Why the Wizards should fill out their roster with young players
I found myself thinking about how the Wizards may fill its remaining roster spots. However, as I thought about whether they should sign another PG or SG; whether Cartier Martin or Hamady N’Diaye would make the team? I began to think that the bigger issue is how committed the organization is to its stated objective? During an interview, Ernie Grunfeld gave us a glimpse into the organizations "strategic plan," which he described as "building towards the future with a core of young, talented players." So it seems that who fills those last remaining roster spots, rather than which positions he plays, will give us a sense of how committed the organization is to its stated objective.
If the goal is to build around their core of John Wall, Andray Blatche and JaVale McGee while becoming a contender within the next two to three seasons, then winning now is nice but not required. For a season or two, we will be happy with well played, hard fought basketball. For proof of this, you don’t have to look any farther than last year. The Verizon Center crowd went nuts over the effort that the post-trade deadline team put forth. Don’t get me wrong, the goal is always to win as many games as you can. However, given the current state of the franchise I don’t believe that you sacrifice achieving your stated objective in order to squeeze out a handful of potentially meaningless wins. (The only exception would be, if late in the season the team found itself in striking distance of a playoff spot then in that situation it would be warranted to go after that spot.)
The team should align completely behind its goal, which means letting the younger players log heavy minutes. This will undoubtedly result in some situations in which the coaching staff will be frustrated with a player or two who did not make the right in-game decision. In situations like this, it is too tempting to pull the player in favor of a more experienced player. But, how does that move help the team accomplish its long term objective? If the young player is not afforded the opportunity to learn on the job, then the team is only prolonging his (and the team’s) development. If the coaching staff benches the young player for an extended period of time, then that decision essentially undermines the objective of the franchise. Or at a minimum it pushes the end date further into the future by slowing the development of the young players. The situation reminds me of the old cliché that sometimes things do need to get worse, before they can get better.
For a recent example of this consider Oklahoma City. Many credit its front office, and rightfully so, with making shrewd personnel moves that have led to its recent success. But I also feel the organization should be given credit for allowing their young talent to learn on the job – taking its knocks along the way. Before the success that they experienced last season (50-32 and 8th seed in the West), they went through a two-year stretch in which they were horrible – 20-62 in 2007/8 and 23-59 in 2008/9. During this stretch, they were able to incorporate their young core and play them significant minutes, which afforded them the opportunity to learn while on the floor. (It is also true that it also doesn’t hurt when one of the developing young talents happens to be named Kevin Durant.)
If the organization is committed to their stated objective, then I would remove the safety blanket that an old Vet can provide a coaching staff. I would lean towards filling the remaining roster spots with additional younger players (three or fewer years in the league), and not the old grizzled vet. Older vets can be far too enticing for a frustrated coaching staff. And as we have seen with this team towards the end of last season, they have talent. They just need it to develop more quickly.
Ernie Grunfeld should use the remaining few roster spots on further young players, which should help to ensure that there aren’t any potential roadblocks preventing the development of the team’s young core.
45 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thank you, Ateneo.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 10, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but...
anyone added to the roster at this point isn’t getting much playing time.
Hopefully not.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 10, 2010 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Couple of things (does that surprise you?)
I don’t think the org’s plans are to be contending in 2-3 years. I think they are more realistic than that.
I don’t think that winning is a bad thing for a young club.
There is a school of thought that a young player playing too much early on and failing is not a good thing.
I don’t think we’re signing anyone else that’s going to get big minutes. I agree with you that I’d take young players over a vet at this point except at the center position. Unless I’ve misjudged Armstrong we need a vet big man.
good post, thanks.
Does not surprise me at all, MR
I would hope that they plan on contending for a playoff spot within 2-3 years (not contending for a championship).
Winning is never a bad thing. But the last two years, when it was clear that they would not make the playoffs the coaching staff, IMHO, still gave too many minutes to older vets as they chased Ws. If you are going to lose with a vet in the game, then you should spend more than token minutes developing your young guys.
I have heard that as well, it seems to be used more often in the NFL with QBs. However, there appears to be equally convincing arguments on either side of the issue. The same can be said in the NBA with examples on either side.
Thanks for your comments.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 10, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions
could you elaborate
on the equally convincing other side? You said it exists but didn’t actually detail it, at all. And please elaborate on the examples.
It wasn't my point, but here you go...
