Official Countdown Grunfeld Era-2nd SuperStar?

[Zonkerbl]

Lol, ok, that's a good point. And the #47 pick was our pick that we sold to Boston because EG thought we were so stacked.

Although Landry Fields played 37 minutes and is a #9 pick. And Tyson Chandler had 33 minutes and he was a #2 pick.

The team that played the most minutes for the Knicks was a #2, a #9, a #17, undrafted, and a #32 pick.
For us it was a #1, #16, #23, #18, and #27.

Not as lopsided as your original post.

[Severn Hoos]

You know, you can look at the Wizards roster and say "yeah, they suck, but they only have two lottery picks on the entire roster (Wall and Vesely). So even if JV turns out to be a bust, it's not like Ernie's really had fair opportunity to improve via the draft, because we have all these studies showing us the likely impact of a player based on draft position....."

And then you look at the Indiana Pacers.

Granger: 17th
Paul George: 10th
Hansbrough: 13th
Hibbert: 17th

They traded Troy Murphy for Darren Collison. They traded a broken Jermaine Oneal for the Hibbert pick. They traded for and drafted the right guys.

We have NOTHING. When you look at the two markets and franchises side by side it's crystal clear that Ernie has been an abject failure. Hording picks is useless if your draft the wrong guys. Making trades is useless is your big score is Jordan Crawford or Kevin Seraphin. Enough of this sh*t already.

The Pacers make for an interesting comparison, because they are fungible enough to make whatever case you're promoting.

Take for example the draft strategy. Of the four guys you listed, George was the only "potential" pick, and most thought he was a reach at #10. Hibbert, Granger, and Hansbrough were all 4-year college guys, thus pegged as "low-ceiling" or otherwise dismissed because their college exploits came against younger players after they had developed the physical maturity associated with being 21 or 22 years old. (Hansbrough was definitely thought of as a reach at 13, and Granger/Hibbert both "slid" as they were passed over in favor of guys with "potential" and "upside.")

So - the right approach is to build a roster of solid contributors, and then only once in a while (as with P. George), swing for the fences on a guy with potential.

Or, you could make the case that the Pacers are stuck in mediocrity because they don't have any game-changers. Even their big FA signing was a guy who fit the exact same mold - David West was a 4-year college guy, picked outside the Lottery, considered too small to be a full time PF, and labeled as not having enough upside. This line of reasoning posits that it's not surprising a team of mature contributors can make the playoffs as a 4/5 seed, but they're not a serious title contender.

[My response is - if Mediocrity looks like a 4/5 seed, 45-50 wins, and a playoff series win or two, then let us Celebrate Mediocrity!]

The 2005-2008 Wizards were what the Pacers are now, just a bit older. Ernie tried to keep it going - which was not the right strategy even if it had worked. Instead, it flamed out spectacularly. The Pacers have had some luck - if you like to call it that - or their decisions have worked out better than the Wiz' (obviously), but the philosophical approach is not too dissimilar, IMO.

[Nivek]

Lol, ok, that's a good point. And the #47 pick was our pick that we sold to Boston because EG thought we were so stacked.

Although Landry Fields played 37 minutes and is a #9 pick. And Tyson Chandler had 33 minutes and he was a #2 pick.

The team that played the most minutes for the Knicks was a #2, a #9, a #17, undrafted, and a #32 pick.
For us it was a #1, #16, #23, #18, and #27.

Not as lopsided as your original post.

Fields was the 9th pick in the 2nd round. 39th overall.

[tontoz]

Lol, ok, that's a good point. And the #47 pick was our pick that we sold to Boston because EG thought we were so stacked.

Although Landry Fields played 37 minutes and is a #9 pick. And Tyson Chandler had 33 minutes and he was a #2 pick.

The team that played the most minutes for the Knicks was a #2, a #9, a #17, undrafted, and a #32 pick.
For us it was a #1, #16, #23, #18, and #27.

Not as lopsided as your original post.

Fields was the 9th pick in the 2nd round.

[Zonkerbl]

Indiana's a much better comparison. EG has tried to swing for the fences on every single pick, assembling a group of assets who all had serious flaws that caused them to fall in the draft despite their obvious athletic talent. I think Indiana's example shows that a much more conservative strategy that gives relatively more weight to bbiq (well, and actual results on the floor, which is what bbiq gets you) vis a vis pure athletic talent is a better strategy. I think EG's strategy is basically -- don't be afraid to gamble five late-teen picks, because all you need is one all-star to make everyone forget about the four busts. Problem is, EG hasn't gotten that one lucky break to justify all the gambling he's done. The one player who's remotely close is McGee, who is turning into a mental basket case.

[Zonkerbl]

Lol, ok, that's a good point. And the #47 pick was our pick that we sold to Boston because EG thought we were so stacked.

Although Landry Fields played 37 minutes and is a #9 pick. And Tyson Chandler had 33 minutes and he was a #2 pick.

