Official Trade Thread - Part XXXI

[ozthegap]

one thing I have always loved about brooks is that he will never give guys the starting job just because they are the presumed starters . he make syou earn it and if someone else does they start.

Except Kendrick perkins

[payitforward]

one thing I have always loved about brooks is that he will never give guys the starting job just because they are the presumed starters . he make syou earn it and if someone else does they start.

Except Kendrick perkins

I'm trying to imagine why I or anyone should be confident that Scott Brooks is a good coach. His record with the Thunder doesn't tell me he's good; it tells me he had a bunch of really good players, a terrific roster headed up by KD and Westbrook. The team didn't miss a beat when a new coach came in.

Don't get me wrong -- Scott Brooks may very well be a terrific coach. Or not.

Either way, it's hard to see him getting much out of this roster. Then again, I could be (I hope I am!) wrong. Not holding my breath, however.

[Ruzious]

one thing I have always loved about brooks is that he will never give guys the starting job just because they are the presumed starters . he make syou earn it and if someone else does they start.

Except Kendrick perkins

I'm trying to imagine why I or anyone should be confident that Scott Brooks is a good coach. His record with the Thunder doesn't tell me he's good; it tells me he had a bunch of really good players, a terrific roster headed up by KD and Westbrook. The team didn't miss a beat when a new coach came in.

Don't get me wrong -- Scott Brooks may very well be a terrific coach. Or not.

Either way, it's hard to see him getting much out of this roster. Then again, I could be (I hope I am!) wrong. Not holding my breath, however.

I'd be surprised if he's significantly better or worse than Wittman.

[payitforward]

Agreed -- coaches are as good as their rosters, by and large.

[nate33]

one thing I have always loved about brooks is that he will never give guys the starting job just because they are the presumed starters . he make syou earn it and if someone else does they start.

Except Kendrick perkins

I'm trying to imagine why I or anyone should be confident that Scott Brooks is a good coach. His record with the Thunder doesn't tell me he's good; it tells me he had a bunch of really good players, a terrific roster headed up by KD and Westbrook. The team didn't miss a beat when a new coach came in.

Don't get me wrong -- Scott Brooks may very well be a terrific coach. Or not.

Either way, it's hard to see him getting much out of this roster. Then again, I could be (I hope I am!) wrong. Not holding my breath, however.

I was not thrilled with the hire. The Thunder were a team of freak athletes who could defend, plus they had 2 of the top 5 one-on-one offensive players in the game (and big men with 3-point range to spread the floor). I feel like any half-decent coach who stressed defense could coax 55-60 wins out of that team every year. I think Randy Wittman could have had about the same record. Billy Donovan, a rookie HC with no NBA experience, got 55 wins out of them last year despite Durant missing 10 games.

We've seen Scott Brooks coach a team that lacked 2 superstars. It was 2 years ago when Durant missed 61 games. Their record in games without Durant was 31-30. I'm hoping to be surprised, but, like you, I see no reason to have confidence that Brooks is a particularly good coach. I think he is merely "competent", just like Wittman.

The guy I wish we got was Frank Vogel. I think he consistently coached up Indiana to play way above their talent level. He somehow squeezed 38 wins out of that team in a season without Paul George. Their best player was George Hill. Their 45-win performance last year was equally impressive. Their two best bigs were Lavoy Allen and Ian Mahinmi. Could 10% of NBA fans have picked either of those two guys out of a lineup 2 years ago?

[Dat2U]

Calling Randy Wittman competent is a slap in the face to competent coaches everywhere.

[nate33]

Calling Randy Wittman competent is a slap in the face to competent coaches everywhere.

I thought Wittman was in the bottom third of coaches, but by no means one of the very worst in the league. Perhaps "barely confident" is a suitable description.

However we define it, I don't think that Wittman was costing us a whole lot more wins than any other average coach. There are a handful of truly good coaches in this league who could have squeezed more out of our roster and Wittman certainly isn't one of them, but I don't think he's egregiously bad either.

I do think it was time for him to go. Even good coaches have a shelf life, after which the players no longer listen. Wittman was past his shelf life.

[Dat2U]

Calling Randy Wittman competent is a slap in the face to competent coaches everywhere.

I thought Wittman was in the bottom third of coaches, but by no means one of the very worst in the league. Perhaps "barely confident" is a suitable description.

However we define it, I don't think that Wittman was costing us a whole lot more wins than any other average coach. There are a handful of truly good coaches in this league who could have squeezed more out of our roster and Wittman certainly isn't one of them, but I don't think he's egregiously bad either.

