If you took over as GM today, what would you do?

[montestewart]

The fact that Oak got injured before that season started should have been anticipated? Why? Because of age? Of course, all the other players who dominate despite age should have been anticipated as well? It's pretty easy to be a detractor. Most basketball teams fail. If you are only a detractor, you will live a long life. It's harder actually playing for real money.

Yes, the Okafor/Ariza trade would have been good minus the injury.

Okafor, like Nene, had an injury history, coupled with advancing NBA years. They were both gambles. The Okafor gamble turned out OK last year, not so good this year. Most people who disliked the trade liked Okafor and Ariza as players, just didn't like the way EG goes about building teams. But even EG can get them all wrong.

Minus the injury, I would put that trade in the plus column. But there was an injury, and then a 1st was traded. At one point, I had some delusion that EG might redeem himself by trading Ariza and Okafor to contenders this year for future picks or something. Hah!

[Nivek]

The fact that Oak got injured before that season started should have been anticipated? Why? Because of age? Of course, all the other players who dominate despite age should have been anticipated as well? It's pretty easy to be a detractor. Most basketball teams fail. If you are only a detractor, you will live a long life. It's harder actually playing for real money.

Yes, the Okafor/Ariza trade would have been good minus the injury.

I didn't like the Okafor/Ariza trade -- would have preferred they used the same resources to acquire younger players who could have been with the team longer term. But, Okafor was productive last season, and Ariza was solid last year and has been very good so far this year.

Where the front office really screwed the pooch this offseason was in failing to get some insurance for a possible injury to one of their 30+ big men. It is simply reality that athletes over 30 years old typically do two things: get hurt and get worse. Okafor had been healthy for most of his career...but does have a history of back injury. Nene has been hampered by foot problems since 2011. Odds were, one of those two was going to miss some time -- that it was Okafor ending up being out for the season was a surprise. But Nene's foot and Achilles problems should not have been.

And yet...no moves to bring in help up front. They burned the BAE on Maynor, which was an obviously terrible move when they made it. They then spent the MLE on Webster, which is fine -- he's a good player. But that left them able to offer only minimum salaries to bigs, and the best they could do was Al Harrington -- an aging, meh player who was coming off a serious illness.

They wanted to build around 30+ bigs -- fine. But common sense would say to have some depth behind those guys. They did nothing to improve frontcourt depth and so were forced to trade a future first to salvage the season -- to get them back to approximately what they would have been if Okafor had stayed healthy.

[fishercob]

The fact that Oak got injured before that season started should have been anticipated? Why? Because of age? Of course, all the other players who dominate despite age should have been anticipated as well? It's pretty easy to be a detractor. Most basketball teams fail. If you are only a detractor, you will live a long life. It's harder actually playing for real money.

Yes, the Okafor/Ariza trade would have been good minus the injury.

I didn't like the Okafor/Ariza trade -- would have preferred they used the same resources to acquire younger players who could have been with the team longer term. But, Okafor was productive last season, and Ariza was solid last year and has been very good so far this year.

Where the front office really screwed the pooch this offseason was in failing to get some insurance for a possible injury to one of their 30+ big men. It is simply reality that athletes over 30 years old typically do two things: get hurt and get worse. Okafor had been healthy for most of his career...but does have a history of back injury. Nene has been hampered by foot problems since 2011. Odds were, one of those two was going to miss some time -- that it was Okafor ending up being out for the season was a surprise. But Nene's foot and Achilles problems should not have been.

And yet...no moves to bring in help up front. They burned the BAE on Maynor, which was an obviously terrible move when they made it. They then spent the MLE on Webster, which is fine -- he's a good player. But that left them able to offer only minimum salaries to bigs, and the best they could do was Al Harrington -- an aging, meh player who was coming off a serious illness.

They wanted to build around 30+ bigs -- fine. But common sense would say to have some depth behind those guys. They did nothing to improve frontcourt depth and so were forced to trade a future first to salvage the season -- to get them back to approximately what they would have been if Okafor had stayed healthy.