The team that played the most minutes for the Knicks was a #2, a #9, a #17, undrafted, and a #32 pick.
For us it was a #1, #16, #23, #18, and #27.

Not as lopsided as your original post.

Fields was the 9th pick in the 2nd round. 39th overall.

Oops, darnit Yahoo, why not just say what # pick they were? Ok, they fielded a #2, #17 rookie, #32, #39 2nd year player, and undrafted against our #1, #16, #23, #18, and #27.

Yeah, that's embarrassing.

[Severn Hoos]

Lol, ok, that's a good point. And the #47 pick was our pick that we sold to Boston because EG thought we were so stacked.

Although Landry Fields played 37 minutes and is a #9 pick. And Tyson Chandler had 33 minutes and he was a #2 pick.

The team that played the most minutes for the Knicks was a #2, a #9, a #17, undrafted, and a #32 pick.
For us it was a #1, #16, #23, #18, and #27.

Not as lopsided as your original post.

Fields was the 9th pick in the 2nd round. 39th overall.

Oops, darnit Yahoo, why not just say what # pick they were? Ok, they fielded a #2, #17, #32, #39, and undrafted against our #1, #16, #23, #18, and #27.

Yeah, that's embarrassing.

Yes, embarrassing all the way around. I suppose they had a bit more "seasoning" with their starting 5, but then we'd just be grasping at straws....

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, not with their #17 a rookie and their #39 a second year player.

No excuse.

:SMH:

[fishercob]

You know, you can look at the Wizards roster and say "yeah, they suck, but they only have two lottery picks on the entire roster (Wall and Vesely). So even if JV turns out to be a bust, it's not like Ernie's really had fair opportunity to improve via the draft, because we have all these studies showing us the likely impact of a player based on draft position....."

And then you look at the Indiana Pacers.

Granger: 17th
Paul George: 10th
Hansbrough: 13th
Hibbert: 17th

They traded Troy Murphy for Darren Collison. They traded a broken Jermaine Oneal for the Hibbert pick. They traded for and drafted the right guys.

We have NOTHING. When you look at the two markets and franchises side by side it's crystal clear that Ernie has been an abject failure. Hording picks is useless if your draft the wrong guys. Making trades is useless is your big score is Jordan Crawford or Kevin Seraphin. Enough of this sh*t already.

The Pacers make for an interesting comparison, because they are fungible enough to make whatever case you're promoting.

Take for example the draft strategy. Of the four guys you listed, George was the only "potential" pick, and most thought he was a reach at #10. Hibbert, Granger, and Hansbrough were all 4-year college guys, thus pegged as "low-ceiling" or otherwise dismissed because their college exploits came against younger players after they had developed the physical maturity associated with being 21 or 22 years old. (Hansbrough was definitely thought of as a reach at 13, and Granger/Hibbert both "slid" as they were passed over in favor of guys with "potential" and "upside.")

So - the right approach is to build a roster of solid contributors, and then only once in a while (as with P. George), swing for the fences on a guy with potential.

Or, you could make the case that the Pacers are stuck in mediocrity because they don't have any game-changers. Even their big FA signing was a guy who fit the exact same mold - David West was a 4-year college guy, picked outside the Lottery, considered too small to be a full time PF, and labeled as not having enough upside. This line of reasoning posits that it's not surprising a team of mature contributors can make the playoffs as a 4/5 seed, but they're not a serious title contender.

[My response is - if Mediocrity looks like a 4/5 seed, 45-50 wins, and a playoff series win or two, then let us Celebrate Mediocrity!]

The 2005-2008 Wizards were what the Pacers are now, just a bit older. Ernie tried to keep it going - which was not the right strategy even if it had worked. Instead, it flamed out spectacularly. The Pacers have had some luck - if you like to call it that - or their decisions have worked out better than the Wiz' (obviously), but the philosophical approach is not too dissimilar, IMO.

Sev, the ironic thing is that the Pacers still have tons of upside. They have cap space and Eric Gordon reportedly wants to return home to Indiana. Their players are young and still improving.

[closg00]

+1^ The Pacer do have lots of upside left and they played even-better during the playoffs despite the sweep. BUT, they have to hold-on to Hibbert now, he's prime plucking material.

[fishercob]

He's restricted. I don't see them letting him get away.

[closg00]

He's restricted. I don't see them letting him get away.

Sure, he's restricted, but the Pacers are a very tight-fisted org, they are one of the big money losers in the NBA. The Pacers aren't going to pay top-dollar to keep Hibba is my guess otherwise they wouldn't have been angling for Kamen. OTOH, landing Kamen appears to have fizzled.

Hibba is a guy you need for a slowed-down half-court game during the playoffs. If I were Ernie, I'd make a play for him and see if the Pacers match.

