Does Gilbert Arenas really think older=better?
by Mike Prada on Mar 27, 2009 1:16 PM EDT
in Injuries
Email
PrintWe all have know how terribly our organization develops its young players. We all know, historically, that we've eschewed the draft for terrible short-term fixes, trading young potential guys for old, washed-up veterans. We know how we're in danger of doing this again when we talk about swapping a top-five pick just to get rid of a bad contract.
My assumption was that Gil the prankster was above all of that. After all, who does more mischief than Gilbert Arenas? Didn't he house Nick Young and Dominic McGuire last year. Isn't he the bridge between the factions?
Well, maybe not.
"We didn't realize what happened, how we got too young too early too fast," he said of the Wizards. "We got rid of veterans every year, and we're bringing in kids. We kept getting draft picks. We kept acquiring projects. Nick is a project. JaVale is a project. Javaris is a project. Eventually when you have enough projects, you live in the 'hood."
Let's think about this again:
After 2005, we dumped Larry Hughes and replaced him with Caron Butler and Chucky Atkins. We dumped Juan Dixon and Steve Blake and replaced them with Antonio Daniels. We dumped young'in Kwame Brown in the Butler deal.
After 2006, we got rid of young'in Jared Jeffries and replaced him with Gil's buddy, DeShawn Stevenson. We signed Darius Songaila too, another vet.
After 2007, we re-signed Gil's buddy and signed Andray Blatche to a low-investment deal. We dumped Michael Ruffin.
After 2008, we swapped Roger Mason for Juan Dixon. Both players have similar NBA tenures. We also swapped Antonio Daniels for Mike James, adding Crittenton, sure, but AD and Supernanny are both vets.
"At the end of the day, our problem is we don't have a veteran team," he said. "A team like Cleveland, they went to the finals and got rid of two veteran players and they brought in two veterans. It was hard to watch us fall off. We were right there with Cleveland. Orlando and Atlanta got older, better. Now they all surpassed us. Damn, look at Miami? They were above us, then we passed them and now they're ahead of us again."
Cleveland got older, I suppose. Orlando is starting a rookie at shooting guard. Some undrafted Polish dude is their backup center. Atlanta's young guys just grew up (though they did add Mike Bibby). The age of their starting frontcourt? 22, 23, 22.
"When I made that comment, I saw this coming," he said. "I'm a realist. I'm not living in denial. Of the 12 players who suited up, seven of them are young.
Or, just not better.
Before he got off the phone, I asked Arenas if he had any preference on whom the Wizards draft in June with their lottery pick. I could hear him sighing at the thought of another young buck to tame. "I don't pay attention to the JV until they get here," he said.
Look, I know Gil is annoyed with this season, but it's frustrating to see him turn this into an old/young discussion, when it really is about good/bad. He contradicts himself a bit in the article, but, if possible, his anger seems greater than Antawn Jamison's or Caron Butler's. Like Truth said, he could have kept at the young guys instead of saying he couldn't because he wasn't playing. They would have listened to Gil. Or so you'd think.
Truth be told, as I've slept on this, it just seems like Gil was using Wise to blow off some steam in typical Gil fashion. If so, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But regardless, that's four comments that pierce at the team's youth. Four comments that'll just fuel the fire for more short-term fixes rather than long-term growth.
92 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't think
the line is old vs. young.
I read the quotes as more professional vs. unprofessional.
1. You can’t tell me that swapping AD for Mike James is even trade veteran wise. AD was noted as a leader in the locker room, a hard competitor, and ran the offense. Mike James has bounced around the league and has redefined “me first” on a team that has Gilbert Arenas.
2. Roger Mason does not equal Juan Dixon. Nothing against Juan, but the way in which he is effective is completely different from Mason. Dixon needs high usage to be effective, while Mason was a better system player who picked his shots.
3. I think the original argument about DeShawn on this board was that continuity was necessary. I didn’t agree at the time, and I still don’t now.
4. Maybe the final answer is that the Wiz are selecting too many “projects” as Gil points out, and not polished basketball players. Again, as I’ve said before this cuts a little closely to the Wizard’s past history of selecting local players with long college careers (White, Dixon) and not better athletes. But there should be a safe spot in between totally raw (McGee, Blatche, Young) and polished yet subpar (White, Dixon, possibly Blake)
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
If it's "professional" vs. "unprofessional"
Why make it an “old” vs. “young” thing? That’s kind of my point.
1 and 2 are about better, not older. So why phrase it as “old” vs. “young.”
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
well on the assumption
that young = not taking losing seriously and horsing around
and old = taking losing seriously, and watching tape
I would that Gil’s annoyance is stemming from the fact that the young players think that they have all the time in the world, and are not taking their profession seriously. And when given the chance to play a large role on the team, they didn’t seize it – but instead shrunk from the reponsibility.
