The Wizards-Timberwolves trade is what happens when you try to have it both ways
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 6:00 AM EDT
in Draft
153 comments
For about a month, I've wondered about the truth of the Wizards' stated goals for the fifth pick. From all that was written everywhere, the Wizards wanted to a) make a talent upgrade, b) get a veteran instead of a rookie that needs to "develop" and c) cut salary or not take on long-term salary in any trade they make.
I had no real problems with the Wizards' desire to trade the draft pick, since they clearly committed to a win-now philosophy when they passed on dealing Antawn Jamison for cap relief at the trade deadline. The problem is trying to reconcile that goal with cutting salary or not taking on long-term money. That strategy works if you have TIm Duncan or a similar top-six superstar on your team, but the Wizards didn't. Instead, they had a payroll right up against the old luxury tax line (before the recession) without a bona fide superstar player to take you to the top. If winning a championship truly was the goal, the only way to do that with the Wizards' type of payroll was to shove the luxury tax aside and trade for a major upgrade no matter the long-term cost.
Trading for Mike Miller and Randy Foye doesn't do that. Both players are helpful, but they improve the team's depth, not its top-flight talent. They don't do all that much to fix many of the Wizards' biggest weaknesses (namely, defense), and by cashing some of his chips (the fifth pick, Etan's expiring deal) to get them, Ernie Grunfeld has created a major roster imbalance that he must now solve, except now he has far fewer assets available to do it. It's not taking a risk as much as it is maintaining the status quo and making slight upgrades without going all the way.
What trading Miller and Foye does do is save a bit of money while making said slight improvement. The only pieces that have contracts that go past 2010 in the trade are the ones Minnesota is acquiring. Etan Thomas is an expiring contract and Oleksiy Pecherov can be if the Timberwolves don't pick up his 2010 qualifying offer, but Darius Songaila's contract extends until 2011, assuming he doesn't opt out . In addition, the Wizards save the long-term cost of having to pay the fifth pick in the draft for several seasons. Assuming the Wizards would have continued to pick up his option throughout the duration of his rookie contract, the pick would have cost the Wizards 2.7 million in 2009/10, 2.9 million in 2010/11 and 3.132 million in 2011/2012, according to this scale (the numbers are probably a bit more than what they actually will be because they're based on the 2007/08 salary cap and luxury tax levels). We therefore shave an additional $5.3 million dollars off our 2010/11 payroll, and we potentially save $10 million if we don't pick up Foye's qualifying offer (which sounds better than it is; renouncing the qualifying offer means we lose the right to match any offer for Foye. He's as good as gone then).
We also save a bit of money this year and next. Miller and Foye's 2008/09 salaries add up to $11.9 million (Miller's $9.1 million and Foye's $2.8 million), while Etan's, Darius' and Pech's add up to $12.5 million. In 2009/10, we save even more. Miller and Foye's salaries add up to 13.5 million, while Etan, Darius and Pech's add up to 14.5 million (adding in Etan's kicker). Combine that with the $2.7 million for the draft pick, and that's nearly $4 million off next year's luxury tax bill. Of course, that $4 million will be cut into to fill the roster, but it's still savings.
So we save money and get some immediate help. Miller's a perfect offensive fit next to Gil, and Foye's a low-risk reclamation project that can score, pass well and spot up better than I gave him credit for in this post. They'll likely do more collectively to help next year than whoever we picked at #5. Great, right?
The problem is that we aren't too much closer to the top than we were before. Miller and Foye are both best at shooting guard, but neither is a good defender. Both are pretty good passers and decent spot-up shooters, but they're likely going to steal minutes from each other. I suppose Foye could play the point a bit with Gilbert out, but that's not going to be for much more than 10-15 minutes a game, and Foye has largely flopped as a point guard during his career. Similarly, Miller could play some backup small forward, but Caron plays a lot of minutes when healthy too, and Dominic McGuire is also there. There's also the prospect of Nick Young and DeShawn Stevenson cutting further into Foye and Miller's minutes, in addition to maybe even Javaris Crittenton. The point is, I don't really know how many minutes Miller and Foye will actually be able to get to show they are upgrades over who we've employed at the starting two, backup one and backup three positions in the past.
And even with this trade, we still haven't fixed two of our biggest weaknesses. We still lack an excellent perimeter defender to pair with Arenas and Butler and we still lack and toughness and rebounding muscle to team with our frontcourt of the future (Blatche and McGee). In fact, you could easily argue that we've made both of those problems worse, because we simultaneously are taking McGuire's minutes and giving them to Foye/Miller and losing Songaila, who was an underrated cog last season. There's certainly the prospect (if not the necessity) to make another trade to shore up those weaknesses, but Ernie's got fewer assets available to do it. He's basically down to Nick Young, Javaris Crittenton and one expiring contract (Mike James), because he wouldn't trade McGee or Blatche now that they're the only two backup bigs left. Basically, unless one of the Big 3 is included, don't expect Amare Stoudamire. More likely, we're talking Nick Collison or Tony Battie.
So in making this trade, the Wizards are really trying to have it both ways -- winning now even while cutting salary. This is clearly the most creative trade Ernie could make to have it both ways, but that's not how success is measured. It's measured in championships, and I'm dubious that this really got us much further on that front.
0 recs |
153 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Foye is not an excellent perimeter defender but he is an above average perimeter defender.
I give the trade a B-. I am fine with the move if we pick Taj Gibson or Jeff Adrien with the #32 overall.
The Wiz will now have a better chance to sign Haywood to a new deal after next season.
Good move Ernie.
by Jeremybozz on Jun 24, 2009 6:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wolves fans disagree about his defense
Foye is caught between positions defensively. He doesn’t cover a quick one, and he’s too short to be solid on a classic two guard. Randy Wittman — erstwhile Wolves head coach, now a Saunders assistant there — was very hard on Foye’s decision making as a point. He also would pull Randy after defensive lapses. This is a ’tween guard.
Foye’s a great kid, he could be an explosive scorer if he ever re-found his leg enough to go to the hoop strong. He’s been moved between positions his entire career in Minnesota. He is no defensive ace. Larry Hughes, if healthy, would give you more of that quality.
by feral on Jun 24, 2009 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True (Another Twolves fan perspective)
Foye’s not a lockdown guy defensively, but he certainly has his moments of timely defensive opportunism. During our nice January run he made some great defensive stops. He kind of reminds of a little of Darren Sharper, in that to be effective (both offensively and defensively) he needs to be able to roam around a little bit. Asking him to play rigidly within a system (like Wittman did) limits his playmaking ability. I think the best thing that can happen to Foye is playing for a guy like Flip, because if there’s any coach who can figure out a great role for him and let him do what he does, it’s Flip. Great pickup for you guys. Kinda wish we had him back.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Jun 24, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What to expect from Foye and Miller (from yet another Wolves fan)
Foye: Everybody seems to want to know what his defense will be like. In short, it’s poor but might improve to below average. The bigger question should be: what position will he be used at? His offense is significantly better at SG than PG, even though his D is the same at both positions. At SG he can be a plus player overall if he improves a little, but at PG he doesn’t even make a decent backup. Hope that Saunders keeps him away from the point as much as possible.
Miller: Contrary to popular belief, Miller has been significantly better offensively at SF than SG the last few years. Like Foye, his defense doesn’t change much between positions; it falls in the below average category, though he’s at an age where it may start to slip. He’s probably not going to see much time at SF unless Butler is hurt, so most of his minutes will probably be at SG where he’s now below average overall. Assuming his output with the Wolves was an abberation and not a sign of premature aging, he’ll be tolerable at the 2 and a good player when he can get minutes at the 3.
by SL9 on Jun 25, 2009 4:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aside from trades
to complete the roster, I wonder if there is any chance in taking that money and using it on a mid-level exception type player. Seems like Shawn Marion could be looking at taking the MLE. Although since that’s another guy who wants shots, I’m not sure how that works. Or maybe up front they could get a Zaza Pachulia or Joe Smith or Sheed (kidding, sort of).
