2025-26 Lineup Thread -- How's it shakin out?

[payitforward]

...You believe your opinion is fact. That Justin *should* start based on merit. ...

Actually, I don't care whether he starts.
What I AM saying is:

Justin Champagnie had a truly outstanding season last year. By any significant metric. Which should be rewarded with more minutes.

I'm also saying that not doing so, not rewarding players' success with more minutes, stands in the way of building a successful team. How anyone can differ with these obvious points I truly do not understand.

...which does not mean that I don't expect people to differ -- I do!

Most fans believe that 2 things alone determine how good a player is: 1) where he was drafted, & 2) how many points he scores per game (no matter the number of shots required to get those points). That's it.

As to who starts: it would be easy to understand starting Bub, Ky & Alex as it were automatically. & Tre after a little bit of time.

I would also understand starting Cam (assuming he has a good camp, of course): we'd like to get a solid sense of what we have in him.

That's it.

[payitforward]

...Note that the role im expecting for Whitmore is akin to the 2/3 version of a guy like Jordan Poole. That is: a talented gunner who will help us lose in the short term. But should be able to rehab his stats to the point where we get better value for him in trade. (and/or) ... Cam just may prove himself even better than that.

First part, no problem. Second is speculation -- but, sure, it's what we'd all like to see! Esp. for him to improve to the point where we have no desire at all to trade him. Cam's a talented kid!

...Cam has had limited minutes to show what he can do. Only 5 starts in his career. But those starts show numbers higher than his career average... his usage ... drops despite ... his shooting percentages are better.

Interesting! Details please!

[dckingsfan]

Most fans believe that 2 things alone determine how good a player is: 1) where he was drafted, & 2) how many points he scores per game (no matter the number of shots required to get those points). That's it.

But not on this board, right?!?

[dckingsfan]

Kispert proven himself to be arguably the worst defender on the worst defensive team in the league. So, he has that going for him

Hey, only 3rd worst last year (and the year before), though we were the worst OFFENSIVE and Net rtg team in the league and Kispert played significantly less than he had the two previous years so hard to blame too much of it on him.

I completely agree that we give Cam Whitmore and Tre Johnson every opportunity to prove something and am fine with the minutes coming from Kispert like they did last year. I just think the original post I was replying to WAY overstated what Whitmore has proved in this league.

Record: 18-64, Finished 15th in NBA Eastern Conference
Coach: Brian Keefe (18-64)
Executive: Michael Winger
PTS/G: 108.0 (27th of 30) Opp PTS/G: 120.4 (29th of 30)
SRS: -12.13 (30th of 30) Pace: 100.9 (4th of 30)
Off Rtg: 106.8 (30th of 30) Def Rtg: 119.1 (27th of 30) Net Rtg: -12.3 (30th of 30)
Expected W-L: 15-67 (30th of 30)

It is easy to blame Kispert's horrible defense on Kispert - I will give you that he was the worst defender on the 3rd worst defensive team in the league. Ouch!

My point is that Kispert HAS proven himself. It was a terrible contract signing.

I think we can agree that none of our youngsters have proven themselves (Cam included)? That this is a year where we need to evaluate said youngsters? That we don't need to evaluate Kispert? We may play Kispert, McCollum and CJ to showcase them, but I would think that is about it with respect to Kispert?

Okay, maybe I am being a bit argumentative here... but I think we can say that day one Cam will be a better defender than Kispert?

[penbeast0]

It is easy to blame Kispert's horrible defense on Kispert - I will give you that he was the worst defender on the 3rd worst defensive team in the league. Ouch!

My point is that Kispert HAS proven himself. It was a terrible contract signing.

I think we can agree that none of our youngsters have proven themselves (Cam included)? That this is a year where we need to evaluate said youngsters? That we don't need to evaluate Kispert? We may play Kispert, McCollum and CJ to showcase them, but I would think that is about it with respect to Kispert?

Okay, maybe I am being a bit argumentative here... but I think we can say that day one Cam will be a better defender than Kispert?

God, I hope so!!! I want him to be a better defender than Kyshawn and Bilal and a more efficient scorer than Corey Kispert; let's set the bar a bit higher.

[dckingsfan]

It is easy to blame Kispert's horrible defense on Kispert - I will give you that he was the worst defender on the 3rd worst defensive team in the league. Ouch!

My point is that Kispert HAS proven himself. It was a terrible contract signing.

I think we can agree that none of our youngsters have proven themselves (Cam included)? That this is a year where we need to evaluate said youngsters? That we don't need to evaluate Kispert? We may play Kispert, McCollum and CJ to showcase them, but I would think that is about it with respect to Kispert?

