RealGM

id like us to trade our lottery pick for someone like Lamelo Ball

Agreed, as I'm sure is not surprising. Outside of DC, this team is definitely regarded as bottom 3 in the league, but with worse roster upside than any team in the league because we were the one team of tanking teams that didn't do what you always do: sell of your assets for the best return possible to begin the tank process. That was supposed to happen at some point in 2019 to 2021 at the latest, as any other team would have to help ameliorate the suffering and add loads of bullets in terms of draft prospects or young prospects. It's what all tanking teams do. But we didn't, so not only did our roster get dynamited last summer, but we got infinitely fewer bullets and pieces to start the rebuild, and we didn't get the lottery luck and/or draft luck that teams like OKC, Detroit and San Antonio got. I can't stand Russillo, and do think he was kind of wrong when he argued this, but he didn't take half a second to say the team in the worst position in the league in his view was DC, because he couldn't think of a relevant build piece they had and they don't have any valuable draft assets beyond their own picks (he ignored the fact that we landed a steal with Bilal last year, and do have a valuable player in Deni), and he isn't wrong for the most part. There are 1 or 2 teams that are in worst positions in my view, because they both: are never going to win squat as built, and #2 are not in good shape going forward too, but those teams can still sell off their assets for rebuild pieces far better than the detritus we got for destroying Beal's trade value completely between 2019-2022, so even though those teams are gonna start their rebuilds later than us, as we've seen repeatedly over the years, they'll still likely pass us, in the rebuild race, simply by having more assets to assist the build with (how many teams have we seen contend for titles, blow it up, rebuild, contend some more, blow it up, rebuild, contend some more over the past 30 years and do it better than us every single time? 15? 20. For me there's been nothing worse about Wizards fandom, than watching us suffer watching this ---- decade after decade, while other teams get to play and have fun, then have said teams suffer, and then race quickly ahead of us yet again, with their version of a rebuild, which is always, perpetually, better than our own, still, horrible rebuild).

As a result, not only is the starting lineup god awful, and the youth reserves not totally impressive, but there are no avenues for rapid improvement other than hitting home runs on picks. We would be in a much better place if Shepard had swung for home run pick potential like he did with Deni in '20, but he didn't, instead going for guys floor guys and complimentary players like Rui, and Johnny Davis and Corey Kispert. So we're left with nothing but complimentary players. We have no building block anything beyond Bilal and Deni, and speculative guys like Vucevic.

Add to that that we are unlikely to get much better than complimentary talent, if we're lucky, out of this draft and I'm hard pressed to see much more than a 20-25 win team, with probably a good 35-40% chance of another sub 20 win season.

And honestly, it would be terrible if we were better than that. The drafts most likely to really help us are '25 and '26 (and '27), this draft is unfortunately the worst place possible to start. We can thank the heavens that the new regime radically improved on the terrible draft approach of Sheppard and landed us a stud in a zone we probably shouldn't have found one in via trade up last year. But that doesn't change the fact that we're at best, where we should've been in '20, but its 2024, and we have a lot less to work with to improve our fortunes going forward than if we'd had better management in place.

pancakes3 wrote:What's the upside on Dillingham though? It's not Kyrie. I figure it's Brunson/Mitchell. I will say though, dude can shoot.

If Dillingham turns into Brunson (at this time projected to be top 5 in MVP voting and 2nd team all NBA), then I wouldn't complain. I've heard some Garland comparisons to Dillingham.

AFM wrote:How the hell do you fellas have predictions already when we don't even know what the roster is going to look like

There is no way to significantly improve the roster this offseason and it would also be foolish to do so anyway (with vet additions). The team is going to be horrible. How horrible is open to question. It may be as bad as last year, it may be better by a touch, or the same, but it's not gonna change markedly, the only thing that might change prelottery slotting is just how many other teams are awful, but we are definitely most likely to fit in to that 12-22 win zone. 12 on the low end, 22 around the highest one could expect.

