Official 2023 Wizards OFFSEASON Thread

[Hibachi_0]

How about Galinari for Wiseman. Wiseman’s only guaranteed for 1 year. He’s still young and has too much potential to write off this early.

I don't think Detroit agrees to this. Their core is young and if Wiseman improves could be a part of that. I believe they would only accept Gallinari if we took Dedmon.

[joshuacf]

By way of context though this is what Zards was responding to:

Tyus Jones will command a big raise. Why do we want to keep him?

We are engaged in a ground up rebuild. We did keep Kuz -- for reasons that have little to do with his productivity (even if he were extremely productive on the court that wouldn't be why we'd keep him).

Tyus is really good. I would imagine that he'd command a good return at the deadline. Let's trade him for as much draft capital as we can get.

Whereas I would not be surprised if the Front Office re-upped Jones to an extension. Sounds to me like they had him tabbed as a key player.

In the distinction between re-tool and re-shaping Dawkins cited bringing in skilled veterans as part of the process. Seems to me like they are doing a better version of a 'middle build' blueprint. They are collecting draft capital WHILE upgrading on the fly at key positions. Yes they are also preserving cap flexibility currently with expiring contracts. But it seems to me they are not strictly trying to suck by shipping out all their talent simply for future tickets. Seems to me they are trying to improve the team:

PG: Slight upgrade at starting point.

SG: Possibly slight downgrade (*) but a long-term talent with potentially better upside. On a large contract.
Upgraded depth by adding a young veteran outside shooter likely entering his prime years. (age-wise).

SF: Moved future capital to draft a player with likely more future potential than those on the roster. While retaining both young cats who have split the position this past year.

PF: Re-inked last year's starter to a long term contract. Brought in both young talent and a skilled veteran (if they keep Gallo).

C: Lost talent. Downgrade, but from a talented player with an injury history who did not wish to re-sign here and was willing to walk for free. We do need a starting Center. Gafford's 20 mins per game limits him essentially to back-up status even when he is starting.

(*) Though maybe not if you compare both player's age 22 seasons. Figuring last year was a blip in the development of Poole, with player chemistry issues interfering:
https://stathead.com/tiny/9fk2P

Anyway. I think they are actually trying both to improve today, and also collect future tickets.

I actually don't know the answer to this question so I was hoping for some insight from someone: Do we think that Gafford's stamina is what it is at this point? I don't think he'll ever be a 35 MPG Ironman, but I want to believe he could be a ≈28 MPG legit starter.

[nate33]

Detroit has a glut of Cs (Stewart, Dedmond, Duren, Wiseman) and is short on PFs. We need depth at C and Muscala can’t be the type of player we’re looking for long term, and either is Galinari. How about Galinari for Wiseman. Wiseman’s only guaranteed for 1 year. He’s still young and has too much potential to write off this early.

Detroit has already met their quota of slow, over the hill, white guys with Bogdanovic and Joe Harris.

[DCZards]

Wiseman is young and still has untapped potential. Det is not trading him for a 34 year old Gallo.

[payitforward]

...The roster is bloated with 17 contracts…

For clarity -- it's actually 16 -- but, if Vukcevic is signed rather than stashed that will move us to 17.

In any case, we're not even half way through July. I imagine there are at least a few more moves to come.

[bsilver]

Detroit has a glut of Cs (Stewart, Dedmond, Duren, Wiseman) and is short on PFs. We need depth at C and Muscala can’t be the type of player we’re looking for long term, and either is Galinari. How about Galinari for Wiseman. Wiseman’s only guaranteed for 1 year. He’s still young and has too much potential to write off this early.

Detroit has already met their quota of slow, over the hill, white guys with Bogdanovic and Joe Harris.

Not even if we added Muscala
We do need a center, though. I’ve been impressed with Vukevic, but probably not fair to him to play right away at C when he needs some physical maturity. Azubuike from the Celtics summer league team doesn’t seem to be signed.

[FAH1223]

[pcbothwel]

Wiseman is young and still has untapped potential. Det is not trading him for a 34 year old Gallo.

Wiseman is THE WORST Defensive player at the most important position for defense in the league. Most metrics have him as a Kanter/McDermott/Bryant caliber defensive player... and Bol/Biyombo/Ibaka player offensivley.
56% TS, 2X turnovers as assist, and AWFUL defensive metrics/On-Off. I mean, if he makes a drastic improvement.... then he might be Jalen Smith.
We are talking about some of the worst metrics of this decade... and people think paying him 12M is a good buy low option. Unreal.

[gambitx777]

...The roster is bloated with 17 contracts…

For clarity -- it's actually 16 -- but, if Vukcevic is signed rather than stashed that will move us to 17.

In any case, we're not even half way through July. I imagine there are at least a few more moves to come.

