Trade for David Lee

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 1:58 PM EST Comment 46 comments

It's not exactly a secret that the New York Knicks are dumping salary in anticipation of making a big spalsh in the 2010 Free Agent market.

The two players that the Knicks would really like to get rid of are Eddie Curry and Jared Jeffries... Jared has a Player Option for the 2011 season for $6.8 Million that he will almost certainly envoke.

I think it's fair to assume that no one here would be in favor of obtaining Curry - an out of shape, underachiever.

The Wizards could do a straight up trade of Mike James ($6.5M expiring contract) for Jarred Jeffries ($6.4M in 2010, Player Option in 2011 for $6.8M) - - -

BUT - I propose adding Etan Thomas ($7.3 Million Expiring Contract) and doing a sign-and-trade for David Lee. Knicks can sign David Lee to a 5 year contract extension starting at $6.5 Million the first year. (New York also has a couple of trade exceptions to use if there's a disparity in the Salaries)...and then trade him to Washington for Thomas.

So - the Wizards get Jared Jeffries and David Lee -

New York gets $13.8 Million in Expiring Contracts

Advantage for the Wizards:

David Lee is a very good rebounder. Pretty good defender. Excellent around the basket. A banger. A hustle guy.
Jared Jeffries is a pretty good Defensive guy - especially off the bench. He can guard those big 2's and 3's that give the Wizards trouble.

Advantage for New York:

It puts them that much closer to landing the big 3 (LeBron, DWade and Chris Bosh) in 2010.

This trade does not solve all of the Wizards problems - - I'd like to see them pick up a veteran 3-point specialist - - but it would definately improve them Defensively and on the Boards.

This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.

0 recs | Comment 46 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

All 3?

Think they’re really going for that? I figured they were done and that they would want to keep Lee.

I would hate to see those 3 land together anywhere.

by MR on Dec 20, 2008 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

New York is dumping salaries

I know they’re still trying to get rid of Curry’s contract….and Jeffries as well.

Why free up ALL THAT CAP space? If they’re going after only LeBron James? They only need to be about $18 Million under the Cap to offer James a max contract.

RIGHT NOW – without dumping any more salary, the Knicks only have about $18 Million in committed salaries (Curry & Jeffries) for the 2010/2011 season… If the Salary Cap is somewhere north of $60 Million for 2010/11 (the current cap is $58.8M) – - that means they will be more than $42 Million UNDER the cap – assuming they don’t sign any more long term contracts.

If they’re gonna be at least $42 Million under the cap – then why are they trying so hard to move Curry and Jeffries?

Never mind – I’ll answer that one myself….

In order to lure LeBron James to New York, they’ll need more than bright lights and money. They need to surround the King with some very, very good players. If the Knicks are $50 Million (or $60 Million) under the Salary Cap, they could afford to sign LeBron and still offer Dwayne Wade max money, and Bosh max money (or Nowitzki, or Boozer, or ___________ add another big name FA here)….

Use the Boston Celtics method of building a championship….. build around a big 3, then fill in the rest with veteran minimum contracts. Every low-Level and mid-level Veteran FA in the entire League would be waiting on a call from New York, and salivating over getting a chance to play with LeBron on a Championship team)…

The trick is to be sure you can tell LeBron that you’re going to sign at least two other big name Free Agents…

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BYC issues complicate this

We can’t really make this work because Lee’s going to be a base-year player, meaning his salary only counts for half in a trade.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 20, 2008 2:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

According to the CBA

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q73

The way I read that is that Lee’s last year salary, averaged with the 5-year extension is what is used in Trade Calculations…

For a 5-year contract starting at $6.5 Million per year – his Salary for Trade Calculations is $6.9 Million (right in Line with Etan Thomas’ salary)

(I HAVE done my homework)…. i think….

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think that's the case

When Lee gets re-signed by the Knicks, he’ll get a contract that’s at least 20 percent of his initial deal. If that’s the case, then this applies.

When trading a base year player, the salary used for comparison is the player’s previous salary, or 50% of the first-year salary in his new contract, whichever is greater.

