ImageImageImageImageImage

The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread:

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

User avatar
sfam
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,462
And1: 548
Joined: Aug 03, 2007
         

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#61 » by sfam » Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:29 pm

Its sort of amazing to me that people only focus on EG's bad decisions and then call him incredibly sucky. Wes Unseld was incredibly sucky - EG is not. EG is clearly a successful GM. I think you would have a really hard time selling anyone that he's in the bottom 50% of GMs. Is he in the top 10% of all GMs? Probably not. But again, considering our vast and incredibly sucky history with GMs, I am MORE than willing to ride out his relatively few number of mistakes to get the occasional Kwame for Caron deals out of the guy, not to mention the ability to pass on most bad investments.

Lets face it folks, EG is not our problem - he's the reason we've been to the playoffs these last many years. While I may want to jump off a cliff if we lose to Cleveland again in the first round, I must say, I actually like the feeling that I can occasionally show up at the Verizon Center with the realistic anticipation that we have a good chance of winning. This used to not be the case folks. EG is not infallible, but he's a good long shot away from being incredibly sucky.
Silvie Lysandra
Starter
Posts: 2,088
And1: 364
Joined: May 22, 2007
   

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#62 » by Silvie Lysandra » Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:46 pm

Still haven't broken 45 wins though. And quality is NOT relative. Just because Unseld was a joke, doesn't mean that Grunfield or anyone else gets a pass.

What people seem to be missing is that we lost Butler for 24 and Arenas for 68 and were better than last year. Why is that? I'm not sure, but it seems to imply that "something is not right". When you can *lose* All-Stars and finish with more wins than the year they played most of the season (and let's face it, we were atop the East mainly because Arenas was the best individual player in basketball during that month).

We complain about defense, but here's the thing - we have 1 *elite* defender, one close-to-elite defender, and one above-average defender. Yet we're not mediocre on defense, we're terrible. Why is that? Cleveland has terrible defenders everywhere - Z, Szcerbiak(Gooden), Jones, Gibson, formerly Donyell Marshall, the list goes on. Yet they consistenly have an elite defense. Why? (of course, part of it is coaching, though I partially lay that at Grunfield's door - if he hasn't fired Eddie after estranging him from Abe, then obviously Eddie isn't here in spite of Grunfield!). But also, it might be a better mix, both skill-wise and locker-room wise.

I feel like we've just thrown three talented offensive players together the way New Jersey threw three talented offensive players together. How did that work out? 45 win seasons and 1st/2nd round exits. Compare with the far more balanced team that went to two Finals. I feel like we also threw in pieces without regard to how they work together. See the Haywood/Etan feud, Songalia becoming more and more redundant (why sign Songalia AND draft Pecherov?), Daniels basically having a completely different style than Arenas as the backup, us being so unbalanced in regards to our roster that McGuire and Mason need to play big minutes at SF and PG while having a glut of 2s and 4s on the roster, and so on.

We could get into the failure of Eddie Jordan all day, but one thing I want to ask - how could you have a coach who could allow your best player to NOT be the leader of your team, and let it go for 5 years?

Grunfield has made a LOT of great moves individually, but I heavily criticize the overall (im)balance of the team he has built.

by the way, I want to address the Detroit point.


First of all, you can't just gloss over the point that they have 2 key players leaving their prime. One of those key players is Rasheed Wallace, and he is irreplaceable. There was no way Dumars could have tweaked that roster to get them over the hump in the face of Wallace's decline.


Detroit did not need to do anything at all, and while I feel what they're doing is an error, it's the kind of error that I'd rather see than the whole "everything is fine" mentality.

Wallace? Yes, he is very important to that team. But do you really think Maxiell/Johnson can't provide at least 70% of what Wallace provided?

Billups? He still has 2 or 3 years left, and Stuckey will be ready right as Billups starts declining.

Hamilton is 30, and his game will be viable for at least another 5-6 years.
Prince is 28; he still has 4 or more years left.

They could stay put, and have a reasonable shot to get back to the ECF until the youth develops. But instead, they are making a statement that the ECF is unacceptable.

