The Amazingly Suck Theodore Leonsis Thread

[Nivek]

"The Plan" was to "rebuild through youth and the draft and become a contending team."

If you don't do a good job executing a plan, or if you deviate from it (and in particular endanger the goal to "become a contending team") why would you not be criticized? And the Wizards qualify in spades on both counts.

1. We made 3 mediocre drafting decisions in 2011. Vesely could turn out a pretty good player, and this would still be true. If you want to "rebuild through... the draft", I'm sorry but you must draft well. We had the opportunity to pick Kawhi Leonard, Kenneth Faried, and, in Round 2, any one of several better college players than Shelvin Mack.

We'd be a heck of a lot better team w/ Leonard, Faried and e.g. Chandler Parsons than we are w/ Ves, Singleton and Mack.

Then came 2012, a draft that had @10-12 guys in it who'd laid out for the '11 draft, anticipating the lockout. This meant that at #32, we could take a guy who might have gone in the low-mid twenties of round 1 most years -- but we'd be getting him w/ little risk (no need for a long-term guaranteed) -- and at #46 we'd get a guy who most years might well have gone #36; another low-cost, low-risk, high-upside asset for a team "rebuilding around youth."

Instead, we took a guy who isn't (and may never be) ready to play in the league at 32, and we threw #46 in as if it was of no value at all. Finally, when we could clearly have given a camp shot at backup point guard to a young player like Machado who had a great senior season, instead we signed proven nonentity A.J. Price and proven even worse nonentity Jannero Pargo.

2. We had a couple of bad seasons, and Ted blinked. We went all in on a desperate attempt to attain mediocrity, throwing away our cap flexibility in the process, by trading for Okafor and Ariza. We also showed that we thought no FA in his right mind would choose to play for the Wizards. Gutless.

We may win 40+ games this year; we'll "compete with anyone when we're healthy" (anyone remember that Grunfield mantra from his last go-around building a mediocre team?). But we'll do it at the cost of putting in place the pieces that might make us an actual title contender.

It's the start of the season, and I'm ready to enjoy being hopeful and enthusiastic. But we're back to the old Ernie Grunfield type of team. The dream that a new owner would turn us into a top-shelf NBA franchise is over. At least for a few years. At best, it might return if Ernie were gone. But he's not gone. Far from it. Ted seems to think he's done a heck of a job.

+1

Agreed across the board. The Wiz were in position to continue building a team that could have a chance of contending for a championship in 2-3 years if they made smart personnel decisions. They've essentially flushed that. There's no cap flexibility for the foreseeable future -- unless they blow up the team again in a couple years. And the personnel decisions are STILL being made by Ernie, who's idea of innovative, creative thinking was stuff like signing Darius Songaila to a bad defensive team so that he could play pick & pop with Antonio Daniels.

I'd honestly feel more optimistic about the season if folks would spend less time serving up the team's PR turd and pretending like it's a Snickers bar. I'm going to try my best to enjoy the team. But, man I am tired of hearing disingenuous PR claptrap from Ted and Ernie.

[badinage]

Their salaries are high, and make people view them as more meaningful acquisitions than they are. The fact that they may end up starting this year, also makes people view them that way. But they are not core pieces. .

But the cap space they take up over the next two years could have been used to get a core piece. Now that is not an option unless they are traded for a core piece or they (very unlikely) opt out next summer.

If Wall and Vesely, or Wall and Vesely and Seraphin show measurable growth and improvement, you will not look back next year and say: Hmm, that trade was a good one. You will say: Christ, if only we had had cap room, look where we would be now.

Having cap space would not have brought us a core piece. It would have brought us a player or two along the lines of Okafor and Ariza -- solid, smart vets.

But hey, it's Door No. 3, the Mystery Door, and of course the door you don't know is always better than the door you do know.

[doclinkin]

So the original Caps-based plan was as follows:

1. Ask yourself the big question: "Can this team--as constructed--ever win a championship?" If the answer is yes -- stay the course and try to find the right formula -- if the answer is no, then plan to rebuild. Don't fake it--really do the analytics and be brutally honest. Once you have your answer, develop the game plan to try to REALLY win a championship. Always run away from experts that say, "We are just one player away." Recognize there is no easy and fast systemic fix. It will be a bumpy ride--have confidence in the plan--"trust and verify: the progress -- but don't deviate from the plan."