Very well put. Hey, if you want to roll with 30+ bigs and you love your wings, fine. Then trade down and draft Adams. Or just draft Adams. But they painted themselves into a corner.

It's not that I disagree with the overall strategy and direction (I do, but that is beside the point). It's that within the context of their own strategy and direction, they were still quite dumb.

[Dat2U]

The fact that Oak got injured before that season started should have been anticipated? Why? Because of age? Of course, all the other players who dominate despite age should have been anticipated as well? It's pretty easy to be a detractor. Most basketball teams fail. If you are only a detractor, you will live a long life. It's harder actually playing for real money.

Yes, the Okafor/Ariza trade would have been good minus the injury.

I guess it's okay to grade on a curve then because that's exactly what your doing. And it's easy to forget that detractors of the Okaforiza deal like myself, pointed out Okafor's injury history before he ever played a minute in DC. Detractors also expressed concern about spending 20 mil a year on 2 guys when we only had 3-4 actual NBA players on our roster to begin with. I argued over and over again how it was a terrible allocation of resources.

By the way, in the West we'd be 13th out of 15 teams.

The Brooklyn Nets, who've had an absolutely disastrous season thus far and already lost their best player in Lopez, sits only 3 games behind us. The Knicks are only 4 games behind us. We don't have a stinking first round pick because of Okafor's injury. You sound like this deal was some sort of progression towards a long term plan but it wasn't. Acquiring Okaforiza doesn't lead us to anything other than an eventual dead end, especially once we re-up Ariza & Okafor's replacement It was a desperate move made by a desperate GM who's only goal is to stay employed. Everything he's done the last two years including the Okaforiza deal, the Nene trade & the Gortat trade was all made to save his own hide... and were still only slightly above terrible.

[barelyawake]

I think the idea was to flip Okafor and Ariza during the season. The problem was, once Oak went down, they should have tanked again. As I've said, our goal should be to get a young, star big. We shall see if that's the outcome. The Porter pick also didn't help.

In terms of what I would do if I were GM, I would sit Wall down and give him a list of the five or so players who, when paired with Wall/Beal, would create a contender -- and carve out strategies to get them here.

Then I would spend more on trainers, therapists, developmental coaches, scouts and rehab doctors than anyone not named Cuban.

Then I would start a campaign in the media to change the perception of the Wiz and DC as a destination city by ranking up fines criticizing the bias of ESPN, the league and the refs.

[jivelikenice]

With the injury, the deal has proven to be a poor one giving how much it tied our hands financially and the additional pick we had to give up to pick up Gortat. That being said, we can still salvage something by deciding not to re-sign Ariza and using him as trade bait. The question then becomes would you prefer the salary cap relief or would you prefer to trade him for someone under contract next year. If the plan is to re-sign Gortat, then I say go ahead and make a move if you can land a guy like Thad Young, Faried, etc...(Not Ilyasova )

[tontoz]

Even if Okafor was healthy this still wouldn't be a good team. Okafor is better defensively than Gortat but worse offensively. Okafor can't shoot or run the pick and roll. Put this team out west and they wouldn't sniff the playoffs even with perfect health.

At this point i don't know what to do. There have been so many mistakes made that the team has really painted itself into a corner. I don't see an easy way out.

[Dat2U]

Outside of Larry Sanders (who admittedly was a lot better last season), is their a worst starting C in the East than Gortat???

Even Jonas Valanciunas, who was struggling mightly before the Gay deal, is now out playing Gortat over the last few weeks.

I guess he's better than whatever the Nets are putting at C right now with Brook Lopez out (Garnett & Blatche) but he should look better than most of the league's backups.

[Nivek]

Outside of Larry Sanders (who admittedly was a lot better last season), is their a worst starting C in the East than Gortat???

Even Jonas Valanciunas, who was struggling mightly before the Gay deal, is now out playing Gortat over the last few weeks.

