Wizards 2019 Offseason Thread

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Its seems like you are hardwired into believing that the only way to get a star is at the top of the draft. I'm getting a "now or never" vibe from you that this is our last shot to obtain a star, and if not, then we've got to blow it up, bottom out and start a brand new 4-year "process" of rebuilding.

My response to that is: Kawhi Leonard, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Donovan Mitchell, Nikola Jokic, Jimmy Butler, Draymond Green, Devin Booker, Tobias Harris, Pascal Siakam and Klay Thompson. And that's just the All-Star caliber guys found in the middle or later part of the past 7 drafts. There's also a bunch of above-average starters like Clint Capella, CJ McCollum, Andre Drummond, Khris Middleton, Steven Adams, Jusif Nurkic, Miles Turner, Malcolm Brogdon, Domantis Sabonis, Malik Beasley etc. All these guys were picked either in the late lottery or later.

I'm curious what if any the commonalities are in the guys listed ^^^ Why were they missed, and what signs did they show. Is there a methodology we can use to look for steals in years when we are not picking at the top.

Two blocks and two steals used to be a no brainer clue.

Look at O Rating, D Rating, with Box Plus Minus. If all are good and the player has a great PER, the player is at the very least a quality sub.

John Collins

His Georgia Tech stats pointed to a lottery stud. He went too low IMO because of his measurement negatives.

Sometimes a guy can have gator arms or be an inch or two short. The converse is true as well. Some guys get drafted just because they're tall or long.

I believe the majority of the misses happen when there are tall freshman who are generally drafted based on HEIGHT and POTENTIAL.

There are a lot of bums that measure well enough to fool scouts. Every draft it happens.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Dumb idea?

Just based on statistics I recall Kris Dunn at Providence.

I would trade the rights to Wall just get Dunn and a bunch of contract cap relief. I think the idea is extremely sketchy but I would do it.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

Dumb idea?

Just based on statistics I recall Kris Dunn at Providence.

I would trade the rights to Wall just get Dunn and a bunch of contract cap relief. I think the idea is extremely sketchy but I would do it.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

I would trade Wall for a ham sandwich and cap relief.

[payitforward]

I just object to this notion that there is a binary choice, that you are either "competing" or "rebuilding". I think ...you just consistently pick well and consistently sign cost-effective free agents and consistently make advantageous trades....

Well, yes! If you could do all those things consistently, sure....

Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler & Isaiah Thomas in 2011
Draymond Green & Kyle O'Quinn in R2 of 2012
James Ennis in R2 of 2013
Clint Capela in 2014 (instead of the dis-advantageous trade for Gortat (an expiring salary -- wait a season & sign him)
Make an "advantageous trade" down rather than up in the 2015 draft & get Larry Nance & Montrezl Harrell.
Don't make the dis-advantageous trade for Kieff & get Juan Hernangomez, then Jake Layman in R2.
Take Jarrett Allen in R1 of 2017, then make a little trade in R2 to move up a spot & take Monte Morris.
Manage the 2018 draft intelligently to wind up with 3 promising rookies.
& so forth....

But of course no one can be that good.

Utah didn't "rebuild". San Antonio didn't "rebuild". Dallas didn't "rebuild". They just made good draft picks and good trades.

Sure they did! Golden State has "rebuilt" every year for that matter. Every team should be rebuilding constantly, & every good team is doing that.

& in the sense you are giving the word, Milwaukee did "rebuild, Toronto did "rebuild, Philadelphia did "rebuild, Boston did "rebuild, Indiana did "rebuild,

...I don't see a scenario where we trade Beal and get back equal or better value. Ergo, trading Beal is going to reduce the net value of the assets on the team. I fail to see how that helps us build a contender.

If we traded Beal for a single other player, a guy as productive as Brad & at the same stage of his career... what good would that do us?

If we were to trade Beal it would be for assets whose peak value would be in the future. There would be no reason to trade him otherwise.

