Here's a thought: How about actually using the fifth pick?
by Mike Prada on Jun 23, 2009 12:32 AM EDT
in Draft
Email
PrintI had a thought today as I was sitting on the metro that was majorly delayed due to the terrible accident between Fort Totten and Takoma (which I didn't know about at the time). (By the way, our condolances should go out to the unfortunate victims of that accident. What a terrible thing to happen).
What's so bad about using the fifth pick anyway?
Maybe it's because the latest rumors for the fifth pick don't really do much for me (Larry Hughes for Mike James/Etan AND 5? I hope that's a joke). Maybe it's because what once started as Manu Ginobili, Amare Stoudamire or Josh Howard has morphed into Mike Miller/Randy Foye (not terrible, but not amazing either), Larry Hughes or the prospect of being Pritch-slapped. Maybe it's because I'm weary of the litany of rumors that have dominated this year's draft season (It sure seems like a lot more than usual). Maybe it's because I know 95 percent of these rumors are either false or misdirection plays, yet I still follow them religously.
But the prospect of actually using the fifth pick is seeming more and more enticing to me. Sure, if we can get value for it, that's great, but if not, there's enough talent, even in this poor draft, to give us a piece that can definitely help us now and in the future, even if it won't be Blake Griffin.
It's been well documented here that the Wizards need help in the backcourt. Gilbert Arenas' knee is still a major concern, as is DeShawn Stevenson's back, Nick Young's maturity and development, Dominic McGuire and Javaris Crittenton's outside shots and Mike James', well, everything. There's not a bona fide starter in the group except for Arenas. Even if Stevenson's back gets better and he returns to his previous level, he's a below-average player that is okay as a stopgap, but not a long-term solution. Young could take a step forward and seize the starting job, but even Young at his best isn't a good long-term fit with Arenas. McGuire could work defensively, but he's such a zero on offense that he becomes a liability, not to mention that it forces Caron Butler into the backcourt.
That's why it's nice that there are some really intriguing shooting guard prospects at the top of the draft. The more I've stuied them, the more confident I am that James Harden, Tyreke Evans and Stephen Curry (the people's choice) are all going to be very good pros. Harden's all-around game is really solid. He can shoot in transition, he can pass and he can create for others when needed -- all skills that'll suit him well alongside Arenas. Curry offers a dynamic offensive package, great intangibles, solid ball-handling skills and a "know how to play" side that'll get him major minutes on a good team right away. Evans has the best long-term potential of the three because of his length, his passing and his defensive potential. You can always become a better shooter, and Evans has the rest of the package there.
All three can help the Wizards alleviate their many weaknesses. Evans can help with the defense and Curry can help fix the Wizards' shooting and passing woes. Meanwhile, Harden seems like he has the type of game that could translate well to blending in alongside Arenas, creating when he needs to or fading into the background to let Arenas do his thing when he has to.
In all likelihood, one of the three players will be there when we pick. The Clippers are picking Blake Griffin, and while Memphis and Sacramento are confusing now, neither seems like an optimal landing spot for Harden, Evans or Curry. If, for some reason, Curry, Harden and Evans are off the board when we pick, it means that either Rubio or Thabeet has slipped. Those are pretty good fallback options, all things considered.
We have to remember that nobody in this draft is the ultimate solution. That ship sailed as soon as the Wizards lost the lottery. Even if the Wizards get back to their previous level, they were two or three holes away from being a championship team. However, the fifth pick can help, in conjunction with a healthy return of our stars, further development of our youngsters and a possible trade or two involving our many remaining assets, which could include the player we pick as well if need be.
So my feeling is, if the big trades (Amare, Vince Carter, even Josh Howard) fall through, using the pick is far better than accepting a mediocre package for someone like Mike Miller or Larry Hughes. Sometimes, it pays not to get cute and try to make a simple decision overly complex. Zillions of rumors later, this strikes me as a "don't get cute" situation.
(Unless the pick is Jordan Hill. God, that would make me so mad).
