2010 NBA Draft Prospect Profile: John Wall
by Rook6980 on Mar 4, 2010 3:12 PM EST
in Draft
Email
PrintEditor's Note, by rook6980: This is the first installment in what I expect to be a regular posting on Draft Prospects. This series will take a look at the top draft prospects for the 2010 NBA Draft in June. Since the Wizards have three picks, one of them being a potential high lottery pick, I think it's important that we take a look first at the high lottery picks. The plan is to do one or two analysis a week, leading up to a flurry of activity the week of the draft. My DVR is crammed full of College games, and I'm watching them as fast as I can (between Wizards games). So here is my first assessment - John Wall.
- Team: Kentucky
- Height / Wt: 6'4" / 195
- Position: Point Guard
- Age: Freshman, 19 Years Old
I read a lot about John Wall before I ever watched him in a game. More athletic and unselfish than Derrick Rose? A better shooting, better passing Rajon Rondo? Look, up in the sky....it's a bird......... Wait a minute, come on; he can't be THAT good.
Keep in mind, that's a high school kid in that video.
Come on, he can't be THAT good.
Then I watched him against North Carolina in December, when he essentially took over the second half, finishing with 16 points seven assists, five rebounds and a couple of spectacular plays. And I watched the very next game as he carved up Connecticut in Madison Square Garden for 25 points, including 12 of his team’s last 15 to help Kentucky beat the highly ranked (#14 at the time) Huskies. In that game, Wall was particularly disruptive on defense, coming up with 6 steals - and generally outplaying UConn's talented Senior PG Jerome Dyson. And finally I watched as Wall sliced and diced Tennessee, leading the Wildcats on a 20-2 second half run that did in the Vols. In that game, he did whatever he wanted to do and got wherever he wanted to go on the basketball court, proving once again that, even against high quality opponents, he is the cream of the draft crop.
Yes, John Wall is that good. Superman good. Right off the bat, he's the fastest player I've ever seen. With the ball, without the ball, dribbling ... just the fastest ever, and with super-human quickness to go with it. Speedy Gonzales on a caffeine rush. To say he has a "quick" first step is an understatement ... and oh yeah, he has an incredibly explosive 43½-inch vertical leap, too.
Now combine all those physical tools with a player that loves to pass the ball, is driven to win, has great basketball instincts, is a natural leader, has boundless energy, intensity and a terrific work ethic, and you can see why everyone thinks he is the consensus to be the number 1 pick in this year's draft.
Because he can score, and because he can seemingly score effortlessly, some might want to place the dreaded "combo" guard label on him. Some see him as eventually a shooting guard. I see Wall as a pure point guard in the mold of a Chris Paul. Like Paul, John Wall has the ability to create his own shot, but he also can create for others. He's terrific on the pick and roll play, using pinpoint passes to a rolling big for dunks, or taking it directly to the basket. He's a great finisher around the basket and draws a lot of fouls. He sees the court well, especially in fast break situations. As a matter of fact, that's where John Wall excels. In a fast paced game, he makes seemingly all the right passes and all the right plays. In the half court, some of his creativity does not come through.
Sometimes he plays a little out of control; especially driving to the basket, where he might see and beat that first defender but miss the 2nd defender. He still turns the ball over too much, especially in the half court. He has great vision, but sometimes doesn't make the right decisions with the ball. All that will improve naturally with experience.
He has nice form on his jump shot, with great elevation and a high release and consistent follow through. He makes a good percentage of his shots (50%) including 3-pointers (33%). Still, that part of his game could use a little work. He's excellent shooting from a pick and roll situation and off the dribble, but less steady on catch and shoot situations. Extending his range to the NBA 3-point line will make him just about unstoppable.
Wall is aggressive and tenacious as a defender, with terrific size, wingspan and lateral quickness. He still gets beat at times when he gets too greedy going for steals, but he projects as a lock-down defender even at the NBA level. He's a nightmare when trying to bring the ball up court, almost like a one-man trap. Not only does he pressure the ball, but he blankets his opponent on the perimeter. His length, and freakish quickness and speed allow him to cover a lot of ground. He seems to relish contesting shots, getting a fair number of blocked shots on opponents jumpers. Although he's great on-the-ball, he tends to relax on defense off the ball. Like all young players, he has a tendency to reach, and that could get him in trouble at the next level. He's also not very good at fighting through screens - another problem he'll have to address before he can be anointed a "great" defender in the NBA. But make no mistake, Wall is NO Derrick Rose. He will eventually be an elite defender in the NBA.
Strengths:
- Explosive athleticism
- Practically unstoppable on drives to the basket
- Lightning fast with the basketball
- Natural pass first "pure" Point Guard
- Potential to be a lock-down defender
- Excellent on the pick-and-roll play
- Unselfish, Coachable, high basketball IQ
- Leadership, high motor, great work ethic
- Ability to finish at the rim
- Good free-throw shooter
- Good court vision and ability to create for others
Weaknesses:
- Turnovers
- Out of control at times
- Catch and shoot jumper
Fit for the Wizards: who cares if he "fits." If they have the chance to draft Wall, they should JUMP on it.
Just like most of the other Lottery teams (Utah, New Jersey, Minnesota), the Wizards already have a starting point guard in Gilbert Arenas. I think it's a fair assumption that Arenas will be back with the team next year. That being said, you cannot pass over the chance of drafting Wall just because there's already a PG on the team. If the Wizards (or any other Lottery teams with established Point Guards on the roster) are lucky enough to get the number 1 pick, they should pick the best player - and Wall is the best player by a wide margin.
160 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
there is very little you could write to convince me not to want a big man. but this did it- assuming there is no must have centers in the draft. if we can get him, would want to trade arenas for some front line help or perimeter player that can score AND plays defense! great job :)
by les boulez bomber on Mar 4, 2010 3:30 PM EST reply actions
How often is there a must have center in the draft?
Even Oden was a reach
maybe once a decade.
DHoward.
