Anticipating The 'Unintended Consequences' Of The Washington Wizards' 2011 NBA Draft
by CJ Hempfield on Jun 29, 2011 7:59 AM EDT
in Draft
Email
PrintSocial scientists introduced the concept of unintended consequences. When a change is introduced in a complex system, often unexpected outcomes, both positive and negative, will result. With that in mind, when the Wizards selected Jan Vesley, Chris Singleton and Shelvin Mack in the 2011 NBA Draft, their selections will likely have a direct influence on any decisions the team makes to further reshape its roster.
The Wizards were able to select three players who addressed specific areas of need. It is expected that all three will make the team, so how will their selection affect the team's decision moving forward? How will their presence impact which existing players the Wizards keep and what players they target in free agency? Introducing these three players will have an immediate and direct impact on other players on the roster.
Let's take a look at the current state of the unofficial roster broken out by the primary position each player is expected to play:
Point Guard
Mustafa Shakur - RFA
Shelvin Mack (R)
Without question, the Wizards' starter is set for quite some time to come. Shelvin Mack, if you listen to the comments by Ernie Grunfeld and Flip Saunders,will be the eventual (or immediate) back up to John Wall. They Wizards also made a qualifying offer to Mustafa Shakur, which implies, but does not guarantee, that he will be with the team - as a NBA team has the right to withdraw a qualifying offer, making the player an unrestricted free agent (Correction: The Wizards did not extend a qualifying offer to Shakur).
The Wizards have two very young point guards in Wall and Mack, it would seem to make sense to add a veteran to the roster. This veteran should not expect to see significant minutes, but should instead expect to share time with Mack. Additionally they should be there in case of injury or to be used to exploit certain matchups. This should be a solid vet who is essentially nearing the end of his career. One such vet that comes to mind is Anthony Carter. He's far from exciting but a solid 13 year guy who will play his role.
Shooting Guard
Nick Young - RFA
Othyus Jeffers - RFA
This is a bad year for Nick Young to be a restricted free agent, as there is uncertainty over the CBA and the salary cap is likely to be reduced. It is highly unlikely that teams will line up to sign Young as a RFA. So while both Young and Othyus Jeffers are restricted free agents, one if not both are likely to be back with the team.
Last season, Young and Jordan Crawford both proved that they could be capable scorers. However, Crawford in particular was not particularly adept at providing consistent shooting from behind the three-point line. It would benefit the Wizards to spread the floor by adding a consistent three point threat. Can the Wizards get Young, Crawford, Mack or one of their wing players to develop into this type of consistent shooter, or will the Wizards need to pick up this type of player later in the offseason?
Power Forward
Yi Jianlian (RFA*)
Jan Vesely (R)
Andray Blatche, Rashard Lewis and Vesely are (or will be in the case of Jan) under contract for the upcoming season. Yi Jianlian is currently a restricted free agent, but since the team did not make him a qualifying offer, he will become an unrestricted free agent on June 30th, which means that he probably played his last game with the Wizards. Yi's injuries seemed to rob him of the ability to string together consistent performances last season, and few will cry over his departure - except maybe the Wizards marketing department and the lost opportunities in China. However, Yi, when he wasn't injured, did provide Flip with the flexibility to play center.
Ernie Grunfeld and Flip Saunders have spent a significant amount of time talking about the cultural shift to playing consistently hard and a commitment to defense. While Blatche and Lewis are near locks to be with the team next season, it is a very big season for both gentlemen. Blatche needs to prove that he can mature and conform to how the coaching staff wants him to play. Lewis is likely playing to showcase his talents to a future contender who believes that they are "one player away."
The presence of Blatche and Lewis (assuming he is fully healthy) will impact the minutes available for Vesely and Trevor Booker (listed below). Prior to his injury, Booker had worked his way into the Wizards rotation. If Blatche is still unable (or unwilling) to perform as a complete player - scoring, rebounding and defense - then the Wizards should consider moving him in order to create additional playing time for their younger power forwards. Andray has been able to prove over the last season and a half that he can score in the NBA. However, if he is not going to consistently rebound and if he continues to be a defensive liability, then he is not worth the roster spot.
Small Forward
Maurice Evans - UFA
Trevor Booker
Josh Howard - UFA
Larry Owens - RFA
Chris Singleton (R)
Booker and Singleton are (or will be in the case of Singleton) under contract for next season. The Wizards made a qualifying offer to Larry Owens, so it is possible that he will be back with the team. However, Howard and Evans are unrestricted free agents. It is unlikely that Howard, particularly after being injured much of the last two seasons, will be back with the team. While both the team and Evans would like to agree to a new deal, Evans will receive some interest on the open market. If the Wizards lose both Evans and Howard, then it might be necessary to pick up a defensive-minded veteran small forward in free agency. If only there were a ton of them laying around (sarcasm).
Center
Hamady N'Diaye - RFA
McGee and Seraphin are both under contract and N'Diaye was given a qualifying offer, so as it stands today, all will be back with the team. Seraphin earned playing time in part due to injuries to Yi. N'Diaye played very sparingly aside from his trips down to the NBA Developmental League. While these three, and likely Blatche, will log all of the Wizards minutes at center, it could benefit the Wizards to add a veteran reserve that can play both the 4 and the 5.
The current CBA guarantees that league-wide team rosters will average 14 players. Each team must have 12 players on its active roster and can have up to three more players who are inactive - bringing the total possible to 15 players. If this does not change in the new CBA, then it would mean that four three of the 18 players mentioned will definitely not be part of the final roster.
Most obviously, the selection of Vesely, Singleton and Mack means that there are three fewer roster spots. How quickly adjust to the NBA game, their offseason development, the skills and flexibility that they provide will all be factors in what additional pieces are brought in to round out the Wizards 2011-12 roster.
227 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good article
but I don’t think these are really unintended consequences. I’m sure many of them are, in fact, intended.
by shraf1 on Jun 29, 2011 8:08 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Good point
Management intends many of these consequences. However, given they don’t know exactly who will be available in the draft they may intend to keep certain players, until after someone is unexpectedly available in the draft or free agency.
Follow me on twitter - @CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Jun 29, 2011 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions
That was a mistake that I corrected. Thank you.
Follow me on twitter - @CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Jun 29, 2011 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions
"They Wizards also made a qualifying offer to Mustafa Shakur, which implies, but does not guarantee, that he will be with the team"
I thought they didn’t give him an offer?
by ThePGPhenomenon on Jun 29, 2011 8:35 AM EDT reply actions
There also appears to be a typo here...
However, Crawford in particular was particularly adept at providing consistent shooting from behind the three-point line.
did you mean “not” particularly adept?
Yes that was a typo. Thanks David.
Follow me on twitter - @CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Jun 29, 2011 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Finally...I think Lewis is slotted more as a 3
and Booker is slotted as a 4…
I know they both play both positions, but I think their primary positions are interchanged in the article.
