GT: Wizards @ Hawks (12-28-11)

[hands11]

20 plus pts, 3-4 assists and 2-4 boards.

Yeah, he will get that. Maybe a little more.

So you are expecting him to turn into Ray Allen? He can score like Ray Allen, but that is it.

But look where my man Marshon Brooks is. I really wanted us to get him in the last draft but I guess you can't have everything you want. I really liked that last draft. We could have drafted an entire team from it. I think as time goes on it will prove to be a great draft class.

I liked Brooks a lot. He is struggling from the field and hasn't hit a 3, but he could in time become a poor man's Ray Allen(scoring with some rebounds and assists). I think the depth of this class is looking pretty good even if the number of impact players is questionable.

So you are expecting him to turn into Ray Allen? He can score like Ray Allen, but that is it.

Sit back, watch and lets see. It has only been two games and he already got a 4 assist game. Nick has shown he can add to his game. Lets see what he adds this year before capping his upside. I have yet to see the kid hit his ceiling and I think it is far to say he still has untapped potential.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

So take the good for now. Singleton is legit and Nick can still flat out shoot and he had a 4 assist game in only game 2. And Ronny is a solid addition.

If NY averages 3-4 assists for the season, he WILL be getting a long term 9-10 mil a year contract.

20 plus pts, 3-4 assists and 2-4 boards.

Yeah, he will get that. Maybe a little more.

Nick is probably the player most ready to really impress this year. We already know he can just go off and score like 30-40 pts. Nick in a zone is nothing to sneeze at. It is in his ability to have an All Star year. He is in his prime age and has just enough experience to take it to another level.

Per 48 minutes he is already 4th for SGs.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/playe ... ing-guards

He was 6-7 in scoring last year. And he is a pretty eff scorer.

But look where my man Marshon Brooks is. I really wanted us to get him in the last draft but I guess you can't have everything you want. I really liked that last draft. We could have drafted an entire team from it. I think as time goes on it will prove to be a great draft class.

One thing I said last season was consider trading John Wall for Kyrie Irving and a top-4 or 5 pick.

Coming out of the blocks (guys like Usain Bolt and Carl Lewis don't even have to be first out the blocks to win their sprint--the race isn't over at the start, usually) the most impressive rookie guards are Kyrie Irving, Brandon Knight, Alec Burcks, and Marshon Brooks.

This guy would be my two games played MVP:

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/6448/brandon-knight

Wow!

Very closely behind him, would be the guy I wanted the Wizards to draft (another no brainer good pick, he would have been):

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/6428/marshon-brooks

[Dat2U]

RE: Nick

Were one of the worst teams in the league WITH Nick and we'd be one of the worst teams WITHOUT him.

He's still not a difference maker.

I gotta laught at that logic - sorry Dat. Nobody short of Michael Jordan in his prime would make the Wiz a winner. Therefore, nobody but MJ Prime is a difference maker.

Honestly your not that far off. There about 10-15 players I feel would make a real difference, maybe another 10 or so that have the potential too. Young definitely doesn't fall into that category. Now if Young starts averaging 4 Rebs & 4 asts per game over the course of the year and maintain a high level of efficiency then I may look at him differently but right now he's still a one dimensional player that can't contribute unless he's scoring.

[Ruzious]

As long as Nick keeps up his 32.0 PER, I'll settle for 2 rebounds and 2 assists per game.

[nate33]

RE: Nick

Were one of the worst teams in the league WITH Nick and we'd be one of the worst teams WITHOUT him.

He's still not a difference maker.

In the 57 minutes that Young has been on the bench, the Wizards have been outscored by 24 points. In the 39 total minutes that Young has played, the Wizards have outscored the opposition by 2 points.

Yeah, he makes no difference at all.

[Dat2U]

RE: Nick

Were one of the worst teams in the league WITH Nick and we'd be one of the worst teams WITHOUT him.

He's still not a difference maker.

In the 57 minutes that Young has been on the bench, the Wizards have been outscored by 24 points. In the 39 total minutes that Young has played, the Wizards have outscored the opposition by 2 points.

Yeah, he makes no difference at all.

Oh come Nate! As a stats guy you know that you can't rely on a sample size that small. Plus/minus numbers can be influenced by numerous factors beyond one player's performance.

[nate33]

The point is, we are not one of the worst teams with Young in the game. It should be pretty clear when you watch those first two games. Young provides the one thing we lack desperately, outside shooting. Now it's arguable that there are other guys out there who could step in and provide what Young provides, but they're certainly not on this roster right now.

