Wizards 2019 Draft thread. (Tank for Zion, or OTHER NAME HERE)

[The Consiglieri]

I'd rather trade for an unknown 2020 lottery pick than the #4 pick in this draft. Let me roll the dice on getting James Wiseman, Anthony Edwards, RJ Hampton, Khalil Whitney, Cole Anthony. All great 18 year old athletes, unlike 21 year old Hunter or Culver.

Same reason I advocate a direction that aint happening. Screw the 9th pick. Trade it away for a late first or early 2nd, and a '20 or '21 1st, then we can pull a Boston after the Beal trade and be in position to habitually trade up/down/out as we cope with eating four years of Hell before we can finally dump Wall, and as a result the rookies we do draft will have more post-Wall years available to us on a cheap deal and we'll have this "golden loom" of draft picks, perpetually feeding us more assets. I'm not seeing the point in keeping the 9th in this draft unless someone falls. It aint a great draft. At bare minimum we should trade down and gain some '20 or '21 pick assets in the deal.

[payitforward]

Ouch, Clarke's measurements... not good. If those measurements are true, he must have in incredible vertical leap coming up.

Read on Twitter

Yikes. A 6'8 wingspan? You can tank the standing reach but you can't tank the wingspan. Dude has alligator arms.

His stock just dropped precipitously.

I still like him, but now I'd be looking to trade down into the teens to get him.

He's also very skinny for a PF and older than the other top prospects. Even if he sets a record in the vertical leap (which I think he might), he might fall out of the lottery.

Thing is... Clarke looks like he can be a terrific NBA player, just as he was a terrific college player -- even given the difference between the levels.

For that reason, it's great news for us that his measurements aren't ideal. Helps us get him & another prospect if we trade down.

Great news for any team that gets him further down in the round, I mean -- I hope we are that team.

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

Garland has Lillard-like potential - though he's not quite the explosive finisher. He's a phenominal ball-handler with deep 3 point range and appears to have pretty good shot selection. But he was only part of the trade you bashed. We would also get the 10th pick in last year's draft - Mikal Bridges - an excellent defensive athletic swingman with solid offensive potential who had a rough rookie season but still shot 43.5% from the field. TJ Warren isn't Bradley Beal, but he's a very useful player - a high scorer with the same eFG as Beal and the same age. He shot 42.8% from 3 last season. He also contributed with steals and blocks - didn't rebound well for a 3 though. And... we'd be getting a high pick in next year's draft from Phoenix - to go along with ours - since we'll be in rebuild mode - which makes sense because we have no chance at competing for anything... next season - with or without Beal. With Beal, our goal would continue to be to try (most likely failing) to get the 8th playoff spot in the East.

Sorry man, I just think Beal is part of the the Wizards' solution, not part of the problem.

It's kind of crazy IMO, to suggest that Beal's presence would cause the Wizards' org. to set a low bar for itself.

A team usually takes up the personality of its best player, and I think a front office has a similar effect on its coaches and players, and the expectations they set for themselves.

The huge organizational problem, that was Ernie Grunfeld, is finally gone.

With an outgoing, competent, and successful GM, I believe newer and higher expectations are set; Beal nor Wall, have ever had real high-quality players to play alongside them, just mostly players that they had to settle on, cross your fingers on, and hoped would blossom into heavy contributors. This rarely happened, because Grunfeld consistently failed to bring in players that complemented the next.

Now is the time you start building around Beal, not remove him from the picture.

Wizards need to hit on this year's top draft pick (should have two, but you know, Ernie Grunfeld), cut ties with guys on the roster who don't impact the bottom line, and bring in quality vets to play alongside Beal (ex. Darren Collison at PG paired w/Beal); I'm cool with Garland being brought in, but not at the expense of Bradley Beal, as part of a packaged deal.

I could see Beal playing on a Wizards team that reached the EC Finals, just not with the likes of Sam Dekker, Ian Mahinmi, 10-day contract players, and Two-Way G-Leaguers, making up his support cast.


One last thank you to Ernie Grunfeld, for season after season, of a whole lotta nothing.

Buiding with what around Beal? And Beal was asked whether or not he'd even accept a super-max extension from the Wizard, and he wouldn't even commit to that. There's no reason to believe he's going to stay. Why would he - the team has so few assets and still has very little cap room. They're not going to be attracting any major free agents. Even the one player you mentioned - Collison - is just an okay player and might not even be affordable for the Wiz. They have next to zero assets to develop this team around Beal It makes sense to trade him to get a bunch of assets that can develop over time. It's called rebuilding. Your way is to attempt to achieve mediocrity. I mean... Collisons and Arizas and Greens and Parkers might be useful role-playing backups for good teams, but they're just patches for a team like the Wiz trying to reach .500. Honestly, you've given no real reason to show how you could see Beal playing on a Wizards team that reached the EC Final.