Secondly, I don't see how the Detroit situation is relevant. We are not Detroit. We have a core of players still well within their prime and we have a young core that could develop to be pretty special. There is no closing window of opportunity. The one key player approaching his decline is Jamison. But Jamison has no trade value since he is a free agent so there is no realistic option to get younger.


Again, their window of opportunity might close this year. For 2 seasons, three at the most. We don't have a window of opportunity because we're not as good. Do you really think this team is going to magically get better, start playing defense and dominating the boards because they stayed together? Yes, our youth could develop too, but in that sense, why resign Jamison or Arenas?

Think of this way - they're blowing up arguably the second best team in the NBA, and will be no worse than the 5th team in the NBA.

We'd be blowing up a team which may not even make the playoffs unless something changes drastically.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,783
And1: 19,069
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#63 » by nate33 » Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:41 am

Chaos Revenant wrote:What people seem to be missing is that we lost Butler for 24 and Arenas for 68 and were better than last year. Why is that? I'm not sure, but it seems to imply that "something is not right". When you can *lose* All-Stars and finish with more wins than the year they played most of the season (and let's face it, we were atop the East mainly because Arenas was the best individual player in basketball during that month).

Amazing. The team exceeds all expectations and you consider it a negative.

The simplest explanation for their improved play is that they hired Randy Ayers and played much better defense (when healthy). Also, Caron Butler and Haywood each showed dramatic improvement after a lot of hard work in the offseason. Randy Ayers will be back next year, and there's no reason to expect a drop-off out of Butler or Haywood; so I'm betting that they will play equally as well this year, only they'll have the added benefit of a Top 15 overall player at PG (replacing the weakest link in the starting lineup).

But all of this is beside the point. My question remains: what realistic thing could EG have done to appease the bashers? If you think we should have just "blown it up", how exactly do we do this and lay the foundation for improvement in the future?
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 9,946
And1: 3,917
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#64 » by DCZards » Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:33 am

nate33 wrote:You guys need a serious reality check. If I had told you at the beginning of last year that we would miss Arenas for essentially the entire season and we would miss Butler for 24 games, all of you would have predicted a sub-35-win season and a trip to the lottery. Instead, we won 43 games and finished 5th.

How many other teams can lose their best player for a season and their second-best player for a third of a season and still finish above .500? Obviously, either EG has done a pretty decent job of assembling talent, or EJ has done a pretty good job coaching, or both. Now, take that 43-win team, add a top 15 player in Arenas, add a decent backup center in Etan, get a little improvement out of Blatche and Young; and there's a perfectly rational basis to assume that this team can win 50 games.

You don't blow up a team with 50-win potential when none of it's major players are in decline yet.


Thanks for putting things in perspective, nate.
Silvie Lysandra
Starter
Posts: 2,088
And1: 364
Joined: May 22, 2007
   

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#65 » by Silvie Lysandra » Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:37 am

The simplest explanation for their improved play is that they hired Randy Ayers and played much better defense (when healthy).


Hm? We still finished as one of the worst defenses in basketball and gave up a record amount of 3s. We played good defense in spurts, but we were not consistent. Again, are we going to magically improve just because of "continuity?"

If you think we should have just "blown it up", how exactly do we do this and lay the foundation for improvement in the future


Here's the thing - our absolute worst-case scenario (letting Gil/AJ/Mason walk for nothing) doesn't leave us in too bad shape. We still have Haywood, who is an above-average starter at C, Blatche who might just be ready to start consistently despite his off-court immaturity, Butler who's a legit franchise player, Stevenson who's solid (with a potential star waiting in the wings in Nick Young). PG's our weak link again, but even without GIl/AJ we have the pieces to trade for a stop-gap starter (Etan/Pecherov/Songalia/Memphis pick for Hinrich would be an example).

So that leaves us, in an absolute worst case, with:

C: Haywood/McGee
PF: Blatche/MLE
SF: Butler/McGuire
SG: Stevenson/Young
PG: Hinrich/Daniels

Reserves: Veremeenko, LLE

With cap room to burn for the next few years. Is that lineup a little thin? Yes. Will that lineup make the playoffs? Probably not unless ALL the young players blow up. Is that a good foundation for the future? I think so.

