Predict the Eastern Conference Standings

[nate33]

I appreciate a fellow optimist, barelyawake. I too think that we are better than many perceive. However, I gotta disagree with your tanking strategy. I think tanking at this point would undermine the development of the team. This team has lost for too long. They need to learn how to win before they develop a loser's mentality. You don't spend $45M on Okafor and Ariza in order to tank.

Besides, even if we did tank, I don't see us finishing in the bottom 6. At best, we'd be picking in the 7-12 range. The payoff isn't worth the pain.

[Ruzious]

Correction - You don't plan to tank after spending 45 mil on Okariza... until you see it ain't working halfway through the season.

[barelyawake]

Yeah, Nate, but I don't look at our "team" as a team (and I hope management doesn't either, until we are set with a championship roster). Only once we have the cornerstone pieces for a championship run can we start looking at a team as a whole entity. Our "team" is a collection of assets that need to be developed (for trade or to keep). So, in that view, only three, undeveloped players actually matter to our final outcome (Beal, Seraphin and Wall -- possibly Ves). The rest are assets whose function is to either help the development of the three players (via wins) or to increase their value as trade assets. Beal is in his first year (no fear of being deemed a loser as a freshman). Wall has the injury excuse. And Seraphin will be more heavily relied on, and thus develop faster, on a team minus Nene and Wall.

I agree it's a delicate balancing act (deciding which direction, development or draft, best helps the final product). But, I maintain that we ought to think of our "team" as individual pieces, until we have a championship-worthy roster.

[hands11]

Barely

This is what I was getting at in another thread. They have a core configuration right now that is Wall, Beal and Nene. But the longer term core is something they will likely figure out over the next 2-3 years as Okafor and Trevor A come off the books. Wall and Beal will still be young at that point but they will be prime mature young. Wall in year 5, Beal in year 3

If Wall and Nene can stay healthy this year, they will make a run for the playoffs and might be able to make some noise. If not, they have to wait till next year for the playoff run while they focus on developing that second tier of younger players this year. In 2 years, Nene will be 32 and they will likely need to acquire a legit stud FA who will be able to grow with Wall and Beal longer term. That would give them 4 pieces for at least one year but maybe they still only have 3 if Nene is wearing down. But they would reload on Nene if that was the case with someone who can last longer while Nene plays more of a filler roll. My guess is they are counting on him for the next 3 years so they would have 4 core pieces at that point.

I doubt Nene gets more then 26 minutes a game this year. They will not want to wear him down. This is not the year so they will save his body for the later years.

Either way, this year is a big year for evaluating second level players to see where they fit longer term and its a big year for Beal. Second tier evaluations would be Booker, Kevin, Ves and even Webster as the main players you expect to show some upside who could maybe make it to first tier.

Also, there is always the off chance Nene can continue to play well at 32-33. I just I wouldn't count on it when planning longer term. We will see.

For two years we are looking at just getting better. Defiantly playoff run next year. By year 3, I expect them to have something that is more a conference title level roster. Year 3 they should go all in during free agency to add to Wall, Beal, Nene or to transition from Nene as a core piece.

But lots can happen between now and then. We will see how things develop.

I like the core of Wall, Beal and Nene better then Gil, CB and AJ. Key will be to transition properly instead doing things like extending a AJ for to much and signing an injured Gil for to much and to long. I'm confident Ted will not make that mistake.

So maybe playoff this year. Playoff next year. Second round playoff the year after...maybe more.

[payitforward]

For two years we are looking at just getting better. Defiantly playoff run next year. By year 3, I expect them to have something that is more a conference title level roster. Year 3 they should go all in during free agency to add to Wall, Beal, Nene or to transition from Nene as a core piece.

But lots can happen between now and then. We will see how things develop.

I like the core of Wall, Beal and Nene ...

So maybe playoff this year. Playoff next year. Second round playoff the year after...maybe more.

Nobody plans to do anything in two years. It's always now. It's never been any time but now, and it never will be any time but now. Above all, no one makes choices to narrow future options in order to act on those future options.