I do think it was time for him to go. Even good coaches have a shelf life, after which the players no longer listen. Wittman was past his shelf life.

I think he was bad. The worst in the league? I dunno but he's more bottom three than bottom third.

Running Flip's outdated PG-centric offense? Check.
Encouraging the same mid-range shots that good defenses game-plan for you to take? Check.
Displaying an inability to adjust on the fly? Check.
Display an unwillingness to listen to his players and be incredibly stubborn? Check.

He should have never been hired and certainly have not had the interim tag removed after Teddy & Ernie refused to even entertain the prospect of other coaches. He was basically a lazy hire because he was already in the building and didn't immediately stink up the joint. That's a terrible way of making personnel decisions.

We basically wasted John Wall's development and best years and ensure he'd under perform by keeping Wittman on. And it's not like Wittman had any up-and-comers on his staff. It was generally known that the assistant coaches were suspect in their own right. We actually had an assistant coach that had encouraged players to stop shooting threes to concentrate more on the mid-range game. Outdated thinking permeated the coaching staff. I'm not a huge Brooks fan but I do believe he's competent. To me that's a significant step up from where we've been.

[Dark Faze]

Eh, problem is we keep drafting players that can't dribble into their own 3pt shot for anything

You could have had Mike D here two years ago and Brad wouldn't have gotten many 3's up because he was simply incapable of creating those shots without screens or off ball movement. This is probably the first year that Brad will have developed enough of a handle to do that consistently. Otto probably still isn't capable of it.

I'm not going to **** on Randy as much as others might. I think we've upgraded, but he doesn't get enough credit for breaking John Wall out of bad habits. People forget about when Wall could only go one speed and looked like a more talented PG version of Kelly Oubre. And he accomplished some great coaching in the playoffs. The healthy Webster + Ariza Wiz were actually very pleasant to watch operate offensively.

He tried to do too much last year with the style switch. Articles have come out stating guys weren't ready physically for that kind of play. John couldn't do it on one leg. Brad couldn't do it period given his injuries. It was kind of a cluster all around.

[nate33]

Calling Randy Wittman competent is a slap in the face to competent coaches everywhere.

I thought Wittman was in the bottom third of coaches, but by no means one of the very worst in the league. Perhaps "barely confident" is a suitable description.

However we define it, I don't think that Wittman was costing us a whole lot more wins than any other average coach. There are a handful of truly good coaches in this league who could have squeezed more out of our roster and Wittman certainly isn't one of them, but I don't think he's egregiously bad either.

I do think it was time for him to go. Even good coaches have a shelf life, after which the players no longer listen. Wittman was past his shelf life.

I think he was bad. The worst in the league? I dunno but he's more bottom three than bottom third.

Running Flip's outdated PG-centric offense? Check.
Encouraging the same mid-range shots that good defenses game-plan for you to take? Check.
Displaying an inability to adjust on the fly? Check.
Display an unwillingness to listen to his players and be incredibly stubborn? Check.

He should have never been hired and certainly have not had the interim tag removed after Teddy & Ernie refused to even entertain the prospect of other coaches. He was basically a lazy hire because he was already in the building and didn't immediately stink up the joint. That's a terrible way of making personnel decisions.

We basically wasted John Wall's development and best years and ensure he'd under perform by keeping Wittman on. And it's not like Wittman had any up-and-comers on his staff. It was generally known that the assistant coaches were suspect in their own right. We actually had an assistant coach that had encouraged players to stop shooting threes to concentrate more on the mid-range game. Outdated thinking permeated the coaching staff. I'm not a huge Brooks fan but I do believe he's competent. To me that's a significant step up from where we've been.

Do you think Brooks is better?

[Dat2U]

Do you think Brooks is better?

Brooks was not a great hire and for the money we spent, we'll probably regret it. But he is competent and won't "get in the way" of his guys. I.E., he won't fall victim to outdated strategies, isn't overly stubborn or set in his ways and generally puts guys in their best position to succeed. So he's competent. We could have done better but IMO he's a solid upgrade over Wittman. And the coaching staff he's putting together seems to have a better pedigree than the former coaching staff under Wittman.

[Ruzious]

Calling Randy Wittman competent is a slap in the face to competent coaches everywhere.

I thought Wittman was in the bottom third of coaches, but by no means one of the very worst in the league. Perhaps "barely confident" is a suitable description.

However we define it, I don't think that Wittman was costing us a whole lot more wins than any other average coach. There are a handful of truly good coaches in this league who could have squeezed more out of our roster and Wittman certainly isn't one of them, but I don't think he's egregiously bad either.

