RealGM

What I said about him two months ago remains true to me now...

He's okay, I'm happy for him, I hope he can snag a long term deal with someone else.

Last thing the Wizards should do is throw long term money at marginal guys. He's done well but if were re-signing Webster why not work on the extensions for Okafor & Ariza too? And while were at it, lets give Trevor Booker $20 million when he's a free agent.

Why not give Garrett Temple a 3 year deal on the cheap if were being so generous.

I don't think you can reward every player that plays less than terrible for us by keeping them long term.

Dat2U wrote:What I said about him two months ago remains true to me now...

He's okay, I'm happy for him, I hope he can snag a long term deal with someone else.

Last thing the Wizards should do is throw long term money at marginal guys. He's done well but if were re-signing Webster why not work on the extensions for Okafor & Ariza too? And while were at it, lets give Trevor Booker $20 million when he's a free agent.

Why not give Garrett Temple a 3 year deal on the cheap if were being so generous.

I don't think you can reward every player that plays less than terrible for us by keeping them long term.

+1

Because Martell Webster is a starting caliber player on an average team, or a 25 mpg rotation player on a good team. He is just 26 years old. He has a great attitude. Booker and Temple aren't as good and both can be replaced with vet minimum type players.

nate33 wrote:Because Martell Webster is a starting caliber player on an average team, or a 25 mpg rotation player on a good team. He is just 26 years old. He has a great attitude. Booker and Temple aren't as good and both can be replaced with vet minimum type players.

In fact, I think Booker is a better player than Webster. Problem w/ him is injuries.

And I don't see how Webster is an average starter either -- he's shooting extremely well, but he is a really poor rebounder for a 3.

Still, I'd be delighted to re-sign him at the right price. He's rebooted his career which is a plus. And he's a productive guy all around.

It's all about that phrase "at the right price." Webster is having a career year. It'd be a mistake to sign him based on what he's doing right now. Count on regression to the mean.

nate33 wrote:Because Martell Webster is a starting caliber player on an average team, or a 25 mpg rotation player on a good team. He is just 26 years old. He has a great attitude. Booker and Temple aren't as good and both can be replaced with vet minimum type players.

Only based on this year's sample size... and I don't trust it.

100s of NBA guys have a great attitude, that doesn't mean you necessarily have to keep them long term.

There are endless examples of guys getting paid off of one career year only to return to career norms or even worse. How many times do GM's and fans fall for a veteran playing above his head for a year only to regret the contract given just months later?

Webster, if he returns to career norms is not worth a long term deal.

Webster too is replaceable. Maybe this season's version is not as easy to replace but Martell's career norms are easily replaceable.

I have nothing against resigning Webster to something like 3 years, 9 million. A small, movable contract. If he wants more than that, the third year has to be a team option, or he can go somewhere else.

His scoring efficiency has been really good this season but his scoring rate has been a little weak as has been his rebounding. I think he would be a better fit on a team that already has established 1st and 2nd options.

I like him but i find it hard to envision him being here next season. If the Wizards draft a 3 they probably won't even make him an offer.

Webster is having a career year, but he still rates below average for the season. I agree with the view that he's having a nice year -- for him -- but I wouldn't worry much about re-signing him.

Webster feels like a trap to me. Years and years of being a fringe rotation player, winds up on a bad team for the minimum and plays better than he ever has before yet still not at a particularly high level, the team resigns him for say 3 years, $9 million, reverts back to the player he's always been, officially becomes a bad contract two months into year one. It happens every year.

I'd be fine with bringing him back on a one year deal again. Or a two year, with a team option on the second. But that's as far as I'd go for Webster. The hit:miss ratio for guys in his situation is just not good enough for me to approve of anything more.

The Wizards definitely shouldn't throw the same kind of money Ariza is making at Webster.

Otherwise, he is an intelligent guy who is a decent rotation player. I like Webster and wouldn't mind seeing him stay on a 2-yr deal at the right price.

Dat2U wrote:

nate33 wrote:Because Martell Webster is a starting caliber player on an average team, or a 25 mpg rotation player on a good team. He is just 26 years old. He has a great attitude. Booker and Temple aren't as good and both can be replaced with vet minimum type players.