You cut bait with marginal talents like Dekker, retain the contributors for reserve roles, DRAFT WELL, and acquire solid complementary players (perhaps via trade), win as a team while having fun, and advance to the playoffs; that's how you make yourself a potential destination for quality, free agents while staying afloat, until this salary cap hell created by Grunfeld, freezes over,contracts like Mahinmi's are a thing of the past, and you're in better position to make real noise.

You don't give away Beal in his prime, sorry, it just makes no sense. Wall ---if it were possible--- I'd understand, but not Beal.

Beal's stated that he'd like to finish his career as a Wizard, so that's all I need to hear to be convinced that he wants to stay; I take his noncommittal response, as a signal to Leonsis that he had better start acting like an owner that gives a **** about winning, and I think Leonsis' releasing of Grunfeld is his way of letting Beal know that he's about making the necessary changes to right the ship and retain Beal's services.


A competent GM goes a long way.

[deneem4]

I wouldn’t trade Beal...
We lucked out on Zion...
Package that 9th pick for a starting pf
Wall with be back from injury early (tanking excuse)
Make a push

This is the Ernie Grunfeld "hey, maybe we can sneak into the playoffs in the weak East and go on a run" method. No thanks.

We don't have a superstar centerpiece. Everything else is moot until we get that. When was the last time a team won a title without one? Detroit in 2004?

Wall isn't that, and his game will regress quickly without speed to rely on. Beal isn't that, and I don't think he becomes that. We can't get one in free agency with two supermax deals on the books.

The best way to get one is through the draft, or clearing out cap space for a free agency run in 3-4 years. Acquire high draft assets and clear the books of long-term contracts. That's the only reasonable way forward.

What free agents is available in the next 3 years you’ll give a max too before Beal???
Kwahi - wants la
Durant - dont want to come here
Ad - wants la
Lebron - lol

All the players better than Beal are locked within they’re teams or requesting trades to go to a big market.

[oddity]

If Garland is there at 6, I'd consider Beal for 6, Bridges, and Phoenix' 2020 first (no more than a top 2 protection). Trade would have to be consumated after the draft to avoid Stepien rule. I'm assuming Phoenix has the cap space to absorb that deal - don't know if they do.

We do, but we would likely have to ship you TJ Warren to match salaries. I think that trade is pretty fair.

If we have to take Warren, would you include your R2 pick as well?

Well I never really thought of Warren as a player you must ship a pick to get rid of. He's a good forward on a good salary. With that said I would include a R2 to that trade to sweeten the pot for sure.

[Ruzious]

Yikes. A 6'8 wingspan? You can tank the standing reach but you can't tank the wingspan. Dude has alligator arms.

His stock just dropped precipitously.

I still like him, but now I'd be looking to trade down into the teens to get him.

He's also very skinny for a PF and older than the other top prospects. Even if he sets a record in the vertical leap (which I think he might), he might fall out of the lottery.

Thing is... Clarke looks like he can be a terrific NBA player, just as he was a terrific college player -- even given the difference between the levels.

For that reason, it's great news for us that his measurements aren't ideal. Helps us get him & another prospect if we trade down.

Great news for any team that gets him further down in the round, I mean -- I hope we are that team.

Honestly... you nailed this. I think you're 100% right.

[payitforward]

People who want to retain Beal tell a story about the future based on what they hope will happen.

People who want to trade Beal tell a story about the future based on what they hope will happen.

One example in the first direction:

You cut bait with marginal talents like Dekker, retain the contributors for reserve roles, DRAFT WELL, and acquire solid complementary players (perhaps via trade), win as a team while having fun, and advance to the playoffs; that's how you make yourself a potential destination for quality, free agents while staying afloat, until this salary cap hell created by Grunfeld, freezes over, contracts like Mahinmi's are a thing of the past, and you're in better position to make real noise.

Sounds good, except Mahinmi's contract isn't the problem. Wall's contract is the problem. In 2022-23 we'll be paying him over $47m. & we can't trade for "solid complementary players" because we have nothing to trade. We don't have any "contributors for reserve roles" whom we are going to "retain."

Which means we aren't going to "win as a team," we're going to lose as a team; we aren't going to "advance to the playoffs," we are going to win 30+ games; we won't be "having fun," we'll be going through misery; the "salary cap hell" isn't going anywhere any time soon, it'll be with us for a whole bunch of years; and for these reasons it's fair to ask when we're going to be "in better position to make real noise?" In what, 5 or 6 years?

What's the actual possibility in the other direction? To do well? What makes that happen? Keeping Sato & Bryant? For sure that's a good idea. Troy Brown becomes a plus-level starter? Hey, we can dream; why not?

