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

[payitforward]

TBH, you are starting to seem like a one-trick pony. I wish you would rethink your attitude.

[nate33]

I think a lot of teams would trade a FRP for Bub, George or Sarr.

Unlikely. No lotto bound team will give up their first round pick for one of those players. No playoff team will give up their first round pick for one of those players until they demonstrate that they can help them in the playoffs. The only teams that would be willing to trade a first round pick is a lotto bound team that holds the rights to a playoff bound teams pick.

Now you are changing the argument. It is no longer about the intrinsic value of the players; instead it's the short term need of an average team picking in the mid-to-late first round.

But if a team is at the end of it's competitive cycle and is looking to blow things up and rebuild, I believe they would trade a mid to late first round pick for any of these guys, and probably a fairly high FRP for Sarr or Bilal.

[doclinkin]

The man works hard for his hate. Lol

I have a question leswiz. Is it your contention that none of these young players are going to get any better? That how they played last year is the best we will ever get from them?

If not, what is your highest expectation for their improvement, player by player.

Or if so: to what do you attribute the difference between your assessment and those of scouts and pundits and analysts who suggest the Wizards are headed in the right direction?

Could be that you are smarter or have particular insight. But I’m curious what that insight is based on. A track record. A long history of player evaluation. A plan you think would have been smarter to execute than to tear down and rebuild.

I’m not trying to clown here. I’m genuinely curious why in your mind you have the foresight to write off these players based on their first or second season in the league. What other rookies you’re comparing them to in league history that have shown you that a team of raw recruits has the ability to win right out the gate. Or if you think the strategy to lose with youth in order to retain a critical draft pick was misguided.

[doclinkin]

Not saying it’s an unreasonable position that drafting for upside and development is risky. I’ve held that position in the past when we were trying to win. Nick Young, JaVale, Blatche, Oubre. There’s enough local history to point to that suggests talented players don’t always develop. Those years in theory we were trying to win from the middle. Adding youth while trading for vets. We were not investing all our resources in player development. Just kinda hoped they’d get better over time.

Here, while it looks chaotic, we are doing something we haven’t seen before. With this franchise anyway. We have what, 11-12 players on rookie contracts? We are basically creating the NBA equivalent of IMG academy. Or a Euro junior pro club team. An advanced internship program for NBA talents. Grad school for pro basketball. Hogwarts, kinda.

Do you expect if this team picked differently over the past 2 years, or traded for different young players we would have been in better contention for a championship over the long haul? Or would be winning already? With who? How? What would the leswiz plan look like?

Or otherwise are you just venting that you’re dissatisfied with losing. Or hoping someone can convince you to have hope. I dunno. Just curious what your stake is in this.

[leswizards]

I think a lot of teams would trade a FRP for Bub, George or Sarr.

Unlikely. No lotto bound team will give up their first round pick for one of those players. No playoff team will give up their first round pick for one of those players until they demonstrate that they can help them in the playoffs. The only teams that would be willing to trade a first round pick is a lotto bound team that holds the rights to a playoff bound teams pick.

Now you are changing the argument. It is no longer about the intrinsic value of the players; instead it's the short term need of an average team picking in the mid-to-late first round.

But if a team is at the end of it's competitive cycle and is looking to blow things up and rebuild, I believe they would trade a mid to late first round pick for any of these guys, and probably a fairly high FRP for Sarr or Bilal.

I am not changing anything. I used a real world example that can be used to fairly gauge those players values. You disagreed and said that they could bring back a first round pick. I replied unlikely, and using real world circumstances, I explained why it is unlikely. From, your response, I take it that you agree that is very unlikely that the Wizards could ever get a first round pick in return. And they only way it could happen is if a team has the foresight to know that they are going to blow things up after this season.

[nate33]

Unlikely. No lotto bound team will give up their first round pick for one of those players. No playoff team will give up their first round pick for one of those players until they demonstrate that they can help them in the playoffs. The only teams that would be willing to trade a first round pick is a lotto bound team that holds the rights to a playoff bound teams pick.

Now you are changing the argument. It is no longer about the intrinsic value of the players; instead it's the short term need of an average team picking in the mid-to-late first round.

But if a team is at the end of it's competitive cycle and is looking to blow things up and rebuild, I believe they would trade a mid to late first round pick for any of these guys, and probably a fairly high FRP for Sarr or Bilal.