It is probably easier to think of examples that have worked out pretty well. In recent NBA history, the following have started as rookies: Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul. Deron WIlliams played in nearly all of Utah’s games and started more than half. Kobe Bryant is an example of a player who had to wait – however, he was playing for a much more talented team.
This line of reasoning seems to be used more frequently in the NFL. And in general, people want to use Jeff George and Ryan Leaf as the examples of what can happen if you throw rookies (QBs mainly) out on the field too early. But again other teams have done it and their players have turned out just fine. A few examples, Peyton Manning, Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez. Ben Roethlisberger sat approximately the first three, but then started the last 13 games his rookie season. Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and JeMarcus Russell were asked to wait. And any of us who follow the NFL know how JeMarcus Russell worked out for the Raiders. Having him wait did not help his performance and/or confidence.
I know that line of reasoning exists, but I don’t necessarily subscribe to it. If the rookie is the best player on your team at his position, then you start him.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 11, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I think if you look at Kwame or Yi you see guys who may have been rushed early in their career and it ended up stunting them. Tyson Chandler, Curry, maybe McCants, Araujo, Wilcox. I’m sure there is a lot up for debate there, but that’s my line of thinking.
I'm not sure with Kwame
Reports during that time talk about the hard-line approach that MJ and Collins took with him – which bordered on being cruel. There approach may have had more of an impact on him than simply putting him on the floor too early. Plus, we have to wonder if Kwame just did not have “it.”
In hindsight, if he went to college for a year or two maybe some of his flaws would have been detected and he may have become a late first or second round pick (versus being the #1 pick based on tons of “potential” in a draft with no clear #1). If he was not the first overall pick, we may view his career differently.
I do agree that if a player’s self confidence is “fragile” then it is not best to rush him too quickly. But that decision needs to be made on a player by player basis and not generally applied to all young players.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 11, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Kwame was flawed from the start
Even if you look at his high school numbers – 20 13 and 6 blocks – he was hardly a dominant guy.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/TheRealTPruitt
by pantslessyoda1 on Aug 11, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
The issue with Kwame, though, is they didn't play him much
If anything, they didn’t fast track him enough because MJ wouldn’t tolerate him needing to learn on the court. He wanted to win right away.
mj and collins definitely botched it
but i’m wondering these days if he ever would have been any good even if they had handled him perfectly.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Aug 11, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure, to be honest
Probably not a superstar because of those hands, but maybe a more worthwhile player. Maybe he becomes Nene or something.
Nene was probably the top end of his potential. Had he played a year or two in college, teams would have figured that out and he likely would have been drafted in a more appropriate spot (maybe as plenty of teams have over-reached), but he would not have been drafted #1 with unrealistic expectations.
Either way, that was a big mistake that the front office and scouting department made. In their defense, that draft was not the best, nor did it have any clear cut #1. Not like the next few years anyway.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 11, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
He started 20 games, played in 80 and averaged 22 minutes his 2nd year. 57 starts of 74 games played 30.3 minutes his third.
by MR on Aug 11, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I meant more the first year
When he only played 14.4 minutes. That’s really low even for a project No. 1 pick.
Wall, Arenas, Hinrich, Young, Howard, Thornton, Blatche, Yi, McGee, Seraphin, Booker, Armstrong
I don’t really see any more minutes available. Flip has usually been a coach that sticks to a pretty tight rotation, however he will probably have to expand that a little in order to rebuild. But I don’t think there’s much young talent available that could break in the line up.
In addition to building a team with young talent, Ernie has also made it clear that you need some veteran leaders around to help mesh the team together. I think we have a pretty good mix of both with the current team. I also don’t think that winning games will hurt the development of our young players. Winning games will only help, even if it means a lower draft pick in the next couple of years. Once Wall, Blatche, McGee, etc get a taste of winning, they will give their all in order to keep that winning attitude alive.
We don’t and can’t go the complete Oklahoma City way of doing things. It’s okay if we finish 8th or 9th in the East. We’ve set ourselves up pretty well in that we have multiple contracts coming off the books in the next two years. So even with Gil’s outrageous contract, we will have the room to either add young talent or add high draft picks if we aren’t assured of one via our record.
by PhenomenalSwag on Aug 10, 2010 10:16 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Thanks for the comment.
