Trading picks: Why it's Ernie Grunfeld's fault

by Pradamaster on May 22, 2008 7:19 PM EDT in Free Agency

First, a warning. I'm going to do something that almost no Wizards fans, to the best of my knowledge, will do. I'm going to criticize Ernie Grunfeld.

Why? Because this language over trading the 18th pick is really bothering me. I'm not saying that we should absolutely rule out trading the pick if it means we get significant help, because that would be silly. What gets me, though, is that for someone as close to the vest as Ernie Grunfeld, we're getting an awful lot of talk coming straight from him about trading his pick. It was the only thing of substance he mentioned in his press conference three weeks ago, and today, Ivan Carter, who is closer to Ernie Grunfeld than any outsider, led his first blog post in over a week saying "don't be surprised" if Ernie trades the pick. That's unfortunate, because even though this class is weak at the top, it's very solid in the middle. Just look at some of the guys that could be had with our 18th pick. They'd certainly be able to help us out.

Now, Ivan is saying Ernie wants to trade the pick because the Wizards have enough young guys on their bench. As he writes:

The Wizards already have four young players in Andray Blatche, Oleksiy Pecherov, Dominic McGuire and Nick Young and don't really need to have another young fella sitting on the bench unless the workout process unveils a young player who can really help next year.

Eh, I think he's really pushing it with this point. Sure, they have Young, Blatche, McGuire, and Pecherov on the bench, but when this team is fully healthy, they also have AD (33 at the start of next year), Etan Thomas (30), Darius Songaila (30) and, if he's retained, Roger Mason (29). In fact, the Wizards' average age, 27.1, makes them only the 14th-youngest team in the league, and there are plenty of solid clubs (Golden State, Utah, LA Lakers, potentially Portland, Chicago and Atlanta) who are younger.

So is this really about youth? I doubt it. My guess is that's Ernie position to the public, and Ivan was spun a little bit to believe it instead of giving the position a bit of thought.

What is it really about? It's clear that Ernie is shopping this pick because he believes it's the only asset he can used to make a roster upgrade, unless he wishes to give up on Andray Blatche or one of his three rookies, of which only Young has much value. And that's a problem that Ernie has nobody but himself to blame.

In a lot of ways, I think Ernie is tremendously underrated as a general manager. Consider that he has built the core of a three-time playoff squad through free agency and trading. He signed Gilbert Arenas to a contract that seemed extravagant at the time, but proved to be incredibly savvy when Arenas realized his potential. He acquired Antawn Jamison at the same time that he dumped the horribly disappointing Jerry Stackhose, a huge achievement. Then, there's the Caron/Kwame trade, which really needs no words at this point.

But his one Achilles heel is his inability to sign role players to shrewd contracts, and that is costing him right now. In particular, I'm talking about the contracts of Etan, Songaila and AD. I don't think money has been a huge problem, other than with Thomas, but what really hurts is the duration of each of those contracts, because it makes them practically untradeable. Etan's deal, signed after the 2004 season, was for six years, which is a killer because, when combined with Brendan Haywood's five-year deal after the 2005 season, it meant we're essentially locked into that two-headed monster at center for the next five years after the 2005 season. That's too long for a middling duo, even with Brendan's breakout season.

AD, meanwhile, was somewhat of a bargain in my eyes as far as the money was concerned. He was really good his last two years in Seattle, and to get him for the mid-level was a nice bargain. The problem was, again, the years. Five years for a 29-year old backup point guard really kills your cap flexibility.

But AD's contract isn't nearly as infuriating as Songaila's. Again, you have a similar situation. The amount of money for Darius wasn't a major problem, but why the five-year contract? Was Darius' demand so high that we needed to do that? Worse yet, if Ernie has invested so heavily in Andray Blatche, why sign someone who plays his position to a five-year contract. It's not fiscally smart, no matter how solidly Songaila plays.