Thanks for putting this together.
Truly an uninformed article!
Lets see…
NBA rosters are limited to 15 not 14
Booker is a 4 not a 3
Vesely is a 3 not a 4
Lewis is a better 3 than 4 — and that’s where he started when healthy
Shakur did not receive a qualifying offer
Crawford shot a very low % on 3-point attempts
Seraphin is projected as a 4 more than a 3
Other than that… did I miss anything?
Thank you for the feedback.
I meant that the NBA CBA limits the average roster size to 14. You are right that a team can have up to 3 players on the inactive list, making the total number of possible players to 15.
Booker is a 4, but also played 3. While I listed him with the threes, I actually discussed him in both places.
It is debatable whether Vesely will ultimately play 3 or 4 with the Wizards. Lewis played both 3 and 4 when he was healthy last season. I seem to remember him arguing that 4 was the position that he preferred. But as must of the Wizards forwards are asked to play multiple positions, the primary point was not to assign them a position but to talk about what might happen based on who is expected to make the final roster.
Yes, Shakur did not receive a qualifying offer. That was a mistake on my part.
I did not discuss Seraphin as a forward since he logged most of his minutes at center last season.
Follow me on twitter - @CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Jun 29, 2011 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
During Vesely's interview at Media Day...
He said he’s a 3 but can play the 4. I think he prefers to play the 4 though.
by iNFaMOUS SwaGG on Jun 29, 2011 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
He withdrew from the draft and went back to his Partizan team last year
so he could continue to learn from his Partizan Coach, who was playing him at SF… He converted to SF the year before (2009-10 season), and continued playing SF last year with Partizan…
He’s best suited to playing SF because he presents match up problems with his height and length…… as a PF, the match up problems belong to the opposition because of his slight build, and lack of strength.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You can turn that around and point to a disadvantage at 3
He doesnt have the handle, quicks, or J of an nba 3 whereas he is probably quicker and longer than most 4s
When I look at a player... and try to "fit" him to a position...
I look at who he can guard… If he can guard 3’s (like Jan Vesely) then he’s a Small Forward….
If he can guard 2’s but can’t guard most 3’s (like Nick Young) – I call that player a Shooting Guard.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
The record already shows that we intend to play Vesely at the 4. For example, Flip is already comparing Jan to Kevin Garnett (though emphasizing that KG had to play both 3 and 4 in his first season before playing full-time at the 4). The same thing will happen with us: we’ll play Vesely at both positions but primarily at the 4. In 2012, he’ll play the 4 full time. Plus, the kid’s 7-foot, already 240 lbs on a young frame. Of course he’s a 4.
by Tbonebullets on Jun 29, 2011 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Flip is already comparing Jan to Kevin Garnett
He compared his intensity and competitiveness to Garnet – not his playing style, position or anything to do with skills…
Vesely is a 3 – and Flip will soon learn that the first time Vesely is charged with defending a Power Forward like Garnett, Boozer, Blake Griffin or Elton Brand.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I don't think he will have that hard of a time against Boozer.
Boozer is more of a shooter and less of a bruiser, which means he will need Jan to shrink about 5-6 inches in order to have a significant(if any) advantage, but when Jan gets the ball on O, Boozer will let him have as many points as he wants.
I’ll give him a chance at the 4, especially if he bulks up. Not rare at all to see rookies bulk up.
Skins rule
his length would give the guys like Boozer and Brand problems
Garnett isn’t the most powerful PF. Griffin might be the toughest cover for him cause of his brute strength and explosiveness.
difference is
flip went on to say he plans on keeping jan at the 3 vs he moved kg to the 4…
by Meraj Chowdhury on Jun 29, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
What makes Ves a better nba SF than Yi would have been?
Or better yet, Javale? If Flip said he was moving Mcgee to SF would people think he was crazy?
Ves is 7’ and may get taller, will definitely get heavier…he’s gonna have to lace up at PF imho
Mcgee is every bit as quick and Yi can probably shoot better than both of them.
i mean, i want to drink the Jan kool-aid….but a 7’ 250 pound (eventually) SF? That stretches the bounds of credulity for me
Ves' success depends on being a better athlete than Mcgee?
sorry, I cant drink that kool-aid
barely if at all
you said Mcgee was “slow” compared to Ves for lateral movement. That means Jan is much quicker right? 7’ 240 (heavier than Mcgee at age 21) and MUCH quicker….that’s a better athlete. He is known as the Euro-Blake afterall
Right because dimensions define quickness.
Glen Davis must be slow as an ox, then…
And quickness is not the only measure of athleticism.
McGee jumps higher.
"slow laterally compared to"
the kind of difference you are stating is a huge measure of athleticism. You are saying JVMs lateral movement is not in the same league with Vesely’s. I just find it hard to believe that any 7footer is MUCH QUICKER than jvm
Technique and know-how are essential, too.
JaVale might be nearly as quick in an agility drill, but Jan is much quicker at reading and reacting to an offensive perimeter player’s movements.
where do you see this?
i’ve watched several Partizan games and imho perhaps the biggest difference between euro and the nba is how much less the euro game relies on dribble penetration and ISO. Players are much quicker to swing the ball around the perimeter looking for an opening as opposed to trying to take their man. Ves isnt even challenged THAT much on the perimeter in the games I have seen. NBA will be an entirely different dynamic, where almost every perimeter player tries to break down their opponent.
Of course I havent watched every Partizan game nor am I going to…but if there are any in particular that would be interesting please let me know
You’ve seen the David Locke scouting breakdown right? At one point, Vesely stays with Flip Murray through multiple changes of direction starting out at the three point line. Can’t imagine JaVale managing that very often.
Flip Murray is out of the NBA now, but just one year before, he was a rotation player as an undersized SG who scored mostly off of his ball handling and slashing ability. That’s a tough cover for any SF.
by yop32 on Jun 29, 2011 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Watch video of Vesely... not just highlights - but full games...
There are some still available on YouTube – search partizan
and you will see he BELONGS on the perimeter – at least defensively….
Now – on Offense, you will actually see him post up smaller 3’s quite a lot. He’s got a very underrated post game (Unless he’s going up against a guy bigger, heavier and stronger than he is)….
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i have watched several Partizan games at this point
and just disagree with your assessment i guess, smaller players get separation pretty easily from Jan on the perimeter. He’s really quick, but he’s still 7’ no matter how you slice it…
isnt he 6'11" in socks?
that would be almost 4" taller than Lebron, if indeed Jan is as tall as I thought EG (or someone) said
For Pete's sake, Vesely was drafted to play the 4 spot --
Don’t take my word for it, here’s Ernie:
“Will Vesely start right away?:
"That’s going to be up to him. We have Rashard Lewis coming back at that position, the three spot, which he’ll probably play initially. He can also play some four, but that’s going to be up to him and how quickly he develops and how quickly he picks up the NBA game."" —
The simple truth is: 7-foot, 240 lb guys (later to be 250 or so) do not play the 3 in the NBA. Maybe he won’t be a “power 4” like the short-ish Boozer and Brand, but he will defend them with his height just fine.
by Tbonebullets on Jun 29, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
7-foot 240ish guys usually don't have adequate lateral quickness to play the 3 in the NBA.