So.... we have Beal, Sato, Bryant & Brown. Sato's 28; we going to "make... noise" while he's still around? Brown is 19; he has some potential. You writing "starter" next to his name in indelible ink? Bryant has terrific promise. What do we do when he's really good & because we owe $80m to Beal/Wall we can't retain him?

Anything else? Oh, yeah, "DRAFT WELL." Fair enough; it beats drafting poorly. Of course, we only have 1 pick a year instead of 2 for the next several years. & I wonder... the guy we pick in 2021 -- when is he going to be ready help us "make real noise?" In his 3d year? That's 5 years from now.

Whether we retain Beal or trade him, we have a long, slow rebuild ahead of us.

But you are right that...

A competent GM goes a long way.

He goes a long way towards not wasting that long, slow rebuild to wind up with another irrelevant team.

[Ruzious]

Sorry man, I just think Beal is part of the the Wizards' solution, not part of the problem.

It's kind of crazy IMO, to suggest that Beal's presence would cause the Wizards' org. to set a low bar for itself.

A team usually takes up the personality of its best player, and I think a front office has a similar effect on its coaches and players, and the expectations they set for themselves.

The huge organizational problem, that was Ernie Grunfeld, is finally gone.

With an outgoing, competent, and successful GM, I believe newer and higher expectations are set; Beal nor Wall, have ever had real high-quality players to play alongside them, just mostly players that they had to settle on, cross your fingers on, and hoped would blossom into heavy contributors. This rarely happened, because Grunfeld consistently failed to bring in players that complemented the next.

Now is the time you start building around Beal, not remove him from the picture.

Wizards need to hit on this year's top draft pick (should have two, but you know, Ernie Grunfeld), cut ties with guys on the roster who don't impact the bottom line, and bring in quality vets to play alongside Beal (ex. Darren Collison at PG paired w/Beal); I'm cool with Garland being brought in, but not at the expense of Bradley Beal, as part of a packaged deal.

I could see Beal playing on a Wizards team that reached the EC Finals, just not with the likes of Sam Dekker, Ian Mahinmi, 10-day contract players, and Two-Way G-Leaguers, making up his support cast.


One last thank you to Ernie Grunfeld, for season after season, of a whole lotta nothing.

Buiding with what around Beal? And Beal was asked whether or not he'd even accept a super-max extension from the Wizard, and he wouldn't even commit to that. There's no reason to believe he's going to stay. Why would he - the team has so few assets and still has very little cap room. They're not going to be attracting any major free agents. Even the one player you mentioned - Collison - is just an okay player and might not even be affordable for the Wiz. They have next to zero assets to develop this team around Beal It makes sense to trade him to get a bunch of assets that can develop over time. It's called rebuilding. Your way is to attempt to achieve mediocrity. I mean... Collisons and Arizas and Greens and Parkers might be useful role-playing backups for good teams, but they're just patches for a team like the Wiz trying to reach .500. Honestly, you've given no real reason to show how you could see Beal playing on a Wizards team that reached the EC Final.

You cut bait with marginal talents like Dekker, retain the contributors for reserve roles, DRAFT WELL, and acquire solid complementary players (perhaps via trade), win as a team while having fun, and advance to the playoffs; that's how you make yourself a potential destination for quality, free agents while staying afloat, until this salary cap hell created by Grunfeld, freezes over,contracts like Mahinmi's are a thing of the past, and you're in better position to make real noise.

You don't give away Beal in his prime, sorry, it just makes no sense. Wall ---if it were possible--- I'd understand, but not Beal.

Beal's stated that he'd like to finish his career as a Wizard, so that's all I need to hear to be convinced that he wants to stay; I take his noncommittal response, as a signal to Leonsis that he had better start acting like an owner that gives a **** about winning, and I think Leonsis' releasing of Grunfeld is his way of letting Beal know that he's about making the necessary changes to right the ship and retain Beal's services.


A competent GM goes a long way.

We can't have a rational discussion with you saying I'm trying to give Beal away. Tbh, time is precious, and this is a complete waste of it.

[trast66]

My take away from the Clarke measurements is that I am fat.

[payitforward]

We do, but we would likely have to ship you TJ Warren to match salaries. I think that trade is pretty fair.

If we have to take Warren, would you include your R2 pick as well?

Well I never really thought of Warren as a player you must ship a pick to get rid of. He's a good forward on a good salary. With that said I would include a R2 to that trade to sweeten the pot for sure.

Your R2 pick at #31 makes the deal worth considering seriously. Then again... the deal is a few pages back by now, so I've forgotten the rest of it!

Given that we won't trade Beal this quickly, let me just wish you guys good luck in the draft -- hope you get a terrific player at #6 & another one at #31.

Who would you target at those 2 spots, btw?

[payitforward]

He's also very skinny for a PF and older than the other top prospects. Even if he sets a record in the vertical leap (which I think he might), he might fall out of the lottery.