We've seen this from Ernie before. He was a very, very good GM in New York and Milwaukee, constantly turning trash into paydirt. In New York, he traded Charles Oakley for Marcus Camby, pulled off the Latrell Sprewell heist, signed Allan Houston, and traded Anthony Mason for Larry Johnson, all moves that increased the Knicks' window with Patrick Ewing. In Miwaukee, he pushed a perennially mediocre club to within one game of the NBA Finals. But in both cases, he clogged up the payroll with bad contracts to role players. In New York, it was Charlie Ward and his six-year 28 million dollar contract. In Milwaukee, it was the disastrous summer of 2001, where he signed Tim Thomas to a six-year 67 million dollar deal and gave 35-year old Anthony Mason a four-year deal. Notice how when those teams had to rebuild, they dealt their stars well below their market value, and have yet to recover.

Again, I'm not here to suggest Ernie is a bad GM. Far from it. But these inflexible contracts to role players may end up costing a potentially valuable asset in a relatively deep draft. And for that, we should be disappointed.

1 recs | Comment 27 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You assume...

We would trade for another player. Is it possible the Wiz may trade for a higher pick, either in this year’s or next year’s draft?

by oatmealeater on May 23, 2008 10:30 AM EDT 0 recs

I think so...

What if a guy like Kevin Love were to fall to the 9-12 range? Some of those teams should be willing to deal.

by Romans12 on May 23, 2008 10:46 AM EDT 0 recs

Maybe not

Bobcats (if they haven’t actually made that promise to DeAndre Jordan), Nets and Kings might all be candidates to take him if he slides into that range, so it’s not like he’s set for a free fall if he doesn’t make the top 10.

by MikeMid on May 23, 2008 10:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

i disagree

they already have blatche, pecherov, and mcguire under contract in the front court, so unless something changes before the draft, why on earth would the wiz draft another young big man like hibbert or koufas who will take 3 years to develop? i don’t see it. ernie’s either going to try to draft someone who can help right away, or move the pick for someone who can help right away. i don’t see that as a bad thing at all. he took his shots on pech, mcguire, blatche, and young…

i completely agree that ernie has given out some bad contracts though. he seems like a risk taker. or he’s too sure of his talent evaluation. but most of the time he’s right. he gave redd, butler, arenas, and houston big contracts before they had hit that market value.

by DarrellWalkerFan on May 23, 2008 11:22 AM EDT 0 recs

Agree, good point

Grunfeld is a damn good GM. He seems to understand what a team needs and build how to it strong better than most, but he does have his shortcomings. Not only there the “inability to sign roll players to shrewd contracts”, but there’s also his ability to evaluate young talent. I don’t think he’s horrible, but he’s mediocre at best. Maybe his willingness to trade the pick is a result of knowing he’s not be the best evaluator of young players or knowing the draft becomes more and more of a crap shoot when you get to the middle of the first round on.
He has had two lottery picks in his career as a GM TJ Ford – pick 8 2003 and Marcus Haislip pick 13 2002 (ouch – not in the nba). His year by year draft picks by team are below, the best pick being Redd in the second round for milwaukee in 2000. Blatche and Young are solid values (We’ll see for sure next year), and Redd is a given, Ford is a decent point guard and should be around for a while, but after those the quality goes downhill quickly.
Wiz
2007 Young 16 –
2007 McGuire 47
2006 OPEC 18 could’ve had Rondo, Balkman, Josh Boone, Farmar, M. Collins, Boobie Gibson, Paul Milsap, and Veremeenko one round sooner
2006 Veremeenko 48
2005 Blatche 49
2004 PJ Ramos 32

Bucks
2003 TJ Ford 8
2003 Szymon Szewczyk (who????) 35
2003 Bogans 43
2002 Marcus Haislip 13
2002 Gadzuric 34
2002 Flip Murray 42 (decent roll player for 2 seasons)
2002 Chris Owens 48
2001 Andre Hutson 52
2000 Jason Collier 15
2000 Michael Redd 43
2000 Jason Hart 49

NY Knicks
1998 DeMarco Johnson 38
1997 John Thomas 25
1996 John Wallace 18

by AndraytheJohn on May 23, 2008 11:36 AM EDT 0 recs

sorry for the broken english above.

no coffee yet + minor dyslexia is a bad combination. “He seems to understand what a team needs and build how to it strong better than most”
should’ve been “He seems to understand what a team needs to succeed and how to build a team stronger than most”

by AndraytheJohn on May 23, 2008 11:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

To clarify my position

I don’t particularly have a problem with trading the pick if it nets us something good. I just don’t like that it’s the only real asset we can use to upgrade the roster. That’s Ernie’s fault for dolling out large mid-level contracts to marginal players.

