2012 Draft, Part VI (Draft Week is Here!)

fishercob · Post #1 » by **fishercob** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:07 pm

Link to Draft Thread 5
4
3
2
1

FAH1223 · Post #2 » by **FAH1223** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:48 pm

No Barnes. Please Lord, NO BARNES!!!!!

fishercob · Post #3 » by **fishercob** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:51 pm

Thank you to the format-Nazi mod who edited the thread title. Anal retentive much?

Benjammin · Post #4 » by **Benjammin** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:53 pm

Years ago when they ended up trading the pick and getting Jamison I started the ABC group.Anyone but Childress (Josh).

This year they better not use their pick to leverage dumping Blatche. As for whom to pick, as long as it's Beal, MKG, or Robinson (then make some deals to balance the roster) at 3, I'm fine. No to Barnes or Drummond.

Post #5 » by **Rafael122** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:55 pm

Still think now that moving Blatche and the 3 to Houston for the 14th and 16th pick wouldn't be the worse move in the world, assuming Beal is not there at 3. I would be fine with any combo of Sullinger/PJ 3/Terrence Jones

closg00 · Post #6 » by **closg00** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:58 pm

Kind of bummed, but adjusting. I was excited about building on our end-of-season run with a roster-balancing draft of offensive help for John. Now I expect Blatche to be moved for another "vet" and our remaining 2nd round pick. Wall is going to have either Beal or Barnes for a new teammate.

Benjammin · Post #7 » by **Benjammin** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:01 pm

Rafael122 wrote:Still think now that moving Blatche and the 3 to Houston for the 14th and 16th pick wouldn't be the worse move in the world, assuming Beal is not there at 3. I would be fine with any combo of Sullinger/PJ 3/Terrence Jones

Does Teddy Ballgame owe you money or something Rafey? He needs to suck it up and amnesty Blatche, not give up value to save some coin. I have no interest in Sullinger/PJ3/Terrence Jones in lieu of Beal, MKG, or Robinson.

truwizfan4evr · Post #8 » by **truwizfan4evr** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:15 pm

Rafael122 wrote:Still think now that moving Blatche and the 3 to Houston for the 14th and 16th pick wouldn't be the worse move in the world, assuming Beal is not there at 3. I would be fine with any combo of Sullinger/PJ 3/Terrence Jones

If we traded are pick to Houston that be very depressing i rather us keep are third pick if Beal is off the table I would settle for MKG even Barnes who I'm not a big fan of. Before i settle for us taking Sullinger i would just draft Thomas Robinson at number three and trade a big for a wing shooter.

payitforward · Post #9 » by **payitforward** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:16 pm

Benjammin wrote:
Rafael122 wrote:Still think now that moving Blatche and the 3 to Houston for the 14th and 16th pick wouldn't be the worse move in the world, assuming Beal is not there at 3. I would be fine with any combo of Sullinger/PJ 3/Terrence Jones

Does Teddy Ballgame owe you money or something Rafey? He needs to suck it up and amnesty Blatche, not give up value to save some coin. I have no interest in Sullinger/PJ3/Terrence Jones in lieu of Beal, MKG, or Robinson.

I don't like the deal, but it's a very Ernie kind of move. We might move Blatche and #3 for Dalembert and #s 14 & 16. I could live better w/ the deal if they also included either Parsons or Budinger. I could *not* live with it at all if that didn't happen but otoh we included our #32.

Hence, that's the deal I think will happen. If so, I'd happily deal either #14 or #16 to Boston for #s 21-22. We could wind up with a nice haul -- e.g. we might wind up w/ either Terrence Ross or Perry Jones, plus Royce White and either Terrence Jones or Quincy Miller, and then John Jenkins, Will Barton or Doron Lamb in round 2.

Except of course that "rebuilding through youth and the draft" no longer seems to imply young players or drafting.

Btw, imo this would be better than Blatche and #3 for #11 and some Portland junk (Jamal Crawford's option, wch he doesn't pick up; Hickson [ugh...]; ...like that), which would be even worse, as we'd probably pick Austin Rivers.

truwizfan4evr · Post #10 » by **truwizfan4evr** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:22 pm

That Houston Deal would be a nightmare of a deal in my opinion i just really hope it doesn't take place.