Hey Calvin Booth and Michael Ruffin are both FAs! (shudder) That FA list is pretty depressing.
by bwoodsxyz on Jun 24, 2009 6:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's....
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to be getting concerned about minutes. That will work itself out.
Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It.net and Bullets Forever.
by Truth About It on Jun 24, 2009 7:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i think....
i agree that the cheapness is a concern. if the future is now then now is the time to cross the luxury tax threshold. but there’s still time for them to spend some money……
i don’t think playing time is an issue. crittenton can’t shoot at all , not an nba player. stevenson is done, and McGuire can’t shoot either and isn’t that great in other areas. Nick Young needs to visit the wizard for a new brain before he can become an nba player, which probably not going to happen. the new guys will take the playing time of these guys, as they should. grunfield’s a bright guy. definitely an upgrade.
by stevie on Jun 24, 2009 7:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Chad Ford on Mike and Mike:“This trade was a home run for the Wizards. They will be very competitive in the East this season.”
by Jeremybozz on Jun 24, 2009 7:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope it works out for Foye.
As a Wolves fan I find it difficult to root against Randy Foye. He was a pariah among one tier of casual fan because of the Foye/Roy deal, and he spent his entire time here beset by one injury or another. Another, again naive set of fans used the vaunted “It took Chauncey/Steve Nash a few years” argument (which can be applied to anyone at all) to continually tout him as about to emerge as a great point guard. He never showed many signs of that.
Foye is probably an explosive “lead guard” type off the bench, is the general consensus of longtime (and therefore rather battered) Timberwolves fans. It’ll be interesting for me if he gets a chance to play alongside Gilbert. We are, all of us, also pretty curious to see how the heck Flip “conservative point guards and intricate jump-shot offenses” Saunders manages to integrate Gilbert Arenas as more of a point guard type…. So, we’re interested, and watching.
Miller we figured was going to become a versatile veteran off the bench for a team that considered itself a potential contender. I’m a little surprised to have it be Washington, given how poor defensively the Wizards were already. Mike Miller is not going to help that.
by feral on Jun 24, 2009 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's because
he doesn’t know anything about the team. He reads headlines. Most of the national guys do. They look at our 3 pt. production and say our biggest need is SG.
They will be very competitive in the East this season."
We were already gonna be competitive. We needed something to push us over the top. This doesn’t do it.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this post
The biggest need going into next season was to get a starting SG, particularly one who could hit threes and defend really well. Miller can hit threes, but isn’t a defender. Plus, he’s here for one year. So, who is the answer at SG? It seems like Young, Miller, and Foye are all in the mix this season, and then what? So the trade didn’t solve the problem. (I also interpret this trade as an indication that Grunfeld thinks that Stevenson is done, or at least won’t be helpful this coming season, due to all of his injuries.)
If Foye develops and an Arenas-Foye backcourt is terrific, then great. But I think there is just as good a chance if not better that Harden or Evans would have developed and been a better backcourt partner for Arenas than Foye. We’ll see.
Another troubling thing is that the trade effectively takes McGuire out of the mix, unless he can play power forward (and maybe he can when opposing teams go a little smaller). Miller can and should get all of the SF minutes that Caron doesn’t get. So the best progress made by a young player last season now becomes extraneous.
by disgrunted on Jun 24, 2009 8:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rubio
If Rubio falls to 5, this trade will likely haunt the Wizards for a long time. (And poor Randy Foye — Brandon Roy’s success has haunted him throughout his career so far, and then he’ll be stuck with the Rubio ghost.)
by disgrunted on Jun 24, 2009 8:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Fact is
Fact is, you don’t win champiionships worrying how you’re going to find minutes for unaccomplished players like Mcguire, Crittenden and Young. Those young guys got essentially a free pass last year to play minutes that no other team in the NBA could have given them. (and they sucked) So while it would be nice if one or two developed into a solid NBA player, you can’t put the franchise on hold. This is an NBA trade. Ernie has gambled a little and he has certain parameters he must work within to satisfy Abe. He brought in two players that are arguably better than the SG’s currently on the roster. He traded largely ineffective overpaid players. He gambled that the 5th pick in a weak draft would not better help the team make the playoffs in the next couple years. I think he did well.
by blueridge on Jun 24, 2009 8:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
true
none of our current crop of 2’s deserve to start. But I don’t see either of the new guys as a missing piece.
Fact is, you don’t win championships worrying how you’re going to find minutes for unaccomplished players
You also don’t win championships from the perimeter, where all our scoring is right now.
Actually, the more I look at this trade, the more I think Nick Young is out the door. Him and Foye do the same thing, only Foye has been better at it. And Foye is young enough to play a lot of minutes, so there WILL be a problem finding time for both. I don’t see them working well being on the floor at the same time, and since Young is our only SG (of the 49 we now have) whose potential could bring back value in a trade, I think he will be packaged with James and maybe the 32 pick for a big.
So, here’s the question: just how desperate IS Phoenix to unload Stoudemire? Also, do any of you numbers guys know what if a sign-and-trade for David Lee is possible. And lastly, here’s one that nobody else has brought up. What about a trade for Chris Wilcox? He’s in New York, where they’re trying to dump salary. He EXACTLY the type of player we need. A down low banger who doesn’t need the ball to be effective. I think he’s been under-utilized basically his entire career. He’s always played on a team with a plethora of big men, leaving him little PT to be very productive. Won’t have to worry about that here. We currently have nobody with his skillset, other than Haywood. He had 1 or 2 pretty good years in Seattle before they traded him.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nick Young is out the door
packaged with James
My exact first reaction.
by MR on Jun 24, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what I'm saying
I’m saying it mostly brings quantity to the shooting guard position, not a huge upgrade in quality.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Trade
Hands down a great trade for a team that needed a starter at SG, a back up at SF (Miller is more of a SF than a SG) who can make it rain, and to get rid of cap space. I’m glad Chad Ford recognized it.
by oatmealeater on Jun 24, 2009 9:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great?
that’s a stretch. We may have improved our perimeter shooting and added guys better than we have, but great is going a little too far. We didn’t address our defensive problems, and we don’t even know if either of these guys will be on the team next year. I may be alone here, but I personally think we’d have been better off with Evans or Harden, then trading those other guys for a banger off the bench. Foye reminds me a little too much of Courtney Alexander.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good not great
Unless the 5th pick turns into an all star, this is a very positive trade. Dump 12 million in dead weight to get two guys who can play right now at a much higher level than who we dumped on the T-wolves. While this isn’t a defensive upgrade, it is certainly an upgrade to both the first and second line rosters. As also pointed out, they didn’t put themselves into a worse position with contracts either, in fact picking up two guys who are set to expire as well. Throw in the fact that other than Blake Griffin, the only concensus about the draft is that it is weak and full of guys with major questionmarks, this may be the most common sense move the Wiz have made in a while.
I would criticize that they may have gambled and gotten better trade value if by some stroke of luck Rubio fell to #5, but by that same logic, they could have gotten next to nothing if he didn’t They got this much value because the T-wolves plan to use this pick as part of a package to move up, a deal that would not have been there if the Wiz waited til their pick was on the board most likely.
by Mixmy1200s on Jun 24, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One expiring
We may have given up the 5th pick, but we’re still going to be in a fairly strong position to make a trade prior to the trade deadline since Foye and Miller are expiring deals (in addition to James). If someone is looking to dump salary (ala Gasol or Jefferson) we’ll be able to offer some cheap younger talent and a host of expiring deals (some of whom can actually contribute).