Shaq.
Hakeem.
Sounds about right to me…
you forgot kwame brown…oh wait, we did get him lol
i get your point on how rare it is…but i do know for a fact, if you can’t defend the paint, you will lose in this league- regularly.
we need another big man or mcgee really needs to step it up soon
by les boulez bomber on Mar 4, 2010 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
I actually would like to see the Wiz pick up a PG in the draft
(if they can’t get a strong big bodied center to be the yang to McGee’s yin) and who better than Wall? I also think sharing the backcourt with Gil would be good too; it would definitely take the pressure off of Wall.
Alas, its all a pipedream… So I’m thinking shoot for Cousins if we get a top five pick (or trade for Cole Aldrich who’s projected as a mid to late first rounder and should be on the boards well after our mid-lottery pick), and take a flyer on a PG with Cleveland’s pick or our second rounder.
Cole Aldrich is projected to be a high lottery pick
Draft Express has him at 6. Chad Ford has him at 8. Those guys are the ones who usually are on the mark.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Hmm, I stand corrected.
I had seen and heard him rated as a mid first rounder, but I’d be hard pressed to find a reference. Anyway, that means he should be on the board when the wiz pick, and I’m fine with that.
edit: Actually here’s one on nbadraft.net
But anyway I’ll have my fingers crossed for that #1 pick, it would just about atone for slipping to #5 last year… (even though I’d take Blake the manchild Griffin over John Wall about 6 times out of 10)
I don't love Aldrich
But he could have a solid place on an NBA team, and could fit quite nicely with Blatche and McGee IMO.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 4, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
Rather take Favors
Think of a broader Amare that doesn’t mind mixing it up in the paint.
Why do we need a guy that's not going to come along for a couple years and potentially never at alll?
He hasn’t done much at GT. Besides, we have AB7 now. I’d take the PG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk
But doesn't that sentiment invalidate the whole concept of a draft?
The same could be said for probably 45 of the 60 players that will be drafted…
Gil and Vasquez
They would shatter the record for backcourt turnovers in half a year.
Do you know Vasquez has less turnovers in his career than steve blake and john lucas. So wut do you think about that?
is anyone?
if we get a good PG, GAis closer to being expendable.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
A good fit, at least conceptually
is a SG who can defend, bring the ball up and initiate the offense on occasion, and hit open jumpers and 3s
Sounds a lot like DStevenson (at least the 07-08 version) and not far off from the Wiz edition of LHughes to me.
I personally wish I could move like Mark Madsen
Then I could never shoot threes and then randomly shoot six in one quarter to tank my team’s way to their draft pick.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
It will be funny if Minnesota gets the top pick
and have to decide whether to pick a third point guard to go along with Flynn and Rubio.
typo correction
would be the move they (Minnesota) had to make.
nah
I think they’d go the opposite direction, engineering a three-team trade that lands them Collison from NO and Agent Zero. That way Minnesota can field a PG-only starting five.
It’s a crazy plan. Crazy like a fox? No, just crazy.
Only thing is
they wouldn’t get much back, since word is that Rubio’s in Europe for another full year beyond this one. I’m thinking the smart thing would be to trade rubio once he suits up (assuming of course that they win the lottery). Or trade down and fleece some team to build a nice supporting cast for Slick Rick.
The Wiz can only get Wall if we get the first pick.
I would really like to see Even Turner in a Wizard uni. But after last year’s heartbreak, we will probably wont get a top 4 pick.
Orakpo!!! Russel Okung next year!
Yeah, there's no way we end up above 5
It’s still the Bullets….
Well its a given that Wall is the #1 pick
But I don’t see the Wiz landing a top three pick either, so Turner (and probably cousins) is out. Derrick Favors (raw, athletic) is semi-redundant with Blatche and McGee. that’s why I’m being realistic hoping for Aldrich.
from what i've read of Aldrich,
I’m lukewarm on him, but he seems to fill a need for a defensively solid center with a functional post game. If the better small forward prospects are gone (Wesley Johnson, maybe Al-Farouq Aminu), he would probably be a solid pick. As for Wall, if we get the #1, he’s our pick, no questions asked.
"Guess you guys aren't ready for that yet... but trust me, you're gonna love it." ~Marty McFly
Cole is just a repackaged Ostertag
We can do without.
Comparison
Big? Check. White? Check. Played for Kansas? Check. Clearly they are the exact same player.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Aside from Love
Name the last over hyped big white kid college kid that actually lived up to the billing. Sure, you can make that argument about the majority of lottery picks, in general, but it just seems to me like we’re still looking for the great white hope.
Pau Gasol Was a Big White College Kid, Wasn't He?
Or does your stereotype only include white Americans?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Never Mind
Gasol didn’t play college ball. Your stereotype is still intact.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Jedi mind tricks
Name the last over hyped big white kid college kid that actually lived up to the billing.
Give it up cups, you can’t win this. If a player lived up to his billing, then he wasn’t over-hyped. The closed-minded can be clever when they self-deceive.
If you take the “over hyped” requirement out, there are a bunch:
Bogut
Kaman
Murphy
Lee
Andersen
Pryzbilla
Hawes
Miller
Bonner
But more to your point
Yes, it’s pretty much based on American College kids
The Wizards don't need John Wall -- they have Boykins
Good piece, Rook. The only comment I would add is that you have a section on “Fit with the Wizards.” If the Wizards are rebuilding, I would argue that it isn’t necessary to talk about fit, because you don’t worry about that when starting a rebuild. There are no franchise cornerstones in place. Even though Blatche looks promising at PF, I think the Wizards shouldn’t pass on a power forward in the draft just because of Blatche’s presence. (And I think you agree with this, as I’ve seen you mention that the Wizards should just be picking best player available.)
Meh...
I’d be okay with drafting a PF as long as he’s not too much of a skillset overlap with Blatche. Its clear that Blatche is all but entrenched at this point. If he’s a big bodied defender PF then I’m all for it. Skinny lanky 6’9" perimeter/faceup jumpshooting PF, I’d say no.
