No building blocks
by Mike Prada on Jan 20, 2010 11:31 AM EST
in Free Agency
51 comments
No bwoods column today, sorry guys. This will take its place.
It was Saturday night, after the Wizards' 94-84 victory over the Kings, and Flip Saunders was reflecting on a career that included, to date, 600 wins. Like anyone trying not to sound like they're full of themselves, Saunders tried to change the subject, saying at first when a reporter congratulated him that "it shows I've been in the league a long time."
That, of course, didn't last, and Saunders eventually opened up considerably when the subject was brought back to his 600th win. He started with the typical platitudes, saying his success has a lot to do with the support he's received from front offices everywhere, his players, etc. But then he started to talk about his tenure in Minnesota, which began with a dreadful 1995/96 season before eight straight playoff appearances. Saunders talked about how he knew he needed to change the mindset and personnel there to achieve the type of success he did.
Sound familiar? Saunders has said similar things about the situation here. Surely the current Wizards bear some resemblance to those crappy T-Wolves teams Saunders took over. I couldn't help but ask Saunders whether he saw any similarities in the two situations.
His response? (Emphasis mine)
"Yeah, a little bit, but you know, the one thing we had [in Minnesota] was [Kevin] Garnett at 19 years old. We knew he was going to be the man for a long time. He was just a freak athlete and a freak player."
[...]
"Overall, here, there's so much talk about guys not being here and everything else. This team -- it's scary -- because we're not that far away, yet we are far away."
Just think about the gravity of this situation for a second. I'm firmly in the nuke rebuild option, if only because I've sat through enough quick fixes that don't provide much payoff to know that the path to real success is through slow, careful building. I'm still in that camp now.
But to rebuild, you have to have something to build on. A young player who you know will be a part of your organization for a long time. An untouchable, if you will. That guy need not be as dynamic as a 19-year old Kevin Garnett, but he does have to be someone you know will be a part of your future.
I realize Flip was trying to stand up for his boy KG when he answered my question, but it still comes across as pretty damming. Yeah, it sucked in Minnesota, but at least we had a 19-year old superfreak that had showed something the previous year. And let's be honest, KG was merely a 19-year old superfreak. His rookie year numbers: 10.4 points and 6.3 rebounds per game in 28.7 minutes, with a 15.8 PER and a 52.2% true shooting percentage. Not bad, but not first-ballot hall-of-famer good. Yet Minnesota knew they had at least one keeper on their team, which made it much easier to nuke what they had and start over.
Saunders is right - who is that guy on this team? Gilbert Arenas might be going to jail, has a big contract, is already 28 and has seemingly fallen completely out of favor with management. Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison are on the wrong side of their primes, Jamison's fine-wine aging notwithstanding. Andray Blatche and Nick Young have been here a few years and have not proven to be dependable building-block types. JaVale McGee has shown a ton of awesome flashes since he got here, but he still looks the same as he did when he was drafted, whether that's because of a lack of personal motivation, a lack of playing time, or both. Regardless, you cannot trust him as a future part of a winning franchise only because he literally hasn't proven to a renown coach that he can play significant minutes.
This of course is what makes trading the fifth pick in last year's draft so tragic. The Wizards decided they had enough young players and wanted proven guys, but in this league, you can never have enough young players. You never know when your best-laid plans falter, and when they do, you need those young bucks in tow to sell hope to your fans, sell a future to yourself and help lead you into a new era. Sure, the big prizes of the draft (Blake Griffin, Tyreke Evans, even James Harden and Ricky Rubio) were either off the board or never coming over here. But at least we could count on someone like Stephen Curry, Jonny Flynn or Brandon Jennings to be a guy who could be a focal piece of a new era. Maybe not the focal point like KG, but certainly a focal point like a Jeff Green of the Thunder or a Mike Conley of the Grizzlies.
Does this make the nuke option tougher. Unfortunately, yes. And that's sad, because this team needs to be nuked for any chance at long-term growth.
0 recs |
51 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yes, but...