I do think it was time for him to go. Even good coaches have a shelf life, after which the players no longer listen. Wittman was past his shelf life.

I think he was bad. The worst in the league? I dunno but he's more bottom three than bottom third.

Running Flip's outdated PG-centric offense? Check.
Encouraging the same mid-range shots that good defenses game-plan for you to take? Check.
Displaying an inability to adjust on the fly? Check.
Display an unwillingness to listen to his players and be incredibly stubborn? Check.

He should have never been hired and certainly have not had the interim tag removed after Teddy & Ernie refused to even entertain the prospect of other coaches. He was basically a lazy hire because he was already in the building and didn't immediately stink up the joint. That's a terrible way of making personnel decisions.

We basically wasted John Wall's development and best years and ensure he'd under perform by keeping Wittman on. And it's not like Wittman had any up-and-comers on his staff. It was generally known that the assistant coaches were suspect in their own right. We actually had an assistant coach that had encouraged players to stop shooting threes to concentrate more on the mid-range game. Outdated thinking permeated the coaching staff. I'm not a huge Brooks fan but I do believe he's competent. To me that's a significant step up from where we've been.

So after all those disparaging comments, how many more wins would the Wiz have had under Brooks if he was the Wiz coach since Wittman took over?

Spoiler:

The answer is less than 1 a year. And no change in the playoffs.

[payitforward]

Except Kendrick perkins

I'm trying to imagine why I or anyone should be confident that Scott Brooks is a good coach. His record with the Thunder doesn't tell me he's good; it tells me he had a bunch of really good players, a terrific roster headed up by KD and Westbrook. The team didn't miss a beat when a new coach came in.

Don't get me wrong -- Scott Brooks may very well be a terrific coach. Or not.

Either way, it's hard to see him getting much out of this roster. Then again, I could be (I hope I am!) wrong. Not holding my breath, however.

I was not thrilled with the hire. The Thunder were a team of freak athletes who could defend, plus they had 2 of the top 5 one-on-one offensive players in the game (and big men with 3-point range to spread the floor). I feel like any half-decent coach who stressed defense could coax 55-60 wins out of that team every year. I think Randy Wittman could have had about the same record. Billy Donovan, a rookie HC with no NBA experience, got 55 wins out of them last year despite Durant missing 10 games.

We've seen Scott Brooks coach a team that lacked 2 superstars. It was 2 years ago when Durant missed 61 games. Their record in games without Durant was 31-30. I'm hoping to be surprised, but, like you, I see no reason to have confidence that Brooks is a particularly good coach. I think he is merely "competent", just like Wittman.

The guy I wish we got was Frank Vogel. I think he consistently coached up Indiana to play way above their talent level. He somehow squeezed 38 wins out of that team in a season without Paul George. Their best player was George Hill. Their 45-win performance last year was equally impressive. Their two best bigs were Lavoy Allen and Ian Mahinmi. Could 10% of NBA fans have picked either of those two guys out of a lineup 2 years ago?

Would have been a good choice. Thing is, tho... what would any coach, the greatest coach, get out of a roster like ours? We just don't have many good players, alas.

[payitforward]

The Nuggets are shopping Kenneth Faried; they want a "pace and space" 4. I'd give them Morris for Faried in a NY minute! Salaries probably too different, tho.

[nate33]

The Nuggets are shopping Kenneth Faried; they want a "pace and space" 4. I'd give them Morris for Faried in a NY minute! Salaries probably too different, tho.

Throw in Jason Smith to match salaries.

That said, I'm skeptical of how Faried would fit here. I know you like him because his advance stats show that he's a good offensive rebounder who doesn't turn the ball over. Any team an use a guy like that. The problem is, it's much harder to make room for a guy like that when you have a roster that features a PG who can't shoot and a center who can't shoot outside of 8 feet. Denver didn't have that problem because Jokic is a serviceable perimeter shooter (42% outside of 15 feet, 33% from 3point range).

This continues to be an underappreciated weakness of John Wall. Because of his offensive limitations, it reduces the pool of suitable teammates. Somebody like Kyle Lowry or Chris Paul can play with 2 teammates that don't shoot all that well. Wall can't.

[Dark Faze]

This continues to be an underappreciated weakness of John Wall. Because of his offensive limitations, it reduces the pool of suitable teammates. Somebody like Kyle Lowry or Chris Paul can play with 2 teammates that don't shoot all that well. Wall can't.