Vesely seems to have that. And I think that’s a bigger determining factor than height in whether or not he can play SF.
What about Kevin Durant?
He weighs less (by 10lbs numbers show) and is around the same height. I think Vesely can play the 3. Watch the footage someone posted in FanPosts of those Partizan games. He’s a lot more mobile and active than you’d think.
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
Its rare to hear that someone is too tall to play a position.
I’m struggling to come up with an example.
Robert Horry started out as a 3
but that lasted about 3 years then he was full time PF and eventually PF/C back up.
Nobody’s saying he “can’t” play the 3. The only minor, negligible point I’m trying to make is that, if you read/listen to what the team ACTUALLY says, they envision Vesely playing the 4 once he learns the NBA game. In other words: they drafted him with the idea that he will play the “power forward,” or “4” position. Maybe he plays the 3 somewhat along the way. Maybe he plays the 3 somewhat for the rest of his career. Hey, maybe he can play a little 5.
Of course there are anomalies at every position, maybe he will turn out to play the “small forward” position full-time, contrary to the team’s vision for him. Magic Johnson played point guard at 6-9, and he was full-time; Kevin Durant plays the 3 (sort of), and he’s near 7-foot; Charles Barkley played the 4, and he was barely 6-4; but all of the relatively few examples out there of anomalous heights/weights for positions are beside the point. The team foresees him as a 4.
by Tbonebullets on Jun 29, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
So whats saying Vesely can't be another anomoly?
Anyway though, I understand what your saying. Either way, we have a good player and he’ll find somewhere to play, position don’t matter as much in my opinion. A perfect place to look when thinking of Vesely and his potential position is Jared Jeffries.
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
Is a comparison to Jefferies is a good thing?
I really hope that EG didnt drool over this kid for 3yrs hoping he would be the next Jared Jefferies
A perfect place to look when thinking of Vesely and his potential position is Jared Jeffries.
Position being the key word here. Not effectiveness or game, position.
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
Puh-leeze. Vesely actually has a nice-looking jump shot, and it will improve. The “Effries” comparisons are just sour grapes, IMO, from folks who would have had us mortgage the team for another unproven Euro, Kanter.
by Tbonebullets on Jun 29, 2011 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
that's a big time assumption
He’s 21yrs old and has been a pro what 3yrs? For his FT% to be so atrocious is a major red flag. EVERY other prospect we look at has his shooting potential judged by his FT%….
When did I compare their games?
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
No. Height inflation because he was so outrageously short for such a huge impact player in the post. I’ve read in several places over the years that he’s less than 6-4 in socks — but you’d have to ask him personally to get the exact stat…his girth is more impressive these days than height, to be sure…
by Tbonebullets on Jun 29, 2011 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
seraphin...
will have to be a bakcup 5 IMO. He really is purely back to the basket anyway
Seems unlikely that Booker will see much time at 4
He’s undersized for the position, and we’ve got bigger guys who are better suited for that spot. Booker’s problem with 3 is that his shot isn’t falling.
if were going to be picky
um the article says seraphins a 5 not a 3
I think the biggest issue
is going to be to find playing time for Crawford, Mack and Jeffers. To me, I thought Crawford and Jeffers would make a good combination of the bench together. Crawford would handle the scoring load and play more of a PG role, while Jeffers would be the defensive specialist who guards the other teams 6th man. I thought they were set there, but Mack definitely adds a little bit of confusion. I’m not sure how likely Mack is to get playing time, but if he is treated as Wall’s backup then someone is not going to get playing time. Should be interesting to see what happens, but it’s a nice problem to have.
by ThePGPhenomenon on Jun 29, 2011 8:44 AM EDT reply actions
Similar to last year, it will be fascinating to see how Saunders distributes playing time among so many young players. Players who arguably need PT in order to further their development.
Follow me on twitter - @CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Jun 29, 2011 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Crawfords first off the bench for either 1 or 2
Mack and Jeffers are there to come in at the 1 and 2, when needed. Crawfords the main backup at both positions in my eyes. Jeffers and mack are 3rd string at their positions. I think it gives flip a lot of flexibility in the backcourt.
Agree
Mack and Jeffers will be sitting a lot. They’re just going to have to stay prepared, pay attention, and try to force the coach’s hand with their play.
finding time for jeffers won't be a problem
he will work really hard in practice, getting many minutes in. He will also get about 46-48 minutes a night….on the end of the bench…
I knew I should have grouped them all as “forwards” and been done with it. :-)
Follow me on twitter - @CJ_202SB
by CJ Hempfield on Jun 29, 2011 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Roster
mcgee
wall
Nick young
crawford
blatche
book
seraphi
lewis
vesely
mack
singleton
________
11
MO evans is a keeper IMO
bye YI
BYE josh howard
are we talking 14 here?
I'd rather
keep Josh Howard than Mo Evans. A healthy Josh Howard that is.
I wouldn't
I love Josh Howards game and am a huge fan and he is no doubt the better player when healthy, but Mo Evans is more of what the team needs. He’s also a lesser usage type player and can knock down the open 3.
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
by qthaballa on Jun 29, 2011 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well the team could use some usage...
If that makes sense. We have a shortage of shot creators.
I agree
A go-to type offensive player would be great. But I think the need for outside shooting outweighs that slightly. We have Crawford, Young, Blatche and Lewis in terms of usage if anything.
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
This really highlights how rough the season could be for Booker
He played great and was arguably our third most productive player last year, yet I don’t see how he’s going to get minutes. Dray will get at least 30 minutes, Rashard probably gets 20, and then Vesely and Singleton will most likely wrap up the majority of the minutes at small forward. Booker’s too short to play center, so where will he get his minutes? Will Flip play Blatche at center?
Follow me on twitter -
http://twitter.com/TheRealTPruitt
by pantslessyoda1 on Jun 29, 2011 10:17 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
the Wiz better find a way to play Booker
he was really good last year. I’m all for reducing Rashard Lewis’s minutes even if it means we won’t find a team to trade him to when the time comes.
Agreed
The only thing that I’m concerned about is our spacing, though, which Rashard helps. I’d only play him over Booker if he’s hitting 40% of his threes and scoring at the rate he was at back in 2008 or 2009.
Follow me on twitter -
http://twitter.com/TheRealTPruitt
by pantslessyoda1 on Jun 29, 2011 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes...I think Blatche plays back up center
otherwise, the second team could have offensive issues outside of Crawford. I think that will be the biggest issue for the Wizards unless Wall finds a scoring touch. They won’t have a lot of threats on the floor simultaneously.
