Summer 2012 Free Agents Thread - Part III

[jivelikenice]

I agree, jive. In a Josh Childress vs. Martell Webster conversation, the stakes are pretty low. Neither guy is likely to play much.

My point -- and I think payitforward's point -- is a broader one about evaluating players and evaluating team needs. I think one of the real flaws in their offseason was mis-identifying a need. Ernie and Ted made several comments about the team needing veterans, for example. Actually, what they needed was maturity. There are selfish and irresponsible veterans just as there are mature, hard-working young people.

For example, Rasheed Wallace, Antoine Walker and Nick Young could all be described as "veterans," but they don't solve the team's need for maturity.

I don't think this is a minor issue. People tend to pursue the goals they've set for themselves, whether they're explicitly aware of the goal or not. A teen who says he wants to get straight A's in school, but then spends 6 hours a night playing video games doesn't actually have the goal of getting straight A's -- his goal is to play video games.

I agree with where you're coming from. I felt that if it came down to MKG versus Beal both being available at 3, we shouldn't force the issue based on a need for shooting and should take the BPA (who I felt was MKG).

[DCZards]

Thinking that you build a team by getting the right combination of abstractions is how to lose year after year. You build a team by getting the best overall players you can at every position. The better those guys are the more games you win -- full stop: better players mean a better team.

I don't disagee with the "get the best player" theory. But let's not forget that we're talking about Webster and Childress. Two players who haven't done squat in recent years. And, while Childress may be marginally better than Webster based on some stats, even that's debatable. I personally prefer Webster for the Zards simply because he's a better perimeter shooter than Childress.

[montestewart]

Thinking that you build a team by getting the right combination of abstractions is how to lose year after year. You build a team by getting the best overall players you can at every position. The better those guys are the more games you win -- full stop: better players mean a better team.

I don't disagee with the "get the best player" theory. But let's not forget that we're talking about Webster and Childress. Two players who haven't done squat in recent years. And, while Childress may be marginally better than Webster based on some stats, even that's debatable. I personally prefer Webster for the Zards simply because he's a better perimeter shooter than Childress.

Some of what is being debated here, for a long time, is exactly about this "best player available" strategy. Did the Wizards, in resigning themselves to not being able to sign any name free agents, and refusing to "overpay" for 2nd tier, miss out on a best player available? Did they, in putting a premium on veterans and defense, miss out on a better player that might not have so perfectly fit that description? Did they, in blowing their payroll wad on defense-minded frontcourt veterans, force their hand not only in the draft, but in needing to fill out the roster with best shooters available, as opposed to best overall players? I'm not saying all these moves were bad, but in the manner the moves were made, the Wizards don't seem to have allowed themselves too much flexibility.

[Nivek]

Zards: The only reason to have a strong reaction to a Webster over Childress choice is that it might be a symptom of a broader issue with player evaluation and franchise management. Childress might be only marginally better than Webster, and it doesn't matter much since neither guy is going to play much. But "marginally better" is a lot more important if we're talking about two players who would get say 2700 minutes in a season. Small differences add up.

[DCZards]

Zards: The only reason to have a strong reaction to a Webster over Childress choice is that it might be a symptom of a broader issue with player evaluation and franchise management. Childress might be only marginally better than Webster, and it doesn't matter much since neither guy is going to play much. But "marginally better" is a lot more important if we're talking about two players who would get say 2700 minutes in a season. Small differences add up.

I understand that, Nivek. But right now we're debating Webster vs. Childress and not Webster versus a player who is likely to play major minutes and maybe make a significant contribution. I'll save my strong reactions for that discussion.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

But when looking at a team, the "abstract" skills of each of the individuals needs to be evaluated for fit. And Childress doesn't fit. You can't field a lineup of five guys who can't shoot. It's never worked before, and it's not hard to understand its difficulties. We already have a bottom three shooting team in the league. Adding another guy who can't hit a jumpshot is a waste.

Yup, can't disregard fit or need. This team needs shooting and Webster is far better at that than Childress. Webster will contribute. I seriously doubt that Childress would earn minutes ahead of Ariza and C.Singleton.

DCZ, I think Childress is underrated and can beat those guys out for minutes all things being equal. He's played well in the past.