Okay, maybe I am being a bit argumentative here... but I think we can say that day one Cam will be a better defender than Kispert?

God, I hope so!!! I want him to be a better defender than Kyshawn and Bilal and a more efficient scorer than Corey Kispert; let's set the bar a bit higher.

So this!

[doclinkin]

Actually, I don't care whether he starts.
What I AM saying is:

Justin Champagnie had a truly outstanding season last year. By any significant metric. Which should be rewarded with more minutes.

I'm also saying that not doing so, not rewarding players' success with more minutes, stands in the way of building a successful team. How anyone can differ with these obvious points I truly do not understand.

Easy:

We have to lose this year. In order to actually build a successful team. That’s far more important than rewarding a single player with anything.

We have JC locked into a longer term contract. No need to give him minutes to evaluate him for a contract extension or future role with the squad.

Hes proven to be a self starter. Unlikely to lose momentum if he plays off the bench.

His game is as an efficient role player not a high usage offensive driver. We lack an established guy in that position. A go to scorer to break down defenses. We are holding auditions for that spot. Banking on Tre. Hopes for elite athletes Bilal and now maybe Cam to show it. Otherwise we are still looking at the draft. Cam and Bilal are a few years into their development curve. If they are going to break out they’ll need more reps to show flashes and signs. Then string the flashes together.

Maybe JC has a star package in his game but so far he hasn’t shown it. At age 24 he has less likelihood of adding a 1v1 arsenal of skills. Is probably what he has shown himself to be. A damn good role player. Not the bail out scorer you can feed the ball and ask to force the action.

[payitforward]

It is easy to blame Kispert's horrible defense on Kispert - I will give you that he was the worst defender on the 3rd worst defensive team in the league. Ouch!

My point is that Kispert HAS proven himself. It was a terrible contract signing.

I think we can agree that none of our youngsters have proven themselves (Cam included)? That this is a year where we need to evaluate said youngsters? That we don't need to evaluate Kispert? We may play Kispert, McCollum and CJ to showcase them, but I would think that is about it with respect to Kispert?

Okay, maybe I am being a bit argumentative here... but I think we can say that day one Cam will be a better defender than Kispert?

God, I hope so!!! I want him to be a better defender than Kyshawn and Bilal and a more efficient scorer than Corey Kispert; let's set the bar a bit higher.

We acquired Cam for the pretty low cost of a pair future R2 picks. Why was that?

It was because, so far, Cam has NOT been a good NBA player. He has been a bad defender, & he's also been bad on offense. Not good, bad.

How about other aspects of the game? Has Cam been a good rebounder? No, he hasn't.

Does he blocks shots, or get steals, or log assists -- any of those -- at a high rate? No. So far he has done none of those particularly well.

So... what has Cam Whitmore done well in his first 2 years? The answer is "nothing."
In his first two years, Cam has not been a good NBA player in any way.

Here's how to look at our decision to acquire Cam -- at low cost, both in terms of the cost to acquire him & the cost to pay his rookie contract, we are undertaking an experiment. We are going to see whether Cam can turn around his failing NBA career.

If so, great!
If not, who better to give it a try than a team that's rebuilding from the ground up?

That's it. There is no more. Calling him "a defense bender" is nonsense. He's earned 850 minutes a year for 2 years. Suggesting he will be "a better defender than" ...whoever.... is ridiculous. Thinking of him as part of our young core is fan-babble. Pencilling him in as "a starter" is foolishness -- even if he does start!

Do I hope Cam knocks it out of the park?
Of course I do. But, it doesn't help him to indulge in fantasies -- FAN-tasies -- about his future.

I hope he can take hold -- play well enough to earn a second contract, for example.
That would be nice, it would be success, since based on his play so far even just establishing himself in the league is obviously in doubt.

Right now Cam Whitmore is a low-cost experiment. Here's hoping the experiment turns out well.

[dckingsfan]

It is easy to blame Kispert's horrible defense on Kispert - I will give you that he was the worst defender on the 3rd worst defensive team in the league. Ouch!

My point is that Kispert HAS proven himself. It was a terrible contract signing.

I think we can agree that none of our youngsters have proven themselves (Cam included)? That this is a year where we need to evaluate said youngsters? That we don't need to evaluate Kispert? We may play Kispert, McCollum and CJ to showcase them, but I would think that is about it with respect to Kispert?

Okay, maybe I am being a bit argumentative here... but I think we can say that day one Cam will be a better defender than Kispert?