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let's just be very careful about Tyreke Evans
Many people are saying Evans has the biggest upside of any player in the draft… but let’s remember that he’s very similar (in many respects) to another player that is already on the Wizard’s roster.
Both are 6’5". Both possess great athleticism, quickness and strength. Both sometimes play out of control. Both are good ball-handlers. Both are excellent in transition. Both only stayed in College for one year. Both need to improve their jump shot. Both were touted as having tremendous upside.
That other player? Javaris Crittenton.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Evens is 221 and has 6’10 wingspan on him too and is really strong he has a big frame too …. but im also scared of his shooting too… i would want to wait and see how Critt plays with Areanas
this is the order i have my board… we would have a choice of 1 of two of these guys
1)Ricky
2)Harden
3)Thabeet great trade value cant pass that up
4)Evens
5)Curry
Keeping the pick
If the Wizard’s keep the pick…. James Harden is probably the best fit. I don’t think he’ll be available at 5….
Curry worries me – He would give the Wizards a small back court… with nobody to play defense. But if the Wizards are trying to field a Starting line up of all 20 point scorers that can’t play defense – then Curry would fit right in. (just have to get rid of Haywood). Curry WOULD give the Wizards some much needed shooting – especially from the 3-point line.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
I would also get mad about Hill
But I think I’ll trust Ernie for this one. I got mad about McGee and ended up being dead wrong. (Though I still think finding a way to get Chalmers would have really helped our backcourt.) Unless he goes for a Hughes/Jeffries pu-pu platter (to use Bill Simmons’ language) or trades Arenas or Butler, I’m going to wait a few days before I rip him.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Jun 23, 2009 2:26 AM EDT reply actions
I’m not so hot on Mike Miller anyways, for a three point specialist he didn’t take enough threes last year, nor did he make enough of them. Far too timid. He has kapono syndrome. A great shooter who passes up opportunities to shots. Maybe it was an aberration due to being in Minnesota.
I like Curry, I think his defensive deficiencies are overstated and at worst we can use him as a bargaining chip since his stock is higher than the other two. Though like you said, the trade offers aren’t very appealing.
Yourare right, Mike... The deals with the Knicks and Wolves...
would leave a bad taste and an empty stomach (as in “all this suffering for Mike Miller or Larry redux?”).
I would like to see Ernie swing for the bleachers with Carter or Josh Howard, but failing that we ought to see what we can get with the 5 pick… Not an easy choice. Basically, Curry offers important tangibles here and now, Harden offers some tangibles now and some long term upside, and Evans is mostly long term upside. Making the choice harder is that saying yes to Evans essentially means saying no to Critt, while saying yes to Harden essentially means writing off Nick Young. Curry is different in this regard… His skill set does not duplicate the other two, which I think gives the coaching staff more time to sort things out. Curry is, in other words a good, safe pick.
I did not put Rubio in this mix, because I can’t imagine he will still be available with the 5 pick… No point in dreaming. Same goes for Thabeet.
NOW, if we trade for Carter or Howard and wind up in the mid to late first round, I know there is sentiment for DeJuan Blair but I am beginning to think Hansbrough has more upside (the story on his Atlanta workout was mind boggling)…
Going back to actually using the 5th pick, though, I have to admit that my secret wish is that we would take Brandon Jennings. There is something about this guy that says he is not another Telfair or Marbury, and that he could be somewhere just south of Chris Paul and well to the north of Aaron Brooks. If we trade for a true 2-guard and Jennings drops to where we could pick him, I would almost be willing to forego picking a backup 4 just to see him working with McGee off the bench.
Welcome aboard the "keep the pick bus," Mike!
I agree with your post. While I would favor a BIG trade for a Bosh-level player, or a trade for a player who is also on his rookie contract, any other trade for a solid veteran no longer on his rookie contract creates the following problems:
(1) The veteran obtained via trade has only one year left on his contract — why trade the #5 pick for one year of a player?
