The RealGM Wizards Board Draft Thread 2008/2009

[nate33]

I don't trust the Wizards to successfully trade any of the young big men and see nothing but diminishing value with dimisnishing minutes/stats if they draft another C.

Exactly. With so many unrefined big men fighting for minutes, nobody is going to have a chance to really showcase themselves for a trade. Ultimately, one of them must be traded and we will not get equivalent value.

I remember a similar situation back when we had Webber, Howard, R.Wallace and Muresan all competing for the 96 available minutes at PF and C. We ended up getting far less than fair value when we traded Wallace for Strickland.

[Ruzious]

I'll take the counter-point prick role - my natural position.

I take Griffin no question. Then I take Bosh. Or Vince Carter. Or the best deal you can get with a package of one of Jamison/Blatche/Caron/Nick/filler + the pick for a better defender in either the frontcourt or 2-guard. In realistic equivalent value. Plus their pick.

Why do so many people here have a crush on getting VC? What has he won in the NBA? And now that he's past his prime years, why is he going to all of a sudden become a winner? Are Mitch Richmond and Stackmoney not available? By all means - go after Bosh - but stay away from VC.

But anyone who think this team doesn't need to develop a back-up scoring/distributing/floor general/clutch/winning guard hasn't been paying attention.

So, we get Lebron or Kobe to be a backup PG - no problem.

Yeah we need perimeter defense. No doubt. But scheme alone can help some. And you don't tend to pick your best defenders in the draft. They tend to come from free agency, often from guys who've had to go to Europe to learn how to do it. Veterans defend better than raw recruits. To get them you have to clear some roster and cap space, via trade. In the draft you build for the future, not immediate help.

So, when drafting players... we should forget about defensive ability. It's not an issue. WHAT??? We can get someone from Europe to take care of that. Yeah... someone like Pecherov. That's the ticket.

Picking for perceived team need lands you Pecherov, not Rondo or Farmar.

In that case, pick Thabeet at 2. He has the most talent. Pecherov was picked as much for the ability to store him away as well as potential. They didn't pick him for positional need - if they did, they would have put him on the rostrum.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Carter's actually a good defender at both SG and SF, Ruz.

I pointed out in another thread that over the past three (or was it 4?) years he's played in 45 more regular season games than Butler.

Carter at SG in place of Jamison at PF, with the Wizards drafting Griffin (or another stud PF) could make the Wizards all that much better with Arenas and Haywood back next season.

Carter's still a good player because he would add scoring, rebounding, a whole lot better passing, and believe it or not, defense at SG.

[barelyawake]

"With the trade down you take the best available talent regardless of position."
OK, but best talent means when factoring in both offense and defense (in otherwords overall effect in the game).

"Picking for perceived team need lands you Pecherov, not Rondo or Farmar."
Right, and that's why you trade that pick for a future first and gamble. Instead of Opec, you look ahead to future years and guess which teams are not going to panout, and make your mid-pick a future first.

"I don't trust the Wizards to successfully trade any of the young big men"
But, that's not the test. The test is what could end up helping the most, not what will happen. Because we ain't doing the Curry thing. So, we're dealing in a mental sport of what would be best.

"But anyone who think this team doesn't need to develop a back-up scoring/distributing/floor general/clutch/winning guard hasn't been paying attention."
ONE THAT PLAYS DEFENSE. That's all I'm asking. One who can come in and replace Gil with a defensive stand. One who can run with Young and at least form an avg defensive backcourt. One who can hopefully pair with a vet and be a force defensively. That way, at least 1/4 of the time we have a great defensive backcourt.

"And you don't tend to pick your best defenders in the draft. They tend to come from free agency, often from guys who've had to go to Europe to learn how to do it. Veterans defend better than raw recruits."
Rondo. But, you're right that vets are better. So, trade the pick for a vet and a future first. Can you trade a pick twice? I forget the rules on that. Can you trade down, and then trade it again? Tradedown for Bosh (with the pick plus players), then trade away for a vet SG who plays defense (for the lower pick plus more players). That's obviously not happening. But, nethier is trading down for Curry. Again, trade AJ for Stephen Jackson. Hell, Thabo and Hinirch are on the block. They play d. Marquis Daniels, Ariza, Delfino, Des Mas, etc are free agents. They play d and can score.

