2015 Free Agency and Offseason - Part II

[JWizmentality]

Anyone watching Clarkson in SL right now, F*** Ernie!!!

Yup, there goes Wall's backup under competent management.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

In another thread I said Clarkson is arguably as good as Beal, but nate thought my quote absurd. Said that would be quoted somewhere.

My thought: nate knows cap better than I do but not talent.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Another opinion about the starting lineup.
http://wizofawes.com/2015/07/10/nab-free-agency-2015-washington-wizards-starting-lineup-to-change-next-season/

If Humphries grows a 3pt shot, he could end up the starter.

[AFM]

Clarkson is not as good as Beal. Beal is the best young 3 pt shooter in NBA history, fact.

I am very wary of players on bad teams putting up good numbers.
If I remember correctly, Jordan Crawford put up NBA record numbers for triple doubles under a certain age. Dude is out of the league now.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Clarkson is not as good as Beal. Beal is the best young 3 pt shooter in NBA history, fact.

I am very wary of players on bad teams putting up good numbers.
If I remember correctly, Jordan Crawford put up NBA record numbers for triple doubles under a certain age. Dude is out of the league now.

Be wary of glory stats -- points, rebounds, assists (especially points) -- posted by players on bad teams. But, players on bad teams can still post meaningful stats if you know where to look. In Clarkson's case, he was reasonably efficient, and he showed an all-around game with good rebounding for a guard, assists, and some steals, but without a lot of turnovers or fouls. Like any rookie, he has plenty of room for improvement, but overall he had a solid season. He was one of the better rookies last year, which is nice value for a 2nd round pick.

Agree that playing on a bad team gave him opportunities to play that he probably wouldn't have received for a better team. Although, had the Wizards used the pick on him, he'd have filled a spot they needed filled, so he might have had ample playing opportunities here too. But, Clarkson did well with his playing time.

On the other hand, Jordan Crawford was kinda the poster child for being wary of those glory stats on a bad team. He was active out there -- he scored, he did some assisting and even some rebounding. Got some steals too. But, it was activity without purpose. His offensive efficiency was horrible because of all the missed shots and turnovers. So, those "glory stats" looked pretty good, and he might have gotten some triple doubles along the way. You gotta take the whole player, though, and the negatives count too.

Comparing the two -- sorta similar in the glory stat tallies, but Clarkson didn't make nearly as many negative plays as Crawford did.

[AFM]

Thanks for the post Nivek. Even though I used Crawford as an example, it blows my mind hes no longer in the NBA. He has WAY more talent than say, Temple.

I think he put up 2 or 3 triple doubles in a row when Wall was injured.

[montestewart]

Thanks for the post Nivek. Even though I used Crawford as an example, it blows my mind hes no longer in the NBA. He has WAY more talent than say, Temple.

I think he put up 2 or 3 triple doubles in a row when Wall was injured.

Crawford showed a lot of talent, but he was a pretty selfish player. Based on reports around the time he was jettisoned, he wasn't too popular with teammates either. He saw himself as a starter, but his play and behavior bought him a bench role, and as role player, he proved unreliable and apparently more trouble than he was worth.

Temple, on the other hand, clearly knows his role. In interviews, he comes across as just happy to be on the team, and he seems pretty well liked by teammates. It would be nice if Temple had as much natural talent as Jordan, but he's smarter than Jordan, and you sure don't want your 12th man making waves.

[AFM]

Of course he's happy to be on the team. Dude sucks cock at basketball.

[stevemcqueen1]

Crawford was a moron that tried to undermine Beal. He's out of the league because he was a horse's ass.

[Kanyewest]

Some Kevon Looney observations from summer league. He can rebound pretty well, has a decent handle, and seems to have a decent mid-range game. I would like to see him shoot 3s and improve his decision making- he seemed to dribble himself into trouble. Golden State should be able to coach him up although they seem pretty deep, Looney came off the bench on their summer league team- so it may take a while to get him into the rotation in the NBA.