Only based on this year's sample size... and I don't trust it.

100s of NBA guys have a great attitude, that doesn't mean you necessarily have to keep them long term.

There are endless examples of guys getting paid off of one career year only to return to career norms or even worse. How many times do GM's and fans fall for a veteran playing above his head for a year only to regret the contract given just months later?

Webster, if he returns to career norms is not worth a long term deal.

Webster too is replaceable. Maybe this season's version is not as easy to replace but Martell's career norms are easily replaceable.

I think there is reason to believe that this is not a one-year aberration. Webster played roughly as good in 2009-10 and 2010-11 (until the injury) on a per minute basis. He had a sub par year in 2011-12 because he was returning from an injury. Basically, Webster has played like this for the past 4 seasons when healthy.

I understand the philosophy that you don't overpay role players until you have your stars already locked in, but I think you can go too far with that. Nobody is saying to pay Webster $8M a year or anything like that. We can pay him $3-4M a year on a 3-year deal, and it won't crimp our cap situation in any significant way. If we don't pay Webster, we gotta pay someone to fill that role.

And it's not like Webster is on the downside of his career or anything. He's just 26. He's also a very good fit for John Wall. He runs the floor and finishes better than anyone else on the roster, and he's a deadeye shooter from the corner 3. The guy shoots 47% from there.

I look at Webster almost as if he was a free draft pick. We got him for nothing and are paying him as much as a mid first pick - only he is producing far more than an average 1st round pick, and he is young enough to continue to do so for the same length of time as a rookie contract. Why should we give that up? What exactly is behind Door Number 2?

As has been said, Webster is worth keeping around for the next 2-3 years...for the right price. Martell is serviceable as a starter (not every starter can be expected to be a star) and he'd be a good back-up or temp starter if the Zards draft a young SF like Shabbazz.

I sense that Nene and Webster are this team's locker room leaders. I also like the oncourt chemistry that is developing between Martell and Nene.

It's very difficult to have a "bad contract" if you are making 2-4 million a year and can make any positive contribution on the basketball court.

Again, if Webster wants more than that, let him walk. But if we can resign him at a budget price, he is exactly the kind of roleplayer you want on a good team.

Those $3-5 million dollar contracts add up. I remember when we had like 4 or 5 of them with Songalia, Daniels, Etan, DeShawn etc...

I'm not seeing anything from Webster that makes me say "OMG, what happens if we lose him!!!!".

To me keeping Webster is making sure we keep continuity so we can compete for mediocrity next year. Sounds like an Ernie type of plan.

Like MJG said, it's a trap!

Dat2U wrote:Those $3-5 million dollar contracts add up. I remember when we had like 4 or 5 of them with Songalia, Daniels, Etan, DeShawn etc...

I'm not seeing anything from Webster that makes me say "OMG, what happens if we lose him!!!!".

To me keeping Webster is making sure we keep continuity so we can compete for mediocrity next year. Sounds like an Ernie type of plan.

Like MJG said, it's a trap!

Etan and Songaila were not good players. They were 15 mpg bench players and did not deserve $5M a year. I'm talking about $3-4M a year, and I'm talking about a guy who is a legit starter. (Not a star or a high quality starter, mind you. I'm not trying to overstate his importance. But Webster is solid. You can win with him if there are enough good pieces around him.)

A better analogy would be Antonio Daniels. And Antonio Daniels' contract was fine except that it extended too long for a guy his age. An age-related decline is not an issue with Webster. And I'm also talking about paying Webster a little less than the $5.5M a year that Daniels was paid.

I think paying somebody like Booker (who is clearly a backup and not a starter) MLE type money would be the same kind of mistake we made with Songaila. Paying Webster $4M a year is a different story.

Dat2U wrote:Those $3-5 million dollar contracts add up. I remember when we had like 4 or 5 of them with Songalia, Daniels, Etan, DeShawn etc...

I'm not seeing anything from Webster that makes me say "OMG, what happens if we lose him!!!!".

To me keeping Webster is making sure we keep continuity so we can compete for mediocrity next year. Sounds like an Ernie type of plan.

Like MJG said, it's a trap!