Oh and for this:
The Wizards don’t need John Wall — they have BoykinsYou’ve just earned first class tickets to basketball purgatory. Or a gig at your local comedy club…
I'm pretty sure it's the second one
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
"It's clear that Blatche is all but entrenched at this point."
Three weeks ago, Grunfeld tried to trade Blatche for DJ Augustin. Entrenchment comes and goes quickly ’round here.
My point is that it is too early in the rebuilding process to say, “We have a young player at position X, so we’ll pass on this promising player as position X to go with someone at another position.”
well
if we end up with another rasheed wallace, chris webber, juwan howard situation (three power forwards), we do a better job of trading two of those guys for other pieces.
then again, i just hope we end up with that kind of talent on hand again, period.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Mar 4, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
And again my point is that
you have to have balance. I’m not totally disagreeing with you, I’m just saying it can’t be all one way.
You have to find the golden mean between drafting the best player available, drafting the best fitting player, and drafting the player who fills the biggest need. And that may or may not include trading up or down, swapping picks, and so on.
One thing that I’d be willing to put my money on is that this will not be a full scale rebuild. Grunfeld doesn’t work that way. He’s too competitive.
And because it won't be a full scale rebuild
you have to balance other considerations.
Well, I'm hoping it will be a full-scale rebuild
because Grunfeld will be out of here. You are exactly right that Grunfeld won’t participate in a full-scale rebuild. I wouldn’t say it’s because “he’s too competitive.” I’d say it’s because he’s too impatient and short-sighted. He’s in a huge rush to get to mediocre.
Ted seems dramatically different, another reason Grunfeld hopefully will be shown the door.
Why wouldn't it be a full-scale rebuild?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Primarily because that's not EG's style
But also because the wiz already have major key pieces in place. You’ve got a starting PG (Gil), PF (Blatche) and probably C (McGee) already in place. You’ve got a good backup 3/4 in Singleton (and yes I’m assuming he sticks around – really there’s no reason not to keep him).
Nick young still has some length on his rope before the Wiz give up, so he should be here (but he may be trade bait). And that’s not even counting the vets and trade pickups (Howard, Thornton, Miller, Foye, and Oberto). I’d be willing to bet that if the Gil situation pans out favorably, at least two of them are here next year. Probably Thornton and either Miller or Foye. Maybe even Howard if we can get him on a reasonable deal.
This roster with Gil looks like its primed for a retool, not a rebuild. Without Gil its a little more up in the air, so all is contingent on how the Gil situation plays out, but if we assume he gets 3-6 months, then he’s out in time for training camp.
I see one foundational piece in Blatche
One complete unknown in Gil and one project in McGee. Everyone else is pretty disposable. Young and Thornton have a year of evaluation left, but they’re not foundational pieces. Our draft pick should be too.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
You're missing
all the complementary pieces already on the roster. Some of them will be here for at least the next 2-3 years (even if only to allow our draft pick to mature…), I’d put my money on that. What’s up in the air is how many and which ones. And that in large part depends on their performance, how the Gil situation pans out, and offseason roster moves (i.e the right trade comes along). What I don’t see is us parlaying them all into more young talent/draft picks for 2010/2011.
Our draft pick should be too.
Should be what? A foundational piece? My friend, that’s as much of a stretch as everything I stated in the preceding paragraph…
Uh, no
Some of them will be here for at least the next 2-3 years (even if only to allow our draft pick to mature…),
I hope not. Young and Thornton’s rookie deals are up in 2011. Nobody other than Arenas, McGee and Blatche are under contract in 2012. Miller’s a free agent this summer and shouldn’t get a long contract. Foye’s a free agent this summer and also could easily be gone. Singleton’s a free agent and hopefully stays, but cheaply. Ross is a free agent after 2011 and is roster filler. Howard and Boykins are gone.
The only pieces we know will be here for the next 2-3 years are Blatche and McGee. That’s it. Young and Thornton haven’t proven enough. Young’s the same dude he was last year, and Thornton’s already 26. And as for the lottery pick, if you can’t turn your lottery pick into a foundational piece, you fail as a franchise. Little harsh, but it’s true – you have to count on those players as foundational pieces.
If you’re arguing that the Wizards should re-sign Foye, Miller, Singleton and Howard and keep them around for the next 2-3 years, then we lose all the cap space we earned on very, very marginal players. You don’t build your roster on the strength of sixth men through ninth men. That’s bad long-term strategy. Instead, you find your top options and then fill in the pieces around those guys. When I say they’re “disposable” players, that’s what I mean. You aren’t building your franchise around them, so why keep them when you don’t have your building blocks?
So no, there are no complementary pieces on the roster that we should count on being complementary pieces in 2013. Right now, we have Blatche as a definite cornerstone until 2012 at least. We have McGee as our resident project, who we don’t have to worry about re-signing until 2012. Then, we have Gilbert, who is under contract until 2014, but is a huge unknown for reasons I really shouldn’t have to spell out. Those are the only three players on the roster under contract for, in your words, “at least the next 2-3 years.”
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I'm not arguing anything about what they should or shouldn't do
I’m just saying that I don’t see a rebuild in the works.
And as for the lottery pick, if you can’t turn your lottery pick into a foundational piece, you fail as a franchise.
We just have differing views on the draft and the lottery then… By your criteria, almost all teams fail almost all of the time… To me its a crapshoot, and at best just another tool in the roster-building toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less.
You don’t build your roster on the strength of sixth men through ninth men. That’s bad long-term strategy.
Yeah sure. Not sure how you got that I advocate that approach out of my statements though…
Look, all I’m saying is that as long as EG is making the decisions, the wiz will not be flipping their entire roster for picks and prospects. I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t do that. I’m saying they’re not going to do that. They will (as they have in the past) use all the roster building tools (draft, FA, trades, and players already on the roster) and go into next season as a decent to good team (a playoff contender if you will), NOT as a bottom feeder with a bunch of young talent, draft picks, and roster filler.
hmmm...
