Bean Burrito / Nick Young Appreciation Thread.

[hands11]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wi ... ss_wizards

Me think Nick may just understand after all.

Lots of good stuff here.

And as an added bonus, if Nick gets it, maybe he can convince McGee of the same.

[Wizards2Lottery]

Young has been showing that he's very capable of providing solid minutes and not being detrimental to the team. As a starting, or even a backup SG, he can be a useful player.

You let him walk, and you are stuck with absolute crap at SG. He's not going to get his 9 million but he will be paid a decent amount that fits his skill set. Good scorers don't grow on trees.

Our fan base lives in this lala land where people are dying to play for this franchise and all our draft picks turn out to be studs. Why would a good NBA role player sign with this franchise when we can't even keep our own and we provide no shot at winning. Letting Young walk in the offseason creates a gaping hole at SG. Good luck filling that with the ideal player that will never consider signing with a 15 win franchise.

[Ruzious]

Last season, he understood his role, and the light went on. Maybe it was because Flip simplified things for him. This season, he goes in understanding his role - and he's the prime scorer. If he stays healthy, he's going to score more than 20 a game - and he's going to get that money. And he can defend guys like Joe Johnson, while Crawford simply can't match up.

[WizarDynasty]

Dude needs to seriously bulk up so that he can stop being afraid of going to the hole strong and also so he can effectively push off bigman on screens. he still plays way passive when we needs stops on defense and when we need to get to hole for a high percentage non jump stop. I just don't trust himt to be able to draw a foul when we need critical points. Another ten pounds of muscle will do wonders for his confidence and aggression.

[Ruzious]

Dude needs to seriously bulk up so that he can stop being afraid of going to the hole strong and also so he can effectively push off bigman on screens. he still plays way passive when we needs stops on defense and when we need to get to hole for a high percentage non jump stop. I just don't trust himt to be able to draw a foul when we need critical points. Another ten pounds of muscle will do wonders for his confidence and aggression.

I'm not sure those have been issues with him in the last year or so - though they were early in his career. He's a lot stronger than he used to be.

[pancakes3]

strength hasn't been an issue but getting to the line has. i don't think the FT attempts has to do with a lack of strength but rather mental aggression. this season he's definitely looking to force the issue more. i think this season he'll definitely get to the line more and shoot 4-5 FTs a game - possibly more if/when he becomes our technical FT shooter too.

[popper]

Do NBA rules allow the Wizards to extend NY an offer now for a future 3 or 4 years? If so, shouldn't EG put his best offer on the table and try to sign Nick before the trade deadline? Am I correct in assuming that NY will probably sign somewhere else, even for a bit less money, if we don't tie him up this season. Also, what are the odds we could rent him to a potential contender this year for a future first round pick?

[WizarDynasty]

strength is a serious issue for him defensively. He is very non aggressive about pushing anyone bigger than him to the side to grab a rebound. He is very non aggressive with pick setters going through screens. He never attempts to power through a big going to the whole. Upper body strength and ability to fend off is definitely an issue for him.

[dangermouse]

If we can extend Nick, I think we should do it by the deadline, whenever that is. I'd be comfortable giving him 7 mil per for maximum number of years

[fishercob]

Young has been showing that he's very capable of providing solid minutes and not being detrimental to the team. As a starting, or even a backup SG, he can be a useful player.

You let him walk, and you are stuck with absolute crap at SG. He's not going to get his 9 million but he will be paid a decent amount that fits his skill set. Good scorers don't grow on trees.

Let's compare two shooting guards through their rookie contracts, shall we?

Player A: 16.3 PER, .554 TS%, 41.5% from 3, 17.3 AST%, 27.3% USG
Player B: 12.9 PER, .532 TS%, 38.4% from 3, 7.7 AST%, 23.5% USG

Blocks, steals, etc. are about the same.

Let's look at just the final seasons of their rookie contracts:

Player A: 17.0 PER, .573 TS%, 41.0% from 3, 15.9% AST, 25.0% USG
Player B: 14.5 PER, .538 TS%, 38.7% from 3, 5.5% AST, 24.4% USG

On top of this, player A has had significant playoff experience with some nice success including some very clutch moments. We can all agree that Player A looks like a markedly better player, yes? Please?

Now I'm sure you've all guessed that player B is our own Bean Burrito, and that his "final season" isn't in actually, but rather it's last year.

Player B? That's Ben Gordon.