I am not changing anything. I used a real world example that can be used to fairly gauge those players values. You disagreed and said that they could bring back a first round pick. I replied unlikely, and using real world circumstances, I explained why it is unlikely. From, your response, I take it that you agree that is very unlikely that the Wizards could ever get a first round pick in return. And they only way it could happen is if a team has the foresight to know that they are going to blow things up after this season.

Yes. Because competitive teams don't have an incentive to trade FRPs for prospects. They are interested in win-now players. So your whole argument is silly.

But in the relatively infrequent instances when a team with a late pick would be interested in a prospect, I contend that they would indeed be willing to trade for one of our prospects.

[leswizards]

The man works hard for his hate. Lol

I have a question leswiz. Is it your contention that none of these young players are going to get any better? That how they played last year is the best we will ever get from them?

If not, what is your highest expectation for their improvement, player by player.

Or if so: to what do you attribute the difference between your assessment and those of scouts and pundits and analysts who suggest the Wizards are headed in the right direction?

Could be that you are smarter or have particular insight. But I’m curious what that insight is based on. A track record. A long history of player evaluation. A plan you think would have been smarter to execute than to tear down and rebuild.

I’m not trying to clown here. I’m genuinely curious why in your mind you have the foresight to write off these players based on their first or second season in the league. What other rookies you’re comparing them to in league history that have shown you that a team of raw recruits has the ability to win right out the gate. Or if you think the strategy to lose with youth in order to retain a critical draft pick was misguided.

When you start you post as you did, I don’t know why you think I would willingly answer your questions.

Instead, my prediction is a few years down the road, when this tank is clearly going nowhere, Ted leonsis will hire version 3.0 of Ernie Grunfeld/Tommy Sheppard and the Wizards front office unofficial motto will become “mediocrity today; mediocrity tomorrow; mediocrity forever!”

[leswizards]

Now you are changing the argument. It is no longer about the intrinsic value of the players; instead it's the short term need of an average team picking in the mid-to-late first round.

But if a team is at the end of it's competitive cycle and is looking to blow things up and rebuild, I believe they would trade a mid to late first round pick for any of these guys, and probably a fairly high FRP for Sarr or Bilal.

I am not changing anything. I used a real world example that can be used to fairly gauge those players values. You disagreed and said that they could bring back a first round pick. I replied unlikely, and using real world circumstances, I explained why it is unlikely. From, your response, I take it that you agree that is very unlikely that the Wizards could ever get a first round pick in return. And they only way it could happen is if a team has the foresight to know that they are going to blow things up after this season.

Yes. Because competitive teams don't have an incentive to trade FRPs for prospects. They are interested in win-now players. So your whole argument is silly.

But in the relatively infrequent instances when a team with a late pick would be interested in a prospect, I contend that they would indeed be willing to trade for one of our prospects.

So, your point is that they are worth more than 8 second round picks; instead they are worth 4 late first round picks?

Still seems like far too little value for what was invested.

[DCZards]

leswizards, tanking means a lot of losing…and a roster with a lot of young players that need to be given time to develop. I think you need to come to grips with that.

[leswizards]

leswizards, tanking means a lot of losing…and a roster with a lot of young players that need to be given time to develop. I think you need to come to grips with that.

This is not a question of winning or losing. It is a question of is this front office executing this tank wisely. I’m providing real world evidence to show that it is not. Some of you don’t want to read that, and instead rely on the hope that things are going well.

[doclinkin]

my prediction is a few years down the road, when this tank is clearly going nowhere, Ted leonsis will hire version 3.0 of Ernie Grunfeld/Tommy Sheppard and the Wizards front office unofficial motto will become “mediocrity today; mediocrity tomorrow; mediocrity forever!”

Ah now I see. Lol. Preemptive quitting on the team based on a history of hurt. It’s a useful psychological strategy to prevent getting your hopes stomped again. Stomp those hopes yourself as soon as they bud.

Just because I give you hell doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate your perspective. I’ve been genuinely curious why this take is a point of stubborn resistance for you. That you’re viewing it through the lens of a flashback to the last front office makes it make sense. Wiz fans don’t expect to ever get anything good.

