Grade the Wizard's Draft

[MJG]

What's the point of discussing potential picks for 250 pages and draft day moves for 150 pages if we can't then evaluate what we 'realgm gms' have thought of with what our GM has done?

Obviously the immediate post draft grade won't be the only grade this draft ever gets, but nevertheless it's one, and I think quite important.

Strongly agree. Some people act like immediate responses to trades/drafts/signings/etc are forever set in stone. It reminds of the way that some people will predict that Team X will win the championship, then at the all-star break, Team X is 26-24, but if you then ask them who think is going to take the title, they'll say "Well, I said Team X at the start of the season, so I can't back out on that now." Don't be ridiculous! People don't have to stand by initial reactions through thick and thin.

I give the draft a B. I'm just where I was last night: I generally like what I've read on Booker and Seraphin, and as players, I'm happy to have them on the team, but it still really feels like we gave up more than should have been necessary to get them.

[jimij]

It seems to me that were players available at 12-16 who would have a legitmate shot at winning the SF position this season, and I am kind of the opinion that it would 1 SF with talent is better than 3 PFs or Cs who are projects. I believe a package of 17th, 30th and 35th, should have been more than enough to move up to 12-16th, but I guess you never know.

leswizards, I agree with you on the SF part, too. An alternate route would have been to get physical toughness with James at 17. He's more of an animal on boards than even Booker, and he's a legit SF.

My feeling is Wall with Anderson at 17 is a nasty backcourt for years to come. I think Booker would have been there at 30. Pittman or Zoubek at 35 would have filled the banger role.

Given the lack of attention we paid to the SF position in the draft last night, I've got a pretty strong gut feeling that that the team intends to bring Howard back. Maybe we go after Childress but I don't see Atlanta giving him up for what we would pay him (especially after they lose JJ) and I wouldn't want us to give Atl any compensation for not matching because he's not worth it.

There's simply no chance we enter next season with just Thornton at SF so we've almost got to sign someone and Miller's a goner IMO so it looks like we might just bring back JHo.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Edited. Off topic.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Something's off on the quotes, I think, jimij.

[leswizards]

Given the lack of attention we paid to the SF position in the draft last night, I've got a pretty strong gut feeling that that the team intends to bring Howard back. Maybe we go after Childress but I don't see Atlanta giving him up for what we would pay him (especially after they lose JJ) and I wouldn't want us to give Atl any compensation for not matching because he's not worth it.

There's simply no chance we enter next season with just Thornton at SF so we've almost got to sign someone and Miller's a goner IMO so it looks like we might just bring back JHo.

My guess is Howard is a goner as well. My guess is he will get just as good an offer from other teams as he gets from the Wizards, and my guess is lingering resentment from the fact the Wizards only traded for him so that they could deny his $14 million dollar option will cause him to sign elsewhere.

[jimij]

Something's off on the quotes, I think, jimij.

Fixed (I think).

[wake20]

I give us a B and here's why...

First off, unless you draft Kwame Brown #1, you can't automatically earn an A or an F with a #1 pick. The Cavs shouldn't be given an A simply for drafting Lebron, and the T'Blazers shouldn't get an F for drafting Oden. Those are picks the rest of the NBA would have made. You earn your grade with the rest of the draft. The Celtics get an A in 06 with Rondo, and the Warriors get an F in 06 with Patrick O'Bryant.

With that said, taking Kevin Seraphin was not a bad pick at all. The latest I saw him going was #22 to Portland, and I don't mind grabbing a player Pritchard wanted (how the hell was he fired??). He wants to be here, he will be here, and he's a high upside guy (yeah yeah, we all hate that word). I was really hoping Patterson was going to fall to #17, but after he was grabbed by Houston (I thought they had to go with a legit C right there), there was no real high motor, court running, strong hands banger who needed to be taken there. I like the pick.

In taking Booker at #23, I don't care if Minnesota picked him on their own and we picked up the phone right away or we drafted for them. Bottom line is that we wanted him at 30, and we probably had good reason to believe he wasn't going to be there at that point. I watched a lot of ACC ball this past season, and Booker is Blair with actual knees, not as good hands, but much better at running the floor. After grabbing a lightning-quick PG, we needed a guy who could run the floor and finish. Booker is Patrick Patterson light in terms of talent, but just as much a team guy, just as much a rebounder, and better at running the court.

Also, look who Minnesota picked up after trading away Booker: Lazar Hayward and some Serbian dude. After looking at the 30-60, the two guys I would have wanted were probably Ebanks and Alabi, but we got our project center and I'd much rather have Booker than Ebanks.

Bottom line, we added Hinrich, got the best player in the draft, got a high upside international, got our banger with good hands who can run the court, and picked up a project center. We did OK in my book.

[nate33]

Given the lack of attention we paid to the SF position in the draft last night, I've got a pretty strong gut feeling that that the team intends to bring Howard back. Maybe we go after Childress but I don't see Atlanta giving him up for what we would pay him (especially after they lose JJ) and I wouldn't want us to give Atl any compensation for not matching because he's not worth it.