So if Lee signs for 6.5 million, then he’s only worth 3.25 million in a trade. Makes things more difficult.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 20, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah -

But like I said, New York has some Trade Exceptions they can use as well.

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

NYC won't give up Lee in that manner, unless

They’re getting a pick.

And I’m betting that Lee and his agent will demand more than $6.5 million in the first year of an extension.

I’m betting that he is looking for the $9 million + range.

Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It Dot Net

by Truth About It on Dec 20, 2008 2:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Reluctant

I’d normally be reluctant to give up a 1st round pick….. especially when the Wizards suck this year and they could be Lottery bound….

BUT – This year’s draft is acknowledged to be pretty poor; especially where the Wizards need help (Rebounding & Defense)…

I can’t see why giving up a 1st round pick, along with Etan Thomas – to get David Lee would stop that deal.

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Does the addition of Lee = Championship?

by hibachi on Dec 20, 2008 3:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not sure

Ernie thought the Arenas/Butler/Jamison core was good enough to spend over $160 Million to keep it together. He’s the General Manager of an NBA club…. so I’d respect his opinion over mine any day…

So the addition of Arenas, Haywood and David Lee might be enough for a Championship.

With a line up of:

Arenas / Crittenton
Stevenson / Young (reverse this next year)
Butler / Jeffries / McGuire
Jamison / Lee
Haywood / Blatche

I think they would have at least a shot.

Lee doesn’t need the ball to be effective. He’s an extremely efficient Offensive player – and is a beast on the boards. He’s a good free throw shooter, and a good passer. He’s not an All-Defensive team candidate, but he’s infinitely better than Jamison (or for that matter Etan Thomas).. Defensively, he really only brings rebounding and size – but he’s so good at that, it would result in fewer opportunities for the opposing team. He’s almost the perfect fit for what the Wizards need.

The good thing about a trade like that is that the Wiz would solidify their core for the future… Lee, Young, Blatche are all young guys – still improving… McGee has unlimited potential, and has already shown that he can be very very good, even right now. Crittenton, although he has not had a chance to show his talent, is a legitimate Point Guard with great size (6’4") and athleticism. – - – - Or, they could package some of their young talent to bring in additional Veteran help.

The other good thing is subtracting Defensively challenged players, and adding good Defenders.
Crittenton was known as a pretty good Defensive player in College… he still has those tools (size, lateral quickness, hands, anticipation)… Jeffries was always a pretty good Defender (even against LeBron). Lee is a great Defensive rebounder…. not many blocked shots, but he holds his ground and contests shots. Everyone can now see what Haywood brought to the team Defensively. I’ve made several posts about Nick Young’s Defensive improvement this year.

This team doesn’t need to be in the top 5 Defensively, just not at the bottom.

Short answer? Does the addition of Lee = Championship? I don’t know…. Maybe

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In my opinion

Ernie had no choice but to spend 160 mil in free agency. If he had let Arenas/Jamison go and conceded to rebuilding, he would probably have been fired. For this reason, I’m not convinced that even Ernie believes we’re near championship contention.
That being said, I don’t know how useful it would be to add Lee. Im not sure what this team needs but its becoming more and more obvious that just getting back Arenas won’t be enough.

by hibachi on Dec 20, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Once again, like the Dalembert trade proposal

this seems more like a panic reaction than anything else. While I love David Lee and I think he could bring a lot to our team thats missing, we have a lot more problems than he can fix. We especially need help at guard in my opinion but maybe those woes will disappear when Arenas comes back.

by hibachi on Dec 20, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not in a panic

But you’re probably right – David Lee will not fix ALL the problems that the Wizards currently have…..

Let’s look back to when Arenas was healthy…. What did the Wizards lack… Gil was putting up 25 a night and hitting game winners. Stevenson was shooting (and making) wide open 3-pointers. Jamison was hitting wide open 3-pointers; along with his flip shots, baby hooks, floaters, etc… Butler was thriving in the mid-range. Haywood anchored the Defense… BUT – the Wizards still lacked rebounding (especially Defensive rebounding), and perimeter Defense. Jamison was a poor interior defender; and Caron took too many gambles on Defense.. No one off the bench (Blatche, Songaila, McGee) except McGuire brings any Defensive rebounding; not to mention energy and hustle.