Its not an exciting trade but it certainly puts us in a position to compete going forward.
I do agree with other posters that Young will be dangled as trade bait along with other expirings to bring in a big.
by jimij on Jun 24, 2009 9:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, great.
It’s not a Kevin Garnett trade, but a trade can only be viewed through what you got, what you filled, and what you gave away. No, we did not solve defensive problems, but we just became a seriously dangerous scoring team. Obviously, we still need a banger, and maybe with James, the second-rounder, Crittendon, and Nick Young, we can get something. Or, just sign somebody (who’s available?) I do think the trade is a first step to get another power forward.
Considering the pieces we have at shooting guard/perimeter shooting—Stevenson, Young, Taser—it’s definitely an upgrade. And considering our typical back-up to Butler was Taser or Song sometimes, Miller’s rebounding and shooting is extremely helpful. No No.5 in this draft (unless Rubio goes 5) is a starter on a serious playoff team, so waiting for a 2 to develop while our team gets older is impossible, especially as we, and the DC area gets more and more impatient about our team.
by oatmealeater on Jun 24, 2009 9:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You forgot a key piece that's the real problem here
It’s not a Kevin Garnett trade, but a trade can only be viewed through what you got, what you filled, and what you gave away.
That’s absolutely not true. The trade must be viewed through whether we could have done better with the assets we had. If not, then making a move just to make a marginal improvement like this only limits the assets you have left available to make another trade. You might as well just use the fifth pick then because it has real value as an asset. (That was kind of the point of this post). Now, we’re stuck with an unbalanced roster and few asset to make that change, not to mention that we still lack enough defense and rebounding.
Obviously, this trade makes us better, but that’s not the objection here. We were going to be better no matter what because we have a better coach, more overall talent (before the trade) and hopefully a return to better health. The problem is, in trying to be better and cut salary, we didn’t take back as much on-court talent as we should have.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you don't know
If we could have done better with the assets we had. Don’t forget that we also have open roster spots now, and there will be decent big men available with our remaining trade chips, or just signing one outright.
by YellaFella on Jun 24, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if this is better than we could have done with our assets right now
As in, before yesterday. But there’s draft day, the entire offseason, the entire season and the trade deadline still ahead.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
None of us are sitting in Ernie Grunfeld’s office listening to him talk to other teams and mapping out his plan for this team. So none of us can really fairly say that they couldve done better.
You may argue that Ernie doesnt know what could be available in the future either but none of us know what Ernie knows.
by lj15 on Jun 24, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY
Now, we’re stuck with an unbalanced roster and few asset to make that change, not to mention that we still lack enough defense and rebounding.
This is the main point. If we had picked up Foye and a big, or even gotten back the #18 pick to get a big, then this would be a different story.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but you are forgetting
as BayAreaBullet and cuppettcj pointed out….Etan was almost impossible to trade. Look at this -
http://www.bulletsforever.com/2009/6/23/922932/yay-guards#
Etan was not an asset, he was a poison pill. We managed to unload him and keep our one true expiring.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not really true
The kicker is given out over the course of the contract, not all at once.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Mean the Course
Of his one remaining year? Or does that mean the Wizards have to pay for the other years he has already played? I’m confused.
"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 24, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying the six million or whatever doesn't apply
Because it’s given out over the course of his contract, but ONLY if he’s traded. That means that if he’s traded with more time left on his contract, he gets more money. At least that’s how I understand it.
Since he’s only in the last year of his deal, he just collects what he signed today. It’s not as big of a deal as it seems.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Still Think
It was a very big deal. Etan was the poison pill Ernie could not get any team to swallow up until now. Most expiring contracts usually come with a guy that can add at least some on-court value to the team. Etan offered less than nothing in that department. So it was asking a lot for a team to pay a guy $8.5 million to sit at the end of the bench and not contribute.
Heck, Cleveland had a decent player in Wally with a huge expiring contract, and they couldn’t unload him at the last trade deadline. Wally can at least play. What makes you think we would have had any better luck with Etan?
"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 24, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe. My retort is that Wally's expiring was bigger than Etan's by over 5 million
It’s tough to trade big expiring contracts because there aren’t too many big-salary players to match them up with. There are more players in the $8.5 million range than the 14 million range. And while Sczcerbiak can play a bit, nobody was taking him for his on-court production anyway, so there’s really not much of a difference.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Points
But then again, Ernie has been trying to trade Etan for a long time now, so he should be fully aware of Etan’s actually value, which is leading me to believe it was a lot less than we have been assuming.
That trade kicker always seemed to scare other teams away. I think that had Ernie waited much longer for “interest” to grow, he might have been stuck with Etan and gotten nothing back for him. That wasn’t a risk he was willing to take, obviously.
"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 24, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so you
mortgage our future to dump a player one year early? That’s acceptable if we’re in the conference championship this year. Which we won’t be. Then there’s a very real possibility that we lose both Miller and Foye next offseason. Meaning the 19 win season we suffered through was all for nought
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our future
is hardly determined by one #5 pick in a weak draft. You keep making it sound like the #5 pick is going to yield someone like LeBron or Melo. Outside of Griffin, and possibly Rubio, no one is projected to have that great an impact.
I can understand you’re upset, but the fact was that EG is trying to win now while keeping the big three intact. I don’t think that trading Songalia, Pech, and Thomas is mortgaging our future.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
every
trade we were looking at had Etan involved. I think his contract will have real value at the trade deadline. So we didn’t want to pay him? Fine. Except since the season ended, all Ernie has been saying is that he’s not going to give up the pick just to stay under the Lux-tax. But that’s pretty much what he did.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
every trade we were looking at had Etan involved.
And yet Ernie could find no takers. What does that tell you? That doesn’t sound like an “asset” to me, but rather an albatross we could not get rid of.
"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 24, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
from my understanding
he had takers, just no trade he was interested in. He should have waited.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the trade.
It basically means we got Miller and Foye for the No. 5 pick — and dumped bad contracts. Now consider who we could’ve gotten at No. 5 (no, Rubio will not slip that far). Curry? Evans? Hill? They all have big question marks, and will take time to develop.
Remember that this draft is looking historically bad. Griffin shows potential, but I look at him and see Kenyon Martin. Rubio has big questions about his scoring ability at the NBA level. So does Curry, against NBA defense.
Instead of adding another rookie, we got a steady, sweet-shooting vet and young SG — a serious position of need — who has improved every year in the league.
One other overlooked part of this is that McGee is now our backup C — no ifs, ands or buts. No competition for the spot. I think Ernie realizes how much potential JaVale has, and doesn’t want his growth stunted. Since I’m a huge McGee fan, I couldn’t be happier.
The one missing piece now is a rugged, defensive-minded PF. I’m confident Ernie will be getting one of those ASAP.
by YellaFella on Jun 24, 2009 9:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
With what assets?
I’m confident Ernie will be getting one of those ASAP.
We only have James, Young and Critt left, unless we want to include one of our young bigs (which defeats the purpose) or one of our recently traded players (which begs the question … why make the move?). I don’t think we’ll be seeing much of a return here.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why make the move?
Because now we have more valuable assets in Miller and Foye than we had in OPech, Thomas and Songaila, that’s why.
by YellaFella on Jun 24, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't have the fifth pick
That’s huge. You’re forgetting that. We also plan on using Miller and Foye, don’t we?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Not
We also plan on using Miller and Foye, don’t we?