I just don't understand why you and Nivek continue to denigrate Young's contribution simply because he's not a great passer. Young scores on high volume with efficiency and he defends. These qualities are not easy to find. The stats show that Young has helped out our team dramatically. In 2 of the last 3 years, plus this year, Young has favorably impacted our on/off differential. Last year's numbers, which showed only a marginal impact, are skewed because he played hurt for his last 12 games (all losses). He had a substantially positive on/off differential when healthy.

I'm not saying Young was worth $9M a year. I agree with EG's decision to turn that down and sign him to the QO. But I maintain that he is worth a full MLE contract and perhaps a bit more. I'd pay him $6M a year without complaint. The guy is legit.

[pancakes3]

small sample sizes are mitigated by large results. if you ate peanuts for the very first time in your life and went into anaphylactic shock, you wouldn't be harping on the small sample size of whether or not you're allergic. plus, from the eye test we're clearly a much better team with nick in instead of crawford. to say that nick has zero impact strikes to me as a bit silly.

[7-Day Dray]

I just don't understand why you and Nivek continue to denigrate Young's contribution simply because he's not a great passer. Young scores on high volume with efficiency and he defends. These qualities are not easy to find. The stats show that Young has helped out our team dramatically. In 2 of the last 3 years, plus this year, Young has favorably impacted our on/off differential. Last year's numbers, which showed only a marginal impact, are skewed because he played hurt for his last 12 games (all losses). He had a substantially positive on/off differential when healthy.

+1 It seems like some of you guys are interested in feeding your agenda instead of looking at the facts. If you don't think that Nick made a difference for us after coming in for Crawford, you're silly and lying to yourself.

[fishercob]

The point is, we are not one of the worst teams with Young in the game. It should be pretty clear when you watch those first two games. Young provides the one thing we lack desperately, outside shooting. Now it's arguable that there are other guys out there who could step in and provide what Young provides, but they're certainly not on this roster right now.

I just don't understand why you and Nivek continue to denigrate Young's contribution simply because he's not a great passer. Young scores on high volume with efficiency and he defends. These qualities are not easy to find. The stats show that Young has helped out our team dramatically. In 2 of the last 3 years, plus this year, Young has favorably impacted our on/off differential. Last year's numbers, which showed only a marginal impact, are skewed because he played hurt for his last 12 games (all losses). He had a substantially positive on/off differential when healthy.

I'm not saying Young was worth $9M a year. I agree with EG's decision to turn that down and sign him to the QO. But I maintain that he is worth a full MLE contract and perhaps a bit more. I'd pay him $6M a year without complaint. The guy is legit.

If Young keeps scoring 21 points on 12 shots, he's going to get paid by someone, probably us.

I completely agree that Young should be starting and playing heavy minutes at the two. We have no other viable options.

At the same time, I would be very cautious about tying up big longterm money for a specialist when we have so many glaring needs top to bottom. If we were the Bulls or the Grizz and just needed some perimeter shooting and scoring, then okay fine pay the man. But saying Nick has "helped our team dramatically" and citing his on/off is damning with faint praise. Our reserves have been consistently terrible, as have many of our starters. He's not good enough that he;s been able to elevate us to anything other than a very crappy team. Not saying that to denigrate hi,. Just taking the big picture view and concerned about opportunity costs.

[dobrojim]

gonna jump in and say Kev doesn't have an agenda (as best I can tell)
other than trying to understand what's happening as best he can.

Small sample size to be sure, but pretty dramatic difference in
results (although ultimately still losses) when N1 plays vs when
he doesn't.

[dandridge 10]

The point is, we are not one of the worst teams with Young in the game. It should be pretty clear when you watch those first two games. Young provides the one thing we lack desperately, outside shooting. Now it's arguable that there are other guys out there who could step in and provide what Young provides, but they're certainly not on this roster right now.

I just don't understand why you and Nivek continue to denigrate Young's contribution simply because he's not a great passer. Young scores on high volume with efficiency and he defends. These qualities are not easy to find. The stats show that Young has helped out our team dramatically. In 2 of the last 3 years, plus this year, Young has favorably impacted our on/off differential. Last year's numbers, which showed only a marginal impact, are skewed because he played hurt for his last 12 games (all losses). He had a substantially positive on/off differential when healthy.