How much better would Blatche be if he took the game as seriously as Songalia? How much better would Young be if he played as hard as AD? And these are patently unfair rhetorical questions, but they need to asked. When I see a slow PF being played out of position and doing everything he can to maximize the most out out of his limited abilities, and I then read about a young PF/C wolfing down junk food before a game – I wonder what the hell is going through the mind of that young PF who could have the starting role if he tried a bit harder.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Again, this is an unfair assumption
that young = not taking losing seriously and horsing around
and old = taking losing seriously, and watching tape
Why make it about age? There are plenty of veterans in this league who clown around too.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Ok, lets not make it about age
and instead make it about who is good right now.
I don’t think its a stretch to say that a developed player who is good right now might be worth acquiring in exchange for 2 players who might be good in the future.
A player like Richard Jefferson would make the Wiz better right now – and not three years from now..
If the goal is to win a championship – and I assume that is the goal since we resigned Jamison, then you have to be willing to sacrifice some of the “future” to win in the present. In two years I would rather have Al Jefferson than Kevin Garnett, but I would also love to see a championship banner.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Maybe
Like I said below, I think the best approach is to trade some of our young guys for someone in his prime already now that the tax is clearly not a concern. That doesn’t mean trade our lottery pick, mind you.
Richard Jefferson isn’t the answer though. I would have liked to see Ernie make a play for John Salmons at the deadline.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
that was my first choice
but i have been playing with the trade machine and couldn’t make it work…
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
How could you not read the line as old and young?
He said those exact words!
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I think older=better
At least in the way that Arenas is speaking of it.
Sure when players get over the hill they start to decline, but otherwise the more experience a player has the better they perform. Why even contest that?
Also Gilbert was on the sidelines for the majority of the season. I was frankly suprised how much he traveled with the team. Presumably he stopped joining the team on the sidelines once he got closer to a return and started working on more seriously.
Well
the more experience a player has the better they perform. Why even contest that?
So Mitch Richmond is better than Rip Hamilton in 2000? Harvey Grant in 1997 is better than Rasheed Wallace in 1996?
Why does age matter in any way?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
what do they say about wine and age?
The point is simply that the majority of players grow into better players as they gain experience, no? And NBA teams that tend to have more veteran leadership tend to be better than teams who are giving young players lots of minutes, no?
Also, what’s your point essentially? Based on the players you’re raising I’m wondering if your also raising disagreements with the Wizards historic practice of trading away their youth for vets. Sure they’ve made some terrible mistakes, but what does that have to do with Arenas’s comments? It doesn’t mean he’s making a pitch for the Wizards to trade away every young prospect they have at the moment. He just wants a veteran-led team, and frankly I think he’s right.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 27, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
they're a good, not great, young team
Are they good enough to compete for a championship now? I really doubt it. Maybe in a couple years? We’ll certainly see.
I’m not arguing that it’s not possible for a young player to do well – there are countless examples. Arenas himself advanced quickly in this league. I’m just defending the argument that experience is preferred over lack of experience. There’s also that age old reality that human beings simply mature (physically and mentally) as they grow older. These really aren’t crazy concepts.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 27, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
This is circular logic
Are they good enough to compete for a championship now? I really doubt it. Maybe in a couple years? We’ll certainly see.
You say that better teams are older. Rook asks you about a team fighting for second in the West. You scoff and say they won’t win a championship anyway.
You are presuming what you want to prove.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
also...
I think it’s fair to say that Arenas has a much better look into the nature of the Wizards team than we possibly could. He’s around that team on an almost daily basis. If there’s a lot of youthful immaturity he’s going to see it and he’s also going to have a much sharper perspective on how that impacts the success of the team.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 27, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
So then let's give up blogging
I’m tired of this whole “defer to the authority figures” approach.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
well you win...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702956.html
Arenas’s comments have clearly backfired in the Wizards locker room.
Anyways, no need to stop blogging. : )
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 28, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Ridiculous
People need to stop blowing everything he says out of proportion. Also, I think that Blatche has a semi-valid reason to not like being considered a screw-up or something. He’s done some dumb stuff (doing his crossover, taking jumpers off the dribble, and generally not rebounding as well as he should), but he’s at least contributed while playing out of position and being forced to deal with having to match up with people who are bigger and stronger than him because of the absence of Haywood and Thomas.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 28, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know that "older" is always better but...