I am MORE than willing to miss the playoffs for a season, or even two seasons, to put us in better position than to bring back the same team.
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 9,946
And1: 3,917
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#66 » by DCZards » Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:58 am

Chaos Revenant wrote:
Here's the thing - our absolute worst-case scenario (letting Gil/AJ/Mason walk for nothing) doesn't leave us in too bad shape. We still have Haywood, who is an above-average starter at C, Blatche who might just be ready to start consistently despite his off-court immaturity, Butler who's a legit franchise player, Stevenson who's solid (with a potential star waiting in the wings in Nick Young). PG's our weak link again, but even without GIl/AJ we have the pieces to trade for a stop-gap starter (Etan/Pecherov/Songalia/Memphis pick for Hinrich would be an example).

So that leaves us, in an absolute worst case, with:

C: Haywood/McGee
PF: Blatche/MLE
SF: Butler/McGuire
SG: Stevenson/Young
PG: Hinrich/Daniels

Reserves: Veremeenko, LLE

With cap room to burn for the next few years. Is that lineup a little thin? Yes. Will that lineup make the playoffs? Probably not unless ALL the young players blow up. Is that a good foundation for the future? I think so.

I am MORE than willing to miss the playoffs for a season, or even two seasons, to put us in better position than to bring back the same team.


This team sucks. It wouldn't be able to score, rebound...or win more than 30 games. You just can't let talent like AJ and Gil walk and put your fate in the hands of unproven talent. And what makes you think the Zards are going to get anything more from Blatche than it's getting now. I want to see the kid grow up before I start banking on him. As for the future, cap room and being in a "better position," what quality free agent would want to sign with a 2-3 time lottery team?
Halcyon
Veteran
Posts: 2,826
And1: 479
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
       

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#67 » by Halcyon » Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:24 am

Chaos Revenant wrote:
Here's the thing - our absolute worst-case scenario (letting Gil/AJ/Mason walk for nothing) doesn't leave us in too bad shape. We still have Haywood, who is an above-average starter at C, Blatche who might just be ready to start consistently despite his off-court immaturity, Butler who's a legit franchise player, Stevenson who's solid (with a potential star waiting in the wings in Nick Young). PG's our weak link again, but even without GIl/AJ we have the pieces to trade for a stop-gap starter (Etan/Pecherov/Songalia/Memphis pick for Hinrich would be an example).

So that leaves us, in an absolute worst case, with:

C: Haywood/McGee
PF: Blatche/MLE
SF: Butler/McGuire
SG: Stevenson/Young
PG: Hinrich/Daniels

Reserves: Veremeenko, LLE

With cap room to burn for the next few years. Is that lineup a little thin? Yes. Will that lineup make the playoffs? Probably not unless ALL the young players blow up. Is that a good foundation for the future? I think so.

I am MORE than willing to miss the playoffs for a season, or even two seasons, to put us in better position than to bring back the same team.

That team would shoot 40% every night and we'd struggle to score 80 points. Teams would double Butler and let the unproven guys try to score. You'd also be banking on non-lotto guys to actually all pan out and become contributors, which is completely unrealistic.

I'd rather keep Gil and AJ and reload next offseason, where we'll have almost $20 million in expirings and our young talent would have had a chance to grow into better commodities.

I hate this knee-jerk reaction to change our team.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,783
And1: 19,069
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#68 » by nate33 » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:22 am

Chaos Revenant wrote:Hm? We still finished as one of the worst defenses in basketball and gave up a record amount of 3s. We played good defense in spurts, but we were not consistent. Again, are we going to magically improve just because of "continuity?"

We ranked 17th in defensive efficiency until Butler got hurt the first time. Once Butler went down, our already thin roster was stretched too far. Jamison had to play 44 minutes a game with Butler out, and the aging Daniels fell apart after averaging more minutes per game than he had in his entire career. We played the worst defense in the league over the second half of the season. But over the first half of the season, the team played pretty solid defense. It was sometimes downright stifling. Don't forget, we went 23-12 after that first 5-game losing streak.