(2) The veteran has a longer term deal, but his salary is significantly higher than the salary of the 5th pick, which causes luxury tax problems after next year, which may cause, among other problems, #3.
(3) Difficulty in retaining Haywood. If the Wizards add Kirk Hinrich, for example, then in the 2010-11 season, the Wizards will have $51.5 million tied up in the Big 3 plus Hinrich. Resigning Haywood will likely take at least $8 million, so the Wizards are looking at about $60 million tied up in 5 players in 2010-11, and that number will increase in future years. Is that workable? What will the bench be like? Some teams have a ton tied up in 5 or even fewer players, but at least one of those players is a superstar (Garnett, Kobe, etc.). The Wizards wouldn’t have any such star. So, resigning Haywood becomes an open question, and we saw what the Wizards without Haywood looks like last season.
(4) To address problems #2 and #3, the Wizards would need to trade other assets with salaries that extend into the future, such as Songalia, Stevenson, Blatche, etc. That could be a good thing, but it depletes the bench and could very well be a bad thing.
There are other benefits to keeping the pick:
(1) If Bosh or someone like that becomes available in the future, the guy you picked at 5 becomes an attractive asset, especially to a team seeking to rebuild.
(2) If Arenas’ knee craps out and the Wizards have to start over and rebuild, you already have one building block for the future.
Keep the pick, Ernie, if not for the above reasons, then so I have something to do Thursday night.
My feeling on 2 and 3
Is that the Wizards need to suck it up and pay whatever it takes, costs be damned, to justify not dumping Jamison at the deadline. You can’t assert you want to compete, then cut costs around the edges.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I agree in principle with your second sentence, Mike. But I don’t think the Wizards would be cutting costs around the edges, which I think was in part your point in your post. It’s not as if other teams are offering a player worth $2 in exchange for a draft pick worth $1, and the Wizards are declining that trade because of the luxury tax implications. It’s that other teams are offering a player or players worth $.50 in exchange for a draft pick worth $1.
I was referring to not re-signing Haywood because of luxury tax concerns that come from making a trade for a higher-salaried player on draft day
That would be cutting around the edges.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Hey
we agree on something. I have been back and forth on this. Now I’m back. Or forth. Whichever it is. I would like to use the pick. I look at it like this – as long as we stay healthy (I know, big IF), we are a legit playoff team. No doubt we have needed some pieces the last few times we went. What I’m hoping is that those pieces were what we got last year, between McGee, Crittenton, and a more experienced Young, Blache, and McGuire. Add to that a different and PROVEN approach with Flip, and a lottery pick could just be gravy. Is it the same as San Antonio landing Duncan after one down year? No. But it could be pretty good in of itself. We’re getting back our best scorer, our best post defender, adding a pretty good coach, and have young players with real game experience, not mop up time. (side note: it’ll be nice to see Arenas and McGee on the court together). Personally, I have been won over by Harden. I know I’ve run this into the ground, but I really see a Paul Pierce/Mitch Richmond type player in him.
The thing is
Can this team compete for a championship if it is healthy? We all know that this is a playoff team when healthy but I dont think I want to settle for another year just making the playoffs.
The thing is
Can this team compete for a championship if it is healthy? We all know that this is a playoff team when healthy but I dont think I want to settle for another year just making the playoffs.
Count Me Out
This is the time of the year when draft prospects get severely hyped, and I now see so many here buying into it. If anything would leave a bad taste in my mouth, it would be wasting an opportunity to make a run at a championship these next two seasons to roll the dice on a prospect with “upside” that has about a 50% chance of being a bust, when we could have used that asset to acquire someone who has proven that they can contribute in this league.
Let me ask all of the “keep the pick” advocates this question. What has changed between now and the time we all agreed that this draft sucked royally and that the only players worth our time were Blake Griffin and Ricky Rubio? I think I already know the answer. Draft hype. I’m not buying it. This draft still sucks royally, and we still don’t have a long enough window of opportunity to invest in another long-term project. Nobody available at #5 is going to be ready to start for a championship contender this season. Let other teams that know they are going to suck anyway take chances on those guys, while we take their veterans who can contribute to our success right away.