I agree to an extent in regards to what Arenas is saying. Most of the players now are referred to in terms of their “upside”, hence Arenas calling everyone a “project”. However, the Wizards should have been more interested in winning with their trio in their prime, Jamison is past his prime, Arenas, should he come back is in the middle of it with Butler. The thing is, they don’t have time to wait for Taser, JeVale, Nick Young, Andray Blatche, and co to develop. While they have a good team in the future, they suck now, and I can see how that would be frustrating to Arenas. As mentioned above, the Wizards have a lot of players that can “become” what they need, instead of players that “are” what they need.
Poor Man's GM @ jacemannba.blogspot.com
by Jaceman on Mar 27, 2009 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yep
Hopefully they can trade some of these projects and prospects for a legitimate star, a la the Celtics when they got Ray Allen and Garnett. Or at the very least pick up a quality defense-oriented combo guard (Kirk Heinrich?) while clearing out some players who are kind of redundant.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 27, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I REALLY disagree with this
The problem isn’t that the Wizards have too many young players. The problem is that too many of the vets were/are injured or just stank this year. Gil and Haywood out. Stevenson stinking it up, then out. Daniels stinking it up, then really out. Etan not playing well, then out. If all of those guys are healthy and playing well, you have a veteran starting lineup, plus veterans in Daniels, Etan, Dixon and Songalia coming off the bench. Do you really think the team’s 10th through 15th guys need to be veterans, too? How will you afford them? You need cheap, young players at the end of the bench, but unfortunately this year due to injury and crappy play, those guys are being depended on, and then blamed when they don’t come through.
by disgrunted on Mar 27, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Exactly
The problem isn’t that McGee isn’t producing consistently because he’s raw, it’s that they need him to produce because Haywood missed the season. It’s not that Young has off shooting nights, it’s that the team can’t afford for him to have off shooting nights because they’re not getting any points from Arenas. Blatche, well…
Wait
First the problem is that we don’t play the youngsters, and then its NOT the youngsters fault when they don’t produce when they actually get playing time? You can’t have it both ways. I wouldn’t care about playing Young et al. and losing if I thought they were actually improving in substantial ways. They arn’t. I have a problem with the fact that they suck and they seem content with sucking. Thats either a really crappy coaching job – or the sickness has already set in.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Well
First, Young and McGee haven’t exactly gotten consistent playing time. Second, they’re a second-year player and a rookie, respectively, both of whom were known to need some work.
Second, the argument I’m referring to has to do with the Wizards’ season. It’s fine to say that maybe McGee and Young could have played better, but to say the team has lost as much as it has because those two are so raw (which I think is what Arenas was implying, at least in part) is the wrong approach, I think. They weren’t expected to be huge contributors (Young may have been, but even then he was still going to be no more than the second guard off the bench after AD.)
Now, notice I didn’t include Blatche. It’s his fourth-year in the league, believe it or not, and even though I’m probably pegged as an apologist for the young guys, even I’m disappointed that Blatche hasn’t done more this year, and I think it is a little more fair to say that the team could’ve won a few more games if he had contributed more consistently, because he was expected to contribute more this year.
yes
but if the team was losing, and Young was actually upset with the fact that they were losing and that he can’t stop anyone – I would be more convinced by this argument.
This team has always had one weakness – they can’t defend worth a lick. So I don’t see why drafting Young (a scorer), Pecherov (a scorer) and Blatche (unpolished) have helped us even marginally upgrade our major weakness.
Maybe the answer is that the Wiz are more enamored by potential and pay less attention to workrate. McGuire didn’t become a starter solely because of attrition, he did so because he made the effort to improve. And McGuire is a 2nd year player just like Young. And I don’t dislike Young, but I think he would have been better served on a veteran team with people who actually care about little things like stopping the pick and roll
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
It's also based on where the team has drafted
The Wizards’ recent playoff success has meant that they’ve drafted in the middle/lower-middle of the first round the last few years, just outside the lottery. Most of the players available at that point in the draft are more potential than anything else. Blatche and McGuire were second-round picks, who almost by definition are more potential than anything else. So I don’t know that the Wizards are “enamored” of potential more than work ethic, but their relative abundance of those types of players is a product of their success and what’s available to them.
so our draft position
in 2006 could have netted us Daniel Gibson, Rajon Rondo, or Paul Milsap, all further ahead then Pech.
In 2007 we could have had Jason Smith, Jared Dudley, or Carl Landry ahead of Young
In 2008 we could have had Darrell Arthur ahead of McGee
All these players are arguably further along then the players we drafted.
But lets give the out to Ernie and say – ok we are where are because we were moderately successful.
How have any of the moves been directly related to winning now? There hasn’t been a significant upgrade to move this team past the first round?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
I'm not going to go this far
Ernie’s drafted a few sketchy character guys, or at the very least, he’s tried shooting for the fences. I’m not sure that’s always the best strategy. That’s why I hated the McGee and Pecherov picks.