I dont think that Booker at this moment is behind Vesely and especially Singleton in the rotation he has proven more then both of them.
by spanishfalcon on Jun 29, 2011 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
He's not behind superstars
If he’s good enough, he’ll probably win a starting job. I’m not worried about him having chances. On the other hand, if Blatche, Vesely and Singleton all play well enough to keep Booker behind them then we should be in pretty good shape for the future.
by steadyhand on Jun 29, 2011 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, that would be ideal
We could also consider trading him to a team that could really use him, maybe the Pacers, the Hawks, or the Kings.
Follow me on twitter -
http://twitter.com/TheRealTPruitt
by pantslessyoda1 on Jun 29, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
rec'd
“if Blatche, Vesely and Singleton all play well enough to keep Booker behind them then we should be in pretty good shape for the future.”
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
How about this rotation (asuming everybody is healthy)
PG—Wall 38——-Crawford 6—Mack 4
SG—Young 36—Crawford 12
SF—Lewis 32—-Vesely 12——-Singleton 4
PF—Blatche 24—Booker 12—Vesely 6— Singleton 6
C—-McGee 30—-Blatche 12—Seraphin 6
Inactive: Jeffers, Owens, NDiaye (and/or veteran FA signing)
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
"I'll be lounging on the couch, just chillin in my snuggie, klick to MTV so they can teach my how to dougie" (Buno Mars, The lazy song)
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jun 30, 2011 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
In no condition would I give Lewis 32 minutes.
by spanishfalcon on Jun 30, 2011 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
You would burry the second highest paid player in the NBA on the bench....?
Who also is the best SF on the roster (when healthy)?
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
"I'll be lounging on the couch, just chillin in my snuggie, klick to MTV so they can teach my how to dougie" (Buno Mars, The lazy song)
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jun 30, 2011 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Ow, and who also is 1 of very view veterans on the roster
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
"I'll be lounging on the couch, just chillin in my snuggie, klick to MTV so they can teach my how to dougie" (Buno Mars, The lazy song)
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jun 30, 2011 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I think physically he cant take 32 minutes a game.
I also think that we shouldn’t take that many minutes away from the young players. He should play like 20-25 minutes a game.
by spanishfalcon on Jun 30, 2011 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But, yeah. We all would, I think
Lewis’ salary means nothing. Plus, he’s quiet and disinterested, so his veteran presence is pretty minimal. And I think both Singleton and Vesely will be better next year than washed up Lewis, and I think Evans contributes more, and Booker could play there more effectively than Lewis, so I’d say Lewis actually could be the 5th best SF on the roster. How can you undervalue Andray (“no trade value”)Blatche so much, but then pump up Rashard (“can’t bury on the bench”) Lewis? Makes so sense to me – imho. I would totally bury Lewis and really hope they do. If we’re about the future, we don’t need to play Mr. No Future.
by Kenny Sky Walker on Jun 30, 2011 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
and congratulations on your gloriously reminiscent name.
by Jim America on Jun 30, 2011 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, I guess I should explain myself a little bit better
1. When AB was on the block a fiew months back Ernie got very little reaction. Thats why I think he has little trade value.
2. Lewis is going to play when healthy,for the reasons I steated above. Mark my words
Notice how both are not my opinions but they are how I think it will go.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
"I'll be lounging on the couch, just chillin in my snuggie, klick to MTV so they can teach my how to dougie" (Buno Mars, The lazy song)
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jul 1, 2011 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Still sounds like an "opinion" to me
Not sure what you’re getting at with the “Notice how…” comment. Your opinion — based on what you think may be the case, not what you know — is that Dray got “little reaction” and Lewis will start because he’s the best SF on the team, a vet, and high-paid.
The Dray on the block thing could have been a ploy to light a fire under his ass; they could have gotten several decent offers and passed for that reason. You also continually call Blatche “unmoveable” which is crazy since even Arenas and Lewis were “moveable.” You also call the contract “horrible” which is actually an incorrect fact — in comparison for 25 year old, 6’11 PF’s who average 17 and 8, he’s very, very reasonably paid.
Lewis is highly paid and a vet – those are in fact facts. But whether he’s the best SF on the team (your opinion) or the 5th best (my opinion) – those are in fact opinions. And I believe your opinion there is wrong. There is enough experience and offense with Wall, Young (if re-signed), Blatche, and McGee as the other starters, that I would stick in one of the young guys (Singleton, Vesely, Booker) for energy in the starting five ahead of Lewis. But, either way, burying Lewis on the bench is hardly an eye-popping idea. It fits with the team’s direction and goals. We got Lewis for exactly one reason only: to enable us to get rid of Gil. It would be slightly unusual — vets are often prefered by coaches over rookies/2nd years; but it’s not super crazy.
by Kenny Sky Walker on Jul 1, 2011 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
But, either way, burying Lewis on the bench is hardly an eye-popping idea. It fits with the team’s direction and goals.
I disagree. It devalues him as an asset. That runs in direct conflict with our ability to turn him (the player and the contract) into future assets.
I also think there is value in requiring the guys behind him to beat him out for minutes.
We got Lewis for exactly one reason only: to enable us to get rid of Gil.
That’s not true either. Per Grunfeld," he can help us". We acquired a player.
I disagree
i don’t think any teams are looking at a guy turning 32 in August who plays like a shadow of his former self as a piece to a winning puzzle. His contract is what will attract offers, and it should attract plenty…the CBA and whether we use an amnesty clause on him are unpredictable at this point. I agree we should play him if he earns the time…unless we’re dumping for high lotto…I just don’t find that likely.
And what was Grunfeld supposed to say? “Yeah, we’re saddled with Rashard unfortunately. But hey, at least e’s not Gil!”. Whatever EG thinks, he was going to say that regardless.
@Kenny Skywalker
First off I have never said his contract is horrible, I think you’re mistaking me with someone else. I did say that I think the extension was premature
Second, in hindsight my ‘notice how’ remark sounds like i’m an being an ass. Sorry for that. What I meant was that I think it is the way Flip and Ernie view the role of Lewis.
Finally, I don’t agree either that Lewis was only acquired to get rid of Arenas. If Ted wanted to get rid of Arenas he could have told him to stay home. Instead, he traded him for a player who can help us and has a better contract (yr shorter, last yr only partially garuanteed).
Ernie Flip and Ted have spoken about the importants of veteran leader ship for the young core. My reasoning is that for those reasons Lewis will be made a starter by Flip if healthy.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
"I'll be lounging on the couch, just chillin in my snuggie, klick to MTV so they can teach my how to dougie" (Buno Mars, The lazy song)
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jul 2, 2011 7:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Interesting...
I didn’t actually think it was under debate about Gil-Lewis. I believe (IMO) that we would have taken Lewis for Gil even if Lewis had already suffered a career ending injury – like when Terrell Brandon was traded a bunch without playing years ago. Sure, in the press conference, they pointed out that Lewis has championship experience and would spread the floor more, but that’s what people say in such situations. Oh, and I think the “flipping Lewis for assets” idea is pretty far-stretched, as Jim America pointed out.