[hands11]

Thanks for the post Nivek. Even though I used Crawford as an example, it blows my mind hes no longer in the NBA. He has WAY more talent than say, Temple.

I think he put up 2 or 3 triple doubles in a row when Wall was injured.

And that's why what's between the ears is so valuable. It should be rated way higher then it is by many.

Clarkson would have made a great back up PG here. But its not really an big issue. I hope he does well and has a long career. I'm not going to freak if he has success. Would it have been nice to draft him ? Sure. I liked him as a pick for us. But I suspected they weren't adding another pick last year.

As for the PF situation here and overly focusing on Otto or Dudley starting at PF. Its another non issue in my book. Otto should start at SF and get minutes at PF as needed.

Pretty sure Wall, Beal, Otto and Gortat start. Pretty sure Nene doesn't. At least I really hope he doesn't. And if he actually did, he needs pulled early. This is the same line up issues they had last year.

They should start Gooden to start the year. He is the only true big S4 on the team until Hump shows he has a 3. Gooden continues to get undervalued on this board. That is, until he gets in and produces and then everyone jumps on board.

The core is Wall, Beal, Otto and Gortat. Gooden is enough to get them the advantages they seek at S4. He pounds the offensive board for tip backs. He stands behind the 3 line and opens things up. He can pass. He is experienced and mature. The team already knows his game. He is 6-10 250. He takes charges. He plays the right way.

He just isn't a good perimeter defender but at least he closes out. And that's fine when you have Wall, Beal and Otto on the perimeter and Gortat backing them up. If they get into a situation where his perimeter D is hurting them, they can turn to quicker options. Otto.

So just start Gooden.

Gooden played 96% of his minutes at PF. He shot .214 of his shots a 3 ball attempts. He made .390 % of them. That's a S4
He got 9.3 rebounds per 36 and 3.0 of the offensive rebounds and 2.0 assists.

Dudley played 4% of his min at PF last year and 21% the year before.
Otto played 5% of his minutes at PF but in the playoffs it say he played 45% of his minutes there with an on/off of 19.4

If you follow the pattern of what they did in the playoff, they would go small later. They might have even waited until the 2nd quarter I think to close out the half. Then again to close out the game. Thats when they will roll Otto/Dudley into S4

There is no need to start to small with Dudley or Otto at S4. Not with the roster they have.

All they really need to do is not start Nene. Which they could have done last year as well.

Which is why this works well to start the year. As the season goes on, more Otto and Dudley at S4 and Hump if he can hit a 3.

Wall/Sessions/Temple
Beal/Anderson/Neal
Porter/Dudley/Webster
Gooden/Hump (Dudley/Otto)
Gortat/Nene/Blair

Thats a better regualar season team then last year. But without Paul, not sure its a better playoffs team. Because Paul was so clutch and I don't see a Paul in there. So who steps up to be the clutch shot maker ?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Some Kevon Looney observations from summer league. He can rebound pretty well, has a decent handle, and seems to have a decent mid-range game. I would like to see him shoot 3s and improve his decision making- he seemed to dribble himself into trouble. Golden State should be able to coach him up although they seem pretty deep, Looney came off the bench on their summer league team- so it may take a while to get him into the rotation in the NBA.

I thought the Wizards would compare Looney favorably to Otto Porter. Looney WILL BE a good NBA player.

[dckingsfan]

Thanks for the post Nivek. Even though I used Crawford as an example, it blows my mind hes no longer in the NBA. He has WAY more talent than say, Temple.

I think he put up 2 or 3 triple doubles in a row when Wall was injured.

And that's why what's between the ears is so valuable. It should be rated way higher then it is by many.

Clarkson would have made a great back up PG here. But its not really an big issue.

Actually, it is - if Clarkson becomes a reliable backup PG, that would be one more position we would NOT have to fill next year during the sweepstakes. If we had a couple more of those it would make it much easier to build a team around Durant.

