Six reasons why Nick Young's probably a goner
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 4:30 PM EDT
in Player Analysis
77 comments
In continuing to work on my Randy Foye post (I'm sorry, lots of work this week, not much time), the major conclusion I'm starting to find is that Foye's presence seems to indicate the Wizards don't really have Nick Young in their long-term plans. Rather than dilute the post on Foye down with that conclusion, I figured I'd spell out a bit more clearly why Foye's presence is a real challenge to Nick Young's place on the team. Some points will probably overlap, but since we're getting too bogged down in free agent talk, I wanted to start another thread for those that are tired of it.
Keep in mind I don't necessarily endorse all these arguments, nor are they in any way a guarantee that Nick Young starts the 2009/10 season on another team.
1. Randy Foye is much better at shooting guard than point guard: Foye's numbers don't look too great this year on a whole -- 13.7 PER (below average), 46.3 FG%, 51.7 TS% (pretty cruddy). At the very least, they look pretty comparable to Nick's (13.1 PER, 48.1 eFG%, 53 TS%). But according to 82games.com, Foye's numbers at shooting guard are much more impressive (17 PER, 48.5 eFG%, 2.2 TO/48 compared to 3.9 at PG). This is consistent with Foye's last healthy season in 2006/07 (see here). It was Foye's ill-conceived tenure at point guard that dragged down his production. If we break down Foye into "Foye the PG" and "Foye the SG," "Foye the SG" is much better than Nick Young. If the Wizards realize this (which they should, since there are more minutes behind Mike Miller than behind Gilbert Arenas), Foye's going to get most of his time at shooting guard, where he'll cut deeply into whatever minutes Nick Young was going to get.
2. Randy Foye passes better: The big improvement of Young's season in 2008/09 was that he cut his turnover percentage down significantly. However, he did not improve his passing much, as his assist percentage barely improved (9% to 9.6%, both pathetic numbers for a shooting guard). Foye, on the other hand, has registered three straight seasons with an assist percentage over 20%, and cut his turnover percentage all the way down to 12% this year. Obviously, some of Foye's high assist numbers have to do with him playing point guard a bit, but that doesn't account for how Foye's assist percentage is twice that of Young's. As we've discussed before, passing skill is important for someone playing with Arenas, and Foye passes that test better.
3. Both players have similar usages: Both Foye and Young used over 20 percent of their team's possessions each year of their career. Foye's career usage is a bit below Young's (22.2% compared to 23.8%), but it's still pretty high. There's not much need for two reserve shooting guards who use a similar number of possessions.
4. Foye catches-and-shoots better than Young: Allow me to quote Stop-n-Pop of Canis Hoopus, who I e-mailed earlier this week with some questions about Foye for the Foye piece.
Foye is a fantastic catch-and-shoot player. Flip will find a good use for this guy.
(later in the e-mail, in response to a more specific question about his catch-and-shoot abilities)
As mentioned above, he's a fantastic catch-and-shoot player. There's not much to complain about the guy on this front. If he can embrace this role, he'll do very well in Flip's system.
Foye's assisted % hasn't historically been so high, but there's ample evidence to suggest that was a function of being the only decent guard in Minnesota for three years running. There's at least more hope that part of his game shines through than there is with Young.
5. Foye's less of a work in progress: The upside and downside to Foye is that he is what he is at this point. S&P expressed that to me multiple times in our conversations and I agree with him. Young, however, still has development to make, and for a team that's supposedly "winning now," there's less time for him to come around.
6. Young can be an asset in a trade to balance the roster: It's not like Young isn't talented, so whereas he might get lost in the minutes shuffle here, another team could see a lot of value to him. That might be big in a trade for one of two purposes: either as an incentive to trade away a decent third big man for Young and expirings, or as an incentive to take on a bad contract like DeShawn Stevenson so there's more room under the luxury tax in 2010 to sign Brendan Haywood and maybe Mike Miller.
0 recs |
77 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I wanted to hate this article
espeically since I love Nick Young and his ability to be our own Ben Gordon. But damn if you didn’’t debunk my flimsy points. I can only hang my hat on the fact that Young is more explosive than Foye, and that has to count for something right?
twitter.com/rashad20
by rashad20 on Jul 2, 2009 4:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll try to make you feel better
1. Mike didn’t mention a word about defense. Foye is undersized, and if Young is smart (Wow, what a big if), he’ll focus on being a better defender.