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

by Pradamaster on May 23, 2008 11:56 AM EDT 0 recs

Another option

Maybe we can keep our pick at #18 and use the pick we got from Memphis for JCN instead? Some nice players are going to be available for us when we pick.

At the very least, it would save us all the trouble of trying to figure out what that pick is actually worth.

by Romans12 on May 23, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

We don't have that pick

It’s Top-19 protected, and they’re in the top 19.

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

by Pradamaster on May 23, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

Right...

but that pick can still be traded can’t it?

by Romans12 on May 24, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

Wasn’t Etan signed to an offer sheet by the Bucks, which the Wiz had to match in order to have two centers on the roster? I certainly get the point of the post, but if ET was indeed signed to an offer sheet, Ernie should not have that contract counted against him.

by bronco6778 on May 23, 2008 1:01 PM EDT 0 recs

Yeah, he was

But what difference does that make? Let him go to Milwaukee if they were willing to pay so much for him. A smart move would have been to find a cheaper replacement.

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

by Pradamaster on May 23, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

Etan Thomas was an Abe Pollin move

Ernie generally says the Wiz will do anything in their power to resign free agents, hoping to drive away bidders who might drive up the re-sign price. But in Etan’s case Uncle Abe made it very clear they weren’t going to let a good community guy like ET leave. Milwaukee called Abe’s bluff, gambling that the nasty trade kicker would prove a poison pill on the deal.

Ernie was pissed at the move, but the only revenge he could take was to wait ‘til the very last minute to match, so they’d miss out on other opportunities and bigs while the time slid away. Disincentive for future teams trying to count coup on Wiz players.

But this left Etan wondering what was happening, so Abe re-assured him by calling ET in to sit with him in the owner’s box during a Mystics games in those few weeks while he dangled waiting for the deadline to expire. Pollin made it clear Etan was his guy. I don’t count this on Ernie’s register of deeds.

by doclinkin on May 25, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

Hmmm

I don’t remember this, but I’ll take your word for it.

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

by Pradamaster on May 25, 2008 7:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

still, pretty harsh

(assuming we sign arenas and jamison and keep pech and mcguire)

we essentially only have one roster space via free agency signing/draft that we can use to improve the roster this year, which limits flexibility when you rule out trades, but if the only “untradeable” contract we have is etan, and the only “bad” contracts we have are etan and songaila, then, really, we aren’t in bad shape, right? (other than it being kind of boring to see the same reserves out there year after year.) ernie can try to improve the team through trades using the assets we have (or are soon to resign), including the 18th pick. or there will be possible improvement from within (young, blatche). it doesn’t look like the future is mortgated too badly with this squad. a couple guys will come off the books each year. seems okay to me. it definitely could be much, much worse.

by DarrellWalkerFan on May 23, 2008 6:27 PM EDT 0 recs

Well sure

It could be worse. Obviously. We could be the Knicks. But I think it bears mentioning how much our mid-level contracts have clogged up our cap. It’s a story nobody’s writing, and it’s going to hurt us for the next couple years until Etan, AD, and Darius come off the books. It also could have been avoided by not re-signing Etan after his fluke year, giving less years to AD, and giving less years and less money to Darius.

Not huge problems, but problems nonetheless.

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

by Pradamaster on May 23, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

point taken

but maybe you have to give guys multi-year deals to get them to go to washington and milwaukee? those aren’t exactly nba hot spots. (eh, could be a stretch there)

more likely its just ernie’s style, and it’s definitely worth pointing out its flaws.

by DarrellWalkerFan on May 24, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

Could be worse

Could be Charlotte and already have rumors of promises being made to a player out there.

Not much comfort to be taken there, I know. But still…

by MikeMid on May 23, 2008 10:07 PM EDT 0 recs

The Wiz have had to overpay

to prove they are no longer ‘cheap’. This has not been an attractive destination for Free Agents. Even now there’s the perception that with Gil as a ‘shoot first’ point guard free agents may not get touches and play time.

Silly actually considering how overpaid 2-guards have been after leaving our team/system. Hell we got big money for Ared freakin’ Effries for crying out loud.