2. Once you make the decision to rebuild--be transparent. Articulate the plan and sell it loudly and proudly to all constituencies, the media, the organization, the fans, your partners, family and anyone who will listen. Agree to what makes for a successful rebuild--in our case it is "a great young team with upside that can make the playoffs for a decade and win a Stanley Cup or two."

3. Once you decide to rebuild--bring the house down to the foundation--be consistent with your plan--and with your asks--we always sought to get "a pick and a prospect" in all of our trades. We believed that volume would yield better results than precision. We decided to trade multiple stars at their prime or peak to get a large volume of young players. Young players will get better as they age, so you have built in upside. Youngsters push vets to play better to keep their jobs, and they stay healthier, and they are more fun--less jaded by pro sports.

4. Commit to building around the draft. Invest in scouting, development, and a system. Articulate that system and stay with it so that all players feel comfortable-- know the language-- know what is expected of them-- read the Oriole Way*. It worked and it is a great tutorial. Draft players that fit the system, not the best player. Draft the best player for the system. Don't deviate or get seduced by agents, media demands, or by just stats or hype. Envision how this player will slide into your system.

5. Be patient with young players-- throw them in the pool to see if they can swim. Believe in them. Show them loyalty. Re-sign the best young players to long term high priced deals. Show the players you are very loyal to them as compared to free agents who achieved highly for another team. Teach them. Celebrate their successes. Use failures as a way to teach and improve. Coaches must be tough but kind to build confidence.

6. Make sure the GM, coach, owner and business folks are on the EXACT same page as to deliverables, metrics of success, ultimate goal, process and measured outcomes. Always meet to discuss analytics and don't be afraid of the truth that the numbers reveal. Manage to outcomes. Manage to let the GM and coach NOT be afraid of taking risks, and make sure there are no surprises. Over communicate. Act like an ethnic family--battle around the dinner table--never in public. Be tight as a team. Protect and enhance each other. Let the right people do their jobs.

7. No jerks allowed. Implement a no jerk policy. Draft and develop and keep high character people. Team chemistry is vital to success. Make sure the best and highest paid players are coachable, show respect to the system, want to be in the city, love to welcome new, young players to the team, have respect for the fan base, show joy in their occupation, get the system, believe in the coaches, have fun in practice, and want to be gym rats. Dump quickly distractions. Life is too short to drink bad wine.

8. Add veterans to the team via shorter term deals as free agents. Signing long-term, expensive deals for vets is very risky. We try to add vets to the mix for two year or three year deals. They fill in around our young core. They are very important for leadership, but they must complement the young core (NOT try to overtake them or be paid more than them). Identify and protect the core. Add veterans to complement them, not visa versa.

9. Measure and improve. Have shared metrics--know what the progress is--and where it ranks on the timeline-- be honest in all appraisals; don't be afraid to trade young assets for other draft picks to build back end backlog-- know the aging of contracts-- protect "optionality" to make trades at deadlines or in off season; never get in cap jail. Having dry powder is very important to make needed moves.

10. Never settle--never rest--keep on improving. Around the edges to the plan, have monthly, quarterly and annual check ups. Refresh the plan when needed but for the right reasons-- "how are we doing against our metrics of success and where are we on our path to a championship." Never listen to bloggers, media, so called experts--to thine own self be true. Enjoy the ride.

In adapting the plan to the reality of the Wizards some aspects had to change. The landscape of the entire NBA had to adapt to the era of the superteam. The labor hassle and lockout stalled some aspects of team development, preventing the team from committing completely one way or the other, requiring a wait-and-see attitude.

We acquired young assets and picks, high talent, and then looked around to realize that no matter our current talent base, smart picks or not, we were not in position to contend for a championship in the era of the superteam. Even superstar talent doesn't contend for a championship until their 6th season or so. John Wall et al would need seasoning and support. But in the NBA you need veterans to teach young players how to win. Winning begets winning; and the converse is equally true. Worse yet, a team risks losing it's talent -- for nothing-- if it fails to improve the situation and convince their stars that they are committed to that singular mission: championship. Or at least constant improvement.

