lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:Oh I agree they were overdue for a rebuild. But all they could get from their most talent player is a broke down CP3, Shamet and assets. It's the only trigger they could pull
But then this only furthers my point that we had all of the leverage in that deal. Although Paul had value to them as a $30 million expiring that got them off of Beals' salary so they could finally begin their true and legitimate rebuild. But even then they still managed to flip Pauls' expiring for another player in J Poole. Shamet was just a filler throwing that obviously helped their interests in tanking. But any way you slice it, we again had all of the leverage on multiple key factors, and we still gave up more value than we truly needed to. Maybe not by a lot, but by enough for Washington to clearly win that trade by moving his huge salary, getting off his no-trade clause, getting short-term contracts or non-guaranteed contracts that wouldn't affect their rebuild plans long term, as well as getting a haul of picks from us when no one else was bidding for Beal.
I don't agree with that narrative. It was a clear and obvious win in my view. We gave up nothing of real value for Brad Beal. The only value is if you over-value 2nd round picks which I don't.
CP3 had 2 years and $61m left on the books and all they could get was Poole who had 3yrs and over $90m left and that guy has had one of the biggest drop-offs in recent history. Poole is a complete joke right now and is on the list of the worst contracts in the league given his attitude, his play style and actual on-court impact.
You're entitled to your opinion man, even if your assessment of the contextual value exchange is inaccurate. You, BWgood, and some others keep promoting this false narrative of Chris Paul's contract being some terrible negative contract that we had no other options with and couldn't otherwise move elsewhere, Yet you see how very quickly Washington was able to move him. Paul's contract was non-guaranteed for 24-25 when they traded his contract to GS for Poole. Had Washington not chosen to trade him to GS, they still could've declined his option the following season, and easily cleared 30 million off their cap. Something they obviously couldn't do with Beal even if they wanted to given his salary and years. Beals' contract was/is immovable!! And that's still the consensus throughout the league. Is he a really good talent? YES!! Is he worth his contract when we traded for him, clearly not. Did we help Washington achieve his number one purpose in moving Beal so they could begin their long-anticipated rebuild that their entire franchise and fanbase committed too? YES! Did we trade them CONTRACTS that were actually movable/tradable in contrast to Beals' that was not at all movable or tradable and prevented them from being able to embrace their desired rebuild? YES!!!
Did we clearly take all of the implied risks that no other franchise was willing to accept in a trade for Beal? YES! Did we then give them the bulk of our very last remaining assets despite having countless leverage points in our favor? YES! Are we now obviously stuck in this highly restrictive situation with literally no clear available options, no cap space, no assets as a result of giving up what we did for him? YES! Was it necessary for us to overpay, even if not by a lot? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! But did we do it anyways without considering the consequences we're now experiencing as a result? Again YES!!!
We bailed Washington out! And then we paid them in the last of our remaining assets just for the privilege of taking on his toxic and immovable contract. And the overvalue was not just in the context of 2nds alone as you're insinuating because even as swaps, those swaps carry lost value because we have no control over them. So If we ended up being really bad, there's no consolation for us, they cash in on our misfortune further! The loss of value is cumulative in context, and in that context was ultimately an unnecessary overpay! In the end, their goal was to move him and get clear of his contract, We did that and then gave them unnecessary value on top of it. 2 firsts would've been more than enough equitable value. Look at it like this if it helps, it was a widely perceived terrible and immovable contract (Beal) for two zero-value contracts that were shorter term and thusly movable! anything beyond that bad terrible contract for two no-value contracts and maybe two firsts was unnecessary excess we gave up when we really didn't have to to make the deal happen! Those surrendered assets could've been applied elsewhere for more depth acquisitions, but now we have nothing of interest beyond our 22nd pick and 2031 1st. and very little options to make anything work now.
You might be right to view it as a clear win! Because for the Wizards it clearly was! But for us, it resulted in year long inconsistency, and yet another historically embarrassing early exit. So you and others can view it however you choose, but the reality we're living through right now as a result of such careless choices is far less inspiring to many.