Also, to Dutch, I remembered you with the windmill saying Blatche was untradeable, terrible contract, we’re stuck with him, nobody wants him, etc, etc, on several ocassions. If I’m wrong, I totally apologize. But I did clue into it, and do mention when I can, because I totally disagree. Hickson just landed Casspri and a 1st rounder in a strong draft. I’d say most GMs would choose Blatche over Hickson, who hasn’t shown much at all (not even in April, as all the Blatche detractors point out), and who appears to be a bit of a headcase too, and clashed even more with his coach (admittedly, I think it’d be easier to clash with Byron Scott than Flip). Anyways, Dray is crazy frustrating, but that doesn’t make him bad or invaluable. And I don’t think GM’s are as worried about Lapdance Tuesday as all the JC’s on this site.
by Kenny Sky Walker on Jul 2, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
"far-fetched" - I knew that sounded wrong
Also, I meant “championship-round experience” with Lewis, of course.
by Kenny Sky Walker on Jul 2, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm actually still a Blatche believer
I indeed said he we’re not really getting any value for him because I see people on the boards make fun of him and his contract as well as radio people etc.
That’s not my view however, I think that if he gets it together mentally, he can be a heck of a player and I still hope he does. I always said that.
Of his contract extension I said it was premature. His old deal would have run till next summer (only paying him $3,5 or so) so I didn’t see the point of extending at the time. Back than I was surprised to see people on here being so positive about it. Its not a bad contract in itself and Andray isnt untradable because of it imo, but it was premature.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
"I'll be lounging on the couch, just chillin in my snuggie, klick to MTV so they can teach my how to dougie" (Buno Mars, The lazy song)
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jul 2, 2011 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
real unintended.....
To me the 2011 draft of Vesely and Singleton might significantly impact our 2012 draft plans. If Jan and Chris end up both as small forwards then a bunch of guys go off our board (just like the point guards this year)….now if Harrison Barnes can play the 2 also or A.Davis/Perry Jones can play the 4 too then it might work. To me those are the real unintended consequences……..
Terrence Jones is enormous and built like a brick wall
He could certainly be the BPA when we pick
His bball IQ
is like a brick too…we don’t need any more of those
by Meraj Chowdhury on Jun 29, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Jeremy Lamb can play the 2
No problems there. Also JayMychal Green out of Alabama is a very underrated 4.
I'm not going to think of something extra witty or clever to say, I don't want to convince you to see things my way, I just have 2 words for you: JEREMY LAMB
Lots of zone
I wanted us to draft a high energy C this year to push JaVale and compete for playing time, sort of like Trevor did with Dray at the end of last year. I love the fact that we drafted the necessary energy and intensity, but instead of a C, we took a couple of SFs and a G. If we’re going to be able to hold JaVale accountable, it’s going to be through heavy use of Flip’s zone. When JaVale’s head isn’t in the game, I could see someone like Singleton, Vesely, or Rashard starting at PF, with Blatche shifting over to C. With a lineup that scrawny, the zone’s ability to prevent the entry pass will be our best bet to avoid getting destroyed inside.
by yop32 on Jun 29, 2011 10:19 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think the distribution by position will be more like this:
1- Wall, Mack
2-Young, Crawford, O
3-Rashad Lewis ( he played the 4 out of necessity), Vessely, Singleton, Owens
4-Dray, Book, Singleton
5- JaVale, Seraphin, H
by Meraj Chowdhury on Jun 29, 2011 10:26 AM EDT reply actions
Sorry, bit I just don't see the opportunity AT ALL to add a Free Agent to the existing mix...
The Wizards have 7 players under contract:
John Wall
Andray Blatche
Jordan Crawford
Rashard Lewis
Trevor Booker
Kevin Seraphin
JaVale McGee
They just drafted three players – two of which are GUARANTEED to be on the roster, and the third (Shelvin Mack) is an almost sure thing to make the roster (barring something completely bizarre).
Jan Vesely
Chris Singleton
Shelvin Mack
PLUS – they just extended Qualifying Offers to:
Othyus Jeffers
Hamady Ndiaye
Larry Owens
Nick Young
All of those players, with the exception of Nick Young are almost certain to accept those offers – and I would be utterly surprised if any other teams were to offer a contract. So they are MOST LIKELY all going to be on the opening day roster.. (Again, unless something really bizarre happens – but really, does anyone here actually expect another team to swoop in and give Jeffers or Owens a long term contract?)..
Nick Young may draw some interest from other teams, but the Wizards are giving every indication that they want to retain him….
THAT’S 14 PLAYERS…. That is probably the ceiling for roster size this year for the Wiz…. They probably will want to have some flexibility and a 14 player roster allows for that. It allows for unbalanced trades; Emergency (injury) call ups from the D-League – or room for other unforeseen issues. Adding any more players to the roster, either undrafted Free Agents, or veterans floating around out there – would be inadvisable. If you lock the roster at 15 players (the League Maximum) – you rule out the potential to trade 1 player and get back 2 (you would exceed the roster size limit)… If there were a series of injuries to a particular position (say 2 Centers get hurt) , you couldn’t call up a Center from the D-League for 10-days…. You’re STUCK….
Therefore – I don’t believe there is room on the final roster for ANY of the players you listed….
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
can they pull their offer? Or at a minimum just take the hit
on Owens or Jeffers? They will go into camp with 18, so I don’t think they have guaranteed spots. If this is the case, I think Owens is a place holder.
Rook, we've covered this ground
Those QO’s under 1M are not going to keep us from cutting a Larry Owens if we need to. There, we’re at 13. So we can add a free agent and still have wiggle room.
Just because they were tendered does not make them a guarantee for the roster, only for training camp.
Yes - of course.... and everything depends on the new CBA... blah, blah, blah
qualifying offer cannot be withdrawn after July 23 without the player’s approval.
But do you really think that the Wizards offered QA’s to Jeffers, Owens and Ndiaye so they could cut them before July 23rd, and sign someone else? The option may be there… but the probability is that those three players will be on the opening day roster with guaranteed contracts.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I think its possible
given that the offers had to be in before the draft. Now that we added 2 more forwards Larry Owens tender may not stick. The July 23rd date is meaningless if there is a lockout.
As for the new CBA, we’ll still be in great shape even under a hard cap when compared to almost every other team in the NBA outside of the Kings who don’t spend any money. The counter would mean that the Wizards are in a tough spot but all these teams way over every cap and tax threshold aren’t??
It just seems like you’re guaranteeing roster spots based on minimum salaries. If we have a chance to get better through new acquisitions those salaries will not stand in our way.
disagree
June 18th QO ‘s were made. They didn’t know they were drafting two 3’s when the offers went out. They drafted singleton, and JV. Owens will not be on our opening day roster. They merely did it just in case they drafted…. Big JV or Kanter. Then the offer would make sense.