To a degree I think you’re right. But I’d argue even Grunfeld will understand that this offseason deserves a different approach than last offseason. I could certainly imagine Grunfeld trading away the pick for example, but this year only if a young prospect comes in return. I don’t think there’ll be another pick for Miller/Foye type trade, where clearly Grunfeld was thinking a couple additional pieces turn the team into a contender.
Unless the Wizards score big this offseason with draft/free agency, this team is likely to have a ceiling of perhaps 42-45 wins, which isn’t a good ceiling to be clear.
Also, if the team finally gets sold to Leonsis, I’d argue that could have an impact in Grunfeld’s approach if we are to assume Grunfeld gets retained (a big if). As Leonsis has stated in the past, he believes one of the responsibilities of the owner is to set the tone/philosophy of the organization in its quest to win a championship. I wouldn’t be surprised if Pollin had some influence in that area as well, but probably a little more behind the scenes.
Does the team prioritize selling tickets over long-term interests? Is it time for a patient rebuild? Should the team break the luxury tax to get that missing piece for a championship? These are the types of questions that an owner often has final say – because he signs the checks – but they’re central in defining the path a team ultimately takes.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 5, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Well my thing is that I think
developing through the draft, rebuilding with picks and prospects, etc., is a bit of a fallacy. When was the last time one of the teams that used that approach even appeared in the championship? Why do so many teams perpetually have high lottery picks, if they are supposedly the ticket to the promised land? Yeah you can get good, build a solid foundation etc., but until Portland or OKC take home the goods, then it remains to me a way to possibly make your team into a playoff contender (i.e. a crapshoot). And there are other ways to skin that cat (so why suck for 3-4 years if that’s the ceiling?)…
I think that you’ve got to have a balanced approach to roster building. You can’t just stick a label on it and say “oh we’re rebuilding, so James Singleton and Mike Miller have no value to us”.
Name a champion that didn’t have key pieces acquired through all means (draft, FA, trades, and hanging on to certain players already on the roster)?
You've Got a Point
A lot of the past champions (if not all of them) built up as they went along, acquiring a draft pick here, a free agent there, until they built something that worked. I can’t think of a single one that acquired their core entirely through the draft or by acquiring them when they were very young, except maybe San Antonio, but that would be a bad example for us because they built those teams through shrewd draft picks in the late 1st round, which is not Ernie’s strong suit.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Uhh...
developing through the draft, rebuilding with picks and prospects, etc., is a bit of a fallacy. When was the last time one of the teams that used that approach even appeared in the championship?
San Antonio with Duncan, Parker and Ginobili?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Fair enough. Who else was on those teams?
Certainly players 4-8 weren’t also drafted by SA…
Well, right
But players 4-8 cycled. It was never the same 4-8. A Stephen Jackson one year, a Michael Finley another, a Nazr Mohammad another, a Robert Horry another, etc. etc.
San Antonio got their core guys and then cycled out the other pieces.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
And that also makes my point for me.
The draft picks were but one part.
But they're the most important part
Nobody is saying never sign anybody, because you can’t draft 15 players every year.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Everything requires luck though
As I said before, luck’s the wrong word to use. The better word is “inexact.” Scouting is inexact. You could get any pick you want and still screw it up with bad scouting. That’s not luck.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Ok I'm a little confused
Are you saying that scouting itself is the issue (i.e. projecting how a player will perform based on his performances against a lower level of competition) or that bad drafts are the result of poor scouting?
Because the first one is luck by another name, with a little bit of ‘hedge your bets’ thrown in the mix… The second one is a given…
That was admittedly confusing
I’m saying drafting is not “luck” at all. It’s a mixture of getting good draft position, scouting well, developing a player well and everything.
For example, if a draft pick doesn’t work out, it’s not unlucky, it’s because you didn’t a) scout well and pick the right guy and/or b) develop him well and channel him into a proper role on the team. If you miss a chance with a draft pick, it’s your fault. It’s not unlucky.
That doesn’t mean every draft pick will work out, but you can’t say the draft is a crapshoot. It’s no more a crapshoot than getting a free agent to sign with you at the right price or finding a trade partner that’s willing to give you a piece you need for the price you want.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I disagree almost totally
just based on the fact that no one knows how a player will fare against NBA level competition until he faces NBA level competition.
So scouting itself is a crapshoot. You’re watching the player against inferior competition and projecting how his skillset will translate against bigger faster stronger guys. That’s the nature of the beast Mike.
Do player development, coaching, and the right situation help? Of course. But to me it sounds like you’re saying something along the lines of “if Courtney Alexander was drafted by LA, he’d be a star”. Hell no Mike, he’d be Courtney Alexander in Purple and Gold…
The primary reason players fail is because of themselves. Either they’re not good enough and looked great when everyone else on the court was three inches shorter and 30 pounds lighter, or they didn’t have enough desire, dedication, and competitiveness to make it, or they don’t have the mental toughness to take one on the chin and keep going, or for any of a bunch of other reasons that have nothing to do with the team that drafted them.
Whereas with a free agent veteran, you’re much more able to accurately project the contribution he will give your team, just based off of the fact that you’ve spent the last 3-4 years watching him play. Now does that mean every free agent acquisition is a hit? Of course not. But compare success rates to the draft…
But They Didn't Dump the Admiral
Nor did they dismantle the roster that got them to the 2nd round two years prior. I would argue that they retooled with Duncan, they didn’t rebuild.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
The other thing
Is that draft picks give you either a) pieces to build around, or b) assets to trade for a big piece to build around (e.g. Gasol, Garnett, Ray Allen). Regardless, you need good young players.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
But that's my point exactly.
They (draft picks and the players they turn into) are simply one piece of the puzzle. And the mere fact that many don’t pan out is what makes it a crapshoot.