I think the question is not “to nuke or not to nuke”, but WHEN to nuke…
If you cannot get maximum value for Butler and Jamison now, why trade them now? Let them keep playing well (whch I think they will) , and their value is going to go up, not down.
If you cannot get a high draft choice or genuine young talent for Miller, Haywood or Foye now, why trade them now? They are playing in contract drive mode, why not milk that?
The only movable pieces right now are Young, Blatche and James. Oberto and Boykins are going to turn into pumpkins. Stevenson is unmovable and McGuire is a bargain en of bencher.
Everything else should wait until we get Gilbert sorted, which should be management’s primary concern.
Mike, you are right, we do not have a stud to build on, but we have a busted stud to dispose of in some appropriate way first.
I don't think Jamison's value could possibly get higher
If you don’t like the offers now, they ain’t gonna improve.
The other issue is payroll flexibility – if you don’t trade some of these guys now, they clog up your cap and slow down a key part of the rebuilding process.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
As for the free agents
If you aren’t going to keep them, you at least want to get something for them. I have a feeling lots of teams will get desperate for a guy like Haywood, particularly those out West that need to match up to the Lakers’ size. He should be a highly-valued commodity.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Yeah but
Haywoods expiring contract could get in the way if the team trading for him wants more than just a rental. And I don’t think he’s too motivated to sign an extension if he thinks he can get a lot more as a FA.
by jones-y on Jan 20, 2010 12:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Or it could be an asset
To a team like Portland, who needs a short-term big in the worst way, or San Antonio, who is gearing up for one last harrah before Manu becomes a free agent, or Denver, who has major long-term luxury tax problems to deal with.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
khrabb's initial question was when to nuke
And in my opinion, the answer was last summer, but if not then, then now. You always want to buy low and sell high. This organization has always done the opposite — traded Chris Webber when his value was at its lowest, did the same for Stackhouse, traded young players for veterans, etc. The recent play of some players offers the team a little opportunity to sell high. It just takes some guts and foresight to do so.
One mistake I’ve made (too often!) in the stock market is that I’ve got a really good stock, it has shot up in value, I know in my gut it is overpriced and I should sell it, but I fool myself into thinking it will keep going up. It doesn’t, and of course it drops. That’s where we are with this team. A couple of nice wins and people start thinking maybe they can string together some wins, maybe they can make the playoffs, and then who knows. But can that even happen? Right now, there are three teams in the East that are in 5th through 7th at right around .500. To get to .500, the Wizards need to go 27-15 the rest of the way. Can they? Sure, just like an overpriced stock can keep going up. But will they? The odds are strongly against it.
And if they make they playoffs, how long will they last? First round exit most likely? If they get the 8th seed, can they beat the Cavs? Not likely, but anything can happen, I guess. The odds are strongly in favor of a first round knock out. If the Wizards somehow get past the first round, a second round knockout is very likely.
So, if the team’s ceiling is a second round playoff loss, and that ceiling is conditioned on the team going something like 27-15 the rest of the way (without its best player), and somehow pulling an incredible upset against a heavily favored team, then yes, it’s time to nuke it. Because each failure of this team to make the playoffs reduced the trade value of its players.
A team like Dallas
even though they have Dampier, would love Haywood…. and remember, just because Haywood’s contract is expiring, doesn’t mean that Dallas couldn’t resign him… They would have his Bird rights.
AND seeing as how they’ll probably trade Dampier this off-season, they are going to need a competent, defensive minded, rebounding Center for next year anyway….
The only question is, what can Dallas offer the Wizards?
The expiring contract of Drew Gooden ($4.5 Million) + Rodrigue Beaubois + a 2nd round pick might get it done…..
Or they could trade Haywood + Stevenson for Josh Howard’s $10M expiring contract (Team Option for 2011) + a 1st round pick. WAIT – that trade doesn’t work because Dallas traded away their 2010 1st round pick, so they cannot trade their 2011 pick……
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Happy to have gotten the flow started...
I agree with those of you who say Haywood has great value in the here and now.
And bye the bye if you check back on the figures, you will find the his contract drive this year, while pretty good, is actually not as strong as the one Dampier put on with GS the year before the Mavs signed him for big bux (and long-term buyers’ remorse thereafter).
