The Future(Wall) at The Past(Nash) Game Thread: 2/20 9et

[Nivek]

League average offensive rating is 103.0 points per 100 possessions. Booker, Young and McGee are the ONLY players on the roster with an ortg of 103 or higher. Young's ortg is 104. McGee's is 103.

[dlts20]

If I was 100% sure that Gil could return to even 80% of himself, I would get rid of NY & JC in an instant and resign Gil to play beside Wall. How great of a backcourt would that be in the right system? No one would also love him more than D.C.

If he can ball then the fans would easily embrace him. I remember somebody on one of the Wiz boards a month or so ago talking about bringing Gil back and I thought it was the dumbest thing ever. Now with watching JC & NY with also seeing Gil looking like he's gettin his mind & game back right, I think it could work. Wont happen though.

Still, if it did then I think it would be like watching Frazier & the Pearl together

[Nivek]

I think they would both help the Wizards immensely, hands. I agree with you on Brooks, and even called him better than Nick before the draft. It made all the sense in the world to draft Brooks with Nick an RFA and this team needing shooting.

That said, I think Faried is much better than Thomas Robinson, the guy the Wizards might be happy to select at PF if they don't make another huge mistake and pick Barnes high in this draft--ahead of Robinson or Sullinger, each much better prospect than Barnes. I think Faried is going to be another Dennis Rodman, only he can score much better. The more Faried plays, the more obvious it will be that he can play SF, PF, or C and he is a total and complete player at both ends.

Both Brooks and Faried are already good pros, better than average at their positions.

Washington could use a SG and a PF and they could have had both this draft.

For the record, if anyone reads this and knows Ted Leonsis, I think he's a fool if he keeps Ernie Grunfeld.

Through games played by last night, Faried stands at #1 in my "diamond" rating, which compares a player's per minute stats to his per game numbers. Here's the top 5:

1. Faried
2. Gustavo Ayon
3. Brandan Wright
4. Sundiata Gaines
5. Nikola Vucevic

[Dat2U]

Faried might have been an upgrade over Booker...but only a slight one, and that's because of Faried's potential as a rebounder. I suspect, however, that Booker will turn out to be a better offensive player than Faried.

I'm happy with Booker and understand why the Zards didn't draft Faried. This team didn't need two SFs who can't shoot or two undersized PFs, which is exactly what they'd have with both Booker and Faried.

At least in Singleton you have an ultra-athletic guy who can defend 3-4 positions and will probably end up being a decent three point shooter some day..a guy in the mold of Bruce Bowen and Battier.

I don't know why we'd let the presence of any one else other than Wall influence draft decisions. If Faried was the best player on the board then Booker's presence should have played no role.

For as great as Trevor Booker is, he's a 20 minute a game backup and very replaceable. And this team didn't need a tweener that couldn't shoot in Vesely and yet they still drafted him. So does it really matter what's already on the roster when there's so little talent here? That way I see it, we have a gaping hole at starting PF. And if there's a player better than Booker available, especially one that rebounds like a monster, I see no problem in drafting him. One thing for certain, we have no one that rebounds like Faried on the roster.

[TGW]

If they thought Booker could give them what Farried could, I can understand that. Booker is a good player. So is Farried. Farried is a much better rebounder, and Booker is a better scorer. They are probably both even as defenders. If Farried becomes the better player, then I wouldn't be surprised nor upset because I understand that line of reasoning by the FO (and I was on board with some combination of Farried and Marcus Morris at draft time). Singleton is weak but his presence doesn't bother me as much as Vesely. JV is a good kid, with a head on his shoulders, but he is nowhere near being worth a lottery pick. Not even close. That pick was not well planned at all. You want to build around Wall, then get players that fit around him. Don't take a player with the sole mindset that Wall "can throw oops to him on a fast break." We have McGee for that.

[hands11]

The one thing you can't measure with a tape measure or stop watch is personality.

When putting together a team, you need to know how to judge personalities. You need some leaders. You need some followers. You need some worker bees.

I think this goes undervalued. Knowing how to judge and assemble the right pieces is a art. Cooking is a lot easier if you have the right ingredient.

This is why I warned so loudly about Gil and in his recent article he actually agrees with what i was saying way back when. Gil was the wrong dude to have as your star...in this environment. I could see that a mile away. I guess Im just looking at different stuff then a lot of other people are. While some people saw fun Hibachi star scoring machine, I saw a trade asset that would have yeilded a lot if they moved him while his value was still high. He wasnt the right piece to lead this team as their star player. It wasnt about skills. It was about the six inches between his ears. The whole idea of this ultra ego personality was the warning. All that isnt to bash Gil. It is about evaluating building a winning basketball team.

