The offseason arrives

by Pradamaster on Jun 18, 2008 2:44 AM EDT in Off Topic

As I was watching the end of tonight's Celtics demolition, I kept thinking to myself: "What can the Wizards learn from these franchises?" This is kind of an unfair question, because it's been proven that you can win the title in many different ways, but it's only natural. When a guitarist looks for inspiration for success, he studies Jimmy Paige or Keith Richards. When an artist does the same, he studies Van Gough or Michaelangelo.

There are two ways to think of the Celtics winning the title. On the one hand, you could argue that it proves that no team should ever be afraid about making big changes. Boston basically revamped their entire team, and it still came together perfectly. To apply it to the Wizards, you could say that they should not be so dead-set on maintaining the status quo. Consequently, you could also argue that this year proved the age-old (and mind-bogglingly annoying) adage that "defense wins championships." Boston had the best defense, LA had the best offense, and Boston emphatically won. (I'd argue more that the difference between Boston's defense and everyone else's was greater than the difference between LA's offense and everyone else's, for the record). The Wizards don't play defense right now, ergo they are not a championship team until they ditch their offense-first players and get defensive players.

However, I chose to think of it in another way. When I think of the Celtics and the Lakers, I think of two teams that were only able to win by stockpiling cheap assets and using them for real upgrades. Boston's assets were all their young players from previous seasons. Al Jefferson. Delonte West. Ryan Gomes. Gerald Green. Sebastian Telfair. Four of those guys were first-round picks. One of them, Jefferson, was turning into a really good young big. It was only because of them (and Theo Ratliff's expiring deal, with an assist from Kevin McHale) that the Celtics got Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. They also were able to get production out of Rajon Rondo (another mid first-round pick), Kendrick Perkins (ditto) and second-rounders like Leon Powe and Glen Davis. That's the textbook example of stockpiling and managing asssets.

Both the Celtics and the Lakers got to the point where they could bring in stars without having to trade their own (unless you count Jefferson). That's how teams improve. Teams don't improve by trading their stars, they improve by stocking assets around them and using those assets either in trades or to fill specific roles. Young talent is the most effective talent in this league, because it's cheap and it carries the prospect of future stardom. All championship teams draft well and use those picks effectively. Boston and LA are textbook examples of this.

What does that mean? It means re-signing Arenas and Jamison doesn't automatically mean we can't improve our team down the road. Both Boston and LA took a lot of lumps, but they persevered by never stopping to stockpile assets. Ernie Grunfeld needs to step up and do the same this offseason. He needs to hold onto the 18th pick, draft a useful player, and let him develop. Maybe guys like Nick Young and Andray Blatche become players, maybe they get moved in two years when AD, Haywood and Etan all expire, but either way, they eventually help you build around your core players. Trading your core players just brings you back to square one, and I'm not sure we're ready for that.

Again, that's just another way of looking at it, but it's all I was thinking about as the clock ran out. I saw Paul Pierce, a star who played for so long on crummy teams, who suffered tons of criticism for hurting the rest of the team with his selfish play, who was involved in so many trade rumors and who visibly showed his frustration, win the Most Valuable Player award, and I couldn't help but think about Gilbert Arenas. Imagine if the Celtics traded Pierce instead of keeping him and building around him? Certainly the Celtics wouldn't be where they were right now. Admittedly, Arenas' situation is different because of the knee injuries, but there are some eerie parallels to their situations. At 26, Arenas still has lots of years left to get to where Pierce is right now.

2 recs | Comment 9 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

My Thoughts

I’m probably one of the biggest proponents on this board for making big changes, so I felt that this post (well written, by the way) was at least partially directed at me. However, I feel that some assumptions made deserve some slight correction.

The Wizards don’t play defense right now, ergo they are not a championship team until they ditch their offense-first players and get defensive players.

I don’t think anyone should advocate that. Offense is still very important to a team’s success. I mentioned before that only one team has won a championship since 2000-01 that hasn’t finished in the top 10 defensively. It turns out, the same applies to offense. Even this year’s Boston Celtics were no slouches on offense, coming in 9th. Detroit managed to win in 2003-04 with only the 18th best offense, but you could argue that the late-season acquisition of Rasheed Wallace improved their offense just at the right time to win a championship, but too late to affect their regular season ranking. So no, even someone like me would not suggest that we dump all of our scorers for defense. Just that we allow one piece of the puzzle to leave for another.