So this is just a dream narrative. It'd be nice if the dream came true, sure. But a dream is just a dream.

Nothing could make this clearer than your putting Beal -- a 19 year old who has played 25 minutes in one pro (pre-season) game -- into the "core" you like. He was the right pick, he might turn out well, I sure hope so. But no one can reasonably declare victory on Beal -- and please don't tell me to "wait and see." You don't have a crystal ball; you're just vocalizing your fond hopes. Be nice if this one came true but it wouldn't make a dream a useful predictor, would it?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I have absolutely no doubt Beal is better than Jordan Crawford.

[payitforward]

I have absolutely no doubt Beal is better than Jordan Crawford.

Good point. And sometimes even Jordan Crawford is better than Jordan Crawford -- e.g. Crawford on the bench is better than Crawford on the floor, and Crawford missed the team bus is better than Crawford on the bench. But the best Jordan Crawford by far is "Jordan Crawford Traded," which is no more than a dream -- sorta like Hands' dream above?

[hands11]

For two years we are looking at just getting better. Defiantly playoff run next year. By year 3, I expect them to have something that is more a conference title level roster. Year 3 they should go all in during free agency to add to Wall, Beal, Nene or to transition from Nene as a core piece.

But lots can happen between now and then. We will see how things develop.

I like the core of Wall, Beal and Nene ...

So maybe playoff this year. Playoff next year. Second round playoff the year after...maybe more.

Nobody plans to do anything in two years. It's always now. It's never been any time but now, and it never will be any time but now. Above all, no one makes choices to narrow future options in order to act on those future options.

So this is just a dream narrative. It'd be nice if the dream came true, sure. But a dream is just a dream.

Nothing could make this clearer than your putting Beal -- a 19 year old who has played 25 minutes in one pro (pre-season) game -- into the "core" you like. He was the right pick, he might turn out well, I sure hope so. But no one can reasonably declare victory on Beal -- and please don't tell me to "wait and see." You don't have a crystal ball; you're just vocalizing your fond hopes. Be nice if this one came true but it wouldn't make a dream a useful predictor, would it?

Actually, people do plan things out. How is that even a topic for discussion. Every Owner/GM has at least a 2 year projection.

As for your narrative on what I said about Beal. Really ? I think you are over reacting while stating the obvious which is hard to do. Of course they are planning on him being a core pieces. Just like any top 3 pick for any team. No different then A Davis or MKG. Are you suggesting those teams are not planning on those players starting and being core pieces ?

Of course busts happen. But I doubt any of those three will be busts. Everything I have seen and read pre draft and after says Beal is the real deal. Chalk him in as the starter for the Wizards for the next...fill in the blank .. years.

This team has two solid long term starting pieces. Wall and Beal. That is what they are building around. All the other young pieces at auditioning for the remaining starting spots long term. Nene is holding down one of the spots for the next two years. This year the will evaluate all those spare pieces to see if any of them to start longer term. If not, they will start to cash them in to build around Wall and Beal.

[closg00]

The jury is out on whether John is a "core player", this is the year we are supposed to find out.

[DCZards]

The jury is out on whether John is a "core player", this is the year we are supposed to find out.

I don't think the jury is out on whether Wall is a core player. The jury may be out on whether he'll reach his all-star potential. But I have no doubt that, given what we've seen from him thus far, John Wall will at least turn out to be a "core player" for some team. Hopefully, the Zards.

[Nivek]

The jury is out on whether John is a "core player", this is the year we are supposed to find out.

I don't think the jury is out on whether Wall is a core player. The jury may be out on whether he'll reach his all-star potential. But I have no doubt that, given what we've seen from him thus far, John Wall will at least turn out to be a "core player" for some team. Hopefully, the Zards.

What's your definition of "core player" then?

Wall's overall production has been pretty average despite his considerable physical abilities. An "average" performer isn't "core" in my view. If Wall becomes a significantly above-average player then yeah, he'd be a core guy wherever he is. Or, maybe you're thinking of him as already being well above average?

[closg00]

The jury is out on whether John is a "core player", this is the year we are supposed to find out.