I can honestly see Ernie dealing one of them in another deal. They are both expiring contracts. I’m hoping he deals Foye and keeps Miller, but he may do the reverse.
"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 24, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They can only be dealt by themselves until December 15
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What If
Another team enters into the deal before the trade is officially announced/signed? Could that still happen? Isn’t the trade still in terms of agreement to principle?
"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 24, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's signed already
Because it was completed before draft day.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't Draft Day Tomorrow?
"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 24, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
T
they have to call it in to the league to finalize. Couldn’t do that without Etan’s signature. So its probably done soon if not already today.
Detroit did wiggle into that Milwaukee-San Antonio deal yesterday giving up Amir to get Oberto’s partial contract. That wasn’t reported originally.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Think Oberto
Was a second trade altogether, which was allowed because Oberto was traded by himself. My point is that we may be allowed to package Miller or Foye into another deal before the original one is signed off on.
"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 24, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
we need to have a deal for Foye before we move him. I think Ernie and Flip want him though. If Gilbert can’t go Foye can step in and keep the team from running into a ditch.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Thought That Was What Critt Was For
"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 24, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
What have you seen from Crit to think he could step in and start? I like the kid as a developmental prospect but he is at best a back-up 1. As the roster currently stands and anticipating a Mike James trade Crit would serve in the same spots as Dixon did last year. Thats where he belongs.
Foye can step in and score some and distribute some in Gil’s absence. He put up 16 and 4 per game last year. That will come down as a reserve but how does Crit even begin to compare to that?
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Foye is Better, No Doubt
But I thought that Ernie had more envisioned for Critt when he brought him in than a third-string point guard. He is still young and will need minutes to develop, which I assumed he would get as the backup PG behind Gil.
Foye has too much value to come off of the bench, IMO, which is why I thought it would make sense to trade him for a front court player. Sure, keeping him gives us a better option at backup PG, but then we are wasting Critt and reducing the number of assets we can use to acquire the big man that we all know we need.
"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 24, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't like the trade
Curry? Evans? Hill? They all have big question marks, and will take time to develop.
and the guys we got don’t have big question marks? Miller is coming off the worse season of his nomad career. Foye couldn’t cut it at PG, is small at SG, and has had knee problems.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is
We already know what we can generally expect from Foye and Miller since they’ve already been in the league although they do have a few question marks, as every NBA player does. But with draft picks almost everything about them is a question mark until you actually see them on the court with other NBA players.
by lj15 on Jun 24, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is
we didn’t upgrade enough to be legit contenders.
So, let’s say we did enough to land the 4th seed (which is a big reach). Do you really think Foye and Miller are the missing pieces that will get us past Cleveland? If we even make it that far? I don’t. So then we’re in the same spot we’ve been, only now we have to decide if we want to resign a 30 year old Miller (probably not), and give Foye a big deal, which he’ll probably want out of his rookie contract. If so, we’re stuck with an undersized backcourt for years to come. At the same time, maybe Evans, or Harden, or Curry, or Derozan, or ALL OF THEM become all stars. Not likely, but I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts ONE of them is an all star before Foye.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing we gave up
was going to make us a legit contender. Also, either Harden or Evans will be gone by pick 5.
by Mr. E on Jun 24, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the fifth pick huge?
In this draft, I don’t know. But I do know the fifth pick turned into two serviceable vets, players that fill much-needed holes. Were we going to fill those holes as well with one rookie?
by YellaFella on Jun 24, 2009 10:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It fills one hole: a shooting guard who can shoot
But Stephen Curry or James Harden could have filled that hole too. Otherwise, it doesn’t get us all that far except upgrading our offensive-minded wings for offensive-minded wings that fit better.
Again, it’s not an awful trade, but it’s not a title-winning trade either. It doesn’t really get us all that much further than where we already were. That’s what I mean when I say you can’t have it both ways. If you want to really hit at our weaknesses, you needed to take on some long-term salary (Hinrich, Howard, someone bigger).
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that one hole
Was one of the two biggest we have. Are you really saying you would’ve preferred Curry or Harden instead, or Hill if you want to go big, and spend a few seasons developing them?
I agree that it’s not a title-winning trade. But assuming regular (not even spectacular) health, this makes our team much deeper, I believe — not a little deeper, but a lot deeper.
by YellaFella on Jun 24, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you really saying you would’ve preferred Curry or Harden instead,
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry or Harden may turn into very good NBA players but I think it’s fair to assume like most draft picks their impact on the Wizards in the first year at least, and probably the next year too, would’ve been marginal.
by Johnnie Futbol on Jun 24, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By God
I think we’ve met at a common ground.
But Stephen Curry or James Harden could have filled that hole too.
Are you and I the 2 who feel this way? I don’t get it. I’ve talked to 4 people today who didn’t even know who Randy Foye is. How can someone guarantee he’s better than Harden, Evans, Curry, AND Derozan?
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon
Anyone who follows basketball should at least be familiar with Foye’s name. He led Nova to two deep NCAA runs and had an amazing tournament back in 2005 and 2006. For all the people who crapped on Harden b/c of his weak tourney, you would think Foye’s stellar tournament runs would hold some weight, even if it was three years ago. From wikipedia…
In the 2005 NCAA Tournament, Foye averaged 20 points in three games, before a heartbreaking loss to #1 seed and eventual national champion North Carolina in which Foye scored a career-high 28 points.3 He was named third-team all Big East that year.
In 2006, Foye won the honor of Big East Player of the Year, beating out teammate Allan Ray, Connecticut star Rudy Gay and the league’s leading scorer Quincy Douby of Rutgers.
Villanova tied for the Big East regular season championship with Uconn and split their two games with the Huskies, winning the one played at home, in what some called the biggest Villanova win in over 20 years. Their final Big East regular season record was 14–2 in what some called the toughest conference ever.[citation needed] Overall, their record was 28–5. In the NCAA Tournament in 2006, Foye continued to be Villanova’s biggest scoring threat. He had 24 points in their second round game against Arizona in a winning effort. Foye scored a team-high 25 points in his final game as a Wildcat, on March 26, 2006, a 75–62 loss to Florida in the Elite Eight.4
As a senior Foye averaged 20.5 points, 5.9 rebounds, 3.3 assists, 1.4 steals, and 0.6 blocks, with a field goal percentage of 41.1%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Foye
He would most definitely be a top 5 pick if he was coming out this year. Probably top 3 in this draft.
I’ve talked to 4 people today who didn’t even know who Randy Foye is. How can someone guarantee he’s better than Harden, Evans, Curry, AND Derozan
I can guarantee that he will be better then at least one or two of them , possibly all four. It greatly lowers the risk of a bust, and for that we had to give up some upside potential.
by DT711 on Jun 24, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOW
can you play the numbers for me? Did you also know that Paul Piece would be better than Larry Hughes, Raef Lafrenz, Jason WIlliams, Tractor Traylor? All player picked before him. Or that Danny Granger would be better than most of the guys drafted before him.
It greatly lowers the risk of a bust, and for that we had to give up some upside potential.
Sure, play it safe. And keep on getting bounced in the 1st or 2nd round. If you want to get better, you’re gonna have to gamble sometimes. To me, this is the equivalent of Ernie folding before the cards are dealt. Look at the top teams this year. LA gambled when they traded for Bryant. Orlando gambled Howard would be better than Okafor. Cleveland gambles every year on Lebron’s surroundings, but at least they keep trying. Denver gambled on Iverson, then used that failed gamble to get Chauncey. Boston gambled last year on Pierce sharing the spotlight with Allen and Garnett and all 3 of them working together. Good team gamble. That’s how they get good.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice tone
and keeping the pick is not necessarily “gambling.”