Thing is... Clarke looks like he can be a terrific NBA player, just as he was a terrific college player -- even given the difference between the levels.

For that reason, it's great news for us that his measurements aren't ideal. Helps us get him & another prospect if we trade down.

Great news for any team that gets him further down in the round, I mean -- I hope we are that team.

Honestly... you nailed this. I think you're 100% right.

4.5 blocks per 40 minutes this year. Not fretting over his wingspan, I can tell you that!

Brandon Clarke has some amazingly gaudy numbers this year. He's a steal somewhere mid-R1. No one is a guarantee, but... he's close!

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

Buiding with what around Beal? And Beal was asked whether or not he'd even accept a super-max extension from the Wizard, and he wouldn't even commit to that. There's no reason to believe he's going to stay. Why would he - the team has so few assets and still has very little cap room. They're not going to be attracting any major free agents. Even the one player you mentioned - Collison - is just an okay player and might not even be affordable for the Wiz. They have next to zero assets to develop this team around Beal It makes sense to trade him to get a bunch of assets that can develop over time. It's called rebuilding. Your way is to attempt to achieve mediocrity. I mean... Collisons and Arizas and Greens and Parkers might be useful role-playing backups for good teams, but they're just patches for a team like the Wiz trying to reach .500. Honestly, you've given no real reason to show how you could see Beal playing on a Wizards team that reached the EC Final.

You cut bait with marginal talents like Dekker, retain the contributors for reserve roles, DRAFT WELL, and acquire solid complementary players (perhaps via trade), win as a team while having fun, and advance to the playoffs; that's how you make yourself a potential destination for quality, free agents while staying afloat, until this salary cap hell created by Grunfeld, freezes over,contracts like Mahinmi's are a thing of the past, and you're in better position to make real noise.

You don't give away Beal in his prime, sorry, it just makes no sense. Wall ---if it were possible--- I'd understand, but not Beal.

Beal's stated that he'd like to finish his career as a Wizard, so that's all I need to hear to be convinced that he wants to stay; I take his noncommittal response, as a signal to Leonsis that he had better start acting like an owner that gives a **** about winning, and I think Leonsis' releasing of Grunfeld is his way of letting Beal know that he's about making the necessary changes to right the ship and retain Beal's services.


A competent GM goes a long way.

We can't have a rational discussion with you saying I'm trying to give Beal away. Tbh, time is precious, and this is a complete waste of it.

Awww shucks!

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

People who want to retain Beal tell a story about the future based on what they hope will happen.

People who want to trade Beal tell a story about the future based on what they hope will happen.

One example in the first direction:

You cut bait with marginal talents like Dekker, retain the contributors for reserve roles, DRAFT WELL, and acquire solid complementary players (perhaps via trade), win as a team while having fun, and advance to the playoffs; that's how you make yourself a potential destination for quality, free agents while staying afloat, until this salary cap hell created by Grunfeld, freezes over, contracts like Mahinmi's are a thing of the past, and you're in better position to make real noise.

Sounds good, except Mahinmi's contract isn't the problem. Wall's contract is the problem. In 2022-23 we'll be paying him over $47m. & we can't trade for "solid complementary players" because we have nothing to trade. We don't have any "contributors for reserve roles" whom we are going to "retain."

Which means we aren't going to "win as a team," we're going to lose as a team; we aren't going to "advance to the playoffs," we are going to win 30+ games; we won't be "having fun," we'll be going through misery; the "salary cap hell" isn't going anywhere any time soon, it'll be with us for a whole bunch of years; and for these reasons it's fair to ask when we're going to be "in better position to make real noise?" In what, 5 or 6 years?

What's the actual possibility in the other direction? To do well? What makes that happen? Keeping Sato & Bryant? For sure that's a good idea. Troy Brown becomes a plus-level starter? Hey, we can dream; why not?

So.... we have Beal, Sato, Bryant & Brown. Sato's 28; we going to "make... noise" while he's still around? Brown is 19; he has some potential. You writing "starter" next to his name in indelible ink? Bryant has terrific promise. What do we do when he's really good & because we owe $80m to Beal/Wall we can't retain him?

Anything else? Oh, yeah, "DRAFT WELL." Fair enough; it beats drafting poorly. Of course, we only have 1 pick a year instead of 2 for the next several years. & I wonder... the guy we pick in 2021 -- when is he going to be ready help us "make real noise?" In his 3d year? That's 5 years from now.

Whether we retain Beal or trade him, we have a long, slow rebuild ahead of us.

But you are right that...

A competent GM goes a long way.

He goes a long way towards not wasting that long, slow rebuild to wind up with another irrelevant team.

Way too early for you to be this excited. Lol

[oddity]

If we have to take Warren, would you include your R2 pick as well?

Well I never really thought of Warren as a player you must ship a pick to get rid of. He's a good forward on a good salary. With that said I would include a R2 to that trade to sweeten the pot for sure.

