WizFans, what are your expectations?

[Wiz99]

Read the original post. The precise words are top shelf HOFer. There are a lot of guys in the HOF, only a few are great. Would you prefer "all time great" as an alternate term?

Someone above interpreted that term to mean top-shelf player today, meaning this was separate from a HOF player. I didn't see that refuted.

But again, I think if you start separating out HOF players into top shelf and lower quality ones, you're gonna have a real hard time making your theory stick. I could certainly make a case that many of the second best players are not top shelf HOFers. Clyde Drexler, for instance, would certainly not make my cut for the top shelf.

Silly point you are making. Even if you throw in the 04-05 Rockets, its still 3 teams in the past 30 years that have won the trophy without 2 great players.

[sfam]

Read the original post. The precise words are top shelf HOFer. There are a lot of guys in the HOF, only a few are great. Would you prefer "all time great" as an alternate term?

Someone above interpreted that term to mean top-shelf player today, meaning this was separate from a HOF player. I didn't see that refuted.

But again, I think if you start separating out HOF players into top shelf and lower quality ones, you're gonna have a real hard time making your theory stick. I could certainly make a case that many of the second best players are not top shelf HOFers. Clyde Drexler, for instance, would certainly not make my cut for the top shelf.

Silly point you are making. Even if you throw in the 04-05 Rockets, its still 3 teams in the past 30 years that have won the trophy without 2 great players.

Well the point is clear - you have to have a high quality team, and certainly have a better chance if you have a high quality team that also has one or more HOF caliber players (I'd agree that your chances rise significantly if you have two top tier HOF players). Given this, you can't make the prediction that the Wizards have no chance of winning a championship unless it has two top-tier HOF caliber players. I think its a fair criticism to say Wall most likely will not make the top tier, or even easier, we can't look at our current players and say, "Yeah, I see these guys being up there with Detroit's group in another 5 years or so." Both of those are reasonable criticisms, but I just don't think that we should move heaven and earth to get a Lebron/Wade type player (top tier HOFers) in order to have a chance at a title. Chances are fairly low that we'll have that opportunity.

[montestewart]

The exact phrase was "top shelf, hall of fame caliber players in their prime" and I was only stating that Drexler was (to me) no longer in his prime. Drexler was a great player and of course he belongs in the HOF. I was looking at it as a top shelf player who, in his prime, projected to be worthy consideration for the HOF some day based upon his top years, whether he actually made it or not. Thus, Billups would to me qualify, whether he actually makes it or not. And of course, having multiple HOF players doesn't guarantee that you get a championship.

[sfam]

The exact phrase was "top shelf, hall of fame caliber players in their prime" and I was only stating that Drexler was (to me) no longer in his prime. Drexler was a great player and of course he belongs in the HOF. I was looking at it as a top shelf player who, in his prime, projected to be worthy consideration for the HOF some day based upon his top years, whether he actually made it or not. Thus, Billups would to me qualify, whether he actually makes it or not. And of course, having multiple HOF players doesn't guarantee that you get a championship.

In 2003-2004, Chancey Billups averaged 16.9 points, with a .394 FG%, .388 3P%, 3.5 RPG, and 5.7 APG. Good numbers, I agree. But top shelf HOF numbers? Not a chance.

[montestewart]

The exact phrase was "top shelf, hall of fame caliber players in their prime" and I was only stating that Drexler was (to me) no longer in his prime. Drexler was a great player and of course he belongs in the HOF. I was looking at it as a top shelf player who, in his prime, projected to be worthy consideration for the HOF some day based upon his top years, whether he actually made it or not. Thus, Billups would to me qualify, whether he actually makes it or not. And of course, having multiple HOF players doesn't guarantee that you get a championship.

In 2003-2004, Chancey Billups averaged 16.9 points, with a .394 FG%, .388 3P%, 3.5 RPG, and 5.7 APG. Good numbers, I agree. But top shelf HOF numbers? Not a chance.