But they were winning back then. Who is this problem maker on the team as of now that would have them so bad?

Had they traded him when his value was high, they would be winning now. They could have kept CB and Haywood. I said it them and I stand by it now. They never needed to suck this bad. They had assets to work with. They picked up Gil for nothing. They could have turned that into something by trading him the year before he was a FA. From there, there were plenty of players they could have added with the freed up cap space and draft picks.

But Abe trying to turn players like Gil into his kids. Now I am all for owners that care, but that wasn't a healthy way to run a franchise.

[Nivek]

The year before Gil became a free agent, he was 3rd team All-NBA. He posted a PER of 24.0 and an offensive rating of 115 with a usage rate of 31.4. He was one of the game's elite offensive weapons. It would have been absurd to trade him at that point. If you said THEN the Wizards should have traded him, you were wrong.

It's arguable that the Wizards should have refused to sign him to the 2nd contract, which they did after he'd missed almost an entire season because of the knee. However, Arenas had the same kind of knee injury that many, many, many other athletes had sustained and recovered from -- and returned to play at the same level as before. Knowing the Wizards medical staff, they probably should have known better...

[hands11]

The year before Gil became a free agent, he was 3rd team All-NBA. He posted a PER of 24.0 and an offensive rating of 115 with a usage rate of 31.4. He was one of the game's elite offensive weapons. It would have been absurd to trade him at that point. If you said THEN the Wizards should have traded him, you were wrong.

It's arguable that the Wizards should have refused to sign him to the 2nd contract, which they did after he'd missed almost an entire season because of the knee. However, Arenas had the same kind of knee injury that many, many, many other athletes had sustained and recovered from -- and returned to play at the same level as before. Knowing the Wizards medical staff, they probably should have known better...

Actually you just pointed out why I was entirely right. How are you missing that ? We could have gotten a tone for him. Hell, not sure exactly of the timing but wasnt Kobe looking to get out of LA back then ? Im pretty sure he was because I think I recall talking about Gil for Kobe and having people say no way they wanted Kobe here. Oh the collective wisdom of homers on the internet. lol

I remember people saying Kobe is a head case and has to many miles on his legs so no thanks.

[Nivek]

Ah yes, the good old trade your best player when he's still young and at his best method of franchise building. I mean, Gil was crazy productive and he was just 25 years old. Here's the complete list of guards who at age 25 had a season where they posted a PER above 23 (Gil's was 24.0) with an ortg of 112 or higher with a usage rate of 28 or higher:

1. Jordan
2. Drexler
3. Arenas
4. Kobe

Trading him at that point would have been asinine. Unless they were getting back someone comparable. And the only guys that season who posted comparable offensive numbers were Dirk and Kobe. Dirk was league MVP that season, so the Wiz probably weren't getting him.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Faried might have been an upgrade over Booker...but only a slight one, and that's because of Faried's potential as a rebounder. I suspect, however, that Booker will turn out to be a better offensive player than Faried.

I'm happy with Booker and understand why the Zards didn't draft Faried. This team didn't need two SFs who can't shoot or two undersized PFs, which is exactly what they'd have with both Booker and Faried.

At least in Singleton you have an ultra-athletic guy who can defend 3-4 positions and will probably end up being a decent three point shooter some day..a guy in the mold of Bruce Bowen and Battier.

Booker might turn out to be a pretty good offensive player. I think Booker is a quality sub and he plays with extreme heart and pretty good energy.

That said, Faried is so much better than Booker that I will let you see it over time. Faried will consistently generate about 40% more rebounds, and also twice as many block--at least, than Booker. Faried is a MUCH BETTER FINISHER than Booker. Booker is a thunderous dunker, but Faried takes it to another level. I can't begin to describe it but I can say that in addition to break the NCAA record held by Tim Duncan in rebounding, Kenneth Faried led all NCAA players in finishing %. When the guy touches the ball in the paint he is going to dunk.

Faried has Rodman and Millsap, mixed with a bit of Charles Barkley to his game.

I keep hearing comparisons to Booker and I just know that Faried is significantly better. I said this before the draft and I am sure I will say it again. Faried is way better than Booker, and that said I like Booker. Faried is a special talent.

To me, I think scouts probably doubt the guy's intelligence or they're put off by his two moms or they don't like that he's from Newark. There has to be SOME REASON the scouts and GMs let this guy drop all the way to #22 in this draft.

Who is better? Derick Williams or Kenneth Faried? The very fact that some of you have to think about it should be reconciled with the difference in the #2 pick vs the #22 pick. Williams will make shots, especially from the perimeter; but can he change games at both ends and does he play with an extreme motor?