It will be interesting to me to see if you budge or adjust when players do show signs of improvement. And how far they’d have to grow before you grudgingly admitted you misjudged them, or were too quick to judge.

But you might not have to. 100% chance these players won’t all be on this team if/when we trend upwards or cross into a winning record.

Young teams amass talent. Decide on a core. Then ship surplus talent for vets and complementary fit around that core.

I’d agree we don’t have that core set. We are deep in wings. Lack a true front court. And probably lack our 1A option on offense unless Tre swiftly figures out how to bait fouls.

So at some point some of these players will be traded or benched behind the next draft picks.

I don’t think Bilal will be the guy shipped out though. Odd to me he is the one you’ve doubled down against. I get the sense he’s the one most likely to make a leap and disprove you. He’s already getting nods of respect on defense from players and stat heads alike. Teams generally don’t ship out their hitman defender. But hey. We traded Deni so you never know.

I will say there’s zero chance we trade these players for 8 second rounders. History shows this front office is far better at converting assets the opposite direction. Transmuting players into better assets. Jared Butler was nearly out of the league with a heart condition and a spotty record in the G league. We swapped him for a first rounder after rehabbing his game. Likewise shipping out Gallinari and Muscala for Bagley, then transmuting him to Smart plus a first rounder. Trading up and amassing picks is a thing they’ve been good at. As is recouping value in trades.

I’d bet if we trade Cam Whitmore we get more for him than we sent. He’ll put up good numbers for us and attract offers.

In short. Absent a better plan, the plan you haven’t offered. I’m happy with taking the long term view.

We control 10 first round draft picks over the next 7 years. Have 16 2nd rounders in that span. And every year we use 2nd rounders to improve our draft position. So even if it played out like your doom and gloom view, we’d still be benefiting by the extra selections this crew has earned us.

[DCZards]

leswizards, tanking means a lot of losing…and a roster with a lot of young players that need to be given time to develop. I think you need to come to grips with that.

This is not a question of winning or losing. It is a question of is this front office executing this tank wisely. I’m providing real world evidence to show that it is not. Some of you don’t want to read that, and instead rely on the hope that things are going well.

I’ve seen zero evidence from you that the tank is not going well. All I’ve seen is some convoluted, subjective way you’ve come up with to gauge the value of the Zards recent draft picks.

[doclinkin]

leswizards, tanking means a lot of losing…and a roster with a lot of young players that need to be given time to develop. I think you need to come to grips with that.

This is not a question of winning or losing. It is a question of is this front office executing this tank wisely. I’m providing real world evidence to show that it is not. Some of you don’t want to read that, and instead rely on the hope that things are going well.

What’s the evidence? Beyond the flawed metric of Win Shares (in which the tail wags the dog since it only measures stats from games the team won) you present nothing much in support of your view. And plug your ears when analysis suggests anything in opposition.

You’ll rule out studies on young players development. Stat comparisons that show player equivalence by similar age. You suggest you don’t trust that analysis because we dont measure players who are not in the NBA.

I’ve shown stats from synergy showing that Bilal was good for a 10% reduction in all stars scoring efficiency when facing them. Crickets.

I’ve shown hustle stats from NBA.com that shows Kyshawn in the top 10 of defenders at challenging 3pt shots. Nothing.

Bilal rises from 52 invitees to earn a spot on the French NT. Plays in the critical 4th quarter if a game that took Stef’s ungodly performance to win. Bilal earns a starting spot in this years team. Plays well to win the game against Spain. Nothing.

I’ve cited video analysis that pointed to Coulibaly being the leagues quickest off the floor as a leaper. Hinting at his potential as the game slows down for him. That his upside is better than most. Yeah but Win Shares still: He’s not on a winning team thus must not be good.

And when it is pointed out by Nate that the team was dragged down by Kuzma, that statistically Bilal Et Al played better without that pant load dragging them down, you ignore it and suggest only KMidd gets any credit.

Any time a solid point is made you say “I don’t have time to answer that”. Then find time to answer the next few guys.

By all means I’d like to see the evidence. Saying Cam is equal to the guys we have therefore all are bad is not evidence. It’s a false equivalence. You didn’t even bother to compare their stats.

