From RealGM: If they have to keep Arenas (bad contract), they might as well go all in and keep the other two as well.
I love it when GM's send signals through the press. What he's really saying is, "make a better offer".
Yep but the question is, is he bluffing. He says people are calling about their players..but which ones? He makes a lot of general statements, but no meat to them.
Obviously you can't put any value on what he really says. But, you have to wonder if it makes sense to dump salary while you have Arenas locked up for so long. Given the economy and the massive losses his franchise is likely going through (given the limited number of wins), you could also see him dumping as much as possible.
I agree. You can't tell me he wouldn't dump Jamison or Arenas for an expiring contract. He's a bad GM, but not that terrible. Butler is probably untouchable, but he's got to keep an open mind with that roster.
I guarantee you he would take this deal: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=454~974&teams=27~22&te=&cash= If he wouldn't, Abe Pollin would.
Grunfeld needs to realize that he's going to need to make a move of his big 3 to make his team better. Outside of those 3 there isn't much wanted talent on that team. McGee and N. Young are the only real young players that have any bit of intrigue on that team and they aren't going to garner much in return.
If you were Grunfeld and wanted to save cash and rebuild, wouldn't you package Arenas with Butler? I don't think anyone would give an expiring contract for Arenas alone. If you want to cut salary big time the only way to trade Arenas is to sweeten the deal with something people do want -- Butler.
Other GM's see a failing franchise and smell the blood in the water. The Wheezers will end up on the bad end of a trade simply because they are desperate and everyone nows it.
They were stupid enough to give Arenas that crazy contract coming off a season where he played a total of 13 games, so logic may not actually apply to that franchise. Their smart move would be to move Jamison since I have a feeling nobody is going to touch Agent Zero's contract with a 10-foot pole.
I don't get it. I wasn't saying Arenas and Butler for only an expiring contract. I was saying Arenas and Butler for value plus the expiring contract(s).
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...25~974~1705&teams=27~27~27~27~22~22&te=&cash= I'm going off of that^ which you posted.
Ah, cross-thread accountability. Well, either way, I don't see it as a laugher. I don't think too many people would say that you would have to add significant value to Arenas to get an expiring contract for him. No doubt that Outlaw/Fry/Sergio < Butler, but the Wiz are going to have to give up some value if they want to move Arenas as well. How much is just speculation.
They don't want to move Arenas for one. They've given no indication that they want to. Secondly, if they were to dump anyone, Jamison would go first. Thirdly, someone would take Arenas if they wanted to dump him. They don't need to add Butler. Fourthly, Butler is the last one they'd move. They aren't going to get anyone better than him in free agency, and unless they are content with being crappy for the next 5 years, they need to keep at least some talent.
I love it how we can all spot that immediately. It's exactly what I was thinking when I read that quote. This GM talk can be taken with a grain of salt nowadays as it's all posturing in the media. The Wizards have some good players, but they're not contending with Jamison, Butler and Arenas -- even when they're all healthy.
So would Grunfeld be open to one of thier big three being traded if say they got . . . Amare in return?