So yes, it does make a difference. Grunfeld's drafting incompetence has played a part in holding this team down. You will come around eventually.

[closg00]

Thanks for the post Nivek. Even though I used Crawford as an example, it blows my mind hes no longer in the NBA. He has WAY more talent than say, Temple.

I think he put up 2 or 3 triple doubles in a row when Wall was injured.

And that's why what's between the ears is so valuable. It should be rated way higher then it is by many.

Clarkson would have made a great back up PG here. But its not really an big issue.

Actually, it is - if Clarkson becomes a reliable backup PG, that would be one more position we would NOT have to fill next year during the sweepstakes. If we had a couple more of those it would make it much easier to build a team around Durant.

So yes, it does make a difference. Grunfeld's drafting incompetence has played a part in holding this team down. You will come around eventually.

Bingo!! The team would have been able to make a much much stronger sales pitch to KD had Grunfeld not botched and burned so-many draft picks. KD would start-over in a weak Eastern conference with essentially a rebuilding team cause our assets are skimpy.

[80sballboy]

Anyone watching Clarkson in SL right now, F*** Ernie!!!

Ernie's fault or Ted for being a miser?

[hands11]

Thanks for the post Nivek. Even though I used Crawford as an example, it blows my mind hes no longer in the NBA. He has WAY more talent than say, Temple.

I think he put up 2 or 3 triple doubles in a row when Wall was injured.

And that's why what's between the ears is so valuable. It should be rated way higher then it is by many.

Clarkson would have made a great back up PG here. But its not really an big issue.

Actually, it is - if Clarkson becomes a reliable backup PG, that would be one more position we would NOT have to fill next year during the sweepstakes. If we had a couple more of those it would make it much easier to build a team around Durant.

So yes, it does make a difference. Grunfeld's drafting incompetence has played a part in holding this team down. You will come around eventually.

Had he been drafted here, not many outside the Wizards fans would be talking about him because he wouldn't have played. And he wouldn't likely play here much this year either. So in that regards, I'm happy for Clarkson that he went somewhere he could get minutes. Now lets see what that team can do this year so he can develop more and win some games.

Again. I like him as a target for us, but wasn't shocked they didn't add another rookie last year given Glen was eating up a spot and they were already leaning on 4 other young players excluding Glen. Clarkson would have made 6. I'm more upset they wasted a pick on Rice.

Me personally, I liked Clarkson last year as a target so in 3 years he was ready. Two years of Session and he would be ready to step in. So they didn't do what I wanted and I think it was a missed opportunity.

Why its not a big deal ? Because there will be other Clarksons and other opportunities for FA, trades, etc. Hell, there was Tyler Harvey this year and they didn't get him. So not sure what I am supposed to be coming around to regarding EG. He drafted two players I didn't target. Hope he is right. But I still like my targets.

Saying its not a big deal is different then saying it couldn't make a difference or it was a missed opportunity. I think the last two are true. Not the first one. There will be opportunities to find a quality back up PG. Hell, he is a UFA next year. Now had we drafted him, we could have the inside track on that. And he might cost less because he would have road the bench more. Its a missed opportunity.

I'm much more focused on them landing a KD. That's a big deal. I doubt having two years of Clarkson riding on your bench is the difference there.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Thanks for the post Nivek. Even though I used Crawford as an example, it blows my mind hes no longer in the NBA. He has WAY more talent than say, Temple.

I think he put up 2 or 3 triple doubles in a row when Wall was injured.

Crawford showed a lot of talent, but he was a pretty selfish player. Based on reports around the time he was jettisoned, he wasn't too popular with teammates either. He saw himself as a starter, but his play and behavior bought him a bench role, and as role player, he proved unreliable and apparently more trouble than he was worth.

Temple, on the other hand, clearly knows his role. In interviews, he comes across as just happy to be on the team, and he seems pretty well liked by teammates. It would be nice if Temple had as much natural talent as Jordan, but he's smarter than Jordan, and you sure don't want your 12th man making waves.

