Summer 2012 Free Agents Thread - Part III

Nivek · Post #201 » by **Nivek** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:41 pm

As bad as Barron is, N'Diaye is worse.

rockymac52 · Post #202 » by **rockymac52** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:50 pm

I highly doubt we expect him to actually make the team. If he does, I'll be upset. Complete waste of a roster spot in that case.

Honestly, I'd rather have Yi.

MJG · Post #203 » by **MJG** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:03 pm

Barron 's just a training camp invite, nothing worth getting bothered over.

Chocolate City Jordanaire · Post #204 » by **Chocolate City Jordanaire** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:07 pm

Other training camp signings: Josh Childress went to the Nets. He's better than Ariza or Webster, IMO, even if he is not a shooter.

Damion James was a guy I liked a whole lot coming out of Texas. If he has recovered from his injury and produces similarly to his best at NJ, he will make the Hawks and he'll find his way on the court, too. He's a talented player who on paper IMO has the offense and rebounding the Wizards could use at SF.

Chocolate City Jordanaire · Post #205 » by **Chocolate City Jordanaire** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:10 pm

A guy who hasn't been signed yet but should be is Josh Akognon. He's better than AJ Price. FWIW I think Shelvin Mack is better than Price, too.

I feel a little salty about the FA signings. I'm okay with Martell Webster, but I think a guy like James has a lot more upside.

payitforward · Post #206 » by **payitforward** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:11 am

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:A guy who hasn't been signed yet but should be is Josh Akognon. He's better than AJ Price. FWIW I think Shelvin Mack is better than Price, too.

I feel a little salty about the FA signings. I'm okay with Martell Webster, but I think a guy like James has a lot more upside.

Agreed -- I would have signed Damion James in a minute.

jivelikenice · Post #207 » by **jivelikenice** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:36 pm

CCJ, I liked Childress as well but I don't mind Webster as an alternative considering his superior shooting. As far as Shelvin is considered, we're on opposite ends of the spectrum. He's terrible and shouldn't be on the roster IMO. I'm holding out hope that the Rockets cut Livingston and we claim him off waivers.

payitforward · Post #208 » by **payitforward** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:03 pm

jivelikenice wrote:CCJ, I liked Childress as well but I don't mind Webster as an alternative considering his superior shooting. As far as Shelvin is considered, we're on opposite ends of the spectrum. He's terrible and shouldn't be on the roster IMO. I'm holding out hope that the Rockets cut Livingston and we claim him off waivers.

Shelvin Mack wasn't terrible last year -- which is not to say he was very good either. But, like Singleton, he gets another year. Last year it was tough being a rookie w/o a Summer working w/ the team and w/o training camp. He was as good as A.J. Price, maybe better. Still... I'm with you that I'd rather have Livingston.

But I take Childress over Webster in a NY minute. I don't believe in abstractions like "shooting" as in "we need to add shooting." You don't add the abstraction, you add the whole player. And you get all the things he does, good and bad.

Overall, Josh Childress is a much better NBA player than Martell Webster, and if you have him you are that much better a team than if you have Webster.

Chocolate City Jordanaire · Post #209 » by **Chocolate City Jordanaire** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:09 pm

For whatever reasons, Childress evokes strong emotions. A lot of people want to bury his game. At the same time a lot of people like Jordan Crawford's scoring ability.

I think Childress had his best season about a year or so before or around the same time Ariza had his best season. I know for a fact Josh Childress has a significantly higher WS/48 than Ariza and Webster. Childress played two seasons at Phoenix behind Grant Hill (Steve Nash's close friend) and Jared Dudley, as well as Hakim Warrick; all incumbent swing men when Childress was acquired.

Childress possesses an absolutely insanely good ORtg of 119. He once led the entire NBA in TS. He can be an elite rebounder at SG and is a good rebounder for a SF. Very early in his career, Childress had the highest finishing percentage in the league--dude can dunk with the best of them. I remember him hitting big shots at Stanford.