Again, IMO we are arguing over bench players (who may start, but not on championship teams). That's why you trade the pick for a future first.

[doclinkin]

By all means - go after Bosh - but stay away from VC.

FWIW I lean towards your opinion on VC. I was looking for a consensus name for a back-court star who is likely to share the peak years of Gilbert, Caron, Haywood, whatnot and maximize our 'Win Now' potential. Thing is, in the current era the NBA isn't all that deep with 2-guard stars. Sorta the flaw in my argument. I would have said Rudy, but can't make a convincing argument that Portland would accept. I could have plugged in TMac and his massive contract, but he's about as problematic as Wince. Finding a star player who works well next to Gil is tricksy, a big unselfish ballhandler who plays defense, slashes, distributes, hts the three. Vince does all that (okay, 'unselfish' is arguable, but he passes). Mike Miller?

There are role players out there, possible available non-stars (argue merits of: Batum, Thabo, JChill in Europe, HInrich) but we lack roster space and cap room. Some part of the trade-down scenario involves both upgrade (to fit our core personnel--and new coach, new scheme) and ideally, roster dump to free up roster slots/ tax room.

The frontcourt is a different story considering we've seen on the market KG, Amare, JO, rumors about Bosh, etc. The value of that #2 pick gets us better value in trade for players of this stock.

Picking for perceived team need lands you Pecherov, not Rondo or Farmar.

In that case, pick Thabeet at 2. He has the most talent.

I'm on record early that Thabeet is a top talent in this draft. A Mutombo-effect player. Intimidator. For that reason I think he'd be coveted by teams willing to overpay to move up. We get better value listening to deals. We get picks this year, lower, at roster spots of greater need, and possibly future picks as well, in years when we have cleared up space.

Here? We need our Jeff Adrien. Thabeet makes stupid mistakes on positional defense. Adrien covers his ass by doing the dirty work behind him. We have our Thabeet in McGee, who will also be a better offensive threat. If we could swap out Jamison/filler for a Backcourt threat ideal fit, and land picks/roster space to draft DeJuan Blair or whatnot (depending on the coach and scheme) that's one pssibily.

But Thabeet is a poor fit next to either of Haywood or McGee. Some part of the trade-down take-best-available-talent scenario is value-for-pick. You get a cheaper player at any of various need positions, a higher quality role player, non-star. Less pressure for immediate impact to displace a guy in front of them who is currently better. Better ability to develop.

DeJuan Blair, James Harden, Stef Curry, Nick Calathes, Danny Green, Evan Turner. I expect guys like this to be available later (Harden will slide after measurements and workouts) who will find a clearly defined role and give better value for the pick than some of the unpolished top pure talents.

So, when drafting players... we should forget about defensive ability. It's not an issue. WHAT??? We can get someone from Europe to take care of that. Yeah... someone like Pecherov. That's the ticket.

I'm looking at Americans who had to go to Europe to learn to defend. Bruce Bowen is an example. Or Argentinians like Manu. You play one game a week in Euroball, spend the rest drilling fundamentals. Team defense. You don't ignore defensive talent in the draft, I'm saying you tend to get your best defenders out of veteran roleplayers who were marginal players until they learned to commit to defense. Veteran professional roleplayers, in whatever league. Posey, for instance. Veteran savvy comes from both instinct and experience. You can draft instinct. It's tougher to draft experience.

(Not impossible though, with high level NCAA upperclassmen with tournament wins. Ty Lawson, Danny Green, etc. Or even players raised around the game since day one. McGees notwithstanding).

That said, re: lil' Stef. People significantly underestimate the kid's defense. He makes no mistakes, plays strong, boxes out, anticipates, closes out well, cuts off passing and driving lanes. No 2-guard has killed him on the post-up yet, or run over him. Get past the babyface. While he ain't a lockdown threat, he's not as small as you think. Stronger than he looks.

More importantly, he knows who is supposed to be where, directs his teammates where to be. Point, shove, talk. Okay, bigger perimeter NBAers will shoot over him. Faster quick twitch players might get around him. But half our problem here has been smarts, not athletics. Not saying he's the answer, just saying he's not the liability you think. If the guy next to him and behind him have been put in the right spot, you'll take the occasional point given up.