I also do not believe that we need another star player to compete for a championship. We already have 3 multiple-time All-Stars on our team. What we need is an extra thug or two that can rebound and defend the low-post with Haywood (or when Haywood is riding pine) and a wing player that can knock down spot-up threes and defend his man on the perimeter. If we add those two or three pieces, and can stay healthy, I firmly believe we can compete for a championship both this season and next. If we only address one of those two need areas, we will still be a hole short of competing and will be exposed for that weakness in the playoffs.
Keeping the pick will only address one of our needs. Using it as trade bait can net us two or three solid veterans that can give us both. Forget the hype. Go with the sure things.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Let me ask all of the "keep the pick" advocates this question. What has changed between now and the time we all agreed that this draft sucked royally and that the only players worth our time were Blake Griffin and Ricky Rubio?
The offers coming in for the fifth pick.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
You Might Have Been an Exception
In which case, my question is not for you. Yet I remember very few that were seriously excited about any of the players after Griffin and Rubio before the ping pong balls bounced the way they did.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Fair Enough
But I think the reason that the offers are not so great is because nobody knows what they are getting at #5. Wait until the draft when the first 4 picks are made. Then work the phones. If the right offer still does not come along, then I say we should draft the BPA (or the one with the most interest from other teams) and then try to deal later in the draft or after. Right now that player is looking like Stephen Curry.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
I don't disagree
I’m just saying don’t trade just to trade. If the offers stink, there’s nothing wrong with taking a promising rookie like Harden, Evans or Curry. Only make a trade if it brings you someone that’s a major, clear upgrade.
I worry that the organization hates rookies and would rather accept a trade for below market value for a vet than use the pick. But we’ll see; that worry may be unfounded.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
In That Case, Our Opinions are a Lot Closer Than I Thought
I agree with what you said, for the most part. I think where we still disagree is what constitutes as appropriate value for the pick. Unlike other drafts, there is very little assurance that the #5 pick won’t be a bust. So I think we should lower our expectations a little. I’m not looking for a star veteran player to come walking through that door. I would settle for two or three clear upgrades, without requiring that they be major.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
I
I think thats how a lot of this reads, mostly because all we know about are the deals that haven’t been done. We have no info on the contingencies Ernie has set up for draft night. IF X is available then this goes through… as someone else mentioned, without knowing who IS there at 5 its hard to finish anything.
Ernie also should be waiting these teams out with the idea that they wills elect someone at 5 if they don’t get something that works on multiple levels (talent, salary, future salary, future picks).
I have the same concern. As i said in another thread, Hughes may be a decent upgrade over DS for one season but adding youth like Harden gives this team a jolt for half a decade. By the end of the season is he really a rookie anyway?
My Fear
…but adding youth like Harden gives this team a jolt for half a decade.
Or it could give us another Jarvis Hayes. Take your pick.
By the end of the season is he really a rookie anyway?
Remember that Nick Young has almost as much talent and has had two full seasons of experience, and he still is not ready to start for our team. What makes you think Harden will be any better as a rookie?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Because Harden was better in college
And he’s younger than Nick was when Nick was drafted.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Well here is a nice comparison
Player 1
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/iowa-state/marcus-fizer
Player 2
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=36072
Player 3
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/players/29989
Player 4
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/lsu/stromile-swift
You never know. Some of those guys were pretty good college players. I still, for this team, rather have the proven NBA quantity.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
What Do You Mean By Better?
Nick Young scored 20 points in USC’s first round tournament win over Arkansas, and followed that up by scoring 22 points in the second round against Kevin Durant and the Longhorns to get his team to the Sweet 16.
