2012 NBA Draft - Part V

[FAH1223]

i wouldn't trade Seraphin to get Drummond. Seraphin is way more skilled and skill stays with you longer than raw athleticism

[FAH1223]

as far as trading down to get rid of Blatche... thats a no no

take Beal or MKG and just be done with it

trade some of the current players plus the 2nd rounders and maybe future picks to get back into the 1st round

[popper]

I was a proponent of a trade down last year. I didn't think Ves or anyone else was worthy of the sixth pick. Why EG didn't figure out a way to draft the best rebounder in college for two years running is beyond me. I think he should have been fired for that oversight. Especially considering we needed rebounding and toughness to improve.

This year, I tend to agree with many on this board that Beal is worth the 3rd pick and we should keep it unless some team blows our doors off with an offer. Following are a few issues that I've been pondering.

1. James Singleton is probably better than any pick beyond 12 or so. We should sign him.

2. Why can't Booker play small forward. His outside shot was much improved last year, he has great speed, length and toughness for the nightly battles against LJ, CA, etc. Granted he's not going to score 20pts a game but he might average 14 and 7. The challenge I guess is can he spread the floor with some 3 point effectiveness as well.

3. Another option for SF is to resign Martin. Again he's probably a better shooter that most picks in the first round. His defense is not that bad either.

4. If we get rid of Blatch or if he is his usual ineffective self then we need another center. It looks like Plumlee will be available with our high second.

5. What are the odds that we can package our late second round pick with cash to move up four or five slots to grab a better player?

[hands11]

There are huge risks associated with trading a third pick for say a 10th or 11th pick, especially for a GM who wants to keep his job. Yes, there are instances where the 10th pick turned out to be better than the 3rd pick but it's rare. It's fun for us on this board to propose scenarios where a team ends up swapping the 3rd pick for the 10th pick because, unlike the GM, team or owner, there are no repercussions for us if the idea bombs.

(CCJ, D. Williams is better than Bynum, IMO, and I like Paul George but Favors will be the better player in 2-3 years.)

Its the basic math of it that makes it harder to pull off. It is bad enough we are at 3 wondering if CHA will take Robinson or Beal ahead of us or will another team trade up into that slot and change the dynamics. A team with a defined need probably doesn't want to risk that. You don't give up a bird in the hand. That would be GM death to pass up on a pretty sure great fit for your team to only hope you get something as good later. And to lower the risk, your trade partner has to want to player you really wanted 2nd and they have to get the player you want to swap with. If not, you are stuck drafting the player they wanted, not the player you wanted. Beal is to much of a sure thing to risk trading down for a Drummonds.

The Wall for Kyrie swop was a very different trade proposal. You knew what you would get. You would get your player and added assets. It was an idea I promoted early and often.

Trading down last year from 6 was something some of us liked while most wanted to trade up, but again, that is very different. That team was in year two of a rebuild. The draft was deep and flat. You could add lots of different kinds of players to the Wiz and they would still not be very good. Though they would have been better then 2nd worse, and that was not part of the tank plan. Ves was actually the perfect pick for what they were trying to do in a strike shorted year.

This year they have a team that is more assembled. They can be good with what they already have. They have clearly defined needs. Needs of shooting skills and needs of personality to run with Wall longer term at guard. They also need a stud shooting, ball handling SF. They need Walls running mate. I think most of us agree that is not likely Crawford longer term. Wall and Craw may be able to be productive on the court, but Crawford is not a leader personality that you can partner with Wall. Nothing like Wall and Beal would be.

Beal just seems so perfect as a fit for so many reasons. I would never trade out of the 3rd if I could take him with it. Most I would do is trade down 1 slot with CLE if I know they had a hard on for MKG and I could convince them that was the player I would draft.

Dray really isn't an issue. He will get traded eventually. Until then, he will be the 5th big who actually has lots of NBA experience.

Now if on top of Beal, I would get Drummond as a crap shoot without giving pieces I want longer term like Dray, Lewis, Crawford, the 2nd 2nd rounder and maybe next years first, I would do it. if not, I would rather just wait, trade Dray later, add Beal with someone like Kirk and Crowder and keep on keeping on. Drummonds is out of our reach and players like Meyers Leonard, Tyler Zeller, Fab Melo will be available again in later drafts.