Mavs signed him for big bux (and long-term buyers’ remorse thereafter).
But now look at the Mavs…. Dampier’s contract will be one of the BIGGEST chips in the 2010 Free Agent market… People forget a few important facts about that 7-year, 73 Million contract that Dampier signed with Dallas before the 2004 season. Like, the fact that the last year is non-guaranteed.
And although it’s easy to look at his scoring average in GS and his drop off with the Dallas Mavs and say he’s been an underachiever – if you look deeper, you’ll see that he’s been an efficient scorer, excellent rebounder and a low usage player. He doesn’t turn the ball over… and he’s got a low foul rate …. His TS% went up after he came to Dallas. Overall, I’d say that $10 Million is probably the right price for a good starting quality Center in the NBA… That’s certainly what Haywood will get when he goes on the market this Summer.
He has a “non-Guaranteed” contract for 2010-11… Meaning that Dallas can do a sign-and-trade deal for a player (like Chris Bosh or LeBron James or Dwayne Wade or Amare Stoudemire) … By offering one of those players a 6-year max contract…. They have a huge advantage over the rest of the League.
For instance:
Say Toronto, because they’re going to lose him anyway, signs Chris Bosh to a sign-and-trade deal with Dallas. He signs a max deal with Toronto for 6-years, starting at roughly $16 Million…. (No other club can offer a 6-year deal). Toronto immediately trades Bosh to Dallas for Dampier ($13 Million non-guaranteed contract) + a young prospect (Rodrigue Beaubois). Dallas throws in a draft pick….and/or some Cash…
Toronto then immediately drops Dampier (non-guaranteed contract) – and, if they’re under the Cap, they have an immediate $15 Million on the books to spend on a FA…. PLUS the prospect (Beaubois) PLUS the pick.
Dallas gets Bosh. Bosh gets his 6-year deal AND can go to a real contender. Toronto gets the prospect, the pick, cash, and roster and Cap flexibility.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
By the way, if you look at all the Starting Centers in the NBA…. and take out the ones on Rookie scale contracts….
The average Starting Center in the NBA makes $10,500,000
Haywood is a bargain at $6 Million….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Yes, and then we could sign Damp for 2010 - 11
at a reatively cheap price, having let Haywood go to a team who wants to rent a center this year, eg Portland or Utah (the Okur offensive drop off has rendered him way less valuable…)
Endless speculation …
Minnesota when Flip took over
had quite few assets to work with, too. The relatively established players the Wolves dealt early in Flip’s tenure included:
Donyell Marshall was a rookie who got dealt for Tom Gugliotta when Flip was still GM.
Christian Laettner, who got dealt for Andrew Lang.
Andrew Lang — so-so veteran big who didn’t get along with “Da Kid” at first blush.
Isaiah “J.R.” Rider got sent out of town for no real return.
None of them probably as valuable as Caron Butler, depending on how you read his production and contract weight. None of them as functional as Jameson over time. And behind those guys, the Timberwolves didn’t have any Foye-type talent to move into the spots left open.
On the other hand, of course, there were no heavy contracts attached to any of those guys either. But Washington has some movable parts to deal with. Saunders in Minnesota had next to nothing.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Well, sure, but they at least had KG
I’m not really talking about assets here. I’m talking about untouchables. The Wizards may have “assets,” but they have no untouchables, which is a problem.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I see McGee and Blatche as close to untouchables. Blatche is inconsistent (and dazzling when on) but that should improve with age. And McGee has the toolset to be a more athletic Camby. Not a bad starting frontcourt in a couple years…
The only way either of them gets moved IMO is if they can bring back young bigs with heaps of potential, and what GM wants to part with young bigs with potential?
by jones-y on Jan 20, 2010 12:16 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I dunno, shouldn't an untouchable play more than five minutes every other game?
Or even 20 minutes a game?