I guess he's better than whatever the Nets are putting at C right now with Brook Lopez out (Garnett & Blatche) but he should look better than most of the league's backups.

I was about to post that you're being too hard on Gortat, but decided to look at the numbers first. Going by PPA, Gortat ranks 10th in the East among starters. Less productive starting centers in the East (using b-r's position designation) -- Valuniunas, Bynum, Bargnani, Sanders, KG.

I set "starter" status as starting at least 65% of the player's game appearances.

[Ruzious]

Outside of Larry Sanders (who admittedly was a lot better last season), is their a worst starting C in the East than Gortat???

Even Jonas Valanciunas, who was struggling mightly before the Gay deal, is now out playing Gortat over the last few weeks.

I guess he's better than whatever the Nets are putting at C right now with Brook Lopez out (Garnett & Blatche) but he should look better than most of the league's backups.

Over the course of the year, Gortat likely won't be significantly better or worse than the average starting center, imo.

Btw, Sanders has hardly played this season.

[barelyawake]

The question was never if Okafor would make us better. It was would his and Ariza's expiring contract (plus the ability to trade future picks) get us a player demanding a trade. Let's see who becomes available at trade deadline. Once the injury occurred, the move should have been to tank.

I agree about the poor construction in that I have always advocated for building around a big first -- thus the reason why I wanted Drummond over Beal and bigs for the last few drafts (barring Wall's).

[Ruzious]

Outside of Larry Sanders (who admittedly was a lot better last season), is their a worst starting C in the East than Gortat???

Even Jonas Valanciunas, who was struggling mightly before the Gay deal, is now out playing Gortat over the last few weeks.

I guess he's better than whatever the Nets are putting at C right now with Brook Lopez out (Garnett & Blatche) but he should look better than most of the league's backups.

I was about to post that you're being too hard on Gortat, but decided to look at the numbers first. Going by PPA, Gortat ranks 10th in the East among starters. Less productive starting centers in the East (using b-r's position designation) -- Valuniunas, Bynum, Bargnani, Sanders, KG.

I set "starter" status as starting at least 65% of the player's game appearances.

Guys like Al Jefferson and Jared Sullinger might put up better numbers than Gortat, but I wouldn't rate them as better players.

[Dat2U]

This is where internet fandom divorces from reality.

The fire sale to the extent Dat describes is completely untenable. You couldn't sell the owner on it. You couldn't sell the precious few long suffering suckers who buy tickets on it.

More to the point, it's not necessary. Just put systems in place to do a better job selecting players -- in the draft, free agency, and trades, and there will be plenty of opportunity to take this team up multiple levels in the coming years.

IMO, a full on fire sale is a sh*tty plan.

Couldn't disagree more. When you start making decisions based on how the public & fans may react to it, then you've already lost. It could be sold to a smart owner, if you clearly lay out a feasible plan.

I really don't think what I'm suggesting is all that untenable either. I wouldn't necessarily call it a fire sale, it's more like a short-term re-positioning the roster to compete for the long haul. Right now, we don't have anything that's sustainable. Nene & Gortat especially, aren't ideal fits for the roster short & long term. The worst mistake we can make is doubling down on this current situation (resigning Gortat & Ariza, keeping Witt). That's really untenable in my eyes.

I'm not looking at a total rebuild either. It isn't needed. I think Wall is a really really dynamic talent and would show more in a different system. He's a top 20 player right now IMO if his situation was a bit more ideal. Beal is struggling in part, because they aren't really doing a good job of putting him in places to succeed (poor game planning & coaching). Webster is a rock solid SF on a solid contract and Otto Porter should comparatively solid given time. So what I'd be looking at is selling off useless fodder (EG's kids) or non-ideal fits (Gortat, Nene & Ariza), tank for this season only and take Wall, Beal, Webster, Porter & our 2014 1st rounder and add pieces this off-season that better complement our core going forward. I don't want or hope for a long term rebuild. I want a quick fix too. In my eyes, this is a potential quick fix that has long term benefits for only a few months of pain (from now to the end of the season).