Bringing in Lee doesn’t help ALL of those deficiencies – but it does fix at least one = Defensive rebounding. Some of those other problems may not matter as much when the Wizards are back to scoring 103 points per game. (I know it’s hard, but try to remember those good times)

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No one player

no matter who they are, can solve ALL of a teams problems, but there are players that can solve ONE of the teams problems and can cover up some of the other problems. David Lee is one of those players.

by lj15 on Dec 20, 2008 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny

that you capitalize the ‘D’ in the word ‘defense’ every time.

by MR on Dec 20, 2008 9:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s that important

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know

love that.

by MR on Dec 20, 2008 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But then I read this. - Bummer

Rerouted To New York?

Boris Diaw and Raja Bell could be making a brief stopover in Charlotte before being rerouted to New York.
According to a league official, Charlotte was pushing to get the deal finalized quickly because after 60 days — and right before the February trading deadline — they would have the option of combining Diaw and Bell in a trade, with the Knicks believed to be their final destination.

The contracts of Diaw and Bell match those of Eddy Curry and David Lee, a restricted free agent this coming summer. — New York Daily News

So I guess if the Wizards want David Lee, they will have to deal with Charlotte – - – - – and Michael Jordan……

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 5:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

confirmation?

But that rumor also lends credence in my assertion that the New York Knicks are dumping as much salary as possible before the 2010 Free Agent spending spree.

Why do that, unless they’re going after more than just LeBron James…..

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well also

Diaw and Bell are much more D’Antoni like players than Curry and Lee.

Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It Dot Net

by Truth About It on Dec 20, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Knicks roster in 2010 will be the following

PG – Steve Nash
SG – Raja Bell
SF – Boris Diaw
PF – Shawn Marion
Center – Amare Stoudemire
Sound familiar?

by hibachi on Dec 20, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

That’s great….

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Dec 20, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Death of the NBA

If three of those free agent “superstars” sign with one team it will be the beginning of the end. In the very short term there will be ratings, but in the long term it will be terrible.

by MR on Dec 20, 2008 9:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Why?

People will forget the lack of loyalty when they start to put on a good show.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 21, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he means

people won’t want to watch them shitting on everybody night after night.

by hibachi on Dec 21, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Any of those big ticket FAs will get long term contracts. I just don’t think America is interested in watching the Knicks (or another team) dominate for six years off of mercenary free agents. I know I’m not.

by MR on Dec 22, 2008 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Too expensive

It’s just not reasonable to ask Abe to spend $100M+ on salary and luxtax fees when the team hasn’t even gotten past the first round of the playoffs. Nobody else in the league except NY and Dallas (with kajillionaire owners) spends that kind of money – not San Antonio, not Detroit, not Boston, not LA.

It’s easy to acquire a bunch of average talent at above-average prices. That’s not good GMing. The hard part is to find superstar talent or to find above average talent at average prices. That’s what is necessary to field a championship caliber team without a 9-figure payroll.

If we made this trade, we’d be devoting $40M to the forward positions alone. Butler makes $10M, Jamison $11.6M, DSong $4.5M, Jeffries $6.5M, and Lee, say, $8M. Throw in another $23 dedicated to the PG slot, and we’d already flirting with luxtax. That doesn’t even count the salaries of Haywood, Stevenson, Blatche, McGee, Young, McGuire and our 2009 draft pick. This is the kind of deal that will cost us Haywood in 2010.

The bottom line is that the addition of Lee and Jeffries doesn’t really help us that much to begin with. Jamison and Butler already take up 75 of the 96 forward minutes available. You are basically paying and additional $16M (plus another $5-10M in luxtax fees) in 2011 to upgrade from Blatche/Songaila to Lee for 20 minutes a game. It’s not worth it. I’m not even sure if it’s an upgrade at all.

by nate33 on Dec 21, 2008 3:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lee's also not a good defender

He can rebound, but he can’t defend.

