Offseason Plan

[dobrojim]

#sowizards is perfect for this time of year when we see multiple teams assemble rosters
that produce wins in some cases by spinning straw into gold. It's not all that unusual for
teams still playing to have one or more players that we could have gotten, yeah hindsight
is 20/20 but there are definitely examples of teams that evaluate and recruit talent
much better than we do. Ownership/management ought to really think about why this is.
No one thinks it's easy. But almost no one thinks they shouldn't do better. It's not just
bad luck that it happens repeatedly.

[payitforward]

It's only hindsight if you say something like, "we should have drafted (player name) in 2103" when you never suggested it in the run up to that draft. But, if you were calling for us to draft "Joe", but we drafted someone else, & then "Joe" turned out to be good, it's not hindsight at all to point out that we could have gotten him.

For example, Boston offered us a 2020 R1 pick (presumably either #26 or #30) for Davis Bertans. We didn't take the deal.

In the run up to that draft, Ruzious was a big-time advocate of Desmond Bane. Come draft night, Boston traded the #30 pick to Memphis, & the Grizz took Bane, & he's been good.

It's not "hindsight" if Ruzious mentions that "we could have had Desmond Bane."

OTOH, in that same draft, I was happy when Deni Avdija fell to us. If I now say, "we could have had Tyrese Haliburton," that would definitely be hindsight!

[dckingsfan]

OTOH, in that same draft, I was happy when Deni Avdija fell to us. If I now say, "we could have had Tyrese Haliburton," that would definitely be hindsight!

In hindsight, if I had listened to Ruz and we had taken Tyrese we wouldn't be fishing for PGs right now

[dckingsfan]

Isn't the bigger question for the Wizards whether to max Beal?

Well I guess they have no choice other than to lose that asset.

But Beal isn't likely to take the team into the playoffs.

Yep - that is the key question. I would rather him just walk but I could see arguments on the other side...

I am resigned to a Beal signing and continued mediocrity...

[payitforward]

Been thinking about this.... A "plan" needs to be a a set of things (decisions, actions, etc.) done to achieve a goal."

If we mean to be discussing a plan for next season, then surely the question is, what is the goal? What are we making a plan to achieve next season?

Is there a goal? Does the organization have a goal for next year, to reach which they have, or are formulating, a plan? In our case, since we can't actually make plans for the Wizards, we must have an idea of what the organization's goal should be.

Without that, we can't discuss what steps the Wiz should take. "Steps" have to be taken to reach a goal.

That goal can't be qualitative. I.e., it can't be to "be the best that we can be." A goal has to be something you can know you've either achieved or not. It can't even be "to make the playoffs," come to think of it. We don't know what record will be required to make the playoffs. I.e. it's a moving target not a goal.

So, what's our goal? & that doesn't mean, what it would be really great to achieve. It means what can we set as a realistic target, one which we can either succeed in reaching, in which case our plan succeeded, or which we can fail to achieve, in which case our plan failed.

Anybody have an idea of what our goal should be?

[dckingsfan]

Well, you took qualitative off the list - I kind of think that is where they headed. What is the best quality team we can rollout next year (quality being described by fans coming out).

I am sure the quantitative aspect is there. Namely, what is the best quality team we can rollout next year under the cap.

And then the last will be the enabling aspect. What is the best quality team we can rollout next year under the cap that moves us in the general direction of a winning franchise.

I think some owners and franchises focus very hard on winning a championship. I don't think this franchise does that. I think that they focus more on the qualitative and quantitative issues to the detriment of moving the team forward towards winning a championship.

[payitforward]

Well, you took qualitative off the list - I kind of think that is where they headed. What is the best quality team we can rollout next year (quality being described by fans coming out).

I am sure the quantitative aspect is there. Namely, what is the best quality team we can rollout next year under the cap.....

Respectfully, every franchise wants to roll out the best team it can, & every franchise wants the most fans possible at games. & of course every team would prefer to be under the cap (or maybe you meant "under the luxury tax line").

