Ted's been approved, it's official!

[montestewart]

My Dad's an engineer and I have been brought up squarely under the guidance of the scientific method, what can I say?

Haha! My mother and stepfather are engineers, and I still play the lottery. Where did they go wrong?

[dangermouse]

I think i missed the boat for this comment with the whole argument about dumping this that and the other and tanking away for the shot at some mysterious big man in the draft who is the second coming of Shaq and Hakeem in Dwight Howard's body.

Right, see because to be "better than Blatche" and an allstar, you have to be Shaq combined with Hakeem. The homerism over Blatche displayed in this thread is ridiculous.

I'll say once more, we need more assets. You get those through the draft. You don't have to draft a big dirrectly, but you certainly need the trading chips to get one. It's the normal rebuilding process. We should not attempt to finish rebuilding until we are ready. Ready means you have enough assets to take a shot at a championship. Until then, players are assets. Our sin of the last decade was holding onto players for too long, when we should have viewed them as trading chips to climb up the ladder. We can't even begin thinking about building a championship "core" without a star small and a star big to build around. Until then, we are simply acquring assets. Of course, we may along the way pick up pieces we wish to keep. But, until we get a star big, we will have no idea what other pieces we need or how the puzzle fits together. And Blatche is not that star big.

Woah there buddy. I didnt mention Blatche at all in that paragraph. I'd have to be a lunatic to actually believe what you inferred. I'm pretty homer for Blatche, but i wouldnt even consider him a top 10-15 PF. Yet. What I do see him as is at the very least a solid 18 and 9 guy (if he carries his production into next season) on a very cheap contract. Thats something we should hang on to.

And as for tanking and drafting, its very hit and miss. My personal opinion is that we are a lot more likely to be able to address at least some of our needs through FA and not have to rely on chugging along on the tank-wagon.

[barelyawake]

Hoops, there's no if about it. If your thinking is so scientific, please walk me through the steps that made you leap from me saying we need to read future drafts and act accordingly to this notion of yours that I demanded that we trade for a future unprotected pick. And later, you leaped to the conclusion, based on nothing I said, that I wanted to "dump Blatche." How exactly is that following a method?

As far as reading future drafts and acting accordingly, you have done it in this very thread. You stated that by reading ahead you don't see how tanking is a good idea etc. That's exactly what we need to do -- read ahead a few drafts as PART of our process in planning our moves. For instance, if there is a great draft coming up in two years, we would be wiser to trade for draft picks than in a weak one. I don't see what the controversy is about that -- or similar thinking. If we can predict that a team will probably be bad in two years (say they are getting old), then it's a good idea to take that into account when trading for future draft picks from them. Obviously, you weigh the risks of every choice, but there is nothing wrong with predicting what is likely to happen a few years out -- especially since much of the NBA is predictable. No one said that you make decisions SOLELY on said predictions -- especially without factoring in the likelihood that said prediction will occur.

[LyricalRico]

I think part of the problem with selling the "rely on the ping pong balls" philosophy here is that this team did that for so long and ended up with nothing to show for all those years of lottery picks. The two playoff teams we've had in the past 20 years were made through trades or free agency (acquring Webber/Strickland and acquiring Arenas/Jamison). So to ask this fan base to commit to a path they've already been down is going to be a tough sell, no matter how strongly you may believe in it.

[barelyawake]

Danger, the argument for pages (which you refered to) was about getting a big "better than Blatche." How you took that to mean a guy who is Shaq and Hakeem combined is beyond me. We need another fanchise player (who isn't a point guard). One who is better than Gasol. That's what was said.

Lyrical, neither of those teams came close to a championship. And for the most part we didn't actually "tank." We did the opposite and signed players to make us as good as possible now, without ever bottoming out to get a couple franchise players first. If the goal is to build a champion, and that was the stated goal, then we will have to be patient and build one the proper way. If people see we are gathering assets that will lead to a good decade of playoffs, they will forgive a few seasons of us seasoning our youth and collecting pieces. All will be forgiven once we finish rebuilding, as long as we do so in time to keep Wall and honestly shoot for a championship.

[Dat2U]

I think what barelyawake is saying is that we need another dynamic player. Be it an elite wing like Durant or a low post 20/10 stud he's wanting to tank for.

If Arenas isn't that dynamic player, then yes, at minimum we will need another legit all-star quality talent to pair with Wall and whoever else.

Where we disagree on Blatche is that I think he's fine as a 3rd option offensively. He will need to paired with a defensive anchor at C and although he's not perfect he is an ASSET, so I see no value in trading him unless it is for that dynamic player we need.

[dangermouse]

Ok im cooling on the building through FA idea with the news of Melo likely inking a new deal. I wonder if the next FA class will be significantly reduced because of the new CBA.

If we are looking at more big names inking deals before the CBA and a reduced group of draft prospects looking to avoid the lockout, this could push back rebuilding another season.

[Hoopalotta]

Barely, I'll work on a nice n' tidy "peace in the kingdom" reply that can see us all move forward and enjoy the draft. It might be a few days.



Oh and quality peanut gallery posts from Verbal and Monte there too.