Wall can play the 2 as a 3 and D slashing type for sure, especially with his added size now. He could run back door oop plays if we had an offense that ever run them. Problem is he's never playing with a passer that can both fasciliate and shoot well enough. You don't take the ball out of John's hands so Brad can fumble around and take a bad mid range shot. Maybe this year after multiple summers of working on his handle (looks it might finally be up to par).

Andre Miller was a good passer but pairing him with Wall was a bad fit. Sessions and Wall DID have some successful outings together on occasion.

9 times out of 10 it's better to let Chris Paul just dominate every possession. Blake has the sort of skill where he should probably be doing the same...it's part of why the Clips can never get anything done. When guys can run an offense, best to just let them work. You let someone else iso besides LeBron when you have a player as skilled as Irving offensively, but the Wiz haven't had anyone close to that next to John.

[Dark Faze]

As for the trade I think it's something you consider after a couple of months into the season. If the record is meh and Kieff is meh, for sure you do it if Denver would still be up for it.

I think a guy who is relentless and can secure possessions is underrated. A guy that's always going to outwork his position, who's always going to try hard, who's going to get you more possessions that you might have had--that's got value. It shows in Farieds advanced stats. The drop you have in the half court form an offensive perspective simply has to be made up for the demanded, yes DEMANDED improvement from our backcourt offensively, particularly Beal, who simply has to raise his production and efficiency to another level.

[Dat2U]

I thought Wittman was in the bottom third of coaches, but by no means one of the very worst in the league. Perhaps "barely confident" is a suitable description.

However we define it, I don't think that Wittman was costing us a whole lot more wins than any other average coach. There are a handful of truly good coaches in this league who could have squeezed more out of our roster and Wittman certainly isn't one of them, but I don't think he's egregiously bad either.

I do think it was time for him to go. Even good coaches have a shelf life, after which the players no longer listen. Wittman was past his shelf life.

I think he was bad. The worst in the league? I dunno but he's more bottom three than bottom third.

Running Flip's outdated PG-centric offense? Check.
Encouraging the same mid-range shots that good defenses game-plan for you to take? Check.
Displaying an inability to adjust on the fly? Check.
Display an unwillingness to listen to his players and be incredibly stubborn? Check.

He should have never been hired and certainly have not had the interim tag removed after Teddy & Ernie refused to even entertain the prospect of other coaches. He was basically a lazy hire because he was already in the building and didn't immediately stink up the joint. That's a terrible way of making personnel decisions.

We basically wasted John Wall's development and best years and ensure he'd under perform by keeping Wittman on. And it's not like Wittman had any up-and-comers on his staff. It was generally known that the assistant coaches were suspect in their own right. We actually had an assistant coach that had encouraged players to stop shooting threes to concentrate more on the mid-range game. Outdated thinking permeated the coaching staff. I'm not a huge Brooks fan but I do believe he's competent. To me that's a significant step up from where we've been.

So after all those disparaging comments, how many more wins would the Wiz have had under Brooks if he was the Wiz coach since Wittman took over?

Spoiler:

The answer is less than 1 a year. And no change in the playoffs.

I'd love to know where you got that answer from

I think Wall & Beal do less of the mid-range gunning which makes them far more inefficient than they should be. I think possessions where no one else touches the ball and Wall fires off a 20 ft are limited. Those were in many cases wasted possessions. I think we don't see defense take a back seat to installing a joke of an offense last year thusly our defensive efficiency doesn't fall off a cliff. Charlotte somehow morphed into a small ball team last year, and still focused on defense during training camp last season. I don't think the Wizards quit on Brooks like they did halfway through last season on Wittman because Witt ignored their suggestions on P&R coverages and proved to be a stubborn old man.

I think 4-5 games a year is possible. Not because Brooks is an elite coach but because Wall & Beal are more efficient players (due to coaching philosophy).

[Ruzious]

I think he was bad. The worst in the league? I dunno but he's more bottom three than bottom third.

Running Flip's outdated PG-centric offense? Check.
Encouraging the same mid-range shots that good defenses game-plan for you to take? Check.
Displaying an inability to adjust on the fly? Check.
Display an unwillingness to listen to his players and be incredibly stubborn? Check.

He should have never been hired and certainly have not had the interim tag removed after Teddy & Ernie refused to even entertain the prospect of other coaches. He was basically a lazy hire because he was already in the building and didn't immediately stink up the joint. That's a terrible way of making personnel decisions.

