The 2013 NBA Free Agency Thread

[Dat2U]

This is one reason I preferred Noel. We have a proven 5 year guy with Webster. This entire dilemma would be moot if we had just picked Noel. Basically if we resign Webster, we will be unable to bolster out backcourt which is in dire need of depth. Now in order to add any significant contributors, we have to let our best shooter and locker room guy walk. Or we can resign him while taking a huge (aging) risk with our injury prone front court.

A proven 5 year guy who's actually played 7 season and proved his worth in two of those years. Coming off a career high PER of 13.9 (league average is 15.0). This is not the guy you take into consideration when making high draft picks.

[tontoz]

This is one reason I preferred Noel. We have a proven 5 year guy with Webster. This entire dilemma would be moot if we had just picked Noel. Basically if we resign Webster, we will be unable to bolster out backcourt which is in dire need of depth. Now in order to add any significant contributors, we have to let our best shooter and locker room guy walk. Or we can resign him while taking a huge (aging) risk with our injury prone front court.

You don't make a top 5 draft pick based on a role player who is a UFA.

All signs point to Webster being resigned. The question is are we in a better position with no capspace, a logjam at the wing, and an aging front court? IMO I think our future is brighter and our roster is more balanced with Webster and a high potential defensive big. Apologies for rehashing this since it's been a cyclical topic over the past few days.

None of that matters. It wouldn't matter even if Webster was under contract. There were only 2 players that the Wizards had to think about when making their draft pick and they were Wall/Beal. Everyone else was irrelevant.

[jivelikenice]

Can Chicago take on a S&T? Can we offer them one of our young forwards+ a 2nd round pick for Nate at $3-4 MM per?

[Deeptu McPullup]

Maybe Beno has fallen off now. I saw him once or twice this year and he looked OK, but I remember seeing a good bit of the Kings in 2011 with Cousins and Tyreke and being quite impressed given his rep as a bad contract (which he was, but not the kind that out-gasses like the Dagobah Sector).

I see that was far and away his best year by win share with his TS% having degraded a good bit now.

He's still my favorite on the list over Maynor and John Lucas the Turd.

....my next target would be Collison. I would offer him maybe $4 million for 3 years.

If we get neither guy THEN i would consider resigning Webster.

I really felt he was overhyped on the Pacers and poo-pooed him a good bit at the time......however, he was being sold as a "next big thang" kind of guy and a starter. As a change of pace guy off the bench, I'd be excited as he's real nice attacking the basket without worrying too much about playmaking; your classic undersized burst scorer. I see he's also improved in a number of statistical categories, so I'll flip on my negativity there and say this is not a bad idea at all.

I'd put him ahead of Nate and would feel more comfortable with a longer contract given his age.

[Kanyewest]

Mike James was starting over Darren Collison, and the Mavericks had more success with Collison coming off the bench. Not sure how effective Collison was in that role.

[pancakes3]

+2 for Fish and then some. Webster is a younger, cheaper, and better option and should have priority contract-wise to Ariza. Talent is a commodity in the NBA. Just because your team can't use it, doesn't mean it's useless. Fireselling our talent for inferior talent in the name of superior fit is how teams end up mired in mediocrity.

Huh, what exactly makes Webster a superior talent? He had exactly one respectable season prior out of six before making the most of his veteran minimum contract this past season.

I'm guessing you didn't view him as a superior talent prior to last year.

Well I don't know about anyone else but I was more excited about Webster than Ariza based solely on the fact that Webster has shot 40%+ from 3 before. Last season was particularly good but no more an aberration than Ariza's.

[tontoz]

Mike James was starting over Darren Collison, and the Mavericks had more success with Collison coming off the bench. Not sure how effective Collison was in that role.

He had a PER of 16.4 so i think he did ok. He is primarily a scorer, not a setup guy, so coming in off the bench probably suited him better. He averaged 16 pts per 40 minutes with a TS of 57%.

[fishercob]

Nate Robinson IMO is the absolute perfect fit. Were a defensive minded team that's going to need scoring off the bench. Who better than a guy that can handle a heavy workload and hit big shots when needed?

Nate's not that high on my list. He's 29 and so small that any loss of athleticism is likely to have a significant impact on his effectiveness.

He's not that durable. He played every game last year, but before that played 51/66, 59/82, 56/82. That's an average of 65 games a year over an 82 game season.

I'd take him on a reasonable two year deal, but I think there are plenty of better options for the (likely) money -- particularly since signing Nate would probably cost us Webster.

I think I'd rather have a guy like Udrih, CJ Watson, or Aaron Brooks AND Webster than get Nate and lose Webster.