I agree, not exactly top-shelf as far as those numbers go, and he had better years statistically, but without the championship season, in which he was the Pistons clear leader (and had a great shooting finals), I don't think he is worthy of all that much HOF consideration. The championship, and the subsequent title series and three straight EC finals, highlighted his leadership, and that means as much as his generally unremarkable career numbers and not exactly staggering peak year numbers. This discussion points to how hard it is to come up with a foolproof formula for what will or will not produce a championship.

[sfam]

I almost think Billups has made a bigger HOF case for himself in the difference he's made a Denver. Look at how better they were with him over Iverson, for instance.

And yeah, it certainly makes sense to be in the running for the Lebron/Wade sweepstakes this year. If someone ends up with either of these plus Bosh, I would certainly put them as a contenda for the next 3-5 years. I just wouldn't want the Wizards to trade off our entire team in the hopes of getting someone of this calibur in future years. We're pretty much stuck on the Detroit/Houston path, barring a diamond in the rough who ends up being awesome. But again, if Gil gets his stuff together, we could do worse than Gil and Wall, with a supporting cast headed up by Blatche. If we get 3 other solid pieces surrounding them, it wouldn't be a stretch to call them a legit contender (assuming Wall reaches the high-end of his potential).

This is why we probably should be really cautious in dumping Gil. People of his talent level and ability to close in the 4th quarter don't come around every day.

EDIT: If anything Wiz99's theory pushes pretty strongly against us trading Gil away. Basically, we have to hope the guy turns it around and lives up to his potential in order to be contenders.

[gesa2]

EDIT: If anything Wiz99's theory pushes pretty strongly against us trading Gil away. Basically, we have to hope the guy turns it around and lives up to his potential in order to be contenders.

Absolutely. Basically we have to weigh the chances of

-Gil being good enough and healthy enough to be a #2-#3 player on a championship team, and still doing it when this team is ready

against

-Whatever we replace GIl with (a combo of better lotto player from the deeper tank plus some chance of striking gold in free agency)


Gil's the known evil right now, and it's easy to fantasize when the other option is a blank page. But what are our realistic chances of getting an A list player on the second plan? Better than the chances of GIl being that player? And dumping Arenas isn't the only path to another superstar.We're still "saving our powder" for 2011 too.

[Wiz99]

We're pretty much stuck on the Detroit/Houston path, barring a diamond in the rough who ends up being awesome. But again, if Gil gets his stuff together, we could do worse than Gil and Wall, with a supporting cast headed up by Blatche. If we get 3 other solid pieces surrounding them, it wouldn't be a stretch to call them a legit contender (assuming Wall reaches the high-end of his potential).

Well, winning a trophy is low odds in any case. If all teams were equal, they'd have a 1 in 30 (3.33%) chance in any given year. You'd expect each team to win once every 3 decades. But not every team is equal, of course. The difference-maker is the distribution of a few ultra talented all time players. At any one time there are a handful in the league. And the past 30 years show having 2 is the strategy that worked for 27 of the last 30 champs. If you want to go the Detroit/Houston route, you're making long odds even longer. I'd rather swing for the fences and scheme for a chance at the more successful 2 HOFer approach. To me, that means being open to trading Gil to get that chance.

EDIT: If anything Wiz99's theory pushes pretty strongly against us trading Gil away. Basically, we have to hope the guy turns it around and lives up to his potential in order to be contenders.

At some point don't you get to know a guy and what he is and what he isn't? There are elite scorers (which is how I'd characterize Gil) and their are all time greats (who also bring leadership, defense and intangibles). Gil is a fatally flawed, if prolific scorer.

I think we wait 1-2 years to enable Gil's value in the league to rise back up, proving his knee is solid and let fade the memories of six-shootin' rootin' tootin' Cowboy Gil. Then we see what we can get. If it at all involves a high lotto pick or a young talent who still has unfulfilled potential to become a great, then we pull the trigger.