I look at it as this. Do I want to go into next off-season with the current core & Gortat & Ariza resigned or do I want to go into next season with a high '14 pick, the ability to add a defender in the paint like Asik or J. Hill (like Portland added Robin Lopez this past summer) and cap flexibility to improve going forward (and potentially be able capitalize on a star coming available like Houston has)

[Dat2U]

Outside of Larry Sanders (who admittedly was a lot better last season), is their a worst starting C in the East than Gortat???

Even Jonas Valanciunas, who was struggling mightly before the Gay deal, is now out playing Gortat over the last few weeks.

I guess he's better than whatever the Nets are putting at C right now with Brook Lopez out (Garnett & Blatche) but he should look better than most of the league's backups.

I was about to post that you're being too hard on Gortat, but decided to look at the numbers first. Going by PPA, Gortat ranks 10th in the East among starters. Less productive starting centers in the East (using b-r's position designation) -- Valuniunas, Bynum, Bargnani, Sanders, KG.

I set "starter" status as starting at least 65% of the player's game appearances.

The difference is that I looked at Varejao (now their starting C going forward) instead of Bynum and Chandler instead of Bargs. And over the last few weeks Valanciunas has played much better than Gortat has.

[Dat2U]

Over the course of the year, Gortat likely won't be significantly better or worse than the average starting center, imo.

Btw, Sanders has hardly played this season.

I'd say Gortat is clearly a below average starting C, and clearly an above average backup C. He's really not that far from being the Trevor Booker of PFs. When you start talking about starting Cs less productive than Gortat, it's a pretty ugly list, off the top of my head I can name more than 20 Cs that I'd take over Gortat.

[fishercob]

This is where internet fandom divorces from reality.

The fire sale to the extent Dat describes is completely untenable. You couldn't sell the owner on it. You couldn't sell the precious few long suffering suckers who buy tickets on it.

More to the point, it's not necessary. Just put systems in place to do a better job selecting players -- in the draft, free agency, and trades, and there will be plenty of opportunity to take this team up multiple levels in the coming years.

IMO, a full on fire sale is a sh*tty plan.

Couldn't disagree more. When you start making decisions based on how the public & fans may react to it, then you've already lost. It could be sold to a smart owner, if you clearly lay out a feasible plan.

I really don't think what I'm suggesting is all that untenable either. I wouldn't necessarily call it a fire sale, it's more like a short-term re-positioning the roster to compete for the long haul. Right now, we don't have anything that's sustainable. Nene & Gortat especially, aren't ideal fits for the roster short & long term. The worst mistake we can make is doubling down on this current situation (resigning Gortat & Ariza, keeping Witt). That's really untenable in my eyes.

I'm not looking at a total rebuild either. It isn't needed. I think Wall is a really really dynamic talent and would show more in a different system. He's a top 20 player right now IMO if his situation was a bit more ideal. Beal is struggling in part, because they aren't really doing a good job of putting him in places to succeed (poor game planning & coaching). Webster is a rock solid SF on a solid contract and Otto Porter should comparatively solid given time. So what I'd be looking at is selling off useless fodder (EG's kids) or non-ideal fits (Gortat, Nene & Ariza), tank for this season only and take Wall, Beal, Webster, Porter & our 2014 1st rounder and add pieces this off-season that better complement our core going forward. I don't want or hope for a long term rebuild. I want a quick fix too. In my eyes, this is a potential quick fix that has long term benefits for only a few months of pain (from now to the end of the season).

I look at it as this. Do I want to go into next off-season with the current core & Gortat & Ariza resigned or do I want to go into next season with a high '14 pick, the ability to add a defender in the paint like Asik or J. Hill (like Portland added Robin Lopez this past summer) and cap flexibility to improve going forward (and potentially be able capitalize on a star coming available like Houston has)

Here's what you wrote that I was responding to:

If I was hired today....

