RealGM

Will he even make the roster (unguaranteed contract) and if so, how much does he play and does he help the team?

The Wizards have a full roster. The recent signings are camp bodies. Harrellson may have a little bit better possibility of a roster spot - Blair could potentially be traded/waived.

I'm not sure what the upside of signing him is... I mean kind of seems redundant with Gooden... unathletic Big with range that seems to be ok on the boards but will prolly be a defensive liability... He is younger so maybe he has shown improvement? He didn't have a horrible year statistically... WS/48 was better then Beal, decent 3pt FG%, mediocre PER, I forget the TS.

Meh, let us see if any of those supposed Temple trades manifest opening a roster spot.

penbeast0 wrote:Will he even make the roster (unguaranteed contract) and if so, how much does he play and does he help the team?

Yeah, verbal covered it. Blair could be on the way out if all the C invites is any indication. Otherwise, the roster is really packed.

Another guy who doesn't really figure in the plans, but when healthy he's a darned good player is Martell Webster. If he were just waived, that would open up a spot.

Last, the Wizards got some interest from the Utah Jazz in Garrett Temple. He performed fairly well when Beal was out, but this season the Wizards might want to get the rookie Kelly Oubre some minutes. Aside from Blair being waived or traded, I could see Garrett Temple being freed up just in good faith for a second round pick.

Those are the easiest ways for Harrellson, or Ish Smith, or any other Wizards camp invite to make the (full right now) roster.

nuposse04 wrote:I'm not sure what the upside of signing him is... I mean kind of seems redundant with Gooden... unathletic Big with range that seems to be ok on the boards but will prolly be a defensive liability... He is younger so maybe he has shown improvement? He didn't have a horrible year statistically... WS/48 was better then Beal, decent 3pt FG%, mediocre PER, I forget the TS.

Meh, let us see if any of those supposed Temple trades manifest opening a roster spot.

Harrellson doesn't seem like a defensive liability to me, if anything it may be his strength. He's smart and gives a good effort. The question is does he really shoot it well enough to make him a passable player offensively because he gives you nothing in the post.

He's a little like Spencer Hawes, not as mobile but willing to shoot the 3. But a better defender though. Unlike Hawes, a least he tries on that end.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Will he even make the roster (unguaranteed contract) and if so, how much does he play and does he help the team?

Yeah, verbal covered it. Blair could be on the way out if all the C invites is any indication. Otherwise, the roster is really packed.

Another guy who doesn't really figure in the plans, but when healthy he's a darned good player is Martell Webster. If he were just waived, that would open up a spot.

Last, the Wizards got some interest from the Utah Jazz in Garrett Temple. He performed fairly well when Beal was out, but this season the Wizards might want to get the rookie Kelly Oubre some minutes. Aside from Blair being waived or traded, I could see Garrett Temple being freed up just in good faith for a second round pick.

Those are the easiest ways for Harrellson, or Ish Smith, or any other Wizards camp invite to make the (full right now) roster.

For his place on the roster and what he costs, Garrett Temple is quite a good player. The board seriously underrates him.

Temple is a strong defender, a good rebounder for a guard, and overall a pretty good 3-point shooter (though streaky). He made $980K last year, the veteran minimum salary (part of which the league pays I believe).

He's a lot better than Gary Neal, it seems to me, and I'm not sure Alan Anderson is much, if any, better than Temple -- well... he's a better jump shooter. Not much else.

I'll never understand why we signed Neal.

payitforward wrote:For his place on the roster and what he costs, Garrett Temple is quite a good player. The board seriously underrates him.

Temple is a strong defender, a good rebounder for a guard, and overall a pretty good 3-point shooter (though streaky). He made $980K last year, the veteran minimum salary (part of which the league pays I believe).

He's a lot better than Gary Neal, it seems to me, and I'm not sure Alan Anderson is much, if any, better than Temple -- well... he's a better jump shooter. Not much else.

I'll never understand why we signed Neal.

