Wiz sign Jeff Green to 1 year deal

[NatP4]

Two ends of the court

[nate33]

Horrible signing for several reasons:

1) Green is average at best
2) He's going to take away minutes from Oubre and Porter
3) There's no doubt Brooks tries to play him and Morris together for extended periods of time

1. Getting an "average at best" guy for the vet minimum is a good thing.
2. Probably not many. He'll take Mike Scott's minutes.
3. Possibly, but only when Morris is at center. I don't see either of those guys playing any SF minutes.

I'm struggling to figure out what you were hoping for. Should we have simply not signed anyone so that all the forward minutes were handled by Morris, Porter and Oubre (and an unproven rookie)? What if one of them gets hurt?

We're you hoping for someone better than Green at a vet minimum salary?

Green is not "average at best." He is a lot worse than average. He was never good, & he''ll be 32 in a month so "at best" was long long ago. He is about as good as Mike Scott -- no worse but also no better.

What I'd have been "hoping for" was a young player -- either another guy out of R2 (Keita Bates-Diop?) or an undrafted guy like Gary Clark. As an outstanding 4 year player, Clark would have had a shot to contribute this year. I don't see any particular reason to think he'd be worse than Green. He might be better.

Then again it might take him a year or so to become a solid journeyman. Ditto Bates-Diop.

But either of these guys would represent an attempt to actually add to this team, which a 1-year Rent-a-Player like Green does not. & either would be ours to control at a low cost over a period of a few years.

But, because the team has been built in an incompetent way, every year we "need" rental vets. This year it's Howard (who is at least a good player) & Green so far. Last year it was Scott, Sessions & Frazier. The year before it was Thornton, Bogdanovic & Jennings, the year before that it was Neal, Gooden, Thornton, Anderson, Dudley, Hickson & Hollins.

If you repeat that cycle, you never break that cycle. So, it's not a question whether there was someone better than Green for $2.5m -- although I can't imagine it would be difficult to find a player who fits that description: Ernie has never shown much skill in choosing FAs. It's that w/ something like 20 draft picks between John Wall & Troy Brown, we have managed to add 4 players.

If we'd used our picks sensibly, & especially If we'd bought R2 picks in each of the last few years, we'd have developing guys on our roster giving actual vectors for growth & continuity.

As to injury, it's fair to say that Green has been durable, I agree. But, you know what, if Porter is injured & Green has to play heavy minutes, we're sunk anyway.

Not even Thomas Bryant will be able to help us.

I don't think it's the Mike Scott/Jeff Green signings that break that cycle. At a vet minimum salary, they effectively have zero impact on our cap. We can sign them and still sign other young players. It's the Meeks, Smith, Mahinmi, Nicholson, etc. signings that hurt. We'd be much better off taking flyers on R2 picks, D-League stars, and undrafted walk-ons than paying those guys.

[payitforward]

1. Getting an "average at best" guy for the vet minimum is a good thing.
2. Probably not many. He'll take Mike Scott's minutes.
3. Possibly, but only when Morris is at center. I don't see either of those guys playing any SF minutes.

I'm struggling to figure out what you were hoping for. Should we have simply not signed anyone so that all the forward minutes were handled by Morris, Porter and Oubre (and an unproven rookie)? What if one of them gets hurt?

We're you hoping for someone better than Green at a vet minimum salary?

No. I don't want a perceived rotation guy at the minimum. I want a "break-the glass" type who only plays when needed. Once one of those guys start taking minutes from starters and better players, they become a liability and not an asset.

So the guy we signed... for the vet minimum, is too good? We would have been better off signing a worse guy? Are you listening to yourself?

LOL -- I understand TGW's point, which is that if he's really bad he won't play (think Chris McCullough). But, no, this is not the logic to use in arguing against signing Jeff Green!

Anyway, Green qualifies: he's terrible.

[Dat2U]

No. I don't want a perceived rotation guy at the minimum. I want a "break-the glass" type who only plays when needed. Once one of those guys start taking minutes from starters and better players, they become a liability and not an asset.

So the guy we signed... for the vet minimum, is too good? We would have been better off signing a worse guy? Are you listening to yourself?

LOL -- I understand TGW's point, which is that if he's really bad he won't play (think Chris McCullough). But, no, this is not the logic to use in arguing against signing Jeff Green!

Anyway, Green qualifies: he's terrible.

Your over reliance on one rollup stat makes some of your positions a bit wonky.

Green career wise isn't a very good player but I dont see how one can come to the conclusion that he was terrible last year.