Show an analyst who backs your position that the Wizards have been drafting poorly and mismanaging their assets. Show who you would have picked. The strategy that would be smarter. The numbers that back it up. So far the evidence you show is: I don’t think so because I don’t think so. I’d love to see the data beyond: yeah but we’re losing. Okay. True. Now show why we can’t improve. Won’t get better. I dunno. Haven’t seen it. You haven’t shown it.

[doclinkin]

Meanwhile here’s two of the Wizards no hope players running out of the building a Giannis led Greek team.

Watch on YouTube

Smooth confident 3’s from Bilal (99). Early defense digging out a loose ball off the floor and deflecting an inbounds pass.

Likewise Sarr (44) with a good sequence late of forceful buckets on the inside. An in rhythm three ball mixed in.

[nate33]

I am not changing anything. I used a real world example that can be used to fairly gauge those players values. You disagreed and said that they could bring back a first round pick. I replied unlikely, and using real world circumstances, I explained why it is unlikely. From, your response, I take it that you agree that is very unlikely that the Wizards could ever get a first round pick in return. And they only way it could happen is if a team has the foresight to know that they are going to blow things up after this season.

Yes. Because competitive teams don't have an incentive to trade FRPs for prospects. They are interested in win-now players. So your whole argument is silly.

But in the relatively infrequent instances when a team with a late pick would be interested in a prospect, I contend that they would indeed be willing to trade for one of our prospects.

So, your point is that they are worth more than 8 second round picks; instead they are worth 4 late first round picks?

Still seems like far too little value for what was invested.

*sigh*

A FRP is like a new car. It loses value when you drive it off a lot. Likewise, a theoretical draft pick is usually worth more than the player who was drafted last round at that very spot because at least the theoretical draft pick has that small chance of being the next superstar. So, generally speaking, if you have the 15th pick in the draft, you wouldn't trade it for the 15th pick of last year's draft except in the very rare instance that last year's pick absolutely blew up as a rookie, which almost never happens. It usually takes 2 or 3 years for a drafted player to prove that he is worth more than the theoretical upside of an equivalent draft pick

Would anybody with the 2025 pick have traded it for the guy drafted in the same position in the last draft? Would Philly have traded the rights to Edgecomb for Sheppard? Would Utah have traded the rights to Bailey for Ron Holland? Would we have traded the rights of Tre Johnson for Tidjaan Saluun? Going down the 2025 draft, the first team that might consider last year's drafted player in place of their pick is OKC at #15 who may have preferred Ware to Sorber (though that's no sure thing). Indeed, the first 2024 draftee I'm absolutely confident would be preferred over the equivalent 2025 pick is Kyshawn George over the #24 pick which turned out to be Nique Clifford. So, by that metric, the Wizards scouting department looks pretty good.

So instead of lamenting the fact that a bunch of 20-year-olds haven't become superstars after 1 or 2 NBA seasons, let's approach this debate from a different angle. Where would you rank Bilal, Sarr, Bub and George relative to their draft class? If you redrafted the draft tomorrow, where would they go? In most cases, I say they'd go a bit higher. The lone exception is probably Sarr, which is understandable from a statistical point of view because Sarr had to be better than the entire field in order to move up. And Sarr still made All-Rookie 1st team so it appears that the consensus is that he is still in the top 5 of his draft class.

[payitforward]

...This is ...a question of is this front office executing this tank wisely. I’m providing real world evidence to show that it is not. ....

So far, what I've seen from you as "evidence" is that, in retrospect, you are able to identify two guys taken from 8-18 in 2023 who have performed better than Bilal so far -- Dereck Lively & Jaime Jaquez. Am I failing to recall another concrete critique by you?

&, in fact, both those guys have been terrific. In fact, you could argue that, overall, the league whiffed on those two guys. & on Podziemski too, for that matter.

Do you really think that's a significant critique? Honestly?
For that matter, did you want to pick Jaquez at 7? Is there any reason to think any GM would have considered him seriously at 7...?

If not, how can Jaquez' success provide a basis for your critique? Or even evidence in support of it? I can't see a way.

So... what is it? is it that Dereck Lively has been better than Bilal so far? That's your evidence of a failed rebuild?

[nate33]

...This is ...a question of is this front office executing this tank wisely. I’m providing real world evidence to show that it is not. ....