I could see them cutting Owens before the deadline.
That would certainly qualify as an unintended outcome of the draft…
By the way.....
Released players with guaranteed contracts continue to be included in team salary.
So if you make the argument that they can sign Jeffers – then waive him (release him) – to bring in a veteran PG for instance…. you’d be right….
But the team would be toying with the CAP – and while they have room under the cap to make such a move – I think that Ted’s plan includes keeping cap flexibility for things OTHER than just wasting salary on a guy that’s not playing…
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
toying with the cap?
The player coming in would likely be on the vet minimum. These tenders are $963,872 for Owens and Hamady, $1,059,293 for Jeffers. We’re in great shape with the cap.
Wasting salary on a guy that's not playing
The minimum qualifying offer guys won’t be playing anyway. Even if they make the roster, the vast majority of the time, they’ll be wearing suits to the games. For the most part, we’re only keeping them as useful practice partners. If they get in the way of a meaningful free agent signing, we should absolutely be willing to cut them from the roster.
Would you be so eager defend the use of that cap space on cutting Jeffers or Owens...
If at the February trade deadline, the Wizards couldn’t consummate a trade for Dwight Howard because they didn’t have enough cap room to get the deal done?
or if Portland wanted to get rid of Gerald Wallace or Greg Oden – to save money – and all they wanted was a scrub and a pick? But the Wizards squandered their cap space on players no longer even on the roster….
Would you be so willing to defend the use of cap space on released players?
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
OMG
This is getting so overly dramatic its silly. So all these other teams can make deals but we’re screwed because we signed a kid for 963K and then cut him! And we can’t think of any way shape or form to make the necessary room? Yet teams with payrolls in the 70’s, 80’s and 90 MILLION marks have no problem dealing?
IOW, of we’re in that spot then almost no team could swing a deal.
I thought that most people here agreed that... this was the year to "gel"...
This is the year to let the young players play together, shake out which ones are part of the core, and which ones are trade bait…
And that adding Free Agents was something for NEXT year – after the team has had a chance to evaluate the current players… see how they mesh…. determine what is needed… and THEN try to fill in the roster with the right kind of veterans….
So what has changed… Why does everyone now think that the Wiz will be hot to drop young guys (Jeffers, Owens, Ndiaye) and pick up veteran Free Agents?
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
"Everyone" does not now think we'll drop them
Most do see that Larry Owens and his tender, or Jeffers and his tender will not stand in the way of getting better. Hamady is a tougher call, but it wouldn’t surprise me if only 1 or even zero of these guys finishes the season on the roster. They are fringe players on one of the worst teams in the NBA. They were added because of a litany of late season injuries. So its not like they made the team out of camp anyway.
This team made big commitments to a slew of young draft picks. So playing the “cut the young guys” card seems disingenuous. We’d be cutting fringe NBA players, the likes of which are available in the D League consistently.
Sure, that’s the plan. But on the other hand, you don’t want to pass on any opportunities that come up. For example, I wouldn’t be averse to adding another C to the roster, if the right player were available. Either a mentor-type vet or a young player with some upside would be tempting at the right price.
by yop32 on Jun 29, 2011 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
2 spots
I think we could add vets: C and PG. Flip has specifically mentioned adding a veteran big. I’ve mentioned a vet PG before so that we don’t go form Wall to Crawford or now Wall to Mack starting. A veteran PG could step in, run the offense and keep the rest of the guys in their defined roles. Less ripple effect.
Opportunities like adding Anthony Carter???!??!?
THAT’s making the team better?
Or adding “a veteran reserve that can play both the 4 and the 5” – what….. like it’s really, really important to add a guy like Darius Songaila, or Fab Oberto???
I think I’d rather keep Owens, Jeffers and Ndiaye…..
Jeffers can play both SG and SF… Owens the same.. Ndiaye is the only really “right sized” Center on the roster besides McGee…..
I’m just not sure how adding Anthony Carter , or Fab Oberto makes the team better…..
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Straw men
Where are you getting these names from?
for cereal
If we don’t keep Larry Owens it will cost us Dwight Howard
If we cut Owens we will sign Fab Oberto, a guy who isn’t healthy enough to play anymore.
but otherwise this is an intellectually honest conversation.
more loaded scenarios
How does Larry Owen help us, or play any position at all, behind Young, Crawford, Lewis, Booker, Singleton and Vesely? We picked 4 forwards in the first rounds of the last two drafts. We don’t need a D League 3 more than a veteran C.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 29, 2011 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Owens can also play Shooting Guard....
Release Owens and Jeffers – and If Young leaves in FA- that leaves only Crawford
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
sure
I would only release Owens right now. Jeffers I hold onto into camp. The NY situation will be settled well before camp. So again you’re gaming the timing of this process to make it look dire, when its not at all. If NY leaves I believe the new CBA will allow us to sign free agents and trade for players, correct? So we will have a chance to replace him with better players than Larry Owens.
28 isn't exactly that young in the NBA
Owens in 28. The average age is 26…. he could be considered old, but then that would make me old. damn. Anyways, we need to look at VETs in terms of NBA experience. You could have a 26 year old with 7 years in the NBA. that would be better than a 28 year old with 1 year under his belt
Itt's very unlikely Owens (28) or N'Daiye (not NBA caliber) have a future with the Wizards
So yeah, if the right move is out there, they get cut. The team takes a small salary hit for part of the year, which is VERY unlikely to end up hurting them. I think if there’s a good FA out there that could be had at a reasonable price, the team shouldn’t let small amounts of money committed to long-shots on the roster stand in the way.
That said, we don’t need a veteran free agent, but it would be nice to have a legit backup center, and one more quality veteran in the locker room.
wait don't we have time to take back our QO without a penalty?
I thought we had until the end of july? maybe im completely wrong here.
Supposably
But even if we don’t, there’s still the option of just letting them go to make room.
like we did with Cartier Martin
toward the end of last year. Much smaller hit, but he was making $850K.
For starters, nobody has been cut yet. We currently still have an open roster spot. We can add one FA now, with zero negative consequences. We can’t add a second or third FA without cutting someone, but I don’t think that’s an issue.
As far as trades are concerned, I doubt a <$1M salary is going to hold up a meaningful trade. By the time a trade went down, the salary obligation would be even less.
The negatives here are slim to none. Weigh that against the risk of losing a useful player to free agency. Remember what happened with Roger Mason a couple of years back?
Pie in the sky..... scenario
The new CBA is in place – and it does NOT allow for sign-and-trades (owner’s do not like SnT’s – and it is eliminated in their latest proposal)…and there is a FLEX CAP set at $63 Million (also in the Owner’s latest proposal). :Let’s assume the Rookie Scale remains the same as the old CBA.