Regardless, however Ernie has drafted, the young guys have not been properly developed. If they’re projects, treat them like projects. And regardless of who’s at fault, not having them develop helps nobody.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Yes, this
The fact that Carl Landry might be considered further ahead in his development than Nick Young has less to do with the fact that EG drafted him and more to do with the fact that Landry was developed properly. It’s the same with Rondo. I’m not going to defend Pecherov as a great pick but if I remember correctly, Rondo was considered basically an offensive non-entity when he was drafted, and he still has no jumper, but Boston was able to develop an offensive system that minimizes his weaknesses and plays to his strength.
Also, I defy you to look at these game logs from this year and tell me Jared Dudley is any further along than Young is. Oh, and Jason Smith missed the entire season with a torn ACL.
Both fair points
But if we can’t develop young players, and have shown a track record for screwing up their development, wouldn’t it be better to trade for someone who is established and whose potential we can’t screw up?
Or better yet, hire a coach who properly develop those players..?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
No on the first one
Yes on the second.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Well, it depends on the first one
Depends on what you mean by “established.” Caron Butler wasn’t really an “established veteran” when the Wizards traded for him, but he had been in the league long enough to have developed his game what you could call “beyond the point where we could screw it up.” It’s true he improved a bit his first few years in Washington, but he was already on that path.
alright - but logically
why continue drafting people who don’t help with our weaknesses (defense) and instead do things that we already do well (score)
daniel gibson, rajon rondo, and paul milsap despite their weaknesses would still be contributing more than pecherov.
I’ll give you Young over Dudley and Smith – but I would still rather have Landry.
And I would take Arthur over McGee.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
This is silly
They didn’t go out of their way to acquire young players … they just added draft picks. Every team in the NBA does that.
The only time they purposely swapped old for young was the AD/Javaris trade, when it became clear they were not going anywhere this season.
What exactly should Ernie have done to be “more interested in winning with their trio in their prime?”
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I still question the AD/Javaris trade
as good as Javaris looks at times, how does he help us compete for a championship in the short term. AD, despite his weaknesses was a very good backup PG. He doesn’t turn it over and he knows his role. Why did we trade him after the Gilbert/AJ signing if the plan is to compete immediately?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk
I think that we traded him because we knew this season was lost
Daniels is a great player and a great guy, but he’s also 34 years old and completely lacking a jumper. His PER, true shooting percentage, and rebound rate all fell this year, and he’s a bigger liability on defense against quick guards than ever before. Chances are, after his contract is up next year, Daniels either leaves the league or becomes a 12th man for the vet minimum. Meanwhile, Javaris can guard either backcourt position and has the potential to develop into a decent backup point guard while making the team younger and more athletic.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 27, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure AD helped that much, either.
According to the Knickerblogger stats, he was scoring 8.2 points per 36 minutes, slightly fewer than Crittenton. He has a higher TS, but his eFG isn’t that much higher than Crittenton’s. His PPR and assist rate are higher, true, but his rebound rate is about half of what Crittenton’s has been in Washington, and he has a worse usage rate.
Looking at 82games, the offense was better with him on the floor, but the defense was too, both in points allowed per 100 possessions and in eFG% allowed. They also allowed a lot more assisted FGs when he was on the floor. It’s true that he helped run the offense, but I think we all remember him getting repeatedly burned on the other end.
You're looking at the process, not the end result
Of the 12 players who suited up, seven of them are young.
So regardless of how many times the team swapped for vets or how they did it (vet-for-vet, kid-for-vet) the bottom line is half of the current roster have been playing less then 4 years.
Arenas’ attitude is actually standard fare; especially for good players between seasons 6 and 8 who haven’t tasted and NBA Finals. If they see a bunch of kids on the roster, the reaction is, “Ah, crap, we’re rebuilding! That’s two-to-three seasons of my career.” That typically leads to one of two things: vocal complaining or requests for trades. At this point, we should be glad it’s the former and not the latter.
And I personally think he was saying “older and better” moreso than “older=better.”
Regardless, I don't like the idea of making too much of it
This has been a really interesting discussion, but I feel like we’re overanalyzing what he said. I got the impression that his point was basically that the team this year is made up of young guys who aren’t going to be consistent, so it’ll be harder to steal a few wins.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 27, 2009 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn't think Arenas thought this way though
What exactly is supposed to happen to a team when so many players keep going down with injuries? Are they supposed to get older and better? That doesn’t really make a lot of sense.
And Truth is right, just like Prada mentioned in this post. Just because a player is hurt doesn’t mean he can’t be around the team and still help the young guys out. Obviously hands-on experience — actually being able to play and practice — is much better, but he could have been around the team more.