I'm not saying Young was worth $9M a year. I agree with EG's decision to turn that down and sign him to the QO. But I maintain that he is worth a full MLE contract and perhaps a bit more. I'd pay him $6M a year without complaint. The guy is legit.

If Young keeps scoring 21 points on 12 shots, he's going to get paid by someone, probably us.

I completely agree that Young should be starting and playing heavy minutes at the two. We have no other viable options.

At the same time, I would be very cautious about tying up big longterm money for a specialist when we have so many glaring needs top to bottom. If we were the Bulls or the Grizz and just needed some perimeter shooting and scoring, then okay fine pay the man. But saying Nick has "helped our team dramatically" and citing his on/off is damning with faint praise. Our reserves have been consistently terrible, as have many of our starters. He's not good enough that he;s been able to elevate us to anything other than a very crappy team. Not saying that to denigrate hi,. Just taking the big picture view and concerned about opportunity costs.

+1. I don't hear many people claiming that this current team is not better with Young on the floor. The team is clearly better with NY for the simple fact that no one else can put the ball in the basket and the team is horrrible to begin with. However, in terms of how much Young should get paid going foward, I think the question has to be, is Young the type of player that, with other pieces, can be a starter on a contending team. I personally don't think he brings enough to the table to be that player, and at best, he can be an instant spark off the bench in a Vinnie Johsnon type of role. Unless he proves to everyone that he can do more than fill the basket up playing one on five when no one else can score, I think Young should be paid as a decent 6th or 7th man of the bench and not as a starter. To me that is about the mid level exception.

[hands11]

One thing I said last season was consider trading John Wall for Kyrie Irving and a top-4 or 5 pick.


CCJ

Not sure which of us said that first but yes, that was something I was interested in.

And Brooks and J Harper were big targets for me for the team. I promoted the idea of trading down and getting more picks. I said Brooks was a Nick with a brain player.

But it didnt happen so moving right along right ? We have the Jesely man and Singleton so I'm on board for hoping they are difference makers. I think there were a lot of good picks in that draft. Lots of teams are going to benefit from it.

As for Nick. It is what is usually is around here. Some people are going to look backward and not give him props until it is proven and some and going to project a positive outcome. Time will tell what actually happens.

But GMs have to balance those things with a eye toward what someone will be. That is how you get players signed cheap. You have to take a gamble. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But waiting till they have proven everything usually leads to really expensive contracts. Everything is a risk.

[tontoz]

I have a question for the "Nick can't be a starter on a contender" crowd.

What teams have 5 starters better than Nick?

[Dat2U]

The point is, we are not one of the worst teams with Young in the game. It should be pretty clear when you watch those first two games. Young provides the one thing we lack desperately, outside shooting. Now it's arguable that there are other guys out there who could step in and provide what Young provides, but they're certainly not on this roster right now.

I just don't understand why you and Nivek continue to denigrate Young's contribution simply because he's not a great passer. Young scores on high volume with efficiency and he defends. These qualities are not easy to find. The stats show that Young has helped out our team dramatically. In 2 of the last 3 years, plus this year, Young has favorably impacted our on/off differential. Last year's numbers, which showed only a marginal impact, are skewed because he played hurt for his last 12 games (all losses). He had a substantially positive on/off differential when healthy.

I'm not saying Young was worth $9M a year. I agree with EG's decision to turn that down and sign him to the QO. But I maintain that he is worth a full MLE contract and perhaps a bit more. I'd pay him $6M a year without complaint. The guy is legit.

It's not that he's "not a great passer", it's that last year he was one spot from being DEAD LAST among qualified SGs (77 out of 78) in assist percentage. He's a terrible passer. Last night's 4 assists were an abberation based on previous performance. Now if he he keeps that up, then certainly I'd view him a bit differently.

Secondly, he's a terrible rebounder. Not a below average rebounder, a terrible one. Last year he tied for 64th out of 78 qualified SGs in rebound rate. With the likes of 6-1 Monta Ellis and 6-3 Kirk Hinrich, who both spend significant time at PG.

Finally, his individual defense has been impressive at times, but defense is much more than locking your own man down. It's about playing team defense and Nick struggles within team concepts often getting lost or being late in his rotations. I wouldn't say he's a bad defender but I wouldn't say he's a very good one either.

Right now Nick is looking real good because were terribly deficient in the one skill he has. That doesn't make him an automatic keeper. It just means we really need some better players.

[Nivek]

I think dat pretty much summarized my thinking on Young.