Your R2 pick at #31 makes the deal worth considering seriously. Then again... the deal is a few pages back by now, so I've forgotten the rest of it!

Given that we won't trade Beal this quickly, let me just wish you guys good luck in the draft -- hope you get a terrific player at #6 & another one at #31.

Who would you target at those 2 spots, btw?

We're kinda in a tough spot with the #6. Darius Garland may fall to 6, but there are rumors about the Lakers wanting him. If he drops, the best player available after 3 is Culver, I believe, but it's not a great fit positionally. Brandon Clarke is another player the suns board keeps mentioning, but I get the feeling he is a bit less desired than Culver/Garland. I'm honestly not so sure who is gonna be available at 32, but if we're going for a guard at 6 I believe Gafford or Jontay Porter falling to us would be nice. If we get a PF, maybe Shamorie Ponds?

[80sballboy]

https://ca.nba.com/news/nba-draft-2019-combine-results-measurements-height-weight-wingspan-vertical-leap-williamson-barrett-morant/1ud6rkg3znj9l1oahlqumfbx5k

[80sballboy]

Q&A with Fred Katz of The Athletic
[quote]Satish B.
8h ago
Why Troy Weaver? Okc has a terrible track record with draft picks. Good trades though ..


Fred Katz
8h ago
@Satish B. I'm not so sure I agree with that analysis. Ferguson in 2017. Adams in 2013. Roberson. Reggie Jackson. And that doesn't even get to Ibaka and the three MVPs Presti took (though Weaver wasn't around for the Durant pick). OKC is good at talent identification and development.

Weaver's main strength, though, is in his relationship with the players. You'd be hard-pressed to find a player who doesn't like him — and who doesn't have an close relationship with him upon joining his team. He almost acts as a liaison between the front office and locker room in OKC. It wouldn't be surprising if he recruited free agents well. That's his rep.

A lot of people respect him. He's from DC. The Thunder are one of the league's better organizations. He's interviewed elsewhere. He's a legitimate candidate.

John H.
8h ago
@Fred Katz Their best free agent signing is? (not counting Paul George who had played a full season there already)

I guess being close with players is one thing, I'd rather the GM have front office connections though.


Fred Katz
8h ago
@John H. Fair point, but I don't think you can copy-and-paste those situations. I promise you: NBA players are not trying to sign with a franchise in Oklahoma City. And the Thunder have been over the cap year after year (which is what happens when you have good players) and thus, they haven't had the space or opportunity to go after many top-notch players, either. He was a big part of convincing Carmelo Anthony to approve a trade to OKC, for what it's worth.

No question, all this is projection. But that's the reputation Weaver has around the league. I covered that team before I took the job covering the Wizards. And people around the organization back up that rep.


Satish B.
8h ago
cam payne..mitch mcgary..huestis...... archie Goodwin...perry jones..

Harry S.
8h ago
Trading Beal is idiotic right? He’s still young and under contract for awhile. Unless a team gives us something unfathomable I can’t see how we can trade him

Dale M.
8h ago
I dont think anyone wants to trade Beal but it is the only way forward. Paying Beal and Wall max contracts cripples the cap for 4 to 5 years

Harry S.
8h ago
Besides Beal and Wall the Wizards cap situation won’t be abysmal after next season (once Howard and Mahimni are off the books). I think it can still be reasonable to build a team around wall/Beal



Fred Katz
7h ago
@Harry S. Definitely not idiotic. Definitely not. There is fair, intelligent logic on both sides of this argument. But here's the thing: The decision may make itself for the Wizards.

If Beal makes All-NBA (and I'm going to guess that he gets on the Third Team, by the way), he'll be supermax eligible, which means there are three options.

The Wizards can choose they don't want to pay him the supermax and not offer it to him. Similar situations in recent history have dictated that means they'd trade him.

They Wizards can offer him the supermax and he can turn it down. Similar situations in recent history have dictated they means they'd trade him.

The Wizards can offer him the supermax and he can accept it. If he does, the Wizards move forward with Wall and Beal for another four-plus years.

I imagine all of those choices would cause Wizards fans anxiety.


Julian G.
8h ago
Any indication of if & when Connelly will be officially offered the job?


Fred Katz
8h ago
@Julian G. I couldn't give an exact timeline for when a job offer comes, but I'd bet you the hire comes before Memorial Day Weekend, considering the Wizards begin individual pre-draft workouts with prospects around then. It's starting to pick up a bit now. Troy Weaver got a second interview, as Shams Charania and I reported yesterday. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any official contact with Connelly. But he didn't want to talk as long as the Nuggets were in the playoffs. It's been three days since they got eliminated. If the Wizards and Connelly want this to pick up steam, they have some time now to make that happen.


Myles N.
8h ago
Sekou Doumbouya?