Vice versa, I fail to understand how anyone can label Dwight's most recent season as outstanding.

I'd go more into detail but I can barely post two sentences on this website anymore before my browser starts acting crazy.

[payitforward]

...What I'd have been "hoping for" was a young player -- either another guy out of R2 (Keita Bates-Diop?) or an undrafted guy like Gary Clark. ... either of these guys would represent an attempt to actually add to this team, which a 1-year Rent-a-Player like Green does not. & either would be ours to control at a low cost over a period of a few years.

But, because the team has been built in an incompetent way, every year we "need" rental vets. ...If you repeat that cycle, you never break that cycle.

I don't think it's the Mike Scott/Jeff Green signings that (fail to) break that cycle. At a vet minimum salary, they effectively have zero impact on our cap. We can sign them and still sign other young players. It's the Meeks, Smith, Mahinmi, Nicholson, etc. signings that hurt. We'd be much better off taking flyers on R2 picks, D-League stars, and undrafted walk-ons than paying those guys.

I can't disagree, but I think this is just 2 sides of the same coin.

Obviously, the more you pay a guy who can't play, or at least can't play well, the worse it is. But this problem is not best described as about cap management. It's about the FO's conception of how to build a team. & what kind of skills & attention you devote to the different aspects of being a GM. What kinds of skills you hire into your FO.

In '09-10, Ted told Ernie to break up the team & build through the draft. That's what he put in his 10-point plan, & those were Ernie's marching orders.

Ernie did a great job of wheeling & dealing to acquire a lot of picks -- he had 9 picks in 2010, 2011 & 2012. Great work. & then he got lucky in 2010 & wound up w/ the overall #1 !! Luck is even better than skill. In 2012 he had the overall #3.

#1 & #3 -- those are pretty easy picks to make. But, using the other 7 of those 9 picks he managed to add exactly 1 player -- Tomas Satoransky. & even in that case, it was a guy who played the first 1/3 of his career in Europe rather than for us.

After getting lucky one more time & having Porter dropped in his lap, Ernie's next 4 picks brought us 1 player -- a veteran on an expiring contract, no less!

After that, Ernie's next 6 picks (plus a 7th pick a couple of years from now) combined added 1 player through the draft (Oubre) @ another through an amazingly horrendous overpay (Morris).

Btw,

...question whether there was someone better than Green for $2.5m -- although I can't imagine it would be difficult to find a player who fits that description: Ernie has never shown much skill in choosing FAs.

That took 2 minutes: Omri Casspi. He is a way way better player than Jeff Green. Just signed w/ the Grizzlies for the veteran minimum.

[payitforward]

So the guy we signed... for the vet minimum, is too good? We would have been better off signing a worse guy? Are you listening to yourself?

LOL -- I understand TGW's point, which is that if he's really bad he won't play (think Chris McCullough). But, no, this is not the logic to use in arguing against signing Jeff Green!

Anyway, Green qualifies: he's terrible.

Your over reliance on one rollup stat makes some of your positions a bit wonky.

Green career wise isn't a very good player but I dont see how one can come to the conclusion that he was terrible last year.

Vice versa, I fail to understand how anyone can label Dwight's most recent season as outstanding.

I'd go more into detail but I can barely post two sentences on this website anymore before my browser starts acting crazy.

I don't need no rollup stat to be wonky, Dat -- I can be wonky all on my own, with no help of any kind!

I didn't use a roll up in comparing them. I just looked at the various aspects of what Scott & Green did on the court. They looked more or less the same. Unless you view TS% as a "roll up" stat.

Scott actually shot a ton better than Green, but Green got to the line a whole lot more & shot 86% on FTs compared to Mike's 66%. Overall, the result was that their usage was about the same, their points scored were about the same, & their TS% was about the same (Scott's a little better than Green's actually). Surely that suffices at least to say they were about the same as scorers, no?

(While you decide whether you accept that, I'm going to go get myself a roll up....)

For the rest -- it's not complicated. The 2 of them were about identical as offensive rebounders. Scott was a better defensive rebounder than Green (not good -- don't get me wrong), but Green turned the ball over less than Scott & stole it more often, narrowing that difference to a smidgen. Green also fouled a little less & blocked a little more -- really, look for yourself. Per 40 minutes, these 2 guys basically did the same thing.

Now, it's possible that Green was a better defender than Scott... no, let me put that a little differently : it seems altogether unlikely that Green was a worse defender than Scott. Was he maybe better? If so, that would give him an edge.

