ways to add another star. They could try to move Morris and Gortat (20M total) in salary and clear space to sign Boogie next summer. That's a formidable team and one in which Wall would sign an extension.
If the Wizards let Porter walk, then I think Boogie and Wall are looking to reunite elsewhere not named Washington.
You are right there's limit to upside of Porter-Wall-Beal but there's a premium on players of Porter's type. Who's going to guard Jaylen Brown, Tatum, LeBron, DeRozan in the East if they unload Porter? I think the Wizards will conclude they have no choice to keep him and try to get creative in other ways to add another star. They could try to move Morris and Gortat (20M total) in salary and clear space to sign Boogie next summer. That's a formidable team and one in which Wall would sign an extension.
If the Wizards let Porter walk, then I think Boogie and Wall are looking to reunite elsewhere not named Washington.
Porter is my favourite realistic FA. But what are your thoughts about PJ Tucker? I didn't watch this guy a lot, but when i did, he had some great games. Veteran who wouldn't ask for too much money and who would bring toughness, defense and some solid 3pt shooting. Bringing Porter would mean less minutes for Jackson and more minutes for him if bringing Tucker?
Is 41% on 3s atrocious? Good for 24th in the NBA? I don't think so. He was atrocious in Chicago. It took him a while to figure it out. But he's a late bloomer instrumental on playoff team finally figuring it out. Two way player with 7'0" wingspan and untapped upside. $10M is the starting point for a wing starter in the NBA that can defend multiple positions. That was what I based my offer on. Adding a guy like Snell would reduce the pressure on JJ and Malachi to have to step into role they are not yet ready for. Snell has guarded the LeBrons DeRozans and Giannis in practice. He's better than you think.
I feel like you are really overstating what teams get back in these sign and trade deals. They are always a loser for the team losing their star. The Wizards are either going to sign him at the market rate or they are going to let him go and get the most they can which is probably an expiring contract, trade exception and a low value draft pick.
You are referring to situations in which the team that trades the RFA is not particularly interested in retaining said player at agreed upon offer. Sadly this was the case with Isaiah in which we took back nothing as courtesy to PHX to help them with their balance sheet and I think acquire a trade exception. I don't remember. But this situation is different....
The Wizards don't want to lose Otto. He's a priority for them in league with a scarcity of quality wings. He's NOT a max player based on production but he's in a great position to get the max with 10 teams with max cap space (including the Kings), many of whom are in need of quality wing players. This confluence of variables means the Wizards are more likely to bite the bullet and pay him 100M+ or insist upon fair compensation if they do a sign and trade. Since the Kings don't have the assets to offer fair compensation back, any offer sheet signed is likely to be matched without a trade consummated. This is why I assert we should not even bother and target more realistic acquisitions.
The Wizards don't want to lose Otto. He's a priority for them in league with a scarcity of quality wings. He's NOT a max player based on production but he's in a great position to get the max with 10 teams with max cap space (including the Kings), many of whom are in need of quality wing players. This confluence of variables means the Wizards are more likely to bite the bullet and pay him 100M+ or insist upon fair compensation if they do a sign and trade. Since the Kings don't have the assets to offer fair compensation back, any offer sheet signed is likely to be matched without a trade consummated. This is why I assert we should not even bother and target more realistic acquisitions.
Going to have to disagree with you on this one. I watched him play a lot this past season, and he had what might be described as a break out year. Let me ask you a question. Are Lebron James, Kawhi Leonard, Patrick Beverly, Kevin Durant, Luc Mbah A Moute, and George Hill good defenders? Because if so, Porter has a lower defensive ratting than any of them. He is in fact, a good defender. He's also a very good shooter. He shot 51.6% overall, and 43.4% from the three. He averaged 6.4 rebounds a game, which for a SF isn't that bad, but it's actually a little less than the previous year.
When you consider that he's only 23 years old, there's a lot to like about Porter. Having said all that, Joe Ingles has a lower defensive ratting than Porter, and shot the ball just as well. The difference is that Ingles is 29 years old. I still think that if you can get Porter you do it, but if not, I'd try my best to sign Ingles. He's the perfect stop gap till Jackson earns his spurs.
When you consider that he's only 23 years old, there's a lot to like about Porter. Having said all that, Joe Ingles has a lower defensive ratting than Porter, and shot the ball just as well. The difference is that Ingles is 29 years old. I still think that if you can get Porter you do it, but if not, I'd try my best to sign Ingles. He's the perfect stop gap till Jackson earns his spurs.