[TheKingOfVa360]

We're not taking Drummond. Not with our Kwame and McGee so recent in our institutional memory. Not when Nene and Seraphin are doing a great job at center. Not when Ted has instituted a philosophy of character first. Not when we are in such dire need of wing players.

Drummond is the second-coming of Michael Olowokandi. I'm not worried about missing out on him.

My thoughts exactly, no need to gamble on a big man when we have good ones and need wing players. Beal or MKG should be the pick. We need a young corner stone player to grow with John Wall

[hands11]

We're not taking Drummond...

Drummond is the second-coming of Michael Olowokandi. I'm not worried about missing out on him.

Or the next Andrew Bynum. Bigs develop notoriously slower than everyone else. Not every stud big comes out the block like Anthony Davis. I wouldn't be so quick to write off Drummond. If our goal is to accumulate assets for a consolidation deal down the line, then drafting Drummond makes sense.

Drummond may have struggled mightily on offense all year but defensively he had made huge strides by the end of the season.

I wouldn't begrudge Ernie if he choose Drummond. It would be ballsy move if he made it, which is why I think he won't considering he's basically got two years and Drummond's best ball is probably a few years away.

What kind of hands does Drummond have? What adjustments does he make on his FTs? What kind of teammate is he? How are his folks, or any family connections that might show you what to expect from him? How have his teams done in HS and AAU? He is just 18 and he is a man child.

My questions are with his competitive fire. Is Drummond coachable or McGee-like in the uptake of new ideas and methods? But on McGee, Dat you are so right. Some guys just take a while to mature. The competitive fire is there with Javale. He plays Bynum better than any other big except Dwight Howard plays him. Javale has found coaches that can play him only to his strengths.

One thing I can foresee is if Drummond was the pick at 3, he would be in a great place to be mentored slowly. Wittman is direct but a good coach for developing players who are open to instruction.

Personally, I want Zeller for the Wizards because he is a grinder who knows how to play basketball. He is very intelligent, a very proficient rebounder, he knows how to run the court, he is a basketball player and NOT a great athlete. He is a better rebounder than Seraphin from what I have seen so far, despite being thin. I think Tyler Zeller is going to surprise some people. I would rather have an 80% FT shooter than a 30% shooter, but Drummond has the genetics to become a beast in time.

If they could get Beal and trade next years number 1 for Zeller this year, I would have to lean toward doing that. Beal, Zeller and Crowder would be a nice draft.

Wall/Kirk/Mack
Beal/Crawford/Mason
C Singleton/J Singleton/Crowder
Nene/Booker/Dray
Ves/Kevin/Zeller

I would no problem rolling with that. Buy out Lewis. Trade Dray when you can. That team would be in the playoffs next year and set up nicely moving forward.

[7-Day Dray]

We're not taking Drummond. Not with our Kwame and McGee so recent in our institutional memory. Not when Nene and Seraphin are doing a great job at center. Not when Ted has instituted a philosophy of character first. Not when we are in such dire need of wing players.

Drummond is the second-coming of Michael Olowokandi. I'm not worried about missing out on him.

My thoughts exactly, no need to gamble on a big man when we have good ones and need wing players. Beal or MKG should be the pick. We need a young corner stone player to grow with John Wall

BPA>Need and positional fit. Even many people won't agree that Drummond is BPA, if he reaches his potential (big IF) it's more likely that's he takes us somewhere far than either Beal or MKG.

[nuposse04]

We're not taking Drummond. Not with our Kwame and McGee so recent in our institutional memory. Not when Nene and Seraphin are doing a great job at center. Not when Ted has instituted a philosophy of character first. Not when we are in such dire need of wing players.

Drummond is the second-coming of Michael Olowokandi. I'm not worried about missing out on him.

My thoughts exactly, no need to gamble on a big man when we have good ones and need wing players. Beal or MKG should be the pick. We need a young corner stone player to grow with John Wall

BPA>Need and positional fit. Even many people won't agree that Drummond is BPA, if he reaches his potential (big IF) it's more likely that's he takes us somewhere far than either Beal or MKG.