2. We can project who will mesh well with Arenas, but neither Young nor Foye have ever really played with Arenas. Who knows, maybe Young is a good fit with him.
On the downside, the organization seems to have adopted the philosophy that “young players = suck” — trading all the draft picks this year, talking about veterans, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised, but would be very disappointed, if Ernie started trading young guys left and right.
by disgrunted on Jul 2, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for those excellent counterpoints
The idea of Nick Young leaving just depresses the hell out of me. He may very well be my favorite basketball player period, and the idea of watching him turn into a 20+ ppg scorer (which he will do, especially if he leaves) is just unbearable. He might have trouble getting more than 15 minutes a game this year, but I’d still rather keep him around, then offer him a starting gig or at least 30 mpg as a sixth man. God, I really hope that Arenas holds as much influence with Ernie Grunfeld as he used to…
by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 2, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
He’ll definitely become a 20ppg guard. He and JaVale were my two favorites to watch last year. On some of those really dreadful games (I know there were many dreadful games), I’d only watch when JaVale or Nick were in the game. I see a really high ceiling for both of them. Nick Young can take anyone in the league off the dribble. I see the points about him not really fitting, but he’s a freakin’ baller. Let’s make him fit. We have some crap (e.g. James, Crit, Deshawn) – why do we get rid of the goods? Because we need to package our crap with goods. Damnit, if he’s gone, I’ll miss the hell out of him.
by se7en on Jul 2, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I just don’t know what you all see in Young. He can score, but to do so he has to turn the rest of the team into spectators since he can’t pass and can’t really play well when anyone else has the ball (except on the break).
His defense went from horrible to passable.
He seems like a (very) poor man’s Iverson. I don’t see how that meshes with a team.
by MR on Jul 2, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be more concerned about your last paragrah
If Ernie didn’t clear the frontcourt so that our top two young players (Blatche and McGee) get more time. Those are the young guys that matter most. The rest are pretty expendable to me for the right guy.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This hinges on Foye being a backup.
You make some really good points, and they’ll probably come true, but if Foye starts then I think Nick will be the backup SG, and Miller will be the backup SF/dedicated shooter off the bench. I think this works better for a few reasons:
1. Foye (while still an unknown quantity) is probably a better perimeter defender than Miller.
2. Arenas works well with combo guards who can handle the ball (ala Larry Hughes). Foye handles the ball better than Miller.
3. I think Nick Young could play better with Miller. You can let him be the focal point of the offense, draw defensive attention, and then have him kick it out to Miller.
Admittedly, this makes PT difficult for McGuire, as his spot as the primary backup SF is gone now.
The Washington Wizards: providing career scoring nights for unknown opposing bench players since 2004.
by mamemimo on Jul 2, 2009 4:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This steps on the upcoming Foye article
But I don’t agree with your plan for a couple reasons:
1. Miller plays just as much like a combo guard as Foye (high assist percentages, good handles), and he has a better outside shot and is a better rebounder. The only difference between the two players’ “combo-guard-ability” is that Miller’s taller, so you’d assume he’s a 2. They play the same way.
2. There aren’t many backup small forward minutes to go around. Miller’s too good to be a 10-minute spot player.
3. Like you said, when does McGuire play? He makes sense as a 10 minute spot guy behind Caron.
If they keep their team, I think the Wizards are going to try to solve their logjam by giving Butler and Miller minutes at the 4, which is dumb. They should make a trade instead.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather see DMac at the 4
Butler and Miller don’t really fit there, but at least Caron (and for all I know Mike Miller) can box out well and rebound like crazy if need be.
One thing that I think all of this hinges on is how fast we’re going to play. If we’re going to play a grind-it-out offense like the Pistons played, we probably should be looking for at least one more big man, but if we’re going to play as fast as I think the roster is ideally suited to playing, then it really isn’t that huge a deal that we might be playing someone who’s 6’8 and 225 pounds at power forward for five or ten minutes every now and then.
by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 2, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In fact
when I look at the personnel on this team (a bunch of combo bigs who are capable of running the floor, only two or three regular rotation guys who aren’t really three point shooters, and multiple athletic slashers, and a point guard with great court vision), I actually see a perfect team for D’Antoni ball.
by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 2, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno.