Here the fanbase wouldn't bear another long period of suck. Leonsis caps sellouts siphon dollars from the Wiz base. The ascendant Nats pull from that pool as well. The Redskins maintain primacy even in years when they are miserable. Maryland build big new stadia for two sports.

So given all that, I suspect the plan had to be adjusted. Seems to me Ted kicked the can down the road a few years. Un-used cap space is dangerous. Sends the message that you won't turn every stone to improve, that you expect fans to spend and talent to commit -- while you cut corners and live on the cheap, live off their hard work (fan dollars and player effort). However: teams were still spending this offseason as if they were operating under the old system. And the pool of free agent talent was pretty meager in the foreseeable future. To lure free agents with cap space you have to spend large and long term. Makes it trickier to maneuver long term.

So instead, the team said, let's commit to the short term to improve a few notches while waiting for the dust to settle, setting ourselves up for the New CBA, and waiting out some of the era of the superteam.

The Arenas/Shart contract was broken into pieces. Except Nene the big time cap commitments expire about when John Wall is due to re-up. And surprise surprise both coaching staff and GM are due to renew at that same time.

The late-season emergence of Seraphin and Veseley saved Ernie's ass for another couple seasons. Seraphin in particular since that pick was invented out of smoke and Hinrich. The team and stars' (Wall/Nene, as well as Seraphin in particular) support for Witt allowed him to play out his contract for the same span.

And meanwhile the team did dump high-talent low-IQ/low-effort players in favor of good-character overachievers. Adding the right attitude and locker room chemistry. I'm on record as saying (given good health) I suspect this team will surprise the heckoutta many of the naysayers. We are building a defensive identity and attitude, and will be able to play a high energy uptempo style with depth of reserves keeping the throttle wide open. Yes we have more roleplayers than top talent, have built our bench instead of our starting five, but have pieces that may interesting in trade talks, and have good habits and mindset in core key positions. Redundancy allows for flexibility to make moves, even if it does perhaps reduce the value of key pieces, it may also preserve the mystery of young talent.

Given all that, I think the trade for Nene is the only violation of Ted's stated plan. He has a long term high dollar contract. True. And it's a gamble but I think one that may well pay off. Nene played better for us (in short term small sample size) than in any prior season in Denver. He showed aspects of his game (midrange, passing, defensive captaincy, leadership) that were under appreciated with the Nuggs. But he seems an ideal complement to John Wall, and was one of the most coveted free agents of the prior offseason. We got him for two underperforming talents with poor chemistry and attitude meshes with our (perhaps overserious) franchise talent.

Even the lack of depth at PG looks to me like an intentional design flaw. We win or lose with John Wall. If he's unavailable for a period of time, well fine, we land more top draft talent to supplement what he does well. And he can hardly resent the team failing in his absence.

Personally I get the read that I'm going to enjoy the next couple years of this team, in attitude, effort, development, defense, moxie, toughness, gumption, and I think even in wins and losses.

is this a championship contender? No. Not without a few more key moves made and surprising development from our young talent. But I can see where we're headed and I personally like it. Maybe I'll drop the vision in the optimism thread when I get a minute.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

If things don't work out this season (such as the Wizards not being fun to watch and they win less than 30 games):

1. Remove Ernie Grunfeld
2. Replace Randy Wittman (If they lose more than 52 games)
3. Hire Troy Weaver to be the next GM (If he agrees to the next point)
4. Hire Dave Joerger to coach this team

I listened to Ted Leonsis and I've read a whole bunch about the vision, but IMO those steps would make things better in a hurry. The direction the team is heading in is better. However, if you're traveling down the interstate at 30MPH, does your direction really matter if you are forever delayed? The Wizards should not expect considerably different results as long as the GM/owner dynamic remains the same.

[badinage]

"The Plan" was to "rebuild through youth and the draft and become a contending team."

If you don't do a good job executing a plan, or if you deviate from it (and in particular endanger the goal to "become a contending team") why would you not be criticized? And the Wizards qualify in spades on both counts.

