Official Trade Thread XVIII: 1/20/12 - 5/14/12

tontoz · Post #581 » by **tontoz** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:31 pm

Last year's draft is definitely looking like a complete whiff. If you are going to rebuild through the draft you can't blow your picks.

fishercob · Post #582 » by **fishercob** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:49 pm

tontoz wrote:Last year's draft is definitely looking like a complete whiff. If you are going to rebuild through the draft you can't blow your picks.

It's a great way to end up on the news though.

Hey-ooooooooooooo!

tontoz · Post #583 » by **tontoz** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:12 pm

fishercob wrote:
tontoz wrote:Last year's draft is definitely looking like a complete whiff. If you are going to rebuild through the draft you can't blow your picks.

It's a great way to end up on the news though.

Hey-ooooooooooooo!

I had to think about that one for a minute lol. I'm getting old.

MD's Finest · Post #584 » by **MD's Finest** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:25 pm

Nivek wrote:
Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:Faried's rebounding rate is probably going to be better than Booker and Singleton combined, IMO.

So far, you are correct. Faried's rebound rate is 25.3 -- meaning he gets about a quarter of all rebounds when he's on the floor. Booker and Singleton COMBINED have a rebound rate of 21.1 so far this season.

I was hoping we would take Faried and with our 2nd first rounder this past year (although when Singleton fell there I thought that was the right pick) and then I noticed he wasnt playing much and thought maybe he could be had but just couldnt think of a trade that made much sense for Denver. I dont think we had any young pieces they would rather have or anyone who really fit in with what they did. With Gallo out I thought Nick Young but I dont see how we can trade him without getting some semblance of an offensive player back.

dobrojim · Post #585 » by **dobrojim** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:45 pm

TGW wrote:CCJ is right, fellas...Farried is good. Everytime he gets a sliver of playing time, he produces. That guy would help big time.

there is no question but that defensive rebounding is a HUGE weakness for us.

queridiculo · Post #586 » by **queridiculo** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:14 pm

dobrojim wrote:
TGW wrote:CCJ is right, fellas...Farried is good. Everytime he gets a sliver of playing time, he produces. That guy would help big time.

there is no question but that defensive rebounding is a HUGE weakness for us.

What makes this even worse in my book is the fact that rebounding and outside shooting were glaring weaknesses of the Wizards team last year.

How we managed to address neither is quite remarkable.

Illuminaire · Post #587 » by **Illuminaire** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:24 pm

I'm hoping that was intentional, for tanking purposes.

If not.... EG needs to go right now, and Ted needs to hire someone way smarter than himself.

jivelikenice · Post #588 » by **jivelikenice** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:46 pm

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:
TGW wrote:CCJ is right, fellas...Farried is good. Everytime he gets a sliver of playing time, he produces. That guy would help big time.

I say a lot of things that get on people's nerves. One area I can hold my own in is evaluating talent.

CCJ, please provide the rundown again... :roll:

Just kidding, you've definitely hit on some but I also think some of your hits were gimmes that everyone acknowledged at the time (i.e. Dejuan Blair)

But I absolutely hate you Wall/Gasol trade!!!!!

jivelikenice · Post #589 » by **jivelikenice** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:53 pm

My problem with grunfeld in the draft is not in his talent evaluation of the incomign prospects, its in his overvaluing of the current talent on the roster.

He didn't take Blair in Rd 2 because he thought our 12 active were too strong and he couldn't push any of them off the roster

He traded the #5 pick because he felt that nobody drafted at 5 could crack the rotation of what he felt was an eastern conference finals type of team

This past draft he took two players who wouldn't demand the ball or need that ball to score because he thought we were set at 2 guard with Young/Crawford, PF w/ Dray, and C with McGee. He treated the team like a finished product and drafted accordingly instead of accumulating talent. he didn't draft the best player, but instead drafted the best player who wouldn't interfere with what he thought was significant offensive talent.

He overrates the roster he builds and tries to plug holes on what he thinks is a roster that 's much further along than in actuality. That's why he continues to take projects! He thinks that they have time to develop behind his talented starting 5's.....I'd like to see how he'd draft if he just took the BPA.

dandridge 10 · Post #590 » by **dandridge 10** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:06 pm

jivelikenice wrote:My problem with grunfeld in the draft is not in his talent evaluation of the incomign prospects, its in his overvaluing of the current talent on the roster.

He didn't take Blair in Rd 2 because he thought our 12 active were too strong and he couldn't push any of them off the roster

He traded the #5 pick because he felt that nobody drafted at 5 could crack the rotation of what he felt was an eastern conference finals type of team

This past draft he took two players who wouldn't demand the ball or need that ball to score because he thought we were set at 2 guard with Young/Crawford, PF w/ Dray, and C with McGee. He treated the team like a finished product and drafted accordingly instead of accumulating talent. he didn't draft the best player, but instead drafted the best player who wouldn't interfere with what he thought was significant offensive talent.

