Arenas for Vince or dump Arenas for cap space?

[DCZards]

Sorry if I'm coming across as obnoxious, it's just the approach is the exact opposite of my own approach to business. Tomorrow is never guaranteed in anything, especially a company. You should always attempt to succeed in the moment, no matter what future projections may hold. Those projections almost always are just that, projections. Idle talent or unchallenged talent usually results in organizational discord and staff upheaval.

1. Insanely talented veteran guard on his best behavior with something to prove?
2. Best PG prospect to enter the league in over a decade?

Sounds like a recipe for organizational success to me........they'll both be challenged day in and day out, and feed off of one another by default.

Not only are you not obnixous, Induveca, but your business model is the smart one, imo. I know some people see success growing out of failure (or losing) but that's a hard model for me to embrace or subscribe to. Like you, Induveca, I'm a big fan of trying--and trying hard--to win now. I detest the idea of tanking and really can't identify with people who see losing as anything but a negative. It just ain't in my DNA.

I have a serious problem with the business model that looks into the crystal ball and sees losing as leading to high draft picks and free agent signings that eventually result in a championship. That's a lot of pie-in-the-sky, imo. (I also don't believe that 's the model that Ted embraces as some posters have suggested.)

What's a known fact is that the Zards have a potentially off-the-charts talented backcourt (and other young pieces like Blatche) that could win more games than most on this board expect them to. So that's why I'm on board with keeping GA and at least TRYING to win. Winning, after all, is more likely to entice a quality free agent than losing...since everyone loves a winner.

[AceDegenerate]

I absolutely love how people think Management philosophies from other Sports are going to somehow translate to Basketball. The NBA is more unique than any league in the world, and somehow people think these ridiculous ideas that apply in other Sports Leagues is going to translate over. That's hilarious.

if Winning Championships is everyone's goal, in the NBA you do that with LUCK or by being the Lakers or Celtics. PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.

Nobody has any plan to build a Championship, NOBODY. Joe Dumars? Everybody's favorite GM from a few years ago has turned his team into a nightmare that will never compete. This guy was supposedly the genius who had discovered the NEW Way to Build an NBA Team, and was going to be the Model for the rest of the league? Yeah, not so much anymore.

To WIN in the NBA, you luck into KOBE BRYANT (or he forces his way to your team). You LUCK into Tim Duncan. You LUCK into Michael Jordan. You LUCK into Hakeem Olajuwon. NOBODY planned for these things to happen, it was LUCK. There is no FORMULA to follow, it's LUCK.

[JonathanJoseph]

Induveca is right on target.

Others point out that acquring cap space or losing is a justifiable strategy if it brings back yougn talent. But everyone seems to be skipping over the fact that the Wizards are already loaded with young talent.

Blatche 23
McGee 22
Seraphin 20
Booker 22
Wall 19
Yi 22 (yes, I know there are doubts)
And Young, Thornton and Armstrong are all 25

That's a ton of young talent and young talent that's been around for a couple of years on 1 year tryouts.

How's that stack up against the revered OKC model?

Durant 21
Westbrook 21
Green 23
Harden 20
Ibaka 20
Maynor 23
Mullens 21
DJ White 23

We are obviously behind the OKC curve for the obvious reason that they've been employing this strategy for 3 years now, but it sure looks like we are in a comparable position after only a few months and we have a lot of expiring contracts over the next 2 seasons to play with.

"Losing to win" makes sense when your roster needs lots of young talent, just as OKC did 3 years ago. But the Wizards are not in that position. The basic pieces are in place and it's time to start suplementing them and teaching them how to win in the NBA.

[Ruzious]

I absolutely love how people think Management philosophies from other Sports are going to somehow translate to Basketball. The NBA is more unique than any league in the world, and somehow people think these ridiculous ideas that apply in other Sports Leagues is going to translate over. That's hilarious.

if Winning Championships is everyone's goal, in the NBA you do that with LUCK or by being the Lakers or Celtics. PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.