I don't think the jury is out on whether Wall is a core player. The jury may be out on whether he'll reach his all-star potential. But I have no doubt that, given what we've seen from him thus far, John Wall will at least turn out to be a "core player" for some team. Hopefully, the Zards.

Understood, perhaps I should have written part of a "Big Three" as opposed to just being perhaps a solid back-up. We are delayed in finding-out because of roster re-makes, some of which saddled John with guys who cannot shoot.

[DCZards]

I consider 16 pts., 8 assts., 4.5 rebs, 1.5 steals and almost a full block per game pretty productive for a 22 year old going into just his third NBA season. My guess is that there are very few PGs in the NBA that can show that kind of all-around production, especially given Wall's supporting cast his first two seasons. (Hell, he'd be averaging at least 10 assts. a game on many teams.)

I understand that Wall's shooting has been terrible and his turnovers have been too high. Those are areas that desperately need improvement. But I think it's hard to argue that the kid hasn't been "productive."

BTW, Chris Paul had almost exactly the same #s his first two seasons. And his FG% was not a lot better than John's.

[Nivek]

I consider 16 pts., 8 assts., 4.5 rebs, 1.5 steals and almost a full block per game pretty productive for a 22 year old going into just his third NBA season. My guess is that there are very few PGs in the NBA that can show that kind of all-around production, especially given Wall's supporting cast his first two seasons. (Hell, he'd be averaging at least 10 assts. a game on many teams.)

I understand that Wall's shooting has been terrible and his turnovers have been too high. Those are areas that desperately need improvement. But I think it's hard to argue that the kid hasn't been "productive."

I'm glad you at least acknowledged the bad shooting and the turnovers. Those factors are extremely important. And I would not argue that Wall was unproductive -- just point out that his shooting and turnovers are bad enough to undermine the positives he brings in other places. The shooting and turnovers don't make him a bad player overall, they drag him back to the middle. If he doesn't improve his shooting and do a better job of taking care of the ball, he would not be a core player in my view.

BTW, Chris Paul had almost exactly the same #s his first two seasons. And his FG% was not a lot better than John's.

Superficially, sorta. Rebounding, assists and points were very similar between Paul and Wall. Yet, Paul produced 115 points per 100 possessions in his first two seasons; Wall just 100. That difference comes from a) better shooting from the floor (Paul's efg was .461; Wall's .426); b) taking better care of the ball (Paul: 2.4 turnovers per 36 minutes; Wall: 3.7); and c) Paul shot better from the free throw line (.837 to .777). Paul also generated an additional half a steal per 36 minutes.

None of this is meant to suggest that Wall can't make the leap to Chris Paul level. As long as we limit the discussion to basketball activities other than shooting or turnovers, Wall is already there. Wall's weaknesses at Kentucky are the same ones he's trying to overcome as he enters his third season. If he remedies them, he'll be an elite PG and one of the better players in the game. If he doesn't, he'll be about average in terms of his impact on the game.

[Ruzious]

I gotta agree with DCZ on that one. To me, a core player is one who you are going to rely heavily on, and nobody is going to be rilied on more than John Wall on le Wizerable.

[payitforward]

I consider 16 pts., 8 assts., 4.5 rebs, 1.5 steals and almost a full block per game pretty productive for a 22 year old going into just his third NBA season.

...BTW, Chris Paul had almost exactly the same #s his first two seasons. And his FG% was not a lot better than John's.

Wow. What a ridiculous claim, Zards.

As rookies, they played similar minutes. Equalizing to 40/game for both -- Paul turned it over much less, stole it much more, had more assists, had more rebounds, got to the line more, shot a higher percentage from the line, and posted a .54 TS% vs. Wall's at .49.

Chris Paul was one of the top PGs in the game from the first time he bounced a ball on an NBA court. John Wall was somewhere around average for all point guards as a rookie and slightly above average as a 2d year player.

Talk about living in a dream about what might have been, as you've accused me of doing.... Sheesh.

John Wall hasn't yet proven he deserves to be a long-term starter at PG in this league. Maybe he will; I hope he will. This is a big year for him.