Fred Katz
7h ago
@Myles N. Sure. Why not?

Enrique R.
8h ago
Hi Fred,

Would you trade down for a couple of picks or just try to buy a second rounder? What do you think is the most feasible option?


Fred Katz
7h ago
@Enrique R. Grunfeld used to hint at the possibilities of buying second-rounders. Except the Wizards historically haven't done that. In fact, they even sold one in recent years. It's safe to say the next person in charge of the front office will value second-rounders more than Grunfeld, but selling those wasn't necessarily his decision. That's ownership's. I promise, no matter how little any GM or president cares about second-round picks, none of them are sitting there and thinking, "Hmmm, I wish I had fewer draft picks." So given that mentality, I doubt they're in the game to buy a second — and that's just my personal theory, not based on questions I've asked specifically about that subject.

Trading down is always possible. The Wizards are kind of in the spot where if someone who's supposed to go top five or six falls and someone behind them likes that player, maybe that team tries to move up. Could Boston love some prospect and want to deal the 14th and 22nd picks for the Wizards' ninth on draft night?

I have absolutely no idea but I guess anything is possible.

Joshua J.
8h ago
Has there been any indication of what restricted free agents the Wizards want to keep? I know a new GM will change things, but are there any preliminary feelings about those guys.


Fred Katz
7h ago
@Joshua J. There are preliminary feelings. If I had to bet on two guys being back, it'd be Tomas Satoransky and Thomas Bryant. I'm not so sure the market is going to play out in Bryant's favor. He's a second-tier restricted free agent (the type that tends to linger into the later parts of July) and on top of that, offensive-minded centers are pretty acquirable nowadays. I don't think it'll be a full clean-out of the front office, no matter who comes in, so I think some of the thought process will carry over. And part of that is: this group is proud of finding Bryant. If they can get him back for a reasonable price, I bet they do.

As for re-signing Satoransky, he's possibly their best chance at a capable point guard for next season. They're over the cap. They could use the mid-level exception to sign one, but then they lose that as a tool to use elsewhere. Both guys are super well-liked on the team. They fit into any culture. They work hard. They care. It just makes sense to keep them both.



John F.
8h ago
Have you gotten any indication as to what the Wizards approach is going to be to the draft/free agency, given the uncertainty around the front office?


Fred Katz
7h ago
@John F. I have, but because we don't know who's going to be running the team during the draft and free agency, it doesn't even matter. They'll almost certainly operate as an over-the-cap team this summer, no matter who is running them. They'll try to re-sign some of their free agents. Which ones? We won't know until we know who's taking Grunfeld's job. They can use some nicely-sized trade exceptions to take in money. They made an under-the-radar slick move in the Markieff Morris trade, fitting Wes Johnson into John Wall's disabled player exception and creating a $8.6 million trade exception for this summer or beyond (which means they can absorb up to that salary in a trade without having to match salaries). But other than those and the mid-level exception in free agency, their tools are pretty limited.



Bill A.
8h ago
How quickly do you think the Wizards hire a GM and is Tommy Sheppard maybe beginning the framework discussions with a possibly trade for Beal? The acquire a Top 5 pick would be awfully nice, cough cough, Lakers, cough.


Fred Katz
8h ago
@Bill A. Wrote in another answer that I'd predict a hire to come by around Memorial Day. And no, I don't think Sheppard is beginning the framework to trade Beal. Now, someone else might. And if Sheppard gets the job full-time, then we can talk about it. But no interim GM has the authority to trade the best player on his team, a two-time All-Star in the beginning of his prime with two seasons remaining on his contract. Sheppard is no exception.


Greg M.
8h ago
Does the death of the hope of a quick rebuild put us more under the gun to trade Beal?


Fred Katz
8h ago
@Greg M. To be honest, I think there was only a 9 percent chance of a "quick rebuild." If the Wizards had won the first-overall pick, then sure. They get Zion. They already have a 25-year-old All-Star in Beal. And yes, they're in legitimately good shape — just like the Pelicans are now. Getting Zion immediately makes any situation a good one. But any realist would've told you, this is going to have to be slow and potentially painful. It's impossible to say now if the Wizards are going to trade Beal or not. We don't know who's going to be running them, and different candidates can have different philosophies. There are intelligent reasons to justify why the Wiz should or shouldn't deal their best player. But I'm not sure that getting No. 9 instead of getting something like No. 7 makes a difference in how any front-office head would choose to handle Beal's situation.

Satish B.
8h ago
What is it about Bobby Portis that the wizards so much more than Thomas Bryant? Or do they really want to have both?