Brad has had a really good season, especially the last 1/3 of it. The result? We have 31 wins. The idea that we're going to somehow take the same players as we have this year and "rebuild" with them next year -- that's what makes no sense.

Above all, the idea I think Zards is suggesting -- that the players who in the last 22 games have gone 9-13 against, all in all, the worst teams in the league are somehow the core group that's going to be good all of a sudden... to me that idea boggles the mind.

[DCZards]

^^^Man, pif, you sure know how to twist people's arguments. You completely took Nate's "rebuilding" argument out of context--never even mentioning the word "bottoming out" which is essential to the discussion.

And where did I say or suggest that the core group I proposed would be "good all of a sudden?" In fact, I clearly said the Zards would probably still be a lottery team again next year...but would have two lottery picks (this year and next) and, hopefully, a healthy and motivated Wall by the start of the 2020-21 season. And two of the core pieces--Bryant and Brown--will hopefully have nicely developed into good NBA players by that season.

My question for you, pif, is how do you know that in the "future" those "assets" that you're trading a young, all-NBA caliber player like Beal for will lead to securing an all-star (or two)...or even a player half as good as Beal? Do you have crystal ball?

If I'm trading Beal the package would have to include the Zards getting an all-star or a near all-star or a player with the clear potential to be an all-star. Just like Indy got above average players when it traded George and SA got an all-star when it traded Leonard.

I'm not going to trade a stud like Beal for simply "assets" that will "hopefully" lead to the Zards securing above average players or all-stars sometime in the "future."

But that's just me. Different strokes for different folks.

[nate33]

On this whole subject of trading Beal, I think we are talking around each other in circles. I'm sure most of you, even the ones advocating for a Beal trade, would not trade Beal for a weak offer like, say, Miles Bridges and the Charlotte #12 pick.

And the people who want to keep Beal would still trade him for, say, Markkanen plus the Chicago 2019 pick and a future 1st.

Discussion about whether it makes sense to trade Beal really depends on the offer. My stance is that the offers will not be good because teams with lots of high draft picks and young players to offer aren't interested in a 7-year vet destined to get a max contract in 2 years. And teams really interested in Beal right now don't have a lot of high picks and young players. So it's not that I won't consider trading Beal. It's that I seriously doubt that there is an offer out there that I would value as highly as I value Beal. I'd be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, but I don't think I am.

[payitforward]

Zards/nate -- you're both correct. This is an "argument" about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

For example, I can't answer Zards' question -- the future has not been revealed to me any more than to anyone else! Nor, of course, would I want to trade Beal for mediocre return.

I.e. my assertions mostly just reflect my annoyance at what is now a long long history of Ernie trading the future for "someone who can help us now" -- help us what? We're a crappy team. & now we are a team that has little current talent & has only half its draft picks for the next 4 years.

Yet, as nate rightly says, we have to both compete & rebuild at the same time. Somehow compete & somehow rebuild. Unfortunately, the only legacy Ernie will pass on to his successor is our state of being talent poor & asset poor. Meaning that it will be equally hard to do either of those things successfully -- compete or rebuild -- for many years.

& unless I'm wrong about our inability to compete successfully, which TBH I'm pretty sure I'm not, then surely it would be easier to rebuild if we were to put the emphasis on that rather than pretend we are a solid competitive team. Yet... it's possible that my assertions simply reflect the fact that I *like* to think about the future & to project possibility -- or to put it another way that I'm sick and tired of such a weak & to me pointless "now."

[bsilver]

On this whole subject of trading Beal, I think we are talking around each other in circles. I'm sure most of you, even the ones advocating for a Beal trade, would not trade Beal for a weak offer like, say, Miles Bridges and the Charlotte #12 pick.

And the people who want to keep Beal would still trade him for, say, Markkanen plus the Chicago 2019 pick and a future 1st.