The Consiglieri wrote:I can't stand Russillo, and do think he was kind of wrong when he argued this, but he didn't take half a second to say the team in the worst position in the league in his view was DC, because he couldn't think of a relevant build piece they had and they don't have any valuable draft assets beyond their own picks (he ignored the fact that we landed a steal with Bilal last year, and do have a valuable player in Deni), and he isn't wrong for the most part. There are 1 or 2 teams that are in worst positions in my view, because they both: are never going to win squat as built, and #2 are not in good shape going forward too, but those teams can still sell off their assets for rebuild pieces far better than the detritus we got for destroying Beal's trade value completely between 2019-2022, so even though those teams are gonna start their rebuilds later than us, as we've seen repeatedly over the years, they'll still likely pass us, in the rebuild race, simply by having more assets to assist the build with (how many teams have we seen contend for titles, blow it up, rebuild, contend some more, blow it up, rebuild, contend some more over the past 30 years and do it better than us every single time? 15? 20. For me there's been nothing worse about Wizards fandom, than watching us suffer watching this ---- decade after decade, while other teams get to play and have fun, then have said teams suffer, and then race quickly ahead of us yet again, with their version of a rebuild, which is always, perpetually, better than our own, still, horrible rebuild).

I like Russillo a lot and think he makes consistently sober takes that tend to be right more often than not.

I think it's fair to say we are in the worst position in the league in terms of actual assets. But the one thing we have going for us is that at least we have accepted our predicament and are doing exactly the right thing to dig out of it.

I'd say Chicago is in worse position because none of they are well below .500 with an aging squad and don't even realize that they need to rebuild. I don't think their assets are any better than ours. DeRozan has neutral value as a free agent, and Vucevic and LaVine have negative value. Deni has more value than Caruso due to age. Kuzma and White are pretty similar in value. Kispert and Ayo are similar. Bilal > Williams. And they owe their 2025 pick to San Antonio. And we have a much higher 2024 pick coming our way.

I'd say Brooklyn is also in worse position. Claxton's value just disappeared because he is now an unrestricted free agent. They don't own their own picks until 2028 so tanking doesn't help them at all. All they have are a bunch of late first round picks coming in from Phoenix, which may start becoming valuable later in this decade, but not for the next few years. They have one good player under contract with high trade value in Mikal Bridges, but they can't trade him and tank because tanking doesn't help them.

But that's it. We are in worse position than all the other openly tanking teams like Portland, San Antonio, Detroit, Charlotte and Toronto because we have far less talent on the roster.

My only quibble, and I agree with you (one of my philosophical positions in fandom in sports is that if you aren't contending, or early in your rebuild, you absolutely should blow up your team) that there's inherent value in the fact that we've recognized how bad the roster is, how hopeless that '19-'23 era was, and have torn the roster down to the studs, and that gives us an advantage over teams that are still in denial like those you mention. My quibble, though (forgot to get to it lol) is that when those teams come to terms with how screwed up things are, they typically do some version of what OKC, and Houston did, and hold a fire sale, and as a result, despite starting years later, habitually pass us in the rebuild race because they simply have better rebuilding tools to work with because they traded their Beals when they should have for real tangible assets, while we did not. Other than 2010-2014, it really feels like we've habitually indulged the kind of stupidity you saw in 2009, and tried to find a way to retool instead, which is why say, Golden State, San Antonio, Houston, OKC, Cleveland, have seemingly done 2-3 complete rebuilds, and runs, while we're still celebrating the fumes of the one and done Webber-Howard era, the brief Arenas era, and the Wal Beal era....well, not celebrating, it's just all we have.