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think I went out on a limb there
I only said I guarantee he’d be better then one or two of those guys. Not all four of them. I’ll stick by that.
You really believe not one of the four guys you mentioned is going to be a worse NBA player then Foye already is? I guess this draft is actually great because whether you have heard of him or not, Foye is a good NBA player. He may end up being a career sixth man, but there is definite value there. If all four, or even three of those guys pan out better then Foye, this will be a very underrated draft compared to the current consensus.
If we take a rookie who might take 3 years to develop (by which time Jamison and Butler will be in decline), if ever, how is that going to help us get out of the first round anymore then two solid, proven rotation guys, who can contribute right now?
by DT711 on Jun 24, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give you
that he will probably be better than 2 of the 4. But you can’t tell me you will not be disappointed if one becomes a superstar. This could very well happen with Evans or Derozan.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ernie gambled
that Harden will be gone (90% likely) by the 5th pick and none of the other will be better than what we got in the next 2-3 years. Same thing.
Also, for all the Curry supporters, his ceiling is still pretty close to what Foye put up last year… 16ppg 4asst, 3rbg 35-40% shooting from 3 with avg to below avg D. While Curry could do it more efficiently and maybe add a couple more assists or points, Foye is not finished developing yet either, PLUS we add Mike Miller who is a great offensive team player and the shooter to replace Mason Jr.
by Mr. E on Jun 24, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I agree with your point about Curry (his ceiling is about what Foye put up last year), I disagree with your point about Harden.
If NBA teams see what I see in Harden, I think he’ll easily drop to the 5th or even lower. We didn’t want Harden, and therefore, Ernie didn’t gamble at all. I’d take Miller or Foye over Harden any day, and you can even add 2 years of NBA experience to Harden and I still wouldn’t.
by se7en on Jun 24, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Foye
I can see your argument. I disagree, but I can understand it. But saying Miller is a better option that Harden “any day”? You don’t think that’s stretching it? He’s 29, coming off his worst year ever, is pretty much one dimensional, and will most likely only be on our team for one year. I’m pretty certain Harden would have given us more that.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again
Harden would give you that in maybe 2-3 years, after your window of opportunity has closed. At that point you’re rebuilding around James Harden, which I think any GM in the league would tell you is foolish.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not even.
Your point is correct, but I don’t even think Harden would give you “that” in 2-3 years. Miller averaged 12 points and shot 41% from 3PT in his rookie year. 2-3 years later, he was averaging 16 PPG.
I don’t see Harden even contributing that much. I have no crystal ball, but he’s not a very good shooter and he’s slow. I don’t see how that will translate well in the NBA.
by se7en on Jun 24, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Miller
Every time I see him play he’s tough, hits big shots…he’s no one trick pony 3 point specialist either.
Not my first choice of the trade rumors, but I think he’s a good player.
by MR on Jun 24, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny
I’ve talked to 4 people today who didn’t even know who Randy Foye is.
For me, it was the exact opposite. Foye averaged 16 points per game for an NBA team. Before all of the draft hype, I had no idea who Harden, Evans, or Derozan were, being that I don’t follow college basketball that much before the NCAA Tournament.
"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 24, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
Having clueless friends doesn’t change who Foye is, or that he put up 16 and 4 last year. It doesn’t change that miller was his best when he was on good teams, even good teams in Memphis. So he went to a bad team and his numbers went down, is that really Shocking? Its kind of a ‘duh’ moment for me. His criteria of only getting players other people know by name is akin to NBA Live logic.
People just want to complain. they don’t get that we got 2 players who have little value to a team that was on National TV Zero times last year, but lots of value to a playoff team. This is exactly the kind of deal people wanted. Give away garbage and a pick for 2 NBA playoff rotation guys.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my point was
he’s not a household name. Probably never will be. If you like the guy, fine. I’d rather have gambled on the higher ceiling of one of the draft guys. My opinion.
So he went to a bad team and his numbers went down, is that really Shocking? Its kind of a ‘duh’ moment for me.
Actually, I would think a really good player would have BETTER numbers on a bad team. At least the type of numbers Miller thrives with. Scoring avg. and 3pt shooting. Less competition for the ball, no Pau Gasol or Rudy Gay to take shots from him. He should’ve had better numbers as far as I’m concerned. Or at least the same.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minnesota asked him to feed Love and Jefferson, not take over games scoring. Again, the details are important. He is on a bad team and the only guy who can really shoot. you don’t think that would effect the way a defense focuses on running him off the 3 point line? he’s playing with players that aren’t efficient and aren’t consistent. The only way he goes up is if they ask him to lead them in scoring which was not why he was brought there.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
the story was that he “deferred to Jefferson too much.” Again, I’d take Gasol and Rudy Gay over Jefferson and Love. If he gets 16 with two 20 point scorers, he should be able to get it wil those schlubs.
Doesn’t matter though. He won’t get 16 here.
He is on a bad team and the only guy who can really shoot.
So what does this say about Foye?
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miller's a strange case that I think you both are vastly oversimplifying
They didn’t bring him in to “defer” to Jefferson, but he did anyway. I think it had a lot to do with the role they put him in (sometimes starter, sometimes sixth man), the injury to Al, the lack of backcourt stability and the general fact that they weren’t a contender. I think he got a bit disillusioned, particularly after playing for two horrid Grizzlies teams.
This actually reminds me a lot of another Miller — Brad. He basically stopped trying in Sacramento, but picked up his effort again when he was traded to the Bulls and smack in the middle of a playoff race. I think the same happens with Miller and he goes back to his previous levels.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"smack in the middle of a playoff race"
literally…with the help of Rondo’s right hand
by 7Swords of Salat on Jun 24, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woulda, Coulda, Shudda... but EG did his best (for a`start)
I have to think that if EG could have done better than this, he would have done better than this.
It would seem to me that after looking at the potential #5 picks (aka the DeRozans, Currys, Hardens and Evanses on our “draft board”) management decided that picking up Randy Foye, the 7th pick from 2007, was no worse than a dead even swap for #5 in 2009. Foye has pretty much gone through his shakedown phase and what’s come out the other end is a combo guard who puts up better numbers then any TWO guards we had on the floor at the end of last season. The young men in the draft are two to four years away, with the exception being Curry, who is readier now to produce what? My guess is offensive numbers no greater than Foye’s without the shot blocking etc. Basically, I believe that starting Foye alongside a healthy Gil, defensive issues and all, is at least a 30% upgrade over a healthy Gil and DeShawn….
Miller is a proven player, like AJ a former sixth man of the year. And since his contract is expiring, if he fits in well on the Wizards and produces anything within 85% of his career averages here, he can be resigned next year mid-level money.
Both Miller and Foye actually MAKE THREE-POINTERS.
The defense and the banging obviously have to come from someplace else… NY, the James contract, and the 32 pick are all reasonable assets in a trade, plus there are a couple of free agents (Rasho or Rasheed among them) that could offer what the Wizards want… at minimum, a big body with 6 fouls to give who can spell Haywood 12-14 minutes a game.
by khrabb on Jun 24, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why does Ernie always trade the 5th pick for a Sixth Man of the Year?
If the Wizards resign Miller next year, this trade is a disaster. The last thing the Wizards need is more players, especially wing players, who don’t play defense, unless the Wizards trade every other player who doesn’t excel at defense in order to obtain defensive players to fit around Miller, Caron, Jamison, and Arenas. Miller likely is, and should be, a one-year band-aid.
