« All Alone | Main | Superman Returns »

The Ways of Gilbertology

Arenas says he'd be willing to take a pay cut if that would let the Wizards sign an impact free agent:

We can't step back. We can't have another situation where we let Larry Hughes get away. If we have to go get a free agent, let's go. I'll take a pay cut. I was a second-round pick so I didn't expect to be where I am anyway. I'm not greedy but I do want to win a championship and I want to do it here, with the Wizards. That's why you play.
I was going to say I don't find it especially credible to think that having Larry Hughes would have made last year's team much better, but of course some of the losses to to Cleveland were so close that even tiny changes could easily have put the Wiz in the second round. Looking to the future, were it actually possible to bring Ben Wallace back to DC one could imagine that dramatically improving the team. That said, Gilbert's prone to saying crazy stuff and my guess is that his agent will have a thing or two to say about this scheme.

June 28, 2006 | Permalink

Comments

I thought that pay cuts were against the CBA anyway, unless you sign an extension.

Posted by: Mac | Jun 28, 2006 11:01:51 AM

I thought that pay cuts were against the CBA anyway, unless you sign an extension.

Ditto; they're not guaranteed contracts w/an "unless the player decides to take less $, but he can't ask for more" clause. I think this came up before Grant Hill made his temporarily heartwarming comeback; I saw somebody ask one of espn.com's guys in an online chat if Hill, being a good guy, could just take less salary so that his refusal to retire wouldn't hamper the Magic, and the response as I recall was that he simply couldn't. (This also was an issue back when the Red Sox were attempting to trade for A-Rod; IIRC, it went so far as the Players' Union rejecting a request from A-Rod/his agent/the teams involved that he be allowed to take less salary.)

Posted by: Quarterican | Jun 28, 2006 11:11:32 AM

[O]f course some of the losses to to Cleveland were so close that even tiny changes could easily have put the Wiz in the second round.

Especially since it would effectively be double Hughes's value, since you'd have to subtract it from Cleveland as well as add it to the Wiz. Of course, the Cavs would have just signed or drafted someone else instead, so it's unknowable.

Posted by: Jake | Jun 28, 2006 11:47:49 AM

I'm not sure they would have done the Butler trade if Hughes stayed. So it might be that the tradeoff is between Hughes and Butler, not between Hughes and nothing.

Posted by: Al | Jun 28, 2006 12:28:55 PM

As a Warriors fan, I'm crying right now. In fact, I cry a lot. Now it's off to Wikipedia to look up ritual seppuku...

Posted by: Greg | Jun 28, 2006 1:17:51 PM

"As a Warriors fan, I'm crying right now. In fact, I cry a lot. Now it's off to Wikipedia to look up ritual seppuku..."

You think you got it bad?

All the current speculation involves the Sixers sending Iverson to their historical hated rivals - the Celtics. If the Sixers sent Iverson to any other team in the league, I'd have no trouble becoming a rabid fan of that team for the duration of Bubbachuck's stay. But the Celtics? That'd be a hard pill to swallow.

(Although Iverson and Pierce together could really do some damage...)

Posted by: Petey | Jun 28, 2006 4:10:22 PM

"(Although Iverson and Pierce together could really do some damage...)"

yeah, to the team field goal percentage.

but seriously, the iverson trade makes no sense to me...but i like it. i've been putting iverson on every NBA Live '06 Celtics fantasy roster I make since before i heard the rumbles... it's a spooky mass premonition gaining momentum. but I could see it pushing the small celts into playoff contention somehow... if hang on to "SF" pierce. what a killer duo...but in which sense of the word?

Posted by: Greg | Jun 28, 2006 4:53:46 PM

Hmm. I agree, Iverson and Pierce on the same team would certainly do some damage. Damage to what, I'm not sure.

Posted by: Steve, Celtics fan | Jun 28, 2006 4:53:54 PM

see? it's happening. 8 seconds, and i ain't talkin' luke perry.

Posted by: Greg | Jun 28, 2006 4:54:50 PM

Anyone who thinks Iverson and Pierce wouldn't work beautifully together doesn't know the guys or the game.

They're two legit superstars both very near their peaks. Teams like that rarely flop.

The question for me is whether or not Boston's talented horde of kids could step up in time to make them an actual contender.

Posted by: Petey | Jun 28, 2006 5:50:47 PM

"but I could see it pushing the small celts into playoff contention somehow"

I think it'd almost guarantee them a first round home court playoff series. And if the kids can step up, they become a potential contender.

Posted by: Petey | Jun 28, 2006 5:55:59 PM

If I have to watch league pass next year rooting for the same team Tommy Heinsohn is screeching in favor of, I seriously fear my head will explode ala Scanners.

Posted by: Petey | Jun 28, 2006 6:00:23 PM

yeah, to the team field goal percentage.


Actually Pierce shot 47% last year. Which is pretty good for a perimeter player. And Iverson's FG% was pretty good too.

Posted by: Al | Jun 28, 2006 6:24:53 PM

true, but last year was an abberation for both Pierce and AI in terms of FG%. It could mean either one or both has turned over a new leaf, or it could mean they'll go back to their chucking ways.

Actually, as a Celtics fan, I'd be thrilled. Even if Iverson and Pierce clashed horribly, the team would make the playoffs. But there's a decent change they could clash pretty horribly.

Posted by: Steve | Jun 28, 2006 6:28:42 PM

Agreed, Steve. They would be a pretty dangerous team. Especially if they got someone to rebound and play post defense.

Posted by: Al | Jun 28, 2006 6:34:35 PM

I don't get Al's comment, "I'm not sure they would have done the Butler trade if Hughes stayed. So it might be that the tradeoff is between Hughes and Butler, not between Hughes and nothing."

1. The Wizards needed to get value for Kwame.
2. Butler plays the 3 much of the time.
3. What Butler & Hughes on the roster would have meant = a) no Daniels & b) maybe less time for Jeffries, as well as
4. use of the cap exception for a big guy (if one was available) rather than for Daniels.

Posted by: Jeff H | Jun 28, 2006 6:36:12 PM

i think they could restructure gilberto's contract to make it easier to sign free agents (i think duncan did it, though maybe his deal was up), even if they can't actually pay him less.

Posted by: djsuperflat | Jun 29, 2006 6:34:13 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.