Trade for vet, right fit, roster room. Swap picks. Pick best talent. And please Gawds of Ball can we draft some smart players who actually know what to do out there? Or Blake Griffin, either way.

[doclinkin]

"Picking for perceived team need lands you Pecherov, not Rondo or Farmar."
Right, and that's why you trade that pick for a future first and gamble. Instead of Opec, you look ahead to future years and guess which teams are not going to panout, and make your mid-pick a future first.

So, trade the pick for a vet and a future first. Can you trade a pick twice? I forget the rules on that. Can you trade down, and then trade it again? Tradedown for Bosh (with the pick plus players), then trade away for a vet SG who plays defense (for the lower pick plus more players). That's obviously not happening. But, nethier is trading down for Curry. Again, trade AJ for Stephen Jackson. Hell, Thabo and Hinirch are on the block. They play d. Marquis Daniels, Ariza, Delfino, Des Mas, etc are free agents. They play d and can score.

Again, IMO we are arguing over bench players (who may start, but not on championship teams). That's why you trade the pick for a future first.

Nah, I don't even think we're arguing since you're saying here what I've been saying all along. The only difference is I think Curry will be a better player than you do. And you think a future pick will have a better value, or equivalent value when we may need it more. The only quibble is in the no-man's-land of wondering how much value we can get from a #2-5 pick plus a player plus filler. For Thabeet at #2 I think we can get lower picks and future picks, and have a decent choice of workable deals to pick from.

Yes, you can trade a pick twice. Portland constantly packages picks to maximize their draft, even buying 2nd round picks for cash then trading up. The Ted Leonsis era can't come fast enough, except of course that I wish nothing but good fortune and health to old Unca Abe.

[barelyawake]

I'm looking at Americans who had to go to Europe to learn to defend. Bruce Bowen is an example. Or Argentinians like Manu. You play one game a week in Euroball, spend the rest drilling fundamentals. Team defense.

I got pummeled for about a month solid (and then some) explaining this several years ago in my "we need a foreign player" thread -- where I broke down the systems around the world that tend to produce the best defenders (especially when it comes to team d, and/or being glue guys), and generally why that is. Remember the "they play basketball like soccer" argument?

[Rafael122]

I just don't understand the fatuation with Stephen Curry.

Look at what Chad Ford lists as positives for Curry:

# One of the best scorers in the country
# Amazing shooter with deep, deep range
# Excellent at putting the ball on the floor and drawing fouls
# Deadeye from the foul line
# Good rebounder for his size
# Excellent basketball IQ, solid passer
# Clutch scorer
# Picks up steals

There's nothing here that suggests anything about defense. He picks up steals...that's it. Everything else has to do with offense, amazing shooter, clutch scorer, excellent from the free throw line. None of this is what we need. If we trade down, we're trading down to either shed bad contracts and/or pick up a quality bench player who could defend, i.e. a guy like Gerald Henderson, or small guards like Eric Maynor or Darren Collison who could defend guys and can move their feet.

I've seen a handful of games of Curry, and when this guy is off, he's AWFUL. I believe it was a game against the College of Charleston or something, maybe about a week or so ago, at one point missed 11 straight shots. He attempted a three from the corner and it hit the side of the board. He scored, I believe, 6 points in the 2nd half after getting 19 in the first.

Remember Adam Morrison and the hype he got because he could score? He can't do much of anything and from all accounts is a bust. I'm getting the same feeling from Curry, he's too one dimensional. If his shot isn't falling, he's useless because he can't do anything else. He's sorta like a player we already have on the roster: Juan Dixon.

And just to drop another name: Morris Almond. CCJ was hyping this guy to death, excellent scorer in college, etc etc. Again...he could score, but he does nothing else. Same thing with Curry. It's fun watching this guy score, but when you really break down his game, most of his contributions would come on the offensive side, and the Wizards do not need that. It's hard to gauge what kind of value this guy would bring since he's option A-Z on the offensive side for Davidson. I'm always weary about kids who put up big numbers in small schools, i.e. the aforementioned Morris Almond.

Just my two cents. I don't get the hype around Curry, I'm sure he'll provide instant offense and a boost to ticket sales for the Bobcats (I'm pretty sure MJ has set his sights on this guy, its too obvious).