With a healthy Arenas and an improving Nick Young, EJ shouldn't have to rely so extensively on Jamison and Butler for points. He can curtail their minutes and hopefully try to keep the team healthy for a season. (I readily admit that EJ has been terrible at managing his stars' minutes in the past. But he managed to recognize his coaching weaknesses at defense last year and improve upon them. Maybe he'll do the same this year with his minutes management.)

I won't spend too much time responding to your worst case scenario in the Blow It Up Plan. DCZards and Halcyon already said what needed to be said. That team sucks. Actually, it's worse than sucky. It's just good enough to stay out of the high lottery. We'd be stuck in the 30-38 win range for the foreseeable future. Surely, you would agree that it's better to win 44-50 games next season and then make a big move next summer utilizing the expiring contracts of AD and Etan plus some youth and/or picks. If nothing else, we'd be in better position to blow it up next year after Arenas and Jamison were signed to long term deals, giving them actual trade value.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,609
And1: 8,968
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#69 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:08 am

nate, all the points you made about the team exceeding expectations DURING THE REGULAR SEASON is all well taken.

However, they went out like dogs in the playoffs and that's what sticks with me.

The defense was great and IMO it was the best Wizards team I've seen prior to Butler's first injury. I agree with your points 100%. The injuries certainly derailed what might have been a great season.

That said, I think EG lacked foresight not picking up a third PG and I also hold him most to blame (as he bid against himself) for the team not having ANY cap room to sign a veteran for the playoff run.

DeShawn more than played worth his contract IMO and he at least showed up in the playoffs.

I fault EJ at the end of the season for not playing bigger lineups in the Cleveland series and for not using Young or McGuire more (for their athleticism) in the way they lost to the Cavs. EJ's coaching was so predictable. Then again, when Songaila's all you got behind undersized PF Jamison and when Blatche/EJ went south; NOT HAVING A GUY LIKE MILLSAP hurt this team. Not even being able to afford to keep Mike Wilks without going over the tax makes a difference when AD is injured and can't guard anybody. That's on EG too.

I don't think EG's sucky overall, but I think his draft was horribly sucky this season and that last year he didn't help EJ at all by bringing in a PG or a veteran. I also think the Songaila/Pecherov/Young trio will score points but get you beat when it counts. Just like Arenas/Butler/Jamison.

McGee's not a great defender. Not even a good one.

That's why the past three days EG became sucky in my eyes.

I'm with Chaos in thinking blowing it up is what it will come down to. Having Butler and Jamison at the Fs the team gives up too much with lack of size and lack of defense to EVER be elite in the playoffs.

EG's conservative approach goes back to the emperor in underwear analogy.

I just hope McGuire and Young have great seasons and that Andray comes in focused, and that EJ is again forced by injury to occasionally play better lineups this season.
Bye bye Beal.
User avatar
doclinkin
RealGM
Posts: 13,125
And1: 5,271
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#70 » by doclinkin » Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:54 pm

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:
I just hope ... that EJ is again forced by injury to occasionally play better lineups this season.


You're a fan of what team again? Seriously dude, which particular Wizard player are you hoping blows out their knee...
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 9,946
And1: 3,917
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#71 » by DCZards » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:56 pm

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:McGee's not a great defender. Not even a good one.


It's FAR to early to tell what kind of NBA defender McGee will turn out to be.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:
Not even being able to afford to keep Mike Wilks without going over the tax makes a difference when AD is injured and can't guard anybody. That's on EG too.


Come on....you're faulting the guy for not being able to keep a marginal NBA player like Mike Wilks. Tell me, ccj, how many other NBA teams picked up Wilks after the Zards let him go? EG is far from perfect but not keeping Wilks is the least of his problems.
LyricalRico
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 30,451
And1: 780
Joined: May 23, 2002
Location: Back into the fray!
Contact:
       

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#72 » by LyricalRico » Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:02 am

^ It's not about Wilks specifically. You can substitute any name you want. The bottom line is that this team was managed in a way that left them horribly short handed last year and when injuries hit they weren't able to respond because of being too close to the tax. Shave something off the Stevenson and/or Songaila deals and maybe the Wiz are able to do something to fill in the gaps last year. That's what CCJ is saying. Planning for a 13 man roster just isn't smart but those are the kinds of decisions this team makes and it comes back to bite us every time.
User avatar
Wizards2Lottery
RealGM
Posts: 10,317
And1: 26
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Location: All aboard the TANK

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#73 » by Wizards2Lottery » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:35 am

^ Exactly. It seems like the apologists or like I call them the "cheese eaters" have an excuse for everything. EG has overpayed for Songaila, Stevenson, Daniels and ET.