1. We made 3 mediocre drafting decisions in 2011. Vesely could turn out a pretty good player, and this would still be true. If you want to "rebuild through... the draft", I'm sorry but you must draft well. We had the opportunity to pick Kawhi Leonard, Kenneth Faried, and, in Round 2, any one of several better college players than Shelvin Mack.

We'd be a heck of a lot better team w/ Leonard, Faried and e.g. Chandler Parsons than we are w/ Ves, Singleton and Mack.

Then came 2012, a draft that had @10-12 guys in it who'd laid out for the '11 draft, anticipating the lockout. This meant that at #32, we could take a guy who might have gone in the low-mid twenties of round 1 most years -- but we'd be getting him w/ little risk (no need for a long-term guaranteed) -- and at #46 we'd get a guy who most years might well have gone #36; another low-cost, low-risk, high-upside asset for a team "rebuilding around youth."

Instead, we took a guy who isn't (and may never be) ready to play in the league at 32, and we threw #46 in as if it was of no value at all. Finally, when we could clearly have given a camp shot at backup point guard to a young player like Machado who had a great senior season, instead we signed proven nonentity A.J. Price and proven even worse nonentity Jannero Pargo.

2. We had a couple of bad seasons, and Ted blinked. We went all in on a desperate attempt to attain mediocrity, throwing away our cap flexibility in the process, by trading for Okafor and Ariza. We also showed that we thought no FA in his right mind would choose to play for the Wizards. Gutless.

We may win 40+ games this year; we'll "compete with anyone when we're healthy" (anyone remember that Grunfield mantra from his last go-around building a mediocre team?). But we'll do it at the cost of putting in place the pieces that might make us an actual title contender.

It's the start of the season, and I'm ready to enjoy being hopeful and enthusiastic. But we're back to the old Ernie Grunfield type of team. The dream that a new owner would turn us into a top-shelf NBA franchise is over. At least for a few years. At best, it might return if Ernie were gone. But he's not gone. Far from it. Ted seems to think he's done a heck of a job.

If we had drafted Faried and Leonard, we wouldn't have been in position to draft Beal. You can't just cherrypick like this.

You act as if drafting is not a wild crapshoot but a science. You act as if coming up with the two of the top three players in a draft -- Faried and Leonard -- is not a near-impossible thing to do. The Spurs didn't do it in 2011. The Thunder didn't do it. The Nuggets and Rockets didn't do it either.

Yes, you must draft well to build through the draft. In Wall, Seraphin, Vesely and Beal, I think it is fair to say we drafted well. (If Wall makes the leap, and Beal becomes a top-level 2, then the past three drafts look great no matter if Seraphin and Vesely stays at their current level. Which I don't think will happen. I think Seraphin builds on his performance last year and becomes a beefier Ibaka, with better O and perhaps slightly less good D. Vesely is a unique player, and on a good team his value becomes even more apparent.)

I think the jury is still out on Singleton and Mack, and we will have to wait on Satoransky. It's lots o' fun to think about hitting the lotto with a pick at 32 or 46, but it is very rare for a second-round pick to become a core piece. First-round picks are the main thing. And we have 4 in the past three drafts -- a point, a wing, a big, and a versatile 3/4/5 -- with immense potential.

I will give you that, Singleton's potential for development aside, Faried ought to have been the pick at No. 18 last year. He clearly would've added to the core, although -- and this is rarely brought up -- would have necessitated a trade of Booker (a trade, CCJ, that would likely net little return as you have pointed out), no doubt complicated the front court, and left us with an undersized (though scrappy and exciting) 4 for the future.

[DCZards]

What surprises me is that from the moment I heard about the trade, I did not think that Okafor and Ariza were being acquired to be significant pieces. I thought they were being acquired to add competence and depth and professionalism. The core as I saw it, and still do, is young, very young. Wall + Beal + Seraphin + Nene + Vesely.

Their salaries are high, and make people view them as more meaningful acquisitions than they are. The fact that they may end up starting this year, also makes people view them that way. But they are not core pieces. The idea, as I understand it, is that they enable the core pieces, since they are so young, to realize their potential -- to become better core pieces..

Pretty much the way I see it as well.