Miller, to me at least, seems more of a SG/SF type of player. He’s not going to handle the ball as well as Foye, and he’s definitely not as much of a slasher as Foye. I’ve been harping on the Foye/Hughes comparison a little too much in my posts recently, but I think it holds true – Arenas plays well with a guy who can be interchangeable with him in the slasher or shooter role, and Foye fits that better than Miller does. Rook’s article points out that Foye is also a good catch and shoot guy, so he fits that mold.
That being said, alot depends on whether or not Miller’s year last year was an aberration, or if he’s on the decline (my money’s on Miller had a bad year and bounces back). The biggest story of the offseason is who wins the starting job – Foye or Miller. I honestly think its still up in the air.
The Washington Wizards: providing career scoring nights for unknown opposing bench players since 2004.
by mamemimo on Jul 2, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see how you feel
But Foye’s not really a slasher either. He shoots mostly jumpers, just like Miller. Miller’s just as interchangable in the slasher/shooter role as Foye is.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually....
That’s not entirely true. The 82 games numbers show that, while he had a down year taking it to the hole – 49% FG on inside shots – he did take it inside 28% of the time, which is considerable. Wade was only at 34%, so for a guard, that’s pretty aggressive really. Larry Hughes ’05 season was only taking 24% of his total shots inside (though he finished them a lot better).
But Foye was also towards the top of the league as far as not being assisted on inside shots, seemingly 14th overall if I am reading the numbers correctly.
So I wouldn’t say he isn’t a slasher. I would expect to see him shoot less jumpers off the dribble, and hopefully with our shooters stretching defenses, he’ll be able to increase the number of inside shots and FT attempts.
This is one of the big things i like about Foye.
by Hoopalotta on Jul 7, 2009 8:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young has a higher ceiling than Foye
But Foye fits better. And I also see Young getting fair chances at PT this year. And I don’t see Young getting traded before the midseason trade deadline, for two reasons:
1. EG will want to inflate Young’s trade value to pull off a decent trade. Players of Young’s type (one-dimensional scoring SGs) grow on trees.
2. There is a looming decision on which of the two former T’Wolves to keep next year. Miller is the odds-on favorite IMO, and Young would slot in very nicely as a 4th year backup to Miller, if we part ways with Foye.
However, if the right heist… er… trade comes along, all bets are off. Young James and Critt are our remaining trade chips, and we need a trade. I’m hoping its James/Critt, although I love his upside too…
As for the differences between Foye and Young, I believe Young can develop into a very good catch-and-shoot guy, but Young will most likely never be more than an average passer. Young is nearly neck and neck withFoye as a pure scorer, but he has the potential to way surpass Foye in that aspect of the game.
by jonesinmybones on Jul 2, 2009 4:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's possible EG waites until the deadline
The problem is that Nick probably won’t get enough minutes to allow himself to pump his trade value up.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would Young be a better trade chip than Foye?
If I’m a team, looking for a shooting guard, and looking to trade with the Wizards – I think I’d prefer the guy that was a starter… Averaged 16 points per game… can pass… is aggressive on defense… and by all accounts a stand up, quality person…
Now – not to knock Nick Young (whom I think is going to be a very, very good player) – but he’s a backup, averaged 10 points per game, can’t pass, is passive on defense… and has had some knuckleheadedness in his past.
A trade involving Stephenson and Foye (who just happens to have an expiring contract)…. or a trade involving James’ expiring contract and Foye makes more sense to me.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 2, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
depends on what you're looking for
Young’s size and potential to get better would be attractive to teams who are rebuilding or need a bigger backcourt.
by Pryme on Jul 2, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, Foye can't be traded until late August
And can walk at the end of the year.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can't be traded WITH another player until August
He can be traded one on one for another player…
In August – or more specifically at the Trade Deadline, when teams will be looking to dump talent (salary), and pick up expiring contracts – James and Foye (and perhaps even Miller) will become more valuable than Young.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 2, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Can Rebuild Around Foye Too
I’m not sure I agree with Canis Hoopis on the point that Foye is who he is and won’t get any better at this point. Foye has improved every season he has been in the league, despite the disastrous experiment at PG last season. He is still only 26 years old, and has shown a lot more potential than Young, IMO. If I wanted to build around a young SG, I would want Foye, not Young.