James Harden had good regular season statistics. He had that 40 point game against UTEP. He then stunk it up in three straight games when his team needed him the most. I don’t call that better than what Nick proved in college. But maybe I’m missing something.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
That's a three-game sample
Come on, don’t make too much from the tournament. Nick’s team had a lot of talent on it — Gabe Pruitt, Taj Gibson, Daniel Hackett, etc. Harden had Jeff Pendergraph and … nobody.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
That's Fine
So he may not stink as much as his terrible shooting performances in three straight big games might indicate. But how does that prove he is better? In college, you get to go up against low level competition and play against players who will never even sniff the NBA. The Tournament is the only chance you get to see how a guy will play against tough competition, and Harden failed that test miserably. I could care less what Harden did against UTEP. That game might have revealed a flash of his NBA-caliber brilliance, or it may have just been a flash in the pan. After all, Nick Fazekas was a great college player too. Which NBA team does he start for? As far as I am concerned, Harden is as unproven as they come. And yet so many here want to immediately pencil him in as the starter on the Wizards from day 1.
What convinces you that he is worthy of that? Some meaningless regular season college games? His NIT performance from the season before last? Certainly not his performance in the biggest games for his school this season, so what is it?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
My Criteria?
How did it change? Is it too much to ask that a sure-fire prospect prove his worth in the college post-season? Funny, that did not seem like an insurmountable bar to reach for most NBA 2 guards.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Hit Repeat
Rule #1 in the NBA draft, don’t go overboard on the NCAA tournament. Its not an indication of what they will do in the NBA. See example: Mateen Cleaves and on and on. it pays to get past the tiny sample set and get into details.
One detail that sticks out is how USC and Syracuse both were primarily zone teams. That allowed them to focus on keeping Harden on the perimeter so he couldn’t create for his teammates.
Then What Should We Go On?
Are NCAA Tournament games less important than regular season games? Is Mateen Cleaves really the best you can do to counter-argument? Most starting 2 guards in the NBA had decent to stellar tournament performances. Why shouldn’t it raise a red flag that Harden has not?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
I think the point we are getting away from
is that James Harden might be inflated in weak draft.
I don’t think that the tournament is a great evaluator of player – but then I don’t think Curry is a top 5 pick. However, I don’t think workout wonder Evans should be judged on the basis of his last two weeks.
I think what it comes down to is that except with some VERY rare exceptions, the draft is never a sure thing. So why take the chance when you could upgrade right now?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Important
important is a loaded term. those games are important to his team, sure. They are not more important to a NBA team evaluating his potential if his competition plays 100% 2-3 zone. He’s not going to be 1 of 2 NBA players on his team when he gets here either.
Overreacting to the tournament is typical for fans but it costs NBA teams a lot of heart ache. That’s why they actually watch the games, and can tell you why they lost, not just that Harden had a bad game, or view just a tiny sample and say THAT is what he is in the NBA when he isn’t playing a defense he will ever face in the NBA.
same
Same could be said for Eric Gordon. He went into a slump at the end of the year, lost to Arkansas in the first round too, going 0 for 6 from 3 in that game.
Harden’s talent is comparable to a guy going in the Top 10 of the NBA Draft, nearly any NBA draft. OKC isn’t considering him at 3 just because they like his smile.
right so he is one of the better players in a weak draft
which is why is the top three.
If he came out in 2003 or 2004 or 2005 where would he have been drafted? Higher? Lower?
Its a crap shoot, if players like Curry, Thabeet and Harden are rising as high as they have, its because its a weak draft. Just like 2006.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Brandon Roy went 5th in that 2006 ‘weak draft’. How does that back your point? I look at those other drafts the Harden is still a top 10 pick. He’s better than Randy Foye. Maybe its me I don’t see anyhting particuluarly remarkable about 2005 after you get past #4.
Of that top 10 in 2006
Only three guys are any good. Them ain’t great odds. So you want to take a 30% shot at the fact that Harden MIGHT be good?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
So basically you’re throwing numbers of a specific draft at James Harden? how exactly does that effect the player he is? Thats who you’re taking. you aren’t selecting a draft class, or cherry picking. Its about talent. my point is that Harden is top 10 talent in most any draft.