As for moving Nick to get a big, talk about spinning your wheels. Trade Songalia to get Foye, then trade Nick to get a big to replace Songalia? Where is the progress there? Maybe Foye’s better than Nick, but the numbers seem the same. On a per minute basis, they score the same, rebound the same, Foye gets more assists, and Nick shoots a better FG%. Why trade the 5th pick and Nick Young for Foye?
Bottom line, this deal was mostly about saving Songalia’s salary next year.
by disgrunted on Jun 24, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Read This
and thought back to your opinions on teh bigger deals available to the Wiz: Shaq, Ray Allen, etc that were outlined by Chad Ford. And your response to almost all of them was NO. There wasn’t a perfect scenario out there so we got what we could.
I keep saying this team is way too top heavy in talent. Now we can had Foye and Miller to that second group, below the 3 all stars, with Haywood. Thats a big deal to a playoff team. Now use Mike James and filler for a veteran post presence coming off the bench. The other front court rotation spot is split between McGee and Blatche. Thats a nice 8-9 man rotation without the deadwood of Etan and Pesh at the end of the bench.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 10:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Birdman
He is a free agent and exactly the type of player we need in the frontcourt. If the wiz are serious we will take a run at him.
Backcourt Rotation- Arenas, Young ,Foye, Miller, Stevenson
Frontcourt Rotation- Jamison, Haywood, McGee, Blatche, Birdman
by jeffco01 on Jun 24, 2009 10:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
tough juice
My fault…dont know how i forgot Caron, and McGuire for the that matter
by jeffco01 on Jun 24, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't know
about anything else, but I saw mention of the Birdman. We could use his talents MUCH more than we could use the talents of the guys we just got.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like this trade
Getting Foye reminds me of other Grunfeld moves that brought the Wizards players that were rising talents. Here’s an interesting post from a month ago by a wolves fan arguing that Foye should become the team’s franchise player:
It’s true that the Wizards are too loaded in players at the 1-3 positions and are now a little short on depth at 4 & 5, but frankly this makes me believe Grunfeld has another move planned to provide depth (either trade or a free agency pickup).
by Johnnie Futbol on Jun 24, 2009 10:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Foye better than Jefferson?
You’ve got to be kidding me. That article was pretty dumb.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
certainly not right now
The author was speaking about the future of the Timberwolves. Personally I have no perspective because I haven’t seen enough of Foye, but I do find it interesting to see what actual Timberwolves fans have to say about these players. Just like I don’t take all that much stock in what say a Nuggets or Jazz fan says about Wizards.
by Johnnie Futbol on Jun 24, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and really the question about Jefferson vs. Foye is irrelevant.
by Johnnie Futbol on Jun 24, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you posed that question to the Canis Hoopus guys
They’d probably tell you that article was dumb too.
(I’m not saying you posting it was dumb, just that the dude’s argument made no sense. Foye’s never going to be anywhere close to as good as Jefferson).
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to put on my Rook rose colored glasses here
This entire trade is predicated on the health of Arenas. Many on the board who are down on this trade seem to think that its not a significant upgrade for a 19 win team. However, with Arenas and Haywood healthy – we are assuming that we are now UPGRADING a 40-45 win team into the 50 win territory. We now, as currently comprised, have a better bench than we did on ANY of our other playoff teams.
I would have loved to see Amare walk through the door. But he wasn’t coming without losing Butler.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
stuck in the past
we are assuming that we are now UPGRADING a 40-45 win team into the 50 win territory.
Before making these assumptions, you have to take into account that when we WERE a 40-45 win team, we were better than Miami, Atlanta, Philly, and Charlotte. They’ve all gotten better each year since then. We haven’t. And nothing we’ve done here makes me think we’ve done enough to leapfrog some of them, plus contend with Cleveland, Boston, Chicago, and Orlando.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
That ship has sailed. We re-upped Gilbert and Antawn and the organization is dedicated to those players. You will find a lot of people on this site who question those signings. But it what it is. You really think the Wizards would have only 19 wins with Haywood and Gilbert healthy last year? EVERYTHING is based on the assumption of health. Everything.
If Gilbert is healthy, this team catapults Charlotte, Philly and probably Miami and Atlanta. You also haven’t seen what happens to the OTHER competitive teams in the east. What if Turk doesn’t resign with Orlando? What if Boston trades Rondo and Allen? Miami wants to a player in 2010, which is supposedly why they won’t do much next year.
Miami was awful, TERRIBLE two years ago because they were missing one player. We were missing THREE last year. If you are telling me that getting a healthy Arenas, Haywood and adding a starting SG and 6th man isn’t an improvement – then I don’t know where you are coming from.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what ship?
I don’t know what you mean there.
I didn’t say we’d only win 19, I said you can’t assume we’ll win 45 games. Which I still feel is accurate. Philly gets back Elton Brand. If he can integrate with that team, that’s dangerous. The Wizards don’t have a low post guy to match him. Atlanta gets better every year. With our 48 shooting guards, we don’t have the size to contend with their length, and they have a better running game. So we have to outscore them, without getting into a track meet. Not a winning recipe in the playoffs. Miami was terrible when they lost Dwayne Wade. Look, I love Arenas. But I’d take Wade over him any day of the week. So Haywood is the only leg you have to stand on in that argument, because I won’t even address the loss of Stevenson. That’s addition by subtraction, in that it gave the young guys more freedom.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ship means
that by resigning Arenas and Jamison, the team had already committed to winning in the present, and not rebuilding.
Also, I think that getting back an Allstar pg who is capable of averaging 25 PPG and taking the last shot DOES validate my argument. Just because Wade is more important to the Heat doesn’t mean that Arenas isn’t almost as important to the Wiz. My argument doesn’t stand in that the Wizards will be better than last year than they were with Mike James and Javaris? How does that work?
I know its fashionable on the blog to bag on Stevenson, but I think that you will find that if you look at his numbers, we was an adequate reserve before he went down to injury. Further, I wouldn’t find it hard to believe that if his health does improve and he returns to form, we will be seeing the same reaction as to the departure of Songalia, which is ironic considering that I was one of about three posters who have defended him for the past few years.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the biggest problem with this
that by resigning Arenas and Jamison, the team had already committed to winning in the present, and not rebuilding.
You’re right. That’s exactly what this is about. But if that’s the case, then it’s annoying that we also needed to save money. If we really wanted to win something meaningful in the present, I think we had to throw financial flexibility into the wind. Otherwise, you end up with a trade that helps only marginally, which I think this trade does.
That’s where I was going with the “both ways” angle.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ernie Grunfeld is setting something else up
Probably at the trade deadline. While we have an unbalanced roster now, if we have more trouble with injuries in the backcourt then the Wizards might be able to deal with it better. I still wish the Wizards got #28 back though.
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jun 24, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get that Mike
and I think you have a good point.
But I don’t think the front court concern stands. Every possible trade that has been mentioned in connection with the Wiz and the #5 has had them bringing in a SG, whether is be Hughes, Carter, Howard, Jefferson, Allen, or Ginoboli. Amare is the only frontcourt player that we ever heard of the Wiz pursuing, and its not like he is known for his defense. We lost only one player who contributes to the front court, just one, and his production can be replaced through other means.
Further, every player that we liked on the board was a SG, whether is was Evans, Harden or Curry. Their contribution next year is entirely based on our player development, in which we have a terrible track record.