There is a difference between the best PLAYER available and the best POTENTIAL available. Drummond has absurdly good potential, but he has demonstrated he is clearly lacking as a player. This team needs a mix of both. I think we get that with Beal.

[FAH1223]

I'M TIRED of potential guys... can we get a guy who can come in and be a professional from day one?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Dear God, CCJ, not this argument again.

Of course there are going to be steals late in the draft who end up better than the early picks. But that doesn't mean that we will be smart enough to find that steal.

It's not a complicated concept. The earlier you pick, the more likely you are to find a star talent. Decades of data prove this. On average, the 1st pick is better than the 2nd, the 2nd is better than the 3rd, the 3rd is better than the 4th, and so on and so on.

I am not talking about the average. I am talking about having skill and an eye for talent. There is almost always a player better than 3 later in the draft. Skill comes in knowing which player it is. Just because the average says 1 is better than 2 and 2 is better than, and so on, that doesn't mean my pick at 10 won't be better than a whole lot of people's pick at 3.

CCJ -- the problem w/ your argument is that there is almost always a player better than *any draft position* later in the draft. Hence if your argument is valid, we'd need to resurrect my massive trade down strategy of a few weeks ago (3 > 6 & 11; 6 > 14 & 16; 14 > 21 & 22; 22 > 33 & 34; 33 > 40 & 41.

This leaves us with #s 11, 16, 21, 32, 34, 40, 41 & 46. Six of them acquired for #3. Truth is I believe in this strategy. I think we'd be better off. What do you think?

I believe you think more out-of-the-box and farther forward than I do, payitforward.

My initial thought is six in one draft is too many rookies to adapt well to the NBA from one team. You would probably end up keeping the three firsts and the best of the 2nd rounders in somewhat of an arbitrary way. I think the worst part would be the rookies competing against other rookies for minutes, and only so many minutes to around. I do like the #3 for the #6 and #11 a lot, payitforward.

What I think would be really sweet is if you could maybe do two deals. The #3 for the #6 and #11, and then trade the ##6 along with Crawford and Blatche to the Rockets in exchange for Kyle Lowry, Greg Smith and the #21 pick. So, in effect the Wizards get rid of two negative value players and the price would be swapping the #3 for the #11 and #21. I think Zeller and Crowder would be two solid additions.

The Wizards would have added Lowry, Zeller, and Crowder while subtracting Blatche and Crawford.

They could target Danny Green at SG and have a much better team IMO next season. Also, they draft at 46 and they could pick between Denmon, English, and possibly Barton if he slips.

[Terpman]

I'M TIRED of potential guys... can we get a guy who can come in and be a professional from day one?

If that were a Redskins flag, I'd +1 every one of your recent comments. Solid evaluations FAH...

Drummond is a 30% SCRUB. That's WAY worse than Shaq at his worst. The guy will be a liability for someone - hopefully not us.

I like Beal or Harrison Barnes. Can live with MKG or Robinson. Drummond = torches and pitchforks...

I wouldn't touch Drummond in the top 15...

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

There are huge risks associated with trading a third pick for say a 10th or 11th pick, especially for a GM who wants to keep his job. Yes, there are instances where the 10th pick turned out to be better than the 3rd pick but it's rare. It's fun for us on this board to propose scenarios where a team ends up swapping the 3rd pick for the 10th pick because, unlike the GM, team or owner, there are no repercussions for us if the idea bombs.

(CCJ, D. Williams is better than Bynum, IMO, and I like Paul George but Favors will be the better player in 2-3 years.)

Its the basic math of it that makes it harder to pull off. It is bad enough we are at 3 wondering if CHA will take Robinson or Beal ahead of us or will another team trade up into that slot and change the dynamics. A team with a defined need probably doesn't want to risk that. You don't give up a bird in the hand. That would be GM death to pass up on a pretty sure great fit for your team to only hope you get something as good later. And to lower the risk, your trade partner has to want to player you really wanted 2nd and they have to get the player you want to swap with. If not, you are stuck drafting the player they wanted, not the player you wanted. Beal is to much of a sure thing to risk trading down for a Drummonds.

The Wall for Kyrie swop was a very different trade proposal. You knew what you would get. You would get your player and added assets. It was an idea I promoted early and often.