But from Gilbert to Daniels to Songaila, if we weren’t offering strong money we were probably losing the player. Daniels was one of the only players who’d been able to defend DWade that prior year, he had bidders from at least three other teams. Songaila’s experience in motion offense has been critical as a role-model and teaching example (at both 4 and 5) for a player like Andray Blatche who needs to see the plays run before he can begin to really get it.

Point being the Wizards have not yet become a ‘destination’ team for top FA’s. And we won’t be until we can get mroe TV time and advance deeper to the playoffs. So understand if there’s a guy you know you want for the squad you’re gonna have to pay him a slight bump to land him. And the easiest way to do that is to extend the contract, so the overall dollars look bigger than the Cap hit per year.

by doclinkin on May 25, 2008 2:32 PM EDT 0 recs

I don't buy that explanation

We’re usually on the same page, but not here. I get that Washington hasn’t traditionally been a big place for free agents, but why would that linger even after multiple playoff appearances? I’d venture to say that there are several locations that are less attractive for free agents (Charlotte, Clippers, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Seattle/Oklahoma City, Toronto, etc). For a mid-level playoff team, we’ve received plenty of TV time over the last couple years, and the shoot-first point guard thing is media jibbirish that doesn’t really persist within the circle of general managers (consider how much Hughes regrets leaving Gilbert).

Plus, that explanation doesn’t explain why this was also an Ernie weakness in New York (see Ward, Charlie).

With AD, I think you have a point, but who was clamoring to get Songaila when he was a free agent? He has some value, sure, but five years was definitely not necessary. We could have had him for three years at the same amount of money.

So yeah, I’m not buying this argument. Sounds like excuses more than anything.

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

by Pradamaster on May 25, 2008 7:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

We'd previously made a play for DSong

And lost him to Chicago. Same year we lost Donyell Marshall to the Cavs as our prospective back-up long-range Big. We had to settle for Mike Ruffin. You think that was our first choice? We couldn’t continue to play Jamison and his high dollar contract for 40 minutes per night—even though we still do…

(And that’s part of it, are the minutes even there? Iron Man Jamison plays all night every night. Ditto Gil, Caron. FA’s will wonder if that’s indelible or if it’s just out of necessity).

On the long view: the multiple 1st round exits counts for less than our long-time rep as the Clippers of the East. And far less than our miniscule national profile. How many ESPN/TNT games did we have last year? We’re more famous for whatever outrageous thing Gil says on his blog than we are for leading the East at one point for a week a couple years ago.

(Yes I say ‘we’—I’ve bought tickets, patronize the advertising sponsors of their cable broadcast, and utterly lose my perspective on behalf of ‘my’ squad. Therefore I’m a member of the team AFAIC. By gum! ).

But yeah I expect that GMEG would prefer to package Etan Thomas’ contract with the pick to clear space under the Lux tax to flesh out the roster. And to ensure minutes for favorites Haywood and Blatche. (I can see the argument. Brendan had a great year, he attributes it to Etan’s absence. Blatche played best when he was inked into the starting line-up. The issue came to a head in last year’s playoffs and caused friction between coach and GM).

Personally I’m somewhat less concerned that we might miss on a quality player at 18 - there are a few, and I wouldn’t mind trading down if we could trade up in the 2nd round too- but if not, seems like there will be some quality free agents, here, overseas, D-league. Same as last year when many draft picks couldn’t make a roster:

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Is-the-NBA-Full-2212/

I’d trust Ernie as much or more finding undrafted talent, free agents, or late round picks as I would giving him one shot at first round talent.

by doclinkin on May 25, 2008 11:07 PM EDT 0 recs

We'll have to agree to disagree on the TV thing

This year, we had seven ESPN appearances (Celtics, Nuggets twice, Jazz, Pistons, Bulls, Suns) and two TNT appearances (Cavs, Heat). Orlando and Toronto, two teams who finished near us in the standings, had just three and two ESPN appearances respectively this year. Cleveland, of course, had more than us, but not by that much (nine ESPN, eight TNT – the TNT discrepancy is big, not the ESPN one though). Not incredible, but I think we’ve carved out a decent national TV niche considering our status as a mid-level playoff team.