Throwing out a random percentage doesn’t make a trade any more likely to help. That 30% has nothing to do with a specific player. each of those top 5 teams had a chance to draft Roy or Rudy Gay.
Dude
You and I both know I could go into any draft of the last 15 years and find a pretty large bust to player ratio. EG also has a less than stellar record in drafting if you take his NY and MIL years into account. We could go tit for tat – your Rudy Gay equals my DeSagna Diop.
My point, which has remained constant, is that I rather trade for a proven commodity who we know can contribute in the NBA right now, rather than hope that a James Harden or a Curry emerge as instant contributor. Ed O’Bannon was a great college player, and he didn’t exactly pan out.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
The Wizards drafted a great college player with a wonderful track record
Calbert Cheaney
http://basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=CHEANCA01
How did that turn out?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Cheaney was older than Harden and had a 1:1 A/T ratio his junior year
I don’t know if Harden is another Cheaney, but let’s not oversimplify and say they are basically the same prospect.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Yes, he was older than Harden
but he certainly had a much more polished pedigree coming out of school than Harden possesses. And Michael Redd had an even worse ratio in college, and everyone lauds EG for being a genius for getting him in the second round. Hell, Mike Miller is now considered the best pick out of his draft class….so we could get pumped about that.
The point is you don’t know. Harden could develop knee and foot problems or he might turn out to be a total headcase. He might not turn out to have a game that translates well.
My point is that for every success or steal one that occurs in the draft, there is a 50% chance of a bust. The chance to deal away that 50% chance for a proven commodity who hasn’t broken down or been benched (Miller, Jefferson ect.) doesn’t strike me as a completely ludicrous idea.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Who is that?
Where is this magical no downside player? i want to find the guy that doesn’t get hurt, plays every game. Otherwise any athlete is an injury risk. holding it against one guy for no reason (no history) doesn’t make sense to me. EVERY guy mentioned as a trade option DOES have an injury history from Ray Allen to Amare to Redd. Those can’t be counted as proven full season guys either. Especially those guys who are rehabing as we speak.
last year it was Jermaine O’Neal. He wasn’t all dried up. he was rehabing in Vegas, looking great and all that garbage. he was a former all-star center there for the taking… and see how that turned out.
My point
is more a proven quantity vs. unproven quantity.
And there are pluses and minuses to both. I find it very interesting that Chad Ford is reporting on ESPN that the Celtics are shopping Rondo b/c he is hard to coach and difficult to get along with….and few months ago he was the motor of the entire team. So being a known quantity does not necessarily equal good. Your O’Neal point is valid, but its the same reason I wouldn’t trade for Redd or Iverson or anyone else who seems to be breaking down.
Link to Ford Story
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4280665
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
B
Because Harden is a complete player whereas Nick does one thing well: score. Harden was much more of a facilitator as well.
Bingo
I’ve been all over the place in terms of what we should do, but Chad Ford’s latest buzz was really sobering. None of the deals out there are worth the #5 pick. Based on the Jefferson deal, our expirings should be enough to complete one of these types of deals. Target a small market team with long-term payroll issue and take their best veteran.
As much as I like Curry and think he’s the perfect offensive complement, we don’t need more offense so I think he’s out of the picture. I think we come away with Harden, Evans or Rubio. Who we take will sort itself out. I don’t see Thabeet falling out of the top 3. If Rubio slips to us, that means that Thabeet, Evans and Harden likely went 2-4. Same situation with the other two falling to us. I think OKC and Sacramento will determine who we get. OKC seems to be picking between Rubio and Harden. Sacramento is picking between Rubio and Evans.
Even though Rubio is the one we haven’t seen, I’ve gotten the sense that the Wiz would love to pair him with Gil. No matter what, I think that we will get one of the two biggest upside players (Rubio or Evans) or the second safest pick (Harden) after Griffin.