Nobody has any plan to build a Championship, NOBODY. Joe Dumars? Everybody's favorite GM from a few years ago has turned his team into a nightmare that will never compete. This guy was supposedly the genius who had discovered the NEW Way to Build an NBA Team, and was going to be the Model for the rest of the league? Yeah, not so much anymore.

To WIN in the NBA, you luck into KOBE BRYANT (or he forces his way to your team). You LUCK into Tim Duncan. You LUCK into Michael Jordan. You LUCK into Hakeem Olajuwon. NOBODY planned for these things to happen, it was LUCK. There is no FORMULA to follow, it's LUCK.

We lucked into John Wall.

There's no reason to keep a loser's mentality unless you enjoy shooting for mediocrity.

[MJG]

I absolutely love how people think Management philosophies from other Sports are going to somehow translate to Basketball. The NBA is more unique than any league in the world, and somehow people think these ridiculous ideas that apply in other Sports Leagues is going to translate over. That's hilarious.

if Winning Championships is everyone's goal, in the NBA you do that with LUCK or by being the Lakers or Celtics. PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.

Nobody has any plan to build a Championship, NOBODY. Joe Dumars? Everybody's favorite GM from a few years ago has turned his team into a nightmare that will never compete. This guy was supposedly the genius who had discovered the NEW Way to Build an NBA Team, and was going to be the Model for the rest of the league? Yeah, not so much anymore.

To WIN in the NBA, you luck into KOBE BRYANT (or he forces his way to your team). You LUCK into Tim Duncan. You LUCK into Michael Jordan. You LUCK into Hakeem Olajuwon. NOBODY planned for these things to happen, it was LUCK. There is no FORMULA to follow, it's LUCK.

We lucked into John Wall.

There's no reason to keep a loser's mentality unless you enjoy shooting for mediocrity.

That argument won't work, because he does indeed enjoy shooting for mediocrity. And I say this not to be a jerk, but because he's actually said it before, that the Wizards competing for a championship is an unattainable dream, so why not just be happy winning in the 40s and making the playoffs.

[leswizards]

Induveca is right on target.

Others point out that acquring cap space or losing is a justifiable strategy if it brings back yougn talent. But everyone seems to be skipping over the fact that the Wizards are already loaded with young talent.

Blatche 23
McGee 22
Seraphin 20
Booker 22
Wall 19
Yi 22 (yes, I know there are doubts)
And Young, Thornton and Armstrong are all 25

That's a ton of young talent and young talent that's been around for a couple of years on 1 year tryouts.

Amongst that group, there has only been 1 full season of starter quality minutes. It came from Thornton in his rookie season. Young and Yi are restricted free agents after this season. Blatche, McGee and Thornton will all be free agents the season after that. The single biggest mistake that GMs (in all sports) routinely make is to give a big contract to a player who has either done nothing in his career but is seen to have a lot of potential or who has had 1 good season in the final year of his contract. Where you see a roster full of young talent, I see a roster with 1 great player (Wall), 2 projects (Seraphin and Booker), and 5 potential costly mistakes.

[Ruzious]

And ultimately, you want to use that cap space to bring in a star player - with the quality of the player being the key - not whether on not he's in his early 20's.

[nate33]

Induveca is right on target.

Others point out that acquring cap space or losing is a justifiable strategy if it brings back yougn talent. But everyone seems to be skipping over the fact that the Wizards are already loaded with young talent.

Blatche 23
McGee 22
Seraphin 20
Booker 22
Wall 19
Yi 22 (yes, I know there are doubts)
And Young, Thornton and Armstrong are all 25

That's a ton of young talent and young talent that's been around for a couple of years on 1 year tryouts.

Amongst that group, there has only been 1 full season of starter quality minutes. It came from Thornton in his rookie season. Young and Yi are restricted free agents after this season. Blatche, McGee and Thornton will all be free agents the season after that. The single biggest mistake that GMs (in all sports) routinely make is to give a big contract to a player who has either done nothing in his career but is seen to have a lot of potential or who has had 1 good season in the final year of his contract. Where you see a roster full of young talent, I see a roster with 1 great player (Wall), 2 projects (Seraphin and Booker), and 5 potential costly mistakes.