I don’t think exposure is a problem at all for us. Three years ago, definitely, but not now.

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

by Pradamaster on May 26, 2008 3:24 AM EDT up 0 recs

"Three years ago, definitely, but not now."

And we signed these free agents when, again?

I’m not saying it might not be turning around, slowly. Hell, I don’t even know that I’m implying that Darius Songaila cares about TV time. I’m talking more about the league-wide impression of the team. “Decent” and “mid-level playoff team” aren’t powerful enough to tilt a deal in our favor just because a player wants to run next to our guys. Nobody is taking a relative paycut. We still have to out-bid teams to pull players.

It’s an open question whether or not we overpaid, but if you look at the FA’s available those years we got the right players for our system in AD and DS9. (And didn’t overpay to retain Jeffries and Hughes, even though they were key starters—which makes it even more clear Etan was a Pollin move. Shoot Abe said so). And the fact is when all you have to work with is the MLE, same as any other team, the only thing you can offer is a longer contract.

Thing is we’re not getting a discoutn for whatever reason. Teams like the Lakers (of a few years ago), Celtics (this year), etc have had players take less money in order to play with them. Part of that is a long-storied history of success, part of that is fanbase, TV time, etc. Part is their Big-Market status. Shoot even kids growing up in this area wore a different jersey than the Bullets/Wizards. (maybe Webber or Jordan helped change that, but only a little). And we’re notorious for having crap fans in the stands. Cell-phone fans who leave early or root for the other team.

I’m saying when EG took the job he had multiple issues to reverse, only one of which was the team’s fortune on the court, hiring personnel to fit the coaching style— a coach he didn’t pick, with a style he didn’t really believe in. Fortunately the league liked our playstyle, or that is, the league-wide re-emphasis of the hand-check rules worked in our favor. The trick then lies in identifying players who work well within the system, multi-skill tweeners: Bigs who can hit from decent range; Combo guards who can attack the paint and pass, small forwards who can pass, rebound and play in traffic; role players who can hit an open shot. Players who can run up-tempo. (And Ideally a face-up center who can pass). The best fits aren’t the most common players. You make do with guys who fit the profile but aren’t as good, like Cal Booth.

A second issue he had to reverse was our longstanding league-wide perception of being cheap, being unwilling to pay our own free-agents (or on the case of Juwan, low-balling them, then panicking and when given a 2nd chance over-bidding in berserk fashion) unwilling to pay for warm showers, etc. MJ reversed some of these issues, but then his ass got fired—same old Wizards, always finding a way to foul things up…

Remember, in many cases it’s less about impressing the player, and more about changing the minds of agents, who have longer history and memory. For the longest time Super-Agent David Falk hated to deal with the franchise, preferred to steer his clients away. You think we made that any better by punting his Greatest Client of All Time?

Point being it takes a while to both turn a team a round, change a long-standing culture, and change a perception based on that culture. I’m unconvinced that we’ve done it yet. And I’m a spit-flecked raving fan of the team. ESPN analysts still sneer at the Wiz. We get no Sunday afternoon ABC games (didn’t they even yank us from a broadcast this year?). We’re still altering the perception. Are we moving in the right direction? Yes. But until we’re contending for a championship, or stat to ‘Cuban-ize’ the franchise I don’t see us as a dream destination for players. So we got to overpay, a little, even for role-players.

Either that or, yeah, draft smart and grow our own talent. Still EG does better with 2nd round talent anyway, and you can get more creative with their contract. And free agents have a track record int he league you can analyze to see if they can actually play. Draft picks have more upside if you’re right, but their more of a crapshoot.

Long post, sorry.

by doclinkin on May 26, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

I need an editor.

by doclinkin on May 26, 2008 10:51 AM EDT up 0 recs

Or a blog

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

by Pradamaster on May 26, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

The Bulls game might have been pulled

But that was because of the Bulls, not us.

I hear what you’re saying. Perhaps the tone of this post is a little over the top, but I do think that while you can justify the reasons behind these long-term contracts, you can’t deny that it’s hurting us in our quest to get to the next level. Perhaps that’s not exclusively Ernie’s fault, but he is the GM, and this is something nobody is even discussing.

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

by Pradamaster on May 26, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up 0 recs