This is why, if we make a trade for an upgrade, it makes no sense to get another big. I know, I know, some people think we need more interior defense, but it’s so expensive to fill that role with another player. Lets plug other holes, then hope JaVale develops instead of killing all our assets for a backup big. Particularly one which puts us over the tax.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 21, 2008 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That Doesn't Make Sense

Lee’s also not a good defender

He can rebound, but he can’t defend.

This is why, if we make a trade for an upgrade, it makes no sense to get another big.

Just because David Lee can’t defend doesn’t mean that no other big available can defend. And this team doesn’t just need interior defense, they desperately need interior defense.

Continue to remember these phrases every time the Wizards lose: second-chance points (because the Wizards don’t have enough size and strength to box out their men), points in the paint (because the Wizards don’t have enough size and strength to defend low post players), and 3-pointer percentage/allowed (because the Wizards have to always compensate for not having interior size and strength by bringing constant double teams). Buck and Phil will continue to use these phrases a lot until Ernie fixes the problem adequately, which does not mean bringing in an extra guard or a wing defender.

Yes, this means that you have to pay for a big man. You should know why big men are so expensive. Almost every GM realizes that you can’t win a championship without them. “Filling other holes” is like the Titantic crew concentrating on fixing leaky faucets while the ship sinks. Until the Wizards can defend the paint, they will never even make it to the conference finals, let alone win a championship.

And if you are waiting for JaVale to develop into a good defender, plan to wait until Arenas is at least 30, Butler is 31, and Jamison is out of the league. Personally, I don’t want to have to wait that long.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Dec 22, 2008 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're missing the point

Unless we want to be a tax team, like Cleveland, Boston, etc, we can’t pay over the mid-level for a backup center. There are too many other holes on this team — no guard play besides Gil, no good wing defender besides McGuire, no back-to-the-basket scorer besides Jamison, etc. Trading for Samuel Dalembert or David Lee while keeping all the salary we have mean we’re going to have to significantly cut costs everywhere else just to get under the tax. Get ready for more Roger Mason-type subtractions.

We need to be like San Antonio and search for big man bargains. They’ve always had a great defensive team in the post-David Robinson era, but they’ve never broken the bank to find another center next to Tim Duncan. They’ve made to with Rasho Nesterovic, Nazr Mohammad, Francisco Elson, Fabricio Oberto, etc. None of those guys cost much and all have helped. Of course, it helps to have Tim Duncan in there, but Brendan Haywood not bad himself. That way, so long as we find a way to dump guys like Songaila, Stevenson, Etan, etc, we can still fill other holes.

And there is something to letting JaVale McGee develop. He’s far away, of course, but we’re not going to make things any easier if we trade for a 10-million-dollar a year backup. We’re going to need JaVale down the road anyway, so we might as well not put too many stumbling blocks in front of him.

Basically, what I’m proposing is that we eventually find a bigger, more defensive-oriented big to fill Songaila’s salary slot and place in the rotation. That guy is not Samuel Dalembert and it isn’t David Lee. Dalembert’s too expensive and Lee’s not a good enough defender (and is also too expensive). I’d support a David Lee acquisition if we get rid of Jamison, but like nate said, it’s just too taxing on the team’s salary to get Lee to play Songaila’s role in the rotation. We’d have to hope Abe’s willing to pay the tax, and that’s not something we should be counting on.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 22, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Respectfully, I Think it is You That is Missing the Point

Guards and wing defenders don’t amount to a hill of beans when you can’t defend the paint. They should rightfully be considered secondary needs of far less importance than a big who can rebound and defend the low-post. And it is interesting that you referenced the Spurs. San Antonio already had David Robinson when they drafted Tim Duncan. They knew that they needed to reinforce the interior (despite also having Will Perdue) because Robinson was getting older and more injury prone. Sound familiar? The Admiral was only 31 when the Spurs took Duncan. Haywood will be 30 at the start of next season. They had other needs, after all they were one of the NBA’s worst teams before they drafted Duncan. But they realized that taking a guard or a wing player or trading for one before you solidify the interior doesn’t do you any good. Far from being redundant (not saying that you said another center is redundant), it was the combined production of Duncan/Robinson that made the Spurs a championship team. After that, it was easy to acquire bigs to play for them for the MLE or less. But you have to get there first.