[Zonkerbl]

Hey guys, check this out:

http://www.tedstake.com/2010/06/22/not- ... ards-fans/

"Also, developing a system that works for the core of your players and teaching it, and then fitting in new players that play key roles in the system, creates an advantage. As does the creation of a high-quality metric-based analysis and stats department so that a true picture of the productivity of the players can be presented; and a true development of players via competitive scouting, mentoring, physical therapy, and ongoing coaching can be achieved."

[cdouglas]

Did anyone see the Washington Wizards' homepage with the fan welcoming Wall? I thought it looked very nice and makes me wonder what Ted will do for this franchise? Any thoughts on Ted's management and the new Wizards' look??

[nate33]

Hey guys, check this out:

http://www.tedstake.com/2010/06/22/not- ... ards-fans/

"Also, developing a system that works for the core of your players and teaching it, and then fitting in new players that play key roles in the system, creates an advantage. As does the creation of a high-quality metric-based analysis and stats department so that a true picture of the productivity of the players can be presented; and a true development of players via competitive scouting, mentoring, physical therapy, and ongoing coaching can be achieved."

I wonder if they've applied this advanced statistical analysis to last year's team. I wonder what the stats say about Nick Young's contribution to the team's success.

[barelyawake]

Barely, I'll work on a nice n' tidy "peace in the kingdom" reply that can see us all move forward and enjoy the draft. It might be a few days.



Oh and quality peanut gallery posts from Verbal and Monte there too.

I've been on a boat and missed the draft. But, no need for a "peace in the kingdom" post. I don't mind arguing. I only mind when said argument is based on something I never said. And I'll admit I misquoted you later in this thread. See, it's not that hard. Rather than blame you, I admitted I was wrong.

And since what got your ire up was your belief that it's a mystical practice reading the future, I'll state once more that a good GM must look forward. He must predict how draft picks will panout in five years. He must read the way the NBA is going. Look, once again, you did it yourself in this thread. You said we are likely to face x type of team in the playoffs. To come to that conclusion, you are reading how the near future of the NBA is likely to playout.

A GM simply cannot go blindly into each season with a "well we'll see what happens" mentally. He must actively carve out future, and part of that is making sound decisions based on a vision. To have vision, you must see what lies ahead and predict the pitfalls before to get to them. Many GMs over the years have made great deals based on their predictions. If memory serves wasn't it the Suns that got a future first from New York? I'm on a ship (and working with my phone) and can't look it up easily. Regardless, that GM based his decision to make that trade, in part, because he predicted that New York would have an awful team in three years (thus the pick would be a high one). New York based their moves on reading the free agency out three years and wanting to clear cap for LeBron. All these decisions are based on predictions.

It's not a mystical process. It's being a good GM. And a GM without vision is utterly lost. And we have been lost as a team for years because we have been making decisions either without a vision of the future or a faulty one. If course, you have to be flexible. No one said otherwise, but throwing up your hands and saying the future is an unknown quantity is being blind to both history and one's duty as a GM.

[barelyawake]

I think what barelyawake is saying is that we need another dynamic player. Be it an elite wing like Durant or a low post 20/10 stud he's wanting to tank for.

If Arenas isn't that dynamic player, then yes, at minimum we will need another legit all-star quality talent to pair with Wall and whoever else.

Where we disagree on Blatche is that I think he's fine as a 3rd option offensively. He will need to paired with a defensive anchor at C and although he's not perfect he is an ASSET, so I see no value in trading him unless it is for that dynamic player we need.

Indeed Blatche is an asset. And I would not trade him for anything other than a shot at a key player on a championship team. I never said otherwise. I simply said we should not base our vision of the future around the idea that he will be our top big. It would be historic if a second round pick, with Blatche's mental weaknesses, suddenly became the second or even third best player on a team. Historic as in I can't think of one example where that happened. Perhaps there is one. But, let's say it's exceedingly rare. And I don't see Blatche as a historic player. Honestly, pick apart the mindset in asking someone paid to play against you to allow you to get a triple double. And the immaturity involved in actually thinking that you opponent would do so. That is not someone to be trusted to have to get you 20-10 every game of a seven game series. To have as a roleplayer who could exploded for twenty one game, that's fine. But, that's not someone you gear your team around or base your championship hopes on.

It's going to be VERY hard for us to win a championship in the next decade -- especially after this free agency. We need a hell of alot better assets than Blatche to do so.

[Hoopalotta]

Oh man, if we get back in on this one, I'm just going to be repeating my argument from a few pages back.

Bottom line: this all started with your claims about reading the draft out five years in order to score a franchise big.

I was not even the only person to think that you suggested we trade Blatche and many people called out that plan as baseless many pages ago. Regardless of your counters, it would be necessary to do something drastic like that in order to take advantage of those sort of projections.

The main thing is that predictions are fine, but reading the draft from the perspective of franchise players has no precedent of working and, this is important, means that you must blow your team up.

The Knicks pick turned into Gordon Hayward. There is no rational, high percentage plan for getting franchise talent.

I cannot believe that you are still sitting here thinking that what you posted back on page 6 or whatever is a functional plan towards acquiring a franchise player and i have somehow misconstrued your very practical argument.

