Trevor Booker starting permanently could fix this team

[dobrojim]

No no no. He's a 20 minute backup who can't stay healthy, is a terrible P&R defender and contrary to what you say, doesn't space the floor any better than Nene.

Just because he looks good against certain matchups doesn't mean he's capable as a full time starter. Line him up against some of the bigger PFs in the league and were suddenly at a distinct disadvantage.

I agree that Book doesn't space the floor better. But he does play better as a starter
than off the bench. At least that is what my lyin eyes are telling me.

And Nene has a possibly even bigger impact playing with the bench.

As I said in the game thread, the question for me is whether Booker can
maintain the seemingly high level of play he has shown for the last 4-6 games.
If he does, to me it's a no-brainer. If not, then I think you hold your breath
and put Nene back in with the starters. But it's an open question what level
of play Book can maintain.

[payitforward]

And that's my biggest worry for the future. I have this feeling that instead of building up trade values and cashing in, we will cling on to what we have and overrate our future. Doc's tirade. Same thing I've been screaming all summer.

PIF obviously has turned to numbers because they don't scream at him (and/or ignore him) unlike everyone else in his life...

Ernie did fleece the Lakers in the Kwame-Caron trade, and that whole Hinrich swinging it into Seraphin trade was solid too. It can happen...

Did you the Kwame/Caron trade was back in 2005?

How long does a guy get to live off the rep of one deal?

Those Hinrich swaps meant absolutely nothing long term to us. I was a big to-do about nothing and said as much at that time... it was poorly executed BYOD deal and a poor allocation resources.

So much for Hinrich mentoring Wall.

So much for getting some long term pieces for development (see Seraphin and see JCraw who got flipped for an unhealed torn ACL and Jason Collins' opened closet).

I don't know how anyone can waste time argueing *for* Ernie; it's kind of amazing. That said, the Hinrich deals were terrific. He took advantage of Chicago's foaming at the mouth desire to look good to Wade and therefore get him and James as well maybe. He traded nothing for Hinrich and a #17 pick. True, Seraphin hasn't developed, but he was a perfectly ok gamble at his spot. And turning Hinrich around for Crawford and the following year #18 was great too.

The problem was picking Singleton instead of Faried, Harris, or anyone else likely to be good. And waiting until Crawford had no value at all to trade him. Hence, it's true in the end that Ernie's good move was erased by his subsequent bad moves. I.e., he makes a bowl of soup, p**ses in it, and then wants credit as a cook. No, not really.

[Dat2U]

Ernie did fleece the Lakers in the Kwame-Caron trade, and that whole Hinrich swinging it into Seraphin trade was solid too. It can happen...

Did you the Kwame/Caron trade was back in 2005?

How long does a guy get to live off the rep of one deal?

Those Hinrich swaps meant absolutely nothing long term to us. I was a big to-do about nothing and said as much at that time... it was poorly executed BYOD deal and a poor allocation resources.

So much for Hinrich mentoring Wall.

So much for getting some long term pieces for development (see Seraphin and see JCraw who got flipped for an unhealed torn ACL and Jason Collins' opened closet).

I don't know how anyone can waste time argueing *for* Ernie; it's kind of amazing. That said, the Hinrich deals were terrific. He took advantage of Chicago's foaming at the mouth desire to look good to Wade and therefore get him and James as well maybe. He traded nothing for Hinrich and a #17 pick. True, Seraphin hasn't developed, but he was a perfectly ok gamble at his spot. And turning Hinrich around for Crawford and the following year #18 was great too.

The problem was picking Singleton instead of Faried, Harris, or anyone else likely to be good. And waiting until Crawford had no value at all to trade him. Hence, it's true in the end that Ernie's good move was erased by his subsequent bad moves. I.e., he makes a bowl of soup, p**ses in it, and then wants credit as a cook. No, not really.

But I said at the time that you can't build a roster through the collection of middle to late 1st round picks. That's not the way you rebuild a team because unless your San Antonio or Utah, the chances of missing on those late 1st rounders (as Ernie did) are very high. It's not just about the outcome it's the flawed process.

[tontoz]

Starting Booker is good because;

-it is a way to limit Nene's minutes
-Booker needs Wall more than Nene does
-Nene can create shots for the bench players

It is true that Booker can be overmatched at times but we can just sub him out more quickly in those cases. I have no problem with starting him. I would rather have Nene playing under 30 minutes per game rather than playing a lot of minutes and then missing games.

It is far more important to have Nene in the game the last 5 minutes than in the beginning of each half.

