Wiz trade 5th pick to Minnesota

[johnbragg]

I started thinking about this in the Fire Ernie thread, but right now that thread is all about who was right first about breaking up Arenas, Butler and Jamison.

I've been thinking about it this weekend, and looking at stuff. And I realized that this trade was bad even if everything worked out the way EG crossed his fingers and hoped for. (In this post, pretend it's draft day 2009. We only know what we know then.)

First, let's say we don't make the trade and hold everything else constant until we pick.

PLAN A
NY was trying to get our #5 for Wilson Chandler to package with their #8 for Rubio/Curry.
When # 5 rolls around, and Curry and Rubio are still there, I think we could call up Donnie Walsh and pick up Chandler and their #8. (Send back Pecherov and the salaries work. We don't shave $2.8M off payroll). Draft Jennings at #8. They can draft Rubio and stash him in Spain for a year to save cap, or draft him and bring him to NY, or draft Curry or whatever.

Now, if all goes according to plan, we have Arenas, Butler, Jamison and Haywood as core starters. Blachte and Chandler would rate serious minutes. Young, Stevenson, Crittendon and McGuire would fill the 2-spot if we don't want to run Don-Nelson style lineups (Arenas and James/Jennings together, Butler, Jamison and Blachte together, Chandler at the 2).

This roster also has a Plan B if Arenas OR Butler OR Jamison go down. Jennings and Mike James would compete at the point (with a chance of Crittendon). If Butler goes down, Chandler starts (or Blatche and Jamison). If Jamison goes down, Blachte starts. With this roster, we don't run up the mileage on JAmison and Butler either, playing them 42 minutes a game.

Isn't this better than a roster--in 2009-10--than one with Foye and Miller? Even if we have Songaila on the books for two years?

Imagine this roster with everything going according to plan--Gil comes back at least halfway, Butler fits in Saunders' system. We're at least a 50-win team, right there with Boston and Atlanta fighting for homecourt in the first round. Maybe we're battling Orlando for the division.

PLAN A--The Future.
Even if everything is working, it would be nearly impossible, financially, to keep Arenas, Butler, Jamison and Haywood without paying luxury tax every year. Having Chandler makes it easier to move Butler for a better price at the right time to make room to re-sign Haywood. (Or move JAmison for a better price, but I think we got as much for Jamison as anyone could have. Thorton roughly = Hickson.)

PLAN B. The Knicks don't bite.

Draft Jennings at #5. Isn't it better to have a point-guard of the future, and an Arenas-insurance policy, than it is to have Mike Miller and Randy Foye? (I think Foye was supposed to be Arenas insurance, but that's a bad call on evaluating talent--EG's job, not mine).

PLAN B--The Future.
Arenas and his price tag are still immoveable. Wouldn't Jennings be a better trade chip than Miller and/or Foye?

PLAN C: In the $#!tt3r.
We pick up Jennings, and maybe Chandler. Everything else goes wrong. Butler struggles, Arenas and Crittendon play OK Corrall. Fire sale--goodbye Butler, Jamison, Haywood, Stevenson, hello Howard, Thornton.

[closg00]

^^^^^
Thanks for bumping, gives me a chance to post this.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_d ... nba,224510

[closg00]

I didn't feel like there was anybody at the five spot who could fit into our rotation," Grunfeld said. "I don't think there are any guarantees in the draft and people are saying this is a weaker draft than normal, so for us to be able to turn the No. 5 pick into two players who can help us immediately and help us for years to come, we felt very good about it."

Grunfeld added that it wasn't necessary to wait and see which player fell to the team at No. 5. "We knew who was going to be at the five spot and we felt that these players were going to help us a lot more than anybody we would've gotten in the draft," Grunfeld said. "A lot of times what happens, when you wait on situations, the other team might get better offers along the way. Then the trade might go away.[/u] We felt good about this."

ROY candidate Stephen Curry with 35 points 10 assists last night. Beats bringing-in injury-riddled point guard #3 to your team

[Ji]

This move on draft day setup us back years in our rebuilding plan. Foye is a joke who puts up numbers when he is the only option on a bad team.

Miller is solid but nothing more....

Grunfeld made the trade not knowing who was going to be there. That is the biggest sin. What if Tyreke Evans had fallen to 5.

Anyway..this is why EG should be fired

[Hoopalotta]

The good news is that the poor play of our backcourt will see us get a higher draft pick this summer.

[MJG]

The good news is that the poor play of our backcourt will see us get a higher draft pick this summer.

Maybe that was the plan all along. There was a top five prospect we liked in this year's draft so much, we booted last year's pick to ensure we had a shot. Yea, that's it.