Very few young big men make an impact before the their third or fourth season. It's always a bit of a gamble whether or not to resign them to a long contract. Swing men are different. You pretty much know by year 2 or 3 whether they'll be good players or not. I'd be disappointed if Young or Thornton are resigned to large contracts. (Resigning them would be fine, but only for a salary well below the MLE.)

[Ruzious]

But keep in mind that if Thornton and Young put up numbers, they're going to get paid. Childress got something like 33 mil over 5 years. It's not out of the realm that they could command that kind of money - another reason to try to steal X Henry - at the beginning of his rookie deal.

[Silvie Lysandra]

The single biggest mistake that GMs (in all sports) routinely make is to give a big contract to a player who has either done nothing in his career but is seen to have a lot of potential or who has had 1 good season in the final year of his contract. Where you see a roster full of young talent, I see a roster with 1 great player (Wall), 2 projects (Seraphin and Booker), and 5 potential costly mistakes.

So basically, to justify the "dump Arenas now" position you have to assume the worst possible outcome for our player development (Blatche, McGee, Young, Yi, ALL being busts or underachievers). Gotcha.

Why not assume in 2007-08 that Harden, Ibaka, Westbrook and Green turn out to be "4 potential costly mistakes?"

And of course, tell me why a star player - ANY star player, would come to not only a losing team, but a team actively TRYING to lose? Arenas in 2003 was literally a coin-flip; other stars would want to go to a team that offered them an opportunity to win, or we'd have to overpay. Think Melo is coming to a 20 win team?

[AceDegenerate]

I absolutely love how people think Management philosophies from other Sports are going to somehow translate to Basketball. The NBA is more unique than any league in the world, and somehow people think these ridiculous ideas that apply in other Sports Leagues is going to translate over. That's hilarious.

if Winning Championships is everyone's goal, in the NBA you do that with LUCK or by being the Lakers or Celtics. PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.

Nobody has any plan to build a Championship, NOBODY. Joe Dumars? Everybody's favorite GM from a few years ago has turned his team into a nightmare that will never compete. This guy was supposedly the genius who had discovered the NEW Way to Build an NBA Team, and was going to be the Model for the rest of the league? Yeah, not so much anymore.

To WIN in the NBA, you luck into KOBE BRYANT (or he forces his way to your team). You LUCK into Tim Duncan. You LUCK into Michael Jordan. You LUCK into Hakeem Olajuwon. NOBODY planned for these things to happen, it was LUCK. There is no FORMULA to follow, it's LUCK.

We lucked into John Wall.

There's no reason to keep a loser's mentality unless you enjoy shooting for mediocrity.

That argument won't work, because he does indeed enjoy shooting for mediocrity. And I say this not to be a jerk, but because he's actually said it before, that the Wizards competing for a championship is an unattainable dream, so why not just be happy winning in the 40s and making the playoffs.

You can call it a "Loser's Mentality" all you want. Stick and stones.

I call it "reality", and base it only on the lack of parity in the league.

[leswizards]

So basically, to justify the "dump Arenas now" position you have to assume the worst possible outcome for our player development (Blatche, McGee, Young, Yi, ALL being busts or underachievers). Gotcha.

Why not assume in 2007-08 that Harden, Ibaka, Westbrook and Green turn out to be "4 potential costly mistakes?"

And of course, tell me why a star player - ANY star player, would come to not only a losing team, but a team actively TRYING to lose? Arenas in 2003 was literally a coin-flip; other stars would want to go to a team that offered them an opportunity to win, or we'd have to overpay. Think Melo is coming to a 20 win team?

First, what I think of Arenas is independent of what I think of Blatche, McGee, Young, Yi, and Thornton. Second, I never assumed those 5 are certain busts. I said potential costly mistakes. That means the potential is there they could be worth the money the eventually get. IMO, a good GM should weigh the risk before giving them the kind of contract they might get.

As to Harden, Ibaka, Westbrook and Green, Green has already had 2 full season of starter quality minutes, and has the opportunity for a third before he becomes a free agent. Westbrook has had 2 full seasons of starter quality minutes and has the opportunity to have a third a fourth before he becomes a free agent. Neither Harden nor Ibaka have had a full season of starter quality minutes, but both are rookies who are locked up for several seasons.