Trading down last year from 6 was something some of us liked while most wanted to trade up, but again, that is very different. That team was in year two of a rebuild. The draft was deep and flat. You could add lots of different kinds of players to the Wiz and they would still not be very good. Though they would have been better then 2nd worse, and that was not part of the tank plan. Ves was actually the perfect pick for what they were trying to do in a strike shorted year.

This year they have a team that is more assembled. They can be good with what they already have. They have clearly defined needs. Needs of shooting skills and needs of personality to run with Wall longer term at guard. They also need a stud shooting, ball handling SF. They need Walls running mate. I think most of us agree that is not likely Crawford longer term. Wall and Craw may be able to be productive on the court, but Crawford is not a leader personality that you can partner with Wall. Nothing like Wall and Beal would be.

Beal just seems so perfect as a fit for so many reasons. I would never trade out of the 3rd if I could take him with it. Most I would do is trade down 1 slot with CLE if I know they had a hard on for MKG and I could convince them that was the player I would draft.

Dray really isn't an issue. He will get traded eventually. Until then, he will be the 5th big who actually has lots of NBA experience.

Now if on top of Beal, I would get Drummond as a crap shoot without giving pieces I want longer term like Dray, Lewis, Crawford, the 2nd 2nd rounder and maybe next years first, I would do it. if not, I would rather just wait, trade Dray later, add Beal with someone like Kirk and Crowder and keep on keeping on. Drummonds is out of our reach and players like Meyers Leonard, Tyler Zeller, Fab Melo will be available again in later drafts.

Minutes are the issue.

Booker didn't get to shine until Randy benched Andray. James Singleton stepped up in a big way only with Booker out of the lineup. Seraphin didn't get minutes until Javale was traded and his minutes were maximized with Nene out. Vesely played PF.

When Andray comes back and Booker is healthy there will be a logjam of PFs. If the Wizards are too cheap to amnesty Blatche then he will be allowed to use practice time, but compete for NO CHANCE to play. That creates chemistry issues. And what if Robinson were drafted? Somebody good would ride pine and be quite unhappy about it.

The deals I propose are chemistry moves based upon the assumptions Ted doesn't want to amnesty Andray, and Andray's presence on the team will be problematic. What is the rotation with Andray healthy? And where will James Singleton's minutes go? I guess Blatche coming back means no James Singleton, right? If they don't want to amnesty Blatche and in fact DO want to trade him, I've been thinking of ways to facilitate that.

[TheKingOfVa360]

[quote="nate33"]We're not taking Drummond. Not with our Kwame and McGee so recent in our institutional memory. Not when Nene and Seraphin are doing a great job at center. Not when Ted has instituted a philosophy of character first. Not when we are in such dire need of wing players.

Drummond is the second-coming of Michael Olowokandi. I'm not worried about missing out on him.

My thoughts exactly, no need to gamble on a big man when we have good ones and need wing players. Beal or MKG should be the pick. We need a young corner stone player to grow with John Wall

BPA>Need and positional fit. Even many people won't agree that Drummond is BPA, if he reaches his potential (big IF) it's more likely that's he takes us somewhere far than either Beal or MKG.

There is a difference between the best PLAYER available and the best POTENTIAL available. Drummond has absurdly good potential, but he has demonstrated he is clearly lacking as a player. This team needs a mix of both. I think we get that with Beal.[/quote]


I agree Beal or MKG are the bpa. Drummond is a 30% percent ft shooter, don't want!

[closg00]

I think you're right CCJ, Ted does not want to amnesty Blatche. I think we will really see where Ted is at if he does not amnesty Dray, nor attempt any FA signings beyond vet-minimum players.

[dlts20]

@Hands11,

Zeller for a #1 pick on a team who stays in the lottery? Hell NO. Also, if Singelton is starting again this year then I will kill Ernie & Wittless. I would honestly rather have Dray start at SF than Singelton.............lol

[dlts20]

There are huge risks associated with trading a third pick for say a 10th or 11th pick, especially for a GM who wants to keep his job. Yes, there are instances where the 10th pick turned out to be better than the 3rd pick but it's rare. It's fun for us on this board to propose scenarios where a team ends up swapping the 3rd pick for the 10th pick because, unlike the GM, team or owner, there are no repercussions for us if the idea bombs.