There's simply no chance we enter next season with just Thornton at SF so we've almost got to sign someone and Miller's a goner IMO so it looks like we might just bring back JHo.

My guess is Howard is a goner as well. My guess is he will get just as good an offer from other teams as he gets from the Wizards, and my guess is lingering resentment from the fact the Wizards only traded for him so that they could deny his $14 million dollar option will cause him to sign elsewhere.

I don't think there's any resentment at all. Nobody was going to pay his $11M option after all the negative press about him in Dallas. I'm sure he knew this. If anything, he was happy for the clean slate we gave him here. He looked great for 4 games until the injury hit.

I don't know if we'll try and sign him or not. But my bet is that he would be aminable to being signed provided we put forth the best offer. The real question is whether or not he wants a cheap one year deal to rehab his value, or if he wants a long term committment.

[Hoopalotta]

Disastrous news!

Wilbon loves our draft!

NEW YORK -- Teams building from scratch have to make moves, bold and creative moves. They have to do so quickly and aggressively, taking calculated risks, looking not too far into the future while realizing it's not time to live in the present either. The Washington Wizards, on all of those fronts, did splendidly Thursday night, drafting and trading pieces that figure to be part of a contending team or later allow for further moves that will ultimately help deliver a run deep into the playoffs.

http://views.washingtonpost.com/world-w ... zards.html

Nail in da' coffin, there!

[Dat2U]

The Wizards franchise earns an A for drafting John Wall.

Ernie Grunfeld personally derserves a big phat F for everything else he did he draft night. Irene Pollin deserves as much if not more credit for getting us John Wall than EG does. Any snot nosed 9 year old could have made that first pick.

I give Grunfeld an F for two reasons:

1. The Hinrich trade. $17 million for the 17th pick is just indefensible. Taking on a non-expiring contract is indefensible. Seraphin is not a favorite of mine but I understand the desire to go high risk/high reward.

2. Trading up for Trevor Booker. I like Booker, and think he can be an effective backup PF for us but trading the 30/35 when there was good value to be had made little sense. Booker may have been there at 30 and even if he wasn't there were prospects just as good or better available where we would have picked.

Bottom line, we could have gotten similar talent at 30/35 without acquiring either pick at 17 & 23.

A shrewd GM would have bought the #25 from Memphis for cash instead of spending a boatload of cash for the #17 or trading multiple pick for the #23.

Give me Pondexter at #25 and Whiteside/Alabi at 30 & 35 and that would have been a helluva draft. Not only that, we'd have preserved our cap space potential moves down the line.

I love John Wall but I feel like were going to waste his best years screwing around with Ernie Grunfeld.

[Bickerstaff]

1. The Hinrich trade. $17 million for the 17th pick is just indefensible. Taking on a non-expiring contract is indefensible. Seraphin is not a favorite of mine but I understand the desire to go high risk/high reward.

2. Trading up for Trevor Booker. I like Booker, and think he can be an effective backup PF for us but trading the 30/35 when there was good value to be had made little sense. Booker may have been there at 30 and even if he wasn't there were prospects just as good or better available where we would have picked.

I give you an F for twice misconstruing what happened, just so t could suit your agenda

1. They didn't spend $17 M on the 17th pick. They also got 2 years of Kirk Hinrich. They also got cash back. So not $17M, and not just Seraphin.

2. Booker wasn't available at 30. He was drafted 23rd, the Wizards wanted him, so they traded their later picks for him.

[WallToWall]

The Wizards franchise earns an A for drafting John Wall.

I give Grunfeld an F for two reasons:
1. The Hinrich trade. $17 million for the 17th pick is just indefensible. Taking on a non-expiring contract is indefensible. Seraphin is not a favorite of mine but I understand the desire to go high risk/high reward.

Isn't it $9M the first year and $8M the second year? We also got $3M in cash. That effectively makes it $6M for the first year. We can trade him before year two (he'll be a good expiring) if things dont work out...and if that happens, we are out $6M for a one year rental of a backup guard.
If Hinrich was in this years draft, where would we place him? Maybe mid first round? We know he can be an effective backup guard. He is a proven player...we dont have to worry if he can play in the NBA. IMO, taking Hinrich is not as big of a gamble when compared to a mid first round player. Add to that, we got the #17 for what we gave up. I look at this as getting 2 mid first round picks, one of which is a proven NBA player with value to this team, for what we gave up.

[LyricalRico]

^ Yep, there is absolutely cash involved. And those that watched NBATV's pre-draft coverage heard David Aldridge and Kenny Smith giving Kirk Hinrich a lot of credit for Derrick Rose's development in Chicago. I think Kirk is being tremendously underrated by a lot of folks here.

[AceDegenerate]

I'm very happy with the Kirk acquisition as a 3rd guard on a team that intends to compete every night.

If the guy was brought in to start on a tanking team, the deal sucks.