[johnbragg]

Flushing the 2009 No. 5 also follows up busting the 2006 and 2007 picks.

Pecherov over Kyle Lowry, Josh Boone, Jordan Farmar, Daniel Gibson and Paul Millsap, who will at least all be playing in the NBA next year.

Nick Young over Aaron Brooks, Carl Landry, Wilson Chandler, Glen Davis and Marc Gasol. Plus Dominic McGuire over Marc Gasol. (I normally wouldn't count a busted second rounder, but Ramos, Blatche, Pecherov, and Veeremenko indicate that Ernie is willing to swing for the fences on a project big. So how is Marc Gasol the only one we pass on?)

McGee looks good, and getting Jamison in 2004 was a good move for a team with Arenas, Hughes, Jeffries, Hayes, Kwame, Haywood and Thomas.

That makes 3 good Ernie drafts and 3 bad ones. (I think it's fair to say a draft where 5 players you pass up are better than the stiff you got is a bad draft.)

Batting .500 on draft night isn't so bad, but the trade is still killing us.

[AceDegenerate]

Arenas/Hughes/Deng/Kwame/Haywood (with Stackhouse, Jeffries, Thomas off the bench) - was @ the time and still is a better (all-around) lineup than Arenas/Hughes/Jamison/Jeffries/Haywood. That trade was a disaster.

[johnbragg]

Going back to 2004:

Arenas/Hughes/Deng/Kwame/Haywood (with Stackhouse, Jeffries, Thomas off the bench)
Combined playoff games won: Zero, I think. Stackhouse may have one a playoff game somewhere, but he was a $#!+head anyway.

Arenas/Hughes/Jamison/Jeffries/Haywood with Kwame and Thomas off the bench. Jamison had played in 5 playoff games in Dallas, was known as a level-headed guy who had accepted Sixth Man status professionally, even though he hated it.

Maybe Deng would have been better than Jamison for us, but it's not a lock. The draft is always uncertain. And you have to factor in the value of getting Stackhouse out of town.

[LyricalRico]

Going back to 2004:

Arenas/Hughes/Deng/Kwame/Haywood (with Stackhouse, Jeffries, Thomas off the bench)
Combined playoff games won: Zero, I think. Stackhouse may have one a playoff game somewhere, but he was a $#!+head anyway.

Arenas/Hughes/Jamison/Jeffries/Haywood with Kwame and Thomas off the bench. Jamison had played in 5 playoff games in Dallas, was known as a level-headed guy who had accepted Sixth Man status professionally, even though he hated it.

Maybe Deng would have been better than Jamison for us, but it's not a lock. The draft is always uncertain. And you have to factor in the value of getting Stackhouse out of town.

Great post. Folks are really reaching if they think a team featuring Stackhouse and the KFB would have ever done anything, especially since we have actual game footage proving otherwise.

[AceDegenerate]

Nobody is reaching. Stackhouse was able to produce on a Mavs team that went to the Finals. There is no arguing the difference on the defensive side of the ball of the team I suggested.

Folks are really reaching if they think a team featuring Antawn Jamison was the best possibile scenario for the Wizards that year. The man is no longer here and we've spent the last few years arguing his deficiencies (those SAME deficiencies that were foretold by Warriors fans).

That team of Arenas/Hughes/Deng/JJ or Kwame/Haywood also would not have been coached by Eddie Jordan, it is essentially the same idea of surrounding Arenas (a 30PPG scorer) with quality defensive players and role players. There is no reason this team has any less success than the Big 3 did. Kwame would have gone on to be traded for Butler. Hughes would have left. The team today would be something like: Arenas/Butler/Deng/Blatche/Haywood.

Yeah, but Folks are reeeeally reaching there. Way to accuse me of talking out of my ass guys when all I see is the same "Oh PLEASE That won't work" with nothing to back it up from you as well.

[AceDegenerate]

Isn't also so amazing how these players are such a CANCER in D.C. but yet they are able to go on and be productive members of Playoff teams and have way more success after leaving than they did with the Wizards. But yet, time and time again players are labeled Team Cancer here.

Stackhouse has come off the BENCH for 2 Playoff teams since leaving the Wizards. This guy would not be put on these rosters if he was such a locker room cancer.

[closg00]

Flushing the 2009 No. 5 also follows up busting the 2006 and 2007 picks.

Pecherov over Kyle Lowry, Josh Boone, Jordan Farmar, Daniel Gibson and Paul Millsap, who will at least all be playing in the NBA next year.