So in trading for two pieces that can start immediately – we essentially gave up one projected backcourt player whose potential is unknown, and a decent veteran PF who could probably be replaced as a FA signing or a trade of one our other guards.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Abe and the team have stated
they were willing to go over the tax for a big fish. We tried and couldn’t get Amare or Bosh so we made a cap neutral deal for smaller game. Acquiring young talent and expirings doesn’t rule us out from pursuing Amare or Bosh at the deadline either.
by Mr. E on Jun 24, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
except
know its fashionable on the blog to bag on Stevenson, but I think that you will find that if you look at his numbers, we was an adequate reserve before he went down to injury
Except that he wasn’t a reserve. He was starting. Stealing minutes from Nick Young, probably stunting Young’s growth a little. Stevenson gives you next to nothing offensively, and is an average defender at best. He takes too many ill-advised 3’s, and his 2 foot-ed take-off on layups constantly leave him in an awkward position at the rim, needing to heave up an underhand shot with little chance of going in.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so you're making my point
we just UPGRADED the starting SG position by trading for TWO people who are NBA ready right now to play at the 2. Stevenson (if healthy) moves into a reserve role and can concentrate on regaining the “Locksmith” moniker, and doesn’t have to worry about scoring if Miller or Foye are out there on the second unit.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't
even put Stevenson in the argument. I didn’t like his game before he got hurt. And frankly, I’ll be disappointed if he’s on our opening day roster. But because of him, and now Miller, we will probably have to ship out Nick Young in order to get a big. We NEED size down low. And, short of getting rid of one of our stars, Young and McGee are our only trade-able commodities. Makes no sense to trade McGee for another big, so it’s Young. Meaning, essentially, we traded for Foye, who’s not that different than Young, and now we’ll probably trade Young. Kind of a wash. Unless it turns out Foye is a bust for us, or has a lower ceiling than Young. Then it’s a loss.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
again
I’m not saying we won’t be better than last year. Before we made this move we were better than last year. I also know we are in a win now mode. Never disputed that. But that doesn’t mean we ARE going to win now. Somehow I don’t think showing up in Cleveland in the playoffs and SAYING we need to win now is gonna do the trick. We actually have to improve. The caveat there is, we basically have TWO season worth of improving to do, since the rest of the conference has gotten better since we were last competitive.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This trade is good if you overlook would could have been.
This trade doesn’t any real “Wow!” factor, in that we didn’t get a superstar or someone who has name recognition like Ray Allen or Amar’e, but I think this is a good trade for what we gave up. Etan’s expiring, D-Song (I hate to see him go…), and Pecherov along with the fifth pick isn’t all that much for two solid players (and it addresses the shortfall at SG). If EG can make something happen with James’s expiring and maybe a younger player (hopefully not Nick or McGee, just because I find them entertaining) we could get a decent team. Probably not a championship contender, but I honestly think that was high hopes to begin with. This gives us some young talent in Foye and another outside shot with Miller. Not too shabby really. Now we just need to hope we get some inside presence with the bargaining chips we have left (I’d take Nick Collison).
by whippb on Jun 24, 2009 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
this trade didn't excite me
but i don’t think eg could have done much better…
i agree with others that aren’t worried about young, stevenson, james, and crittendon not getting minutes. i didn’t have a lot of faith in them helping us win.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Jun 24, 2009 1:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
?
Last week, in response to a question about small ball, Flip states that he prefers to go big.
This week Grunfeld trades 3 bigs for 2 smalls.
Anxiously awaiting the next move, Ernie.
by disgrunted on Jun 24, 2009 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I Wouldn't Make Too Much of That Comment
Two of those bigs traded away never played anyway. And one could argue that trading D-Song was a way to clear the logjam at PF for Blatche and McGee so that they could get meaningful minutes now that Brendan is back. In other words, Flip can still go big even without another trade.
"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 24, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and the 3rd
wasn’t big enough to be considered a big by most teams. He’s 6’8 in shoes without the strength to hold rebounding position and without his pre-back injury athleticism to make up for it.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see it
BQ. In other words, Flip can still go big even without another trade.
How exactly are we gonna go big? Haywood is now the only guy we have who won’t get tossed around like a rag doll. Everyone dumping on Songalia is forgetting that he subbed for McGee or Blache when some center was backing them down like grown men on a 12 year old. Blache isn’t going to give you the hustle plays that Songalia does. Guys like Darius are never appreciated for the little things. Him and Brendan were the only ones standing up to Lebron in the playoffs. Before Darius, we had Ruffin, Terry Davis etc. These are the type of guys that winning teams need.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think anyone is dumping on Songalia here
In fact, I think you’ll see that there has been a sea change on the board in people’s impression of Songalia. If you go back through the history of the site, he has gone from immensely tradeable to pretty good cog. But as Hollinger pointed out, PF’s are the most common commodity in the NBA. There is always a Jerome James available. Hell, we might even get EXTREMELY lucky and pick up someone like Jamario Moon who no one has ever heard of for peanuts. But to say that trading Darius is not worth picking up a starting SG and 6th man?
And before you start attracting the kind of “savvy” veterans that you want for a team, you have to have a decent team in place. Hopefully, FA’s will see that the Wizards are committed to winning now, and we can pick up a player like Nestorovic who wants to make one more run.
And I can’t believe your brought up Ruffin on this board. I might have liked him, but prepare to be savaged.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always liked Ruffin
I don’t think he helps our team at all at this point, but I always appreciated him as a class act and a hard worker. He and Darius share that aspect.
by Manimal Smith on Jun 24, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and
he was a chemical engineer. The Wizards always pick up the most interesting guys.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i liked ruffin too, a lot actually
but generally people on this board hate him. be prepared…
by DarrellWalkerFan on Jun 24, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Add me
I liked Ruffin. He Worked hard and gave his all. I wish some of our guys did more.
by Unkle Wheez on Jun 24, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
alright
that is two fan clubs. one for darius, and one for mike ruffin.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Worst Part About It
Is that it made many of us look like fools. The team had reiterated that it was willing to pay the luxury tax and that its focus was on talent not taxes. While Chad Ford and everyone else talked about the Wizards desire to cut payroll, we said no, no, no we know the Wizards and you’ve got it all wrong, Pollins health is deteriorating and he’s promised us that he’s going all in to win another championship. Well, as it turned out, the national media and the conventional wisdom knew the Wizards better than well virtually all of the Wizards fans. And thats humiliating. Not only that we were wrong, but that where we went wrong was trusting in the organizations willingness to compete.
Sorry if my posts are bitter, I’ve been computerless for the past two months and so I’ve only had the motivation to go to the library to use one of theirs on the big news days, and particularly when the big news has aroused strong emotions from me.
Now that the draft excitements gone (as are hopes of Steph Curry, my Davidson hallmate how perfect it would have been) , we still have summer league to get excited for, so let images of the Javale McGee tomahawking it fill your heads.
by morethesamewiz on Jun 24, 2009 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The payroll aspect of this trade is minimal. As I understand it, we’ll still be paying Lux Tax. If we were all about saving $ we would have done a lot of things instead of this trade.
by MR on Jun 24, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's going a bit far
The Wizards got better, they didn’t just dump the pick for savings. They were able to accomplish both goals; saving a bit of payroll (and it’s not much cash, it’s just a bit) and getting better overall.
The problem I have is that they didn’t pick either one and go all out for it, not that they were cheap.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Doesn't Make Sense
While Chad Ford and everyone else talked about the Wizards desire to cut payroll, we said no, no, no we know the Wizards and you’ve got it all wrong, Pollins health is deteriorating and he’s promised us that he’s going all in to win another championship. Well, as it turned out, the national media and the conventional wisdom knew the Wizards better than well virtually all of the Wizards fans. And thats humiliating. Not only that we were wrong, but that where we went wrong was trusting in the organizations willingness to compete.