[tontoz]

Having cap space would not have brought us a core piece. It would have brought us a player or two along the lines of Okafor and Ariza -- solid, smart vets.

And you know this how exactly?

[Ruzious]

Finish this sentence: If it makes sense to commit over 40 million for 2 years to 2 players who you don't expect to be significant pieces...

[badinage]

Finish this sentence: If it makes sense to commit over 40 million for 2 years to 2 players who you don't expect to be significant pieces...

They can afford to do it because 4 of the 5 core pieces make a pittance.

In 2 years, some of those core pieces will be making big money, I hope -- having matured and grown and earned that cash. Ariza will be gone. Okafor will either be gone or making a fraction of his current salary. I.e., our salary apportionment will be in line with what we see on the court.

I said that Okafor and Ariza are not "significant" pieces. They are significant, however, in helping to make Wall and Ves and Seraphin and Beal "significant."

[DCZards]

Great post, doc. You nailed it...once again. Point #8 of "the plan" you re-posted speaks directly to the value of the Okafor/Ariza trade.

The importance of building a "winning culture" should not be underestimated. And it helps to have solid, hard-working, professional vet leaders like Nene, Okafor and Ariza to do that. Building that culture is a first (and crucial step) toward competing for the playoffs and eventually a championship.

It's damn near impossible to build that culture with a lot of young, inexperienced, unproven, wet-behind-the-ears youngins. So the idea of adding youngsters with potential like Crowder and Denmon, while appealing, has some serious drawbacks...you end up with young starters, an even younger bench--and 25 or so wins. Not a formula for building a "winning culture."

Posters here complain, and rightfully so, about the big contracts that Okafor and Ariza bring with them. But then those same posters argue that, as a result of the trade for these two vets, the Zards were unable to give a long-term contract to a marginal free agent like Danny Green or overpay (like Toronto did) for a so-so player like Landry Fields. No thanks.

[Dat2U]

I love doc, and frankly he does a much better job of explaining Teddy & Ernie's vision better than they actually do themselves, but I read his post one more time, I'd would have *****d flowers and butterflies. It's not that what doc is saying isn't correct, it's just the way he communicates it doesn't jive with my reality. All in all, doc paints a positive outlook even though were looking at the same picture.

[doclinkin]

I love doc, and frankly he does a much better job of explaining Teddy & Ernie's vision better than they actually do themselves, but I read his post one more time, I'd would have *****d flowers and butterflies. It's not that what doc is saying isn't correct, it's just the way he communicates it doesn't jive with my reality. All in all, doc paints a positive outlook even though were looking at the same picture.

You should see my bathroom. My toilet roll is cotton candy.

[Nivek]

So, to follow the logic here, the Wizards traded away their cap space for the foreseeable future to pay two non-core players $40 million for the next two seasons.

Yep, this is clearly Grunfeldian logic.

Of course, maybe The Plan is to jettison John Wall and some of the other "young core" at the same time the Okafor and Ariza contracts expire so the team can have cap space to sign Somebody Else.

Or, maybe they'll trade these non-core players in Okafor and Ariza for Someone Else. Which would sorta contradict Ted's "now we stay the course and have some stability" comments. But, what difference does that make really considering they've already contradicted Ted's statements about the team's direction at least a couple times.

So, the plan is to contend for a playoff spot for the next couple seasons, which -- if they succeed in reaching the playoffs -- will be a major step forward in the rebuild. Because it's the playoffs, of course. And then in a couple years, just re-sign all the young players who have blossomed into GREATNESS while letting Okafor and Ariza depart. Or re-signing them too, but to deals more befitting their non-core status. Or, detonate the team entirely in two years and start over.

The plan is clear. Now that I see it in the proper context, I'm staggered by its genius and ambition.

[hands11]

What surprises me is that from the moment I heard about the trade, I did not think that Okafor and Ariza were being acquired to be significant pieces. I thought they were being acquired to add competence and depth and professionalism. The core as I saw it, and still do, is young, very young. Wall + Beal + Seraphin + Nene + Vesely.

Their salaries are high, and make people view them as more meaningful acquisitions than they are. The fact that they may end up starting this year, also makes people view them that way. But they are not core pieces. The idea, as I understand it, is that they enable the core pieces, since they are so young, to realize their potential -- to become better core pieces..