Fred Katz
7h ago
@Satish B. I'm not so sure the Wizards like Bobby Portis "so much more than Thomas Bryant." Brooks started Portis immediately upon the team trading for him. He went in and out of the lineup by the end. Brooks, alone, doesn't mean the Wizards as a whole, though. I think Portis' 3-point shooting sets him apart from Bryant a little, but Bryant is certainly better inside and I think is more of a 5-man while Portis is more of a power forward. We'll see how they handle both of their free agencies under new management this summer.

Luke D.
8h ago
I saw you liked White if he fell to else. I know it's still early in the process and there's a lot to go, but who else do you like? I know we don't need bigs, but the potential from Bol Bol could be very intriguing (if he's healthy). Would be very hesitant if we're unsure if he can contribute year 1.


Fred Katz
7h ago
@Luke D. One thing I will say: I don't think the Wizards should draft based on positional needs. They have two centers on the roster, but Dwight Howard and Ian Mahinmi being under contract should not prevent you from drafting a big man you like. They're short on wings. And it's anyone's guess how Wall might return from an Achilles tear. I say, grab the best available player.

[gambitx777]

Suns fan here. I was wondering how you guys like the sound of trading #6, TJ Warren, our Milwaukee pick and a very lightly protected/unprotected future first for Beal.
Obviously Beal is great but if you guys wanted to cut the rope early and move in the direction of a full rebuild we can offer more picks than probably any other team. As a fellow struggling franchise, by the way, I'm wishing yall the best of luck moving forward. The draft gods simply were not on our sides tonight.

Nope, But we would probably trade you #9 to take john wall for tyler johnson, T.J. warren, Ellie Okobo and the rights to the bucks pick y'all own.

We can't keep making bad trades to dump bad contracts. That was the Grunfeld way. No more Grunfelding. We need to add talent.

Naw hold on. The EG way is to use a first to dump a 6 mill deal or a deal with one years left or to get a guy on a one year deal.
this is dumping one of the largest contracts in the league, with a guy who might not ever be a starting caliber player again. He might be he might still be an all start we don't know. But man if I could get him off the books now yeah, i trade that pick, and start the rebuild from there. especially if you can get a young player, a late first, a decent contract and a one year deal out of it like i had proposed. just my opinion.

[TGW]

thanks for posting that, 80sballboy. that was informative.

[doclinkin]

Yikes. A 6'8 wingspan? You can tank the standing reach but you can't tank the wingspan. Dude has alligator arms.

His stock just dropped precipitously.

I still like him, but now I'd be looking to trade down into the teens to get him.

He's also very skinny for a PF and older than the other top prospects. Even if he sets a record in the vertical leap (which I think he might), he might fall out of the lottery.

Thing is... Clarke looks like he can be a terrific NBA player, just as he was a terrific college player -- even given the difference between the levels.

For that reason, it's great news for us that his measurements aren't ideal. Helps us get him & another prospect if we trade down.

Great news for any team that gets him further down in the round, I mean -- I hope we are that team.

Someone convince me he’s dissimilar to Tyrus Thomas. I liked Clarke this year, but loved Thomas as well. Similar build and game and motor in college. Thomas came out when younger. I figured he had upside to develop.

Has the game changed significantly since Thomas came out? Is Clarke more likely to improve than Thomas? I see how Clarke can defend against small ball sets. I also see where his stats come from freelancing all over the court. Not part of lockdown man defense but playing renegade all over. A guy like Hunter (probably gone by 9) is boring. Not sexy. In part because his D is based on fundamentally sound positioning, good wingspan, lateral movement and snuffing his opponent so they don’t shoot and can’t drive past him and he’s too big to bump. They pass instead.

Clarke plays the opposite. He plays the empty spaces between players. And gets his points by slipping between guys and being forgotten. He can jump. He can dunk. He can run. He will block a shot or jump into a passing lane. It all looks good. But a guy like Draymond can’t jump over a tictac and is a far better player than guys with aerial antics because of that grounded positional leverage and strength and keeping in front of his man. Not pogoing around him.

What high flying skinny guy with short arms is a winning defender. Now or historically? His numbers suggest he’s a hustling maniac. I want to like him. I just haven’t yet seen that style succeed. I’d like to cheer that kind of effort. But I’ve seen the style fail.

If he could shoot then okay. Stow him at SF and let him get loose when things get chaotic. But otherwise we would have to build the right kind of team to take advantage of what he does do well.

[The Consiglieri]

We need to first start off by framing this discussion. Because I don’t believe everyone is accurately assessing the risk/reward of a Beal trade.

Question - Do you believe Beal is in his prime? And if so, how many prime years do you think he has left?