That's one of the things that bothers me, and that I think he gets at with the take, because he knows, like we know, that we've had our rebuild crippled by mismanagent the previous 4 years before last summer, and the consequences of that are likely to echo forward unless we can get our own version of San Antonio's luck (rock bottoming in time for generational players over and over and over and over again for guys like David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Kawhi Leonard, and now Wenbenyama: how on earth did they have that kind of lottery luck?!?!, plus the Kawhi genius trade/luck) in the lottery....Otoh, I think we'd agree, we are so bad, if we have any lottery luck at all in '25, '26, and '27, we could actually build something, but it really hangs on that, and maybe a hit or two in round 2, maybe a genius trade. The one that really is odd to me is Detroit, they've been lucky but it hasn't mattered, pretty scary. Im amazed at how little they've been able to do with their luck.

Kanyewest wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:What's the upside on Dillingham though? It's not Kyrie. I figure it's Brunson/Mitchell. I will say though, dude can shoot.

If Dillingham turns into Brunson (at this time projected to be top 5 in MVP voting and 2nd team all NBA), then I wouldn't complain. I've heard some Garland comparisons to Dillingham.

The concerns about Dillingham’s size are legit. I get it. But if you assume, as I do, that he’ll grow an inch or two and gain 10-15 lbs then you’re looking at a 6-2 or 6-3 PG at around 195 lbs.

Garland is 6-1, 190lbs. Tyrese Maxey is listed at 6-2, 200 and De’Aaron Fox is 6-3, 190. All three have been all stars and are among the top guards in the NBA.

yall are talking me into it, although there's a pretty sizeable gap in talent between Garland and Fox. Maxey might be the better comp because I don't see the pg skills in Dilly.

DCZards wrote:

Kanyewest wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:What's the upside on Dillingham though? It's not Kyrie. I figure it's Brunson/Mitchell. I will say though, dude can shoot.

If Dillingham turns into Brunson (at this time projected to be top 5 in MVP voting and 2nd team all NBA), then I wouldn't complain. I've heard some Garland comparisons to Dillingham.

The concerns about Dillingham’s size are legit. I get it. But if you assume, as I do, that he’ll grow an inch or two and gain 10-15 lbs then you’re looking at a 6-2 or 6-3 PG at around 195 lbs.

Garland is 6-1, 190lbs. Tyrese Maxey is listed at 6-2, 200 and De’Aaron Fox is 6-3, 190. All three have been all stars and are among the top guards in the NBA.

Good point. Its not the death of sub 6-4 PGs just yet. I think the standard IS higher offensively for these guys now but Dillingham is arguably one of the more skilled guards to come into the league the last few years. On par with Garland & even Trae (if not quite Trae's range).

Skill makes up for alot. That's what Johnny Davis lacked in leiu of his physical limitations as a 6-4 modestly athletic SG.

Still Dillingham will have to get stronger to avoid being an easy target and getting played off the floor unless he can carry a massive offensive load to offset it (possibly).

pancakes3 wrote:yall are talking me into it, although there's a pretty sizeable gap in talent between Garland and Fox. Maxey might be the better comp because I don't see the pg skills in Dilly.

I don't know why. I see it. He's shown to be quite proficient at leveraging the attention he receives to find the open man. He's definitely a scoring PG but honestly I don't want a pass first PG that can't put pressure on defenses from the perimeter or attacking the paint.

Dat2U wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:yall are talking me into it, although there's a pretty sizeable gap in talent between Garland and Fox. Maxey might be the better comp because I don't see the pg skills in Dilly.

I don't know why. I see it. He's shown to be quite proficient at leveraging the attention he receives to find the open man. He's definitely a scoring PG but honestly I don't want a pass first PG that can't put pressure on defenses from the perimeter or attacking the paint.

The kid shot 44% from 3, according to Tankathon, he has very good assist numbers, and he is just getting started. Watch the Spurs nab him instead of Topic or Sheppard right ahead of us. We can't have the Spurs picking ahead of us, they would be a threat to take Sarr, or a PG we like.

Sarr is not the savior of this draft. He's a good prospect. I don't see a sky high ceiling. I see a guy that you hope will make his impact defensively and develop into a tiertary scorer who can space the floor.

He's probably a pick in the 4-7 range most years.

I'm convinced he's likely not the best pick in the draft though he has a good shot to be the most *valuable* big in time due to his switchability defensively.