I agree with all of this. Neal was a bad signing when Temple, Sessions and Anderson are all better than him. And Oubre might be better as well.

Dat2U wrote:

nuposse04 wrote:I'm not sure what the upside of signing him is... I mean kind of seems redundant with Gooden... unathletic Big with range that seems to be ok on the boards but will prolly be a defensive liability... He is younger so maybe he has shown improvement? He didn't have a horrible year statistically... WS/48 was better then Beal, decent 3pt FG%, mediocre PER, I forget the TS.

Meh, let us see if any of those supposed Temple trades manifest opening a roster spot.

Harrellson doesn't seem like a defensive liability to me, if anything it may be his strength. He's smart and gives a good effort. The question is does he really shoot it well enough to make him a passable player offensively because he gives you nothing in the post.

He's a little like Spencer Hawes, not as mobile but willing to shoot the 3. But a better defender though. Unlike Hawes, a least he tries on that end.

"Not as mobile" as Spencer Hawes?

In fairness, I think he meant (like Hawes) he's not as mobile (as you'd like him to be).

nate33 wrote:

payitforward wrote:For his place on the roster and what he costs, Garrett Temple is quite a good player. The board seriously underrates him.

Temple is a strong defender, a good rebounder for a guard, and overall a pretty good 3-point shooter (though streaky). He made $980K last year, the veteran minimum salary (part of which the league pays I believe).

He's a lot better than Gary Neal, it seems to me, and I'm not sure Alan Anderson is much, if any, better than Temple -- well... he's a better jump shooter. Not much else.

I'll never understand why we signed Neal.

I agree with all of this. Neal was a bad signing when Temple, Sessions and Anderson are all better than him. And Oubre might be better as well.

Without looking at NBA stats, I know Neal was a big time scorer at Towson. He was a Spurs rookie when Blair was a Spur. Neal stayed with the Spurs long enough to play on a championship team and contribute. He's a supporting cast veteran who scores in bunches. He can create his own offense.

Temple is more of a defender with good size. Sessions can push the ball and hit threes. Anderson is a little redundant with Temple. I like what he did with the Nets but question his signing more than Neal, because the Wizards drafted Oubre and they signed Dudley. Way too many 6'6" or 6'7" swing guys for all to contribute IMO. I guess Anderson will benefit from Dudley being on the shelf a while. I have no idea how Webster contributes.

Neal can actually score in ways similar to Bradley Beal. Temple couldn't generate that kind of offense last season. Not sure Anderson can be a spark plug scorer.


"Do not despise these small beginnings, for the Lord rejoices to see the work begin,"
"Be the change you want to be."

Dat2U wrote:

nuposse04 wrote:I'm not sure what the upside of signing him is... I mean kind of seems redundant with Gooden... unathletic Big with range that seems to be ok on the boards but will prolly be a defensive liability... He is younger so maybe he has shown improvement? He didn't have a horrible year statistically... WS/48 was better then Beal, decent 3pt FG%, mediocre PER, I forget the TS.

Meh, let us see if any of those supposed Temple trades manifest opening a roster spot.

Harrellson doesn't seem like a defensive liability to me, if anything it may be his strength. He's smart and gives a good effort. The question is does he really shoot it well enough to make him a passable player offensively because he gives you nothing in the post.

He's a little like Spencer Hawes, not as mobile but willing to shoot the 3. But a better defender though. Unlike Hawes, a least he tries on that end.

Is his effort THAT good that he can be an upgrade from Hawes as a defender even though in your opinion he is somehow less mobile then Hawes? I'm still trying to figure out how one can be less laterally quick then Hawes, although in his defense I have seen hawes make some nice fluid offensive moves.

Maybe mobile is the wrong word but I do see Hawes as more fluid. Harrellson looks like a stiff, or at he did when I saw him but looks can be deceiving. Harrellson is a better defender imo simply due to effort and awareness even though he appears a step slow on most plays.