In a roundabout way, this is what the Lakers did to retool from the early part of this decade. They let Shaq leave, getting Lamar Odom and Caron Butler in return. They exchanged Caron for Kwame (I still smile everytime I think of that), then exchanged Kwame for Pau Gasol. They kept their best player, got rid of another great player, and rebuilt for another championship run.

Imagine if the Celtics traded Pierce instead of keeping him and building around him? Certainly the Celtics wouldn’t be where they were right now. Admittedly, Arenas’ situation is different because of the knee injuries, but there are some eerie parallels to their situations. At 26, Arenas still has lots of years left to get to where Pierce is right now.

Funny, you look at Paul Pierce and see Gilbert Arenas. I look at Paul Pierce and see Caron Butler. Think of the similarites between the two. Both are small forwards. Both were drafted 10th overall. Both are good scorers and defenders. Both are team leaders. The Celtics made their commitment to Pierce and considered everybody else around him expendable. Right now, I feel similarly about Caron, although I’m not willing to let go of Antawn quite yet.

Going back to my Lakers analogy, consider their dilemma in 2004. The GM (was it Mitch Kupchak back then?) was forced to choose between building around Shaq or building around Kobe. He couldn’t have both. Although Shaq was still a great player with many good seasons left in him, he went with Kobe and retooled around him. Shaq went on to lead the Heat to a championship, but has gone downhill since. But the Lakers have rebuilt nicely, and they are in prime position to compete for another championship, although they weren’t quite good enough this season. Instead of trading away their stockpiled talent, they used it to build around Kobe.

Now, I realize that this analogy breaks down in many areas. Shaq was much older then Gilbert is when the decision was made to trade him. Gilbert is actually a year younger than Caron. But my primary point is that both the Lakers and Celtics built around one key player, not two or three, and made that player the cornerstone for all future success. I used to think that player for us was Gilbert Arenas. I’m starting to believe that it might instead be Caron Butler.

Caron is a more complete package. Scoring, rebounding, passing, stealing, and defense and leadership. Not to mention that we have him locked up at a very good contract for the next 3 seasons. He’s a franchise player, but his growth is being stunted by a player who has never committed to defense, who isn’t a leader by his own admission, and is coming off of two major knee surgeries and wants a contract that will preclude the Wizards from making major improvements to their roster for years to come.

I feel weird criticizing Gilbert, because I still admire him and his game so much. He is an explosive scorer, like few others in the NBA. But I saw Caron play his best basketball of his career when Gilbert was not on the floor. For some reason, when Gilbert came back on the floor, Caron regressed. This was especially true in the playoffs. Game 5 in Cleveland stands out in my mind the most.

So I guess what I’m saying is, we may never see what we truly have in Caron unless we’re willing to let go of Gilbert. But I sincerely hope I am wrong.

"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 Jun 18, 2008 10:44 AM EDT 1 recs

This wasn't really a response to you

Otherwise, I’d respond there. It was more a long rant that was written to nobody in particular, creating strawmen at 2:30 in the morning.

But these are solid counterpoints. I guess it just depends on who you see as the franchise player. Caron did have his best season this year without Gilbert, but he was also an all-star in 2006/07 with Gilbert there the whole time, and his game did take off with Gilbert as well. I also still don’t see Caron as a good defensive player, which means he’s just like Gilbert in a lot of respects. Finally, I don’t think signing Gilbert for 14 million a year precludes us from ever making changes. Most of our role players expire by 2010, and we can use our youngsters as assets. If we sign Jamison to a short-term deal, he can be used as well. We aren’t stuck just because we re-sign Gilbert.

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

by Pradamaster on Jun 18, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up 0 recs

I also think

Age was the major factor with the Lakers and Shaq. If Shaq and Kobe swapped ages, the Lakers definitely would have kept Shaq. A read of The Last Season left me with that impression.

Gilbert and Caron are around the same age, and neither will have to be a max-contract guy, unlike Shaq and Kobe, who were both max contract players. There’s more room to tool the team around two centerpieces who aren’t max contract players (though Jamison is also still in the picture).