God, I hope so!!! I want him to be a better defender than Kyshawn and Bilal and a more efficient scorer than Corey Kispert; let's set the bar a bit higher.

We acquired Cam for the pretty low cost of a pair future R2 picks. Why was that?...

Could it be that the FO sees something in him? Could it be because the FO was convinced we could buy low sell high? Could it be that they think they could reasonably give Cam playing time and turn him into a low FRP?

Right now Cam Whitmore is a low-cost/low-risk experiment. Here's hoping the experiment turns out well.

FTFY.

Right now we have a bunch of those experiments running at forward. I would love to know how Keefe is going to be judged by the FO in these evaluations.

[payitforward]

We acquired Cam for the pretty low cost of a pair future R2 picks. Why was that?...

Could it be that the FO sees something in him?...

Of course!

But, I didn't make my question clear enough apparently. I meant to be pointing out that Cam was available cheap & asking (rhetorically) why that was.

The answer is obvious. In two years, Cam failed to establish himself as an NBA player. Thus, for us...

...Cam Whitmore is a low-cost/low-risk experiment....

We're all hoping Cam takes hold & establishes himself at the NBA level.

[dckingsfan]

We acquired Cam for the pretty low cost of a pair future R2 picks. Why was that?...

Could it be that the FO sees something in him?...

Of course!

But, I didn't make my question clear enough apparently. I meant to be pointing out that Cam was available cheap & asking (rhetorically) why that was.

The answer is obvious. In two years, Cam failed to establish himself as an NBA player. Thus, for us...

...Cam Whitmore is a low-cost/low-risk experiment....

We're all hoping Cam takes hold & establishes himself at the NBA level.

The question of why he was inexpensive to acquire falls back to the Rockets and who they have and what they needed to get done (moving forward). Nate pointed out that they have a logjam of very good players in front of him. Having him sit yet another year devalues him as an asset further.

But the corollary question (IMO, the more important question) that needs to be answered in conjunction with your question (why was he inexpensive to acquire) is why does the FO value him that highly? What do they see? It isn't like they don't have a bunch of similar players, right?

I think the answer is that they think he is going to improve. They see something.

If they are right, then they can then flip him for even more valuable assets. Or he becomes part of the solution moving forward.

Now, would it have been better to do this with a frontcourt player given their dearth at the big? Probably.

[doclinkin]

Damn. Lost a detailed post. Oh well. Probably too long anyway.

Cam is better at 20 than Champagnie was.

https://stathead.com/tiny/UTHXS

He’s 3 years younger. Upside suggests therefore more development than JC. Who only broke out and played well when he was here. Under the Wiz development plan. Now Cam gets a chance in that plan.

If the metric was their ‘first 2 years in the league’ Cam looks even better than JC. Despite being younger.

Cams splits look nice when he starts. And when given long minutes.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/whitmca01/splits/

Not saying ignore his bad games. Just saying with teenagers who enter the league you look at their upside for what they are capable of if they can develop consistency. Expect the biggest growth age 21-24.

(Insert Kevs study on teenage NBAers).

Cam came here at a discount because he was publicly frustrated. And the client list of his agents is juicy. Only a smart play to make his agents happy.

https://www.salaryswish.com/agencies/wme-basketball

So they sent him home. To play with fellow client Alex Sarr.

Trust in development. If you like how JC broke out, extend similar grace. Nobody on this team is _owed_ heavy minutes based on any accomplishments. We were the 2nd worst team in the league. On purpose. We need to lose and develop our highest upside talents. Even though they suck. Right now. Like Cam, they are young. Room to grow.

If you trust the talent evaluation that landed us JC on the cheap,trust it for Cam. Projecting from the stats at age 20 imagine how good of a steal it would be if Cam breaks out the way Justin did under this program.

Because he’s a freak of nature:

Despite being 6’7” with minimal body fat, Cam is the 2nd heaviest player on the team, with a 38” vertical. All muscle. You can’t teach that kind of wow factor. You can expect a young player to get better at the team aspects of basketball. Given time. Reps. Game minutes.

[payitforward]

Could it be that the FO sees something in him?...

Of course!

But, I didn't make my question clear enough apparently. I meant to be pointing out that Cam was available cheap & asking (rhetorically) why that was.

The answer is obvious. In two years, Cam failed to establish himself as an NBA player. Thus, for us...

...Cam Whitmore is a low-cost/low-risk experiment....

We're all hoping Cam takes hold & establishes himself at the NBA level.