Yes, and based on the evidence I’ve seen, player primes typically exist between age 26-29, though there is some evidence that Guards reach peak performance between 28-32 though I tend to be less trusting of this because it doesn’t account for differentiation between early entrants like Beal and later entrants like Kemba Walker. I would imagine joining the league at 19 versus 21 can result in differing data on prime production/efficiency years. Depending upon which bit of info you buy, he’s got a low end of 4 prime years left barring injury and a high end of 7. Four of those years are a lost cause due to the Wall Extension if we kept him and he resigned. That’s an emphatic pass for me, and I loved the guy since day 1 (thankfully we didn’t have a chance at MKG who I really liked as a prospect, Had Beal as my #3 in that class and loved the value. Those days are gone though and we won’t be out from theaters Wall albatross deal until he’s entering his age 30 season.

Hmm.. I would like to see that evidence, because it sounds pretty outdated with the modern athlete. Players often peak around 27-29 but their prime years typically last longer. There are MANY historical examples of this, especially with skilled guards - Steve Nash, Ray Allen, Stephen Curry (currently 31yo), Reggie Miller, Sam Cassell, Gary Payton all had great longevity into their early/mid 30s. Ray Allen who is commonly compared to Beal, had his peak season at age 31 and his prime extended another 2-3 years beyond that.

My point here is that I don't agree with the assertion that Beal's prime will be over when Wall's contract is off the books in 4 years. In 2023, Brad will be the same age James Harden is now, who just had his peak season . Given his conditioning level, diet, work ethic and his style of play (which is largely based around skill and shooting) I find it probable that 4 years from now Beal will still be producing at an elite level. And I reckon it is highly improbable that Washington will be able to acquire a superior star player to Beal within that 4 year time frame.

The way I see it, the only actual reason to trade Bradley Beal and rebuild is IF he says he doesn't want to be a part of the Wizards moving forward. If he's willing to commit longterm then I would lock him up on an extension through 2025 because he has more than half of his career left to go, and we won't easily be able to replace his talent level , clubhouse leadership, intangibles .. not to mention the sentimental value he would hold for a historically tortured fanbase. Plus he would still have trade value on a longterm deal, if we chose to go that route.

In the summer of 2023 when Wall's money is off the books, the Wizards would have a prime 30yo Bradley Beal (who would be a 4-5x All-Star and the greatest SG in franchise history by that point in time) + max capspace (possibly even enough for two slots) + at least 4 developing young players from past 4 drafts . As a fan who just wants to see some light at the end of the tunnel, I'll take that over most alternatives. Call me a pessimist but I'm not convinced in the slightest that we could trade Beal and expect to end up in a better position 4 years from now.

Dig into the research. Just look it up, productivity curves, NBA player Primes etc, those kind of searches will let you know. It's true across the board in sports, there are differences in which sports are more forgiving, and which positions are more forgiving, but there hasn't been a study anywhere that suggests that players fail to decline, on average, at age 29-30. It's not rocket science, even us civilians notice it in our bodies. It's a physical reality and nutrition and a workout regimen can only get you so far. Also we may be looking at things differently, I'm looking at productivity curves, efficiency curves, the stuff rotoviz does (wonder if they do it for basketball?). The decline always seems to start right around age 29/30. There does seem to be a bit of a difference w/Guards, w/their curve lasting a bit into their thirties (30-32 depending upon source), but I'm curious about when the decline starts, and it starts around age 29-32, and I think 32 is probably a bit ambitious. Doesn't mean player sucks after his age 29 season, just means declines start then, and get rapidly steeper with each season following that.

Your second paragraph. I just don't understand any of that. How can we rebuild. HOW? You seem to assume we can rebuild while keeping Beal and being totally unable to trade assets to augment whatever lottery pick we land each year. What is that accomplishing? What value is 29-53 to us compared to say 19-63? or 22-60? Why? Beal is the one thing we have that can allow us to kick start our rebuild before 2023, other than Beal, we're totally and completely stuck. When Wall's deal is done, Beal is entering the first season in which players in general start to show decline. During those four years keeping Beal around will harm our lottery odds while not ever allowing us to even come remotely close to competing for anything. Beal represents the keys to chances/opportunities/bullets in our draft gun so so to speak. Again, by the time we have a chance at being competitive, not actually being competitive, he will be 30, and if we aren't picking up assets for him, how are we actually likely to become competitive in the first place? We can't through free agency, we can't through trades (we have no assets that are valued other than our future 1sts which we will need to build with), we can only do it through the draft itself, and considering how many holes we have and how little foundation if any is in place, how in heck does any of that happen w/o trading him? The answer is it doesn't happen.

We couldn't come close to a conference final w/the Webber era Wizards or the Arenas Wizards and hell the Wall Wizards failed too. Now all of a sudden w/a Broken down Wall, the few young prospects not named Wall or Beal traded for peanuts or less for cap reasons, and little to no assets beyond Beal and future firsts we're going to contend, or build something? It just strikes me as incredibly absurd to imagine such a thing. In a dire situation like this you ALWAYS sell out your top assets so you can start the rebuild w/something, you don't keep them until they age out, or sign elsewhere and we receive nothing in comp. I just don't get that thinking at all.