Discussion about whether it makes sense to trade Beal really depends on the offer. My stance is that the offers will not be good because teams with lots of high draft picks and young players to offer aren't interested in a 7-year vet destined to get a max contract in 2 years. And teams really interested in Beal right now don't have a lot of high picks and young players. So it's not that I won't consider trading Beal. It's that I seriously doubt that there is an offer out there that I would value as highly as I value Beal. I'd be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, but I don't think I am.

Your analysis makes sense, but the Knicks would be an exception if they sign Durant and don't get the first pick in this draft. They'd want to be competitive sooner to satisfy Durant. I'd trade Beal for the 2nd or 3rd pick. Maybe we could NY's #1 next year as well, but it may have to be somewhat protected.

We'd be terrible next year but that's not a bad thing. Better to have a top 3 pick, and have cap space, than to keep Beal, have 30 wins and little money to spend.

[Dat2U]

On this whole subject of trading Beal, I think we are talking around each other in circles. I'm sure most of you, even the ones advocating for a Beal trade, would not trade Beal for a weak offer like, say, Miles Bridges and the Charlotte #12 pick.

And the people who want to keep Beal would still trade him for, say, Markkanen plus the Chicago 2019 pick and a future 1st.

Discussion about whether it makes sense to trade Beal really depends on the offer. My stance is that the offers will not be good because teams with lots of high draft picks and young players to offer aren't interested in a 7-year vet destined to get a max contract in 2 years. And teams really interested in Beal right now don't have a lot of high picks and young players. So it's not that I won't consider trading Beal. It's that I seriously doubt that there is an offer out there that I would value as highly as I value Beal. I'd be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, but I don't think I am.

Your analysis makes sense, but the Knicks would be an exception if they sign Durant and don't get the first pick in this draft. They'd want to be competitive sooner to satisfy Durant. I'd trade Beal for the 2nd or 3rd pick. Maybe we could NY's #1 next year as well, but it may have to be somewhat protected.

We'd be terrible next year but that's not a bad thing. Better to have a top 3 pick, and have cap space, than to keep Beal, have 30 wins and little money to spend.

New York, Chicago are the two obvious ones that would make a move.

Phoenix is anxious to win, they hoped that they could compete for a playoff spot this year. I could see them making a move.

Lakers have LeBron and can't wait if they move up.

Would NO make a win now move to keep AD if they move up?

Dallas is certainly a candidate as well.

Even Atlanta if they get the 2nd pick, isn't taking Morant with Trae Young on board. They would be a sure bet to trade down in that case.

The only team that is a clear no is Cleveland.

Memphis is also a likely no although they tried to move the 4th & Parsons last year.

[prime1time]

I'm against trading Beal unless he demands a trade. Having a player like Beal that can hold young players accountable will greatly impact the their growth. The most difficult thing to do in the NBA is to build a team from scratch. I'd rather keep Beal and move forward with the the players we have and the lottery pick this year than trade Beal and start a complete rebuild. I've seen a team led by young players before and I know it's a disaster. IMO opinion we need to start thinking about creative ways to get rid of Wall. Now if a team gives us an out of this world offer, I'd have to consider it. But in no way shape or form, are we in a situation where Beal needs to be moved like we are holding a hot potato. Going into next season with Beal is perfectly fine, because the mere fact that he's on the team will make our young guys better. I would like to see Scott Brooks fired though. No reason why we can't be just as good as Indiana...

[prime1time]

After posting in the draft thread, I'd like to point out that it once you have a legit scorer, building a team become so much easier. Since Wall has gotten injured, Beal has gone out and put up solid numbers on good efficiency, night in and night out. That is really hard to find in this league. To so casually trade that away, with no plan to replace it doesn't seem logical. Even if it takes a couple years to get rid of Wall Beal still projects to be a highly effective player. And we can grow young players around him. The Wiz seem far away from being a competitive team, but we really aren't.