The question of why he was inexpensive to acquire falls back to the Rockets and who they have and what they needed to get done (moving forward). Nate pointed out that they have a logjam of very good players in front of him. Having him sit yet another year devalues him as an asset further. ....

Not how markets work.
Do you really think they would have turned down a better offer?

If there had been demand for Cam, there would have been other bidders.

In any case, this is all irrelevant. So far, Cam has been a major disappointment. Let's see how he does in a new uniform. His career is at stake, not to mention $$. I'm sure he'll be working hard to improve.

[dckingsfan]

Of course!

But, I didn't make my question clear enough apparently. I meant to be pointing out that Cam was available cheap & asking (rhetorically) why that was.

The answer is obvious. In two years, Cam failed to establish himself as an NBA player. Thus, for us...


We're all hoping Cam takes hold & establishes himself at the NBA level.

The question of why he was inexpensive to acquire falls back to the Rockets and who they have and what they needed to get done (moving forward). Nate pointed out that they have a logjam of very good players in front of him. Having him sit yet another year devalues him as an asset further. ....

Not how markets work.
Do you really think they would have turned down a better offer?

If there had been demand for Cam, there would have been other bidders.

In any case, this is all irrelevant. So far, Cam has been a major disappointment. Let's see how he does in a new uniform. His career is at stake, not to mention $$. I'm sure he'll be working hard to improve.

Let me put it a different way that aligns with what you are saying.

- no one else put in a significant offer to the rockets
- the rockets didn't value the player because the have a significant logjam at the position
-- the Rockets would have literally traded all of our current SFs off the team (more on this)
-- another way to say that - the Wizards also yet to have a good player at that position (sans Middleton who is almost done)
- the current CBA doesn't value that type of player on a competitive team

So, the market dictated a low price for a player that is going to turn 21. If Cam is a "disappointment" so are many of the players on the Wizards. I don't buy that argument - I think we just don't know yet. Your favorite measure (not mine) is WS/48 - Cam's was .106 last year, better than our youngsters, no? Same with VORP. Same with BPM.

So, statistically he was better than our youngsters. The FO saw something (that maybe others didn't see). And there wasn't a market for him.

That is the ultimate buy low opportunity and this FO took advantage of it.

[DCZards]

It was reported in 2-3 places that Houston had offers for Whitmore that might have been better than the Zards offer but the Rockets wanted to do Cam a solid by sending him somewhere he wanted to go.

Here’s one such report from ESPN:

The Rockets worked with Whitmore and his reps at WME Basketball over the past few weeks on a new home. Houston officials had multiple offers on the table for Whitmore but wanted to see him go somewhere that gave him a legitimate chance to thrive in his career.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/45678556/sources-rockets-trade-whitmore-wizards-two-seconds

[doclinkin]

It was reported in 2-3 places that Houston had offers for Whitmore that might have been better than the Zards offer but the Rockets wanted to do Cam a solid by sending him somewhere he wanted to go.

Here’s one such report from ESPN:

The Rockets worked with Whitmore and his reps at WME Basketball over the past few weeks on a new home. Houston officials had multiple offers on the table for Whitmore but wanted to see him go somewhere that gave him a legitimate chance to thrive in his career.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/45678556/sources-rockets-trade-whitmore-wizards-two-seconds

Right. And it makes sense to stay on friendly terms with an agency that represents Luka, Antman, Chet, Jalen WIlliams, Scottie Barnes, Leonard Miller, etc, etc. Never know what kind of back door leverage an agency can apply to influence a trade. This one or in the future.

Oh hey, interesting, they also rep not only Sarr (both Sarr bros) but AJ Johnson.

And my guy Neemias Queta who is poised to get real minutes in Boston this year. He had a decent run for Portugal in Eurobasket, now no longer has Porzingis and Horford in front of him.

Watch on YouTube

[payitforward]

...Cam is better at 20 than Champagnie was. ...

I don't doubt it for a moment. We got lucky w/ Champagnie.

(Cam is) ...3 years younger. Upside suggests therefore more development than JC....

Not sure why you choose to compare these two guys as players....

...Who only broke out and played well when he was here. Under the Wiz development plan. Now Cam gets a chance in that plan.

Ah, that's the reason -- fair enough!

For clarity (& for the nth time!), I am not critical of Cam Whitmore, & I am certainly not critical of the move we made to acquire him.

The opposite -- acquiring Cam was brilliant. For me at least it was likely the cleverest move of the off season! I can think of no better place for this talented kid to get a second opportunity to show significant development.