Also, so much for the whole not talking to the media thing for the rest of the season. Nonetheless, at least excitement is back up — or maybe that’s just controversy.
but...
He was around the team for so much of the season. Didn’t you guys see him on the bench regularly for at least half the season, probably more? Then all the talk of him playing one on one or two on two with various players. I really don’t think people can criticize Arenas for being absent from the team this year. I’ve seen something completely different.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 27, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not really criticizing
You’re right, I have seen him on the sidelines during a lot of games. But we don’t see him at practice, and we don’t know what kind of stuff he does with the younger players. Besides one-on-one games or whatever, it’s hard to really know. His comments just make him seem really detached from the other players — specifically the young guys.
and are we missing the fact...
the Gilbert has a lot more access to this team than any of us? Maybe he took a long hard look at the team and realized – these guys will not get better. Gil states what Blatche and Young should be – but doesn’t give any indication that he thinks that they will get there…
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
maybe
Young should wear 00, McGee 000, and Blatche -1
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by Sean Fagan on Mar 27, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
hehe that'd be awesome
Pech could have some kind of Cyrillic symbol, too.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 27, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Well that's lovely
Our star player giving up on members of the team. Ladies and gentlemen, your Washington Wizards!
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I think it's an overall failure of getting the right guys...
As opposed to age or veterancy or stuff like that. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Wizards are kind of like an injury prone Dallas Mavericks:
Gilbert Arenas + Caron Butler + Antawn Jamison
is approximately
Jason Terry + Josh Howard + Dirk Nowitzki
Which does in fact make Etan Thomas/Brendan Haywood = Erick Dampier.
Anyways, I don’t really think the argument is about whether or not the young players are stepping up or not, I think it’s more a matter of how the team is constructed. What kind of team do the Wizards want to be and from there, what pieces do they need? Not to say that developing young talent (McGuire, Young) is bad, but if you’re worried about winning, that can’t really be the brunt of your focus (like OKC or Memphis).
Poor Man's GM @ jacemannba.blogspot.com
Worried about winning?
but if you’re worried about winning, that can’t really be the brunt of your focus (like OKC or Memphis).
In a season when your team is beset with devastating injuries to core veteran players, including the best player on your team – and the team shows that it cannot win with the remaining roster – why then should they be “worried about winning”? Shouldn’t the focus then shift to player development? In that case, you ARE like OKC or Memphis…
Except that the Wizards refused to acknowledge the FACTS that they couldn’t win with their starting PG and best player out, and without their starting Center, and back up Center…and with their SG stinking up the place (as a result of a bad back)…and their backup PG (Daniels) so depleted by playing mega-minutes last year, that his body was worn out…
Instead of acknowledging the fact they couldn’t compete with this roster – they kept feeding their forwards, “riding those horses” into the ground…
The Wizards should have taken note of Portland, OKC and Memphis… who played Rookies and 2nd Year players all year… and are now starting to show the dividends.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Uh.....
with their starting PG and best player out, and without their starting Center, and back up Center…
You’d also have to note that they couldn’t win with their starting PG and best player IN, and their starting center, and backup center. The Wizards have had the same lineup for like the past 5 years.
Poor Man's GM @ jacemannba.blogspot.com
Blame it on the young guys
I’m so tired of the “blame it on the young guys” whine. Fact of the matter is that Nick Young has played better than Deshawn Stevenson all year . Would the record really be better if Stevenson was still playing 35 minutes per game and Nick limited to 15? Was Nick’s yoyo-ing minutes due to his inconsistency or his inconsistency due to his yoyo-ing minutes. Then for folks to say he played as if he was afraid that a single missed shot or turnover would lead to his benching. Umm, it would.
Its ok to complain about the lack of improvement in the young guys, as long as you also point out that Deshawn was horrible this year, Etan Thomas was a non-contributor during his playing time, Mike James and Juan Dixon have been just as inconsistent as any of the youngsters, Songaila has been no more effective than Blatche, AD played poorly in his time here, Butler has often been a turnover machine, and Jamison plays no defense.
And oh yeah, Arenas and Haywood have not played.
But sure, lets blame it on Young, Blatche, and McGee.
by hotplate on Mar 27, 2009 6:49 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
No I would say blame it on the GM
If you are going to resign Jamison to the contract we gave him, then you are making a play to win now and not three years ago when the young players have improved. Why not trade someone who is good now?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Because they're 17-56
I do think they need to cash in some of these young guys for a real impact guy now that they clearly don’t care about the tax, but it has to be for someone who can really play, preferably someone younger than 28.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Would Utah want to get rid of him? Koufos hasn't played in a long while, and he fits their system really well.