"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 Jul 3, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a reason he was picked 7th in the 2006 draft
Admittedly, that was a weak draft (the Wizards took Oleksiy Pecherov with the 18th pick) – but he was still picked in the top 10. The guy has talent, a great work ethic, and is a stand up person (non-knucklehead)…. He can shoot. He can pass. He can rebound a little. In College he was a very good aggressive defender
Let’s remember that Young was selected with the 18th pick in the 2007 draft. Now, I love Nick… but let’s face it: he has some knuckleheadedness about him. He’s also not nearly the complete player that Foye is. Except for late last year, Nick has never shown any inclination to play defense (even in College). He’s a poor passer, and he doesn’t rebound.
If I’m a team looking for a SG (or combo-guard), I’d rather have Foye – than take a chance on being able to develop Young.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 4, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here, Here!
I agree 100%.
What do we think the Timberwolf’er fans would have said if they had Nick Young on their roster last year instead of Foye? I don’t think it would be glowing reviews.
B-Ball IQ, ball handling and passing are all real good arguments in favor of Foye.
by Hoopalotta on Jul 7, 2009 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Critt -
what about his status? there are 5 true guards (counting miller, but not butler). seems like either young or critt is the odd man out. and since foye could play point (understanding that’s not his strength) is there a chance critt gets moved instead of young?
"a crab dribble is when you travel" - caron butler
by little stevie colter on Jul 2, 2009 4:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Possible
But at least he provides a skill and type of game that others don’t. He’s got a very different game than Foye and James. Young doesn’t have a very different game than Foye.
I also don’t think Critt has much value in a trade.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think it would make more sense to keep critt. he doesn’t take too many shots but has great ability to penetrate (not that young doesn’t) but the point is he doesn’t take away shots on a team that’s loaded with offense.
by theintz on Jul 2, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
link not working -
but i agree that he has a role on the team – but if you consider james and stevenson who may be harder to move, something’s got to give and i hope it’s not nick or crittenton.
"a crab dribble is when you travel" - caron butler
by little stevie colter on Jul 2, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Finally Contenders!
This may be slightly off subject but I just realized something.
We are going to be the LA of the East if we trade Young and maybe Deshawn or Critt/James for a good center or big man.
There is acouple reasons why I say this.
1. The depth finally allows, IF Arenas is healthy to break out and be that Kobe of the Washington Wizards again (some people will hate this comment). Lets be honest, hate if you want, the guy isnt exactly old and he is damn good. When he plays the Wizards are a completely different team. In the 06-07 year he was up there with Lebron & Kobe I wouldnt even say Wade at the time was as talented as Arenas. Realistically all the trades possible even combined wih the big man are ultimately so important because they support defense, give offensive options and FINALLY compliment and give Arenas more support. Arenas used to score 60-40 points a game, who says he cant put a few 40 point games up this year?? Why make the guy a shadow if he is healthy. Im all for letting him be smarter and more team oriented but if he get his HIBACHI burning again with shooters all around ready to have a rebound kicked out to them for a potential 3, Im all for him gunning.
2. We are FINALLY healthy FINALLY, you are not a Wizards fan if being healthy isnt something important to you. Really, should I elaborate more on health. I actually am asking Bullets Forever to remove any curse in our slogan or on the sites banner, its like a jinx. Lets get rid of this curse mentality for 2009-10 season and move on! We have to stop the curse mentality, it dies and ends today!
3. Depth, renewal, removal. We have a damn good roster with ALMOST depth now (need another rebounder, defensive player/bigman). If Miller shoots like he did 2 seasons ago, Foye improves and plays better than he did last season, Jamison still masters his insane flip shot, Caron is on point and aggressive, Arenas is able to direct shots to the hoop like the sniper he was two years ago, Haywood is aggressive as he was ending the season last year, Blatche and McGee improve, McGuire stays on the bench a little more (sorry), and Critt/James/Young get traded for another option and we potentially have another big man as a back up rebounder, etc. Let me tell you we are going to be TOOUGGHHH. We now have the terrible Et, Stewy, and the not so terrible actually quite good D-Sizzle gone (plus Dixon) this helps release minutes for better players and allows more competition (for example the competitive nature of LA, everyone fights hard for minutes so they are at there best). Look what we did with injuries and minimal players and non-comitting rookies 2 seasons ago, we beat Celtics 3 times and almost knocked out Cleveland in the playoffs.