But... if so -- & I'd have to be convinced by some non-roll up numbers that I know how they were calculated -- if so, we're still only talking about an edge on Mike Scott. Hard to find a guy in the league who didn't have an edge on him.

As I say, look for yourself: Green's lack of production in any way other than scoring at an amount & efficiency comparable to (but not quite as good as) Mike Scott jumps out from the numbers.

[NatP4]

So the guy we signed... for the vet minimum, is too good? We would have been better off signing a worse guy? Are you listening to yourself?

LOL -- I understand TGW's point, which is that if he's really bad he won't play (think Chris McCullough). But, no, this is not the logic to use in arguing against signing Jeff Green!

Anyway, Green qualifies: he's terrible.

Your over reliance on one rollup stat makes some of your positions a bit wonky.

Green career wise isn't a very good player but I dont see how one can come to the conclusion that he was terrible last year.

Vice versa, I fail to understand how anyone can label Dwight's most recent season as outstanding.

I'd go more into detail but I can barely post two sentences on this website anymore before my browser starts acting crazy.

Seriously, wtf happened to the real GM site on mobile? I literally can’t look at it for more than 2-3 seconds before i get a pop up ad or a crash.

[dangermouse]

Green has been a Wizard-killer his entire career

Lets hope he doesnt keep that title up...

[gtn130]

Jeff Green had a worse TS% than Mike Scott (.587 to .599) last year while playing for an historically great offensive team in Cleveland. He got to play with LeBron, Love, Korver etc., while Mike Scott was playing with Oubre and Jodie Meeks.

Mike Scott is a significantly better bench player than Green largely because he's a way better shooter, takes better shots and can actually be part of an efficient offense without dragging it down. Both of them are bad at mostly everything, but Jeff Green's 'skill' is that he's decent at making inefficient shots. That's not a valuable skill in modern NBA when opposing teams are making corners 3s and we have Jeff Green occasionally hitting contested fadeaway long 2s.

Jeff Green has been a lower usage Rudy Gay for his career. Losing player who can collect stats. Hopefully he won't play much with the starters or eat into anyone's minutes. Should be a low impact signing since he's a vet minimum guy at this point. If he actually plays significantly, I guarantee everyone will hate him by January.

[Kanyewest]

Jeff Green had a worse TS% than Mike Scott (.587 to .599) last year while playing for an historically great offensive team in Cleveland. He got to play with LeBron, Love, Korver etc., while Mike Scott was playing with Oubre and Jodie Meeks.

Mike Scott is a significantly better bench player than Green largely because he's a way better shooter, takes better shots and can actually be part of an efficient offense without dragging it down. Both of them are bad at mostly everything, but Jeff Green's 'skill' is that he's decent at making inefficient shots. That's not a valuable skill in modern NBA when opposing teams are making corners 3s and we have Jeff Green occasionally hitting contested fadeaway long 2s.

Jeff Green has been a lower usage Rudy Gay for his career. Losing player who can collect stats. Hopefully he won't play much with the starters or eat into anyone's minutes. Should be a low impact signing since he's a vet minimum guy at this point. If he actually plays significantly, I guarantee everyone will hate him by January.

I'm not sure LeBron or playing with the Cavs' bench inflates everyone's numbers. From last season Jae Crowder, Thomas, Derrick Rose, Wade, Clarkson, and Rodney Hood all struggled playing with the Cavs; some of those guys played better with their previous/new teams. Someone like George Hill's TS% dropped from 59.7 % to 55% playing with LeBron.

[papidulo]

I would rather have Jeff Green AND Mike Scott than Thomas Bryant.

Mike Scott signed for basically the vet minimum in LA, so he must just not have wanted to be in DC anymore

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Mike Scott will be a veteran leader along with...Marcin Gortat.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

[80sballboy]

Mike Scott will be a veteran leader along with...Marcin Gortat.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

Of the last place Clippers?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Mike Scott will be a veteran leader along with...Marcin Gortat.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

Of the last place Clippers?

They won't be last place. Doc Rivers CAN coach...now, especially so without having to play his boy big minutes.

The Clippers added VERY SOLID veterans: Gortat, Scott, Avery Bradley, Luc Mbah a Moute...and, they're probably going to re-sign Montrezl Harrell.

That team's going to be very fun to watch and they WILL win a fair share of games.

[pcbothwel]

Mike Scott will be a veteran leader along with...Marcin Gortat.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

Of the last place Clippers?

They won't be last place. Doc Rivers CAN coach...now, especially so without having to play his boy big minutes.