Semantics, maybe, but that’s a real untouchable to me. You can’t get untouchable status if you never play.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
To me untouchable is
a balance between on-court production and future potential. Garnett had heaps of both, granted, but in my mind you can’t rule out a young center like McGee who is undeniably raw, has shown flashes, has a solid work ethic and a good attitude. Or Blatch who has shown he can produce, albeit inconsistently.
Just think about three years down the line, when Blatche is 26-27 and McGee is 25-26, and whoever you nabbed in the upcoming draft (likely a guard if you keep those two) is going into his third year.
See, I agree with your definition
But Garnett provided both of those things. He played enough to show on-court production and provided tons of future potential. You need both to be a building-block type.
McGee has future potential, but no on-court production. He never plays and rarely plays well when he does.
Blatche has little future potential anymore. He’s been in the league several years, and while he’s made marginal improvements to being a viable rotation player, he hasn’t made any large jumps. If it was going to happen, it would have happened already. You don’t make significant jumps in your game past age 23.
So to answer your question about three years down the line – I’m pretty sure they’d basically be the same players as they are now.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I disagree
And to clarify, I am saying that there has to be a balance between potential and production. Not that there has to be both. In other words, lots of potential and little production (McGee). Or good production with good potential to improve (Blatche IMO). Height helps too. as bigs don’t grow on trees.
As for them being the same players three years down the line, remember that bigs require more time. I see improved numbers (and motivation) for Blatche if he moves into the starter’s role. And I just can’t fathom McGee being the same player in three years… Just look back over Haywood’s career.
But anyway, its all speculation, so its not a winnable debate either way… Time will tell, and we’ll know how much Grunfeld values them shortly.
Blatche is a knucklehead.
Why would you ever want to build a team around a guy like that? It’d be like building around Gilbert Arenas. Oops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk
Who said anything about building around him?
all I’m saying is keep the kid.
to ME
the first question that should come into play when discussing whether a guy is “untouchable” would be “Does he help his team win?” And since this team hasn’t won a whole lot the last two years, I’d say nobody is untouchable. Do you GIVE away the young, talented guys when trying to rebuild? Absolutely not. But you still listen to ALL offers.
Did Garnett help the team win in his first year?
But yet he was untouchable, during and after that year, right?
I agree Blatche and McGee
are the closest we have to untouchables and add a John Wall or Evan Turner in the backcourt and I’d have fun watching them develop together
Any possible untouchables in the draft?
I think John Wall, Evan Turner, Al-Farouq Aminu, Wesley Johnson, Greg Monroe and Donatas Motiejunas are, but we have to start tanking right now to have a chance!!! lol
Absolutely
The draft brings in one building block, but we should have more, considering we’re at the perfect “nuke” opportunity.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
free agency
We should have cap space to go after Shannon Brown, Dorell Wright, or Raymond Felton whether we blow it up or not
That's why you ask for draft picks in every trade...
Trade Jamison – get back a pick and/or a young prospect
Trade Butler – get back a pick and/or a young prospect
Trade Haywood to Dallas – get back Rodrigue Beaubois
Trade Mike Miller – get back a pick or a prospect….
Now you’ve gotten rid of all your tradeable assets – and have (with Blatche, McGee, Young and Foye) – a bunch of young prospects and draft picks…..
Stay away from Free Agency….. especially during the early part of the rebuilding process… Add Free Agents ONLY after the core team has been established.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
i go to Wake Forest, Al-Farouq Aminu is not a franchise player
He has very little skill. Very, very raw offensively.
by John Park Williams on Jan 20, 2010 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
He's raw, and might not be a franchise player, but he has tons of skill
I’ve seen a lot of Aminu — he has a lot of skill. He’s definitely still pretty raw, but he’s very agile for being 6’9", is an excellent rebounder, has great hands, and plays good defense. If shooting was the only skill, then I’d agree with you (his ball-handling needs improvement, but is quite good for a young guy his size). He’s very skilled at everything else. I’d love to have this guy on the Wizards. I get the impression he’ll get much better at shooting and dribbling…but he has a ways to go there. Keep in mind that lot of great players were raw in college — since you go to Wake you should know that Tim Duncan was almost redshirted his freshman year.
we shouldn't get
too ahead of ourselves on this talk of acquiring a franchise player through the draft. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I completely agree with Rook. I’d love to see us starting all 1st to 4rd year players next year. If we could get and extra first rounder or two, I’d be all for it. But, remember, this is the Wizards we’re talking about. Landing a franchise player in the draft requires A LOT of luck, something we’ve been in very short supply of lately.