In the meantime, we'll see if something dramatic happens in 2010-2011. Maybe a high profile free agent or trade opportunity next summer. I'd like to see what happens there before considering a Gil trade.

[sfam]

^^ I'm guessing you mean 4 times, as Detroit won twice in the 80s. But regardless your point is made. The problem though is what gesa2 posts right above you - the chances of happening into another one of these players are just not good, even if you tank. Look at New Jersey this year, for instance. Lets assume Gil's value rises back up (I think it will be as high as can be by this trade deadline) - we're still left with the quandry that we aren't going to get a Lebron, Carmello or someone else with him. You're almost saying that a contender needing one more piece would have to have a top 3 pick from a trade that they are willing to ditch for Gil - a very small likelihood of occurring. At best we get someone like a younger Gil, that "might" turn into something special. If you really are looking for a second HOF type guy, the chances are pretty rare - possibly rarer than shooting for a 4 out of 30 chance for a title.

If Leonsis can get this guy's head on straight, AND if he plays close to his previous potential, AND if he plays well with Wall, I think we'd be foolish to dump Gil. While that's a bunch of "ifs", I think we'll know the answer by this year's trade deadline. Trading him prior to that gives us nothing but an expiring back.

[Wiz99]

^^ I'm guessing you mean 4 times, as Detroit won twice in the 80s.

I seem to remember a guy named Joe Dumars who ran with Isiah. I think they definitely fit the two star theory.

Look, I think we agree that building a contender is a low odds endeavor.

I think we also agree that it requires at least one top shelf HOFer in his prime. We don't have one.

And the last 30 years say winning with only one is a lot less frequent than winning with two.

Therefore, its a long shot, then why not shoot for the 2 HOFer squad? Go for the gusto, man.

I'm not saying "dump" Gil. You seem to misunderstand me. I'm saying be open to trading him, which I'm not sure whether everyone around here is really up for yet.

And maybe above all I'm saying we are on the multi-year plan for building a contender, and short-sighted moves to contend immediately for the 7th or 8th playoff spot might be a nice salve to the wounded Wiz fan's heart, but I'd rather see us take our lumps this season if we have to in order to better position ourselves for trades or for the draft. We're not just 1 big move away: we're like 10 moves away from a championship team. The future begins now.

[sfam]

I would agree that if we are planning to trade Gil, we should be trading him this season for the reason you said - we'd want to full-out tank, and Gil makes that more difficult.

[montestewart]

I seem to remember a guy named Joe Dumars who ran with Isiah. I think they definitely fit the two star theory.

Big oversight on my part.

[LyricalRico]

I'm not saying "dump" Gil. You seem to misunderstand me. I'm saying be open to trading him, which I'm not sure whether everyone around here is really up for yet.

Don't sweat it. Apparently, to some, saying anything other than Gilbert should take every single shot for the Wizards for the next 100 years is the same as "wanting to dump Gil".

[gesa2]

I seem to remember a guy named Joe Dumars who ran with Isiah. I think they definitely fit the two star theory.

Big oversight on my part.

Dumars is a great player, one of my favorites from the 80's. But there's also the phenomenon that we tend to overvalue the secondary players from championship teams. Was Dumars better than Sidney Moncrief, or Fat Lever, or Mitch Richmond in their primes? Do we think so because they won a title, or did they win a title because he was better? I would guess that if the Pistons had another borderline all star 2 guard, they still might have won. Isaiah was the only absolutely critical star on those teams.

[montestewart]

I seem to remember a guy named Joe Dumars who ran with Isiah. I think they definitely fit the two star theory.

Big oversight on my part.

Dumars is a great player, one of my favorites from the 80's. But there's also the phenomenon that we tend to overvalue the secondary players from championship teams. Was Dumars better than Sidney Moncrief, or Fat Lever, or Mitch Richmond in their primes? Do we think so because they won a title, or did they win a title because he was better? I would guess that if the Pistons had another borderline all star 2 guard, they still might have won. Isaiah was the only absolutely critical star on those teams.