I don't think hes amazingly sucky but hes far from great. He's going to sign this team into mediocrity once again when he resigns Jamison to a 4 year contract at a really high value.

As long as AJ is the starting 4 of this team and logging 40 minutes a night, we are headed to nothing but mediocrity and I don't think a backup sixth man thats 32 years old is worth what AJ is about to get.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,609
And1: 8,968
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#74 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:10 am

DCZards wrote:
Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:McGee's not a great defender. Not even a good one.


It's FAR to early to tell what kind of NBA defender McGee will turn out to be.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:
Not even being able to afford to keep Mike Wilks without going over the tax makes a difference when AD is injured and can't guard anybody. That's on EG too.


Come on....you're faulting the guy for not being able to keep a marginal NBA player like Mike Wilks. Tell me, ccj, how many other NBA teams picked up Wilks after the Zards let him go? EG is far from perfect but not keeping Wilks is the least of his problems.

DCZards, I surely don't have a crystal ball on what McGee MIGHT BECOME (your assertion, not mine) but actual games at Nevada against not very good competition revealed the kid to be a shot blocker that actually was NOT a good defender. I stand by EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. He's NOT a good defender.

In theory, I guess he MIGHT BECOME A 280-lb beast. Hellacious defender, best of all time. Yep. It's possible he could grow to 7-4 as well. Might is something I'll never be able to argue against, DCZards.

However, my barometer is and always will be performance over time. That's the best predictor I know of. Kid's consistently been soft and easily scored on. I won't knock him as a Wizard but I think he was a flat terrible selection for what he's always been.

On your second point, Mike Wilks got picked up by Seattle for three games in March. He played a total of 22 minutes and had 12 points and 5 assists, with 3 turnovers, in garbage time losses off the bench behind Watson and Ridnour.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,609
And1: 8,968
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#75 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:13 am

LyricalRico wrote:^ It's not about Wilks specifically. You can substitute any name you want. The bottom line is that this team was managed in a way that left them horribly short handed last year and when injuries hit they weren't able to respond because of being too close to the tax. Shave something off the Stevenson and/or Songaila deals and maybe the Wiz are able to do something to fill in the gaps last year. That's what CCJ is saying. Planning for a 13 man roster just isn't smart but those are the kinds of decisions this team makes and it comes back to bite us every time.

+1
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 23,492
And1: 7,062
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#76 » by Dat2U » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:33 am

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:DCZards, I surely don't have a crystal ball on what McGee MIGHT BECOME (your assertion, not mine) but actual games at Nevada against not very good competition revealed the kid to be a shot blocker that actually was NOT a good defender. I stand by EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. He's NOT a good defender.

In theory, I guess he MIGHT BECOME A 280-lb beast. Hellacious defender, best of all time. Yep. It's possible he could grow to 7-4 as well. Might is something I'll never be able to argue against, DCZards.

However, my barometer is and always will be performance over time. That's the best predictor I know of. Kid's consistently been soft and easily scored on. I won't knock him as a Wizard but I think he was a flat terrible selection for what he's always been.


Agreed. I think most of us don't knock Ernie for picking a long, athletic kid with lots of upside. There's nothing wrong with the idea that a guy can develop within an organization and eventually become an important asset. I think the problem for many people is the track record with Javale McGee. It seems like his "potential" or "upside" was the only factor in his selection. Everything else would say he was not a draftable player. His numbers are mediocre, his competition wasn't even mid-major quality. His attitude has been questioned on more than one occassion. His on court demeanor and energy level are suspect. His work ethic has been labeled as poor. Sure, he runs the floor like a deer and he can probably smack the top of the backboard with his hand but if his intangibles don't measure up, I don't see how he helps us, even 3 years from now.