Sorry to be Mr Doom ‘n’ Gloom here. I just remember going through the 2nd half of last year thinking of how good we’d be with Blake Griffin on the roster.
Birds in the hand... birds in the bush...
maybe it’s better to talk about surgical strikes instead of nuclear options.
And I think we have seen more than enough of Andray Blatche. He is a poor man’s Tyus Thomas and the Bulls are aching to dump Ty as best I can see.
Maybe it is because I will soon be 67, but younger is not always better (unless it is a 19 year old KG or LeBron, of course)…
There is a lot of hard truth in the Flip comment that triggered this posting from Mike… not that far away, yet very far away indeed…
Building blocks don't matter if there's no plan on how to put them together
In architecture school, you would work on a design for weeks and when you presented it, you could spend all this time talking about its details and strong points, etc, and the professor would respond "Yes, that all sounds good, but what is your "Big Idea"?" And I think that is getting lost in some of this rebuilding talk, The Big Idea of the team.
The successful teams have an identity whether created by the coach and their system or by the players that are obtained. I think that is something that has to be decided from the top. We need a GM and a stable coach who will be around after 3-4 years. This idea needs to be established and players picked to execute it, or a coach to adapt to a type of player picked. Drafting players is just as much a crap shoot as signing in my opinion. Just because there are bad GM’s who sign walking cadavers to big contracts doesn’t mean that draft picks are the way to rebuild. There’s no guarantee that players will develop into what you hope. Plus our draft history is abysmal as of late, our best ones are ones that most have concluded as inconsistent at best. Why put our hope in the draft?
Championship teams either have a top banana and good role players or good players who execute a system great. I don’t want to wait around hoping for a top banana to fall to us, when their talent could still be wasted. I am more and more liking Simmons’ "12-man deep Press team" concept.
I guess my point is that until I hear the organization say "Our team is going to be ‘Style X’ " or "We are going to draft players with ‘Attitude X’ and adapt to their skills" I have no hope in either the draft or free agency.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk - Tuco
by ravoriobulleterpitals on Jan 20, 2010 2:40 PM EST reply actions
Drafting players is just as much a crap shoot as signing in my opinion. Just because there are bad GM’s who sign walking cadavers to big contracts doesn’t mean that draft picks are the way to rebuild. There’s no guarantee that players will develop into what you hope. Plus our draft history is abysmal as of late, our best ones are ones that most have concluded as inconsistent at best. Why put our hope in the draft?
Because even if you fail, the guy won’t cost much money.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I understand that
I’m asking the organization to have a “right player, right price, right contract length” philosophy and not go all in on ‘hot free agent X’
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk - Tuco
by ravoriobulleterpitals on Jan 20, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
I'd actually rate our recent draft history as pretty successful
given the obvious goal of building around the nucleus (and discarding all the pre-EG blunders of course).
Blatche was a mid second rounder. Anything more than a stiff at 47 is a success.
McGuire was picked 48th
Nick young and McGee were both 16s I believe.
Pecherov was a bust, and he’s the main one I can think of in the EG era.
Given that we were a middling team (evidenced also by draft position).
With hindsight, you can call last year’s moves to get out of the draft a blunder, but there were a number pf folks singing EG’s praises…
Meant to say
Given that we were a middling team (evidenced also by draft position), looking to supplement our roster, as opposed to ‘rebuild’, not bad.
I would agree with this
which is why it irritates the hell out of me to see them languish on the bench, or at least outside of the offense. I really feel like Blache and Young would be playing larger roles on other teams. McGee probably would at least see action as a #2 center. And McGuire would get real PT on Popovich, Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, or Pat Riley coached teams. As for Pech, I always wondered how he stuck around here. But, while I admittedly have no idea how he’s doing this year, I’ve seen clips of him actually contributing. Which is more than he ever did here. We just need to get out of this mindset that other teams’ players are better than ours. In otherwords we need to develop our own draft picks, AND stick with them.