I may not have made one of my points clearly enough, so let me try again. I am not suggesting that they shouldn’t win (or that winning is bad). I am primarily thinking of the last couple of seasons when it was clear that the team was not going to make the playoffs and yet the minutes were still largely given to Vets. They could have begun giving more minutes to Blatche and McGee which would have furthered their development. Ok, AJ is a class guy and was an All-Star, so that situation I understand. But Oberto? Fab should have only played sparingly.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 10, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Well this is an old old discussion
but given McGee’s slow development I think the coaches have been vindicated for not playing him extended minutes.
McG got plenty of chances for extended minutes…hell Eddie even started him 9 games early in his rookie year if I remember correctly. But you’ve got to produce and give consistent effort if you want to earn minutes. NBA coaches have little leverage aside from minutes.
I absolutely agree that the leverage the coach has is minutes. And if I were a coach, some people may not touch the floor if they aren’t doing what I ask. :)
I wonder how much time the assistants and Player development coaches spend with these guys in film study?
Those starts two seasons ago were split between Jordan and Tapscott. I think Eddie started him 3 games and then Tapscott started him the next 9 or so. That particular season is a good example, by January we knew that was a dead sesaon. JaVale, Andray and Nick should have seen significant increases in their minutes – even if they did not start. And that still gives the coach the flexibility to sit a player if he is not doing the right thing. But that depends on the type of mistake he is making. If he is giving effort and energy, you live with the mistakes.
In general, I think we agree.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 10, 2010 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you there
many mistakes were made back then. That was still when Abe thought we had a shot at a championship so we were playing our vets meaninglessly. We didn’t want to fold on the season, even though we should have focused on playing our young guys.
It’s good to finally embrace the rebuild, where hopefully these young guys start getting some major minutes and start to play more consistently.
by PhenomenalSwag on Aug 10, 2010 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Good post
A couple of additions:
1) the young player has to bring something immediately and show potential. For example, McGuire didn’t meet that threshold for me. And from the scouting report, Seraphin doesn’t sound like it meets the threshold.
2) Tapscott was a total disaster at young player development, EJ was pretty weak, and Flip is challenged. We’ll have to wait to see what happens on this front.
by Izman on Aug 11, 2010 7:14 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
You don't think Seraphin shows potential?
I could agree with McGuire but he was a second round pick, they’re not all supposed to be potentially good. But Seraphin? He’s got great potential. He’s big, athletic, doesn’t have that lanky frame that we’re used to (Blatche, McGee, Pech, etc.), can run the floor, can rebound. What part of the scouting report doesn’t meet your “show potential” threshold? Now I don’t think he’ll be an all-star but at 17th, he could be a very serviceable player in the paint for us.
by PhenomenalSwag on Aug 11, 2010 7:49 AM EDT up reply actions
How does Seraphin not show potential?
I think you’re honestly asking for too much from guys who will be 11-12th men.
"and"
yes, potential, but the scouting said he was better suited today for the D-league than the NBA. The same is not true for Wall, Blatche and McGee. Thorton is borderline. Young’s issue is between his ears (and Arenas’s influence). What other young talent is there?
Blatche
I don’t remember that he played in the D league, but if he were 18 today, I’d say he wouldn’t be NBA ready for this team (that is, to able to contribute something immediately). Rather he’d be a D leaguer.
Back when he came in the league, he could sit on the bench and do nothing because it was a veteran team gunning for a high play-off spot.
With Wall and McGee playing a lot and making lots of “rookie” mistakes, the Wiz cannot afford to have D leaguers filling out the other roles.
con't
are drawing a distinction between “D Leaguers” and first round draft picks being sent down to work on their game. Its a developmental league and we just picked a kid who needs development. So he can play here, learn here, then get more minutes down there and come back a better player. Thats exactly the kind of player we want in Year 1 of the rebuild.
The D-League is weak at the front court positions
Decent bigs are scarce. Any big man with decent size and skills will be offered a lot more to play in Europe than a D-League team can afford. Seraphin might be better off just practicing against Blatche/JaVale/Yi/Booker than getting game time against D-League scrubs.
No
The last player that I recall the Wiz sending down was Peter John Ramos.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 11, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, Blatche did play in the D League. He played for the Roanoke Dazzle.
by wizardsfan1 on Aug 11, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
I stand corrected
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 11, 2010 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Here are his stats
For the six games that he played in Roanoke.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 11, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but he came back on November 11, 2005.
by wizardsfan1 on Aug 11, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I assume
that you, (like I) don’t subscribe to the “young players must earn playing time” style of coaching…..