[dobrojim]

One other thing with Booker. We know he has been quite injury prone
since getting to the NBA. But in college, it was the opposite.

Guys can go through periods of bad luck wrt injuries.
Maybe Book will surprise us with a period of good luck.
I wouldn't want to bet on it either way, at least not a
large bet even with his recent history of getting hurt alot.

[mohammed10]

Read the title of this thread and immediately thought-

Yes, Booker T could fix this team...by starting for someone else

[fishercob]

Whether or not Booker starts is marginally relevant. However, having Booker healthy is critically important because he's pretty good -- and he can play with either of our other two main bigs. I'm glad Book has healthy and has worked his way back into Witt's good graces. That will only mean good things for managing Gortat's and Nene's minutes.

I also doubt it was shear coincidence that Seraphin had his first quality game in eons last night. Getting him on the floor with Nene probably helps him. He;s still a turnover machine who shoots too much and I doubt his solid play continues, but he mattered last night.

I like Booker and hope he continues to play well. If he does, I hope we can keep him for cheap.

[TGW]

Booker is fine in situations like last night where he really didn't have to do much defensively. Garnett is pretty much useless on offense save for the occasional jumpshot and a hard pick.

But against the premier power forwards of the league he is very much overmatched. He's definitely not a long-term solution.

[truwizfan4evr]

One other thing with Booker. We know he has been quite injury prone
since getting to the NBA. But in college, it was the opposite.

Guys can go through periods of bad luck wrt injuries.
Maybe Book will surprise us with a period of good luck.
I wouldn't want to bet on it either way, at least not a
large bet even with his recent history of getting hurt alot.

Nene is hurt a lot also so what's your point?

[fishercob]

I.e., he makes a bowl of soup, p**ses in it, and then wants credit as a cook. No, not really.

Sounds to me like a fine cook who may have some emotional problems.

Ladies and gentleman, the GM of YOUR Washington Wizards!

[fishercob]

Starting Booker is good because;

-it is a way to limit Nene's minutes
-Booker needs Wall more than Nene does
-Nene can create shots for the bench players

It is true that Booker can be overmatched at times but we can just sub him out more quickly in those cases. I have no problem with starting him. I would rather have Nene playing under 30 minutes per game rather than playing a lot of minutes and then missing games.

It is far more important to have Nene in the game the last 5 minutes than in the beginning of each half.

There may indeed be something to this. Even when Booker is overmatched by the premier post 4's (who, by the way, there aren't as many of these days), he still can pound on them and crash the offensive glass. If he's getting roasted, fine, pull him out after 4 minutes.

BUt if you can get 6 minutes out of him before you bring Nene in, get 2-4 mins out of Nene/Gortat and then swap out Gortat for either Vesely or Seraphin (whomever fits better that night), your crappy players may perform better and the team may appear deeper and more productive.

[Dark Faze]

Yeah, reminds me of those championship Lakers teams. Lamar Odom never started but he always closed games with Bynum on the bench.

[montestewart]

Find 10 differences:

Booker has never:
1) led the league in rebounding
2) been DPOY
3) been on an all-star teami
4) won an NBA title
5) been on Oprah
6) dyed his hair some loud color
7) starred in a B-action movie
8) palled around with the King of North Korea
9) slept with Madonna
10) shown me his ass

According to Nivek's audio-telli-o-tally-o-count, that places Booker a peg lower.

[AFM]

Booker hasn't shown you his ass? You gotta start sitting courtside, man. He'll do it if you bring him free food from the tunnels.

[montestewart]

Booker hasn't shown you his ass? You gotta start sitting courtside, man. He'll do it if you bring him free food from the tunnels.

I'm afraid to ask about "the tunnels"

[nate33]

I think Dark Faze is right that we are better off with Booker starting, and I'm really kind of surprised at the negative reaction he has received. I think part of the problem is that Dark Faze made it sound like the starting unit would actually be better with Booker than with Nene.

There is no question that Nene is a better player than Booker and the starting lineup would be better with Nene rather than Booker, but that's not the question. The real question is: given that Nene and Booker will each play X number of minutes, how best should we allocate those minutes for the good of the team? When phrased that way, it's pretty clear to me that the answer is that Booker should start, but Nene should still get as many minutes as he can handle (which, unfortunately, isn't enough).