Championship teams either have a top banana and good role players or good players who execute a system great. I don’t want to wait around hoping for a top banana to fall to us, when their talent could still be wasted. I am more and more liking Simmons’ “12-man deep Press team” concept.
Actually – Championship teams all have some common characteristics….
1. Almost ALWAYS, they have a HoF player leading the team
2. Almost ALWAYS, they have a All-NBA Defensive 1st team player.
3. Almost ALWAYS, there are multiple All-Stars (in addition to the HoF’er).
As I stated in my previous post – The ONLY team in recent memory that won without that formula was the Detroit Pistons, when (arguably) 4 of their 5 starters were All-Stars… PLUS an ALL NBA Defensive Player (Ben Wallace) – they just didn’t have that HoF player.
There’s no way to TRADE for that player (a HoF type player) – Any team that has a player like that (Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan) will NEVER trade them. So the only way to procure a player like that is through the draft.
I should have made myself clearer… The suggestion to get a pick and a prospect for every trade, includes future year 1st round picks…. So not every pick you get back has to be THIS year’s draft. The more draft picks, in the more out-years that you have, the higher probability you can draft one of those special players. The ones that only come out every few years or so…. (2003 being the exception)…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
I don’t disagree w/ any of this (especially the defensive point), It just scares me to sit and wait and wait for that player to come along if ever and THEN try and build a team around them. I’m arguing a 50-50 balance of FA and draft and am basing some of my point in that a great player can be developed, lured over or obtained through lottery pick via a trade w/ a bad GM, assuming those options are realistic.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk - Tuco
by ravoriobulleterpitals on Jan 20, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe I'm wrong
but I read Flip’s “far away” comments as, “If we can land a big free agent, let’s piece this team around him and make a run for it.” I don’t get the impression that Flip wants to be near anything resembling “rebuilding,” so it looks like he’s in the Ship Patch Camp (just not necessarily using Jamison and/or Butler as centerpieces).
You might be right
He then started talking about this year’s team. Normally, I’d include the whole quote, but Flip tends to talk in and out of different subjects, so I figured he was either a) doing that again or b) doing that to try to get away from the tough-ish question I asked him.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
honestly, I think Flip was just being politically correct
because we are not that close. And I think Flip has been around long enough to know that. Are we LBJ away from contending? Of course. Are we John Wall away from contending? No.
So, we are not close. I agree with Prada in blowing up the team and rebuilding with a clean slate and multiple picks. The tough thing for Flip is that if he admits that this team sucks, he may be without a job. He is in a tough spot. He will only go through a rebuilding process if he thinks he will be here in the long-term.
The key is just patience. Do not overpay to keep anyone. Do not sign a free agents who is not a Top-10 player in the league. And just hope that we get lucky in the draft, and get a Kevin Durant, and not a Greg Oden or Kwame Brown.
by John Park Williams on Jan 20, 2010 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
"Luck" and "draft" typically don't go together for the Wizards
the only way to make sure we can rebuild properly is to get the top pick, but that won’t happen as long as Butler and Jamison are here.
i agree. im all for losing as much as possible this year
Michael Jordan made us go 35-47 his last year here, instead of 15-67.
As a result, we wound up with Jarvis Hayes, instead of lEbron James, Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade, or Chris Bosh.
by John Park Williams on Jan 20, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
and paired him with Kwame
that would be a legendary front line.
by John Park Williams on Jan 20, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Flip said (see the quote above)
that THIS TEAM is not that far away, but also very far away, meaning (in my mind) that he feels that this group is close to being very good despite being quite bad so far.
so that's what? 7th seed? 6th maybe?
If we’re that lucky…but then that means we’ll get a middle-of-the-pack draft (aka, “more mediocrity”).
Then again, when we last won the Championship, we weren’t exactly coming in as world-beaters. Hmmm…
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.