Yeah I think things are on hold because the dame thing is gonna be huge potentially 5 plus teams


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[joshuacf]

Read on Twitter

Can't say that Omoruyi was on my radar or that I even knew who he was.

I'd like to see the last spot go to one of our G-League guys.

[closg00]

Weeks old Post story, dumping it here, they go back 23 years worth of picks (sorry if it's pay-walled)

The Wizards have a long history of wasting second-round picks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/06/23/wizards-nba-draft-second-round/

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

Can't say that Omoruyi was on my radar or that I even knew who he was.

I'd like to see the last spot go to one of our G-League guys.

I watched a few youtube videos of him.

He is a very burly, long-armed forward. He moves well, but isn't particularly explosive. He might have the strength to play center in a smallball configuration, but he will have to play floor-bound position defense. He is not a weakside shot blocker. He has pretty good shooting form on his 3-ball, but he doesn't appear to have great touch around the rim.

He actually reminds me quite a bit of Grant Williams, both physically and in style of play. Grant Williams is an exceptional on-ball defender though. I don't know if Omoruyi has that type of potential. (There aren't a lot of youtube highlights of positional defense.)

I'm assuming the team is keeping an eye out for switchable small-ball 5 type of player. We don't really have anyone on the roster that can do it, except maybe Kuzma. Maybe they think Omoruyi has a chance to develop into that guy.

[DCZards]

Omoruyi played with OKC last season so you gotta figure he’s a Will Dawkins guy. Kinda remember seeing him against the Zards last season (played 14 mins.) Was rugged and persistent battling down the low.

[payitforward]

Read on Twitter

Can't say that Omoruyi was on my radar or that I even knew who he was....

I do. He worked out for us in the run-up to the '21 draft, & as it happens there was footage of the workout. He looked pretty good.

Unusual name, so I noticed whenever I saw it mentioned. He played for OKC last year & then for the Pistons. Presumably it was the OKC stint that made Dawkins look in his direction.

I don't understand the move to tell the truth -- the kid is already 26 years old. Hasn't been good yet; hard to imagine there's an upside.

...I'd like to see the last spot go to one of our G-League guys.

Teams now get 3 2-way players, so you're right that there's still one up for grabs -- maybe 2, for that matter, since Quenton Jackson was signed by the previous regime.

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

Just as I have been saying. The Wizards will be real bad. There's not much reason to worry that the combo of Jones, Poole and Kuzma will thwart the tank.

[payitforward]

By way of context though this is what Zards was responding to:

Tyus Jones will command a big raise. Why do we want to keep him?

We are engaged in a ground up rebuild. We did keep Kuz -- for reasons that have little to do with his productivity (even if he were extremely productive on the court that wouldn't be why we'd keep him).

Tyus is really good. I would imagine that he'd command a good return at the deadline. Let's trade him for as much draft capital as we can get.

Whereas I would not be surprised if the Front Office re-upped Jones to an extension. Sounds to me like they had him tabbed as a key player....

First off, my post was clearly an over-statement.
There can certainly be reasons for keeping Jones or any player.
Moreover, if we traded him, it would not necessarily be exclusively for draft capital -- might not be for draft capital at all.

OTOH, on its own, the fact that Tyus Jones is very good has no bearing on the question of whether we did/do or didn't/don't trade him. The key variable in that kind of decision is what you can get for him -- or for anyone you think about trading.

Similarly, the notion that they had picked Tyus Jones out as a key player is a) presented w/o evidence, b) exceedingly unlikely, & c) irrelevant.

a) Are there better players than Jones? Sure! Would they have preferred one of those better players to Jones had he been available? Sure.
b) Jones became available, because Boston traded Smart to Memphis. We were able to be involved in that transaction, b/c KP opted out. So much for having targeted him: "O Tyus, you are key!"
c) When you make a trade, you try to get back a player whose value is at least equal to the guy you're trading. Duh. Until we reach the tier of one-of-a-kind superstars, circumstances may arise in which it's even possible, sometimes, to get back more value than you send out (see our trade for KP as an example). However good you think someone is, if the trade brings back even more value, you do it.

...In the distinction between re-tool and re-shaping Dawkins cited bringing in skilled veterans as part of the process....

a) there is no distinction between "retool" & "reshape" -- or "rebuild" for that matter. You're making it up -- unless you'd like to cite a nice-sized sample of each to give the so-called distinction some meaning. Those are just different metaphors. Period. They have no semantic relationship, any 1 of them to any other of them.
b) Of course you sign "skilled veterans" if they're available. Would you prefer unskilled veterans? When the Warriors built a whole new team around Steph & a series of subsequent draft picks, they also brought in "skilled veterans." Houston's rebuilding from the bottom up. They just signed VanVleet. Orlando has been rebuilding; they've got several multi-year vets on their roster. Even Philly's "process" period involved signing "skilled veterans."

...Seems to me like they are doing a better version of a 'middle build' blueprint. They are collecting draft capital WHILE upgrading on the fly at key positions...