Have you read the Hollinger article? Even the first part (non-Insider accessible)? He was practically eating crow about his assumption that the Wizards would pursue a salary dump. He considers it a move to compete, not cut salary.
And as for Chad Ford, what do you make of this quote?
I have to say that I love what the Wizards did. I really like the addition of Miller and Foye. I’m not sure they’re in the same leauge as the Cavs, Celtics and Magic … but they’ll be close
"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 24, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't like Hollinger's article
It was as if he didn’t believe the Wizards actually wanted to compete, so he polarized things into an “all in or SELL SELL SELL” scenario, when really this trade was somewhere in between.
Ford likes it precisely because it’s somewhere in between and because it perfectly fits exactly what people have been feeding him as far as the Wiz’s desires.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Ford likes it precisely because it’s somewhere in between and because it perfectly fits exactly what people have been feeding him as far as the Wiz’s desires.
Ford thinks the Wizards will compete with the Cavs, Celtics, and Magic because the trade makes him look smart? That doesn’t make any sense. Either he thinks we can compete or he doesn’t, whether or not it fits his preconceived notions does not factor.
"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 24, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do think his notions factor in
Think about it. For about a month and a half, he’s heard about how the Wizards want to get a veteran who can also help them cut some salary. He’s probably logged sleepless nights galore. The Wizards do exactly what he’s been fed, so naturally, he’s going to be pretty enthusiastic about the trade.
And yes, he probably likes it from a pure objective standpoint too, but anyone who does what he does is going to be somewhat affected by all the stuff he hears and channels.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tidbit
Marc Stein’s Wednesday post
“Bonus Wolves nugget: Kahn’s willingness to take on Darius Songaila, who is scheduled to earn $4.5 million next season, looks like the clincher that persuaded Washington to take Minnesota’s offer over New York’s for the Wizards’ lottery pick”
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&page=TradeChatter-090624
Grunsfeld has had six years and won exactly one playoff series, and in opting to stick with a highly expensive core that many feel are not good enough to compete for a championship, we were convinced that he would surround this expensive core with the players needed to plug the gaping holes. Instead the attempt to surround the core with supporting players if not governed by, at least shaped substantially by financial considerations which when we have a year or two left to justify Grunsfelds roster moves of the past six seasons, seems like a little short of what was called for.
by morethesamewiz on Jun 25, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY
Not only that we were wrong, but that where we went wrong was trusting in the organizations willingness to compete.
I don’t know how anyone thinks this makes us as good as Cleveland or Orlando. We have no inside game. Nobody’s going to convince me that Foye and Miller get us by Cleveland. Worst of all, I doubt either will be on our team next year.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
major
I think you main problem was thinking that there was some magical deal that would, in one sweeping act of awesomeness, turn a flawed team into a favorite in the Eastern Conference. Other than Kevin Garnett, those deals don’t exist in basketball. Even them it wasn’t just KG it was also a second deal for Ray Allen.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
I agree with you. There wasn’t one move that would push us over the top. Which is why I wanted to use the draft pick. Then at least we would have the potential to land a star. Like I said before, to me this is just Ernie throwing his chips in. At the very least, we should have waited until draft day for a better option.
by CJHutch on Jun 24, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you keep missing the main point..
Grunfeld wasn’t going to trade any of the Big 3. Whether that is a mistake or not is a different argument. But from every rumor gathered, Portland, Phoenix et al were demanding Butler back in a trade for your “home run” player.
So instead, we shipped out the assets that we felt we could part with for the best available players for THAT package.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points overall. but...
What is the move that you would rather have seen Ernie made to go “all in” (to borrow a really unfortunate season tagline from a few years ago)?
I can’t imagine that Ernie could have done any better for the #5 pick in a weak draft than to bring in 2 pretty good veterans at a position of extreme need on our club (before the trade we were actually thinking about starting Deshawn and using Nick as his primary backup – think about that for a second), while also cutting salary in the future and not taking on any non-expiring contracts.
Basically, Ernie’s decision came down to using #5, Etan, Mike James to either take on a big contract in the hopes that we win this year or use some of those assets to improve and improve our future salary situation. So, if he was w,illing to sacrifice the ability to re-sign Brendan and/or future flexibility, then this presents two questions:
1. Who would you like to have seen the Wiz acquire without moving one of the big 3 – who could really have helped us at #2 guard but who was worth sacrificing future flexibility and Brendan over?
2. Who would you like to have seen acquired using one (or more) of the big 3?
- is the more interesting question to me because its still entirely possible to acquire someone using one of the big along with Mike James/Nick Young. Does losing the #5 pick really dampen our flexibility much in that area?
by Manimal Smith on Jun 24, 2009 5:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
err should say 2.
2. Is the more interesting question…
by Manimal Smith on Jun 24, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got answers to these, I promise
I just don’t have a second now, but I’ll try to churn out something by the end of the night, since I was actually thinking about them on my ride home.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But my first answer is basically going to be
Who would you like to have seen the Wiz acquire without moving one of the big 3 – who could really have helped us at #2 guard but who was worth sacrificing future flexibility and Brendan over?
There is none, really. And that’s the problem; you have to pick one direction or the other in this league, and the Wizards have essentially picked neither until further notice.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is pretty much what I was trying to get at with this post
“This is what happens when you try to have it both ways.”
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
usually not this slow
but i don’t understand the answer. i too am interested to hear what the “go all in” move would have looked like. i’m not so convinced we could have gotten better players for what we had to trade even if we were willing to take on unlimited salary.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Jun 24, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with Darrell
was there a trade that would have netted us a package that was significantly better that did not include Butler?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
by ledellforlife on Jun 24, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry for the self-reply
but just read the t-wolves blog and they argue it’s a good deal primarily b/c foye and miller were gone in a year anyhow. so they’re thinking they got something for nothing.
but is the 5th pick in a crappy draft the best they could get for BOTH those guys together? not to mention taking on three bad contracts?
my lack of excitement about the deal is that it doesn’t visibly put us over the top but upon reflection i kinda think EG fleeced yet another GM on a trade.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Jun 24, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's really one semi-bad deal with Darius since it's the only one that goes past 2011
And Minnesota is rebuilding anyway … no need to have Foye and Miller as part of their effort. Now, they can completely rebuild their backcourt, kind of like how Portland turned two 2006 picks into Roy and Aldridge. (That was a weak draft too, remember).
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 24, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i need to go to bed but my main point is that
i think their argument that they got something for nothing is fallacy. i think that’s the wrong way to look at it from the t-wolves perspective.
it comes down to, that’s really the best they could do? they must have really wanted to get the ghost of mchale out of there. i think b roy was WAY more highly touted than any of these guys on the board. just as likely calbert cheaney. they’d do well to get a shane battier
by DarrellWalkerFan on Jun 24, 2009 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In another thread someone said . . .
That the Wizards didn’t get 28 because they didn’t want to pay for it. If that is the case that is very frustrating!
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Jun 24, 2009 5:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
MIN
Minnesota is expected to sell the 28th pick to the Knicks. The max they can spend on it is 3Mil. Are you paying 3M plus 1Mil guaranteed for Jonas Jerebko, Eric Maynor or DeMarre Carroll?
by Jheiser3 on Jun 24, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when any one, or all three of those guys might be available at 32 anyway?
No – the pick they wanted was #18… but Minny didn’t want to give it up.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jun 24, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
18 could have netted some good front court help (hello Tyler), but 28 was just going to get us the same player we will get at 32 – no need to pay 2 of those players. I don’t think it was actually realistic to expect us to get #18 in addition to what we received, but it woulda been nice if we could have convinced them to ship that pick over instead of taking Darius off our hands.
by Manimal Smith on Jun 24, 2009 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