Last note, it just hit me this morning that this draft is considered weak for two reasons. Height and sophomores. If this list of draft prospects were forwards instead of guards or freshman instead of sophomores, we wouldn’t be hearing about how weak the draft is. That analysis is based on the player physical ceilings instead of basketball skills. If Stephen Curry were 2-3 inches taller, they would be comparing him to Reggie Miller and he might be going #1. So I think a team like the Wizards who need a guard are in a great position to get a talented player.
I agree with this
For the last two years, Curry has been projected as a lower first round draft pick. Now suddenly he has rocketed up to be a top five lottery pick? There are more than a few shades of Juan Dixon in having such high expectations for a player. This is still a weak draft, and there are still no guarantees that whoever we pick at number five will be a NBA starter, much less an NBA stater right now. I think it says a lot about a draft when a player projected to be top three (Thabeet) might be solely drafted by a team to rebound a block shots. That sounds like….Manute Bol.
I am not happy with a deal for Hughes and Mike Miller leaves me a bit cold. But a trade in which you are sending and unproven player and non-contributor (#5 and Etan) for two pieces that can make you better immediately (Miller and Foye) strikes me as a slight upgrade.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by Sean Fagan on Jun 23, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thank You
I remember bringing up Stephen Curry here a few months ago, and everybody told me he wasn’t that good and was going late in the draft. Now all of a sudden he’s hot, which seems to prove how weak this draft class really is. I have no doubt that some players in this draft will surprise a lot of people. But I also think that many will prove to be busts. Can we really afford to play the lottery with a project after Ernie went all in for Gil and Antawn last summer?
The time to make our run is now. We have the star players (Gil, Twan, Tough Juice), we have the underrated starter and defensive specialist (Haywood), we have some solid bench players (Songaila, Nick Young, McGuire), and now we have a really good head coach and coaching staff. We can either add two or three more solid pieces to the puzzle or gamble on a big piece. Playing it safe makes a whole lot more sense when you consider where we are right now.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Agree... Safe means trading the pick...
but for max value and so far we have not heard the best offers we are going to hear.
This one will probably not be resolved until the clock is on Ernie or until he actually makes his pick… which would also means that the pick he makes has to be a player that someone else wants or someone we may have to live with at the end of the day. Which brings us back around to Curry anyway!
I Think
I like All three of the Guards. Curry, Evans, And Harden. Lets be clear. Right now, we don’t need a star. We need some one who can Compliment and fit in with our main guys, mainly Gilbert. I think Curry has the best shot over all but it could be Harden. Either way we gut someone that should be about to help us out right away.
by Danyon Rome on Jun 23, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
When the Hinrich trade rumours started . . .
That is who I was kind of set on the Wizards getting. I am with one of the other posters, I can’t believe Rubio is going to fall to five so I am not even getting my hopes up there. If we keep the pick it is going to feel like a wasted opportunity.
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jun 23, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't
understand all this stuff about “safe pick” or “surefire pick.” There’s no such thing. Doesn’t matter if it’s #5 or #1. There are no guarantees in any draft. But trades don’t guarantee anything either. I remember us needing a legitimate center, and trading Ben Wallace for him. I know we’ve had bad to awful luck in the draft. I just figure it has to turn sometimes. And I’d rather take a chance at that then getting someone else’s unwanted parts.
I might agree with you for the first time ever
Well, the last sentence is contentious, but otherwise, I totally agree — trades provide risk too.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
One
One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure. JR Smith was ‘unwanted’ by Byron Scott. I disagree with the idea that because a team is shopping a player they must be inferior. There’s just so much mor involved than that kind of 1 dimensional thought.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Video: Exclusive footage of the puppy Air Bud
- Video: Isaiah Thomas destroys Wesley Matthews with a block
- Ryan Gomes’ wife gets needlessly trolled on Twitter
- Jerry West wants teams with upset, trade-demanding stars to ‘call their bluff’
- Karl Malone had to buy a scalped ticket to see his former team play
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.