WoW calls Josh Childress "The Steal of Free Agency."

fugop · Post #210 » by **fugop** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:03 am

You have to evaluate a player as an individual, not an abstraction -- I agree. Childress is probably a better player than Webster in some sense.

But when looking at a team, the "abstract" skills of each of the individuals needs to be evaluated for fit. And Childress doesn't fit. You can't field a lineup of five guys who can't shoot. It's never worked before, and it's not hard to understand its difficulties. We already have a bottom three shooting team in the league. Adding another guy who can't hit a jumpshot is a waste.

payitforward · Post #211 » by **payitforward** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:13 am

fugop wrote:You have to evaluate a player as an individual, not an abstraction -- I agree. Childress is probably a better player than Webster in some sense.

But when looking at a team, the "abstract" skills of each of the individuals needs to be evaluated for fit. And Childress doesn't fit. You can't field a lineup of five guys who can't shoot. It's never worked before, and it's not hard to understand its difficulties. We already have a bottom three shooting team in the league. Adding another guy who can't hit a jumpshot is a waste.

Not "in some sense." Just a better player. And I don't agree w/ the rest of what you write one little bit. If you add a guy who takes minutes from another guy, and they both shoot the same % (low or high), then if the new guy rebounds better, turns it over less, steals it more and fouls less -- you win more games; you have improved your team. Full stop.

You might keep in mind, nonetheless, what CCJ points out -- Childress consistently posts a high TS% and ORTG. Again, sub a guy w/ a higher TS% and you win more games; you have improved your team.

tontoz · Post #212 » by **tontoz** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:29 pm

Childress is garbage. He cant score outside 5 feet, can't create off the dribble and can't play D. He is constantly ignoring defensive responsibilities so he can cherry pick.

So glad he signed somewhere else. This team has enough fail at the wings already.

I am not crazy about Webster either but at least he is a career 37.4% shooter from 3 and has posted a better TS% than Childress over the last 2 seasons.

Think about the main offensive threats on this team. Wall driving and Nene/KS/Okafor in the post. The most important thing they need from the wings is the ability to hit perimeter shots and Childress can't do it.

DCZards · Post #213 » by **DCZards** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:03 pm

fugop wrote:But when looking at a team, the "abstract" skills of each of the individuals needs to be evaluated for fit. And Childress doesn't fit. You can't field a lineup of five guys who can't shoot. It's never worked before, and it's not hard to understand its difficulties. We already have a bottom three shooting team in the league. Adding another guy who can't hit a jumpshot is a waste.

Yup, can't disregard fit or need. This team needs shooting and Webster is far better at that than Childress. Webster will contribute. I seriously doubt that Childress would earn minutes ahead of Ariza and C.Singleton.

Nivek · Post #214 » by **Nivek** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:39 pm

I agree that fit and need should be considered. But, the whole player should be considered as well. A team may need shooting, but that doesn't mean they should just go out and sign Buzz Braman or Dave Hopla. There are other jobs that need to get done on the floor as well.

And this gets back to properly identifying needs. To say the Wizards "need" shooting is both correct and wildly inaccurate. They needed just about everything. Their biggest need was/is to get good basketball players who do a lot of things well.

jivelikenice · Post #215 » by **jivelikenice** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:52 pm

Nivek wrote:I agree that fit and need should be considered. But, the whole player should be considered as well. A team may need shooting, but that doesn't mean they should just go out and sign Buzz Braman or Dave Hopla. There are other jobs that need to get done on the floor as well.

And this gets back to properly identifying needs. To say the Wizards "need" shooting is both correct and wildly inaccurate. They needed just about everything. Their biggest need was/is to get good basketball players who do a lot of things well.

I agree with your point in theory but its not like we chose Martel Webster over Andre Iguodola. This is Josh Childress we're talking about. I wouldn't have minded him at all as a roster filler, but there's a reason he couldn't get more than a non-guaranteed training camp invite.