...And then the last will be the enabling aspect. What is the best quality team we can rollout next year under the cap that moves us in the general direction of a winning franchise....

Again, this has nothing to do with the idea of "a plan." There are no franchises asking themselves how they can roll out a team that moves them away from winning! -- although, admittedly, sometimes it does look that way

But, really, my question is directed to us not to Wiz FO. In other words, while it's obviously true that we need to upgrade our roster at PG, "sign a PG" isn't a "plan."

Or if it is -- if coming off the 4th awful season in a row -- which 4 seasons followed a decade of seasons most of which were awful -- our idea is "sign a PG," that is truly pathetic.

[payitforward]

Btw -- in case anyone thinks we've turned some kind of corner, b/c we acquired Porzingis & got rid of Bertans & Dinwiddie (a good thing w/o a doubt!), it would be good to recall that we have gone 7-10 with KP playing.

That record projects to a 34-win season.

So... what's the plan?

[gesa2]

What the plan SHOULD be:
Within 5 years build a team that has a real shot at conference finals level success. Sign and trade Beal as he’s not likely on our timeline, make realistic judgements about the players we have and fish or cut bait with that end goal.
What the stated goals of the Wiz actually are:
Keep Beal unless he asks out. Don’t mortgage the future for 3 more wins now, draft and trade with an eye towards balancing the short and long term.

It has sort of worked before - the Paul George Pacers never bottomed out, but that’s cause they got Paul George. Same with the Bucks and Antetekoumpo.

[pcbothwel]

Btw -- in case anyone thinks we've turned some kind of corner, b/c we acquired Porzingis & got rid of Bertans & Dinwiddie (a good thing w/o a doubt!), it would be good to recall that we have gone 7-10 with KP playing.

That record projects to a 34-win season.

So... what's the plan?

My best guess is Tommy wants to keep adding talent around the roster to support Beal and make a move for a 2nd piece if successful.
Deni and Kispert were very good picks, and we could end up with Eason or Dyson for this draft.
They (Tommy and co) probably know Beal has more than likely peaked as a player, but still capable of the production prior to this year. KP might also be a great fit with Beal unlike anything his had over the last decade.
Speaking of KP, I think we’ve seen in a short time what he is capable of and I’m excited for his pairing with Beal.
Key for us is we need to mitigate is injury history. Having a legit defensive backup (Gafford ) and obtaining a true 2nd piece is the best you can ask for.

Again, not saying it’ll work, but that’s what I believe the general idea is over the next 2 years.
I believe it only becomes a possibility if we hit a home run on a draft pick. So we’ll see.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[doclinkin]

So, what's our goal? & that doesn't mean, what it would be really great to achieve. It means what can we set as a realistic target, one which we can either succeed in reaching, in which case our plan succeeded, or which we can fail to achieve, in which case our plan failed.

Anybody have an idea of what our goal should be?

By when? This next year? Within 5 years?

Our goal should be championship. Every year.

If you want a number, the number is 4 or 16. Yes, 'make the playoffs'. Then win 4 series, win 16 games.

Marking points along the way, include:

1) A winning record. So 42 games.

2) Make the playoffs. Given that half the teams in the league make the playoffs, 42 games likely puts you there, on average. Otherwise the number is 16. Be one of the top 16 teams. Not the play-in game winner, but solidly in the playoffs.

3) Home court advantage in a series. That means you need to be one of the top 8 teams in the league. But let's call that 50 games. 50 games seems to be a threshold where teams can solidly call themselves 'good'.

4) Stay good. Lets say at least 3 years of 50+ wins

5) Win a series in the playoffs. Then win multiple series. Progressively better, sustained success at the highest levels. So, 4, 8, 12 wins... feel free to skip stages though. So long as you don't slide backwards.

6) Championship. 16 wins in the post season.