I think I smell a stickied thread coming…
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 27, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions
If they are letting Boozer go
probably not. But they also will want to resign Milsap…
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Here's my wish list
I think the Wizards need an upgrade at Shooting Guard. The combination of Stevenson, Nick Young and Mike James just doesn’t do it for me.
So – trade for a Shooting Guard, or trade for a SF and move Butler to SG.
Here’s my list:
Shane Battier SF HOU (A guy can dream, can’t he?)
R. Bell SG Cha (Very good defender. Great 3-point shooter)
Ronnie Brewer SG UTA (Excellent defender)
J. Richardson SG Phx (Athletic. Good scorer. Excellent 3-point shooter. So-So defender)
J. Salmons SF Chi (very good defender. Good 3-point shooter)
R Hamilton SG Det (Good all around Offensively.. OK Defense)
K. Heinrich SG Chi (Good defender. Good shooter)
Tayshaun Prince SF Det (Excellent defensive player. Good 3-point shooter)
Vince Carter SG NJN (Very good at everything. Getting a little old.)
Stephen Jackson SF GSW (Good all around scorer).
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Here's my wish list
Griffin. Dude went crazy tonight, even if it was against a weak syracuse front court
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk
Griffin
The Wizards will either be lucky enough to get the #1 pick, or not…
My list is a list of guys to trade for…. NOT using the #1 pick, or the #2 pick, but using a combination of expiring contracts, young talent and the 3-5 pick to get one of those guys on the list.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Not sure if you've been paying attention
but he’s been doing that all year – AND in EVERY game so far this year in the Tournament.
The guy is just a stud…. A better player than other recent top picks, like Greg Oden, Derrick Rose, Beasley, and OJ Mayo.
He’s head and shoulders above every other player in the draft; with the possible exception of Ricky Rubio (if he declares).
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Eh .. I'd curb the enthusiasm.
Here’s how Griffin projects in the NBA .. good, but not great.
http://basketball-statistics.com/blog/2009/03/23/player-projection-blake-griffin/
I'm the other guy at Third Quarter Collapse, with a Twitter account.
Mannerisms of a young Bobby DeNiro, spent spanish wisdoms/in a whip with dinero, crime organized like the pharoah/I cream, I diamond gleam/High post like Hakeem, got a lot of things to drop/Brooklyn to Queens, I gotta keep my steam - Jay-Z
Quick thoughts
Battier’s untouchable.
Bell’s too old.
Brewer’s great but Utah isn’t trading him
J-Rich may work, but he’s not a great defender
Salmons is perfect
Rip is too old and expensive
Hinrich is interesting, but not for too much
Prince would work great, but I doubt Detroit trades him
Vince is too old
Jackson’s too much of a shot-jacker.
I’d like to see us try for one of the following:
1. Gerald Wallace
2. Luol Deng (if not Salmons)
3. Delonte West
4. Josh Howard (my personal favorite)
5. Shawn Marion (for the right price)
6. Mike Miller (for the right price, i.e. not a draft pick)
7. Rasual Butler (again, for the right price)
8. AK-47.
If Dallas again goes nowhere this offseason, they might be open to trading Howard for expirings. Howard’s a great defender when given a role, he’s smack in the middle of his prime and he can score and handle a bit in the halfcourt.
What about Etan, Young and Blatche for Howard and someone like J.J. Barea or Antoine Wright?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
my quick thoughts on YOUR list
1. Gerald Wallace – I doubt Charlotte would trade him
2. Luol Deng – Ditto. I think Chicago will keep Deng.
3. Delonte West – No way Cleveland gives him up
4. Josh Howard – This is an interesting choice… good defender, and can defend multiple wing positions. Good shooter – and he may have worn out his welcome in Dallas.
5. Shawn Marion (for the right price) – no thanks
6. Mike Miller (for the right price, i.e. not a draft pick) – does not play defense
7. Rasual Butler (again, for the right price) – good defender and can hit the 3… I like it.
8. AK-47. – at $15.1 Million, he’s too expensive.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
I like your ideas a lot, and completely agree with your analysis of Rook's picks
1. Gerald Wallace – I love his game, but he’s injury prone and part of a team that I think is trying to win or at least be respectable now. I can’t imagine Larry Brown trying to get more young guys, although he’d probably turn Blatche into a real player.
2. Luol Deng – I don’t know much about him. I always read that he’s basically a poor man’s Butler, and his contract isn’t that good for us. Then again, a good coach could probably help him rebound into the player he was a few years ago.
3. Delonte West – I can’t imagine us making a deal with Cleveland, although he’d fit in pretty well here.
4. Josh Howard – that would be great.
5. Shawn Marion – a sign and trade with Toronto would be cool with me.
6-8. Agreed. Kirilenko would be awesome, especially if we traded Blatche + filler for him.
