Gil's Money

I think Chad Ford amptly sums up Gilbert Arenas' free agent status:

The biggest issue for Arenas is the same one that plagues all the free agents: Who else has the money to pay him? I can't see the 76ers or Grizzlies spending the cash. The Clippers would have interest, but Arenas already spurned them once.

That's why I find things like this so hard to understand: "According to a league source familiar with the situation, Wizards President Ernie Grunfeld plans on soon offering Arenas a lucrative long-term contract, one that could cover up to six years and could be worth more than $100 million." It would be one thing if the Clippers had actually offered Arenas, say, a $90 million contract and the Wizards were countering. That kind of money would still, in my view, be a mistake but I could understand it on some level. But why make a pre-emptive bid like that.

Comments

Matt is correct to be concerned. I don't see any way in which Arenas has the ability to play at a high level for longer than about three years. Also, he's already proven that he can't be the best player on a championship caliber team, right?

Posted by Ted2 | June 30, 2008 5:06 PM

amptly (adv.) - amply and aptly

Posted by minderbender | June 30, 2008 5:08 PM

"But why make a pre-emptive bid like that."

Because Gil will leave otherwise; he knows that he is a tremendous marketing asset to the franchise; he can draw fans - even on the road he draws a crowd. If he thinks that Grunfeld is disrespecting him, or that he has been slighted, he will leave. Gil always has defined himself as the underdog; the person getting no respect. Any disrespect (real or perceived) from the Wizards will end the relationship. Maybe that wouldn't be all bad for the franchise; they did ok without him this year. But he is not going to accept a low-ball offer; and he will take lower money somewhere else just to prove himself.

Posted by rab | June 30, 2008 5:10 PM

If you think that you are going to end up with Arenas, there is a value to getting him to feel like you recognized his value, rather than merely topping the next highest bidder. Remember, the NBA is a league where effort matters tremendously, because most starters are incredibly highly skilled.

So, the goal would be to figure out what the likely bidders would offer and then offer a little bit more than that number. This cuts off all other bidders and leaves the player feeling as if only his team "values" him. He then brings wrath and indignation against all the teams that did not bid for him.

Posted by Ephus | June 30, 2008 5:12 PM

Well, by way of context, what Arenas WANTS is 6 years for something like $124 mil--a max deal. Ernie's goal is probably to get him to settle for something less than that. He'd be overpaid at $100 mil but not THAT badly. He's worth more than his previous $60 mil deal, certainly.

The market is such that Ernie could probably play harder ball than he is...but remember that part of paying a player (especially a borderline lunatic like Gilbert) is keeping him happy.

Posted by Jake H. | June 30, 2008 5:13 PM

If I've read wiki properly (and if wiki is correct), then Arenas is a Bird FA, isn't he (wiki: "To qualify as a Bird free agent, a player must have played three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent")? And his LB rights can be traded to another team (wiki:"It also means that when a player is traded, his Bird rights are traded with him, and his new team can use the Bird exception to re-sign him"). So cap space shouldn't be a problem. A willingness to pay the tax might be.

I'm not sure (a) I've interpreted that properly, or (b) wiki is right, because that would seem to moot Chad Ford's point. OTOH, the only person worth reading at ESPN is Hollinger, so maybe Chad Ford is not a reason to second guess a reading.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 5:30 PM

I sure as hell hope he accepts. I'm moving to D.C. in Sept. and I'm excited about seeing him play on his home turf, after viewing him with fascination from afar.

Posted by ty | June 30, 2008 5:33 PM

Didn't we find out that this year that the Wizards played better without Agent Zero (or at least the version that played last year)?

Posted by ben | June 30, 2008 5:44 PM

What kind of leverage can Arenas possibly have coming off last season, when he was injured almost the whole season and mostly terrible and disruptive when he tried to play? 100 million? That's a joke for a guy coming off knee surgery, that no one else in the league seems to be targeting.

So he's going to act like a child if he doesn't get $20 million per? Good riddance. These players are adults; they should understand the market and how incredibly fortunate they are whether they're pulling in $10 or $20 m per. NBA gms are, as a rule, far too cowed by them and their agents. Pay him more than any other team will if you want to keep him, no more. If he leaves out of spite, screw him, you're better off without him. This isn't Duncan or KG we're talking about; this is a shoot-first pg.

San Antonio is a great example of a team that has paid rational, market-based salaries and flourished as a result. The Wizards will never be better than a 2nd round exit team (in the East, where that's not exactly impressive) as long as a shoot-first child is making 1/3 of the cap.

Posted by Ban Johnson | June 30, 2008 5:48 PM

"So cap space shouldn't be a problem. A willingness to pay the tax might be."

Right, but Abe Pollin will not pay the luxury tax; he refuses to. Even with all of the injuries last season, he wouldn't sign another guard to help their playoff positioning push.