The narrative on Ben Gordon is that he's an awful basketball player because he signed a massive contract with Detroit (5 years, $58M!) after taking Chicago's QO when they refused to give him similarly huge money. He's by no means awful, though. He's pretty good offensive player; he's just massively overpaid.

But here's the point. He left Chicago for Detroit and the teams have gone in opposite directions. Is that causal? No, and I'm not making the argument that it is. However, if Ben Gordon were that good -- that important -- it would stand to reason that Detroit would be better than 57-107 in his two seasons in Detroit. Chicago meanwhile never really replaced him; they still won 62 games with a Bogans/Brewer SG combo last year.

Why? Well obviously it's because Gordon was playing with Rodney Stuckey, Prince and a bunch of crappy players in Detroit, while Chicago had Rose, Noah, Deng and Boozer. But it's instructive of a couple things. First, Gordon -- a better version of Young -- just isn't all that impactful on team success. Second, the opportunity cost to Chicago of keeping Gordon at even 60% of what he got from Detroit could have been Noah's extension or Boozer or some other important cog.

The fact that the Wizards have no one behind Nick Young is not a reason to allocate significant resources to keeping Nick Young. He's just not that important. Further, it is my hypothesis that unless you have a truly elite SG like Kobe or Wade, SG should be the last (or close) piece to assembling a team puzzle. We're way too early in the process to worry about losing Nick. In the next 3 years we'll have ample opportunity to add comparable -- or likely better -- shooting guards.

[Ruzious]

Ben Gordon is also a PG sized shooting guard - not to be confused with the other Gordon who will get paid even more next offseason.

[fishercob]

Ben Gordon is also a PG sized shooting guard - not to be confused with the other Gordon who will get paid even more next offseason.

So maybe he's not the man-to-man defender Nick is. But it doesn't change that he's the better offensive player.

[hands11]

Last season, he understood his role, and the light went on. Maybe it was because Flip simplified things for him. This season, he goes in understanding his role - and he's the prime scorer. If he stays healthy, he's going to score more than 20 a game - and he's going to get that money. And he can defend guys like Joe Johnson, while Crawford simply can't match up.

The potential is there for Nick to have a MONSTER year and expand his game.

[hands11]

If we can extend Nick, I think we should do it by the deadline, whenever that is. I'd be comfortable giving him 7 mil per for maximum number of years

That is not going to get it done. My guess is Nick isn't going to touch anything less then 8M and as time goes on and he proves it on the court, that number is going to go up.

If the Wizards time it right, Nick is kicking it on the court and doing all the little things they want to see from him... team ball, passing, rebounding, etc., so that he is worth what he was looking for and they sign him.

Win Win. Nick is happy and we have the player we need.

Or they sign him a little sooner for two years at 8M

[hands11]

Young has been showing that he's very capable of providing solid minutes and not being detrimental to the team. As a starting, or even a backup SG, he can be a useful player.

You let him walk, and you are stuck with absolute crap at SG. He's not going to get his 9 million but he will be paid a decent amount that fits his skill set. Good scorers don't grow on trees.

Let's compare two shooting guards through their rookie contracts, shall we?

Player A: 16.3 PER, .554 TS%, 41.5% from 3, 17.3 AST%, 27.3% USG
Player B: 12.9 PER, .532 TS%, 38.4% from 3, 7.7 AST%, 23.5% USG

Blocks, steals, etc. are about the same.

Let's look at just the final seasons of their rookie contracts:

Player A: 17.0 PER, .573 TS%, 41.0% from 3, 15.9% AST, 25.0% USG
Player B: 14.5 PER, .538 TS%, 38.7% from 3, 5.5% AST, 24.4% USG

On top of this, player A has had significant playoff experience with some nice success including some very clutch moments. We can all agree that Player A looks like a markedly better player, yes? Please?

Now I'm sure you've all guessed that player B is our own Bean Burrito, and that his "final season" isn't in actually, but rather it's last year.

Player B? That's Ben Gordon.

The narrative on Ben Gordon is that he's an awful basketball player because he signed a massive contract with Detroit (5 years, $58M!) after taking Chicago's QO when they refused to give him similarly huge money. He's by no means awful, though. He's pretty good offensive player; he's just massively overpaid.

But here's the point. He left Chicago for Detroit and the teams have gone in opposite directions. Is that causal? No, and I'm not making the argument that it is. However, if Ben Gordon were that good -- that important -- it would stand to reason that Detroit would be better than 57-107 in his two seasons in Detroit. Chicago meanwhile never really replaced him; they still won 62 games with a Bogans/Brewer SG combo last year.