He overrates the roster he builds and tries to plug holes on what he thinks is a roster that 's much further along than in actuality. That's why he continues to take projects! He thinks that they have time to develop behind his talented starting 5's.....I'd like to see how he'd draft if he just took the BPA.

+1

dandridge 10 · Post #591 » by **dandridge 10** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:07 pm

I am too lazy to look it up. When exactly is the trade deadline?

popper · Post #592 » by **popper** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:08 pm

hermitkid wrote:
dobrojim wrote:
TGW wrote:CCJ is right, fellas...Farried is good. Everytime he gets a sliver of playing time, he produces. That guy would help big time.

there is no question but that defensive rebounding is a HUGE weakness for us.

What makes this even worse in my book is the fact that rebounding and outside shooting were glaring weaknesses of the Wizards team last year.

How we managed to address neither is quite remarkable.

Agree completely. We needed to trade that pick up, down or select the best rebounder in college basketball. Instead we picked a player that everyone knew was a poor shooter, a physically weak prospect, and an inferior defensive rebounder. What was EG thinking?

tontoz · Post #593 » by **tontoz** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:48 pm

popper wrote: What was EG thinking?

You are assuming he actually was thinking. Given all the evidence to the contrary.....

spaceman_E · Post #594 » by **spaceman_E** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:58 pm

All the way up to 80 minutes played for Faried. Let's not freak out on him just yet. It just looks like a really weak draft, the best thing to have done was pawn off the no.6 for a 2012 1st with little protection.

popper · Post #595 » by **popper** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:28 pm

spaceman_E wrote:All the way up to 80 minutes played for Faried. Let's not freak out on him just yet. It just looks like a really weak draft, the best thing to have done was pawn off the no.6 for a 2012 1st with little protection.

That may or may not have been the best thing to do but it certainly would have been better than what we did do.

dangermouse · Post #596 » by **dangermouse** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:11 pm

Wouldnt it have been great if we gave Portland #6 for their #21 and 2012 pick (if we could actually do that)?

Injuries to key players... an up-tempo team playing for a down-tempo coach... putting all their eggs in Raymond Felton...

their slide would have been easy to predict.

Dat2U · Post #597 » by **Dat2U** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:23 pm

popper wrote:
Agree completely. We needed to trade that pick up, down or select the best rebounder in college basketball. Instead we picked a player that everyone knew was a poor shooter, a physically weak prospect, and an inferior defensive rebounder. What was EG thinking?

But oh boy he can dunk. And he's a great fit with Wall... on the fastbreak. It's going to be an alleyoop fest with Wall and Vesely filling the lane. :lol:

Oh, and did I mention he can dunk?

mhd · Post #598 » by **mhd** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:53 pm

What about my latest:
Wiz trade McGee+Blatche+Turiaf (exp)+Crawford for Biedrins+Wright+Bos 2012 1st
Bos trades Rondo+2012 1st for Blatche+Curry
GSW trade Curry+Biedrins+Thompson+Wright for Rondo+McGee+Turiaf (exp)

NEW LINEUPS:
Bos:
PG: Curry/Bradley
SG: Allen/Daniels
SF: Pierce/Peitrus
PF: KG/Bass
C: JO/Blatche

GSW:
PG: Rondo/
SG: Ellis/Thompson
SF: Rush/McGuire
PF: Lee/Udoh
C: McGee/Kwame

Wiz:
PG: Wall/Mack
SG: Young/Crawford
SF: Wright/Singleton
PF: Booker/Vessley
C: Biedrins/Seraphin

WHY FOR THE CELTICS?
1) They get Curry to be the new face of the team after the big 3 head onto the sunset.
2) Blatche is redeemable, but needs to go to a team like Boston with vets and structure.

WHY FOR THE WARRIORS?
1) They get better on defense with Rondo (who is signed longterm at a good rate).
2) McGee needs a change and he'll provide shotblocking to compliment Lee.

WHY FOR THE WIZARDS?
1) They get Boston's pick, a needed shooter in Dorell Wright, and some needed toughness with Biedrins.

Post #599 » by **LyricalRico** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:24 am

^ Make it Lee coming to DC instead of Biedrins and I'm on board. Problem is that kind of knocks GSW out of it.

7-Day Dray · Post #600 » by **7-Day Dray** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:50 am

We need to TRY HARD to flip Nick at the deadline. What do you guys think we could get for him?