[Nivek]

That's an awfully broad definition, in my opinion. To me, the quality of the player has to enter the equation. Teams can (and do) rely on bad players. To be "core" in my view, the player has to be really good -- someone to build around. Building around somebody who's average makes no sense to me, no matter how high he was picked or how robust the marketing campaign. The goal is to win. You don't get there building around average.

I'd say Wall is in the plans as a core guy IF he improves his shooting and reduces his turnovers. If he doesn't, then I'd keep him around if it's prudent or move him if it would bring back something that will make the team better.

[rockymac52]

That's an awfully broad definition, in my opinion. To me, the quality of the player has to enter the equation. Teams can (and do) rely on bad players. To be "core" in my view, the player has to be really good -- someone to build around. Building around somebody who's average makes no sense to me, no matter how high he was picked or how robust the marketing campaign. The goal is to win. You don't get there building around average.

I'd say Wall is in the plans as a core guy IF he improves his shooting and reduces his turnovers. If he doesn't, then I'd keep him around if it's prudent or move him if it would bring back something that will make the team better.

I think the issue at hand here is whether or not the Wizards consider him to be a core player, not if he should actually be considered a core player. And because of where he was drafted and the expectations that came along with it, it has made him a core player for the Wizards for the foreseeable future. It's hard to imagine him not being our starting PG any time soon, unless he's sitting out with an injury.

When you look at our roster and where we need to improve long-term, PG is the one position that we don't really worry about. We may want a better backup PG, but as far as the starters go, we have our PG. For better or worse. Wall has his issues, and he needs to improve a lot to be worthy of being a franchise's "core" player, but as of now, he is our foundation, our main building block.

[LyricalRico]

A different kind of season prediction, grouping teams by their title/playoff/lottery chances:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/847 ... iling-pack

Can't really complain about where they have the Wiz in light of the Wall/Nene health issues, but they still have us with the possibility of a successful season and with a dreamer's chance at the 8th seed.

[Nivek]

That's an awfully broad definition, in my opinion. To me, the quality of the player has to enter the equation. Teams can (and do) rely on bad players. To be "core" in my view, the player has to be really good -- someone to build around. Building around somebody who's average makes no sense to me, no matter how high he was picked or how robust the marketing campaign. The goal is to win. You don't get there building around average.

I'd say Wall is in the plans as a core guy IF he improves his shooting and reduces his turnovers. If he doesn't, then I'd keep him around if it's prudent or move him if it would bring back something that will make the team better.

I think the issue at hand here is whether or not the Wizards consider him to be a core player, not if he should actually be considered a core player. And because of where he was drafted and the expectations that came along with it, it has made him a core player for the Wizards for the foreseeable future. It's hard to imagine him not being our starting PG any time soon, unless he's sitting out with an injury.

When you look at our roster and where we need to improve long-term, PG is the one position that we don't really worry about. We may want a better backup PG, but as far as the starters go, we have our PG. For better or worse. Wall has his issues, and he needs to improve a lot to be worthy of being a franchise's "core" player, but as of now, he is our foundation, our main building block.

I think we're saying much the same thing, although you're using a more optimistic tone.

The Wizards certainly view him as a core player, but I think that's really by default, not merit -- at this point. They picked him #1 #1 and they've promoted him as The Star. And I'm fine with that for now. But at some point, there has to be an evaluation of whether he's truly a core player, or whether he's a guy you'd like to keep because he can do some good things but you can do without if there are better options.

If he improves the shooting and turnover rate while maintaining his performance in other areas, he'll definitely be a worthy core player. If he doesn't...he'll be in that "other" group -- a productive player who can contribute, but needs to be at the right price, in the right role, and with the right group of players around him.

Lemme be clear -- I still have very high hopes and tons of optimism about Wall. The start of his career has been acceptable given his youth and his presumed capacity for improvement. Players with similar starts to their careers include Isiah Thomas and Russell Westbrook. So I'm not down on him at all. What I'm talking about is what needs to happen IF Wall comes back and he's basically the same guy he's been his first two years. That's not core. It's his third season, and he needs to make a leap.