Etan and Songaila were not good players. They were 15 mpg bench players and did not deserve $5M a year. I'm talking about $3-4M a year, and I'm talking about a guy who is a legit starter. (Not a star or a high quality starter, mind you. I'm not trying to overstate his importance. But Webster is solid. You can win with him if there are enough good pieces around him.)

A better analogy would be Antonio Daniels. And Antonio Daniels' contract was fine except that it extended too long for a guy his age. An age-related decline is not an issue with Webster. And I'm also talking about paying Webster a little less than the $5.5M a year that Daniels was paid.

I think paying somebody like Booker (who is clearly a backup and not a starter) MLE type money would be the same kind of mistake we made with Songaila. Paying Webster $4M a year is a different story.

I think 3M/yr would be a pretty good deal for us.

I like his intelligence. Last night was a good example.
His shot attempts were primarily either dunks or corner 3s.
That's exactly what you want.

If one of either Ariza or Webster is going to leave, please let
it be Ariza.

dobrojim wrote:I think 3M/yr would be a pretty good deal for us.

I like his intelligence. Last night was a good example.
His shot attempts were primarily either dunks or corner 3s.
That's exactly what you want.

If one of either Ariza or Webster is going to leave, please let
it be Ariza.

Good call, Jim. This season, 75% of Webster's FGA are at-rim or from 3pt range -- the most efficient spots on teh floor. He's shooting 24% on long 2s, but they're just 19% of his FGA.

Compare this with Crawford -- 50% of Crawford's FGA this season are at-rim or from 3pt range. This is right in line with his career pattern (49%). Here's a handy table illustrating why this isn't good:

Nice to know my eyes aren't lying to me _again_. Thanks.

nate33 wrote:

Dat2U wrote:

nate33 wrote:Because Martell Webster is a starting caliber player on an average team, or a 25 mpg rotation player on a good team. He is just 26 years old. He has a great attitude. Booker and Temple aren't as good and both can be replaced with vet minimum type players.

Only based on this year's sample size... and I don't trust it.

100s of NBA guys have a great attitude, that doesn't mean you necessarily have to keep them long term.

There are endless examples of guys getting paid off of one career year only to return to career norms or even worse. How many times do GM's and fans fall for a veteran playing above his head for a year only to regret the contract given just months later?

Webster, if he returns to career norms is not worth a long term deal.

Webster too is replaceable. Maybe this season's version is not as easy to replace but Martell's career norms are easily replaceable.

I think there is reason to believe that this is not a one-year aberration. Webster played roughly as good in 2009-10 and 2010-11 (until the injury) on a per minute basis. He had a sub par year in 2011-12 because he was returning from an injury. Basically, Webster has played like this for the past 4 seasons when healthy.

I understand the philosophy that you don't overpay role players until you have your stars already locked in, but I think you can go too far with that. Nobody is saying to pay Webster $8M a year or anything like that. We can pay him $3-4M a year on a 3-year deal, and it won't crimp our cap situation in any significant way. If we don't pay Webster, we gotta pay someone to fill that role.

And it's not like Webster is on the downside of his career or anything. He's just 26. He's also a very good fit for John Wall. He runs the floor and finishes better than anyone else on the roster, and he's a deadeye shooter from the corner 3. The guy shoots 47% from there.

I look at Webster almost as if he was a free draft pick. We got him for nothing and are paying him as much as a mid first pick - only he is producing far more than an average 1st round pick, and he is young enough to continue to do so for the same length of time as a rookie contract. Why should we give that up? What exactly is behind Door Number 2?

Exactly. When you find one like this, you want to keep him. He is a solid piece and you need those. I would try to talk him into a 1 or 2 year deal. Good for both sides. Hay, if we get rolling, great. If not and you are productive, you are free to go where you want that will take you. He seems to like it here. Love his locker room message as well.

If you get him on a two year in the 3-4M it would be hard to lose. Guys like that can be easily traded if needed.

He has been productive in the past when healthy. He is just maturing and notching it up. I don't see this as an adoration. He can corner 3 and slash to dunk. His weakness is creating his own jump shot. There is a role for a guy like Webster on a team.