Pretty much the way I see it as well.

Its good you thought that because that because it is the truth.

Niv

Your summary is a misrepresentation of their approach and evaluation of the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... kUNY7cFh2Y

[tontoz]

So, to follow the logic here, the Wizards traded away their cap space for the foreseeable future to pay two non-core players $40 million for the next two seasons.

As Nivek has pointed out time and again it is all about talent. This team needs much more talent than it has to be contenders even if the young guys improve significantly. The Okariza deal inhibits their ability to aquire quality talent that actually would be part of the core.

[payitforward]

Their salaries are high, and make people view them as more meaningful acquisitions than they are. The fact that they may end up starting this year, also makes people view them that way. But they are not core pieces. .

But the cap space they take up over the next two years could have been used to get a core piece. Now that is not an option unless they are traded for a core piece or they (very unlikely) opt out next summer.

If Wall and Vesely, or Wall and Vesely and Seraphin show measurable growth and improvement, you will not look back next year and say: Hmm, that trade was a good one. You will say: Christ, if only we had had cap room, look where we would be now.

Having cap space would not have brought us a core piece. It would have brought us a player or two along the lines of Okafor and Ariza -- solid, smart vets.

But hey, it's Door No. 3, the Mystery Door, and of course the door you don't know is always better than the door you do know.

This seems to be the standard response to critical analysis: "no one knows what would have happened if we'd done something different" (which of course resolves to "no one knows what will happen no matter anyone does"), and "get with the program, and stop living in dreams."

These are not informed responses; they are foolish responses.

[payitforward]

... In adapting the plan to the reality of the Wizards some aspects had to change....

...no matter our current talent base, smart picks or not, we were not in position to contend for a championship in the era of the superteam.

...in the NBA you need veterans to teach young players how to win.

... the fanbase wouldn't bear another long period of suck.

...Ted kicked the can down the road...

...the team did dump high-talent low-IQ/low-effort players in favor of good-character overachievers.

...I suspect this team will surprise the heckoutta many of the naysayers.

... think the trade for Nene is the only violation of Ted's stated plan... but I think one that may well pay off.

...Even the lack of depth at PG looks to me like an intentional design flaw.

...Personally I get the read that I'm going to enjoy the next couple years of this team... even in wins and losses.

...is this a championship contender? No. ..But I can see where we're headed and I personally like it.

Doc -- this is a series of rationalizations, alas. It doesn't deny the facts, it simply restates them w/ a low likelihood positive spin.

If everyone is healthy this season (Wall plays 2700 minutes; Nene 2000 minutes, etc.) I see no reason why we couldn't win 43-45 games. We are the kind of team Ernie built the last time around (not in style of play but in level of talent and a continual process of narrowing the room for future improvement).

Of course it'll be fun to post a .500 or + record after the years we've had. And if that's enough for you and others, fine. But it has not the first thing to do with building the best possible team in order to contend. Note that "contend" doesn't mean "win" a title. It means what it says -- contend for a title.

OKC contends, and they do it based on getting lucky w/ one superstar and doing a good job of maximizing the value of every pick they've had, then adding young talent, not old talent-lack: Eric Maynor not A.J. Price.

A team w/ Fields or Brandon Rush (instead of Ariza), Elton Brand (instead of Okafor), Kawhi Leonard, Kenneth Faried and Chandler Parsons (instead of Vesely, Singleton and Mack), Jae Crowder (instead of... pick one of our pointless veterans to replace), Scott Machado (to add a point guard -- instead of the no one we got at #46), and substantial cap flexibility in the next couple of years -- that team is on the move towards contention (even though not all those moves would work out). Superteam or no Superteam -- especially keeping in mind that e.g. Miami is one serious injury from ex-Superteam.

To press home the point that what you write is a rationalization, lets look briefly at "the team did dump high-talent low-IQ/low-effort players in favor of good-character overachievers". More accurately, the team drafted, invested in, over-estimated, re-signed for bigger $$, counted on, and finally had to abandon a number of bad players. That is, our current, just-renewed GM did those things. No way that goes on the list of "good things."