Well then I'm not sure what you're saying
I don’t recall ever saying that you should never sign anybody ever. I’m saying it’s not smart to make free agent signings and trades the foundation of a rebuilding effort.
Let’s think of it this way. To be a real title contender, you need to have a few core members. For the sake of argument, let’s say you need three. These three are guys who will be on your team for five years or more.
Here’s how you can acquire those players:
1. Draft. Easiest way. You give up nothing of value because every team gets draft picks. You say the draft is luck; I think the better term is that it’s inexact. Getting a top pick is luck, sure, but good teams find foundational pieces with lower picks. That requires good scouting and the like. It’s not luck.
2. Free agency. This is certainly more lucky than the draft. In this CBA, the deck is stacked in favor of the other teams. There are all sorts of build-in incentives that allow teams to retain their own players. The best players rarely switch teams in free agency (2010 might be an exception, we’ll see). To get them, you likely have to overpay, and that takes away a lot of available resources. Young players with potential to improve often don’t reach free agency at all. So you’re really looking at a lot of veterans. These are good “final piece” types, but only to be acquired once you’ve achieved some level of success with a core foundation.
3. Trades. This is a way that a lot of big pieces are moving nowadays, but in order to acquire someone, you need assets. You need the right expiring contracts, and you need prospects to act as sweetners. You get prospects in … wait for it … the draft. So even in trades, you need to use your draft picks well.
If all you’re saying is, generally, you need to use all avenues to build a team … well, yeah, of course. But you also have to value which one matters most, and for a team at the beginning stages of a rebuild, there’s no better, cheaper and productive (in terms of giving something up) way of doing that than with draft picks. That’s my point.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
The discussion is rebuilding
and the notion that rebuilding through the draft is the right way.
My point is that the draft is but one piece. (Even the most important piece, however you define that, is but one piece.) And that to build a championship caliber team around draft picks as centerpieces takes a couple brilliant people and a whole lot of luck. And that if the Wiz try to rebuild ala Atlanta, Portland (who BTW traded for their star) and OKC, then they are rolling the dice. Simple as that.
Responses
1. Fine.
2. You always roll the dice when you rebuild in any way. Especially if your criteria is building a title-winner, which only happens to one out of every 30 teams in the league. It is impossible to not roll the dice in this league. If you never roll the dice, you win 45 games every year.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Interesting to Think About
Almost all of the champions of the past 10 years either:
- acquired part of their core through trades (Boston – Garnett, Allen; LA – Gasol, Odom; Miami – Shaq; Detroit – Rasheed, Rip, Ben Wallace)
- acquired part of their core through free agency (LA – Shaq; Detroit – Billups)
- acquired part of their core through great draft picks 10th or lower (Boston – Pierce; LA – Kobe; SA – Parker, Ginobli)
Of the past 10 champions, it looks like only the Spurs and the Heat had a top 5 pick that they drafted as part of their core they used to win a championship. And even those teams acquired the other pieces to their core through other means. So it looks like a full-fledged tear down and rebuild operation is overrated.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
of course
no one is arguing the Wizards should only add through the draft for the remainder of their future.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 5, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
Well
Detroit had a teardown right around 2000. They just built their team differently.
Boston had a teardown in 2005, then traded all their prospects for Pierce and Garnett.
Miami had a teardown in 2002, drafted Caron Butler and Wade in successive years, signed Lamar Odom, then traded everyone but Wade for Shaq.
The Lakers rebuilt too. They jettisoned all their vets after Magic retired, made a couple shrewd draft picks (Eddie Jones, Van Exel, Divac), cleared enough cap space to sign Shaq (which only they could do because they’re the Lakers), made a great pick with Kobe, then decided which pieces to keep and built around those.
Really, only the Spurs never rebuilt, and that’s because they got insanely lucky with Duncan.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Come on
They had a prearranged deal with Charlotte to target Kobe Bryant and Kobe Bryant only. He played his rookie season with the Lakers. They essentially drafted him.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Well okay
But its a great pick because the player panned out.
Which the Lakers should be credited for
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Come on
Kobe’s great because Kobe wanted greatness. He’s got Mike’s competitiveness. He would’ve been great regardless where he played. Would he have four rings? Well the Lakers definitely share the credit for that…
Mike you make good arguments, but that’s bunk.
Kwame brown didn’t stink because the lakers didn’t draft him. He stunk because he stunk.
i think mike was talking about shaq
only the lakers and jerry west could have lured him as a free agent
by DarrellWalkerFan on Mar 5, 2010 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
Kobe didn't pan out because of Shaq
Or the Lakers. Kobe panned out as a player because of Kobe.
what?
shaq was drafted by orlando #1. he bolted the magic for the lakers. only a franchise like the lakers picks up shaq as a free agent. that’s mike’s point. it has nothing to do with kobe.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Mar 5, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
as for drafting kobe
that was just a great pick. kobe would have been good anywhere, you’re right. the lakers were savvy enough to trade divac for the rights to the kid. worked out pretty well i’d say. but that’s entirely different from how they acquired shaq. they stole shaq from orlando for nothing.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Mar 5, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
But see that's where we differ
Because Kobe could just as easily have turned out to be Courtney Alexander.
And then it’d have been a bad pick.
huh?
i agree with you. 1 – draft picks are crapshoots. 2 – it didn’t matter whether the lakers or any other team drafted him, he would have been the kobe as we know him today.
you’re mixing up two different things. (again)
by DarrellWalkerFan on Mar 5, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
To Clarify
I thought the argument was about whether or not we should throw out all of our pieces (excluding Arenas, Blatche, and McGee) and build through the draft for a couple of seasons, or make a play to retool through free agency and trades to get better. In your examples:
- Boston – tore down in 2005, but instead of relying on the draft they traded their #5 pick and their other young pieces for two old superstar players. So you would be OK if we traded our lottery pick and other young talent for an established star?