Maybe Dalembert isn’t the answer. And I agree that David Lee is definitely not the answer, because as you pointed out, he can’t defend. But I feel that Dalembert is a big step in the right direction. If somebody better comes along, then I’m all for it. But that somebody has to be big and defend well, or otherwise we are spinning our tires.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Dec 22, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

San Antonio already had David Robinson when they drafted Tim Duncan. They knew that they needed to reinforce the interior (despite also having Will Perdue) because Robinson was getting older and more injury prone. Sound familiar? The Admiral was only 31 when the Spurs took Duncan. Haywood will be 30 at the start of next season. They had other needs, after all they were one of the NBA’s worst teams before they drafted Duncan. But they realized that taking a guard or a wing player or trading for one before you solidify the interior doesn’t do you any good.

Tim Duncan was the best prospect to come out of college in decades! Anyone who had the number one pick that year was going to take him. Three teams tanked just to be in position to get Tim Duncan that year! San Antonio just happened to win and they made the most obvious pick in years. They didn’t think to themselves “hey, let’s shore up the interior and forget our other problems.” They thought to themselves “this is a can’t-miss prospect, and I don’t care if we already have David Robinson.” There was no other choice for the number one pick that year.

I am not suggesting that we don’t eventually need another big man. I’m suggesting that we have too many problems to pay a premium price for one that isn’t all that great. San Antonio didn’t break the bank for a marginal talent — they found someone who could do the job for cheap. Consistently. And this is all post-David Robinson.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 22, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

Tim Duncan was a can’t-miss because he was the complete package. He could score both facing up and back-to-the-basket. He could rebound, defend, and block shots. He was extremely valuable to any team looking to improve. That being said, trading him to another team that needed his services more would have been easy, and they could have gotten a lot in return. I’m sure they had offers. They could have easily said, “we have a lot of needs; we could really use a scoring guard or a wing defender, and since we already have David Robinson and Will Perdue, let’s not overload this area when we can instead use Duncan as a trading chip to patch other holes.”

Of course, Dalembert is no Tim Duncan, and I never meant to say he was. But Dalembert does have exactly what the Wizards need the most, especially when Haywood isn’t on the floor due to injury, foul trouble, or just plain in-game rest. And we wouldn’t be breaking the bank to get him, since he makes almost exactly what Etan and DeShawn do. I would much rather have Dee Brown and Dalembert than Etan and DeShawn, and there is little difference between the combined salaries of each.

But again, this is just one idea. If you think we can get a better big than Dalembert and maybe even save some money, I’m all for it. But I strongly disagree that we should address other areas simply because we have Haywood. Whatever the reason for taking Tim Duncan, the Spurs did not suffer because they didn’t address their need for a guard or wing defender.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Dec 22, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody was trading Tim Duncan

That wasn’t even on the radar. It would have been asinine to do that.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 22, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, Whatever

I give up. Let’s just go out and get a wing defender and forget about our interior defense. And when Haywood gets hurt again, or gets in foul trouble, or has to take a breather, we can watch all 29 other teams destroy us in the paint and score thousands of second chance points. But it will be OK, because eventually he’ll get healthy again, or he’ll have sat on the bench long enough, to come back and try and salvage the game, hopefully before it is too late.

Until, of course, we play one of the following teams in the playoffs, who we will never beat in a 7 game series until we can match their physicality: Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, Detroit, Atlanta. But hey, first round is great! We might even get lucky enough to play a team like the Bulls and make the 2nd round again someday! Yay us!

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Dec 22, 2008 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Come on, stop it

You know that’s not what I’m saying.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 23, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What You Are Saying

This is what you said that I want to address:

This is why, if we make a trade for an upgrade, it makes no sense to get another big. I know, I know, some people think we need more interior defense, but it’s so expensive to fill that role with another player. Lets plug other holes, then hope JaVale develops instead of killing all our assets for a backup big.