When the Hawks went to the playoffs in 2007-2008, they made it as an eighth seed with only a 37-45 record. That Hawks team took the Boston Celtics to seven games. Boston won the NBA championship that season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/2008.html


Childress started and had the highest WS/48 in the playoffs for Atlanta. Childress shot .524 for the series. He had more offensive rebounds than Josh Smith and Marvin Williams, and was second to Horford. He had almost as many rebounds for the series as Smith. Childress only committed two turnovers all 7 games against Boston. He only committed 7 fouls despite spending time guarding Pierce and Allen in the prime of their careers. Josh Childress played against the eventual NBA champions in a series where Boston was a the brink of elimination in round one. He also had a solid regular season, (not just playoffs), in 2007-2008. Childress posted an ORtg of 127 for the season.

This offseason, Josh Childress would have been a better pickup for the Wizards than Ariza or Webster IMO.

What Nivek said applies. Washington just needs good players. With a frontcourt of players who all convert well and grab rebounds, you're going to win your share of games. Childress, Nene, Okafor might not sound too sexy but they're not going to miss many shots, either. It's a moot point now, but I would have rather seen Childress start at SG in place of Crawford, and have Beal earn that spot.

[DCZards]

ccj, the best stats you could find on Childress go back 4-5 years. That should tell you something. I doubt that he is the same player today. His time in Phoenix seems to suggest that.

[payitforward]

Thinking that you build a team by getting the right combination of abstractions is how to lose year after year. You build a team by getting the best overall players you can at every position. The better those guys are the more games you win -- full stop: better players mean a better team.

I don't disagee with the "get the best player" theory. But let's not forget that we're talking about Webster and Childress. Two players who haven't done squat in recent years. And, while Childress may be marginally better than Webster based on some stats, even that's debatable. I personally prefer Webster for the Zards simply because he's a better perimeter shooter than Childress.

You just repeated your previous statement without adding an iota of reason or evidence. And, no it's not debatable whether Childress puts up better numbers than Martell Webster.

But... it's not worth spending tons of time on this dead issue.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

ccj, the best stats you could find on Childress go back 4-5 years. That should tell you something. I doubt that he is the same player today. His time in Phoenix seems to suggest that.

By your analogy I have to go back several years on current Wizards, DCZ. Their best stats were years ago, too. This is what your analogy would say: I doubt Okafor is the same player. Niether is Ariza. I doubt Webster is the same player, judging by his injuries. In each case these players are coming off of multiple down years. Nene has had lingering injuries recently. Is he going to remain the same player?

DCZ, Josh Childress is 29 years old. He is in his prime IMO. His splits from April 2012 (14 games played) are right in line with what he has always done. Childress has been mostly a victim of circumstance and his numbers can become as good as ever in the right situation.

I agree with payitforward. I have expressed my opinions on Childress enough and sufficiently. I can't say anything more about it, not that you would consider my facts/opinions either way, DCZ. If you disagree, fine. Next issue ...

[Kanyewest]

The problem with Childress is that he can't shoot the 3 well and he hasn't gotten any better the past few season. Playing with John Wall wouldn't be the right situation for him IMO.

[tontoz]

I was a Hawks fan at the time Childress left for Greece in the summer of 08. When the news hit i celebrated, saying the Hawks would be better without him.

The Hawks won 37 games in Childress' last year there. During the summer their only major offseason additions were Flip Murray and Mo Evans. They won 47 games the following season.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I was a Hawks fan at the time Childress left for Greece in the summer of 08. When the news hit i celebrated, saying the Hawks would be better without him.

The Hawks won 37 games in Childress' last year there. During the summer their only major offseason additions were Flip Murray and Mo Evans. They won 47 games the following season.

tontoz, I read this and wondered what the difference was and how Childress leaving could have affected the team positively. I found some reasons.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/2008.html

1. In 2007-2008, Mike Bibby was acquired midseason and only appeared in 33 games for ATL. Bibby would go on to be better and appear in more games the following season, when Childress was gone. A big part of why there were only 37 wins was Anthony Johnson was the starting PG the first 41 games of 2007. PG was really a weakness, with Acie Law and Salim Stoudemire off the bench.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/2009.html

2. The following season, 2008-2009, Bibby played in 79 games, 46 additional games. On top of that his PER was higher than the previous season. Additionally, Ronald Murray had a good year coming off the bench as the second PG. Made threes by Bibby and Murray in 2009 improved the Hawks' offense.