So far, what I've seen from you as "evidence" is that, in retrospect, you are able to identify two guys taken from 8-18 in 2023 who have performed better than Bilal so far -- Dereck Lively & Jaime Jaquez. Am I failing to recall another concrete critique by you?

&, in fact, both those guys have been terrific. In fact, you could argue that, overall, the league whiffed on those two guys. & on Podziemski too, for that matter.

Do you really think that's a significant critique? Honestly?
For that matter, did you want to pick Jaquez at 7? Is there any reason to think any GM would have considered him seriously at 7...?

If not, how can Jaquez' success provide a basis for your critique? Or even evidence in support of it? I can't see a way.

So... what is it? is it that Dereck Lively has been better than Bilal so far? That's your evidence of a failed rebuild?

I would bet the farm that Bilal Coulibaly has a much better NBA career than Jaquez.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The man works hard for his hate. Lol

I have a s . Is it your contention that none of these young players are going to get any better? That how they played last year is the best we will ever get from them?

If not, what is your highest expectation for their improvement, player by player.

Or if so: to what do you attribute the difference between your assessment and those of scouts and pundits and analysts who suggest the Wizards are headed in the right direction?

Could be that you are smarter or have particular insight. But I’m curious what that insight is based on. A track record. A long history of player evaluation. A plan you think would have been smarter to execute than to tear down and rebuild.

I’m not trying to clown here. I’m genuinely curious why in your mind you have the foresight to write off these players based on their first or second season in the league. What other rookies you’re comparing them to in league history that have shown you that a team of raw recruits has the ability to win right out the gate. Or if you think the strategy to lose with youth in order to retain a critical draft pick was misguided.

When you start you post as you did, I don’t know why you think I would willingly answer your questions.

Instead, my prediction is a few years down the road, when this tank is clearly going nowhere, Ted leonsis will hire version 3.0 of Ernie Grunfeld/Tommy Sheppard and the Wizards front office unofficial motto will become “mediocrity today; mediocrity tomorrow; mediocrity forever!”

This tanking will disenfranchise players who want to have long NBA careers and who want to sign second contracts. Losing will require suppressing winning plays, winning players, and peak competitiveness.

This season's mandate is to win approximately 28 games or less by all means necessary. Who can shine under those constraints?

As with this past draft, all season Flagg was the goal. Now it's Peterson, Dybantsa, Boozer, Brown ...

So, I guess next season after this, it will be acceptable to rise to mediocrity. Coulibaly will be up for renewal.

Regardless, I'll wait and see what Dawkins does. Surely, McCollum and/or Middleton will be traded. They're talented players who could make this team too good.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

leswizards, tanking means a lot of losing…and a roster with a lot of young players that need to be given time to develop. I think you need to come to grips with that.

This is not a question of winning or losing. It is a question of is this front office executing this tank wisely. I’m providing real world evidence to show that it is not. Some of you don’t want to read that, and instead rely on the hope that things are going well.

A trend i have noticed over the years is "The Great Pumpkin" kind of optimistic outlook. Linus keeps hoping. Charlie Brown keeps charging full speed at the football only to have Lucy snatch it away.

You gotta have hope. I understand.

However, leswizards, I think you're right unless this draft they get a superstar.

Maybe I'm wrong. Tre Johnson is definitely a bucket. Riley has potential as a three level scorer. Watkins strikes me as a starter with tenacity, like Jrue Holiday or Derrick White.

The problem is that Washington can't develop these guys and tank (unless, i guess Riley and Watkins go to the Go Gos).

[nate33]

This tanking will disenfranchise players who want to have long NBA careers and who want to sign second contracts. Losing will require suppressing winning plays, winning players, and peak competitiveness.

This season's mandate is to win approximately 28 games or less by all means necessary. Who can shine under those constraints?

As with this past draft, all season Flagg was the goal. Now it's Peterson, Dybantsa, Boozer, Brown ...

So, I guess next season after this, it will be acceptable to rise to mediocrity. Coulibaly will be up for renewal.

Regardless, I'll wait and see what Dawkins does. Surely, McCollum and/or Middleton will be traded. They're talented players who could make this team too good.

None of our young players are up for a new contract next summer. Coulibaly and Whitmore are extension eligible next summer if both sides can come to an agreement; but their rookie contracts don't actually expire until Summer 2027.