It frustrated me to no end last year, when Oberto was consistently given minutes last year with a PER of 5.73 – Oberto averaged 11 minutes a game. Those minutes would have been better spent on developing McGee; ESPECIALLY after the first two months, when it was painfully obvious Oberto had nothing left, and the Wizards were not going to make a run at the Playoffs.
Let’s hope the Wizards Coaching staff has bought in to the rebuilding process – which should include young player development. That means:
Wall should play the bulk of the PG minutes (NOT Hinrich).
McGee should start and play 35 minutes a night.
Flip will have to go to a 10 deep rotation – and make sure guys like Yi, Young, Thornton, Booker and Seraphin get rotation minutes.
D-League assignments for Booker and Seraphin if they cannot find minutes for them.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
The D-League question
I don’t know about you guys, but I always got better by playing against better competition. I remember my sophomore year in high school the coaches gave me the option of sitting for varsity or playing for JV. I picked JV (who wants to sit?) and it was a huge mistake. I improved more in off-season practice with the varsity guys than I did over my entire JV season. Does the D-League have enough talent to be worth taking guys away from NBA practices against NBA players? In game experience is valuable, but most of these guys have played in hundreds of games over their lives, and right now the talent gap between D-League and the NBA is immense (some of the top D-League players are useless in the NBA).
For example, Booker just played 4 years and something like 130 games at an ACC school, which is probably fairly similar to D-League level play…will time in D-League help him up his game, or would he be better off practicing against real NBA big men with speed and agility like he’ll face in the NBA games? I think the D-League is great for your extra guys who don’t fit on the roster or extremely raw guys who have a long way to go, but you should keep your top prospects on your NBA squad (or at most just send them down for those in-season stints when you don’t have much time to practice).
agree on Booker
He’s NBA ready. he’s played this game all his life, no language barrier, 4 years in the ACC, just go play.
I’ve been in favor of using the D league for Seraphin for several reasons. He needs to learn the NBA game and NBA rules. Better to learn while on the court playing big minutes. Learning the basics of the league is tough in 12 minutes a night with little practice time once the season is in full gear.
I think they will work with him extensively early in the season, PT or not, and then send him down for stretches of playing time to show what he’s learned. If he is as raw as they say then he needs to play and play alot, not sit and watch.
by Jheiser3 on Aug 11, 2010 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Booker is ready to play PF
But in the long term, he may be better suited to playing at SF in the NBA. The D-League is full of competent SFs to compete against, so instead of riding the Wizards’ bench, he could get some quality minutes at SF in the D-League.
I agree
I can buy that line of reasoning (young players earning playing time) only if you are a lock to make the playoffs and you have a veteran team. But when your team is clearly not making the playoffs then the coaching staff needs to quickly shift gears to player development. I have no doubt that a vet player like Oberto routinely did the small things right in practice, but he was not helping the team win any more games and he is not part of the future of this team. Given that, I completely agree with you that his minutes were largely wasted.
I agree with your other points as well so I won’t repeat them.
Follow me on twitter - http://twitter.com/CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Aug 11, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
OKC model
They also added veterans where they needed them so they wouldn’t be at a huge disadvantage. They signed Nenad Kristic, not exactly a kid, because they needed a big body inside.
Point being EVERY player on your roster doesn’t have to be a rookie or a young vet. Sometimes to make progress you need guys to learn from, guys who will be consistent and not hand games away. If we have a chance to add a player who knows the NBA it will serve the team’s best interest. I think the roster is sufficiently “youth-enized” for year 1 of the rebuild.
meh
We’re talking the 12th thru 14th players on the roster who will be on 1 year deals. Doubt that we’ll find any diamonds in the rough from anybody still unsigned. So vets or rookies, I don’ t think it really makes any difference.
I would prefer development of players now vs. Winning every possible game.
“They just need it to develop more quickly.”
You said it, do this:
“But I also feel the organization should be given credit for allowing their young talent to learn on the job – taking its knocks along the way. Before the success that they experienced last season (50-32 and 8th seed in the West), they went through a two-year stretch in which they were horrible – 20-62 in 2007/8 and 23-59 in 2008/9. "

by 

