You referenced San Antonio as an example of why getting another quality big isn’t that important (the Spurs surrounded Duncan with average bigs who made the MLE or less). I then used that same example to point out why getting another quality big is important (the Spurs already had an All-Star big in David Robinson but grabbed and utilized Duncan anyway instead of trading him for other pieces, which they could have easily gotten). Rethinking this, I don’t think it was a particularly good example for either of us to have used. For one thing, Tim Duncan has been extremely healthy over his career, appearing in at least 66 games in every season of his career except for the strike-shortened season in which the Spurs won their first title, in which Duncan appeared in all 50 games that season. So who knows how good those average complimentary bigs would have been for the Spurs had Duncan gone down? Also, Duncan averages well over 30 minutes per game (37.1 mpg for his career), so his backups have very little work to do when he is healthy, and Duncan has almost always been healthy.

Compare that to what the backup bigs have to do for Washington. While Brendan has also been very healthy until this season, he has only averaged 23.6 minutes per game in his career, peaking at 28 minutes per game last season. This means that Washington’s backup center(s) have had to play almost half of every game even when he has been healthy. And this season Brendan has been completely absent, forcing the backup bigs to try and pick up the slack, but ultimately exposing this team’s complete lack of interior defense and defensive rebounding without him.

So to summarize my first point, San Antonio is a poor example of why quality backup bigs are not important, because they have never had to rely on them. They are a lot more important for Washington, because we have to rely on them a lot, especially this season.

That said, I will admit your point that Tim Duncan was a once in a lifetime prospect who no team was going to pass over, and that his complete skill set, both offensively and defensively, is what contributed to the Spurs’ rapid turnaround from 20 win team to playoff contender to NBA champion.

So hopefully that is settled now, and we can forget about San Antonio and Tim Duncan. The overall point that I want to argue is that having a quality backup big is not just important for Washington, but of vital importance to Washington. We don’t have the luxury of an extremely healthy, elite defending starting big who averages close to 40 minutes every game. We have an elite defending starting big who is in the midst of a long absence due to injury, who is turning 30 next season, and only averages 28 mpg when healthy. Our backup bigs have to do a lot more for our team, and it is their incompetence at picking up Haywood’s slack that is directly responsible for the Wizards abysmal season.

Haywood is clearly the MVP of this team, IMO. Were he here, we would be above .500 like we were last season without Gilbert and Eddie Jordan would still have a job. It is because we have nobody who comes even close to providing what Brendan does on defense that we are in the mess we are in. As far as I am concerned, the other holes this team has are pinholes compared to gushing crater on the side of the Wizards’ ship that is the absence of interior defense and defensive rebounding.

JaVale is a very talented player who is contributing much more than I expected of him. But most of his contributions are offensive, and if he were anything close to Haywood defensively we would not be 4-21 right now. Let him develop with 5-10 mpg at both the C and PF positions, by all means. But let us not ignore our huge problem starting next season with lack of depth from our bigs. I don’t want to have to cross my fingers before every game next season that Brendan doesn’t pull a hamstring or sprain an ankle or worse.

In other words, this team’s success should not ever be this reliant on just one player.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Dec 23, 2008 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm saying we can plug the hole with an MLE free agent

Like a Jeff Foster, Rasho Nesterovic, Zaza Pachulia or, more accurately, in 2010 when we have some money to play with. We don’t need to make a trade to solve the problem unless we get rid of Jamison for cap relief.

I was unaware that you were speaking of backup bigs specifically, so yes, the analogy isn’t perfect. However, San Antonio has found complimentary bigs to play alongside Tim Duncan for MLE money or less ever since David Robinson’s retirement in 2003. They first signed Rasho Nesterovic to plug the hole and didn’t miss a beat. Then, they traded basically nothing for Nazr Mohammad and won another title in 2005. Since then, they’ve drafted Fabricio Oberto, signed Francisco Elson (which didn’t really work), traded basically nothing for Kurt Thomas and even signed Matt Bonner. That’s the strategy we should take. Our trade assets are best served to upgrade the starting lineup, either with our SG position or to find another PF with Antawn’s potential trade.

I don’t doubt a backup big is important, but we shouldn’t spend more than six million dollars to fill it when we don’t have to do so. We’re not a tax team. It’ll kill our payroll.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 23, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Last Post

Because this conversation is getting very narrow in my browser window. If we can get someone like Pachulia or Foster for the MLE, then I think it will be a bargain and well worth it.