[closg00]

Steve Novak was available this off-season, if we had ONE guy like Novak on this team we wouldn't be AS BAD as we are currently.

[fishercob]

He's restricted. I don't see them letting him get away.

Sure, he's restricted, but the Pacers are a very tight-fisted org, they are one of the big money losers in the NBA. The Pacers aren't going to pay top-dollar to keep Hibba is my guess otherwise they wouldn't have been angling for Kamen. OTOH, landing Kamen appears to have fizzled.

Hibba is a guy you need for a slowed-down half-court game during the playoffs. If I were Ernie, I'd make a play for him and see if the Pacers match.

Hibbert wil be a Pacer next year. Happy to wager on it.

[no D in Hibachi]

Hibbert will be a Pacer, but I'd like Brook Lopez IF the Wiz luck out and get Anthony Davis.

[llcc25]

He's restricted. I don't see them letting him get away.

Sure, he's restricted, but the Pacers are a very tight-fisted org, they are one of the big money losers in the NBA. The Pacers aren't going to pay top-dollar to keep Hibba is my guess otherwise they wouldn't have been angling for Kamen. OTOH, landing Kamen appears to have fizzled.

Hibba is a guy you need for a slowed-down half-court game during the playoffs. If I were Ernie, I'd make a play for him and see if the Pacers match.

Hibbert wil be a Pacer next year. Happy to wager on it.

Agreed. He just made the All-Star team, and he's been improving in every facet of his game. They will match any offer IMO. And especially with Paul George stepping up at SG, I think it makes them easier to make Hibbert their #1 target and make Gordon a more secondary target. I don't think they will have enough $ to offer Gordon top dollar if they sign Hibbert which bodes well for us.

[closg00]

Hibba most-likely remains with the Pacers, but they were looking at Kamen just in-case. Will the Pacers pay anything to keep him?

[gesa2]

We reanked 22nd in ESPN's future power rankings, down from 17th last year despite a better cap situation and the 6th pick in last year's draft:

It's easy to talk yourself into Washington's future on paper. They have draft picks, cap space and some talented young players, led by 2010 first overall pick John Wall. Then you watch the team on the court and all that goes out the window. It's not just that the Wizards are bad; it's that at times they seem like a parody of an ABA franchise. Their 2011-12 highlight film will be a looping clip of JaVale McGee sprinting back on defense while his team has the ball.

We rated the Wizards just 25th in players, based on the disappointing progress their young charges have made this season. Wall is as fast end-to-end as any player in the past 20 years, but looks lost in the half court and miles away from stardom. McGee has made some progress but still baffles with his decisions, while Andray Blatche, Jordan Crawford and Nick Young remain unreformed gunners. Meanwhile, first-rounders Jan Vesely, Chris Singleton and Kevin Seraphin have offered little. The only young player making something of his talent is forward Trevor Booker.

We rated Washington's management 27th, based largely on the fact that general manager Ernie Grunfeld made several disastrous moves to get them into this mess (starting with the Gilbert Arenas contract) and doesn't seem any closer to paddling them out of it. Washington will have massive cap space if it grants amnesty to Rashard Lewis and will continue to get high lottery picks, but if its decision-makers can't make better decisions, none of that will matter.

(Previous rank: 17)

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ... 0208/21-25 (insider only)

[closg00]

We reanked 22nd in ESPN's future power rankings, down from 17th last year despite a better cap situation and the 6th pick in last year's draft:

It's easy to talk yourself into Washington's future on paper. They have draft picks, cap space and some talented young players, led by 2010 first overall pick John Wall. Then you watch the team on the court and all that goes out the window. It's not just that the Wizards are bad; it's that at times they seem like a parody of an ABA franchise. Their 2011-12 highlight film will be a looping clip of JaVale McGee sprinting back on defense while his team has the ball.

We rated the Wizards just 25th in players, based on the disappointing progress their young charges have made this season. Wall is as fast end-to-end as any player in the past 20 years, but looks lost in the half court and miles away from stardom. McGee has made some progress but still baffles with his decisions, while Andray Blatche, Jordan Crawford and Nick Young remain unreformed gunners. Meanwhile, first-rounders Jan Vesely, Chris Singleton and Kevin Seraphin have offered little. The only young player making something of his talent is forward Trevor Booker.

We rated Washington's management 27th, based largely on the fact that general manager Ernie Grunfeld made several disastrous moves to get them into this mess (starting with the Gilbert Arenas contract) and doesn't seem any closer to paddling them out of it. Washington will have massive cap space if it grants amnesty to Rashard Lewis and will continue to get high lottery picks, but if its decision-makers can't make better decisions, none of that will matter.

(Previous rank: 17)

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ... 0208/21-25 (insider only)

An accurate and scathing indictment of where we are, I hope Ted's people have read this.
Thanks for posting Gesa.

[doclinkin]

Can we edit the word salad title of this thread? Makes no sense...