RealGM

dangermouse wrote:Not exactly the exciting blockbuster announcement i was hoping for...

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:TheBigThree, I can see where you are coming from and I agree that it sure does indicate Wittman and/or the FO didn't want Shelvin. Bottom line as far as I am concerned is the stats from last season. A full year's work showed Mack to be a decent sub. I don't really care that EG has reversed his position. Shelvin was better than Pargo. Could they have used imagination and creativity and gone a different direction? YES. I see your point, TBT, but I happen to be motivated by the do-right principle over getting the best talent at that spot. Mack isn't as much of a player as he is a winner in my book, if that makes any sense at all. On a minimum deal, he's okay IMO.

Nivek wrote:Neither good nor bad news. Replace Mack? Sure, why not? He was an acceptable reserve, but still was below average overall. But, there was no point attempting to replace him with guys were a) no better, and b) older and clearly not getting any better. Mack was still young enough to think he might get closer to average for a PG with experience.

But, the team drafted him, had him for a full season, a summer and a pre-season, and decided he wasn't good enough. They replaced him Price, Pargo and then Livingston. Has he "destroyed" the D-League? No. He's been above average at that level, but nothing great. Not even top PG for the D-League. So, if they've already deemed him not good enough to help the team, why are they bringing him back? Why not give a shot to Someone Else -- maybe one of those D-League PGs who's been more productive so far this season?

The team's decision-making remains a puzzle.

hands11 wrote:I'm going to choose to look at this as the glass half full.

The way Mack played last year as the main back up, he showed they needed something more from that slot so I have zero problem that they went looking. His summer ball play didn't do enough to show he was measurably better then what he gave them last year, so they took a chance in another direction.

In that search, they added Price who while not starter ready ( he wasn't added to be that ) he did show improvement and looks to be a decent back up who still has room to improve. He is quicker then Mack and a decent defender who looks to be able to develop a decent 3 ball.

Through injuries, they were forced into playing Crawford at PG. This is a win for the team. Crawford is now starting at PG and growing his game in that role. In the end, Crawford may well be more of a PG then a SG so it was important that he got an extended look at that position. Once the team is more healthy, he can back up both PG and SG or start at either if needed. That has value.

Mack needed to find his groove and he got a chance to do that in the DL. He hasn't been around for this horrible start to this season. He was speared that while he was balln in the DL where it looks like he found his outside shot. While that was happening, they tried Livingston again with most of us wanted. But it didn't work out and they cut him. It was worth a try.

End result. They have Crawford more established at PG and he is likely their best option as the back up PG. They hopefully get a Mack 2.0 with a better outside shot and more confidence and they have Price once his finger heals.

Wall/Crawford with Mack and Price fighting for the third slot. That's not bad for PG options once they are healthy.

So three players got developed while they are tanking for another high pick. This should pay off down the road.

Nivek wrote:10-day contracts don't start until January 5.

I don't object to bringing Mack back -- I didn't think they should have let him go in the first place. I do wonder what the point is, however in the Wizards bringing back a guy THEY decided wasn't good enough. I mean, great: they've finally figured out what some of us said back during the offseason -- that the guys they signed to take Mack's job weren't any better than Mack. But bringing him back doesn't mean they've upgraded. He's young at least, and can still improve.

I guess my question to the front office would be this: What has changed about Mack since you cut him to make you think he's better than he was when you discarded him?

gambitx777 wrote:the thing is they need to let him be the guard he was when they drafted him. he avg 17 point in the D league. we was not a bad shooter in college, let him shoot.

Sky Kerstein ‏@SkyKerstein
#Wizards announce that they've waived Shelvin Mack

rockymac52 wrote:Prediction: Bobby Brown