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

by Pradamaster on Jun 18, 2008 11:00 AM EDT up 0 recs

Don't forget

The Celtics not only parlayed all those role players but also tanked a season trying to get Durant or Oden. That turned into the #5 pick which was the main asset in the Ray Allen deal.

by Jheiser3 on Jun 18, 2008 12:02 PM EDT 0 recs

My observations

With regard to the Celtics and Lakers and their championship efforts, I offer these observations:

-- Both teams compiled the final pieces to the puzzle through truly one-sided trades (Garnett for Jefferson and others; and Gasol for Kwame and others). Perhaps it's stating the obvious, but it really helps your team when you're able to take advantage of other teams through trade and pluck away good players without giving up much. We all agree that we made a similar deal in acquiring Caron for Kwame (and further kudos to EG for locking up Caron long-term), and perhaps we need another such deal to push us beyond the plateau we appear to have settled on. The problem with saying we need a trade like that is that it's hard to imagine what one would look like because they're so far-fetched. I mean, who in their right mind would trade Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown?

—Size matters. Both the Celtics and Lakers have big players with a lot of skill and physical talent. For the C’s, Garnett is the leading example, as he’s a 7-footer who runs and jumps as well as anyone in the league and also is a great shooter and passer. The Lakers have Gasol, Odom and (next year) Bynum, who give them an awesome frontcourt that can score from a variety of places on the court, make plays for others and play big on defense around the basket. Kobe adds to the size advantage by being bigger and more athletic than most shooting guards (the fact that he’s more skilled than them too makes him great). By contrast, the Wizards don’t really have anyone who’s big for his position, really, and several guys are pretty small for their spots (Jamison, Songaila, Thomas). The only guy on the Wizards who combines great size and skill is Blatche, and his lack of strength, conditioning and game savvy really limits his impact.

"Now, obviously individual production does not unilaterally equal better team production, but there's a high level of causation."

by Vanilla Gorilla on Jun 18, 2008 2:29 PM EDT 0 recs

Weird

Something weird happened to my first point. Here it is again, just in case anyone’s interested:

Both teams compiled the final pieces to the puzzle through truly one-sided trades (Garnett for Jefferson and others; and Gasol for Kwame and others). Perhaps it’s stating the obvious, but it really helps your team when you’re able to take advantage of other teams through trade and pluck away good players without giving up much. We all agree that we made a similar deal in acquiring Caron for Kwame (and further kudos to EG for locking up Caron long-term), and perhaps we need another such deal to push us beyond the plateau we appear to have settled on. The problem with saying we need a trade like that is that it’s hard to imagine what one would look like because they’re so far-fetched. I mean, who in their right mind would trade Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown?

"Now, obviously individual production does not unilaterally equal better team production, but there's a high level of causation."

by Vanilla Gorilla on Jun 18, 2008 2:30 PM EDT 0 recs

Awesome Post

PM, I found myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly on this issue. This is one of the better posts in awhile.

After reading Bill Simmons’ Finals preview, I had to buy Phil Jackson’s “The Last Season.” 99 cents later, it was shipped to my door. I was out of the country from ‘03 to ‘05 so I missed a lot. As I am reading the book, this exact same philosophy was running in my head, and how the Lakers got their team. This is a totally different situation – old, future hall-of-famers took paycuts (arguable) so they could win a ring, and they didn’t even win the ring – but my thoughts raced through my head on how the Wiz can get a championship-contending team.

Last season, I was thinking we should trade a bunch of our assets for Zach Randolph (I’m glad we didn’t – the guy is a cancer to his teams), because I felt we needed a better big man. This was before Haywood’s great improvement.

Let’s think about this – What can the Wiz do, right now, to get a championship-contending team for next year? What would Danny Ainge do? We keep our big 3, and get who else? Keep EJ? The Celts won with, what many say, a bad coach…

by se7en on Jun 18, 2008 7:38 PM EDT 0 recs

about Doc sucking

Either Doc is a good coach or coaches are worthless if you have leadership and talent (Garnett/Allen) on the team. I have no idea, but I suppose it’s some combination of the two. And I’m not sure if everyone thinks Doc sucks or if that was just Simmons and his relatively big mouth.

Getting buckets since 2003.

by Icantfeelmyface on Jun 18, 2008 8:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

a lot of people

think doc sucks. and rightly so. what a lot of people don’t think, is that phil jackson is overrated. he’s always had a team filled with mega stars that can carry teams just like doc had this year. I didn’t see phil make one useful adjustment, if any at all, in the finals. It looked like he might have said F it and just rebelled against Kobe’s bs. But I thought Phil was supposed to be too mature to stoop to that level. And I wouldn’t be so quick to emulate Danny Ainge, he got very lucky this year with what McHale did for him, but before this year Ainge was rumored to be fired cause he was running the team around in circles.

by DC Pain on Jun 25, 2008 11:19 AM EDT up 0 recs