Crawford has NBA ability -- not much doubt about that. Even as inefficient as he was, he'd probably still be in the league if he was nicer, if he was a better teammate, and if he was more professional in his interactions with coaches. Guys with lesser ability (Garrett Temple and Kevin Seraphin come immediately to mind) have stayed in the league in part by being nice.

An NBA assistant coach once told me that Deshawn Stevenson owed the length of his career to good size and good manners.

[payitforward]

Clarkson is not as good as Beal. Beal is the best young 3 pt shooter in NBA history, fact.

I am very wary of players on bad teams putting up good numbers.
If I remember correctly, Jordan Crawford put up NBA record numbers for triple doubles under a certain age. Dude is out of the league now.

Be wary of glory stats -- points, rebounds, assists (especially points) -- posted by players on bad teams. But, players on bad teams can still post meaningful stats if you know where to look. In Clarkson's case, he was reasonably efficient, and he showed an all-around game with good rebounding for a guard, assists, and some steals, but without a lot of turnovers or fouls. Like any rookie, he has plenty of room for improvement, but overall he had a solid season. He was one of the better rookies last year, which is nice value for a 2nd round pick.

Agree that playing on a bad team gave him opportunities to play that he probably wouldn't have received for a better team. Although, had the Wizards used the pick on him, he'd have filled a spot they needed filled, so he might have had ample playing opportunities here too. But, Clarkson did well with his playing time.

On the other hand, Jordan Crawford was kinda the poster child for being wary of those glory stats on a bad team. He was active out there -- he scored, he did some assisting and even some rebounding. Got some steals too. But, it was activity without purpose. His offensive efficiency was horrible because of all the missed shots and turnovers. So, those "glory stats" looked pretty good, and he might have gotten some triple doubles along the way. You gotta take the whole player, though, and the negatives count too.

Comparing the two -- sorta similar in the glory stat tallies, but Clarkson didn't make nearly as many negative plays as Crawford did.

Hmmm... I question the way you argue this, Kev. Why is it a question of "glory stats... posted by players on bad teams" -- as opposed to "glory stats" (well, really *any* positive numbers) posted without reference to efficiency? "if you know where to look" you are looking in the same place whether it's a bad team or a good one!

If Jordan Crawford had put up the same numbers he put up here, in the same way, on a good team --- he'd have made them a lot less good! But that's not your point. Your point about "all the missed shots and turnovers" is that they make the number of points scored meaningless, and the steals are nullified by the TOs.

But those things are always true. If someone on the Spurs scores 30 points in a game and has 5 steals too, you still have to look at how many shots he took to know how much his scoring helped his team. And if he turned it over a bunch of times... well you get my point. -- what does this have to do w/ players on bad teams as opposed to players on good teams. Except that it happens less often on good teams (that's why they're good teams -- they have more efficient players).

[payitforward]

And that's why what's between the ears is so valuable. It should be rated way higher then it is by many.

Clarkson would have made a great back up PG here. But its not really an big issue.

Actually, it is - if Clarkson becomes a reliable backup PG, that would be one more position we would NOT have to fill next year during the sweepstakes. If we had a couple more of those it would make it much easier to build a team around Durant.

So yes, it does make a difference. Grunfeld's drafting incompetence has played a part in holding this team down. You will come around eventually.

Had be been drafted here, not many outside the Wizards fans would be talking about him because he wouldn't have played. And he wouldn't likely play here much this year either. So in that regards, I'm happy for Clarkson that he went somewhere he could get minutes. Now lets see what that team can do this year so he can develop more and win some games.

Again. I like him as a target for us, but wasn't shocked they didn't add another rookie last year given Glen was eating up a spot and they were already leaning on 4 other young players excluding Glen. Clarkson would have made 6. I'm more upset they wasted a pick on Rice.

