Why did Washington Trade with Dallas and Not us?

[snively]

(1) Dallas agreed to take on Stevenson's bad contract

(2) Washington can still get a salary dump for Jamison elsewhere

(3) It appears that Boston never agreed to any deal. Merely that they were interested. And I doubt it ever got to a point were they were willing to pull the trigger due to the financial consequences.

(4) Washington still isn't sure if they want to trade Jamison. They realize it would help fast-track their rebuilding process but they also value Jamison as their leader and as the player who turned around the franchise several years ago. They like him as a veteran influence on the younger guys. Being able to get that cap flexibility while keeping the option open to retain Jamison was a plus for Washington.

I think Washington would be extremely foolish to hold onto Jamison.  They aren't going anywhere with a Jamison/Arenas combo and the 2 make too much money to make significant FA additions, Arenas is untradeable right now, and gambling on Arenas contract getting voided through a felony conviction or league ruling is too risky.

And it's not as if they have a stable of young studs that will thrive if Jamison stays on board as a 14-million-dollar mentor.  Nick Young and Randy Foye are mediocre shooter/scorers who hate to pass, rebound or defend, Andray Blatche hasn't exactly taken to veteran leadership in the past and Javale McGee, while an interesting prospect, is hardly a crucial building block.

They need to free up cap space to target some mid-level young players without feeling the pressure to hit home runs and tank to improve their draft position.

[Who]

I think Washington would be extremely foolish to hold onto Jamison. 

Agreed -- I hope they cop themselves on before they kill their chances of rebuilding before it ever gets off the ground.

[The Walker Wiggle]

They got a ton of salary relief by shipping out Butler and Stevenson, and still have options with Jamison.

I think other GMs probably were happy that the C's didn't get both players. (I mean Ray Allen gets bought out in that scenario so the C's get them for nothing put picks) But I don't think that effects what Grunsfeld did.

I can't see it the same way after reading a dismantling of the Dallas/Washington trade on our SBNation sister blog Bullets Forever.

Article is worth a read. But the argument boils down to the fact that the team has dealt two of its most valuable players and yet: failed to get under the luxury tax; saved no money past next season; brought in no draft picks or young talent; and added a pair of players with character issues - in that order.

Any trade with Boston would have allowed Washington to move the 33 year old Jamison and his contract which extends past the 2011 CBA. And that ought to have been the team's first priority, as dealing Jamison first would've put Washington in a better position to bring back real value for either Butler or Haywood or both. (But it's the Wizards.)

Maybe worst of all, Washington could have avoided the tax had the team forced Dallas to take on Fabricio Oberto via their traded player exception - a  nice observation that makes me wonder if NBA bloggers couldn't in fact work front office jobs.

[snively]

They got a ton of salary relief by shipping out Butler and Stevenson, and still have options with Jamison.

I think other GMs probably were happy that the C's didn't get both players. (I mean Ray Allen gets bought out in that scenario so the C's get them for nothing put picks) But I don't think that effects what Grunsfeld did.

I can't see it the same way after reading a dismantling of the Dallas/Washington trade on our SBNation sister blog Bullets Forever.

Article is worth a read. But the argument boils down to the fact that the team has dealt two of its most valuable players and yet: failed to get under the luxury tax; saved no money past next season; brought in no draft picks or young talent; and added a pair of players with character issues - in that order.

Any trade with Boston would have allowed Washington to move the 33 year old Jamison and his contract which extends past the 2011 CBA. And that ought to have been the team's first priority, as dealing Jamison first would've put Washington in a better position to bring back real value for either Butler or Haywood or both. (But its the Wizards.)

Maybe worst of all, Washington could have avoided the tax had the team forced Dallas to take on Fabricio Oberto via their traded player exception - a  nice observation that makes me wonder if NBA bloggers couldn't in fact work front office jobs.

I feel for Wizards/Bullets fans.  A very bleak future awaits if they don't get rid of Jamison or Arenas and start adding some legitimate prospects. 

Similar situation to that Boston was in before Ainge came in.  Uncertain ownership situation, huge black hole of a contract (Vin Baker/Gilbert Arenas), nothing special in the way of young talent, a lot of money locked up in an undersized 4 in decline (Toine/Jamison) and an apparent future of mediocrity.  Only they don't have a Paul Pierce to build around, unless you're a fan of Arenas.

[sk7326]

They got a ton of salary relief by shipping out Butler and Stevenson, and still have options with Jamison.

I think other GMs probably were happy that the C's didn't get both players. (I mean Ray Allen gets bought out in that scenario so the C's get them for nothing put picks) But I don't think that effects what Grunsfeld did.

I can't see it the same way after reading a dismantling of the Dallas/Washington trade on our SBNation sister blog Bullets Forever.

Article is worth a read. But the argument boils down to the fact that the team has dealt two of its most valuable players and yet: failed to get under the luxury tax; saved no money past next season; brought in no draft picks or young talent; and added a pair of players with character issues - in that order.

Any trade with Boston would have allowed Washington to move the 33 year old Jamison and his contract which extends past the 2011 CBA. And that ought to have been the team's first priority, as dealing Jamison first would've put Washington in a better position to bring back real value for either Butler or Haywood or both. (But its the Wizards.)

Maybe worst of all, Washington could have avoided the tax had the team forced Dallas to take on Fabricio Oberto via their traded player exception - a  nice observation that makes me wonder if NBA bloggers couldn't in fact work front office jobs.

I feel for Wizards/Bullets fans.  A very bleak future awaits if they don't get rid of Jamison or Arenas and start adding some legitimate prospects. 

Similar situation to that Boston was in before Ainge came in.  Uncertain ownership situation, huge black hole of a contract (Vin Baker/Gilbert Arenas), nothing special in the way of young talent, a lot of money locked up in an undersized 4 in decline (Toine/Jamison) and an apparent future of mediocrity.  Only they don't have a Paul Pierce to build around, unless you're a fan of Arenas.

Jamison is still a 20-10 guy ... Vin Baker was a MadDog 2020 guy.

But otherwise, co-sign.  This deal was a weird deal for BOTH teams.  It doesn't really help Dallas either.  Hollinger's analysis on ESPN was right - if this is THE trade either team makes, then it doesn't make sense.  Dallas still has to cash in Dampier's de facto expiring, and Washington HAS to move Jamison to fix their cap.