7) Multiple bites at that apple in a decade. Win or lose, to be in contention at the highest level year after year. Say 2 times in the finals in a 5 year stretch.

8) Dynasty. Multiple championships. Say 2 or more Championships in a 5 year stretch.

But you wanted realistic? Let's see if we can get to that first marker: win more games than you lose. We have only managed that 7 times in 20 years. If we can add to that total a few times, with a progressively better record a few years in a row. It would feel far better than what we have had. If we can get to 50 wins, for this franchise? That is a number that would change the narrative about this team. 50 wins is the "double bottom line" championship. The feel good championship. The contending to contend championship. Nobody on these boards would sneer at 50 wins. Which is all Teddy really wants: the feel good championship, and season ticket renewals. Advertising. Merchandise sales. Market value. There is an entire different number associated with that. The $$ of post season revenue, especially with home court advantage. That would make Ted pink with happiness.

[9 and 20]

But you wanted realistic? Let's see if we can get to that first marker: win more games than you lose. We have only managed that 7 times in 20 years. If we can add to that total a few times, with a progressively better record a few years in a row. It would feel far better than what we have had. If we can get to 50 wins, for this franchise? That is a number that would change the narrative about this team. 50 wins is the "double bottom line" championship. The feel good championship. The contending to contend championship. Nobody on these boards would sneer at 50 wins. Which is all Teddy really wants: the feel good championship, and season ticket renewals. Advertising. Merchandise sales. Market value. There is an entire different number associated with that. The $$ of post season revenue, especially with home court advantage. That would make Ted pink with happiness.

I would gladly take the feel good championship. Wiz have been so consistently bad for so long that a feel good championship would be great.

The Utah Jazz have never won a championship. But, in the few decades, they had the Malone/Stockton years, then the Deron Williams/Carlos Boozer years, and now the Donovan Mitchell/Rudy Gobert pairing. They've mostly had 45 or 50 wins with a few down or rebuilding years interspersed.

Wiz have been garbage for 4 decades now with a handful of decent-ish seasons mixed in.

Utah is no doubt the worst location in America for an NBA team. If they can do it, why is it so hard for us?

[dckingsfan]

Well, you took qualitative off the list - I kind of think that is where they headed. What is the best quality team we can rollout next year (quality being described by fans coming out).

I am sure the quantitative aspect is there. Namely, what is the best quality team we can rollout next year under the cap.....

Respectfully, every franchise wants to roll out the best team it can, & every franchise wants the most fans possible at games. & of course every team would prefer to be under the cap (or maybe you meant "under the luxury tax line").

...And then the last will be the enabling aspect. What is the best quality team we can rollout next year under the cap that moves us in the general direction of a winning franchise....

Again, this has nothing to do with the idea of "a plan." There are no franchises asking themselves how they can roll out a team that moves them away from winning! -- although, admittedly, sometimes it does look that way

But, really, my question is directed to us not to Wiz FO. In other words, while it's obviously true that we need to upgrade our roster at PG, "sign a PG" isn't a "plan."

Or if it is -- if coming off the 4th awful season in a row -- which 4 seasons followed a decade of seasons most of which were awful -- our idea is "sign a PG," that is truly pathetic.

Violent agreement. What is worse is that is the tactic being imposed in back to back years.

There is also the notion of a process vs. a plan. I think that is what Leonsis is employing "his double bottom line process" which focuses on the qualitative. I think they skip the plan for tactics.

My 1/2 cent on the broken business.

[payitforward]

A plan is a plan for change. Saying "we're going to bring everyone back & see what happens" is not a plan. It's admitting you don't have a plan, can't see a way to create/execute a plan. So the first question is what do we have that can help us change? & that we're willing to change?

Overall, we have 9 players with guaranteed contracts for next year, plus we have options on 2 other players, & we also have 2 picks in the upcoming draft.