What are all these sign and trade deals where the team losing the free agent comes even close to breaking even? I truly don't think there are any, but I'm willing to hear them. I don't care for the "don't even try" attitude though, very defeatist.
Even if we lose Porter it is worth it from the standpoint that we've just handcuffed Washington to paying more for a guy than they may have wanted and won't be competing with us for future free agents. As you acknowledge we're in asset acquisition mode so it makes sense for us to acquire the ones we really want and to not pursue middle of the road targets who may hinder our young player's development.
Even if we lose Porter it is worth it from the standpoint that we've just handcuffed Washington to paying more for a guy than they may have wanted and won't be competing with us for future free agents. As you acknowledge we're in asset acquisition mode so it makes sense for us to acquire the ones we really want and to not pursue middle of the road targets who may hinder our young player's development.
Excellent work! Could not agree more with this post.
Porter is the right type of player and the right age bracket to go out and sign him to a max offer sheet. Chances are high that Wizards match but it can't hurt to ask the question. If that fails then Joe Ingles would be a great fall back option for us.
Porter is the right type of player and the right age bracket to go out and sign him to a max offer sheet. Chances are high that Wizards match but it can't hurt to ask the question. If that fails then Joe Ingles would be a great fall back option for us.
I dunno that I'd rather have Lawson but I do think he makes more sense. Similar playing style to Fox as opposed to Collison, cheaper, probably more accepting of whatever role he ends up with. DC is a pretty good player... He should be on a contender coming off the bench with the ability to spot start where needed.
I am not sure how people can really claim this when the sole purpose of the veterans on this team is to set the example on and off the court.
Are we forgetting a string of, albeit "minor-ish" incidents from Lawson last season? First there was a him missing a team flight I think it was from Las Vegas. Then there were those allegations that he breached his probation when the team was in Denver which is yet to be settled in court.
Now I am generally OK with these things when you are a veteran team in play off calculations but when your GM talks about culture mattering, and behaviour mattering then you just cannot turn your back on that a couple of months later. Especially when your roster is LOADED with young players. These guys need players like Temple, Kosta, Tolliver etc around them that has no off court issues, come in every day, work their backside off, play their role, sacrifice their game for the team and even if they are not playing, they are ready to go when their name gets called. Not Lawson or Barnes types.
If you are preaching something, then you have to own it and follow it with your actions. There is no use of talking the talk but not walking the walk, especially with a team on which WCS in his 3rd season is considered a veteran.
Are we forgetting a string of, albeit "minor-ish" incidents from Lawson last season? First there was a him missing a team flight I think it was from Las Vegas. Then there were those allegations that he breached his probation when the team was in Denver which is yet to be settled in court.
Now I am generally OK with these things when you are a veteran team in play off calculations but when your GM talks about culture mattering, and behaviour mattering then you just cannot turn your back on that a couple of months later. Especially when your roster is LOADED with young players. These guys need players like Temple, Kosta, Tolliver etc around them that has no off court issues, come in every day, work their backside off, play their role, sacrifice their game for the team and even if they are not playing, they are ready to go when their name gets called. Not Lawson or Barnes types.
If you are preaching something, then you have to own it and follow it with your actions. There is no use of talking the talk but not walking the walk, especially with a team on which WCS in his 3rd season is considered a veteran.
While that is true, this can only happen if DC takes pay cut. He can't get paid AND be on a contender. It just doesn't work that way. He was on a contender with the Clippers but it was too much for them to pay him just under the MLE to keep him. The same way the Spurs have not kept George Hill, Beno Udrih etc...when their contracts were up.
DC will have to make a choice to either get paid, or play on a contender. He might want to get paid and still play major minutes in which case, he is not the greatest of fits in Sacramento from that perspective.
DC will have to make a choice to either get paid, or play on a contender. He might want to get paid and still play major minutes in which case, he is not the greatest of fits in Sacramento from that perspective.
This whole conversation is going to moot in a week when the Wizards retain Otto or agree to excess value in trade with another team (a team not named the Kings). I think you gain a lot of clarity into this situation if you think about it from the Wiz perspective. They just made the 2nd round. They want to take the next step. They want to go to the Eastern conference finals. They want to get past the Celtics and Cavs. They are not going to do that bleeding talent. They are not going to extend Wall by bleeding talent. They can pay Otto and stay under the luxury. Their best course forward I think is to retain Otto or agree to a comparable trade package (one we can't offer) and clear Morris and Gortat off their books to make room for a max player like Boogie.