(CCJ, D. Williams is better than Bynum, IMO, and I like Paul George but Favors will be the better player in 2-3 years.)

Its the basic math of it that makes it harder to pull off. It is bad enough we are at 3 wondering if CHA will take Robinson or Beal ahead of us or will another team trade up into that slot and change the dynamics. A team with a defined need probably doesn't want to risk that. You don't give up a bird in the hand. That would be GM death to pass up on a pretty sure great fit for your team to only hope you get something as good later. And to lower the risk, your trade partner has to want to player you really wanted 2nd and they have to get the player you want to swap with. If not, you are stuck drafting the player they wanted, not the player you wanted. Beal is to much of a sure thing to risk trading down for a Drummonds.

The Wall for Kyrie swop was a very different trade proposal. You knew what you would get. You would get your player and added assets. It was an idea I promoted early and often.

Trading down last year from 6 was something some of us liked while most wanted to trade up, but again, that is very different. That team was in year two of a rebuild. The draft was deep and flat. You could add lots of different kinds of players to the Wiz and they would still not be very good. Though they would have been better then 2nd worse, and that was not part of the tank plan. Ves was actually the perfect pick for what they were trying to do in a strike shorted year.

This year they have a team that is more assembled. They can be good with what they already have. They have clearly defined needs. Needs of shooting skills and needs of personality to run with Wall longer term at guard. They also need a stud shooting, ball handling SF. They need Walls running mate. I think most of us agree that is not likely Crawford longer term. Wall and Craw may be able to be productive on the court, but Crawford is not a leader personality that you can partner with Wall. Nothing like Wall and Beal would be.

Beal just seems so perfect as a fit for so many reasons. I would never trade out of the 3rd if I could take him with it. Most I would do is trade down 1 slot with CLE if I know they had a hard on for MKG and I could convince them that was the player I would draft.

Dray really isn't an issue. He will get traded eventually. Until then, he will be the 5th big who actually has lots of NBA experience.

Now if on top of Beal, I would get Drummond as a crap shoot without giving pieces I want longer term like Dray, Lewis, Crawford, the 2nd 2nd rounder and maybe next years first, I would do it. if not, I would rather just wait, trade Dray later, add Beal with someone like Kirk and Crowder and keep on keeping on. Drummonds is out of our reach and players like Meyers Leonard, Tyler Zeller, Fab Melo will be available again in later drafts.

Minutes are the issue.

Booker didn't get to shine until Randy benched Andray. James Singleton stepped up in a big way only with Booker out of the lineup. Seraphin didn't get minutes until Javale was traded and his minutes were maximized with Nene out. Vesely played PF.

When Andray comes back and Booker is healthy there will be a logjam of PFs. If the Wizards are too cheap to amnesty Blatche then he will be allowed to use practice time, but compete for NO CHANCE to play. That creates chemistry issues. And people what Robinson drafted?

The deals I propose are chemistry moves based upon the assumptions Ted doesn't want to amnesty Andray, and Andray's presence on the team will be problematic. What is the rotation with Andray healthy? And where will James Singleton's minutes go? I guess Blatche coming back means no James Singleton, right? If they don't want to amnesty Blatche and in fact DO want to trade him, I've been thinking of ways to facilitate that.

You can say what you want but Ill take it to my grave that if Dray is right then he's more talented than any of those guys and will win the starting job outright

[payitforward]

CCJ -- the problem w/ your argument is that there is almost always a player better than *any draft position* later in the draft. Hence if your argument is valid, we'd need to resurrect my massive trade down strategy of a few weeks ago (3 > 6 & 11; 6 > 14 & 16; 14 > 21 & 22; 22 > 33 & 34; 33 > 40 & 41.

This leaves us with #s 11, 16, 21, 32, 34, 40, 41 & 46. Six of them acquired for #3. Truth is I believe in this strategy. I think we'd be better off. What do you think?

I believe you think more out-of-the-box and farther forward than I do, payitforward.