Good arguments against Nate. I can't necessarily disagree with those points. Two years would be fine by me. But the other suggestions including Udrih, Brooks & Watson are just bad NBA players right now. They don't help teams, they hurt them with their on court play.

So, those are just names I threw out scanning a quick list. It's not meant to be exhaustive, but for the sake of continuity in discussion, let's compare Robinson, Udrih, Watson and Brooks last year.

Udrih is 30. The other 3 are 28.
Nate had the highest PER, followed bu Udrih, Watson and Brooks
Watson had the highest ORtg, followed by Nate, Udrih, and Brooks
Brooks had the highest TS%, followed by Watson, nate and Udrih
Udrih had the highest ASt%, follwed closely by Nate and distantly by Brooks and Watson
Nate had the highest WS/48, followed by Watson, Udrih and Brooks
Nate had the highest usage rate (by a good margin) followed by Udrih, Brooks and Watson


Nate played on one team last year and as the Bulls injuries got more dire, he ha dmore and more free rein in the offense.
Watson played 80 games in a stable situation and role in Brooklyn.
Udrih and Brooks both played in unstable situations for multiple teams last year.

Based on everything above, even if Nate is the best of the lot, it's not by enough of a margin that it's close to worth sacrificing Webster or anything of significant value.

Given Wall and that we're likely to be pretty solid with our backup wings, our backup PG should really be mainly tasked with running our offense, getting the ball to shooters, and scoring when given open shots and alleys to the basket. I don't want a guy whose first instinct is going to be to call his own number. That's also part of my hesitance towards Nate.

[Dat2U]

You lose me when you talk about whether it's worth it to "sacrifice Webster".

IMO, the moment we got the 3rd pick in the draft and Otto Porter became a very realistic option, Webster was sacrificed.

I think far too much is being made of a backup SF when we already have a backup SF on the roster in Ariza and there are countless backup SFs available in free agency this year, next year, the year after and the year after that.

So "sacrificing" a replaceable asset (that's looking to get paid) doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to me.

[sfam]

I know I'm in the minority on this, but really hope we aren't trying to bring back Webster AND keep Ariza. No matter how much love there is for Webster, folks have got to realize that's poor allocation of the limited resources we have this offseason.

Agreed. Unless we can move Ariza, I don't think we should be offering any more than the Biannual for Webster. I'd really like to see the MLE used on a quality backup PG. Without Wall, the way our offense is structured, this whole thing falls apart. We need someone who can step in and at least make it work when Wall is out. Price just isn't cutting it.

[sfam]

I just can't believe the need to keep Ariza and Webster trumps the need for a viable third guard after our start last season.

It doesn't. The need for a quality backup PG is critical. By trade or MLE, this should be our priority.

[mhd]

I'd rather trade for a 3rd guard. What about this deal: wiz trade aria+ves+singleton+2014 1st for Lowry+Amir Johnson?

[Rafael122]

I'd rather trade for a 3rd guard. What about this deal: wiz trade aria+ves+singleton+2014 1st for Lowry+Amir Johnson?

Too much money coming back, and we could just sign someone rather than take back more salary. Keep it simple.

The vet min/BAE/mid-level all need to be used to strengthen the bench. We need a point guard who will bring the ball up and presents a threat to score ala Nate Robinson, we need an outside shooter ala Delfino or a Budinger type to pair with what I assume will be Porter and Seraphin, and one of Booker/Vesely. At this point, it doesn't matter who comes off the bench to play the 4, if you've got scoring options at 3 spots (maybe 4 if Seraphin can straighten himself out and play like a big man) then it shouldn't matter. I'd like Copeland but he'd be a luxury.

We need shooters. Shooters, shooters. Houston sometimes killed teams b/c they had like 6-7 guys who can shoot from the outside. I could probably play point guard if I had 3 or 4 guys who are lethal shooters around me.

[fishercob]

You lose me when you talk about whether it's worth it to "sacrifice Webster".

IMO, the moment we got the 3rd pick in the draft and Otto Porter became a very realistic option, Webster was sacrificed.

I think far too much is being made of a backup SF when we already have a backup SF on the roster in Ariza and there are countless backup SFs available in free agency this year, next year, the year after and the year after that.

So "sacrificing" a replaceable asset (that's looking to get paid) doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to me.

So don't fixate on Webster. Replace "Webster" with "much of anything."

The NBA Finals showcased the importance of depth and versatility, especially on the wings. Battier, Mike Miller, Ray Allen, Ginobili, Diaw and Neal were all backups. A big reason Indiana and Memphis couldn't advance further is the relative ineffectiveness of their backups. Portland had a decent starting five, but a historically crappy bench. Depth matters, a lot.