If he does, great. If he doesn't, it was still worth taking a low-cost chance on a big-time talent! Moreover, like you, I am optimistic.

[payitforward]

It was reported in 2-3 places that Houston had offers for Whitmore that might have been better than the Zards offer but the Rockets wanted to do Cam a solid by sending him somewhere he wanted to go.

Here’s one such report from ESPN:

The Rockets worked with Whitmore and his reps at WME Basketball over the past few weeks on a new home. Houston officials had multiple offers on the table for Whitmore but wanted to see him go somewhere that gave him a legitimate chance to thrive in his career.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/45678556/sources-rockets-trade-whitmore-wizards-two-seconds

Fair enough.

Maybe one of those "might have been better" offers really was a bit better than what we had on the table. Or maybe they opened the kimono for the Wizards, so that they could match an offer (& Cam cd go to a better place for his future).

In any case, "all's well that ends well" which is what we all want for this kid (&, therefore, for the wiz too!).

[doclinkin]

Right now we have a bunch of those experiments running at forward.

More and more Im excited about the group we do have. There’s something there in potential chemistry that’s intriguing to me. Attitude. Moxie. Youth — but in the way that maybe they don’t know enough to be shook.

If the chemistry starts to work, this crew has an opportunity to grow up together in the league. The fact that they will battle it out for play time is an asset to me.

I kinda love the fact that we are deep in players that are both interchangeable and distinct from each other. Mix and match to add the skills you need from a squadron of wing players who do play tough. Even if they’re not yet good enough to back up the attitude with results. You start with that baseline. Mindset.

Not sure what it is but there’s something potentially special in the synergy of the players we added this year and the brash nature of the guys we already got.

It will be easy to pick 3 teams for practice. The staff has freedom to shuffle players into and out of the line up to see who plays well with each other. When I’m looking at shot charts of these young cats I can design dozens of configurations that look intriguing.

More than anything though I’m just struck by how damn cool it must be for these young dudes. 12 players on rookie contracts right now. 13? You look at their ages. They’re college kids. An NBA fraternity.

I dont know that we’ve seen that in the league before. For most rooks I think it’s lonely being one or two young guys on a team of grownass adults who have no time to spare for the young kid trying to take their job.

I think coach Keefe is the right sort of teacher for this early stage in the players careers. Guys seem to love playing for him. None got down last year or pointed fingers. (Other than the diva Kuzma). Instead the hard times seemed to forge brotherhood between them.

Dunno. We are going to struggle. Sure. But. When I see the pics of this young core in the black and gold jerseys, and envision Champagnie and the rest next to them, I don’t know. They look like they fit somehow. Like not yet, but they’re gonna be a tough out some nights when teams think they can overlook them.

[TheBlackCzar]

Right now we have a bunch of those experiments running at forward.

More and more Im excited about the group we do have. There’s something there in potential chemistry that’s intriguing to me. Attitude. Moxie. Youth — but in the way that maybe they don’t know enough to be shook.

If the chemistry starts to work, this crew has an opportunity to grow up together in the league. The fact that they will battle it out for play time is an asset to me.

I kinda love the fact that we are deep in players that are both interchangeable and distinct from each other. Mix and match to add the skills you need from a squadron of wing players who do play tough. Even if they’re not yet good enough to back up the attitude with results. You start with that baseline. Mindset.

Not sure what it is but there’s something potentially special in the synergy of the players we added this year and the brash nature of the guys we already got.

It will be easy to pick 3 teams for practice. The staff has freedom to shuffle players into and out of the line up to see who plays well with each other. When I’m looking at shot charts of these young cats I can design dozens of configurations that look intriguing.

More than anything though I’m just struck by how damn cool it must be for these young dudes. 12 players on rookie contracts right now. 13? You look at their ages. They’re college kids. An NBA fraternity.

I dont know that we’ve seen that in the league before. For most rooks I think it’s lonely being one or two young guys on a team of grownass adults who have no time to spare for the young kid trying to take their job.

I think coach Keefe is the right sort of teacher for this early stage in the players careers. Guys seem to love playing for him. None got down last year or pointed fingers. (Other than the diva Kuzma). Instead the hard times seemed to forge brotherhood between them.

Dunno. We are going to struggle. Sure. But. When I see the pics of this young core in the black and gold jerseys, and envision Champagnie and the rest next to them, I don’t know. They look like they fit somehow. Like not yet, but they’re gonna be a tough out some nights when teams think they can overlook them.

Add Darryn Peterson to this group and we are a physical rebounding defensive big away from being a problem in waiting.....