Me personally, I liked Clarkson last year as a target so in 3 years he was ready. Two years of Session and he would be ready to step in. So they didn't do what I wanted and I think it was a missed opportunity.

Why its not a big deal ? Because there will be other Clarksons and other opportunities for FA, trades, etc. Hell, there was Tyler Harvey this year and they didn't get him. So not sure what I am supposed to be coming around to regarding EG. He drafted two players I didn't target. Hope he is right. But I still like my targets.

Saying its not a big deal is different then saying it couldn't make a difference or it was a missed opportunity. I think the last two are true. Not the first one. There will be opportunities to find a quality back up PG. Hell, he is a UFA next year. Now how we drafted him, we could have the inside track on that. And he might cost less because he would have road the bench more. Its a missed opportunity.

I'm much more focused on them landing a KD. That's a big deal. I doubt having two years of Clarkson riding on your bench is the difference there.

Wrong. Having Clarkson would be a great deal better right now than having Sessions for example. or Temple.

And... how about having good players instead of the duds we drafted in 2011? Having a good player instead of the non-NBA playing name we drafted in 2012? How about having a good player instead of the washout we traded up to draft in 2013? How about having had a R1 pick in 2014 (and still had Gortat) had we not been in panic moment the day before the '13 season started? How about having given some other young players in other contexts (say Khem Birch to take only one example) an opportunity to show something w/ us as opposed to filling the bench w/ guys on the goodbye tours of their careers -- and giving up draft choices that we haven't even yet missed because that draft hasn't arrived yet -- in order to get them?

You think any of that might have helped in getting KD here? Or, heaven forfend, might not even have us here praying and hoping and rationalizing and praying again that he will please please come here and save us.

It's fun to live in a fantasy world, Hands, the best of all worlds, where everything works out the way you say it will -- no matter what you say or when you say it. Eventually, though, reality has to set in. The bubble gets burst. And that's when you'll come around to a clear view of what is instead of what the mirror tells you makes you "right" -- even though, as you've written here, you "like to be right."

[nate33]

Clarkson is not as good as Beal. Beal is the best young 3 pt shooter in NBA history, fact.

I am very wary of players on bad teams putting up good numbers.
If I remember correctly, Jordan Crawford put up NBA record numbers for triple doubles under a certain age. Dude is out of the league now.

Be wary of glory stats -- points, rebounds, assists (especially points) -- posted by players on bad teams. But, players on bad teams can still post meaningful stats if you know where to look. In Clarkson's case, he was reasonably efficient, and he showed an all-around game with good rebounding for a guard, assists, and some steals, but without a lot of turnovers or fouls. Like any rookie, he has plenty of room for improvement, but overall he had a solid season. He was one of the better rookies last year, which is nice value for a 2nd round pick.

Agree that playing on a bad team gave him opportunities to play that he probably wouldn't have received for a better team. Although, had the Wizards used the pick on him, he'd have filled a spot they needed filled, so he might have had ample playing opportunities here too. But, Clarkson did well with his playing time.

On the other hand, Jordan Crawford was kinda the poster child for being wary of those glory stats on a bad team. He was active out there -- he scored, he did some assisting and even some rebounding. Got some steals too. But, it was activity without purpose. His offensive efficiency was horrible because of all the missed shots and turnovers. So, those "glory stats" looked pretty good, and he might have gotten some triple doubles along the way. You gotta take the whole player, though, and the negatives count too.

Comparing the two -- sorta similar in the glory stat tallies, but Clarkson didn't make nearly as many negative plays as Crawford did.

My issue with Clarkson is that much of his production came in blowouts. Nick Young used to do that. When we were down 20 and there was no pressure, he'd go and have an 18-point 4th quarter to cut a lead to 8.

I'll cede that Clarkson looks like a legit NBA player and will probably have a long career. EG definitely made a mistake in giving him away. But I'm not at all convinced that he's going to pan out to be as starting-caliber PG.