Nick Young over Aaron Brooks, Carl Landry, Wilson Chandler, Glen Davis and Marc Gasol. Plus Dominic McGuire over Marc Gasol. (I normally wouldn't count a busted second rounder, but Ramos, Blatche, Pecherov, and Veeremenko indicate that Ernie is willing to swing for the fences on a project big. So how is Marc Gasol the only one we pass on?)

McGee looks good, and getting Jamison in 2004 was a good move for a team with Arenas, Hughes, Jeffries, Hayes, Kwame, Haywood and Thomas.

That makes 3 good Ernie drafts and 3 bad ones. (I think it's fair to say a draft where 5 players you pass up are better than the stiff you got is a bad draft.)

Batting .500 on draft night isn't so bad, but the trade is still killing us.

You forgot Rondo, some on this board wanted us to take Rondo instead of Pech because we needed a back-up PG to groom.

[johnbragg]

closg00: Rondo's on my list in my spiral notebook for 2006. Forgot to type him in. Or maybe I was thinking that taking him is cheating, since I certainly didn't project him as an all-star. GMs are always going to whiff on suprise stars late. Rondo went #21, and Phoenix traded him--does that make every GM from #5-21 a moron? No. But when there were five or six better options, and the guy you took is doing nothing, then you whiffed on that pick.

Krizko: There's a difference between being a veteran and a leader on the team and being the 7th or 8th guy in the pecking order. In Washington, there was no one on the roster with the credibility to tell Jerry Stackhouse anything after Jordan (Michael) left. In Dallas, there was Dirk, Avery Johnson (player), coaches Don Nelson and Del Harris, (plus another half-dozen coaches who were ex-star players like Rolando Blackman, Kiki Vandeweghe). In Dallas, if Stackhouse didn't keep himself in line, he could be shipped out just like Jamison, Antoine Walker, Juwan Howard and many others had been.

The #1 reason Jamison was a better fit for the mid-decade Wizards was that he had the credibility to tell young players to STFU when it was needed. The Wizards were a collection of rejected young players--Hughes at two stops, Kwame by Jordan, Arenas as a headcase. They needed a captain with his head on straight.

MAybe he didn't do enough of it, but we were a less stupid team with Jamison than with Stackhouse. Rookie Deng wouldn't have changed that equation.

[closg00]

Mike Miller (Unrestricted): Had a underwhelming and disappointing '08-'09 campaign in Minnesota, but he'll have a chance to prove his worth as a Wizard in Washington.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?STO ... z0iB580czb

7/3/09 from a Hoopsworld article on 2010 FA's. Minny knew that MM was washed-up apparently when they fleeced Ernie.

[LyricalRico]

EG > Hoopsworld

[johnbragg]

Thinking about Jamison vs Deng or Igdouala got me thinking about Grunfeld's drafting in general.

Peter John Ramos, Andre Blatche, Pecherov, Young. None of them exactly "smart." And the knock on them is (was, for Dray) that they never learned, never developed, never became anything but physical specimens.

Maybe Grunfeld doesn't screen draftees for coachability/bball IQ/general ability to learn?

He finds the guy with the best physical abilities and calls it a day, hoping he develops.

Sometimes in the second round, he gets lucky. Michael Redd, Blatche, others. (More exactly, his bet pays off.) Sometimes in the second round, he doesn't.

In the first round, just about everyone is physically talented. The difference between a Gilbert Arenas and a Joe Forte or a Mardy Collins is mental, is work ethic, is the ability to apply yourself and improve.

If we're not asking draft picks that, it's no wonder we're not getting that.

[lupin]

EG > Hoopsworld

You know, you're really worse than DCZards was with EJ. I think we should just start calling you LyricalZards. This obsession/sycophancy is scary stuff.

[ZonkertheBrainless]

Well, if you're looking for brains and talent, that's all top ten. If you feel you can get brains without talent in the second round, why look for it in the first round? I'm still waiting for someone to go through the list of second rounders that have stuck with the nba over the last ten twenty years and categorize them as "short/slow but smart" vs. "talented but dumb as bricks," do the same thing with first rounders in the teens, see what you get. A lot of guys are stupid because they're young, not because they're really all that stupid. And then other guys it turns out they're just plain stupid, 24/7/365.

[fishercob]

Well, if you're looking for brains and talent, that's all top ten. If you feel you can get brains without talent in the second round, why look for it in the first round? I'm still waiting for someone to go through the list of second rounders that have stuck with the nba over the last ten twenty years and categorize them as "short/slow but smart" vs. "talented but dumb as bricks," do the same thing with first rounders in the teens, see what you get. A lot of guys are stupid because they're young, not because they're really all that stupid. And then other guys it turns out they're just plain stupid, 24/7/365.