Think about the other options where the Kings are involved from their perspective. We've already been over this. It doesn't make sense for them. Even if they don't think Otto is worth 100M they have to match. What are they going to do, replace Otto with Tyreke and Langston Galloway?! Then there's this notion we can put together some trade package. We are not in position to give away multiple promising player for one promising player? It nonsensical from our perspectiva and theirs. I am not being defeatist. I am also trying to be realistic. The Wizards were a bad team for a long time and they have finally experienced some success. They have proven they are willing to pay with Beal. They want to build on that not tear it down.
If there were other wing players out there in trade or free agency that would change the Calculus. Here's the scenario I will grant to you as the basis to chase Otto Porter. It just occured to me.
If the Wizards have the sights set on Gordon Hayward and make some complex salary cap maneuvers then they can relinquish Otto's rights and we can get him. They are currently 9M under the cap. They would have to do salary dump of Gortat (13M) and take no salary back then outbid and outsell teams like the Heat and Celtics. And they would net Hayward and lose Gortat and Otto. I am raising this wild scenario intentionally. To show how extreme of a scenario one has to paint to envision Otto leaving for the Kings. He is going from a team that can challenge for the Eastern title to a team hoping to maybe make a playoff run if all goes perfectly.
His agent is not going to push for a move to SAC, the Wizards are bound by circumstances to retain him, and the Kings don't the rights to Jackson or Isaac to tempt to make a deal work. And even if we did I wouldn't advocate for that! And the last point I will make on this is that it's not our priority to try to make the Wizards overpay for Otto. If they were a Western conference rival I think there's more merit in this regard. If we can force them to max out Otto and it does not retain any of our flexibility to pursue other players, then fine, let's throw a max contract at him. Otherwise, we are wasting time pursuing more realistic options.
Think about the other options where the Kings are involved from their perspective. We've already been over this. It doesn't make sense for them. Even if they don't think Otto is worth 100M they have to match. What are they going to do, replace Otto with Tyreke and Langston Galloway?! Then there's this notion we can put together some trade package. We are not in position to give away multiple promising player for one promising player? It nonsensical from our perspectiva and theirs. I am not being defeatist. I am also trying to be realistic. The Wizards were a bad team for a long time and they have finally experienced some success. They have proven they are willing to pay with Beal. They want to build on that not tear it down.
If there were other wing players out there in trade or free agency that would change the Calculus. Here's the scenario I will grant to you as the basis to chase Otto Porter. It just occured to me.
If the Wizards have the sights set on Gordon Hayward and make some complex salary cap maneuvers then they can relinquish Otto's rights and we can get him. They are currently 9M under the cap. They would have to do salary dump of Gortat (13M) and take no salary back then outbid and outsell teams like the Heat and Celtics. And they would net Hayward and lose Gortat and Otto. I am raising this wild scenario intentionally. To show how extreme of a scenario one has to paint to envision Otto leaving for the Kings. He is going from a team that can challenge for the Eastern title to a team hoping to maybe make a playoff run if all goes perfectly. His agent is not going to push for a move to SAC, the Wizards are bound by circumstances to retain him, and the Kings don't the rights to Jackson or Isaac to tempt to make a deal work. And even if we did I wouldn't advocate for that! And the last point I will make on this is that it's not our priority to try to make the Wizards overpay for Otto. If they were a Western conference rival I think there's more merit in this regard. If we can force them to max out Otto and it does not retain any of our flexibility to pursue other players, then fine, let's throw a max contract at him. Otherwise, we are wasting time pursuing more realistic options.
Enough with the "full tank mode" expectation. Do you think our players are going to buy into that? Our coaches? Our management? Those of you who keep perpetuating the "full tank mode" idea for next year are seriously in denial. It's just not going to happen. We may lose a lot of games by giving the youngsters lots of PT, but that's not the same as full tank mode or Hinkie's "believe in the process" BS.
I'm not advocating full tank mode... I hope we sign Millsap, Porter, and Milos and make the playoffs next year.
If, instead, our cap space goes to Lawson, Tolliver, and players of that ilk I don't care what you want to call it... I'm fine calling it full tank mode. The kids are going to play the majority of the minutes at all five positions and in all likelihood we're going to lose three out of every four games we play.
I'm fine with whichever direction we go next year as it'll be fun to watch regardless. But if it's up to me I hope we are able to bring in some studs to help us win games next year and going forward.
If, instead, our cap space goes to Lawson, Tolliver, and players of that ilk I don't care what you want to call it... I'm fine calling it full tank mode. The kids are going to play the majority of the minutes at all five positions and in all likelihood we're going to lose three out of every four games we play.
I'm fine with whichever direction we go next year as it'll be fun to watch regardless. But if it's up to me I hope we are able to bring in some studs to help us win games next year and going forward.