Some can disagree with what I am saying, but I am sick of people not being optimistic, instead of thinking of last year and hoping a repeat I remember who we were 2 years ago. When our Jersey was on videogame covers and all kinds of marketed commercials with an Agent as our head. Hopefully we will transform into this team again, out of no where, not expected, upgraded, improved, and next season we will be contenders for the FINALS. Lets hope!
by Unxpekted on Jul 2, 2009 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Forgot Deshawn`
If Deshawn is healthy he will provide plenty of head slaps to Queen James as well as hand waves in front of the face HAHAHA I know this clip will get people going.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spq2FZgaumk
Deshawn payback ; )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL-FLsxkEe0
by Unxpekted on Jul 2, 2009 5:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is the discussion is Nick Young vs Randy Foye?
Nick Young has more upside than Randy Foye, and I see Nick Young more as a shooting forward than a shooting guard. And Mike Miller is as much of a factor as Foye in competing for roster position with Young. I agree that there will not be enough minutes to go around. But if they obtained Foy to replace Young, then this was another ill-conceived move.
Gerry
by Expatde on Jul 2, 2009 5:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The next minute Nick plays at forward will be his first
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not totally sure NY is out - you are assuming that Foye won't play PG, and I'm not so sure.
Think about this rotation (48 minutes per spot – I’ve put the number each player may log in parentheses):
Arenas (34-36)/Foye (12-14)
Miller (24-26)/Young (12-14)/Foye (10)
Butler (36)/D-Mac (6)/Miller (6)
Jamison (34)/Blatche (10)/D-Mac (4)
Haywood (28)/Blatche (10)/ McGee (10)
I realize this is a 10 man rotation, but given that Butler and Arenas have both been injury prone in recent years, I think the smart play is to limit their minutes to the mid-30s. In tight games against good teams the minutes can shift a little: cut D-Mac’s 10 minutes and give them to Butler/Jamison/Blatche. Maybe limit McGee’s minutes.
But the key here is my guard rotation. Gil gets 35 min; Miller 25 (+ some at SF); Foye gets 22-24 minutes; NY gets about 14 max. I see Foye as the primary backup behind Gil (I know I know, he isn’t a “good” PG) because I think that’s how the front office sees him—as Gil insurance. Here he will be the primary ballhandler only when NY is in the game, and if he’s teamed with Miller then he can give up some “initiation” responsibilities to him (or alternatively, to Butler). So, the only way this rotation doesn’t work out is 1) if the coaches decide that NY’s 12-14 minutes are better distributed between Gil (I hope not…), Miller, and Foye, or 2) if the coaches decide to start Foye (unlikely I think, because the backcourt would be so undersized).
The final piece to the puzzle will be if NY can step up his defense – if he does (and we started to see it towards the end of the year last year), then he could push for 20 minutes (and push Foye down to about 20). Foye won’t play 30 minutes a game if he can’t effectively guard SGs, because Gil sure as hell won’t be able to do it. And because Miller needs a few minutes at either SF or (God forbid) PF, there is an opening for NY if he steps up.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Jul 2, 2009 5:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's really not a bad rotation at all
I think that we could see D-Mac playing alot more minutes at the 4 than people expect, which means that Blatche can slide into playing 5 more (which I am less enthusiastic about).
D-Mac is a pretty good defensive matchup against the new-wave of Rashard Lewis-esque shooting 4s.
I also agree that this i how the front office probably sees it. I doubt they are planning to rotate more than 10 players and I doubt that Deshawn, Mike James or Critt are slated to see regular minutes. My guess is that those 3 guys will be buried on the bench unless we are still operating under the delusion that Deshawn can be an offense/defense switch with Nick Young (I’m not sure I really buy that – especially since NY has better physical tools for defense than Deshawn).
by Manimal Smith on Jul 2, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we could maximize and balance our roster
By trading a 14-minute guy for a 20-25 minute big.