Wizards start the season with Jeffers, Owens and Ndiaye with a total team salary of roughly $53 Million – but waive two to add “veteran players”…
Wizards come to the 2011 February Trade deadline after having waived Owens ($1 Million) and Jeffers (roughly $1 Million)…. and picked up Anthony Carter ($1.5 Million minimum) and perhaps Darius Songaila ($1.5 Million minimum) -
So instead of having $10 Million under the “FLEX CAP” to work with at the trade deadline – the Wiz only have $7 Million….
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I understand the math
I’m just not jumping off a bridge at every loaded scenario you throw out there, because you always tilt into your favor. In this scenario, we still have more FLEX CAP than almost any other team in the league, as well as the capability to add Songalia or Carter into these trades. You have yet to acknowledge that part too.
Yeah
I just think it’s not as dire as you do. I think a lot will depend on if their contracts are fully or partially guaranteed. A team may be able to trade us a $10 million dollar contract, take back Owens or another players on the partially guaranteed contract, cut that player. Are they getting as much in saving as they did before? No. But, losing 500k to save 10 million is a good deal in most people’s books.
I’m not adverse to leaving the 15th slot unfilled because to give us some flexibility in the event of an injury. However, given that I think most of our trades in the future will have us sending away player than receiving players, I don’t think it’ll be as necessary for trades as you’re implying.
Also, how can you be so crazy about cap space and want to throw a massive contract at Nick Young?? Another thread I know, but it seems logically inconsistent.
Quick Clarification
I mean to say the Wizards are more likely to send away more players than receive more players. They’re in a position closer to Boston’s Pre-Big 3.
If they could some how do it
I would try to re-sign Mo Evans and cut Larry Owens. I think Evans is a valuable veteran piece but at the same time, I think this team definitely has too many players to really think about adding anymore without at least subtracting.
by ThePGPhenomenon on Jun 29, 2011 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
You are totally right Rook!
We all want summer league and camp so that we can find the diamon in the rough. No room this year so it might be a little boring.
13 or 14 depending on Nick.
Why in the world would you pay H, Owens and Jeffers a years salary and then cut them?
Unrealistic expectations.
H, Owens and Jeffers WILL BE Washington Wizards this year.
It is as simple as that.
If we could trade for Dwight Howard
You wouldn’t so you could save $700K? At least one of these guys will be in suits pretty much all year anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong
but there contracts aren’t guaranteed until a certain point in the season. So if they cut them before that point they don’t have to pay them the entire salary. Can someone tell me if that is correct?
by ThePGPhenomenon on Jun 29, 2011 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't you think that if they intended to do that...
they would have by now? what is the purpose of waiting – other than delaying the time that Owens could find another team…..? (Which is a pretty mean thing to do)…
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
whats the point
they don’t have to do it now while the CBA is still being fleshed out and a lockout is on the horizon. Owens isn’t losing a roster spot in July. He’s never won one in July either. He’s a fringe NBA player at best and will have to earn his spot in a camp just like all the other fringe players.
right
then they took two guys, 6 and 18, they play Owens position, are 7 years younger and are guaranteed years and years of money for exponentially more than Owens’ tender…
You need to have a conference call with Ernie and Ted ASAP
Tell them that they made a mistake.
by jmpalomo on Jun 29, 2011 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you're on to something
Maybe we can conference you in so you can explain how Larry Owens fits into the rotation in front of Lewis, Booker, Singleton, and Vesely. How many first round picks and high salary veterans do you need to see in fron ot a 28 year old pro basketball journeyman before you acknowledge that maybe his future is elsewhere?
I’m sure they hear from fans of D leaguers all the time, wondering why they aren’t NBA stars yet.
Yeah -
and while you’re at it – you can explain to Ernie and Ted why it’s necessary to DROP Jeffers and Owens to add a veteran Point Guard (even though the Wizards have 3 players that can play the position)- and a veteran Big Man that can play the 4 and 5 (even though the Wizards have 7 big men that can play the PF or Center or both already)….
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Jun 29, 2011 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
owens..... jeffers....
the name is not important – it’s the concept…
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
that explains things
like why there was the same revolt when Alonzo Gee was let go. He was SO irreplaceable he could only stick with a team even worse than ours.
Why not?
The current reasoning of others (not ME) is that there are already 2 Shooting Guards on the roster -and the Wiz don’t need a SF….
If something happens – they could always just pick up a guy from the D-League…. Why keep Jeffers?
OH – by the way – Owens plays SG also…
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I disagree
I think Jeffers is a keeper. You need a guy who can specialize in defending the other teams guards. Since we have Singleton to play the 3/4, Jeffers would be a great player to have at the end of games. He is much more gifted defender than any of the other guards on this roster.
by ThePGPhenomenon on Jun 29, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
A poor man's DeShawn...
Gotta have one on your roster.
never said drop Jeffers
Never said we had to add a vet PG, only that it would be an option.
A 3rd PG has more value than a 6th swing player.
A veteran big is Flip’s preference, and common sensical to me, so I guess my work there is done.
It was a precautionary QO
they couldn’t tell how the draft was going to pan out. Could you?
I thought that was only for players that have a fourth year on a rookie contract?
by ThePGPhenomenon on Jun 29, 2011 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
From CBA FAQ
In order to make their free agent a restricted free agent, a team must submit a qualifying offer to the player by June 30. This prevents the team from not offering a contract and waiting to swoop in when the player tries to sign elsewhere. The qualifying offer ensures that the team does not gain the right of first refusal without also offering a contract themselves. The amount of the qualifying offer for players on rookie “scale” contracts is based on the player’s draft position (see question number 42). The qualifying offer for all other players must be for 125% of the player’s previous salary, or the player’s minimum salary (see question number 11) plus $175,000, whichever is greater. The qualifying offer must be for one season.
Bolding is mine
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
How quickly do you think Owens and Jeffers will sign their Offers?
I’d think it’s already DONE.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
of course we would have
but no agent is going to have their guy sign that tender now. If an agent did he’d be fired shortly thereafter for limiting his client’s options in the face of huge labor unrest. Sorry, can’t play overseas I’m legally obligated to wait out the lockout, oops.
They are going to use the summer to explore every opportunity for their client, especially outside the NBA given the labor issues. These guys have to make a living.
true
However – 32 seconds after the new CBA is agreed to – Jeffers, Ndiaye, and Owens will be signing their Qualifying Offers….
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Also what kind of offer did they give Cartier Martin last year
Because if I remembered his salary was not guaranteed until January which is why they cut Lester Hudson.
by ThePGPhenomenon on Jun 29, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Martin was picked up as a FA
and offered a Non-guaranteed contract….
Qualifying Offers must be for a full year…
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
To further clarify
We didn’t offer Cartier a qualifying offer. We allowed him to become an unrestricted free agent, then we re-signed him as an unrestricted free agent to an unguaranteed contract. So it worked out great for us with Cartier.
But we tried to do the same thing with Roger Mason a couple of years ago, and he ended up signing with San Antonio. Giving the qualifying offer prevents that from happening, but it commits us to a guaranteed full year salary.