I'd have a fire sale. Half price on an adequate and slightly aged big man rental. 60% off a well established and experienced wing man rental with playoff pedigree, 95% off on recent draft busts. I also have a slightly worn down but high quality big that's available for pennies on the dollar (negotiable).

No returns, no exchanges, all sales are final!

Is it a fire sale or not??

I don't think trading away some of the non core guys is a bad idea in and of itself. But it obviously depends on the return. What's more important is not that the current roster be dismantled,(as that -- in and of itself -- accomplishes nothing), but rather that systems are put into place so we are selecting the right players in drafts, trades and free agency.

Draft well and you have an asset base from which to trade. Sign good players to fair contracts and you have more assets -- not to mention guys who will help you on the floor. Trade for undervalued assets.

With the right person calling the shots the future would be quite bright here.

[Rafael122]

The only way I see the Wizards jumping off the proverbial treadmill is if they bring in Monroe, at the same time renouncing guys like Gortat and Ariza. I think the days of there being a bruiser at the center spot are done, you don't really need to have a natural 4 and a natural 5, so I think having Monroe and Nene in the same lineup would work.

Sign Greg Monroe to a 4 yr/$50 million deal, starting at $10 mil to $10.5 mil in the first season, topping out at around $13 mil in the final year.

Bring back Booker on a deal that was given to Darrell Arthur (2 yr/$7 million deal)

NOTE: Team was scheduled to have $16 million in cap space, I've used up around $13 mil.

Trade Eric Maynor and the Pelicans' 2015 2nd round pick to anyone. It's a cap dump, saves them $2 million.

Still got $5 million to play with. I would sign Jodie Meeks to a 3 yr deal worth $9 million. He will be Beal's backup, and he's been killing it recently.

I believe for teams who are under the cap there's a $2.6 million exception. I think using that and the money still needed to be spent, I'd go after Patty Mills/Steve Blake/Jordan Farmar, and maybe a guy like Chris Kaman.

Draft a big.

PG - Wall/Mills
SG - Beal/Meeks
SF - Webster/Porter
PF - Nene/Booker/Rookie
C - Monroe/Kaman

Total salary will probably top out at $65 million, putting them way under the luxury tax, and available to make other minor signings to round out the team.

Note: I don't know how feasible this plan is, they are 4 roster spots short of the limit, but my strategy was to go after 1 high profile free agent, and then go after guys like Meeks and Mills who aren't making more than $1.5 mil, give them a hefty raise to leave

[TGW]

I don't like Monroe at all...his defense is poor on and off the ball. These days, it's almost mandatory that a competitive defensive team have a rim protector that can defend the paint. You need that, a wing defender, and a point guard that can stop dribble penetration. We struggle on all counts, so having Monroe as the last line of defense would be disastrous.

[Rafael122]

I don't like Monroe at all...his defense is poor on and off the ball. These days, it's almost mandatory that a competitive defensive team have a rim protector that can defend the paint. You need that, a wing defender, and a point guard that can stop dribble penetration. We struggle on all counts, so having Monroe as the last line of defense would be disastrous.

And there's the rub, if you're not bringing anyone back, who are you going to sign to replace them? FA crop is pretty weak, but you can probably get 3 or 4 good bench players for $10 mil or less total.

[TGW]

I don't like Monroe at all...his defense is poor on and off the ball. These days, it's almost mandatory that a competitive defensive team have a rim protector that can defend the paint. You need that, a wing defender, and a point guard that can stop dribble penetration. We struggle on all counts, so having Monroe as the last line of defense would be disastrous.

And there's the rub, if you're not bringing anyone back, who are you going to sign to replace them? FA crop is pretty weak, but you can probably get 3 or 4 good bench players for $10 mil or less total.

Just because you have caproom doesn't mean you have to use it on someone. Instead of dropping huge money on players that won't make us a contender, I think we'd be better of doing more trades where we take on some other teams expiring crap for picks and assets—much like the Hinrich maneuver. That way, we still keep long-term cap flexibility while gaining some assets. I'm willing to take a small step back in order to build a contender.