The reasoning is simple: Booker is a "garbage man" type of player who scores in the flow of a game on putbacks, rolls to the basket, fast breaks, and other similar situations. A guy like that does best as the 5th option - which is what Booker is when he starts. Booker is far less effective with the backups where he is asked to create more offense. Likewise, Nene is a very good player with the ball in his hands, but is a little less effective as an off the ball player, so his skills will be maximized on the second unit.

The bottom line is that subbing Booker for Nene hurts the starting unit a lot less than subbing Nene for Booker helps the 2nd unit.

[montestewart]

I think Dark Faze is right that we are better off with Booker starting, and I'm really kind of surprised at the negative reaction he has received. I think part of the problem is that Dark Faze made it sound like the starting unit would actually be better with Booker than with Nene.

There is no question that Nene is a better player than Booker and the starting lineup would be better with Nene rather than Booker, but that's not the question. The real question is: given that Nene and Booker will each play X number of minutes, how best should we allocate those minutes for the good of the team? When phrased that way, it's pretty clear to me that the answer is that Booker should start, but Nene should still get as many minutes as he can handle (which, unfortunately, isn't enough).

The reasoning is simple: Booker is a "garbage man" type of player who scores in the flow of a game on putbacks, rolls to the basket, fast breaks, and other similar situations. A guy like that does best as the 5th option - which is what Booker is when he starts. Booker is far less effective with the backups where he is asked to create more offense. Likewise, Nene is a very good player with the ball in his hands, but is a little less effective as an off the ball player, so his skills will be maximized on the second unit.

The bottom line is that subbing Booker for Nene hurts the starting unit a lot less than subbing Nene for Booker helps the 2nd unit.

A good and somewhat different argument, nate33, but I think my own and some other reactions may have been partially tied to the idea that anything we do with Booker is going to "fix" this team (and that's speaking as someone who's always liked Booker). Still, there's merit to trying something (anything!) that might make the bench more effective.

[hands11]

Oh course we are better off with two centers of Nene and Gortats quality. Neither may be better then the best, but combined, they might be close to the best combo in the league.

Gortat to Nene or when we had Okafor the same type of thing. I wanted Nene to Okafor or Okafor to Nene.

This was my hope for this team from the start. When Okafor got injured, I was hopeful it would lead to that but now he is gone and its Nene who can back up Gortat until he proves he can stay healthy. Since we found no depth for C in the draft, I thought this was the best way to go with this roster. Even though Nene and Gortat is a nice starting line up, the team is better with depth. And center depth has killed them for years.

PF I saw as a committee position.

Small ball with Trevor A/Webster or Booker/Ves at PF depending on who was getting it done. AH end of bench in case you want a 3 ball shooting 4 and Trevor A wasn't available.

Right now. Booker is playing inspired so roll with it. If that ends, give Ves the starting spot.

I doubt Bookers value has gone up much yet. He needs to do it over the long hall. To many injury issues in the past. A team would pick him up in the offseason like we did Webster. Vet min.

But for now, this is the best version of Booker we have had. The good Booker of old, but with a better mid range shot. At one time, there were high hopes for Booker so its good to see him balling again, finally.

[hands11]

No no no. He's a 20 minute backup who can't stay healthy, is a terrible P&R defender and contrary to what you say, doesn't space the floor any better than Nene.

Just because he looks good against certain matchups doesn't mean he's capable as a full time starter. Line him up against some of the bigger PFs in the league and were suddenly at a distinct disadvantage.

I agree that Book doesn't space the floor better. But he does play better as a starter
than off the bench. At least that is what my lyin eyes are telling me.

And Nene has a possibly even bigger impact playing with the bench.

As I said in the game thread, the question for me is whether Booker can
maintain the seemingly high level of play he has shown for the last 4-6 games.
If he does, to me it's a no-brainer. If not, then I think you hold your breath
and put Nene back in with the starters. But it's an open question what level
of play Book can maintain.

I wouldn't. I would keep Nene right where he is for now. If Booker comes up short, put Ves in there and see what happens.

Bench always needed one of Beal or Nene off of it. So right now, its Nene. Lets roll. Its a team game and its about mismatches. Right now, they starters have Wall, Beal and Trevor A to shoot. Booker and Gortat to rebound and score interior points. Then you can at the 2nd unit with Webster and Nene ? Right now they have Kevin with Nene but they could do Ves with Nene as well.

That's how you build a over .500% rotation.

They have room to grow but this is the most healthy the core has been so now you see better depth.

[dobrojim]

Poor game from Booker vs Cs but the road win streak survived.
The starters don't really count on Book for much more than rebounds.
And the other Trevor, the one that is playing close to AS level, took
care of things and covered for him.