For me the most damning thing about him is the fact he was such a poor defender at his level of competition. With his type of measureables, he should be destroying the competion in his conference on both ends of the court. His blocks per 40 were good, but his on the ball the defense was horrific. If he can't or won't guard opponents in the WAC against Idaho, Utah State or Hawaii then I have serious concerns of whether he'll suddenly become at least an adequate defender versus NBA competition.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,783
And1: 19,069
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#77 » by nate33 » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:52 am

Gilbert0Arenas wrote:^ Exactly. It seems like the apologists or like I call them the "cheese eaters" have an excuse for everything. EG has overpayed for Songaila, Stevenson, Daniels and ET.

Etan was a mistake, though he was a mistake that very few people were against at the time he was signed. Hindsight is 20/20. Believe me, nearly everyone in this forum at the time was in favor of matching that Milwaukee offer.

You've got to put the Daniels signing in context. The Wizards just lost Hughes after one brief season of relative success. We were one year removed of being a laughingstock - the Clippers East. EG could not afford to lose traction after a breakout season. We needed a replacement for Hughes and EG didn't have the luxury of being choosy. AD was the best guy available, but EG had to put forth a big enough package to convince him to come to this lowly franchise. In retrospect, AD wasn't all that overpaid. I'd say he's been worth the money so far. The contract is probably a year too long, but that was a necessity to get him to come here.

The Songaila signing also needs to be put in context. Blatche was a 19-year-old coming off of a gunshot wound at that time. Pecherov was just drafted and was so raw that he needed another year of seasoning before we dared to even take him out of the Ukrainian league. Jeffries had just walked. We had Jamison, Haywood and Etan to man the paint. Haywood and Etan couldn't shoot or pass their way out of a paper bag. EG needed a big man with some skills.

EG did bid against himself in the Stevenson signing. But you gotta be careful when you play hardball in this league. Other players (i.e. potential future free agents) pay attention. EG probably could have browbeat Stevenson to sign the initial 4-year $12M deal rather than the 4-year $15M deal he ultimately signed. But is that extra $750K a year worth the negative feedback that the franchise would get on the street? Stevenson was ultimately worth the $15M deal, and the goodwill may come in handy in the future. Indeed, we shall see this summer if Arenas and Jamison give Abe a hometown discount due to the loyalty he has shown to the team so far.
User avatar
doclinkin
RealGM
Posts: 13,125
And1: 5,271
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#78 » by doclinkin » Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:20 am

Dat2U wrote:
Agreed. I think most of us don't knock Ernie for picking a long, athletic kid with lots of upside. There's nothing wrong with the idea that a guy can develop within an organization and eventually become an important asset. I think the problem for many people is the track record .... It seems like his "potential" or "upside" was the only factor in his selection. Everything else would say he was not a draftable player. His numbers are mediocre, his competition wasn't even mid-major quality. His attitude has been questioned on more than one occassion. His on court demeanor and energy level are suspect. His work ethic has been labeled as poor.


Are we talking about that Andray Blatche kid out of South Kent Prep in Connecticut? 'Cause that all may be true, but he's got too much talent to pass on. He's got upside for miles. Who? Oh McGee? I thought you were talking about the young big on the Wizards with a ton of talent and upside. Right?

Way I see it McGee is essentially a freshman coming out this year. He had so few minutes playing behind Nick Fazekas it's tough to consider him a 2nd year player. Fazekas himself spent a ton of time on the perimeter. You have to expect some part of that is the Coaches' scheme, otherwise why would he keep recruiting bigs with outside range and perimeter game.

By all accounts McGee worked his tail off in the offseason this past year, certainly his on court numbers improved. If his shot selection was poor and he still relied on the perimeter game that he grew up with, well fine he'll need a bit of retraining. But he was a 210 lb seven footer coming into his freshman year. That's skinny as hell. He's added 37 pounds of weight since then, I have no doubt he'll gain more and beable to take and dish a little more punishment. But if you're seven foot and 200 lbs, you haven't learned yet how to throw your weight around. Big take time to develop, the bigger they are, the longer it takes. Roy Hibbert was a plate of warm **** his freshman year, improved a bit by sophomore year but was nowhere near where McGee is now.