Otherwise, if the season started today, I think that’s a pretty solid 10-man rotation. That makes Critt expendable too.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 2, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I'm not saying keeping NY over a big man is desirable
I was just saying that I think NY could find a spot if the roster stays pat and Flip decides to back up Arenas with Foye. I’m definitely making a lot of assumptions. If Critt or Stevenson or even D-Mac work their way into the guard rotation somehow then NY is probably gonna be the odd man out.
Getting buckets since 2003.
by Icantfeelmyface on Jul 2, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like this rotation too. Just give more minutes to Nick. :)
Nick would be better off on a team where he could get more minutes. But I’m not sure we’d be better off without him. :)
by se7en on Jul 2, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something like
Nick and Mike James for Darko would probably benefit everyone involved…unfortunately.
by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 2, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe it
But I am on board with that, though I hope NY has more value than that ..
by Manimal Smith on Jul 2, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
Are you saying you want Darko? How will that make us better? We need a low post defender/rebounder. not anothher 6’11 small forward.
by CJHutch on Jul 3, 2009 6:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Darko can rebound and block shots
And he’s strong and mean enough that he probably won’t be pushed around a lot. As a fifth big, he’s actually a decent guy, plus he has an expiring contract. I don’t necessarily want anyone that bad, but I think that Darko’s one of the better guys out there to come in and play spot minutes at center and power forward. Kwame would actually be perfect for the role, but he was kind of run out of town, so I figure we might as well turn to another bust.
by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 3, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i like this rotation
we also have critt for insurance at PG and can play him in blow outs (which we will be winning).
this leaves out stevenson and james who we need to find deals for and bring in a bigman who can play D and rebounds. we also shoud sign rasho for the vet min.
by wizchamp on Jul 2, 2009 6:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Saunders and staff working with Young to improve his off the ball game.
Don’t know where I read it, possibly this site or Mr. Irrelevant but the coaching staff was working with Young to improve his game when playing off the ball and he was totally mystified by the idea of running off screens (a la Rip Hamilton) and creating havoc for defenses in the half court game. I hope to see this come to fruition. I could understand if this was done to increase his trade value, but it’s a shame to see this kid suffer from having some coaches that weren’t willing or able to work to improve his game. He is a liability on defense which I would assume means he’s destined for a career sixth man role but he’s instant offense and has a motor. I’d like to see one more year of him with Saunders at the helm and see what happens.
by Natepyatt on Jul 2, 2009 8:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Same here
I like to believe that all of the work that’s being done with him is because of the team’s faith in him and is a sign that he’s a part of the long term plan.
By the way, even though his defense stinks, I don’t think it’s broken. The only guys who just can’t play defense are the ones who have physical limitation like AJ, Nash, or most likely post-injury Gilbert. Nick’s tall, long, and quick, so I think that the only thing keeping him from being an at least adequate defender are coaching and effort.
by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 2, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're right
I don’t think the defense is a physical thing, it’s how much he wasn’t to play defense. A lot of the posters are in agreement as well. It’s definitely how much he wants to be a good defender. Will he become Bruce Bowen? Probably not, but it seems like on the really elite players can play great on both ends. I see him as a passing lane defender, and not much on the ball defender, but that’s okay if he’s the sixth man.
by Natepyatt on Jul 2, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, wouldn't it make sense to keep Nick Young around
In case Arenas gets hurt, I like Crittendon but he’s not ready to be a starting PG and maybe never will be. So Foye has to move to the 1 and you have Young as the backup 2. Until Arenas can come back and play close to a full season, I’d want some insurance.
But looking at their roster as it stands now, I see 12 guys that would dress and not many bigs in that group, which is disconcerting. Yeah, that’s pretty much beating a dead horse at this point.
by Natepyatt on Jul 2, 2009 9:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Here is a suggestion I heard on the B.S. Report (Bill Simmons Podcast) 6/24
Mike Miller & Nick Young for Chris Kaman & Al Thornton.
If my link doesn’t work (first one attempted) then here is the full interview under 6/24…
(start at about 39 minutes in)
"McGee is just flying all over the place. He’s like a condor." -Stacey King
by Lukbuster on Jul 3, 2009 12:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Okay neither link worked one more try...
"McGee is just flying all over the place. He’s like a condor." -Stacey King
by Lukbuster on Jul 3, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard this isn’t possible. We can’t package Miller or Foye in a trade with another teammate. Rook/Prada could explain it better.