Warriors have the deck stacked in the favor right now, but can they afford to continue to keep that team together? And if they do break apart the league will be wide open, dominated by teams that have to legit scorers and a supporting cast. If we can target players that can shoot, put the ball on the floor, finish at the rim and defend we have a chance to be in the conversation. Wall is a major obstacle, but we can get around that by actually keeping our draft picks and growing from within. Ray Allen was an effective player well into his early 30s. Trading Beal is the panic move. Keep him, build with draft picks and plan for an NBA where the Warriors don't dominate. Beal is still getting better, and if he buys in, he could end up being a player that can be the #1 option on a championship team. You don't just trade that away haphazardly.

If we can hit a home-run with this draft pick that we get, then things will really get interesting.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

One thing is for sure, there will be a very good player available when the Wizards draft. There are some studs in this draft. The draft is not a strong with big men like last season's, but there are a lot of good swing men and guards. Not to mention a generational player like Zion.

The Wizards certainly have a chance to improve their franchise with this draft.

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

[Rafael122]

Genuinely interested to get people's thoughts on this: I'm a fan of Satoransky, I think what he's making now with a slight bump to maybe 5-6 million per is something I'm comfortable with. He was drafted, developed overseas, but he's been here what 3 years and he's turned into a solid rotational piece. However, if we get word that he wants 9-10 million a year, at what point do you draw the line? The reason I ask is this, Rajon Rondo is a free agent. He can't shoot worth a lick, but he's a pretty solid passer and rebounder, and by all accounts has a great basketball mind. I wouldn't mind taking a shot at him on a one year deal, but this is with the caveat that Satoransky's asking price gets too high.

[Illmatic12]

Genuinely interested to get people's thoughts on this: I'm a fan of Satoransky, I think what he's making now with a slight bump to maybe 5-6 million per is something I'm comfortable with. He was drafted, developed overseas, but he's been here what 3 years and he's turned into a solid rotational piece. However, if we get word that he wants 9-10 million a year, at what point do you draw the line? The reason I ask is this, Rajon Rondo is a free agent. He can't shoot worth a lick, but he's a pretty solid passer and rebounder, and by all accounts has a great basketball mind. I wouldn't mind taking a shot at him on a one year deal, but this is with the caveat that Satoransky's asking price gets too high.

I think Troy Brown will be a more valuable backup PG than Sato within 1-2 seasons.

That being said, imo our best option is still to hold onto Sato and sign him to a reasonable 3yr deal so we can trade him later.
He will get starter's minutes all of next season and put up good numbers, that's when you trade him because his value will drop once Wall comes back into the lineup. By 2020-21 you slide Brown in as the backup PG (and starter when Wall takes rest games)

Generally I would be careful about overrating Satoransky. I don't share the common opinion that he's a must-have or a core piece to our future.

[dckingsfan]

Genuinely interested to get people's thoughts on this: I'm a fan of Satoransky, I think what he's making now with a slight bump to maybe 5-6 million per is something I'm comfortable with. He was drafted, developed overseas, but he's been here what 3 years and he's turned into a solid rotational piece. However, if we get word that he wants 9-10 million a year, at what point do you draw the line? The reason I ask is this, Rajon Rondo is a free agent. He can't shoot worth a lick, but he's a pretty solid passer and rebounder, and by all accounts has a great basketball mind. I wouldn't mind taking a shot at him on a one year deal, but this is with the caveat that Satoransky's asking price gets too high.

I think Troy Brown will be a more valuable backup PG than Sato within 1-2 seasons.

That being said, imo our best option is still to hold onto Sato and sign him to a reasonable 3yr deal so we can trade him later.
He will get starter's minutes all of next season and put up good numbers, that's when you trade him because his value will drop once Wall comes back into the lineup. By 2020-21 you slide Brown in as the backup PG (and starter when Wall takes rest games)

Generally I would be careful about overrating Satoransky. I don't share the common opinion that he's a must-have or a core piece to our future.