- Miami – tore down in 2002? They won 36 games in 2001-02, then they kept Eddie Jones (31 years), kept LaPhonso Ellis (32 years), kept Brian Grant (30 years), drafted Butler, acquired veteran free agent Travis Best (30 years), and then went on to win 25 games (surprise!). Not exactly a youth project. They then get lucky on Wade in 2003, picked up undrafted Haslem, acquired Odom, acquired 27 year old Rafer Alston, acquired 35 year old Bimbo Coles, and made it to the 2nd round. Then they trade Butler and Odom for 32 year old Shaq. Not exactly a youth project for them.
- Lakers tear down trades got pieces to their core, but their investment in youth through the draft was short lived. Butler became Kwame became Gasol. Odom stuck, but he was already 25 when they got him, not that much different than 26 year old Al Thornton. And they didn’t stink so that they could get higher draft picks, they made great picks in the mid to late 1st round while consistently fielding playoff teams.
None of these are good examples if you are advocating jettisoning everybody besides Arenas, Blatche, and McGee. And it certainly doesn’t give good reason why we should give up on Al Thornton, who I think could be an Odom-like piece to a future championship. What is says is that we should try to field a competitive team every season, acquiring veterans and free agents as we go along, and then hope our GM can make some good deals and our coach can get the team to promised land once we put together the right mix.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
cuppett's examples of the last 10 championship cores
only duncan and wade top 5 picks for their own teams (and wade a #5). hard to argue with that… of course, most of the guys acquired through trades and free agency were top picks from other teams. shaq #1, garnett #5, allen #5?, odom #4, gasol #3, etc., etc. (and most of the trades were for other young high draft picks)
my thoughts:
- draft is somewhat of a crapshoot. reference greg oden, taken by a team prada would love us to emulate.
- we need to acquire players, even core players, other than through the draft… of course! but the draft is a great tool.
- it would be great to have a high lottery pick this year and land a great player.
- too bad the next sure thing, like lebron, duncan, and durant aren’t in our draft sights right now, but i don’t think it’s worth tearing it down any more to try to get one of those guys.
- our tear down is already done, for the most part. that being said, it’s a mistake to give any of mike miller, singleton, etc. more then $3 mill a year over three years (in fact i don’t think we should sign miller for what he’ll likely demand). mike’s right, we need to focus on finding a core first. this year and the next we’ll see what we have in blatche, mcgee, arenas, our lottery pick. thornton and singleton at the right price are nice players to have on the roster in the meantime too.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Mar 5, 2010 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
But focusing on finding a core
should not and does not preclude you from finding and/or keeping solid complementary players.
yeah, but only for the right price
like mike, i cannot stress enough the importance of retaining cap flexibility right now.
on keeping a role player versus keeping your cap flexibility: if you have to choose between the two, until you have a core, DEFINITELY keep the cap flexibility. check the indiana pacers and detroit pistons.
optimally you can do both.
most of us aren’t ready to say mcgee and blatche are sure things. you’re way ahead of the curve on that one.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Mar 5, 2010 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
re: yeah, but only for the right price
alot has been said and it is a bit confusing, but i completely agree with mr walkerfan here.
if you dont have a core, only keep complimentary players that come cheap- keep getting prospects and build or trade those prospects until you get a core you believe can win it all.
personally, i would even take the next step and trade arenas for prospects and/or draft picks because i personally do not believe we will ever win it all with him as a core member because he does not play defense. every core player mentioned in the group of core champions played defense in addition to some offensive gifts.
by les boulez bomber on Mar 5, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
yes, not just draft picks, but
jones-y, I agree completely that the Wizards in their quest for a championship should do more than just depend on the draft. Free agents and trades will also be essential in the long run.
But in the LONG ROAD that the Wizards must take to get that championship, the team should value each method of roster building differently.
For example, 2010 is not the time for the Wizards to make an agressive move in free agency (unless they can somehow convince James or Wade to sign).
Far more essential is to find additional players that can grow and peak over the next several years with players like Blatche and McGee.
Whatever Grunfeld does (if it’s not someone else), he needs to recognize that at best the Wizards won’t be true contenders for a few years. And right now, the best thing a Wizards GM can do is seek to add players that will peak in another 3-5 years, because a championship isn’t around the corner. Such players right now are most likely to be found via the draft, though possibly the Wizards could also make a trade for a young prospect who’s redundant on another roster (Collison, Fernandez, etc.).
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 5, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
I guess what I'm trying to say is that
the Wiz could do a classic rebuild and come out the other end as a middling team. They could also suck or be great.
The same can be said for them doing a retool. Except they have a better chance of being a better team faster. That and they don’t have a rebuilding coach…
yes, no doubt
My feeling is the Wizards will need some luck either way (or call it a GM’s masterfull skill).
I just think that given where the Wizards are right now, they should be thinking about using their 2010 pick to maximize their potential for several years down the road. That could involve trading it, but it would have to be for someone young who’s established himself as a legitimate prospect.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 5, 2010 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
i still strongly believe we will never win with gil because he does not play defense. i would trade him in a heartbeat though i like his demeanor and offensive game (when he is not being a obvious knucklehead, that is!)
by les boulez bomber on Mar 5, 2010 9:06 PM EST up reply actions
yes, and doesn't it already look like one?
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
we need a full scale rebuild
or at least the Wizards need to have that mentality this summer. and then reevaluate based on what’s on the court next season. but short of getting Wall with the #1 pick and then convincing Lebron his future should be in D.C., the Wizards should be thinking long-term first and foremost.
That said, I completely agree with jones-y that drafting should be about finding the “golden medium” rather than simply taking the best player available. Sure if a player is clearly better than everyone else that’s on the board, then draft that guy. But if the Wizards are picking in the second half of the lottery, I don’t think it’ll always be so clear.
If it’s the Wizards turn to draft, and they can choose between two players they essentially like equally – one is 4 or 5, the other is a 1-3 – then in my mind they should absolutely take the latter player, because from a long-term rebuilding perspective that makes the most sense.
by Johnnie Futbol on Mar 5, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
if we land JOHN WALL i would trade Blatche with Howard for a top 5 pick to pick up Cousins this kid is going to be sick!!!!!!!!!