Post #11 » by **Zonkerbl** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:23 pm

We must get a high quality starter with this pick. You trade it away and God knows what you'll get. MKG will be a high quality starter, although a bad fit for this particular roster. Beal will probably be a high quality starter. Everything else is a crapshoot.

payitforward · Post #12 » by **payitforward** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:24 pm

^^
All 5 of those round 1 guys I mention above (we'd get 3 in the scenario I describe) have much more risk attached to them than does Bradley Beal, of course. But every draft choice carries some risk, and in this case you spread it across 3 guys, so there is at least some logic to the move at some level.

truwizfan4evr · Post #13 » by **truwizfan4evr** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:26 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:We must get a high quality starter with this pick. You trade it away and God knows what you'll get. MKG will be a high quality starter, although a bad fit for this particular roster. Beal will probably be a high quality starter. Everything else is a crapshoot.

I agree what's up with people wanting to trade down yes having two pick sounds good but we are passing up better players then we can get at pick number three i just prefer if we did not trade are pick at all.

payitforward · Post #14 » by **payitforward** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:26 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:We must get a high quality starter with this pick. You trade it away and God knows what you'll get. MKG will be a high quality starter, although a bad fit for this particular roster. Beal will probably be a high quality starter. Everything else is a crapshoot.

Lets say we somehow wound up w/ Perry Jones, Royce White and Terrence Jones for our #3: do you think we have as much likelihood of getting one quality starter out of that group as we do w/ MKG alone?

Not a challenge; I'd like to know what you (and others) think.

Floater · Post #15 » by **Floater** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:27 pm

If we trade the 3 for 14-16 just to get rid of Blatche's contract, that will blow my mind. The minute you sacrifice a top 5 pick because of a contract that you can get rid of anyways without hurting the team, you know you have a horrid GM.

WizarDynasty · Post #16 » by **WizarDynasty** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:32 pm

all the experts are predicting that we pass on a player with no attitude roblems and has a higher ceiling that Lebron James. Leonsis can't let this happen. We are rebuilding team that has a chance to have the next dwade/shaq combo in their prime. Would be one of the greatest inside out duo's in history. and they will grow together a better stockton and malone. You can't pass on this Leonsis. 2-3 years, Wizards will be a powerhouse in the east not just a mediocre team fighting for 7th or 8th spot who bigmen are physically in decline. With the player i am talking about--we have two centerpieces with youthful bodies and a decade of dominance, not just a 2 year window, but a decade window of dominance.

Ironpanthr · Post #17 » by **Ironpanthr** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:33 pm

We aren't drafting 4 or 5 players. This isn't the NFL or NHL where you can fit that many rookies on your roster. Even if you're idea is that maybe 1 or 2 pan out as legit starters/potential stars, they'd need the minutes to prove that, and that just wouldn't happen.

And dumping the #3 pick just to get rid of Blatche when he can be amnestied is a horrible idea.

Keep your high pick and draft BPA. Just that simple.

payitforward · Post #18 » by **payitforward** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:36 pm

Floater wrote:If we trade the 3 for 14-16 just to get rid of Blatche's contract, that will blow my mind. The minute you sacrifice a top 5 pick because of a contract that you can get rid of anyways without hurting the team, you know you have a horrid GM.

We already knew that....

truwizfan4evr · Post #19 » by **truwizfan4evr** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:40 pm

Ironpanthr wrote:We aren't drafting 4 or 5 players. This isn't the NFL or NHL where you can fit that many rookies on your roster. Even if you're idea is that maybe 1 or 2 pan out as legit starters/potential stars, they'd need the minutes to prove that, and that just wouldn't happen.

And dumping the #3 pick just to get rid of Blatche when he can be amnestied is a horrible idea.

Keep your high pick and draft BPA. Just that simple.

you make such perfect sense i agree with you 100 %. We just need to keep are third pick.

Floater · Post #20 » by **Floater** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:44 pm

payitforward wrote:
Floater wrote:If we trade the 3 for 14-16 just to get rid of Blatche's contract, that will blow my mind. The minute you sacrifice a top 5 pick because of a contract that you can get rid of anyways without hurting the team, you know you have a horrid GM.

We already knew that....

Damn so people on this site throw out trade proposals that horrible GMs like ours would make? Wow that is depressing.