[WizarDynasty]

you are not going to find two way players who are above average on both sides of the ball in free agency and teams normally don't trade these guys unless there is really something wrong with them.
The only way you find a two way player with great worth ethic..is in the draft. There is a reason teams traded both jamison and butler. Neither player is an above average two way player. It would be nice to figure out which players in the draft will turn out to be above average two way players. Above average on offense and an above average man to man defender with a great work ethic. These players almost never exist in free agency, and you almost never see a team trade a player like this in his prime.
So you best bet is to get him in the draft. This team needs one at the s/f position let's just hope we get him.

[go'stags]

I don't think Chad Ford should ever be cited in this thread. It doesnt help your argument.

[pancakes3]

WizD, free agency and trades are two very different things. contemplate the difference.

[FreeBalling]

I don't trust the Wizards to successfully trade any of the young big men and see nothing but diminishing value with dimisnishing minutes/stats if they draft another C.

Exactly. With so many unrefined big men fighting for minutes, nobody is going to have a chance to really showcase themselves for a trade. Ultimately, one of them must be traded and we will not get equivalent value.

I remember a similar situation back when we had Webber, Howard, R.Wallace and Muresan all competing for the 96 available minutes at PF and C. We ended up getting far less than fair value when we traded Wallace for Strickland.

This is why I posted that thread about the draft & cap, Players will have to be traded just to make space for our new pick or we trade the pick. If the Cap falls down in the high to mid 60's we are going to be @ 75Mill. Is Abe ok with paying 16Mill if we are 8mill over and that's with out doing anything.

[Rafael122]

I don't think Chad Ford should ever be cited in this thread. It doesnt help your argument.

Sure as hell has more credibility than you and me. He scouts these guys as a living.

[Ruzious]

Great discussions - I don't agree with everyone - but love reading the reasons for the opinions.

One ACC player whose really come a long way is Tyrese Rice. You know the BC players are going to be fundamentally strong, but he started out there as anything but. He was a playground player in the ACC. Now, he's a real point guard and believe it or not - he can play in the NBA. The stats aren't all that impressive, he's a poor defensive player, he'll still make the occasional overly spectacular pass, and he's maybe 6', but I want this guy on my team in crunch time. He is a legitamately great ballhandler and passer, has NBA 3 range on the catch and shoot, and he's got ice-water in his veins. Sounds a lot like Curry except he really is a PG. Tremendous penetrator and really understands how to get his teammates involved - which he had no clue about earlier in his career. He could star for The Globetrotters, but he'll play in the NBA. I'm expecting him to put up sick numbers in the post season tournaments.

[miller31time]

I just don't understand the fatuation with Stephen Curry.

Look at what Chad Ford lists as positives for Curry:

# One of the best scorers in the country
# Amazing shooter with deep, deep range
# Excellent at putting the ball on the floor and drawing fouls
# Deadeye from the foul line
# Good rebounder for his size
# Excellent basketball IQ, solid passer
# Clutch scorer
# Picks up steals

There's nothing here that suggests anything about defense. He picks up steals...that's it. Everything else has to do with offense, amazing shooter, clutch scorer, excellent from the free throw line. None of this is what we need. If we trade down, we're trading down to either shed bad contracts and/or pick up a quality bench player who could defend, i.e. a guy like Gerald Henderson, or small guards like Eric Maynor or Darren Collison who could defend guys and can move their feet.

I've seen a handful of games of Curry, and when this guy is off, he's AWFUL. I believe it was a game against the College of Charleston or something, maybe about a week or so ago, at one point missed 11 straight shots. He attempted a three from the corner and it hit the side of the board. He scored, I believe, 6 points in the 2nd half after getting 19 in the first.

Remember Adam Morrison and the hype he got because he could score? He can't do much of anything and from all accounts is a bust. I'm getting the same feeling from Curry, he's too one dimensional. If his shot isn't falling, he's useless because he can't do anything else. He's sorta like a player we already have on the roster: Juan Dixon.