That said, like you, I'm sure I'll enjoy watching this edition of the low-ceiling Wizards more than I enjoyed the ones the roof fell in on.

[payitforward]

If we had drafted Faried and Leonard, we wouldn't have been in position to draft Beal. You can't just cherrypick like this.

That's a good point; you caught me in a piece of sloppy thinking. And, had we not been able to pick Beal it would have been on us to optimize whatever pick(s) we had. Core point is that we haven't done that.

You act as if drafting is not a wild crapshoot but a science....

It's neither, and you aren't making any kind of point -- more of the "no one knows what's gonna happen" meme.

You follow that up w/ the other two obvious variants on "no one knows...", the "I think this that or the other thing is going to happen" -- "I think Seraphin builds on his performance last year and becomes a beefier Ibaka" (pure assertion that has zero relation to anything), and the "jury is out" variant. No, the jury isn't out on Singleton, for example. We have his college career (not a high producer) and his rookie year. Of course he gets another year; he has a guaranteed contract. But the jury is in not out. If all of a sudden he's a different player this year, then we send the jury back out to re-decide.

Then there's

It's lots o' fun to think about hitting the lotto with a pick at 32 or 46, but it is very rare for a second-round pick to become a core piece.

Once you visit that thought carefully, it becomes obvious that it has no substance. It's very rare for any draftee to become a core piece, that is precisely why it's so important to draft well. And why it is so important not to waste high-value, low-cost assets like #32 and #46 in the '12 draft.

Nothing can make past mistakes go away. But analysis can help you avoid making the same ones over and over (add an "over" for Ernie).

[payitforward]

...their approach and evaluation of the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... kUNY7cFh2Y

I detest this kind of thinking. Toronto is a destination for free agents? Milwaukee is? More than DC?

Maybe to the degree that agents take a look in our direction and see our FO standing over our bowl of soup and pi***ng in it. Maybe they do tell their clients "lets look at DC when the owner has been around long enough to fire the old-school under-performing GM the franchise has had for a decade and who has managed to average 29 wins per season."

It's an idea w/ about as much substance as "winning culture" -- another nonsensical notion. Teams with better players win more games. Period. You want to win more games, acquire better players.

In 2007 the Celtics won what, 26 games? The next year they won the title. You know how? They acquired two great players, and added them to a team that didn't have enough good players.

Nor did the teams from which the two great players came have "winning cultures" (did AG come from a "winning culture" in Minny? didn't Seattle win 19 games RA's last year there?).

And what transformed OKC from a 20+ win team into a contender was a series of substantial talent improvements. Duh.

Can you imagine a team with a "winning culture" but it doesn't win a lot of games? Not exactly. First you win (better players) then you have a "winning culture" (i.e. you win).

[hands11]

So, to follow the logic here, the Wizards traded away their cap space for the foreseeable future to pay two non-core players $40 million for the next two seasons.

As Nivek has pointed out time and again it is all about talent. This team needs much more talent than it has to be contenders even if the young guys improve significantly. The Okariza deal inhibits their ability to aquire quality talent that actually would be part of the core.

Wall, Beal and Nene are 3 legit talents.

Behind that, they have a bunch of pieces that fill various roles. Some of which still stand a chance to make it like Kevin and Ves longer term. But even if they don't, they still have time to trade pieces and bring in a big name FA in two years if Nene is winding down and when they only have 21M committed and they have to decide on Kevin, Booker and Crawford.

But for the next two years, you are looking primarily at Wall, Beal and Nene

Given Ted didn't want to toss away money for noting in return for Lewis walking since he was likely amnestying Dray.....Okafor and Trevor are really a non issue.

There is a legit debate to be had over signing McGee instead of trading him and Nick for Nene since McGee is the right age to grow with Wall and Beal. But that debate has been had. Their choice was star level vet talent who could be a mature leader on the court while Wall is coming into his 3rd year. If anything, that is where the fork in the road happened. It was a gamble either way and they made a decision. Now we will see if it was the right one.

Wall, Beal and Nene vs Wall, Beal and McGee

But after 2 years, guess who is a RFA... Cousins. Maybe he and Wall want to unit again.