Nivek · Post #216 » by **Nivek** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:08 pm

I agree, jive. In a Josh Childress vs. Martell Webster conversation, the stakes are pretty low. Neither guy is likely to play much.

My point -- and I think payitforward's point -- is a broader one about evaluating players and evaluating team needs. I think one of the real flaws in their offseason was mis-identifying a need. Ernie and Ted made several comments about the team needing veterans, for example. Actually, what they needed was maturity. There are selfish and irresponsible veterans just as there are mature, hard-working young people.

For example, Rasheed Wallace, Antoine Walker and Nick Young could all be described as "veterans," but they don't solve the team's need for maturity.

I don't think this is a minor issue. People tend to pursue the goals they've set for themselves, whether they're explicitly aware of the goal or not. A teen who says he wants to get straight A's in school, but then spends 6 hours a night playing video games doesn't actually have the goal of getting straight A's -- his goal is to play video games.

DCZards · Post #217 » by **DCZards** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:23 pm

Nivek wrote:For example, Rasheed Wallace, Antoine Walker and Nick Young could all be described as "veterans," but they don't solve the team's need for maturity.

I wouldn't lump Wallace with the other two. Despite the behavior (mostly techs) we saw from Rasheed on the court, I've heard several former coaches and teammates say he was a locker room leader and a hard worker who led by example.

Dat2U · Post #218 » by **Dat2U** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:50 pm

Nivek wrote: I think one of the real flaws in their offseason was mis-identifying a need. Ernie and Ted made several comments about the team needing veterans, for example. Actually, what they needed was maturity. There are selfish and irresponsible veterans just as there are mature, hard-working young people.

For example, Rasheed Wallace, Antoine Walker and Nick Young could all be described as "veterans," but they don't solve the team's need for maturity.

I don't think this is a minor issue. People tend to pursue the goals they've set for themselves, whether they're explicitly aware of the goal or not. A teen who says he wants to get straight A's in school, but then spends 6 hours a night playing video games doesn't actually have the goal of getting straight A's -- his goal is to play video games.

Disagree on Sheed but I completely agree with everything else. I don't think Ernie's goal is to compete for a championship, although I'm sure he'd love to get one, it's to save his job. So that's where the direction of the roster is heading. A two year run at being competitive for a guy who's working on a two year extension.

Nivek · Post #219 » by **Nivek** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:50 pm

Fair point, Zards. I heard a lot of good things about Rasheed from his teammates. His coaches weren't quite as thrilled with him or the overall example he set. His teammates mostly adored him, though.

payitforward · Post #220 » by **payitforward** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:43 pm

DCZards wrote:
fugop wrote:But when looking at a team, the "abstract" skills of each of the individuals needs to be evaluated for fit. And Childress doesn't fit. You can't field a lineup of five guys who can't shoot. It's never worked before, and it's not hard to understand its difficulties. We already have a bottom three shooting team in the league. Adding another guy who can't hit a jumpshot is a waste.

Yup, can't disregard fit or need. This team needs shooting and Webster is far better at that than Childress. Webster will contribute. I seriously doubt that Childress would earn minutes ahead of Ariza and C.Singleton.

Nope, there is no such thing as "this team" for starters. When you get different guys, you get a different "this team." If you consistently out-rebound the other team, for example, you can still win games even if your TS% (the *only* shooting % that matters a lot) is lower than you'd like it. Ditto if you don't turn it over.

A lot of time is wasted on abstractions that don't really exist at all -- best example might be "shot-creation", as in "X can get his own shot." Turns out that when "X" is on the bench, his team still figures out how to shoot the ball. And if "X" doesn't rebound, turns it over, etc. then that so-called "shot-creation" ability nets a negative.

Thinking that you build a team by getting the right combination of abstractions is how to lose year after year. You build a team by getting the best overall players you can at every position. The better those guys are the more games you win -- full stop: better players mean a better team.