Of the 9 under contract:
3 are veterans -- Beal, Porzingis, & Kuzma.
4 are young players who either have demonstrated value, or at least have potential value, going forward, -- Gafford, Rui, Deni & Kispert.
2 others -- Todd & Carey -- are very young players who appear to be of negligible value going forward. Of course, that might change; it's not inconceivable. But, that's as far as it goes.

Of the first 7, I'd say Beal & Porzingis are a lock to start next season with us; IMO, so are Gafford & Kispert. Does that seem right to others? If so, that leaves Kuzma, Rui, & Deni as possible tools to use to change the team.

Let's assume we pick up the two options, on Ish & KCP. It's hard to see Ish as having much value in a trade, & he gives us a short term backup PG (not that we have a starter!). OTOH, although he just had his worst season in several years, KCP should have some reasonable trade value.

So, now we're up to Kuzma, Rui, Deni & KCP as potential tools to use in a plan to change the Wizards.

How about our 2 draft picks. Can we trade our R1 pick, I wonder, even if we want to -- given the fact that our R1 pick next year is on the hook to Houston? (Not that they'll get it: it's lottery protected, & the lottery is 100% where we'll be). As to our low R2 pick, obviously it has negligible trade value. For a team in the kind of mess we're in, I'd say it makes more sense to take a flyer on someone than to trade it. It certainly seems like we should use our picks not move them.

Plus, of course, we have the MLE & Room exceptions. & free agency.

So what's the plan? Using the above resources, what do we do? In pursuit of what goal?

[dckingsfan]

A plan is a plan for change. Saying "we're going to bring everyone back & see what happens" is not a plan. It's admitting you don't have a plan, can't see a way to create/execute a plan. So the first question is what do we have that can help us change? & that we're willing to change?

I am going to stop you right there - you identified the problem.

If they believe their process is working and that it will bring about the change - they will ignore pressure to change their process and come up with a plan to that end.

Kind of like the psychology joke, how many electricians does it take to change a lightbulb?

One, but the lightbulb needs to want to change.

[payitforward]

What the plan SHOULD be:

Within 5 years build a team that has a real shot at conference finals level success....

I like it. & your proposed first step is:

Sign and trade Beal...

Given context, I understand you as proposing that we should trade him for the youngest/best talent we can get and/or picks. Is that right?

But, the following I leave out as a plan step, b/c no matter what you always have to do it!

...make realistic judgements about the players we have and fish or cut bait with that end goal. ...

Ok, gesa... take this somewhere, brother! What can we get for Brad along the lines you suggest? & from whom?

[payitforward]

A plan is a plan for change. Saying "we're going to bring everyone back & see what happens" is not a plan. It's admitting you don't have a plan, can't see a way to create/execute a plan. So the first question is what do we have that can help us change? & that we're willing to change?

I am going to stop you right there - you identified the problem.

If they believe their process is working and that it will bring about the change - they will ignore pressure to change their process and come up with a plan to that end....

So let's make our own plan -- or even a couple of alternative plans!

Gesa has started that process w/ one. His first step: "sign & trade Brad." If you like that as a first step, then extend it further. If not, propose a different plan w/ a different first step.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

We can dead the Wall rumors, thankfully.

And I love John! But best he goes to LAC or MIA.

[DCZards]

How about our 2 draft picks. Can we trade our R1 pick, I wonder, even if we want to -- given the fact that our R1 pick next year is on the hook to Houston? (Not that they'll get it: it's lottery protected, & the lottery is 100% where we'll be). As to our low R2 pick, obviously it has negligible trade value. For a team in the kind of mess we're in, I'd say it makes more sense to take a flyer on someone than to trade it. It certainly seems like we should use our picks not move them.

PIF, you encourage posters to give their plan for improving the Zards (an activity I like) and then say no matter what plan you come up with the Zards are "100%" a lottery team next year. That's both a disincentive for providing a plan and a definitive statement based on an opinion that I'm sure not everyone here shares.

Why should I offer up a plan when you've already decided it's going to fail?

[FAH1223]

Watch on YouTube