Obviously, this is all then contingent on what happens with Arenas.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, Heinrich is basically a one year MLE pickup, and then he turns into a fairly tradeable expiring (in that he can actually play, like Daniels was).

I'm not a big fan of free agency, you only get pennies on the dollar. I'd much rather fill up cap space with assets and trade them around.

Look at Chicago -- they've got Derrick Rose, and Deng. Then they'll get, say, LeBron and Bosh. And then what? They'll have no bench to speak of, and no way of getting anything more than MLE players - paying a huge luxury tax penalty in the process.

[LyricalRico]

Look at Chicago -- they've got Derrick Rose, and Deng. Then they'll get, say, LeBron and Bosh. And then what? They'll have no bench to speak of, and no way of getting anything more than MLE players - paying a huge luxury tax penalty in the process.

Don't forget about Noah. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see Deng go back to Cleveland in a sign-and-trade. But you're right about one thing - the luxury tax. What happens when they've got the two max guys they might sign this summer and then Rose/Noah are up for their new deals? If they can't keep that team together, it'll all be for nothing.

[verbal8]

Look at Chicago -- they've got Derrick Rose, and Deng. Then they'll get, say, LeBron and Bosh. And then what? They'll have no bench to speak of, and no way of getting anything more than MLE players - paying a huge luxury tax penalty in the process.

Don't forget about Noah. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see Deng go back to Cleveland in a sign-and-trade. But you're right about one thing - the luxury tax. What happens when they've got the two max guys they might sign this summer and then Rose/Noah are up for their new deals? If they can't keep that team together, it'll all be for nothing.

The owner seems to be really cheap with the Bulls(but not the White Sox). If they get Bosh and LeBron, they could win a couple titles, but I think cheap moves would prevent them from being a dynasty.

[Hoopalotta]

^ I don't know, Le Bon-Bon's kind of a golden Goose. Cleveland took losses with their payroll, but Chacago is a much more robust market. Reinsdorf's cheap, but I think he'd bite down on the bit and pay up unless the new CBA doesn't allow for that.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

As a Rutgers fan and someone who lives in New Brunswick. I havewatched N'Diaye these past 4 years and here is what I can tell you about him. What you can expect is a good shot blocker, rebounder, and hustle player. He can pump up the crowd with his energy and attitude as well. However, with that comes the stupid fouls from trying to block EVERY shot, and the over the back calls from trying to recklessly grab every rebound. His bball iq is pretty low and expect him to pick up a few technical fouls when he's out there due to his hot headed temper when he gets rattled. He has no finesse to his game but if he can develop in the NBA, he can be solid. Notice I didn't mention his offensive game..He virtually doesn't have one. It consists of dunks and put backs but that is about it.

Wow, I'm gonna like this N'Diaye dude if he sticks! Sounds like he's potentially, a fighting bastard. Someone opponents won't like too much.

Ernie couldn't get Cousins but he got guys who are of the same mindset!

Booker's scary.

Seraphin's scary.

N'Diaye sounds like the late Manute Bol, who would and did throw down a few times.

[Dat2U]

1. The Hinrich trade. $17 million for the 17th pick is just indefensible. Taking on a non-expiring contract is indefensible. Seraphin is not a favorite of mine but I understand the desire to go high risk/high reward.

2. Trading up for Trevor Booker. I like Booker, and think he can be an effective backup PF for us but trading the 30/35 when there was good value to be had made little sense. Booker may have been there at 30 and even if he wasn't there were prospects just as good or better available where we would have picked.

I give you an F for twice misconstruing what happened, just so t could suit your agenda

1. They didn't spend $17 M on the 17th pick. They also got 2 years of Kirk Hinrich. They also got cash back. So not $17M, and not just Seraphin.

2. Booker wasn't available at 30. He was drafted 23rd, the Wizards wanted him, so they traded their later picks for him.

Suit my agenda? Exactly what agenda do I have? I'm not a tool like Rico who plays the EG line like he's his agent & publicist. I'm giving my opinion. That's all I've done and ever will do here. When and if EG ever makes a good move again I'll give him credit for it. I have no problem doing that. I just have had no reason to the last 4 years or so.

Let me reword what I said earlier so you or anyone else won't "misconstrue" where I'm coming from.

1. 2 years of Kirk Hinrich at $17 million for the 17th pick is indefensible. We didn't need Kirk Hinrich. As for a mentor, don't we already have Sam Cassell? What about Shaun Livingston who would have been alot cheaper & productive? (and we wouldn't have had to help Chicago either). He could have been a great mentor to Wall. Did we need to take on a multi-year deal & tie up our flexibility just for a mentor?

2. You have no idea if Booker would be available at 30 and neither do I. But you can't tell me there wasn't better value at #23 or even if we just sat and waited at #30. Even if they just bought the #25 pick for cash and selected Booker I would have been okay with that. But the pick swap feeds into the line of thinking that EG gets consistently gets poor value out of his deals.