I am absolutely not going to go any further with this. Everything you have just served up has already been dealt with repeatedly in my previous arguments. I really have nothing to add and we are never going to see eye to eye on this. If I'm going to reply to that directly I might as well just cut and past my old posts here.

[barelyawake]

I love how you're the one now exasperated when you're the one who started this nonsense by misquoting me and getting upset over something you made up in your head.

Hoops, I'll say again, what "team" are you speaking of blowing up? We have maybe three players total worth a damn. We are blown up. The only question mark left to get us even some wins would be Arenas. Barring that, we have no "core" team.

And actually, tanking and reading ahead in the draft is what got Cleveland LeBron. So, it has worked to get the best record in the league two years running. Again, I never said we have to catch lightning in a bottle like that solely via one top pick. Boston got their franchise big by tanking and trading. But, we certainly need to be bad for a few years and get some high assets if we are to have a chance to come close to a championship. And if you think not, please do me the small favor of listing your way of building a championship team in the next five years. Melo isn't coming here.

[Zonkerbl]

We are blown up.

That made me lol.

[willbcocks]

You two seem to have the exact same plan for the Wizards future, only using different words to describe it.

[Hoopalotta]

You two seem to have the exact same plan for the Wizards future, only using different words to describe it.

That is basically true except that I'm not willing to clean the decks based on my projections for the 2014 draft.

The whole thing got started here:

The need to build the team around an allstar big and small.......There needs to be a logical plan in place that will get us a superstar big.......We need foresight to be able to predict the league and draft out five years.

Nothing wrong with trying to project the league out a bit, but I interpret there as only being two ways to do anything based on projecting the draft if we're talking franchise talent (which we are):

1) blow the team up in a franchise player year (and get lucky)
2) score unprotected picks from other teams (and get lucky)

It's not just tanking, it's long term "strategic tanking" where we turn on a dime and tank in specific years based on the talent available. I just cannot see that as being at all realistic as we're not even talking about blowing this team up, we're talking about blowing a future team up. I don't see how anyone could suggest that there is another way to utilize predictions on the draft in terms of franchise players. Actually, others had the same objections, but Barely stopped replying to them.

I will say that I should have been more positive towards the idea of scoring eventual unprotected picks; there is nothing wrong with that as an idea (I don't even know if Barely like that idea or not, but it's immaterial at this point as it's one of only two ways to work the draft projections angle). But I was just put off by the whole thing from the start. It's just a wild idea.

[barelyawake]

Hoops, like I said, you took those two sentences, put them together, and created this idea that I said we need to trade for unprotected draft picks. I love the idea of trading for unprotected draft picks, if we can get them. But, I certainly never said that's what we must do.

What we must do is build a team that is going to compete with Rose and two max free agents. To do so, it's going to take IMO another superstar on our roster besides Wall. And since Wall is a point, it only makes sense that that superstar is a big -- especially considering almost every single NBA championship team was built around a big and a small. Personally, I don't even think Melo will ever win a championship if it's just him and a star guard. It's especially difficult to win based solely on wingplayers. And we are entering a period where the NBA is about to consolidate all their best players onto a few teams.

In terms of how we can read ahead and use that to our advantage to get a star big, I've listed several ways already:
1) Scout for deep drafts and trade for picks in them. This increases our chances of getting better assets to trade for a top big and increases our chances of landing a steal -- deeper drafts have more steals usually. The better assets we get, the more likely it is we can trade for a top big.
2) Scout out teams and predict which teams will be bad, and trade for picks in years we think they will be bad. Again, I said there is a risk here -- so that must be weighed in considering what we give up. Obviously, here unprotected picks would be best. But, even just acquiring a few late lottery picks can be packaged to trade for a big dirrectly or for a high pick in the draft.
3) Scout out who will be a free agent in the coming years and target them. Acquire assets that can be used in a sign and trade for said player.
4) Scout out drafts for deep drafts where the top picks is a franchise player and tank during those years. For Cleveland, they blewup the team for LeBron. For us, we simply would need to trade Arenas for cap and not sign free agents for the sake of getting better until we got our second franchise player.

I could go on. There aren't just two ways to predict the future of the NBA and use that knowledge to craft a vision. And to create in your head that there are and then state that's what I meant is no way to debate.

But, as you said, we'll drop it.

[Hoopalotta]

^ I like it all except for number 4 considering our current position (if we had gotten the 7th pick this last year, maybe something could be done there). It's certainly not a bad idea in general, but I think it would be destructive to try and tank in, just as a random example, 2013 or 2014. But sure, no question anyone poised to do so should have tanked in 2003.

But as Will-B said, we do actually agree on a majority of points.

And I should not have said that trading for future picks from teams we'd expect to be bad was a poor idea; that was a mistake on my part as it's certainly the kind of thing I would go after too. I don't know if we can hit particular years, but there are certain targets out there floating around in the hands of other teams like a Warriors pick [NJ has it], Raptors pick [MIA] or Bobcats pick [CHI] that would be nice targets. And of course fresh picks from teams that will decline would be gravy too.