Because they play the same position
as the 2 first round picks you drafted, and a first rounder from last year
and they are fringe NBA players to begin with who were only called up due to injury
Why..
do you guys think a 33 year old Mo Evans wants to play another year in Washington. He could sign a minimum deal in Miami or wherever else and go for a championship.
Guys that scrambled to make it in the league like Evans
haven’t accrued so much wealth that they can just decide to work for the minimum.
Have you ever quit your job so you could work for minimum wage for the #1 company in your field?
Evans said recently that he would like to return to Washington next season
Saw it on WaPo. Too lazy to find the link though.
by iNFaMOUS SwaGG on Jun 29, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
That's what smart veterans always say...
Evans would like the best possible job for the best possible money.
Yeah
A player has to really burn a lot of bridges to give a “I think I’ll look elsewhere” comment.
Evans is a great leader from everything i’ve read. I think he’d be a great addition to the Wizards… if this was 4 years later in the rebuild. Right now, I think he’ll look elsewhere and so should we.
I'd like
us to stay with the younger pg’s. Flip has a tendancy to love vets to the detriment of young players and their leaning curve and we need to speed up the curve on our young players as soon as possible so I say let the young guys play.
I’m okay with a Wall, Mack, Crawford pg rotation.
Evans being back might not be a bad thing a vet there I think would be sifficient and I think a vet back up center would be needed as well.
by jazzy1 on Jun 29, 2011 11:54 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
that boogey man
didn’t last long a year ago. Remember when Hinrich was going to dominate the ball in place of JW? Oh the scray stories told over the summer.
he often played Kirk 40+ minutes until he broke down
meanwhile Nick was around 20mins/night the first two months of the season.
I think he said Hinrich in place of JW.
What’s Young got to do with it?
i think he was speaking to
flips penchant for giving veterans minutes at the expense of younger guys in general
bring back darvin ham
Depends which 'he' we're talking about.
Anyway, after November 16th, Young had a total of 7 games where he played less than 27 minutes.
yeah
nick got plenty of run eventually… i think flip did an okay job of giving the younger guys minutes and balancing the egos of the veterans… like you said this season with less veterans to work with it should work out better for the younger guys… thats why im opposed to bringing in a 3rd pg (anthony carter type) or a veteran c
bring back darvin ham
In principle, I am too.
But the one glaring roster shortcoming is the big beefy 7 footer. Perhaps Seraphin can help fill that void, but he’s still a couple inches short to be ideal. Aside from Aaron Gray, there aren’t any that are available, cheap enough, young enough, and good enough. And there isn’t much beef in next year’s draft (as of right now).
true
thats why i think we need to mold either seraphin or hamady (or both) into the C we need… hamady has the height (needs to add muscle) and raw physical tools and seraphin’s wingspan (almost) makes up for his slightly smaller frame
bring back darvin ham
The big question for me is whether Jan is a 3 or a 4
or imho, how much time they spend trying to fit him in as a SF when PF is where he’ll end up anyway. Would hate to take a player like Harrison Barnes off our radar (or even Terrence Jones) because we drafted Ves and Singleton in the same year
Hmmm...
You know I’ve been thinking about this. Booker, Vesely, Singleton, and Lewis. If any two of them are in the game, then how much does it really matter what their nominal position is? Their offensive roles will be dictated by their respective offensive skillsets. Their defensive roles would, of course, depend on the matchup.
I think we’re seeing Ernie put his ideal team together: a roster full of tall, long, interchangeable athletes at all positions. I just hope he finds some way to add some serious defensive beef at the 4 and/or 5 in the next 1-1.5 years… Or that Seraphin and H end up being good…
yeah i think
the 3 and 4 positions will be basically interchangeable for washington this year… like you said skillsets will determine offensive positioning and defensively i think we’ll see a lot of switching and probably more (argh.) zone looks
bring back darvin ham
Ted's face doesn't look too pleased in the pic (I know it just shows a split second)
but if I had to put a quote on his mind, it would say, “Oh boy, I hope they don’t ask him about the lockout…..”
so assuming
evans, howard, shakur, and yi aren’t resigned and the rfas we extended offers to accept we’re at 14… i like the offers to jeffers and hamady, somewhat confused by the offer to owens… he showed flashes of decent offense and strong defense but i feel like everyone from the d-league fighting for a roster spot does that… sorry to continue to ramble but furthermore i don’t feel like we need to bring in ANY additional players (veteran backup PG, veteran C, etc.) lets get this rebuild on the road and give these kids some minutes
bring back darvin ham
That's where I am
most of the arguments above are valid, but I don’t think we needed to offer Owens. I guess it gave more flexibility going into the draft. Just seems like it’s going to hamstring us a bit now. That said, let the team we have play for 30 wins or so unless something outrageous comes along.
Sidenote: I’m getting pretty sick of hearing how we need to add a prototypical big man. No shit. Go find me one.
i've often stated
I’d like to have a vet big to help all these kids with the subtleties of playing in the NBA. IMagine having someone who could defend the rim with his chest (right now we only have Seraphin) and could rotate to where he’s supposed to be… I’m setting the bar pretty low.
haha
yeah id be nice to have a decent vet big man (better than hilton armstrong) but i think its a luxury we don’t necessarily need… we’re not going to be contending we might as well play seraphin and hamady and see if we can’t teach them to defend the rim, rotate appropriately, and box out… they have the physical tools
bring back darvin ham
not just about PT
How much better would all these young guys be if they spent a season learning from Kurt Thomas? Athletes tend to learn better via mentoring relationships than just coach-player. sure they have ability but they aren’t getting that 3rd and 4th level of intel that wiley veterans can share.
I think you can get the same mentoring relationship from a coach
Ewing and Olajuwon are good examples. I don’t completely disagree, but I prefer the flexibility we have over signing a Kurt Thomas type.
except
Ewing and Hakeem aren’t walking thru that door. Also don’t underestimate the impact of practicing against a KT type for a full season. A lot of learnin goin on.
yeah thats a good point
having somebody like that on the end of the bench or in a suit would be valuable… just hopefully not at the expense of developing players minutes
bring back darvin ham
Owens
I too am a little puzzled by the Owens QO. Perhaps it’s for his 3 point shooting, which this team lacks.
My unintended consequence
is that we do not have many options to spread the floor. We are the anti-Spurs in that regard. We really need Rashard to be healthy and comfortable bombing away from 3. Nick has to keep his % up. Jordan has to take the same steps Nick did in learning to come off screens. JW has to improve his percentage. As much as we all want Dray improving on the block/high post, we’re going to need his shooting too.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
Related FanShots on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
- Kevin Durant is tired of hearing about the Spurs
- The 10-man rotation, starring your Indiana Pacers
- Blake Griffin highlights, ‘NBA Jam’-style (VIDEO)
- Finally, Shelvin Mack and Robert Pack have a dance dedicated to them (VIDEO)