I like the deal for Howard, but I don’t want Antoine Wright. He’s the right type of player for us, but I like non-scoring defensive-stoppers who can at least hit the corner three and/or serve as an above-average rebounder. Frankly, I think Dominic’s defense will be as good as Antoine’s by next year, and his rebounding and passing is already better. Barea’s cool, though, and would be a great spark off the bench and decent back-up pg when Gil inevitably goes down with an injury.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 28, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Wright's filler
I wouldn’t actually play him.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
A Kirilenko deal
would probably not occur until just before the Trade Deadline – and would depend upon whether Utah wanted to dump salary…. Kirilenko has 2 years left ($15 Million per year),….
So the Wizards could trade expiring Contracts (Etan and Mike James = $14 Million) PLUS a young player (Young, McGee, Mcguire, Blatche…. any of those work….)…
Utah would shed $15Million in salary from their 2010-2011 roster
BUT the Wizards would be pretty hamstrung with 4 very large salaries (Arenas $15M, Jamison $10M, Butler $9M, and Kirilenko $15M)….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
That'd be nice
I still think Kirk Heinrich would be better for us, but Richardson would fit in perfectly.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 27, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Yup
Spread the blame around, don’t just blame the young guys.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
At the end of the day, I think we are who we thought we were
Andray was a disappointment and Nick Young was a mild one, but everyone else pretty much did what could be expected of them. Maybe MJ could have taken better shots, Songaila could have somehow gotten more rebounds, and maybe the young guys could have been more fundamentally sound, but at the end of the day, they pretty much were what we could have realistically projected they’d be at the beginning of the season. Basically, I think the main reason we only won 17 games was that we were playing our third string center most of the season, our all-star small forward was playing out of position and missed a decent chunk of the season, and most of our veteran role players were replaced by inexperienced youngsters. Frankly, we’re a 40 to 50 win team when healthy, and when we’re basically starting our bench, we become pretty bad. How many games would Boston have won if they lost Garnett, Rondo, and Perkins for most of the season? I’m guessing they’d probably win 20 to 30 games and that Celtics fans would be outraged that Big Baby wasn’t rebounding consistently, that Darrel Walker wasn’t playing the NBA game right, and that Eddie House is a chucker who needs to play defense.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 27, 2009 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
But apparently it’s just so much easier for a lot of the veterans to just use that as an excuse.
I can't tell over teh internets
but is that sarcasm?
If it is, I’m apologize for being annoyed at a 17-56 team. I do think there is plenty of blame to spread around. But I can’t say that I’m content with “hoping” that everyone stays healthy and that all the younger players get remarkably better.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
If the Veterans get healthy
the youngsters don’t NEED to get remarkably better… they just need to come in and spell the Veterans 15-20 minutes a night, and not let the lead slip away…. I think these guys can do that….
Remember, that with everyone healthy, the bench consists of:
veterans – Mike James, Etan Thomas, Darius Songaila, Andray Blatche
plus – Young, McGuire, McGee, Pech, Crittenton
That’s 9 deep, without even going to any “young” players…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
on a team
that can’t get out of the first round. on a team that shows zero track record of staying healthy. so assuming our track record is about the same – one of those young players need to make the leap.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Which team can't get out of the 1st round?
THIS team, with Arenas, Butler and Jamison (and Haywood, Stevenson) has not been together TO get out of the first round.
With Arenas, Butler, Jamison, Haywood and Stevenson – this is a good team. A Playoff team. Probably the 4th best team in the Conference. Better than Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, and Philadelphia.
Certainly an exciting team that should play at a much higher pace than this year….
I don’t think you can say that there’s a “track record” for this team at all…. Now, if next year, several players are injured for the entire year, then there may be a “track record”…. but let’s just wait and see what kind of team we have before trading away all the players… or putting up the “we give up” signs.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
yes they have
in 2006, where they were bounced from the playoffs by cleveland. then we got bounced by Cleveland two more times….so if we need to get through cleveland – im not seeing how an older more injury prone wizards team in going to achieve that.
and if our starting pg has been out for 2 years, our starting sf regularly goes down with injuries, then yes I would say its a track record?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Who on that team is going to play playoff-caliber defense?
Haywood is decent, but he can’t lock down the post playing alongside Jamison. Caron is okay, but that backcourt is going to be a sieve. Stevenson was losing his athleticism before back surgery, and Arenas has never shown an interest in defense.
Then there’s the injury factor. Durability is a big question mark now for Arenas, Butler and Stevenson. Haywood should bounce back, but Jamison has played crazy minutes for several years now. Jamison’s age and heavy use worry me.
by antawnjameson on Mar 27, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
McGuire, maybe
And that’s probably it. They’d have to work hard as a team on defense, but that was never really a strong suit with the Arenas, Stevenson, Butler, Jamison, and Haywood lineup anyway.