3. The following season, Joe Johnson played exclusively SG and Marvin Williams posted a career high WS/48.

4. The 2008-2009 season, when Al Horford turned 22, like Marvin Williams, he posted a career high WS 48 and a career high PER. Did Childress leaving make both Williams and Horford better? I just know they put up better score the next season.


I think the team was better, tontoz, as you said without Childress. But there was more to it.

[tontoz]

Horford was in his second year so i am not impressed by his "career high". Horford/Smith/JJ played a combined 29 fewer games in 08/09 than they did in 07/08. Those 3 guys were their 3 best players. Bibby had the worst +/- of any starter in 08/09 so it isn't like he was the reason for a 10 game improvement.

Flip was a career journeyman who took over Childress' role as 6th man. They just let him go 1 on 1 whenver he wanted, something Childress sucked at.

Bibby was nothing more than a spot up shooter for the Hawks. In 07/08 the Hawks point guard duo of AJ/Lue shot 45% from 3. They didn't shoot quite as many 3s as Bibby but they made them more often. Assists were a wash and AJ was a much better defender than Bibby.

In the 07/08 season the Hawks were 17th in defensive efficiency. In the 08/09 season they improved to 11th even though their best defenders (Smith,Horford,JJ) played 29 fewer games. Do you think that defensive improvement was because of Bibby?

3. The following season, Joe Johnson played exclusively SG and Marvin Williams posted a career high WS/48.

Both cases were a direct result of Childress being gone. Childress was Marvin's primary competition for minutes so it isn't surprising that Marvin played better after he left. Childress sometimes played the 2 with JJ playing the 3. With Childress gone JJ could play more 2.

[LyricalRico]

Jennero Pargo, anyone? He'd at least give us a solid 3pt shooter behind Wall, and might even be able to play next to him in matchups where Wall could guard the 2. Not a longterm solution, but he might help us this year.

[Nivek]

Why not? Pargo's no worse than Price or Mack.

[payitforward]

Why not? Pargo's no worse than Price or Mack.

Absolutely. Lets keep getting one crappy player after another. Each one adds something. With Pargo we have "3 point shooting.* Put that in our basket. Once the basket is filled w/ these abstractions, to the brim, we can declare victory. No need to play the games (and lose most of them). Or if we do, why we can blame our problems on lack of "chemistry."

How long will we have to wait before we fire the people running this ship of fools and remake the Wizards as an NBA franchise?

[tontoz]

Why not? Pargo's no worse than Price or Mack.

Absolutely. Lets keep getting one crappy player after another. Each one adds something. With Pargo we have "3 point shooting.* Put that in our basket. Once the basket is filled w/ these abstractions, to the brim, we can declare victory. No need to play the games (and lose most of them). Or if we do, why we can blame our problems on lack of "chemistry."

How long will we have to wait before we fire the people running this ship of fools and remake the Wizards as an NBA franchise?

While I agree that bringing in another weak pg is a meh move I think you might want to consider decaf.

[truwizfan4evr]

Would anyone bring back Brian Cook? He played well for us last year in limited minutes we wanted a big man who can shoot and rebound. I guess it depends on whose the best player in training camp so we shall see.

[Nivek]

Why not? Pargo's no worse than Price or Mack.

Absolutely. Lets keep getting one crappy player after another. Each one adds something. With Pargo we have "3 point shooting.* Put that in our basket. Once the basket is filled w/ these abstractions, to the brim, we can declare victory. No need to play the games (and lose most of them). Or if we do, why we can blame our problems on lack of "chemistry."

How long will we have to wait before we fire the people running this ship of fools and remake the Wizards as an NBA franchise?

The Wiz front office may have found a way to layer abstractions.

[montestewart]

Would anyone bring back Brian Cook? He played well for us last year in limited minutes we wanted a big man who can shoot and rebound. I guess it depends on whose the best player in training camp so we shall see.

Shoot and rebound? Cook's career rebounding: 7.1/36. That's, uh, pretty bad for a big man. Oh well, he can shoot, as proven by an eFG% of .367 last year.

If they're just going to sign anyone, sign hands or CCJ or Ruzious. At least we'd get some great inside stories.