Any way, I still can't believe people don't realize how good Kenneth Faried is. Sorry I rant on.

[Knighthonor]

I just looked up some videos of Trevor Booker.

I am curious, what's wrong with him?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Nothing, except that he is undersized defending the extreme athletes with size at PF. Guys like Griffin, Aldridge, Gasol, Nowitzki, Garnett, etc. tower over Booker.

I don't dislike Booker. Booker is a guy the Wizards drafted last year, and I think the main reason they didn't draft Faried--because they thought they already had a similar guy just as good. Booker is probably best a quality sub.

[Nivek]

I like Booker as a player. He's their best PF right now. But I think Faried will end up having the better career once he gets playing time.

[Severn Hoos]

Faried was drafted a few spots higher (though in a different draft), so it would not be surprising if he has a better career.

To me, the real question is - will Faried be a starting-level PF? And if so, is he a top 15 PF (which would put him in the top half of starters in the league)?

If he becomes a top-15 type PF, then it was an absolutely indefensible miss to have passed on him.

If he becomes a 15-30 type PF, then it's kind of a wash. That would make him roughly equivalent to a starter on a bad team, or maybe a backup on a good team. I think Booker will be equivalent to a backup on a good team. If so, debating the difference between two guys who will give you 15-20 min per night (max 25) is arguing at the margins.

If he doesn't make it to a top 30 PF, then it was absolutely the right pick - given that we have a guy like that in Booker. (For example, if Faried is #35 and Booker is #45, Faried may end up as technically the better player, but so what?)

And of course all of this is in the context of other possibilities - the opportunity costs of taking Player A instead of Player B or C. In this case, B & C are pretty much Singleton & Brooks. If one or both turn into staring-caliber players at other positions, then the case could definitely be made that they were better options.

So - time will tell (duh). I've been impressed with Faried, but I was also a huge Singleton fan and still have faith in him. If, with experience, he regains the "defensive stopper" standing, and also develops that 3-point shot, than I think it's arguable that he brings more valuable skills than Faried.

Right now, I give the edge to Faried. But we'll sure have fun debating it for the next 4 years!

[Nivek]

I took a look at b-r to see what other players had similar production as Faried in their rookie season. The search: At least 14 pts and 13 reb per 36 minutes; a PER of 20 or higher; at least 200 total minutes played.

Here's the full list:

1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Kenneth Faried

Without looking it up, name the rookie with these stats per 36 minutes:

Pts - 15.8 (Faried: 15.7)
Reb - 12.9 (Faried: 13.1)
FG% - .459 (Faried: .540)
Ast - 1.5 (Faried: 0.5)
Stl - 0.6 (Faried: 0.9)
Blk - 0.9 (Faried: 2.7)
Tov - 2.1 (Faried: 1.9)
PF - 3.6 (Faried: 3.9)
PER - 18.3 (Faried: 21.4)

[Severn Hoos]

Antawn Jamison? (those block stats look pretty impressive, 1 block every 40 minutes?)

[Nivek]

Not Jamison.

Strike one.

[Severn Hoos]

OK, I cheated. Nice find. Very different styles, similar results. Won't ruin it for the rest....

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I took a look at b-r to see what other players had similar production as Faried in their rookie season. The search: At least 14 pts and 13 reb per 36 minutes; a PER of 20 or higher; at least 200 total minutes played.

Here's the full list:

1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Kenneth Faried

Without looking it up, name the rookie with these stats per 36 minutes:

Pts - 15.8 (Faried: 15.7)
Reb - 12.9 (Faried: 13.1)
FG% - .459 (Faried: .540)
Ast - 1.5 (Faried: 0.5)
Stl - 0.6 (Faried: 0.9)
Blk - 0.9 (Faried: 2.7)
Tov - 2.1 (Faried: 1.9)
PF - 3.6 (Faried: 3.9)
PER - 18.3 (Faried: 21.4)

Remember when I said BEFORE THE DRAFT that Kenneth Faried might project to be a HOF player?

Right now, I think Faried is probably better than everyone in this draft except for Anthony Davis. J. Lamb, Robinson, Sullinger, MKG, and Beal are all real good, too; but Faried has more talent than all of them except for MKG.

I would trade this draft pick and Blatche for Faried and whatever bad contract Denver has on their books.

[DCZards]

I know you're not a big fan of his, ccj...but don't sleep on Harrison Barnes. I think his talent, especially offensively, gets overlooked because he does things so effortlessly and sometimes just seems to be going through the motions. Barnes will be a big time scorer and a clutch player at the next level, imo.

And for the Zards, given that they already have Booker and right now need good shooting and scoring more than anything, I'd take Barnes over Faried in a heartbeat.