They also would have to abandon that whole collapse the paint thing. At least I hope so.
I like Prada's list... to which one could add
- Travis Outlaw (totally underappreciated)
- Linas Kleiza (great shooter, plays hard)
- Jamal Crawford (don’t laugh, give him the right situation and he will surprise)
and yes watch the Chicago situation… Either Luol Deng or John Salmons has to go.
It all hinges on whether we get the #1 or #2 draft choice, though.
I'd rather have Salmons or Kleiza
I flat out love watching Outlaw and Crawford, but both do the same thing as Nick Young, and I think that we need fewer jumpshooters, not more.
by pantslessyoda1 on Mar 28, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
It's great to throw out names, but who you giving up? DeShawn Stevenson isn't going to get you that much...
You’d have to figure out what you’re willing to give up, it’s not like you’re going to be able to pull any major one-sided trades here. Honestly, I think that, in order to get the level of talent that you’re asking for you’re going to have to give up Jamison or Butler, Jamison’s contract highly lowers his trade value, Jamison seems the most likely to go, I really don’t think you’d get fair value for him. Additionally, teams will likely ask for either a young guy (Blatche, Young, McGee, McGuire) and/or picks.
Here’s my take on the names mentioned:
Gerald Wallace – Injury prone and therefore the $9.5 million contract may not be entirely worth it, again, likely will involve either Caron or Antawn in the trade
John Salmons – Chicago is not going trade him, yes, he plays the SF now, and Deng will play the SF when he gets back, but Salmons also plays the off guard spot, and Chicago is NOT resigning Ben Gordon. Salmons slides to the SG slot, Deng slides to the SF slot, problem solved in Chicago, nobody leaves except Gordon.
Luol Deng – Chicago has spent too much on Deng for them to give up on him yet. Please note that Deng is only 23 (going on 24 in April). I presume that if you get him you’d move Caron to the 2? Unless you’re trading Caron for him, again, nothing for free.
Delonte West – Don’t think Cleveland is going to let him go for anything short of Antawn Jamison or something, and Antawn Jamison and that just makes Cleveland WAY too good.
Josh Howard – Probably the most realistic option. Again, the question is who you’d be willing to give up for him. Dallas would probably ask for Caron if you were to try anything.
Travis Outlaw – See Josh Howard
Jamal Crawford – I like Crawford, he is a streaky shooter, but I think he can work next to Arenas. Warriors might be willing enough to get rid of him to take something cheap, but then again who knows what the Warriors are thinking?
Kirk Hinrich – Also fairly realistic with Rose being the stud that he was supposed to be. However, you have to wonder as that one Chicago playoff year with Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng seems to have been a fluke.
Shawn Marion – As good as he is on defense, he’s an overrated-undersized PF. It’ll only work if Gilbert is healthy. We’ve seen with Miami and with Toronto that Marion isn’t a go-to guy, really, he’s not much more than a glorified overpaid role-player.
Mike Miller – Shoots 3s and doesn’t play defense. Sure he’s an above average ball-handler for a forward, rebounds and gets assists, but honestly, can’t you find something better?
Rasual Butler – Maybe
Andrei Kirilenko – I don’t know that the Jazz would let him go, at least not for anything less than Caron Butler.
Poor Man's GM @ jacemannba.blogspot.com
Really?
Honestly, I think that, in order to get the level of talent that you’re asking for you’re going to have to give up Jamison or Butler
Who was Ron Artest traded for?
Who was Ray Allen traded for?
Who was Mo Williams traded for?
Who was Rasheed Wallace traded for (2004)?
Who was Marcus Camby traded for?
Who was Pau Gasol traded for?
Who was Richard Jefferson traded for?
Who was Vince Carter traded for (2005)?
Who was Tyson Chandler traded for?
Seriously dude, think for a second.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Let's keep going
Joe Johnson in 2006?
Mike Bibby last year?
Antoine Walker in 2005?
Jason Richardson in 2007?
John Salmons/Brad Miller this year?
Sam Cassell in 2005?
Zach Randolph in 2007, after he had a career year with Portland?
Chris Webber in 2005?
Stephen Jackson in 2003?
There’s always quality talent that can be had for picks, prospects and expirings. The Wizards have all three. Particularly with the economy tanking and the Wizards seemingly cool with paying the luxury tax.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Which team do you think is desperate enough to pull that kind of trade this year?
All out of context…
But hey, if you think you can get Gerald Wallace for Brendan Haywood and maybe a pick, more power to you.
Poor Man's GM @ jacemannba.blogspot.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