If Topic didn't shoot such a rigid looking stroke I'd feel better about taking a 6-7 kid with his feel and developing handle. I think his shot is total rebuild job at this point so I'm less encouraged about his likely projected outcomes.

Dat2U wrote:Sarr is not the savior of this draft. He's a good prospect. I don't see a sky high ceiling. I see a guy that you hope will make his impact defensively and develop into a tiertary scorer who can space the floor.

He's probably a pick in the 4-7 range most years.

I'm convinced he's likely not the best pick in the draft though he has a good shot to be the most *valuable* big in time due to his switchability defensively.

If Topic didn't shoot such a rigid looking stroke I'd feel better about taking a 6-7 kid with his feel and developing handle. I think his shot is total rebuild job at this point so I'm less encouraged about his likely projected outcomes.

Who do you think has the highest upside this year?

Dat2U wrote:Sarr is not the savior of this draft. He's a good prospect. I don't see a sky high ceiling. I see a guy that you hope will make his impact defensively and develop into a tiertary scorer who can space the floor.

He's probably a pick in the 4-7 range most years.

I'm convinced he's likely not the best pick in the draft though he has a good shot to be the most *valuable* big in time due to his switchability defensively.

If Topic didn't shoot such a rigid looking stroke I'd feel better about taking a 6-7 kid with his feel and developing handle. I think his shot is total rebuild job at this point so I'm less encouraged about his likely projected outcomes.

Topic shot 37% from 3 and 89% from the free throw line last year.

A lot of late shot clock/deep off the dribble 3s this year while carrying KK Mega.

Personally, I think he’ll be a good shooter in the NBA from day 1.

closg00 wrote:We can't have the Spurs picking ahead of us, they would be a threat to take Sarr, or a PG we like.

I don't understand this idea that the Spurs would take Sarr. He makes no sense at all for them. The beauty of Wemby is he can allow them to play 5-out, or he can be deadly as the roll man. Why bring in a non-shooter like Sarr to screw all that up? Yeah, Sarr would help defensively, but there are diminishing returns with each paint protector you have on the floor. They don't even need a paint protector so why take on the offensive liability?

Literally any other player at the top of this draft would help them more.

nate33 wrote:

closg00 wrote:We can't have the Spurs picking ahead of us, they would be a threat to take Sarr, or a PG we like.

I don't understand this idea that the Spurs would take Sarr. He makes no sense at all for them. The beauty of Wemby is he can allow them to play 5-out, or he can be deadly as the roll man. Why bring in a non-shooter like Sarr to screw all that up? Yeah, Sarr would help defensively, but there are diminishing returns with each paint protector you have on the floor. They don't even need a paint protector so why take on the offensive liability?

Literally any other player at the top of this draft would help them more.

You're right, I'm being a bit paranoid the Spurs are certain to take a PG though....

This is such a tough draft to call. It seems like there are 30 players who normally would go in the 10-20 range, with one to two becoming stars, a couple turning out decent and the rest ending up busting.

If we get number one, I think I'd pick Sarr. Looking at highlights from this past year, I think he's developed some things that will work offensively in the NBA. Upside is a bigger Bam Adebayo. Floor is Ayton. If we fall a couple of spots, I might be tempted to go Dillingham. He might be a complete bust because he will get shellacked on defense. But his upside is Dame, IMO.

With our second pick, I kind of like Kolek from Marquette. Could end up as a journeyman, could become John Stockton.

So many boom or bust players in this draft. Tough one for GMs.

My brain just won't accept Risacher going #1

The Consiglieri wrote: We can thank the heavens that the new regime radically improved on the terrible draft approach of Sheppard and landed us a stud in a zone we probably shouldn't have found one i

That studs name? Tristan Vukcevic

Is Clingan now a top 5 guy? Didn't look that way to me in the finals. Assuming we drop in the lottery, if it's Clingan at 5 or Edey at 26 and someone else at 5, I think that choice is pretty clear.