RealGM

Dat2U wrote:Those $3-5 million dollar contracts add up. I remember when we had like 4 or 5 of them with Songalia, Daniels, Etan, DeShawn etc...

I'm not seeing anything from Webster that makes me say "OMG, what happens if we lose him!!!!".

To me keeping Webster is making sure we keep continuity so we can compete for mediocrity next year. Sounds like an Ernie type of plan.

Like MJG said, it's a trap!

dobrojim wrote:I think 3M/yr would be a pretty good deal for us.

I like his intelligence. Last night was a good example.
His shot attempts were primarily either dunks or corner 3s.
That's exactly what you want.

If one of either Ariza or Webster is going to leave, please let
it be Ariza.

nate33 wrote:

Dat2U wrote:

nate33 wrote:Because Martell Webster is a starting caliber player on an average team, or a 25 mpg rotation player on a good team. He is just 26 years old. He has a great attitude. Booker and Temple aren't as good and both can be replaced with vet minimum type players.

Only based on this year's sample size... and I don't trust it.

100s of NBA guys have a great attitude, that doesn't mean you necessarily have to keep them long term.

There are endless examples of guys getting paid off of one career year only to return to career norms or even worse. How many times do GM's and fans fall for a veteran playing above his head for a year only to regret the contract given just months later?

Webster, if he returns to career norms is not worth a long term deal.

Webster too is replaceable. Maybe this season's version is not as easy to replace but Martell's career norms are easily replaceable.

I think there is reason to believe that this is not a one-year aberration. Webster played roughly as good in 2009-10 and 2010-11 (until the injury) on a per minute basis. He had a sub par year in 2011-12 because he was returning from an injury. Basically, Webster has played like this for the past 4 seasons when healthy.

I understand the philosophy that you don't overpay role players until you have your stars already locked in, but I think you can go too far with that. Nobody is saying to pay Webster $8M a year or anything like that. We can pay him $3-4M a year on a 3-year deal, and it won't crimp our cap situation in any significant way. If we don't pay Webster, we gotta pay someone to fill that role.

And it's not like Webster is on the downside of his career or anything. He's just 26. He's also a very good fit for John Wall. He runs the floor and finishes better than anyone else on the roster, and he's a deadeye shooter from the corner 3. The guy shoots 47% from there.

I look at Webster almost as if he was a free draft pick. We got him for nothing and are paying him as much as a mid first pick - only he is producing far more than an average 1st round pick, and he is young enough to continue to do so for the same length of time as a rookie contract. Why should we give that up? What exactly is behind Door Number 2?

AFM wrote:Dude is a pretty decent shooter, can drive, is aggressive and makes smart cuts. Plays great with Nene passing out of the post. Plays hard and truly cares about winning. What's not to like?

tontoz wrote:

AFM wrote:Dude is a pretty decent shooter, can drive, is aggressive and makes smart cuts. Plays great with Nene passing out of the post. Plays hard and truly cares about winning. What's not to like?

Webster scores only 14.7 pts per 40 minutes compared to 17.2 for rookie Beal (who struggled badly his first two months). People notice his big games but don't pay attention to all the games where he is a non-factor offensively.

He is also below average on the boards.

AFM wrote:

tontoz wrote:

AFM wrote:Dude is a pretty decent shooter, can drive, is aggressive and makes smart cuts. Plays great with Nene passing out of the post. Plays hard and truly cares about winning. What's not to like?

Webster scores only 14.7 pts per 40 minutes compared to 17.2 for rookie Beal (who struggled badly his first two months). People notice his big games but don't pay attention to all the games where he is a non-factor offensively.

He is also below average on the boards.

Wow. Talk about cherry picking stats. Webster shoots 7 times a game compared to Beal's 12.5.
He also shoots the 3 at 40%.

Ruzious wrote:...I wouldn't be at all upset if the Wiz signed Mike Dunleavy, Jr to take his place next season at roughly the same price (though Dunleavy is getting up in age) it'll take to re-sign Webster.

tontoz wrote:The Wizards need points and much of the time Webster doesn't deliver. Chenier is constantly talking about Webster needing to be more aggressive. He mentions it pretty much every game. Websters career high scoring rate is below Beal's current rate.

The Wizards are last in the league in offense by a mile. They need scoring.

What is Websters value other than scoring? He is ok in assists and D, below average on the boards. A scorer who doesnt score much is not that valuable.

payitforward wrote:

Ruzious wrote:...I wouldn't be at all upset if the Wiz signed Mike Dunleavy, Jr to take his place next season at roughly the same price (though Dunleavy is getting up in age) it'll take to re-sign Webster.

Well, yeah. Dunleavy is a better player than Webster! A lot better.

AFM wrote:You are completely disregarding efficiency and just looking at total points.

tontoz wrote:His scoring efficiency has been really good this season but his scoring rate has been a little weak as has been his rebounding. I think he would be a better fit on a team that already has established 1st and 2nd options.