First, I love Sato... so I would be sad to see him go. But - next season, IMO, if Beal is still here it should be a Brown/Beal starting backcourt.

And a bit of a non-sequitur: I now think that Thomas Bryant could be a solid starting PF (vs. C). I say that for a couple of reasons. First, he seems to have no problem guarding quick PFs or bruising PFs (but he can't guard big Cs). Second, I think he could become a solid 3 point shooter by next year. Third, he slashes well and runs the court well.

I think for next season:

Brown, Sato (if on a very reasonable contract), (Wall won't play, my guess)
Beal, Brown
??
Bryant, Dekker
Howard/Mahimni (puke, gag)

[DCZards]

I think for next season:

Brown, Sato (if on a very reasonable contract), (Wall won't play, my guess)
Beal, Brown
??
Bryant, Dekker
Howard/Mahimni (puke, gag)

I think you absolutely have to try to re-sign Parker. No way am I prioritizing Dekker over Parker. Parker will cost more than Dekker and I wouldn't pay Jabari more than $8-10 million a year, but Parker has shown he can flat out score and is a good rebounder as well.

I'd try to keep Dekker though if I could get him on the cheap.

[dckingsfan]

I think for next season:

Brown, Sato (if on a very reasonable contract), (Wall won't play, my guess)
Beal, Brown
??
Bryant, Dekker
Howard/Mahimni (puke, gag)

I think you absolutely have to try to re-sign Parker. No way am I prioritizing Dekker over Parker. Parker will cost more than Dekker and I wouldn't pay Jabari more than $8-10 million a year, but Parker has shown he can flat out score and is a good rebounder as well.

I'd try to keep Dekker though if I could get him on the cheap.

Parker is a UFA. I think he should be prioritized like any other UFA - best UFA available.

Dekker is an RFA - and also should be inexpensive. In my mind, two different things.

Porter is a RFA also - but he just isn't on my list. If he was inexpensive, I would jump on that too.

[Ruzious]

I think for next season:

Brown, Sato (if on a very reasonable contract), (Wall won't play, my guess)
Beal, Brown
??
Bryant, Dekker
Howard/Mahimni (puke, gag)

I think you absolutely have to try to re-sign Parker. No way am I prioritizing Dekker over Parker. Parker will cost more than Dekker and I wouldn't pay Jabari more than $8-10 million a year, but Parker has shown he can flat out score and is a good rebounder as well.

I'd try to keep Dekker though if I could get him on the cheap.

Parker is a UFA. I think he should be prioritized like any other UFA - best UFA available.

Dekker is an RFA - and also should be inexpensive. In my mind, two different things.

Porter is a RFA also - but he just isn't on my list. If he was inexpensive, I would jump on that too.

True - because the Wiz don't have Bird rights on Parker, and because they won't exercise his 20 mil option, the Wiz would have to use the MLE or some other exception to sign him.

[Illmatic12]

I think you absolutely have to try to re-sign Parker. No way am I prioritizing Dekker over Parker. Parker will cost more than Dekker and I wouldn't pay Jabari more than $8-10 million a year, but Parker has shown he can flat out score and is a good rebounder as well.

I'd try to keep Dekker though if I could get him on the cheap.

Parker is a UFA. I think he should be prioritized like any other UFA - best UFA available.

Dekker is an RFA - and also should be inexpensive. In my mind, two different things.

Porter is a RFA also - but he just isn't on my list. If he was inexpensive, I would jump on that too.

True - because the Wiz don't have Bird rights on Parker, and because they won't exercise his 20 mil option, the Wiz would have to use the MLE or some other exception to sign him.

Washington has early bird rights on Parker. They can decline his option and extend him for less than his caphold

[dckingsfan]

But realistically, they won't exercise his option. He is then a UFA.

I think there are two different categories - correct me if I am wrong.

RFAs where we could get a "good deal". RFAs where that won't be the case.

And UFAs - then it should be best available at the price point - it doesn't matter if they have played for us before.