Posted by rab | June 30, 2008 5:50 PM

they should understand the market and how incredibly fortunate they are whether they're pulling in $10 or $20 m per.

It's because they understand the market that they realize that "incredibly fortunate" has nothing to do with it. They're being paid what teams think they--for whatever reason: value on the court, ability to fill seats, etc.--are worth. Less than that, if anything: the point of the salary cap, after all, is to restrict salary size.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 6:53 PM

Right, but Abe Pollin will not pay the luxury tax; he refuses to.

I didn't know that. But I meant more than that: if I've understood wiki properly, I think the only things restricting any team's ability to sign Gil is a willingness on DC's part to trade him and a willingness on the other team's part to pay the tax. (Again, I don't see how my interpretamtion could be correct. Why would there be so many sign and trades, if you can just trade the Bird rights along with the player?)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 6:59 PM

It's because they understand the market that they realize that "incredibly fortunate" has nothing to do with it. They're being paid what teams think they--for whatever reason: value on the court, ability to fill seats, etc.--are worth. Less than that, if anything: the point of the salary cap, after all, is to restrict salary size.

Ok, agreed, incredibly fortunate has nothing to do with it. I shouldn't have included that rhetorical flourish. You sort of concentrated on a tangential phrase in my post, I must say.

I'm just sick of players and agents holding teams hostage with the veiled threat of spite or lack of motivation when they're asking for way more than any other team could possibly offer them. That's more emotional extortion than any realistic understanding of the market.

Now, is Arenas doing that? Maybe not. Maybe he's just completely unrealistic in what he thinks he's worth. 20m per? You've got to be kidding me.

Posted by Ban Johnson | June 30, 2008 7:00 PM

By the way, ESPN reports that the Wizards just signed Jamison to 4-years $50 million http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3467806.

Who else would have offered him that? Philly, with their young nucleus? I doubt it.

Once again, NBA GMs, especially those who are former players, show an astounding ability to bid against themselves for the services of players.

Jamison is good, but 1/5 of the cap good? Nah.

Posted by Ban Johnson | June 30, 2008 7:11 PM

20m per? You've got to be kidding me.

I can't really disagree with that. But I think those sorts of salaries should be restricted to perhaps the top five or six players in the league. That said, Gil's good at what I think is the most expensive skill in the league: getting his own shot. And I can imagine that he's good at the most important skill: filling seats.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 7:14 PM

Why? Because the Wizards organization has no interest in winning.

Posted by eriks | June 30, 2008 7:14 PM

If I've read wiki properly (and if wiki is correct), then Arenas is a Bird FA, isn't he (wiki: "To qualify as a Bird free agent, a player must have played three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent")? And his LB rights can be traded to another team (wiki:"It also means that when a player is traded, his Bird rights are traded with him, and his new team can use the Bird exception to re-sign him").

Doesn't this mean that Gil's Bird rights are traded with him - before he becomes a free agent?

As I see it, Arenas is now a free agent, so Washington doesn't have any right to trade him. They can sign him first and then trade him (with all the attendant rules under the CBA with respect to trades and the cap), but Washington is the only team that will be able to use the Bird rights to flat out sign him in excess of the cap.

I'm curious what Matthew thinks Washington should do, then. Nothing, until they hear that another team is interested? When exactly does Matthew think the Wiz should make an offer, and for how much?

Posted by Al | June 30, 2008 7:24 PM

As I see it, Arenas is now a free agent, so Washington doesn't have any right to trade him.

Ah, excellent, excellent point. That explains sign-and-trades and the rest. They should have come to an understanding while he could still be traded, then.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 30, 2008 7:32 PM

I'm curious what Matthew thinks Washington should do, then.
Let him go and use the money to make an offer to a money post player like Elton Brand, who just opted out of his deal with the Clippers?

Jamison is good, but 1/5 of the cap good? Nah.
I dunno about that. He was pretty damn money this year on the court, and I'm guessing the coaches like having an actual grownup (along with Caron) in the locker room. Though I will probably regret this signing in 2012 and 2013.

Posted by hubcap | July 1, 2008 1:06 AM

Golden State offered Gil 5 years, 100 Mill. The Bullets will need to give him the max to get him to stay...

Posted by tim | July 1, 2008 9:09 AM

GS only had that money because of Baron Davis' unexpected opt-out.

If I were the Wizards, Baron Davis would be looking real good right now. Though supposedly they already offered Arenas a 6 year 20+ m deal, (while also, supposedly, trying to persuade him to take less to "help the team.") Arenas is probably oddball enough that it actually is all about respect for him and not money, and he may actually take less as a reciprocal gesture of good will.

Posted by Ban Johnson | July 1, 2008 9:17 AM