However, because of our need for a quality backup big is so great, if we have to pony up the money to fill this need, then I strongly recommend we do so. There is a reason bigs who play excellent defense command so much money. You only need to look at this team without Brendan Haywood to see why.

And to respond to San Antonio again, I see what point you were trying to make, but I still don’t completely agree. The Spurs were able to get away with Nazr or Oberto or Elson because they always had a healthy Tim Duncan to cleanup for their mistakes for an average of 35 mpg. Brendan plays 28 mpg. The minutes disparity alone necessitate a better big than those guys would give us, unless we can get more than one of them.

Remember, I still think the Bulls model of rent-a-thug can work, but you have to have more than just one. If we can get two or three average bigs whose combined salaries are less than $10 million per year, then I think that can work too. But they have to be able to play at least solid interior defense and also rebound solidly. Blatche and McGee are not there yet, and won’t be for several seasons, IMO.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Dec 23, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So it's settled

We get Duncan.

by MR on Dec 22, 2008 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't quite get this point

I’ll reference the first post by saying that we would have to mortgage a LOT to get David Lee, because he is a) a fan favorite and b) a trade chip that the Knicks would only part with dearly. I mean, Isiah wouldn’t give him away, and that should say something in and of itself.

I also don’t see why we don’t need more interior defense or a player that plays at high energy rate to grab boards. Ideally, this is what McGuire would do, but he doesn’t see the floor enough for it to happen. Without the BTH, I have now watched 20+ games of the Wizards getting taken to the lane or having Elton Brand make a fool of us.

You’re advocating putting your finger in the dyke, which I don’t think is a great plan going forward. JaVale is still a couple of years away and like cup says below, I’m sick of watching this same problem recur over ad nauseum..

Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!

by ledellforlife on Dec 22, 2008 9:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Never overpay for role players

The NBA is a star’s league. You pay through the nose for stars and superstars and it’s usually worth it. I’ve got no problem with Arenas’ contract. Butler and Haywood have great contracts for their production. Even Jamison’s contract is okay because the man produces. What kills a team are the bad contracts for role players. You don’t pay guys like MIke James and Etan Thomas the full MLE when you can find guys nearly as good for the veteran minimum. I’ll take Juan Dixon and Fransico Elson at $1M a piece instead of James and Thomas at $6.5M a piece any day. As long as you’re prudent with the role players, you maintain the flexibility to make a move when the opportunity presents itself.

Take a look around at all the perennially bad teams in the league. Look at Golden State, Philly, Memphis, New York, Minnesota and Indiana. The common thread is that they have a slew of bad contracts that destroys their flexibility. Compare them with Detroit or San Antonio. Those teams have no bad contracts. It’s not a coincidence that those two teams have the best records over the past decade.

The only time paying for a role player is justified is if you think he’s the final piece to a championship puzzle. New Orleans paying the full MLE for Posey would be a questionable move for most teams, but he’s a perfect fit for them and they have a legit shot at a championship with him.

David Lee is a role player. Unfortunately, we are not on the cusp of a title. And Lee isn’t really a perfect fit anyhow because there isn’t a whole lot of minutes for him behind Jamison and Butler. Do you really expect him to be significantly better than Blatche next season?

by nate33 on Dec 22, 2008 2:45 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

^
not many minutes behind Jamison and Haywood, I meant to say. (How do you edit a post with this software?)

by nate33 on Dec 22, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Think You Can Edit

So go ahead and respond to yourself with corrections.

"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier

by cuppettcj on Dec 22, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You can't

Click preview first if you’re concerned.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Dec 22, 2008 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well Lee

certainly is more effective than Andray through four seasons….but thats probably an age thing.

and you’re right that the NBA is a star’s league, but the Wiz need to do something to put themselves on the map, and being agressive in a trade for a significant piece is better than pinning our hopes on an overvalued future. And the argument about Arenas is not whether his production merits his price, but whether a guy with two serious knee injuries in the span of a year is worth making that much of an investment in…

Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!

by ledellforlife on Dec 22, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs