Presti's Tree Reaches DC: The Official Will Dawkins Thread

[DCZards]

Trading Deni for a 14th pick in draft everyone has been calling weakest drafts probably a decade (this isn't a narrative that those who are apoplectic about the trade made up out of convenience) for the past year and a 2029 pick (not POR's best pick from that year, but the second best) that is five years away and a complete unknown.

There are good players in every NBA draft, including this year's draft. What makes you think that that 2029 pick the Zards got from Portland can't--and won't--be traded for a FRP pick in the 2025 or 2026 draft?

Those are three pretty big missteps outside of the draft after being on the job for a little over 12 months. His first pick he chose in Bilal wasn't all that good last season, though showed potential. Tristan had a good couple games as well, but jury is out on both. He also traded a second round pick this year to move up two spots for an uninspiring selection. Sarr, a fairly consensus pick where he was select (I would have taken Sheppard), has suddenly become a darling to this board after hundreds of pages of the draft thread where a large consensus were saying otherwise

Of course the jury is still out on Bilal and Vukcevic. They're inexperienced youngins' and will need time to develop. But I like the potential I see in both of them.

I said weeks ago that Sarr was my top pick for the Zards.

The 14th pick also is a crap shoot PG who struggles to shoot the three and get into the lane (to pretty important skills for a PG), but admittedly had good size and apparently is a good mid-range shooter (a shot players are told not to take unless necessary). But some of you can say "home run" picks, and seemingly Dawkins will get a 6-year pass.

Every 18 year old (unless they're LeBron James) comes into the NBA with some flaws/shortcomings. Carrington is no exception. However, pretty much every draft analyst has said that the Zards got a steal in getting Bub at 14, several of them had him in their top ten.

[payitforward]

I’m sensing a real echo chamber of Dawkins is a “bad GM” because he didn’t draft who I would have drafted and/or he traded away a player I really like.

Seems like we should at least wait until the results are truly in before we start trashing the guy. But, then again, that might be asking for too much.

It can be the he traded away a player that was liked because he was likes because he did a lot of different things well on the bball court. You could also say that Dawkins is getting flack because has had a bad track record so far including:

-Trading for Poole who was god awful for the vast majority of the season. Seems that some mediocre play towards the end of the season has erased that from memories.

-Passed on getting tangible assets for Kuzma because it's not a place Kuzma wanted to go to.

-Trading Deni for a 14th pick in draft everyone has been calling weakest drafts probably a decade (this isn't a narrative that those who are apoplectic about the trade made up out of convenience) for the past year and a 2029 pick (not POR's best pick from that year, but the second best) that is five years away and a complete unknown.

Those are three pretty big missteps outside of the draft after being on the job for a little over 12 months. His first pick he chose in Bilal wasn't all that good last season, though showed potential. Tristan had a good couple games as well, but jury is out on both. He also traded a second round pick this year to move up two spots for an uninspiring selection. Sarr, a fairly consensus pick where he was select (I would have taken Sheppard), has suddenly become a darling to this board after hundreds of pages of the draft thread where a large consensus were saying otherwise. The 14th pick also is a crap shoot PG who struggles to shoot the three and get into the lane (to pretty important skills for a PG), but admittedly had good size and apparently is a good mid-range shooter (a shot players are told not to take unless necessary). But some of you can say "home run" picks, and seemingly Dawkins will get a 6-year pass.

If only Will Dawkins had stepped into the mammoth turd pile that was the Wizards 13 months ago & quickly turned it into a mountain of gold, wouldn't that have shown what a good GM his could be?

Why didn't he do that? Doesn't he want to look good?

Trading Deni was not a "misstep;" it was a move you didn't like. Do you really imagine he took the first offer that came in? That he didn't make a full circuit of calls to see what he could get for Deni? That he could have gotten more but didn't care to give it a try?

Who cares if you didn't like the trade? Who are you? I didn't like it either. Who am I?

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

I’m sensing a real echo chamber of Dawkins is a “bad GM” because he didn’t draft who I would have drafted and/or he traded away a player I really like.

Seems like we should at least wait until the results are truly in before we start trashing the guy. But, then again, that might be asking for too much.

It can be the he traded away a player that was liked because he was likes because he did a lot of different things well on the bball court. You could also say that Dawkins is getting flack because has had a bad track record so far including:

-Trading for Poole who was god awful for the vast majority of the season. Seems that some mediocre play towards the end of the season has erased that from memories.

-Passed on getting tangible assets for Kuzma because it's not a place Kuzma wanted to go to.

-Trading Deni for a 14th pick in draft everyone has been calling weakest drafts probably a decade (this isn't a narrative that those who are apoplectic about the trade made up out of convenience) for the past year and a 2029 pick (not POR's best pick from that year, but the second best) that is five years away and a complete unknown.

Those are three pretty big missteps outside of the draft after being on the job for a little over 12 months. His first pick he chose in Bilal wasn't all that good last season, though showed potential. Tristan had a good couple games as well, but jury is out on both. He also traded a second round pick this year to move up two spots for an uninspiring selection. Sarr, a fairly consensus pick where he was select (I would have taken Sheppard), has suddenly become a darling to this board after hundreds of pages of the draft thread where a large consensus were saying otherwise. The 14th pick also is a crap shoot PG who struggles to shoot the three and get into the lane (to pretty important skills for a PG), but admittedly had good size and apparently is a good mid-range shooter (a shot players are told not to take unless necessary). But some of you can say "home run" picks, and seemingly Dawkins will get a 6-year pass.

If only Will Dawkins had stepped into the mammoth turd pile that was the Wizards 13 months ago & quickly turned it into a mountain of gold, wouldn't that have shown what a good GM his could be?

Why didn't he do that? Doesn't he want to look good?

Trading Deni was not a "misstep;" it was a move you didn't like. Do you really imagine he took the first offer that came in? That he didn't make a full circuit of calls to see what he could get for Deni? That he could have gotten more but didn't care to give it a try?

Who cares if you didn't like the trade? Who are you? I didn't like it either. Who am I?

Yeah because someone put a gun to his head to trade for Poole, not trade Kuzma, and trade one of the few rays of hope this pathetic franchise has. I ray of hope who was young and still developing as much as some lead heads want to muddle. Kuzma got a consult even though he wasn't Dawkins 'guy' and got to reject a trade, Deni gets a 2 am text.

How am I? Who are you is right. Get off your cool-and-collected horse. You seemingly never stop meandering about the same draft picks, and mismanagement of your beloved 2nd round picks, and your trading down for value shtick, and the rest of the same talking points, but seemingly are perturbed when some is trying to debate a point. Which is:

Dawkins track record is garbage in his short time here. Even the fanboy arguments hinge his credibility on some big time gambles that we'll only be able to adjudicate 5-years down the road. If he turns it around, mea culpa incoming, but from what I can see today, don't like it a bit.

You also ask, "doesn't he want to look good?" I don't know, maybe, I also don't think it's as cut in dry as you want to imply (that he's a rationale actor?). I think a lot of these guys get more latitude then they deserve because they have a network, and are part of the club. Troy Weaver ran the Pistons into the ground, and the ink on his "get the hell out of here" letter wasn't even dry before he gets a nice, cushy consult hire from the organization known for his nepotism. The DC way I suppose.

[payitforward]

It can be the he traded away a player that was liked because he was likes because he did a lot of different things well on the bball court. You could also say that Dawkins is getting flack because has had a bad track record so far including:

-Trading for Poole who was god awful for the vast majority of the season. Seems that some mediocre play towards the end of the season has erased that from memories.

-Passed on getting tangible assets for Kuzma because it's not a place Kuzma wanted to go to.

-Trading Deni for a 14th pick in draft everyone has been calling weakest drafts probably a decade (this isn't a narrative that those who are apoplectic about the trade made up out of convenience) for the past year and a 2029 pick (not POR's best pick from that year, but the second best) that is five years away and a complete unknown.

Those are three pretty big missteps outside of the draft after being on the job for a little over 12 months. His first pick he chose in Bilal wasn't all that good last season, though showed potential. Tristan had a good couple games as well, but jury is out on both. He also traded a second round pick this year to move up two spots for an uninspiring selection. Sarr, a fairly consensus pick where he was select (I would have taken Sheppard), has suddenly become a darling to this board after hundreds of pages of the draft thread where a large consensus were saying otherwise. The 14th pick also is a crap shoot PG who struggles to shoot the three and get into the lane (to pretty important skills for a PG), but admittedly had good size and apparently is a good mid-range shooter (a shot players are told not to take unless necessary). But some of you can say "home run" picks, and seemingly Dawkins will get a 6-year pass.

If only Will Dawkins had stepped into the mammoth turd pile that was the Wizards 13 months ago & quickly turned it into a mountain of gold, wouldn't that have shown what a good GM his could be?

Why didn't he do that? Doesn't he want to look good?

Trading Deni was not a "misstep;" it was a move you didn't like. Do you really imagine he took the first offer that came in? That he didn't make a full circuit of calls to see what he could get for Deni? That he could have gotten more but didn't care to give it a try?

Who cares if you didn't like the trade? Who are you? I didn't like it either. Who am I?

Yeah because someone put a gun to his head to trade for Poole, not trade Kuzma, and trade one of the few rays of hope this pathetic franchise has. I ray of hope who was young and still developing as much as some lead heads want to muddle. Kuzma got a consult even though he wasn't Dawkins 'guy' and got to reject a trade, Deni gets a 2 am text.

How am I? Who are you is right. Get off your cool-and-collected horse. You seemingly never stop meandering about the same draft picks, and mismanagement of your beloved 2nd round picks, and your trading down for value shtick, and the rest of the same talking points, but seemingly are perturbed when some is trying to debate a point. Which is:

Dawkins track record is garbage in his short time here. Even the fanboy arguments hinge his credibility on some big time gambles that we'll only be able to adjudicate 5-years down the road. If he turns it around, mea culpa incoming, but from what I can see today, don't like it a bit.

You also ask, "doesn't he want to look good?" I don't know, maybe, I also don't think it's as cut in dry as you want to imply (that he's a rationale actor?). I think a lot of these guys get more latitude then they deserve because they have a network, and are part of the club. Troy Weaver ran the Pistons into the ground, and the ink on his "get the hell out of here" letter wasn't even dry before he gets a nice, cushy consult hire from the organization known for his nepotism. The DC way I suppose.

TBH, I don't particularly feel like arguing with you. It's way too early for me to be certain that any of Will's moves have been good (in the sense of moving us forward towards being an upper echelon, & even a title-contending team).

Or maybe you're just right -- maybe trading Deni Avdija is the sign -- the indicator of non-rationality. Maybe he could have gotten a haul for Brad but was too lazy to look, maybe he had multiple offers for CP3 that would have made more sense, maybe it was a strategic error to look for multiple R1 picks & draft capital going forward, maybe everybody but Will (including e.g. you) knew (or should have known) that Jordan Poole's a terrible player. Maybe Sarr was a poor choice at #2 & instead he should have taken... whoever you think would have been preferable. Maybe Bub has no future. George might well be a total bust. Ditto Bilal last year: maybe we could have done better. Ditto not trading Kuz at the deadline -- why ask him if he'd like to go to Dallas anyway?

Yeah, that's it.... It's all pretty much a waste of time. I don't know why we waste our time on this Board. Probably means we're as big idiots as Will Dawkins...

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

If only Will Dawkins had stepped into the mammoth turd pile that was the Wizards 13 months ago & quickly turned it into a mountain of gold, wouldn't that have shown what a good GM his could be?

Why didn't he do that? Doesn't he want to look good?

Trading Deni was not a "misstep;" it was a move you didn't like. Do you really imagine he took the first offer that came in? That he didn't make a full circuit of calls to see what he could get for Deni? That he could have gotten more but didn't care to give it a try?

Who cares if you didn't like the trade? Who are you? I didn't like it either. Who am I?

Yeah because someone put a gun to his head to trade for Poole, not trade Kuzma, and trade one of the few rays of hope this pathetic franchise has. I ray of hope who was young and still developing as much as some lead heads want to muddle. Kuzma got a consult even though he wasn't Dawkins 'guy' and got to reject a trade, Deni gets a 2 am text.

How am I? Who are you is right. Get off your cool-and-collected horse. You seemingly never stop meandering about the same draft picks, and mismanagement of your beloved 2nd round picks, and your trading down for value shtick, and the rest of the same talking points, but seemingly are perturbed when some is trying to debate a point. Which is:

Dawkins track record is garbage in his short time here. Even the fanboy arguments hinge his credibility on some big time gambles that we'll only be able to adjudicate 5-years down the road. If he turns it around, mea culpa incoming, but from what I can see today, don't like it a bit.

You also ask, "doesn't he want to look good?" I don't know, maybe, I also don't think it's as cut in dry as you want to imply (that he's a rationale actor?). I think a lot of these guys get more latitude then they deserve because they have a network, and are part of the club. Troy Weaver ran the Pistons into the ground, and the ink on his "get the hell out of here" letter wasn't even dry before he gets a nice, cushy consult hire from the organization known for his nepotism. The DC way I suppose.

TBH, I don't particularly feel like arguing with you. It's way too early for me to be certain that any of Will's moves have been good (in the sense of moving us forward towards being an upper echelon, & even a title-contending team).

Or maybe you're just right -- maybe trading Deni Avdija is the sign -- the indicator of non-rationality. Maybe he could have gotten a haul for Brad but was too lazy to look, maybe he had multiple offers for CP3 that would have made more sense, maybe it was a strategic error to look for multiple R1 picks & draft capital going forward, maybe everybody but Will (including e.g. you) knew (or should have known) that Jordan Poole's a terrible player. Maybe Sarr was a poor choice at #2 & instead he should have taken... whoever you think would have been preferable. Maybe Bub has no future. George might well be a total bust. Ditto Bilal last year: maybe we could have done better. Ditto not trading Kuz at the deadline -- why ask him if he'd like to go to Dallas anyway?

Yeah, that's it.... It's all pretty much a waste of time. I don't know why we waste our time on this Board. Probably means we're as big idiots as Will Dawkins...

Brad was a fine move, I'll give credit where due.

After that, nothing else.

I f pushback at the notion that there weren't tall tale signs of Poole being a bad player before coming here. Hell GS trading him for a creaky Chris Paul (yeah he never really had any value even though he was once great, he was trade filler) was indicates as much. But Dawkins just hunting home runs, so no criticism can be imparted.

I noticed you tried to brush over not trading Kuzma, but okay, I'll except that as a tacit admission that it was a dumb move. But Dawkins just trying to build a reputation as a classy organization, so no criticism can be imparted.

Deni was a lazy move to try to look like you are shaking things up. I feel confident his performance this upcoming season is going to show that very quickly. But Deni wasn't a superstar and no better trade could be had, so no criticism can be imparted.

In fact, Dawkins deserves immunity as long as he is swinging the Louisville slugger, results be damned. It's our only chance right?

[doclinkin]

I didn’t realize Kuz had a 15% trade kicker on his deal. It could be Dallas wanted him but not at cost + 15%, and when Winger asked him about it he wasn’t willing to waive the premium to go to that team. If he deemed that he was being traded to a contender, or a more high profile team or market, then he would have been willing to drop it. We hear the PR version, but the reality is likely a little more complicated.

[TheBlackCzar]

But we’re gonna do it with new guys — guys we picked. And we’re gonna make it sound as if we’ve reinvented the game.

“Random within a system to where you're making reads”??? What in actual f*ck does this mean? Like, I understand the *basic* point, but I want to understand this.

Did anyone ask him about Deni and how he defends the trade??

Of course not.

But did you know Bub Carrington is from Baltimore?

Literally a guy we had would have been perfect. But no matter, Bub is from Baltimore and is a local guy we'll without a doubt be able to give a warm embrace of our iconic bobblehead nights and have a local rap artist give an after game concert.

What a minor league outpost this team insists on being.

It's going to be funny watching you eat your words...... You're very amusing to read though.... Keep it up sport....

[payitforward]

...I f pushback at the notion that there weren't tall tale signs of Poole being a bad player before coming here....

Tell tale signs?
Poole had been in the league 4 years, of which only 1 was a good season for him ('21-22).

OTOH, what do you think we should have gotten for...

...a creaky Chris Paul...

??

As to...

I noticed you tried to brush over not trading Kuzma...

I didn't mean to brush over that decision. I would certainly have traded him.

Deni was a lazy move to try to look like you are shaking things up. I feel confident his performance this upcoming season is going to show that very quickly..

"lazy move" ...? It might work out or not work out. Nothing "lazy" about it.

...condident (in Deni's) performance"

Like you I hope he continues to develop, winding up a truly outstanding NBA player.

...But Deni wasn't a superstar and no better trade could be had....

The dripping irony indicates that you think a better trade was available. Feel free to share the details.

......no criticism can be imparted. In fact, Dawkins deserves immunity as long as he is swinging the Louisville slugger, results be damned. It's our only chance right?

More irony....

Dawkins doesn't deserve "immunity," but he deserves a chance.

He & Winger have been steering the ship for 13 months, & the franchise they took over had been entirely gutted of talent & of resources with which to acquire talent -- other than the draft.

To the best of my knowledge, we got as good a deal as we could for Brad. & you have no problem with the move.

Ditto for CP3.
It's not impossible that you know different & better.
But, if you know something to disprove the above you haven't put it in a post -- please do.

More likely, what it comes down to is that you didn't like our trading Deni.
There's nothing else behind your attitude. Or not much else at least....

Am I right?
If so, you know what, you have a perfect right to your attitude & the conclusive rhetoric to which it drives you -- it's your privilege! You're a fan.

Not only that, but there's even some chance that you're right. For example, if Bub plus the guy we pick with the other R1 pick we got plus the Guy we pick with #1 of the two R2 picks we got plus the guy we pick with the 2d of those two R2 picks don't wind up being as good overall as Deni, or better, then the trade won't have been advantageous.

OTOH, if they do, then the trade will have been fine.

Really, is there any more to it than that?

[doclinkin]

Watch on YouTube

--"99%" of the Team has been in town since August, playing together in self-organized pick up games and individual workouts.

--Coaching staff that has come together under Keefe have all been developmental coaches with other teams before coming here. Individually they liked how players developed last year, but have team goals that they fell short of. Notably: defense, rebounding. They've addressed some of that, expect to improve further and become more competitive this year, hope to build team camaraderie, joy of competing.

--In SL play Sarr hadn't played competitive 5-on-5 since February. They are looking for who he is going to be in 3-4 years. Dawk is impressed with the fact that at 19 he's vocal on defense.

--Bilal has filled out physically, they like his experience playing vs the US in Paris deep into the 4th quarter. Still a defensive player but you'll see him with the ball somewhat more this year; eventually becoming more of a force as he fills out.

--They have a style of play they are trying to develop in roster construction and developmentally. One that they can build with that will last.

[doclinkin]

The part I found interesting is the idea they have a framework for a style of play/roster construction they want to stick to.

Tough to see what that would be aside from size all around. However if you squint you see some patterns. Chiefly that they like long face-up forwards and wing players. Looks to me like they want to play outside-in, posting 4 out with one dirty work Big in the middle. Finesse, shooting, passing. They prefer to recruit tall players with guard-like skills.

Consider the players they have traded for, re-signed or drafted.

Forwards. Bilal 6'7" (? still growing?) Baldwin 6'9", Kuzma 6'10", Vukcevic 6'11", Sarr 7'1", are all rangy, lanky players who are most comfortable on the perimeter. All are willing shooters, if reluctant interior players. All tend to play more like giant guards than traditional forwards. With the exception of Bilal, all willingly handle the ball and pass proficiently. All play with finesse more than power. Vuk and Sarr may eventually be used as 4-5 F/C's but so far they seem content to let them play outside and stick other non-shooting Bigs in the middle.

Wing players. KGeorge 6'8", Bey 6'7", Kispert 6'7", also have the size to play at the 2-3 slot. Only George in particular is spotlighted as a passer/ballhandler. (Kispert perhaps doesn't truly belong in this list since he's the only one not recruited by this front office. Still, I expect Winger to extend him, and you don't hear rumors that they've offered him up in trade. You get the sense they like him, even if he does get traded eventually).

Guards. Brogdon 6'4", Poole 6'4", Bub 6'5" (? still growing). Here they seem to like combo guards, regardless of shooting efficiency. Not traditional PGs, all would best be categorized as combo guards. Brogdon works well either on or off ball, but Poole and Bub are most comfortable when they have the ball in their hands.

Bigs. This is the one spot where they don't seem to fetishize outside shooting. Valanciunas, Holmes, Bagley are all solid interior players. Though over his career Jonas has developed an outside shot and a sweet passing game, the strength of his game is in the middle. All willingly snatch down rebounds, even if none is an intimidating shot blocker.

Deep bench they like hustle guys who may not fit the physical profile but play with energy at both ends. Jared Butler. Justin Champagnie. Anthony Gill. All give an injection of competitiveness and bring a good attitude to the team.

No revelations here, all along you hear that positional size is a virtue for them, but it is interesting to try to extrapolate the trend to see what team they envision playing. And how that would affect playstyle at both ends. So far it looks to me like they want to emphasize skill more than athleticism and power. Or raw competitive nature. They don't care as much about box score measures or a winning history. They seem to think they will be able to train the players to win. Banking on growth not prior accomplishment. And given that learning curve, it means we still rack lotto balls while the chemistry develops and the players undergo growing pains.

[9 and 20]

The part I found interesting is the idea they have a framework for a style of play/roster construction they want to stick to.

Tough to see what that would be aside from size all around. However if you squint you see some patterns. Chiefly that they like long face-up forwards and wing players. Looks to me like they want to play outside-in, posting 4 out with one dirty work Big in the middle. Finesse, shooting, passing. They prefer to recruit tall players with guard-like skills.

Consider the players they have traded for, re-signed or drafted.

Forwards. Bilal 6'7" (? still growing?) Baldwin 6'9", Kuzma 6'10", Vukcevic 6'11", Sarr 7'1", are all rangy, lanky players who are most comfortable on the perimeter. All are willing shooters, if reluctant interior players. All tend to play more like giant guards than traditional forwards. With the exception of Bilal, all willingly handle the ball and pass proficiently. All play with finesse more than power. Vuk and Sarr may eventually be used as 4-5 F/C's but so far they seem content to let them play outside and stick other non-shooting Bigs in the middle.

Wing players. KGeorge 6'8", Bey 6'7", Kispert 6'7", also have the size to play at the 2-3 slot. Only George in particular is spotlighted as a passer/ballhandler. (Kispert perhaps doesn't truly belong in this list since he's the only one not recruited by this front office. Still, I expect Winger to extend him, and you don't hear rumors that they've offered him up in trade. You get the sense they like him, even if he does get traded eventually).

Guards. Brogdon 6'4", Poole 6'4", Bub 6'5" (? still growing). Here they seem to like combo guards, regardless of shooting efficiency. Not traditional PGs, all would best be categorized as combo guards. Brogdon works well either on or off ball, but Poole and Bub are most comfortable when they have the ball in their hands.

Bigs. This is the one spot where they don't seem to fetishize outside shooting. Valanciunas, Holmes, Bagley are all solid interior players. Though over his career Jonas has developed an outside shot and a sweet passing game, the strength of his game is in the middle. All willingly snatch down rebounds, even if none is an intimidating shot blocker.

Deep bench they like hustle guys who may not fit the physical profile but play with energy at both ends. Jared Butler. Justin Champagnie. Anthony Gill. All give an injection of competitiveness and bring a good attitude to the team.

No revelations here, all along you hear that positional size is a virtue for them, but it is interesting to try to extrapolate the trend to see what team they envision playing. And how that would affect playstyle at both ends. So far it looks to me like they want to emphasize skill more than athleticism and power. Or raw competitive nature. They don't care as much about box score measures or a winning history. They seem to think they will be able to train the players to win. Banking on growth not prior accomplishment. And given that learning curve, it means we still rack lotto balls while the chemistry develops and the players undergo growing pains.

Interesting. I would only count the draft picks over the past couple of years as Dawkins/Winger guys. Everyone else is there to be flipped. But even so, seems true that they like projectable guys over the immediate returns of more physically limited but high IQ guys.

Bilal and Vuk last year plus the three guys this year kind of all fit that mold. George is kind of the odd guy out - he's pretty limited as an athlete. Bub maybe middle of the pack but he's really big for a guard so maybe that evens out.

If Sarr and Bilal develop, they should be pretty special. Decent chance they might not develop though, so it's a gamble.

[nate33]

I'd say positional size is the only real consistent factor:

- Bilal is very long for a SF and may grow into being a full-sized PF
- Bub is long for a PG and may grow into being a full-sized SG
- George is long for a SG/SF
- Sarr is long for a PF and may grow into being a full-sized C.

If they trotted out a lineup of Bub, George, Bilal, Sarr and JV, it would be the biggest lineup in the league. Unfortunately, none of these guys (except JV) have the skill to play their idealized position yet. Skillwise, Bub is a SG, George is a SF, Bilal is a PF and Sarr is a center. And at those positions, they're not strong enough to match up.

It's interesting. Each of our recent draft picks have two positions where they could potentially end up. And they are all a bit underskilled to play the more skilled position and they are all insufficiently strong to play the bigger position. So none of them are all that effective at the moment. But each of them has a pathway to become a starter, either by honing their skills a bit more, or by filling out and getting stronger (and maybe growing a bit in the case of Bub). And if they get both stronger AND refine their skills, they become legit two-position players at both ends of the court.

[payitforward]

Doc/Nate -- great stuff. It'll be interesting to watch the pattern extend & the choices -- of play style & player characteristics -- unroll over time.

[doclinkin]

I'd say positional size is the only real consistent factor:

- Bilal is very long for a SF and may grow into being a full-sized PF
- Bub is long for a PG and may grow into being a full-sized SG
- George is long for a SG/SF
- Sarr is long for a PF and may grow into being a full-sized C.

If they trotted out a lineup of Bub, George, Bilal, Sarr and JV, it would be the biggest lineup in the league. Unfortunately, none of these guys (except JV) have the skill to play their idealized position yet. Skillwise, Bub is a SG, George is a SF, Bilal is a PF and Sarr is a center. And at those positions, they're not strong enough to match up.

It's interesting. Each of our recent draft picks have two positions where they could potentially end up. And they are all a bit underskilled to play the more skilled position and they are all insufficiently strong to play the bigger position. So none of them are all that effective at the moment. But each of them has a pathway to become a starter, either by honing their skills a bit more, or by filling out and getting stronger (and maybe growing a bit in the case of Bub). And if they get both stronger AND refine their skills, they become legit two-position players at both ends of the court.

Consistent yes, but what does it lead to?

I take Dawkins at his word when he says "We're trying to establish a style of play that will last, not just now but going forward." (9:50 in the vid above). If that style on Defense is relying on players that are switchable between 3 positions, alright. Especially on the perimeter. But what do the acquisitions hint at on offense?

Personally I wouldn't discount the acquisitions they've made beyond draft picks. My sense is they want at least a rough sketch of the roles they want their guys to play, so that players can grow into their skills without having to radically adjust with new personnel changes.

They tried out a tall ball platoon of skilled undersized Centers last year, in Muscala and Gallo at 5. Then scrapped that when they realized how demoralizing it is to force a miss but allow the opponent to reset the clock with a rebound. Since then they shored up the Center spot by trading for Bagwell, Holmes and Valanciunas. Dawkins says they addressed rebounding specifically this year. I think that began with shipping out our undersized finesse 4/5's and committed to fielding muscle in the interior. The platoon of Bagley + Holmes each had their career best per36 rebounding numbers with us (better than Gafford who improved when he shipped to Dallas). Add to that Valanciunas. Yes they said about Sarr (in SL) that they want him to be more aggressive on the boards, but that they think that will take time as he fills out. Meanwhile I doubt they will expose him for long minutes in the center spot but rely on Jonas and Holmes/Bagley to hold down that center spot. (Saddiq Bey, Bub Carrington, Malcolm Brogdon also add solid rebounding for their position.

Otherwise though I think they are trying to play guys who are interchangeable around the perimeter. I think they want guys who play like a more efficient version of Kyle Kuzma. Long face-up guys who pass, rebound, and can attack the basket off the dribble or motion.

I think they only guy they picked out of necessity, who did not fit this mold, was Jordan Poole. And that because they had no choice but to do something to escape Beal's drag chute of a contract. So any upside they could hope for was better than the certain misery of Brad and his injury history x No Trade Clause. Count Tyus as another player picked out of necessity since that deal came through at the 11th hour so they took whatever they could get.

I do think players like Patrick Baldwin, Tristan Vukcevic, KyShawn George -- even Alex Sarr -- all fit a type. They are finesse type guys who approximate toolsy players, even if they fall short in one skill set or another. They are tall, okay, but they at least look like they can shoot, pass, and handle well for their size. Not so much on defense or rebounding. The team is erring on the side of skill+length more than raw athleticism. They were not picked up for their aggression in attacking the interior, their ability to rack fouls on the opponent, thier tenacity in fighting for loose balls, etc. But because they look like they play 'smart'. Maybe the team hopes they can grow aggression with additional muscle, but it seems to me they focus first on guard-type skills in every spot but Center. And even then, in Sarr, they'd like the option eventually. Maybe Vuk as well.

I get the sense they'd like a Euro style offense where everyone can handle and move without the ball and make decisions on the fly. Lacking an alpha star they have no one player to build around, so until then they will build with a system. The system seems to be, motion and unselfish play outside, with at least one low-post grunt work player down low. My best guess.

[badinage]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=a4lJEbpuFtPRHuId24j_LA

Great way to buy yourself time lol.

But seriously: this is still phase 1, Deconstruction, after drafting Sarr and Bub and George this year and Bilal last year.

Does this mean that we’re meant to regard them all as role players, unless one should surprise and hit?

Also, this word — deconstruction. He’s misusing it. Most do. He means destruction.

So, think about this — they’ve added four first-round picks, plus a promising second in Vuk … yet this is part of the destruction.

[payitforward]

Not "destruction" but "unconstruction" -- taking apart. & it certainly makes sense to me: if you trade an established player for (mostly) draft capital, obviously that's part of "taking apart."

& it does seem obvious to me, that you have to do at least the first 2 of the 4 steps at at the same time -- I.e. using draft capital, picking players, is not "taking apart." You're trying to get the most talent you can with the draft capital available to you. So that's a piece of the 2d step -- building up.

four phases: deconstruction, laying the foundation, building it up and then fortifying what they've built. As to the second 2 phases - "building up" & "fortifying" -- they would appear to still be pretty distant. We're not close. We're not close to close!

But we are moving. We do have a plan, a methodology. & 5 new young players (Bilal, Vukcevic, Sarr, Carrington & George). &, we only have one "bad" contract (Poole's).

That's a pretty good start. Not sure how it could have been better -- Sarr's probably the most significant question mark.

[doclinkin]

Controlled demolition. While selling off the scrap iron and copper pipes. Taking it down to the dirt.

You can stock up on the raw talent and sketch a few blueprints for the next team. But even those picks may be tradable assets. As we saw with Deni. I will not be surprised if Bilal ever gets traded, even if he was their first draft pick, and a trade-up acquisition at that.

You need an apex predator to build around, so until you get that guy everybody is up for auction.

And really there is no point trying to get too good until you land that guy. You might as well collect young players with unknown top-end but intriguing measurables. Meanwhile you make advantageous trades for devalued prospects who may have hidden upside. Underperformers stuck behind all-stars or on teams with poor developmental track record or with tight battles for minutes in their bench depth. Profit from other teams' urgency for immediate wins. Sell them a key piece for a golden haul. Hold onto bad contracts until they become expiring assets and you can flip them for teams that need to burn cap at the end of the season.

Still. Rough sketches in the blueprint. They want smart guys who play team ball. Pass willingly and either shoot from range or defend multiple positions. Smart to pick unselfish players since that All Star assassin is going to want the ball in his hands if he's any damn good. Smart as well to pick versatile players so they get experience playing next to either position. If you draft a star at their spot, they can shift left right or play off the bench.

I think we are set to do well if we get one or two guys who use a majority of the Kuzma/Poole possessions with high efficiency. Everybody else on the squad has a role into which they can develop if they meet their markers.

[penbeast0]

I'm a little worried about all the solid pros he picked up this year (JV, Brogdon, etc.). If Poole has a positive variation as big as his negative variation from his norm last year and Kuzma has a good year, what if we aren't that bad?

[badinage]

I’m not worried about that. We’ll be bad.

I just don’t want guys like Brogdon and Kuzma on the team. Just do the deals already and dump them.

If you can’t get two FRPs for Kuzma, then take the one. But just do it.

And I don’t dislike Kuz. I like him. Ish.

But he has no role in the team to come.

And I really dislike the idea of having “veterans” around to teach the “kids” how to play. That’s what Gill is for. Don’t need a roster with 3 and 4 of them.

Ship em all out, and let these guys play. And lose.

I’m predicting 9 wins.

But I hope for less.

[nate33]

I’m not worried about that. We’ll be bad.

I just don’t want guys like Brogdon and Kuzma on the team. Just do the deals already and dump them.

If you can’t get two FRPs for Kuzma, then take the one. But just do it.

And I don’t dislike Kuz. I like him. Ish.

But he has no role in the team to come.

And I really dislike the idea of having “veterans” around to teach the “kids” how to play. That’s what Gill is for. Don’t need a roster with 3 and 4 of them.

Ship em all out, and let these guys play. And lose.

I’m predicting 9 wins.

But I hope for less.

I agree that we don't need so many veteran mentors. You need one or two Gill type guys (end of bench professionals) and one or two primary rotation guys just to help calm things down when the youngsters get flustered, but that's about it.

I liked how things were late last season after Tyus got hurt. It was mostly young guys (Poole, Deni, Coulibaly, Kispert, Butler, Vukcevic) with just Kuzma and Holmes as the veterans in the rotation (and Poole as a semi-veteran), plus Gill at the end of the bench.

I'd like to see a similar dynamic now. Play the young guys (Bub, Coulibaly, Kispert, Sarr, Vukcevic, Butler) with only 2 or 3 other vets in the rotation. As for the vets, we are stuck with Poole as one of them. I like JV as another one just because he adds some necessary beef. And that's probably about all we need. I suppose there's an argument for keeping Kuzma a little bit longer because Sarr and Coulibaly are so raw offensively and the trading of Deni sapped our forward depth, but I definitely don't see a need for Brodgon or Holmes.