We basically wasted John Wall's development and best years and ensure he'd under perform by keeping Wittman on. And it's not like Wittman had any up-and-comers on his staff. It was generally known that the assistant coaches were suspect in their own right. We actually had an assistant coach that had encouraged players to stop shooting threes to concentrate more on the mid-range game. Outdated thinking permeated the coaching staff. I'm not a huge Brooks fan but I do believe he's competent. To me that's a significant step up from where we've been.

So after all those disparaging comments, how many more wins would the Wiz have had under Brooks if he was the Wiz coach since Wittman took over?

Spoiler:

The answer is less than 1 a year. And no change in the playoffs.

I'd love to know where you got that answer from

I think Wall & Beal do less of the mid-range gunning which makes them far more inefficient than they should be. I think possessions where no one else touches the ball and Wall fires off a 20 ft are limited. Those were in many cases wasted possessions. I think we don't see defense take a back seat to installing a joke of an offense last year thusly our defensive efficiency doesn't fall off a cliff. Charlotte somehow morphed into a small ball team last year, and still focused on defense during training camp last season. I don't think the Wizards quit on Brooks like they did halfway through last season on Wittman because Witt ignored their suggestions on P&R coverages and proved to be a stubborn old man.

I think 4-5 games a year is possible. Not because Brooks is an elite coach but because Wall & Beal are more efficient players (due to coaching philosophy).

Is Rico using your login? I don't know how you figure this has been an upper 40's to 50 wins roster for the last 3 seasons. That would require Ernie Grunfeld to have been a solid GM. You can't have it both ways - at least not outside of the internet.

The players are what they are - and that's not because of Wittman. Beal just hasn't been very good. Wittman hasn't forced him to miss tons and tons of open shots, and he's had significant injuries every year. And Wall just isn't a very good shooter. That's not on Wittman. He's always had a problem shooting. The team has always lacked talent around Wall - Wall has been the single elite talent on the team - and yet they've made the playoffs twice. They haven't done better because of one thing - lack of talent. A GREAT coach could have made a difference. A coach like Brooks... maybe 1 win a year, and maybe he loses 1 more. We'll have to see what he does with a roster that doesn't have Durant and Westbrook. He could very well be a game a season worse than Wittman.

[Dat2U]

So after all those disparaging comments, how many more wins would the Wiz have had under Brooks if he was the Wiz coach since Wittman took over?

Spoiler:

The answer is less than 1 a year. And no change in the playoffs.

I'd love to know where you got that answer from

I think Wall & Beal do less of the mid-range gunning which makes them far more inefficient than they should be. I think possessions where no one else touches the ball and Wall fires off a 20 ft are limited. Those were in many cases wasted possessions. I think we don't see defense take a back seat to installing a joke of an offense last year thusly our defensive efficiency doesn't fall off a cliff. Charlotte somehow morphed into a small ball team last year, and still focused on defense during training camp last season. I don't think the Wizards quit on Brooks like they did halfway through last season on Wittman because Witt ignored their suggestions on P&R coverages and proved to be a stubborn old man.

I think 4-5 games a year is possible. Not because Brooks is an elite coach but because Wall & Beal are more efficient players (due to coaching philosophy).

Is Rico using your login? I don't know how you figure this has been an upper 40's to 50 wins roster for the last 3 seasons. That would require Ernie Grunfeld to have been a solid GM. You can't have it both ways - at least not outside of the internet.

The players are what they are - and that's not because of Wittman. Beal just hasn't been very good. Wittman hasn't forced him to miss tons and tons of open shots, and he's had significant injuries every year. And Wall just isn't a very good shooter. That's not on Wittman. He's always had a problem shooting. The team has always lacked talent around Wall - Wall has been the single elite talent on the team - and yet they've made the playoffs twice. They haven't done better because of one thing - lack of talent. A GREAT coach could have made a difference. A coach like Brooks... maybe 1 win a year, and maybe he loses 1 more. We'll have to see what he does with a roster that doesn't have Durant and Westbrook. He could very well be a game a season worse than Wittman.

I'm not speaking to the roster. I'm speaking to Wall and to a lesser extent Beal. I saw a stat a while back that showed Wall has consistently led the league or been near the top of the league in terms of mid-range jumpers attempted the last 4-5 years. This only amplifies his poor shooting, the consistent desire to keep shooting shots he doesn't shoot well. And who encouraged this behavior? Wittman and his coaching staff. Doesn't it make sense that if the mid-range shot wasn't such an integral part of his game and he didn't lead the league in mid-range attempts, he might be a more efficient player? Wouldn't that likely lead to a few more wins?