Why? Well obviously it's because Gordon was playing with Rodney Stuckey, Prince and a bunch of crappy players in Detroit, while Chicago had Rose, Noah, Deng and Boozer. But it's instructive of a couple things. First, Gordon -- a better version of Young -- just isn't all that impactful on team success. Second, the opportunity cost to Chicago of keeping Gordon at even 60% of what he got from Detroit could have been Noah's extension or Boozer or some other important cog.

The fact that the Wizards have no one behind Nick Young is not a reason to allocate significant resources to keeping Nick Young. He's just not that important. Further, it is my hypothesis that unless you have a truly elite SG like Kobe or Wade, SG should be the last (or close) piece to assembling a team puzzle. We're way too early in the process to worry about losing Nick. In the next 3 years we'll have ample opportunity to add comparable -- or likely better -- shooting guards.

Completely valid argument.

But the Bulls have Rose like you said. And they do have those post players. I believe they traded for one. And while you compare Ben to Nick with Ben being better, I think Nick has move upside.
Ben is 6-3 200. Nick is 6-7 with a 7-0 wing span. He has the frame to grow into if needed. And Nick is posting those effective numbers on the team he is on while once Gordon was moved, his numbers tanked. If he was like Nick and only able to post numbers because he as on a bad team, his numbers should have gone up. That makes the argument for Nick being able to do it with less help. And like you said, you took Nicks last year numbers, not the number he is going to post this year. Ben was always going to be limited to what he was doing. I have yet to see the cap on Nicks upside. May biggest concern for Nick was always he brain, not he size, skills or ability.

These are not easy decisions. That is what makes being a GM a tough job. You makes some good points but I'm not so sure it is a clear as you make it.

[Ruzious]

Ben was actually measured at 6'2 with shoes when he came out. That's why I have a problem equating him with Nick. His lack of size allows opponents to take advantage of mismatches.

[fishercob]

Ben was actually measured at 6'2 with shoes when he came out. That's why I have a problem equating him with Nick. His lack of size allows opponents to take advantage of mismatches.

I don't care if he's 5'7. He's a better offensive shooting guard than Nick Young by basically any measure. While Nick may be a better on-ball defender, the difference in their D certainly doesn't make up for the difference in their offense. And even if it did, my point still stands -- they are minimally impactful players.

[Ruzious]

Ben was actually measured at 6'2 with shoes when he came out. That's why I have a problem equating him with Nick. His lack of size allows opponents to take advantage of mismatches.

I don't care if he's 5'7. He's a better offensive shooting guard than Nick Young by basically any measure. While Nick may be a better on-ball defender, the difference in their D certainly doesn't make up for the difference in their offense. And even if it did, my point still stands -- they are minimally impactful players.

Lol, we'll have to agree to disagree. You can guard Ben with a point guard. It's just too easy to match up with him. When he was younger, I thought Ben would eventually switch to the point in the NBA and be an Arenas style player, but that never happened - and he went on as a undersized 2 - who teams easily took advantage of. Size matters and defensive ability matters in the NBA.

[Wizards2Lottery]

Young has been showing that he's very capable of providing solid minutes and not being detrimental to the team. As a starting, or even a backup SG, he can be a useful player.

You let him walk, and you are stuck with absolute crap at SG. He's not going to get his 9 million but he will be paid a decent amount that fits his skill set. Good scorers don't grow on trees.

Let's compare two shooting guards through their rookie contracts, shall we?

Player A: 16.3 PER, .554 TS%, 41.5% from 3, 17.3 AST%, 27.3% USG
Player B: 12.9 PER, .532 TS%, 38.4% from 3, 7.7 AST%, 23.5% USG

Blocks, steals, etc. are about the same.

Let's look at just the final seasons of their rookie contracts:

Player A: 17.0 PER, .573 TS%, 41.0% from 3, 15.9% AST, 25.0% USG
Player B: 14.5 PER, .538 TS%, 38.7% from 3, 5.5% AST, 24.4% USG

On top of this, player A has had significant playoff experience with some nice success including some very clutch moments. We can all agree that Player A looks like a markedly better player, yes? Please?

Now I'm sure you've all guessed that player B is our own Bean Burrito, and that his "final season" isn't in actually, but rather it's last year.

Player B? That's Ben Gordon.

The narrative on Ben Gordon is that he's an awful basketball player because he signed a massive contract with Detroit (5 years, $58M!) after taking Chicago's QO when they refused to give him similarly huge money. He's by no means awful, though. He's pretty good offensive player; he's just massively overpaid.

