Wizards Sign Martell Webster

[nate33]

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.

[dobrojim]

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.

[Nivek]

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:

Code: Select all

Craw13     PPS     % of FGA
AT-RIM     1.31    17%
3-9 FT     0.95    9%
10-15 FT   0.94    12%
16-23 FT   0.69    28%
THREES     0.99    34%


[dobrojim]

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

[hands11]

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.

[AFM]

Dude is a pretty decent shooter, can drive, is aggressive and makes smart cuts. Plays great with Nene passing out of the post. Plays hard and truly cares about winning. What's not to like?

[tontoz]

Dude is a pretty decent shooter, can drive, is aggressive and makes smart cuts. Plays great with Nene passing out of the post. Plays hard and truly cares about winning. What's not to like?

Webster scores only 14.7 pts per 40 minutes compared to 17.2 for rookie Beal (who struggled badly his first two months). People notice his big games but don't pay attention to all the games where he is a non-factor offensively.

He is also below average on the boards.

[dobrojim]

IDK if the data backs me up but it seems like when he's not a factor
offensively, he's usually NOT a major detractor either...doesn't force a lot
of shots. I guess if that were true, his OEff would be better.

[hands11]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tma02.html

If he can keep this up, this could be his best year ever.

He does seem to disappear some games, but that may be a factor of none established line up such that everyone knows each other and what they are trying to do first, second and third.

Crawford is a great example. He has been moved all over the place. Since returning from injury, he was asked to play off the ball and only got 17 and 16 minutes. He looked a little lost. Then they gave him the ball on an isolation ... which he needs to get his game going... and all the sudden, Big Balls was back.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_ ... ll-webster

Seems Martell is in a similar boat. Is he a 3, 5, 7 shot player or a 10-12 shot player. Knowing that going into a game helps you mentally prepare for what is expected of you. If they give him minutes and shots, he can average 14-15 pts a game on decent shooting and TS% and eFG% given his 3 ball and FT shooting %

[AFM]

Dude is a pretty decent shooter, can drive, is aggressive and makes smart cuts. Plays great with Nene passing out of the post. Plays hard and truly cares about winning. What's not to like?

Webster scores only 14.7 pts per 40 minutes compared to 17.2 for rookie Beal (who struggled badly his first two months). People notice his big games but don't pay attention to all the games where he is a non-factor offensively.

He is also below average on the boards.

Wow. Talk about cherry picking stats. Webster shoots 7 times a game compared to Beal's 12.5.
He also shoots the 3 at 40%.

[Upper Decker]

Dude is a pretty decent shooter, can drive, is aggressive and makes smart cuts. Plays great with Nene passing out of the post. Plays hard and truly cares about winning. What's not to like?

Webster scores only 14.7 pts per 40 minutes compared to 17.2 for rookie Beal (who struggled badly his first two months). People notice his big games but don't pay attention to all the games where he is a non-factor offensively.

He is also below average on the boards.

Wow. Talk about cherry picking stats. Webster shoots 7 times a game compared to Beal's 12.5.
He also shoots the 3 at 40%.

I agree with Tontoz to a degree. Webster has semi-regularly been a non-factor offensively and I think his defense is overrated. I still can't believe he let John freakin Salmons put up 21 points--not only that, but a wide open 3 with a minute to go! W/E though becuase he's on the minimum. You can expect that type of play from a minimum guy so I'm not going to complain.

I think Nate has his value pegged right. I wouldn't mind a 3M per year deal. Not only that, but who's going to go after Webster? The league is loaded with SF's and Webster has a role that suits him best, and he gets valuable minutes for the Wiz. I doubt he can get assurances of that anywhere else.

[AFM]

He's certainly much better than any other minimum guy we've had--cartier martin, roger mason, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually wants to stay here since we give him regular minutes.

[tontoz]

The Wizards need points and much of the time Webster doesn't deliver. Chenier is constantly talking about Webster needing to be more aggressive. He mentions it pretty much every game. Websters career high scoring rate is below Beal's current rate.

The Wizards are last in the league in offense by a mile. They need scoring.

What is Websters value other than scoring? He is ok in assists and D, below average on the boards. A scorer who doesnt score much is not that valuable.

[Ruzious]

It'd be nice to see him have a couple big games in a row - rather than occasional streaks of 1. He's definitely a nice addition, but I wouldn't be at all upset if the Wiz signed Mike Dunleavy, Jr to take his place next season at roughly the same price (though Dunleavy is getting up in age) it'll take to re-sign Webster.

[payitforward]

You sign a guy because of what he does -- not because of what he doesn't do. Webster is a pretty efficient player so far this season. He does enough that at the right price it'd be a no brainer to keep him around for a couple or three years. And he'll be available for the right price too -- just because of the "only scoring counts" prejudice that affects GMs as much as anyone else.

Other than guys on rookie contracts there are only a few examples of players who are as big a bargain at the 3 as Martell. Matt Barnes is probably the biggest bargain in the league, for example.