Plus I don’t like the trade.
by se7en on Jul 3, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I understand correctly...
Teams can trade a player recently acquired in a trade to another team strait up, but you cannot package the recently acquire player with another.
However, in this case It would not matter because Miller’s salary (9,028,575) is close enough to Chris Kaman’s salary (9,500,000) so technically it would be two separate trades, but it could be in one swift move.
Oh and… Young (1,602,960) & Al Thornton (1,776,240)
Post Script… I forgot where to look for upcoming salaries so I got these last year salaries from espn. Also, like se7en, I am not sure If I am understanding the trade rules.
"McGee is just flying all over the place. He’s like a condor." -Stacey King
by Lukbuster on Jul 3, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's correct
Miller and Foye can only be traded in a one-on-one deal because they were just recently traded
Players cannot be traded again in a package deal (with another player) for 90 days after they’ve been dealt.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 3, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
60 Days
August 24th. Not unheard of for a trade to happen this late. Billups was traded for Iverson on November 3rd of last year.
"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 Jul 3, 2009 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm
not a fan of the idea of trading Young. I know Foye is still pretty Young, but I think NY has lots more upside. Plus he’s the only slasher on the team. Butler has become more of a jumpshooter. And as far as needing to “win now”, that’s all well and fine, but I wouldn’t wantto mortgage the future to lose in the conference finals.
Now, all that said, if we could get Al Thornton for Nick, I’d jump all over that.
by CJHutch on Jul 3, 2009 6:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
except
they already dealt Randolph for Q Richardson. That creates room for Griffin and adds a shooter with some Clipper history too.
by Jheiser3 on Jul 3, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Getting rid of Randolph was huge for them
But it also appears that the Clippers are building around a young core of Al Thornton (SF), Eric Gordon (SG), DeAndre Jordan © and Blake Griffin (PF). I don’t think you’ll see them make any move to get rid of any of those 4 players. They need a good young Point Guard to compliment that group…. (I don’t think that they’ll be satisfied with Mardy Collins or Mike Taylor)
There were plenty drafted in this year’s draft… and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them make a trade to bring in a young PG before the end of the year.
What am I thinking – this is all too logical – this the Clippers…. they’ll probably screw it up.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 3, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd pass
As far as value around the league, the deal is good for us, but I really don’t like Kaman. He’s injury prone and he always seems to be turning the ball over. Thornton’s a decent young player, though.
by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 3, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
TOO MUCH ANALYSIS
we have an injury history.
we just came off a year when injuries ruined the team, made it non competitive, and cost the owner gigantic amounts in lost salaries and even worse, lost revenues.
we have no idea what gilbert is coming back, we hope for the best but we just dont know. none of us do.
the team made a concerted effort to bolster its backcourt depth the year after all of this.
i’m not saying a trade wont happen, i’m just saying it seems like people look for ‘the next level’ of reasoning. if arenas isnt right, we need nick young, he is the only other penatrating scoring option. if he’s buried on the bench because arenas is healthy, fine- great luxury.
but with all the guards on this team. planning teams around hopes wishes and crossed fingers for the health of a player who hasnt played a full season in 3 years is bad planning.
'he nails an open three from the corner....just like you and me, this one was made by penetration' - Truthaboutit - Round 1 Game 5 Recap
by KDP on Jul 3, 2009 8:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The only contracted player the Wizards should deal is James....
Unfortunately (1) we are unable to package him with next year’s first round draft pick because of the Septien rule and (2) no other team would want to deal the type of power player we need for JUST an expiring contract.
Unless the Wizards can persuade a trading partner that DeShawn Stevenson still has some good miles left, the only tradeable commodities left are Critt (the man should never unpack I guess, but I doubt he is high on anyone’s wish list) or Nick Young, which is what this post is really all about because there IS a market for him.
I love watching Nick Young play when he is on a roll, and it would be sad to see him go, but to challenge the top dogs in the East (even if the Magic don’t re-up Gortat) will require more bulk. If we are not satisfied with signing lower cost big men and we do not want to go over the cap any further, then the writing is on the wall.
by khrabb on Jul 3, 2009 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Except
If the Wizards do sign a big man to a veteran minimum contract (read: cheap) – someone that will be able to come in and give them 8-10 minutes – then this roster is set for the season.