I agree w/ that, but the criterion Wiz99 was speaking of was a HOF-caliber player in his prime, and in their primes, Dumars, Moncrief, Lever, and Richmond all fit that description to me. Had any of the latter three played on a champion, they too might be in the HOF. (I don't think any of them are, are they?)

[Wiz99]

There are undoubtedly top self HOFers who never won a championship. Barkley, Ewing, Elgin Baylor, George Gervin, AI, Reggie Miller. Just because you have 1 does not guarantee a team a championship.

Just saying that its very very hard to win a championship even with an all time great. Some guy named Lebron seems to have had trouble singlehandedly delivering a championship to Cleveland, even with a historically weak eastern conference this last half decade. Like I've been saying, 27 out of the last 30 trophy teams needed two greats to deliver the goods.

Even when you have 2 greats, its certainly not guaranteed. Look at Stockton and Malone.

So... this whole thread started with the question how long before the Wizards win a championship and become perennial contenders. My answer was 5 years, thinking that's how long it will take to acquire 2 great players. In my mind, the bulk of the time will be spent waiting on Wall to fill out his potential. He will need time to make the leap from beating up HS kids (which he was doing as recently as 2009) to now playing in the NBA. Jordan needed 6 years before leading the Bulls to their first title. I might see my way to thinking Wall could do it in 5.

[gesa2]

Maybe Moncrief, I can't remember for sure. To bring the argument around to us again, I would argue that if the 3-4 years of Gilbert's peak had been with the Magic with Howard, or with San Antonio, then we would perceive him differently now and see him as a key piece of a championship team. It's speculation, but at least some of Gil's bad rep as undisciplined and a bad defender lays at the feet of Eddie Jordan, Ernie Grunfeld, Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler. Maybe with Wall, a better organization, some to be defined third piece (personally I don't think Blatche is going to be enough to be that) and a coach who values both sides of the ball he'll be better than what we'd get by dumping him.

[AceDegenerate]

Not just Eddie Jordan, but playing the majority of his career alongside and looking up to Antawn Jamison.

Ernie Grunfled trading for Antawn Jamison ensured nobody on the Wizards would ever take Defense seriously.

[Wiz99]

Not just Eddie Jordan, but playing the majority of his career alongside and looking up to Antawn Jamison.

Ernie Grunfled trading for Antawn Jamison ensured nobody on the Wizards would ever take Defense seriously.

Amen to that.

As bad as things look currently, one thing is different about the Wizards now from the couple decades previously: we expect the Wizards can be capable of making the playoffs every year. Jamison was instrumental in the Wizards rising out of the muck of the NBA cellar where it had been mired for most of 20 years. So thanks, Antawn, for being a key part of resuscitating this franchise.

But I'm glad he's gone. Dude played no D and, since he was captain, he was a terrible role model for others on the team.

[fishercob]

I've been thinking about expectations.

I think we'll be exciting. I think we'll be fun. I think we'll have some moments of offensive poetry and some games where we surprise much better teams.

And I think, overall, we're going to suck.

The reason is really quite simple -- defensive rebounds. I think too many of the missed shots we force will result in fresh possessions for the offense. More importantly, we're not going to be able to get into our transition game close to enough because we won't own the defensive boards. The nights we rebound well, I think we'll win. But if we can't get Wall the ball in of an outlet pass -- if he's forced to walk it up court after a made basket -- we'll be neutered of our best weapon.

McGee is weak on the defensive glass. Blatche, for all his progress, rebounded at a lower rate on D than Jamison did last year. Arenas, while he may be better suited to guard 2's than 1's, isn't better suited to rebound against them. Plus I think he's going to show a bad habit of leaking out in transition before we have the ball.

Blatche must improve his defensive rebounding to take his game to the next level. Mcgee even moreso, but I I have less faith in him. Seraphin may be our savior in that department in a few years. But yeah, we're going to get killed on the defensive glass and so we're going to lose a lot. Prepare yourselves.