As to the star players, I am not advocating actively trying to lose. In fact, at the trade deadline this season, I hope the Wizards are 47-0. Instead, I am advocating trying to acquire talent that has a long term potential for giving the Wizards the greatest bang for the buck.

[leswizards]

As to the star players, I am not advocating actively trying to lose. In fact, at the trade deadline this season, I hope the Wizards are 47-0. Instead, I am advocating trying to acquire talent that has a long term potential for giving the Wizards the greatest bang for the buck.

(continued due to apparent size restrictions)

IMO, Arenas, Kirk, Yi, and Thornton offer very little long term bang for the buck, and if the opportunity arises to move them in a good deal at the trade deadline, I sincerely hope EG pulls the trigger. Nick Young is very close to being in the above group, but I guess I could be persuaded that if he has a very good season this year, he is worth the risk of keeping. As for Blatche and McGee, as far as I am concerned, the Wizards have a season and a half to evaluate them, and if they look very good over that time, they are probably worth keeping, big contract and all.

[Illuminaire]

You can call it a "Loser's Mentality" all you want. Stick and stones.

I call it "reality", and base it only on the lack of parity in the league.

2007 - San Antonio. An aging Tim Duncan and pretty good, not great cast.

2006 - Miami Heat. One great player, a lot of scrap and a fair amount of luck.

2004 - Detroit Pistons. A starless team that overachieved.

In the last decade, 12 teams played in the championship series - over a third of the entire league had a chance to win it all.

The reality is that while the league lacks parity, it abounds with opportunity.

[barelyawake]

Ok doc, I got a second sitting in the Dulles smoking room waiting for a flight to LA to try and answer you back. Keep in mind I can't see your post to reference it as I write this.

So, 1) You believe we are the sixth worst team (I assume that's barring injury). I put us at fourth (minus Gil of course). So, that's a sixth pick next year (with a good chance at the top pick), and say the ninth pick the year after. I say it's more like the fourth (with a great shot at the top pick) and the sixth the year after (with a decent shot). I'd trade Gilbert for that and cap. And there is no way in hell Gilbert is going to improve his value over that. Not a chance in hell.

2) will Gil help Wall? Yes. Will Wall be hurt or stunted without Gil? Absolutely not-- especially since we have Hiney and Sammy as mentors. Is that "help" worth costing us a shot at a legit big? Not a chance.

3) I've already argued Gil's value. We have rose-colored glasses on concerning Gil. His trade value has always been low. It will never get that high again.

4) We need a gamechanging big. To suggest that there are several ways to get such a player is utterly false. And to suggest that we could get just as many pieces to trade with late picks as opposed to top picks is also false. Could we? Sure. But, the odds are completely against it. As I mentioned before, not only do you get a shot at a top big with a high lottery pick, you also get the clout in trade value that a couple number four picks bring if you fail. "Tanking" got Orlando Howard, Clevelanf Lebron and us Wall. Of course, you have a better shot at a top big by tanking than "steals" with late picks. And to suggest otherwise is shading reality. We don't have the assets to build a championship team. We don't have enough pieces to "build our own" and trade them for significant players. We need more real assets. "Winning" will not attract top talent unless they believe a championship is only one player away in Washington. They will never think that with our current roster. They might once we pack the team with young top picks.

3)

[nate33]

barelyawake, who in the NBA today would you consider to be a "gamechanging big"?

[AceDegenerate]

You can call it a "Loser's Mentality" all you want. Stick and stones.

I call it "reality", and base it only on the lack of parity in the league.

2007 - San Antonio. An aging Tim Duncan and pretty good, not great cast.

2006 - Miami Heat. One great player, a lot of scrap and a fair amount of luck.

2004 - Detroit Pistons. A starless team that overachieved.

In the last decade, 12 teams played in the championship series - over a third of the entire league had a chance to win it all.

The reality is that while the league lacks parity, it abounds with opportunity.

The REALITY is that it takes LUCK to Win Championships in this league, period.