Does McGee have a lot to learn? Sure. But if you EVER pick for upside more than attitude & accomplishment, then the time to risk it is on a 7 footer who runs faster than any other 7 footer tested int eh past 20 years, who has a standing reach taller than any other player in the game, who is still filling into his frame adding 37 lbs in 2 years (while adding 3 and a half inches to his jump over one summer) and who comes by his athleticism naturally considering both his father mother (and her twin) were professional ballers in the league. (One of whom has a championship to their name, his mother, with Sacramento).

I was peeved at the time of the pick, wanting the Wiz to somehow draft HIbbert anyway despite the fact that he'd just been selected. But taking the Wiz at their word and looking into the upside of that upside, the outer limit of that potential, there hasn't been a kid this big and this athletic in a very long time. That's the kind of gamble you can take at 18. Especially if a guy like Blatche is flirting with disaster like he is -- flirting with it, hell soliciting it from the window of his hummer. At least you have your hypertalent knucklehead right there ready to replace him.

Plus, with the meagre reports we can pull from the internet, don't you think Ernie has better resources to pull background on this kid's offcourt behavior etc? This is Ernie who regularly surprises people finding a guy noone heard of and he turns out to be a starter in the league. Or better.

I don't mind the risk on this one.
User avatar
sfam
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,462
And1: 548
Joined: Aug 03, 2007
         

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#79 » by sfam » Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:33 pm

Gilbert0Arenas wrote:^ Exactly. It seems like the apologists or like I call them the "cheese eaters" have an excuse for everything. EG has overpayed for Songaila, Stevenson, Daniels and ET.

I don't think hes amazingly sucky but hes far from great. He's going to sign this team into mediocrity once again when he resigns Jamison to a 4 year contract at a really high value.

As long as AJ is the starting 4 of this team and logging 40 minutes a night, we are headed to nothing but mediocrity and I don't think a backup sixth man thats 32 years old is worth what AJ is about to get.


Just to clarify, I think we have different definitions of mediocrity. 45 wins when our main guy is out for the season and our #2 is out for a third of the season does not constitute mediocrity for me. Mediocrity is sitting at the 8th - 13th lottery position year after year, with no real chance of getting much better or much worse. Perhaps that's just sucky in others' minds. That's OK. But again, baring something magical like Kevin McCale falsely remembering he used to be a Bullet and thus deciding to help us out by giving up the rest of his team for a song, there just aren't any viable options right now. We don't have any real options. Said another way, there isn't anything else we can do to improve right now. Meaning we really don't gain anything by dumping AJ. Its not like mgmt has this big decision before them as to which way they should turn - the options are essentially down to 1: keep the team together in the hopes that it finally stays healthy and wait for some contracts to come off the books.

As for the McGee pick, again, I don't think anyone here has a clue how he'll be in two-three years. Only then will we look back with the voice of authority and say, "Yeah, EG's McGee pick really was _____".
Wiz99
Analyst
Posts: 3,040
And1: 158
Joined: Jun 30, 2004

Re: The Amazingly Sucky Ernie Grunfield Thread: 

Post#80 » by Wiz99 » Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:37 pm

doclinkin wrote:Does McGee have a lot to learn? Sure. But if you EVER pick for upside more than attitude & accomplishment, then the time to risk it is on a 7 footer who runs faster than any other 7 footer tested int eh past 20 years, who has a standing reach taller than any other player in the game, who is still filling into his frame adding 37 lbs in 2 years (while adding 3 and a half inches to his jump over one summer) and who comes by his athleticism naturally considering both his father mother (and her twin) were professional ballers in the league. (One of whom has a championship to their name, his mother, with Sacramento).


Damn, doc.

When you're on, you're on. That's everything I've said, but twice as clear.

My question to all the naysayers: who ELSE was a better pick at 18? and hope you can provide a rationale have as lucid as Doc's for taking McGee.

Otherwise, y'all are just whining.

Return to Washington Wizards