We Don't Have Howard's Rights
Unless we take the team option on him, and that would be incredibly stupid considering his injury. Even if he wasn’t seriously injured, no team would make this 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
Anyway it is a good draft to have 3 picks in...
Wall is going to make some general manager into an overnight genius though.
And I am sure he gives coaches what prescripton drug labels call “vivid dreams”….
Not since the Pearl was seen in these parts, kids….
What about Rose and Tyreke?
Tyreke is the most fluid ball handler I’ve ever seen in college.
The guy looks like he’s moving in slow motion cause he’s so under control but he just knifes past cats.
Character Issues???
I’ve read in a couple different places about Wall having some potential character issues. It’s only been touched on never elaborated though and also conflicting with what I had been reading at the start of the season. Can anyone shine some light on this.
That being said when I saw him play here at IU I’d overlook just about anything short of guns in the locker room (too soon? :) if I’ve got a chance to draft him.
Didn't he say something questionable about Calipari that got misinterpreted
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
You're right Mike.
I definitely heard Calipari say something about Wall telling the media that he didn’t have to listen to the coach, then coming in and apologizing the next day before Calipari got word of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk
Here's the link.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-t25-kentucky-wall&prov=ap&type=lgns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk
I've never read anything negative about his off-court activities or any character issues...
From all accounts I’ve seen, including his High School coach and Calipari – he’s a good kid.
There was some talk about Brian Clifton, Wall’s AAU who was once a certified agent. Clifton paid for some travel expenses (about $700), which Wall had to pay back before he could play for Kentucky….. Clifton claimed that, though he was at one time a licensed and certified agent, he forfeited his agent’s license in August of 2008 to commit full time to coaching his AAU team. (yeah, right)….
Anyway – we’re not talking Reggie Bush stuff here…. And, unlike some one-and-done basketball stars in the NCAA, Wall is actually attending classes, and doing exceedingly well (4.0 grade point average).
His Dad died when he was about 9, and he went through some tough times… (fights in school, etc…) but he out-grew all that….
Calipari = "What a great kid – one of the best kids we’ve ever been around,"
With about two minutes left in a 94-57 shellacking of UNC-Asheville, John Wall looked toward the scorers’ table and saw seldom-used reserve Mark Krebs waiting to check in.
"Without me even telling him to," Calipari says, "John immediately fouled to stop the clock so we could make the substitution. That shows you right there the kind of leader we got, the kind of kid we got."
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Sorry
Those last two paragraphs were supposed to be in block quotes…..
I got that from here …
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Thanks
That sounds much more in line with what I had heard previously. A friend of mine who gets a lot of autographs said he was humble in kind of a weird way.
I guess I should have known better then to read to much into a Simmons chat.
Landing the #1
would be the best thing to happen to this franchise in a long time. Landing the #2 and Evan Turner would also rank pretty high up there imo
The more I watch him
the LESS sold I am on him. I guess I still consider him the best prospect, far and away… I guess. But I don’t see him take over games. I see tons of highlights, but I see a lot of teams playing against UK and hanging around late in games. Hey, somebody has to criticize the guy, even if it isn’t the most intelligent sounding criticism.
Let it snow- ping-pong balls, from the heavens.
I kinda sorta get this
Kentucky often plays so unevenly, which is crazy considering their talent level.
At the same time, I’ve always felt that, like with Rose, the NBA game will be better for Wall. You can let a point guard make more decisions in the NBA, whereas in college, with the 35 second shot clock, it’s not really a point guards game.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
That is exactly my thought
They have a guy considered the best player in the country by many, surrounded by a ton of talent, yet I don’t have a ton of confidence that they are going to dominate the tournament. Then again, he is a 19 year old, still learning to play with a group of guys, and still developing his own game. And it does take longer than one season for a bunch of young stars to play together at their max potential.
Let it snow- ping-pong balls, from the heavens.
by returnofswagger on Mar 4, 2010 7:46 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly Mike.... Wall, like Rose and Jennings
will be better in the NBA – the League is better suited to their talents than NCAA or Euro-ball.
However, returnofswagger, I also agree with you on Kentucky – for a team with 3 bona fide NBA Lottery picks (John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, and Patrick Patterson), they should be absolutely dominating College basketball…… and they’re not.
That loss at South Carolina, where the Gamecocks back court (Devan Downey and Brandis Raley-Ross) dominated the game – was really was puzzling. Then they were down by 19 to Tennessee, before making a huge comeback late in the 2nd half…. only to lose by 9….
There was a quote by Calipari somewhere – and he said something like….. This is what happens when you have young guys that think they can just show up and win every game….
Now, I don’t question John Wall’s determination, tenacity and energy…. and Wall plays on both sides of the floor – - – but Cousins on the other hand… he seems to take plays off… and he doesn’t always play hard…. and he’s a terrible defender… and I’d also say that Patterson is is a middling to poor defender as well. That, along with Calipari’s statement might shed some insight….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
If Cousins is a Poor Defender
Than I would like to pass on him. Seriously. I don’t want any more red carpets on defense.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
We're not getting him.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!
by OleksiyPecherovsHomeboy on Mar 4, 2010 8:19 PM EST reply actions
The problem with being the consensus #1 pick..
Is that John Wall is the most likely player to be overrated. It’s one thing to finish at the rim in high school and college – it’s another thing in the NBA. Also, for some reason, I’ve had the impression that Wall is not a particularly effective jump shooter – although from this post, I learned that he shoots at a 50% clip, which is quite good. I wonder how many of those shots are at the rim? I guess I just don’t know enough about him.
Looking forward to the rest of these posts!