Where is that 2nd place Trophy again? Nobody cares about the losers. My argument was also based on the fact that Ruzious and others basically said there is nothing to play for in this league except a Championship, I am more than happy to be competitive and in the Playoffs every year (Trailblazers/Jazz/etc.) than to risk that all for 1 Championship, then back to the lottery to rebuild (06 Miami Heat).

Let's try this again. Since 1980 - NBA Champions:

1980 - Lakers
1981 - Celtics
1982 - Lakers
1983 - Sixers
1984 - Celtics
1985 - Lakers
1986 - Celtics
1987 - Lakers
1988 - Lakers
1989 - Pistons
1990 - Pistons
1991 - Bulls
1992 - Bulls
1993 - Bulls
1994 - Rockets
1995 - Rockets
1996 - Bulls
1997 - Bulls
1998 - Bulls
1999 - Spurs
2000 - Lakers
2001 - Lakers
2002 - Lakers
2003 - Spurs
2004 - Pistons
2005 - Spurs
2006 - Heat
2007 - Spurs
2008 - Celtics
2009 - Lakers
2010 - Lakers

A total of 8 teams have Won an NBA Championship in the past 30 Years in this league. If competing for the championship and LOSING is good enough, then why is competing in the playoffs and losing not good enough?

[fishercob]

Ok doc, I got a second sitting in the Dulles smoking room waiting for a flight to LA to try and answer you back. Keep in mind I can't see your post to reference it as I write this.

So, 1) You believe we are the sixth worst team (I assume that's barring injury). I put us at fourth (minus Gil of course). So, that's a sixth pick next year (with a good chance at the top pick), and say the ninth pick the year after. I say it's more like the fourth (with a great shot at the top pick) and the sixth the year after (with a decent shot). I'd trade Gilbert for that and cap. And there is no way in hell Gilbert is going to improve his value over that. Not a chance in hell.



4) We need a gamechanging big. To suggest that there are several ways to get such a player is utterly false. And to suggest that we could get just as many pieces to trade with late picks as opposed to top picks is also false. Could we? Sure. But, the odds are completely against it. As I mentioned before, not only do you get a shot at a top big with a high lottery pick, you also get the clout in trade value that a couple number four picks bring if you fail. "Tanking" got Orlando Howard, Clevelanf Lebron and us Wall. Of course, you have a better shot at a top big by tanking than "steals" with late picks. And to suggest otherwise is shading reality. We don't have the assets to build a championship team. We don't have enough pieces to "build our own" and trade them for significant players. We need more real assets. "Winning" will not attract top talent unless they believe a championship is only one player away in Washington. They will never think that with our current roster. They might once we pack the team with young top picks.

barely, the sixth worst record has an 11.9% chance at the top pick -- or an 88.1% at not getting it. The sixth worst record has a 6.3% chance at the top pick and a 93.1% chance.

Planning for draft slots, based on the lotto odds, is completely foolish. Orlando won the Chris Webber lotto with a less than 2% chance to do so. No worst-record team has won the lotto in 6 years, and only once in those 6 years has a team worse than 5th won the lotto. It's a total crapshoot...

As our the draft classes. The year we strike gold, the clear choice is a point guard -- not a 2-way big. So to get a Dwight Howard, Patrick Chewing, or Tim Duncan -- a franchise big -- not only do you have to beat an no-better than 3 in 4 chance that you won't win the lottery, but you also have to beat the odds that that player won't be in the draft. Again, it's just not something that makes sense to plan for.

[WizStorm]

barelyawake, who in the NBA today would you consider to be a "gamechanging big"?

Better yet, what college big man fits such a description that only a "tank" effort and the possibility of top pick would net?

[Ruzious]

A total of 8 teams have Won an NBA Championship in the past 30 Years in this league. If competing for the championship and LOSING is good enough, then why is competing in the playoffs and losing not good enough?

You may be happy with striving for mediocrity, but I want more than that - even if it means going through rough years. It's just a difference in our philosophies. For many years after the Bullets won their championship, they were a mediocre team year in and year out - usually just good enough to challenge for a playoff spot. I found it very unfulfilling.