But here's the point. He left Chicago for Detroit and the teams have gone in opposite directions. Is that causal? No, and I'm not making the argument that it is. However, if Ben Gordon were that good -- that important -- it would stand to reason that Detroit would be better than 57-107 in his two seasons in Detroit. Chicago meanwhile never really replaced him; they still won 62 games with a Bogans/Brewer SG combo last year.

Why? Well obviously it's because Gordon was playing with Rodney Stuckey, Prince and a bunch of crappy players in Detroit, while Chicago had Rose, Noah, Deng and Boozer. But it's instructive of a couple things. First, Gordon -- a better version of Young -- just isn't all that impactful on team success. Second, the opportunity cost to Chicago of keeping Gordon at even 60% of what he got from Detroit could have been Noah's extension or Boozer or some other important cog.

The fact that the Wizards have no one behind Nick Young is not a reason to allocate significant resources to keeping Nick Young. He's just not that important. Further, it is my hypothesis that unless you have a truly elite SG like Kobe or Wade, SG should be the last (or close) piece to assembling a team puzzle. We're way too early in the process to worry about losing Nick. In the next 3 years we'll have ample opportunity to add comparable -- or likely better -- shooting guards.

I don't disagree with what your saying. Even a Nick Young fan like me would never be comfortable with paying him a salary over 10 million a season the way Ben Gordon got.

My only reason for keeping him is that he's a talented player, who has shown that he can be productive for this team without hurting us on the court. This team is lacking in so much talent that I am not comfortable letting productive players walk out the door. In the current state of this team, there is no incentive for any reasonably productive player in the NBA to sign with us.

I'm not advocating paying him anywhere close to 10 million a season. But at 6-7 million, I would be ok with it. That's a decent salary for a guy who I think can be a productive starting SG on a team with a better lineup than we currently do. Letting him walk only creates a massive hole and keeps us in the awful state we are in now. This team has been struggling at the SG position since Larry Hughes left for Cleveland. Every player put at that spot has stunk, besides Stevenson for half a season. We finally have a player capable of giving some kind of valuable production from it.

It might be easy for other teams to find starting SG's, but for Ernie it seems like a monumental task apparently.

[Severn Hoos]

I'm still glad the Wiz didn't lock him up (read: overpay) by signing him to a long-term deal this year, even if they end up spending a few more dollars to do so next summer, for several reasons:

1. Flexibility for the upcoming offseason, especially the Draft. If Lamb is the BPA (and we all know we HAVE to takethe BPA), would they change the strategy because Young is locked up? (For the record, I think Lamb will be better long term than Nick, but Nick is definitely growing on me.)

2. For all the talk that the 2012 FA market will be better, and Nick's opinion that it will be better for him as a "seller", I'm not so sure. Maybe someone does give him $9M per year. But he's already been, in effect, turned down once at that price by the entire league. If he finds a similar reaction next summer, it might bring his asking price down a bit.*

3. By puting him into a second consecutive Contract Year, it makes him prove that he "gets it", that he understands his role and has to exand his game while not trying to do things that he can't do. 2 games in, the signs are encouraging, but there are 64 more games to see how he handles it.

4. I'm still behind on the new CBA - what would be his cap figure (and McGee) if the Wiz choose to retain rights on him? Or could they even do that? If for example, they wait to finalize those two deals while pursuing a big-name FA, could they sign the other FA, then go over the cap to re-sign Nick and/or JaVale? Not sure if this is a net plus or minus in evaluating whether they should have locked him up already, think it might have been a plus under the old CBA.

* I understand that the Restricted part makes all the difference, with the Wiz now losing leverage, and other teams more willing to make an offer. So it may turn out that another team does offer $9M or $10M per year. If so, well, it's been nice knowin' ya.

Bottom line, the way Nick has played for most of last year and beginning this year, we'd probably all like to see him retained on a reasonable deal. But what qualifies as "reasonable"?

5 years, $30M (or less)? Sure thing
5 years, $35M? Well, probably
5 years, $40M? Uh, let me get back to you
4 years, $45M? Don't think so.

I tend to hope that they can keep him at something less than $7M per year, but don't know if that's possible. I do know that they can't keep the Nick/Dray/ale triumverate around, so hopefully they find a taker for Blatche, add some high BBIQ guys to the frontcourt (if they're going to keep McGee), and re-sign Nick, while keeping his role weel-defined and simplified.

Wall/Young/Singleton/Sullinger/McGee is probably a playoff team, with potential cap space in 2012 or 2013 to make a run at a big-time FA as the "final piece"?