He does remind me of Derrick Rose,
in that he has so many ways of finishing at the rim. He doesn’t need an open basket for a layup. He just has a million ways of finishing close to the basket. Not to mention he can slam that bad boy in. Remember when D Rose hit that shot over Foye in OT like a month ago. He just has good touch around the bucket. And he is willing to attack the bucket, probably prefers penetrating and playing closer to the rim. A little anti-Foye, actually. And I believe anyone in the NBA can develop a good jump shot. Look at the giant oaf in Cleveland. He can even get himself on a hot streak every once in a while.
Let it snow- ping-pong balls, from the heavens.
by returnofswagger on Mar 4, 2010 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, John Wall is slightly bigger than Rose was.....
Wall is listed at 6’4" , 195
Rose was 6’3" , 190 when he was drafted.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
I don't know why
you did this. Just gonna get our hopes up, which’ll make it that much harder to swallow when we get the the 5th pick.
It's the first of many draft profiles
Might as well get him out of the way.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Let's cool it about the Wizards' "bad luck"
Because it masks the real issue — bad management.
A rebuilding team needs a little luck to build a contender, I’ll give you that. But it needs wise decision-making even more. And luck can come in many forms. Sure, a #1 pick would be nice, but if the Wiz have the #9 pick and pick the guy who turns out to be the third best player in the draft, that’s a little lucky too, but more likely the result of good scouting and player development.
Wizards fans curse their fate that when the Wiz had the #1 pick, they choose Kwame. But the Wizards ended up with one of, if not the, best player in that draft — Gilbert. Last year on lottery night, we were all holding our breath, hoping for that #1 pick in order to pick Griffin, or at least the #2 pick, so that the Wiz could pick Rubio in what was billed a two-player draft. Everyone cursed the Wizards’ bad luck when it got the #5 pick, but (1) Griffin and Rubio have played a combined zero minutes in the NBA so far; and (2) the Wizards could have picked Rubio and DeJuan Blair with their “terrible picks.”
It would be nice for the Wizards to be both lucky and have good management. I would be happy with one, and the real luck we need is for the sale to Ted to go through.
I agree
with everything you say. And I, for one, don’t really bemoan the “picking” of Kwame Brown. I thin it’s funny how we (and MJ) get crucified for that pick, when most teams would’ve done the same thing, as did all the “experts” doing thie mock drafts. NOBODY had Battier going #1 in that draft, and he was the only non -High schooler in the discussion, so I don’t even wanna hear about Pao Gasol. Truthfully, no matter who picked #1 that year, it would’ve been a bad year. It just so happens that the Wiz were that team. Which is why I talk about the “bad luck” of this franchise. Especially given the fact that the #1’s that went “around him” were Yao Ming, Lebron, and Dwight Howard. Add to that the fact that every other time we get a lottery pick, we end up with the worst possible slot. Do you ever wonder whether Ernie makes that trade if we end up with the 2nd or 3rd pick?
Anyway, I am half kidding about the luck thing. Half of me realizes that it’s just the way the ball bounces. The other half realizes that we could’ve made much better decisions along the way.
And, if I had a third half, it would wonder whether we were on the other end of the spectrum in regards to the NBA’s “conspiracy theory”. In other words, they want teams certain teams to remain competitive, so they “fix” the lottery, and they don’t care about teams like Washington, so they give us a bad pick. (Unless, of course, we give the league’s Marquee name a shot at a front office position, in which case they then “reward us” with the #1 pick.)
But I don’t buy into conspiracy theories.
yes and no…if it were true that we were offered elton brand straight up for the pick. i would have taken brand at the time. he already was established as a 20-10 guy and a recent #1 pick
by les boulez bomber on Mar 5, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
Or perhaps more to the point..
Wizards fans curse the fact that Kwame was chosen, but in the end, the Wizards traded him to get Caron Butler, who went on to make two All-Star appearances in a Wizards uniform.
Of course, it would’ve been nice if the Wizards had selected Pau Gasol, but they recovered well.
the Wizards could have picked Rubio and DeJuan Blair with their "terrible picks."
You mean Curry and Blair, don’t you?
Forget his college accomplishments.
We have to get him for his dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laydODN6xVk
So as it stands right now
We’re sitting at number 8 and, assuming that doesn’t actually equal #11, are solidly in position to draft Cole A. Ostertag. We need to lose some more games….
Oh we will lose some more games...
but at the very least, the Nets, Pacers, Kings, Warriors and Wolves will all lose more in my estimation.
Yeah, and the problem is that still puts us at 8 when we inevitably get jumped
So we’re still looking at Ostertag, Reeves’ and Montross’s evil, illegimate love child. Fabulous.
our schedule is brutal
ideally, we win enough to avoid developing a losing mentality (to build some confidence), but lose enough to land a top 5 pick.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Mar 5, 2010 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
i think we will get lucky one year pretty soon. new ownership and having to gut the team because of the arenas incident will win us some sympathy with david stern. and conspiracy theory or not, the draft order is selected in a back room by the commissioner. and if something is not done in the open, it has some level of smell to it. maybe not every year or regarding the top pick….just mho so dont bash me if you dont agree. neither of us can prove it! lol
by les boulez bomber on Mar 5, 2010 10:01 PM EST reply actions
i actually think livingston might beomce the PG we always wanted
dude knows how to play and he looks healthy finally. DID YOU SEE THAT DUNK AGAINST THE LAKERS?!? But yeah we defeintly need a center. Backcourt is a question but we got a lot of guys there that could step up or can share the responsiblity. Thronton, Miller, Howard either/or could be brought back and we would be fine at SF, and Blatche got PF locked down we just need a backup for him. But unless Mcgee grows up and shows some consistency, maturity, and power instead of fading away for layups then we have a gaping hole at C that needs to be filled, which would be better done with our lottery pick instead of a free agent….unless someone can get Bosh to drink some kool aid and come here.
Semin = King of Dangle Sauce
by Area 51 Forever on Mar 22, 2010 8:27 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
- David West hilariously denies each and every one of his young fans a high-five (VIDEO)