The Clippers added VERY SOLID veterans: Gortat, Scott, Avery Bradley, Luc Mbah a Moute...and, they're probably going to re-sign Montrezl Harrell.

That team's going to be very fun to watch and they WILL win a fair share of games.

Huh?
All of those players are on the downside of their careers, and weren't great when they were in their prime. Bradley is the youngest and highest paid, but he looks alarming bad outside of 2 years under Brad Stevens (Who didn't...). inefficient scorer that doesn't pass, rebound, of draw fouls.
Rivers was far better last year, and i think he'll better next season too.

[payitforward]

I would rather have Jeff Green AND Mike Scott than Thomas Bryant.

Mike Scott signed for basically the vet minimum in LA, so he must just not have wanted to be in DC anymore

What kind of statement is that about Bryant? Wait, I know... an ignorant one. Scott & Green are rent-a-players w/ little career left. Bryant is a young & talented kid who is developing & has significant upside.

Btw, Mike Scott enjoyed being here -- he made a point of expressing that. He wasn't re-signed, b/c the FO didn't want to re-sign him.

Was only a couple of months ago everyone here was saying how Mike Scott had earned himself a big pay day w/ his play for us. I guess maybe he didn't really play all that well, did he? Scored well, but did everything else at basement level.

[payitforward]

Of the last place Clippers?

They won't be last place. Doc Rivers CAN coach...now, especially so without having to play his boy big minutes.

The Clippers added VERY SOLID veterans: Gortat, Scott, Avery Bradley, Luc Mbah a Moute...and, they're probably going to re-sign Montrezl Harrell.

That team's going to be very fun to watch and they WILL win a fair share of games.

Huh?
All of those players are on the downside of their careers, and weren't great when they were in their prime. Bradley is the youngest and highest paid, but he looks alarming bad outside of 2 years under Brad Stevens (Who didn't...). inefficient scorer that doesn't pass, rebound, of draw fouls.
Rivers was far better last year, and i think he'll better next season too.

Harrell's not on the downside of his career.

Rivers was terrible last year -- tho he was marginally better than his even more terrible previous year. He could get a lot better this coming year & still be awful. This is a wing, in his 6th year in the league, who shot 64% from the FT line & got about half the rebounds of an average wing.

[payitforward]

They won't be last place. Doc Rivers CAN coach...now, especially so without having to play his boy big minutes.

The Clippers added VERY SOLID veterans: Gortat, Scott, Avery Bradley, Luc Mbah a Moute...and, they're probably going to re-sign Montrezl Harrell.

That team's going to be very fun to watch and they WILL win a fair share of games.

Huh?
All of those players are on the downside of their careers, and weren't great when they were in their prime. Bradley is the youngest and highest paid, but he looks alarming bad outside of 2 years under Brad Stevens (Who didn't...). inefficient scorer that doesn't pass, rebound, of draw fouls.
Rivers was far better last year, and i think he'll better next season too.

Harrell's not on the downside of his career.

Rivers was terrible last year -- tho he was marginally better than his even more terrible previous year. He could get a lot better this coming year & still be awful. This is a wing, in his 6th year in the league, who shot 64% from the FT line & got about half the rebounds of an average wing.

But, you are right that they won't be very good -- losing Jordan suffices to make that so.

[80sballboy]

Mike Scott will be a veteran leader along with...Marcin Gortat.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

Of the last place Clippers?

They won't be last place. Doc Rivers CAN coach...now, especially so without having to play his boy big minutes.

The Clippers added VERY SOLID veterans: Gortat, Scott, Avery Bradley, Luc Mbah a Moute...and, they're probably going to re-sign Montrezl Harrell.

That team's going to be very fun to watch and they WILL win a fair share of games.

That's fine Ken. You go root for Gortat and the Clippers. I never said Doc can't coach and he'll probably have them playing hard every night but they don't have Blake, DJ, and Chris Paul. They are tanking and will be lucky to win 35 games. Maybe they'll beat out the Suns and Kings for third place in the Pacific thanks to the additions of Mike Scott and Gortat.

[prime1time]

I think this is an underrated signing. Jeff has playoff experience and is still a solid player. In game 7 of the ECF he put up 19 points. He battled defensively with Horford, killed the Celtics in transition and scored in the low post vs Brown. I'm not sure if Brooks will give him the oppurtunity, but Green is good enough to beat out Morris for the 4. I'm really looking forward to the season. We have a lot of potential. And we are also underdogs.