And just to drop another name: Morris Almond. CCJ was hyping this guy to death, excellent scorer in college, etc etc. Again...he could score, but he does nothing else. Same thing with Curry. It's fun watching this guy score, but when you really break down his game, most of his contributions would come on the offensive side, and the Wizards do not need that. It's hard to gauge what kind of value this guy would bring since he's option A-Z on the offensive side for Davidson. I'm always weary about kids who put up big numbers in small schools, i.e. the aforementioned Morris Almond.

Just my two cents. I don't get the hype around Curry, I'm sure he'll provide instant offense and a boost to ticket sales for the Bobcats (I'm pretty sure MJ has set his sights on this guy, its too obvious).

THANK YOU. I've been saying this all along - he can be as good as advertised on offense but it won't mean anything if he can't defend.

We have plenty of offense. It's not our problem. Far from it. We need defense and a whole bunch of it. I want every move we make (unless it's for a superstar like Amare) to be centered around improving this team on defense.

[Dat2U]

I just don't understand the fatuation with Stephen Curry.

Look at what Chad Ford lists as positives for Curry:

# One of the best scorers in the country
# Amazing shooter with deep, deep range
# Excellent at putting the ball on the floor and drawing fouls
# Deadeye from the foul line
# Good rebounder for his size
# Excellent basketball IQ, solid passer
# Clutch scorer
# Picks up steals

.....

Remember Adam Morrison and the hype he got because he could score? He can't do much of anything and from all accounts is a bust. I'm getting the same feeling from Curry, he's too one dimensional. If his shot isn't falling, he's useless because he can't do anything else. He's sorta like a player we already have on the roster: Juan Dixon.

And just to drop another name: Morris Almond. CCJ was hyping this guy to death, excellent scorer in college, etc etc. Again...he could score, but he does nothing else. Same thing with Curry. It's fun watching this guy score, but when you really break down his game, most of his contributions would come on the offensive side, and the Wizards do not need that. It's hard to gauge what kind of value this guy would bring since he's option A-Z on the offensive side for Davidson. I'm always weary about kids who put up big numbers in small schools, i.e. the aforementioned Morris Almond.

Just my two cents. I don't get the hype around Curry, I'm sure he'll provide instant offense and a boost to ticket sales for the Bobcats (I'm pretty sure MJ has set his sights on this guy, its too obvious).

@ the Chad Ford reference.

Seriously though, I think were we disagree the most is on Curry's PG skills. Doc and I believe he has the requiste skills and court vision to be a legit PG on the next level. I hate the Juan Dixon comparison. I think its terribly inaccurate. Dixon was a stone cold scorer in college, but he never was a great shooter. Dixon had no real PG skills coming out of college, never had good court vision and even today he still lacks the mindset of a PG.

What I don't understand is how people can say we don't need a Curry type in the backcourt. Is he a perfect fit? No. I'd love it if he was 6-6 and an athletic freak but he brings so much to the table otherwise.

This team is in definite need of a another skilled, shot-making, high IQ presence in the backcourt. Without Gilbert Arenas our backcourt is an unmitigated disaster. We have no reliable weapon or asset to depend on a nightly basis. Critt has some talent but can't shoot a lick. McGuire is a gamer but can't score either. Nick is about as low IQ as they come and isn't considered starting material b/c he's such a one-trick pony. And nothing needs to be said about DeShawn's shortcomings.

With this current lineup, we need more than just a role playing, do nothing type of fringe NBA player like Stevenson in the backcourt. I think Stephen Curry adds another dimension with his ballhandling, deadeye shooting stroke and all-around court awareness that would greatly complement Gil's skillset as a shooter & slasher. Basically, Gil could be Gil, and not worry about having to be the #1 option & being the main distributor on the floor. Gil might even save enough energy to play some occassional D.

But don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone is saying if we have the #1 pick, we should take Curry over Blake Griffin or anything like that. In fact, I think what's being said in the case that we don't have the top pick, TRADING DOWN for Curry AND another vet along with dumping a contract or two presents the best value for the franchise.

[mhd]

If we trade down to shed contracts and Hill is gone, than I draft Buddinger frankly. He's Rip Hamilton, except he's bigger, a far better athlete, and more well-rounded. I've seen him mature as a player during Zona's win streak and become a big time player.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I just don't understand the fatuation with Stephen Curry.