Are you suggesting that it's not a rebuild unless you downgrade at key positions?
You don't think acquiring Poole, Baldwin & Rollins are rebuilding moves?
Or are you suggesting instead that acquiring Shamet, Gallinari & Muscala are veteran upgrades indicating this so-called "middle build" (a term neither you nor I had ever heard before or are likely ever to hear again, which was invented by Tommy to characterize his lack of a plan, & which, when you come down to it, cost him his job!).

...it seems to me they are not strictly trying to suck by shipping out all their talent simply for future tickets....

1. No one tries to suck. Sometimes you have to accept that you will suck for some period of time.
2. No one ships out all their talent! Everyone is trying to acquire talent.
3. "Rebuild" means -- create the next generation of a team.

...Seems to me they are trying to improve the team....

Of course they are -- long term: that's the goal of rebuilding! A long-term effort to make a far better team & win a title.

...to improve today.

Really? We won 35 games last year.
So if Winger & Dawkins off season moves succeed we should improve on that -- maybe win 38 games next year? Get into the playoff?

...I think they are actually trying ...to improve today.

Yup, that's what you think. They are not happy with 35 wins, they want to win more games than that in the '23-24 season.

Just for clarity, I would say that

a) everyone "wants" to win every game they play. That desire tells us nothing about what a team is doing strategically, what its overall plan is, &
b) aside from that they don't care one whit how many games the Wizards win in '23-24.
c) what they care about is how each of their off season moves looks "so far" (i.e. next off season).

Above all, the idea that trading Beal & acquiring Poole was somehow NOT a rebuilding move is perfect BS & you know it.

Yes, we re-signed Kyle Kuzma. To an extremely team-friendly contract that allows us to have him at a below-market salary the last 2 years of its tenure. I can't imagine a move that more clearly indicates we are rebuilding.

[Silvie Lysandra]

resigning Kuzma is a genius move because he puts up the kind of volume stats that might make a team think he's a good player and trade assets for him thinking he'd be a perfect 4th or 5th option, but his actual impact on winning basketball games when putting up those stats is hilariously negative

[pancakes3]

I actually don't know the answer to this question so I was hoping for some insight from someone: Do we think that Gafford's stamina is what it is at this point? I don't think he'll ever be a 35 MPG Ironman, but I want to believe he could be a ≈28 MPG legit starter.

i don't think it's an issue of stamina, i think it's an issue of foul trouble.

[doclinkin]

First off, my post was clearly an over-statement.

Good place to start. And finish.

No point arguing with me on 're-tool' vs 're-shape'. It was the distinction made by Dawkins when a reporter asked him about it. Call it PR dodge-- or ask if perhaps it points to an operational directive. Maybe maybe not. I wonder if they are trying to appease Ted by looking like we are fun to watch while still collecting lotto combinations.

Other teams haven't done that in tanking in the past. Have been more transparent about intentionally scuttling the boat. San Antonio deliberately bottomed out by selling off their top talent in order to sell out for lotto tickets. Dawkins suggested we aren't doing that, because they brought in productive veterans. Cited Poole and Jones as core pieces, then mentioned veterans for the bench.

I am not making a case either way. Dawkins said it. Not rebuild. His words. We will see. Curious to see what he does with the vets he did acquire. I'm thinking now he may actually keep players like Gallinari. But not with the idea that they will help us win. But that they are useful assets for another reason.

Why: I think a key factor that torpedoes a 'the process' style re-build is the new 90% rule. Owners will never want to miss out on that juicy reward from teams that are paying into the 'aprons'. You have to pay somebody to fill out the roster. But better paid players tend to earn that money because they better at delivering wins. Rack bigger stats. Are stars. I expect there will eventually be a even higher trade value for high dollar veterans that suck but are entering the last year of their contract. So teams that are trying to tank can still hit the threshold but qualify for better draft spots. A zombie apocalypse Bring Out Your Dead roster strategy.

So yeah. Poole, Kuzma may be 4 dimensional chess moves. Picking up pricey contracts of empty stat scorers is the new tanking. Tyus Jones is not that sort of move though, in my opinion. He moves the needle towards wins. Not many, but still, a nudge towards 'good'. But hey, he probably can't share the court with Jordan Poole, so perhaps operational redundancy is a strategy as well. Gives you reasons to suck and helps you swap out parts when you do need to make a move.

We will find out, if we hear they are negotiating an extension on Tyus. My hunch is they probably will. And that he will turn it down. because he is win-oriented and that is not quite how this roster is constructed for the foreseeable future.

[willbcocks]

Overpaying known bad players to meet 90% seems a bad strategy to me. I would, before the draft, ake it known that my team would give big overpays to the best undrafted players remaining, and sign them to as long as possible. Hopefully you get better players signing up than you otherwise would, and you have them kongterm if it works out.