My initial thought is six in one draft is too many rookies to adapt well to the NBA from one team. You would probably end up keeping the three firsts and the best of the 2nd rounders in somewhat of an arbitrary way. I think the worst part would be the rookies competing against other rookies for minutes, and only so many minutes to around. I do like the #3 for the #6 and #11 a lot, payitforward.

What I think would be really sweet is if you could maybe do two deals. The #3 for the #6 and #11, and then trade the ##6 along with Crawford and Blatche to the Rockets in exchange for Kyle Lowry, Greg Smith and the #21 pick. So, in effect the Wizards get rid of two negative value players and the price would be swapping the #3 for the #11 and #21. I think Zeller and Crowder would be two solid additions.

The Wizards would have added Lowry, Zeller, and Crowder while subtracting Blatche and Crawford.

They could target Danny Green at SG and have a much better team IMO next season. Also, they draft at 46 and they could pick between Denmon, English, and possibly Barton if he slips.

Well, I do agree that 8 picks is too many. I was extending the logic of your "better player further down" logic to its farthest point. I should also say that I have a strong feeling that Beal is going to be very very good.

My real problem is that I don't think EG is going to draft him; I think that if Robinson is available that's who he'll take -- and I have very little confidence that Robinson will become more than a solid 4, maybe but not certainly a starter, maybe better than Booker but probably not. I.e. I don't want Robinson.

I'd be more satisfied with MK-G, but his flaws.... They scare me.

I also don't think we are nearly as far along in our rebuild as some people think (including Ernie is what I'm afraid of) because of the fool's gold of our late-season winning streak. I think we need more young players. The best value contracts are rookie contracts and superstar contracts (the latter because of the cap). Guys like Mo Evans and Roger don't mean a thing to me. Hire them as assistants; don't pay them as players!

Hence I find my multiple trade-down strategy appealing. There are only 9 guys I want to back from last -- the 7 young guys from 2010 and 2011 (on the assumption that Crawford can't be traded), Nene and James Singleton. *Maybe* add Martin to that list. That leaves 4-6 spots for rookies. I'd love to have them.

Now, we might get to 4 without trading down -- the 3 picks and (fingers crossed) and an undrafted. If we came away with Beal, Crowder (or Jenkins), Denmon (or DLamb) and O'Quinn (or Gordon), I'd be ecstatic.

[payitforward]

I think you're right CCJ, Ted does not want to amnesty Blatche. I think we will really see where Ted is at if he does not amnesty Dray, nor attempt any FA signings beyond vet-minimum players.

Why? I keep hearing that it costs us money. No, it doesn't. Dray is untradeable and doesn't contribute, and it's *his contract* that costs us money. If you amnesty him, you fill his spot w/ a round 2 type rookie at $500K. That's what amnestying him costs -- the dollars to fill the spot.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Dray is really a fun player to watch when he's right, dlts20. You keep hope alive with Andray. I did with Javale.

Seriously, I think Andray at his best is a slightly better than average NBA PF/C. If a team like the Celtics had a healthy Andray Blatche they might be playing OKC right now. Andray can handle the ball, he can pass, when motivated he can rebound, he has post moves like the Dream Shake, and he can even block shots. The problem is he is not a finisher and he has fallen in love with low percentage shots. Blatche is good when he is in shape and is a 3rd or 4th scoring option.

I just cannot see him fitting with the Wizards unless it means destroying team chemistry and denying Booker or James Singleton, even i they are more effective. I think the best thing for all parties is to move Blatche, but I don't believe Ted will do that.

[payitforward]

You can say what you want but Ill take it to my grave that if Dray is right then he's more talented than any of those guys (i.e. James Singleton, Booker and Vesely) and will win the starting job outright

"Talented" -- meaning what?

He'll shoot a higher FG%? No, he never has.
He'll rebound at a higher rate? Than which of these guys? Again, he never has.

Andray Blatche had an 8 game run of high productivity right after the big team breakup, before anyone bothered scouting him. Then he played @4 ok games at the end of that season. And of course, he's had a few other good games.

Overall, he's been a terrible player from the moment he entered the league. As for "right" -- again, what does that mean? He's never had much athleticism, and he's now 27 not 19. He isn't getting back what he had, and it wasn't much to begin with.

In other words, he's not a good player at his best, and he's far from being at his best or any likelihood of returning there.