[Dat2U]

You lose me when you talk about whether it's worth it to "sacrifice Webster".

IMO, the moment we got the 3rd pick in the draft and Otto Porter became a very realistic option, Webster was sacrificed.

I think far too much is being made of a backup SF when we already have a backup SF on the roster in Ariza and there are countless backup SFs available in free agency this year, next year, the year after and the year after that.

So "sacrificing" a replaceable asset (that's looking to get paid) doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to me.

So don't fixate on Webster. Replace "Webster" with "much of anything."

The NBA Finals showcased the importance of depth and versatility, especially on the wings. Battier, Mike Miller, Ray Allen, Ginobili, Diaw and Neal were all backups. A big reason Indiana and Memphis couldn't advance further is the relative ineffectiveness of their backups. Portland had a decent starting five, but a historically crappy bench. Depth matters, a lot.

So are you saying depth matters on the wings and not at PG, C or PF?

[fishercob]

No.

[GhostsOfGil]

You don't make a top 5 draft pick based on a role player who is a UFA.

All signs point to Webster being resigned. The question is are we in a better position with no capspace, a logjam at the wing, and an aging front court? IMO I think our future is brighter and our roster is more balanced with Webster and a high potential defensive big. Apologies for rehashing this since it's been a cyclical topic over the past few days.

None of that matters. It wouldn't matter even if Webster was under contract. There were only 2 players that the Wizards had to think about when making their draft pick and they were Wall/Beal. Everyone else was irrelevant.

Why doesn't our future matter? It's an ambiguous point to argue because it's still an unknown, but I am factoring Wall and Beal in to my opinion. And that opinion is that Noel Webster Wall and Beal is a more promising core in me eyes than Porter/Wall/Beal.

[GhostsOfGil]

This is one reason I preferred Noel. We have a proven 5 year guy with Webster. This entire dilemma would be moot if we had just picked Noel. Basically if we resign Webster, we will be unable to bolster out backcourt which is in dire need of depth. Now in order to add any significant contributors, we have to let our best shooter and locker room guy walk. Or we can resign him while taking a huge (aging) risk with our injury prone front court.

A proven 5 year guy who's actually played 7 season and proved his worth in two of those years. Coming off a career high PER of 13.9 (league average is 15.0). This is not the guy you take into consideration when making high draft picks.

I think we can both agree that his impact far exceeded his below average PER. My opinion, as unpopular around here as it is, is that we passed on the BPA AND chose a guy who's production is a redundancy if we move forward with Riz/Web.

[sfam]

You lose me when you talk about whether it's worth it to "sacrifice Webster".

IMO, the moment we got the 3rd pick in the draft and Otto Porter became a very realistic option, Webster was sacrificed.

I think far too much is being made of a backup SF when we already have a backup SF on the roster in Ariza and there are countless backup SFs available in free agency this year, next year, the year after and the year after that.

So "sacrificing" a replaceable asset (that's looking to get paid) doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to me.

So don't fixate on Webster. Replace "Webster" with "much of anything."

The NBA Finals showcased the importance of depth and versatility, especially on the wings. Battier, Mike Miller, Ray Allen, Ginobili, Diaw and Neal were all backups. A big reason Indiana and Memphis couldn't advance further is the relative ineffectiveness of their backups. Portland had a decent starting five, but a historically crappy bench. Depth matters, a lot.

So are you saying depth matters on the wings and not at PG, C or PF?

This is the issue. Good depth doesn't happen in a year, and really relies on getting a few wins from your draft picks. We've pretty much blown a few years of draft picks, and are now stuck in the position of having only a few slots to fill some reasonable players with. Webster has turned into a luxury right now - one that may pay off in a few years. Unfortunately though, we haven't even filled the key positions, primarily a quality backup PG. The folks we can get for the Biannual just don't cut it. We need trades or the MLE to do something better. This should be the priority, followed by depth at the PF.

Unless we fit Webster in the Biannual exception, I just think he's the wrong way to go.

[tontoz]

Why doesn't our future matter? It's an ambiguous point to argue because it's still an unknown, but I am factoring Wall and Beal in to my opinion. And that opinion is that Noel Wall and Beal is a more promising core in me eyes than P/W/B.

You don't make high draft picks based on role players, especially a UFA.

If you think Noel was a better pick than Porter, disregarding everything else, then fine. I disagree, but time will tell. But when you try to use Webster as a justification for picking Noel over Porter you completely lose me.