Look at what Chad Ford lists as positives for Curry:

# One of the best scorers in the country
# Amazing shooter with deep, deep range
# Excellent at putting the ball on the floor and drawing fouls
# Deadeye from the foul line
# Good rebounder for his size
# Excellent basketball IQ, solid passer
# Clutch scorer
# Picks up steals

There's nothing here that suggests anything about defense. He picks up steals...that's it. Everything else has to do with offense, amazing shooter, clutch scorer, excellent from the free throw line. None of this is what we need. If we trade down, we're trading down to either shed bad contracts and/or pick up a quality bench player who could defend, i.e. a guy like Gerald Henderson, or small guards like Eric Maynor or Darren Collison who could defend guys and can move their feet.

I've seen a handful of games of Curry, and when this guy is off, he's AWFUL. I believe it was a game against the College of Charleston or something, maybe about a week or so ago, at one point missed 11 straight shots. He attempted a three from the corner and it hit the side of the board. He scored, I believe, 6 points in the 2nd half after getting 19 in the first.

Remember Adam Morrison and the hype he got because he could score? He can't do much of anything and from all accounts is a bust. I'm getting the same feeling from Curry, he's too one dimensional. If his shot isn't falling, he's useless because he can't do anything else. He's sorta like a player we already have on the roster: Juan Dixon.

And just to drop another name: Morris Almond. CCJ was hyping this guy to death, excellent scorer in college, etc etc. Again...he could score, but he does nothing else. Same thing with Curry. It's fun watching this guy score, but when you really break down his game, most of his contributions would come on the offensive side, and the Wizards do not need that. It's hard to gauge what kind of value this guy would bring since he's option A-Z on the offensive side for Davidson. I'm always weary about kids who put up big numbers in small schools, i.e. the aforementioned Morris Almond.

Just my two cents. I don't get the hype around Curry, I'm sure he'll provide instant offense and a boost to ticket sales for the Bobcats (I'm pretty sure MJ has set his sights on this guy, its too obvious).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Almond

Almond played sparingly in his rookie season with the Jazz, averaging just 4.3 minutes in 9 games. His career high is currently 12 points, at Sacramento on December 2, 2008. He scored his first NBA points on January 8 2008 against the Indiana Pacers, with 2 points on 1-of-5 shooting. However, he spent considerable time with the team's D-League affiliate, the Utah Flash, to whom he was assigned.[2] He led the D-League in scoring during the season, averaging 25.6 points per game.[3] In just his fifth game with the team on December 21, 2007, he tied a league record with 51 points in a 118-116 victory over the Austin Toros.[4] Later in the season, he broke the record with a 53-point performance against the Bakersfield Jam in a 102-87 win.[5]

Steve Novak does nothing but score, but lately he's been averaging in double figures. For his first two seasons he got no playing time.

I'm of the opinion Almond is MUCH BETTER than Novak and that when he gets to play he'll score well and maybe even start. I will admit that in very limited minutes his NBA stats say BUST. I want to see him have one more opportunity at playing time, hopefully outside of Utah.

[doclinkin]

Great discussions - I don't agree with everyone - but love reading the reasons for the opinions.

Agreed, even if it means I'm backed into a position where I'm so far in the tank for a guy all my credibility rests on his success. For what it's worth I liked Almond too, by gum. Still do. Though I had some doubts for the Wiz regarding his ballhandling (and vis-a-vis Caron at the same position, ironically enough). But there too I was saying since we ain't getting Stuckey, we should trade down and take the best available of Rudy, Marco, and Mo'Money (Almond) plus a true big to replace Brendan, who was surely going to leave the team...

I still think Almond can play, Jerry Sloan never plays rooks much and he's deep at the wing positions with guys who fit his style. Almond's defense is not his strength, true, but in the right system I think he could shine. Under Eddie he definitely would have played, since Caron was injured, and scored a ton in the bargain.

Let me be clear on Curry though. I don't think he's the #2 player in the draft. I just think he's better than you think. Better than the collective 'You' thinks. Plus I get excitable when I type. I type pure hype, it's my natural lingua franca. Still there's a long list of players who I'm interested in at various places in the draft, it all depends how far down we trade and who's available. I just don't see anyone I'm really really excited for at #2.

[AgentOvechkin08]

Who is watching Harden vs. Derozan

I AM