I wouldn’t look for another move until the Trade Deadline in February – at which time expiring contracts (like Mike James’, Miller’s and Foye’s contracts) will become more valuable than Nick Young and his still developing talent.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 3, 2009 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You are right...
When EG says in an interview that he is just looking for a big guy who can give the occasional 5 or 6 minutes… he probably means it. Heytfelt will get a long look or it’s, .“Mr Nesterovic, c’mon down!”
by khrabb on Jul 3, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In retrospect
I should have titled this “Six reasons why Nick Young should be a goner.” I do think he’ll stick around even if he maybe shouldn’t.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 3, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Aww - come on Mike....
I though you and I were the last of the Nick Young fan club….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 3, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Truthfully
I think Nick has a chance this year to show the club he can be more than just a scorer off the bench. By the end of last year, he was playing pretty good defense (he was putting forth effort)…
I look at it this way… He has an NBA skill (scoring)… His first year, he showed that.
His second year, he cut way down on his turn overs, and improved his ball handling, along with maintaining his mid-range game
This is his third year – I’ll be happy if he continues with the low turn overs, gets a bit more consistent on the Offensive end, and improves his defense. (which he seems to be working on)…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 3, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey now
I’m still on board. Though I have to say, even before the post I felt like there was a good chance that Nick is likely going to be the sweetener to trade Mike James because he has some value but he doesn’t fit well with Foye.
Bullets Forever: A blog dedicated to the Washington Wizards with analysis, commentary, and more YouTube videos than your eyes can handle.
by JakeTheSnake on Jul 3, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OTOH
Teams looking at the Wizard’s roster may feel like Foye is the better player….
The only problem is his Free Agent status…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 4, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coulda been, shoulda been
I love Nick Young’s potential. He could be great….
Actually, I think he could have been great (next Vince Carter) right out of College if he had gone 3 years to North Carolina, instead of 2 years at UCLA. That program at UCLA doesn’t seem to develop good, solid players. The players out of UNC on the other hand, all seem to be fundamentally sound; and Nick Young definitely needs sound fundamentals. Unfortunately, he’s having to learn those fundamentals “on-the-fly” at the Pro level.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 4, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you meant USC instead of UCLA
Nick was a Trojan product, not a Bruin. Tim Floyd (the former USC coach who was in charge during Nick’s college years) produced Gabe Pruitt, OJ Mayo, and of course Young. All three of those guys still have holes in their games that need addressing.
Ben Howland (the current UCLA coach) has produced Jordan Farmar, Kevin Love, Luc Mbah a Moute, Ryan Hollins, Aaron Afflalo, Russell Westbrook, and Trevor Ariza. Sure, most of those guys need work too, but all of them came much more ready to contribute right away than any of the USC players. Along with UNC, UCLA is one of the best in prepping players for the college to pro jump. The one exception to this may be Jrue Holiday, but we’ll see.
Bullets Forever: A blog dedicated to the Washington Wizards with analysis, commentary, and more YouTube videos than your eyes can handle.
by JakeTheSnake on Jul 4, 2009 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right, of course
USC, UCLA – - jumble letters… in my senile mind, it’s all still California.
AND I wish that Young had gone to UCLA – because like UNC, they turn out polished, fundamentally sound players.
As for Jrue Holiday – how much can a College Coach be expected to do with a player in only one year?
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jul 4, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
USC
If recent events are any indication – Floyd was less a coach than a GM. I wonder about guys like Nick Young, OJ Mayo and DeMarr DeRozan – how much of their improvement in college was just on their own and through assistant coaches. Floyd showed his coaching prowess in the NBA and he was putting athletes in the NBA, but they had to work at being players.
by Natepyatt on Jul 4, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am a fan of Nick Young
I am just bothered by his tendency to fade away on most shots.
"McGee is just flying all over the place. He’s like a condor." -Stacey King
by Lukbuster on Jul 3, 2009 6:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He actually fades a bit on his free throws
Like, he goes up, shoots it, then takes two or three steps back after each one.
by pantslessyoda1 on Jul 4, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hilarious
He actually fades a bit on his free throws
Like, he goes up, shoots it, then takes two or three steps back after each one.
For real? I never noticed that before. That is absolutely hilarious.
"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 Jul 6, 2009 11:07 AM 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.
