Wizards 2019 Offseason Thread - Part 2

[JWizmentality]

Thank you Brad!! Love this man!!

Haha F*K you Miami!!

[payitforward]

Hey... that's a little harsh, don't you think? I mean... the guy's made almost 14,000 posts....

He needs to up his game - at first, I was thinking "don't shame the great Fran Fraschilla with a distorted understanding of league rules" until I realized it wasn't even the same spelling and variations of it are probably Sicilian for Smith.

http://www.namespedia.com/details/Fraschilla

Anyway, "traded by January" must have set me off. I'd apologize, but it would be entirely insincere.

You could always help someone "up his game," rather than pointing to the door. Obviously, there must be something you don't know too, right?

Unlike me, that is. I know everything, & I'm also nice to everyone. Just ask JWizMentality & I_Like_Dirt, right?

[payitforward]

The more I think about Tommy waiving Justin Anderson, the less I understand why they did it. I can't think of any sensible reason at all. Especially since I assume they could have signed him to an extremely team-friendly 3-year deal.

Why keep McRae instead? Anderson is by far the better player, 3 years younger, etc. No difference in cost.

Why keep Miles instead? Again, Anderson is the better player. Admittedly, we'd have had to eat Miles's salary, but the overall delta is only $1.65m.

I find this a mystifying decision. The only excuse I can think of is that they have a deal worked out with his agent to sign him once the player exception comes through.

Worth mentioning that they have not picked up McRae's option yet; he's still unguaranteed. So, maybe there's another shuffle of the deck coming?

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

It looks like Sheppard is using Exhibit 10 to sign an entire minor league team. An exhibit 10 contract gives a the team the option to convert the contract into a 2-way contract, otherwise, it's a $50,000 bonus to convince a player to stay on the G-League affiliate. A team can have a maximum of 6 Exhibit 10 contracts.

So basically, our G-League team can have 6 Exhibit 10 guys, 2 two-way guys, and the 14th and 15th player from our regular roster (since you can only dress 13 on a given night).

The one thing I'm not clear on is to what degree does the team control an Exhibit 10 guy. Is that guy forced to stay with the Wizards even if another team wants to sign him to an NBA contract?

[nate33]

The more I think about Tommy waiving Justin Anderson, the less I understand why they did it. I can't think of any sensible reason at all. Especially since I assume they could have signed him to an extremely team-friendly 3-year deal.

Why keep McRae instead? Anderson is by far the better player, 3 years younger, etc. No difference in cost.

Why keep Miles instead? Again, Anderson is the better player. Admittedly, we'd have had to eat Miles's salary, but the overall delta is only $1.65m.

I find this a mystifying decision. The only excuse I can think of is that they have a deal worked out with his agent to sign him once the player exception comes through.

Worth mentioning that they have not picked up McRae's option yet; he's still unguaranteed. So, maybe there's another shuffle of the deck coming?

You and I disagree on McRae's value. I can totally understand why they value McRae over Anderson. Maybe they're wrong, but it's at least understandable. McRae is a wing player who can handle and make decisions. Those guys are valuable and can give you flexibility to run different sets and play different combinations of players. Anderson is merely a catch-and-shoot player on offense. You can make it work, but it puts restrictions on the types of players that must be around him.

What I don't get is why they value BOTH of Chiozza and Robinson over Anderson.

[Ruzious]

The more I think about Tommy waiving Justin Anderson, the less I understand why they did it. I can't think of any sensible reason at all. Especially since I assume they could have signed him to an extremely team-friendly 3-year deal.

Why keep McRae instead? Anderson is by far the better player, 3 years younger, etc. No difference in cost.

Why keep Miles instead? Again, Anderson is the better player. Admittedly, we'd have had to eat Miles's salary, but the overall delta is only $1.65m.

I find this a mystifying decision. The only excuse I can think of is that they have a deal worked out with his agent to sign him once the player exception comes through.

Worth mentioning that they have not picked up McRae's option yet; he's still unguaranteed. So, maybe there's another shuffle of the deck coming?

I wanted to keep Anderson, but... it's not hard to understand him getting cut - especially when compared to McRae. The main reason he was picked was that he's a good run and jump athlete who made 3's in his junior season at UVA. He's never been even adequate at 3 point shooting in any of his other seasons - college or pro. And while he's a good run/jump athlete, there's no wiggle in his game - he's strictly straight ahead. He can't drive by anyone. He's a VERY limited player. His offensive skills are nowhere near what McRae's are - who can handle, create, pass, and score. And actually McRae's size and length are similar to Anderson's even though Anderson's a forward and McRae's a guard. Anderson weighs about 30 lbs more, but that's his only real advantage. I know you're a McRae "hater", but he's simply a better basketball player than Anderson.

[payitforward]

The more I think about Tommy waiving Justin Anderson, the less I understand why they did it. I can't think of any sensible reason at all. Especially since I assume they could have signed him to an extremely team-friendly 3-year deal.

Why keep McRae instead? Anderson is by far the better player, 3 years younger, etc. No difference in cost. ...

You and I disagree on McRae's value. I can totally understand why they value McRae over Anderson. Maybe they're wrong, but it's at least understandable. McRae is a wing player who can handle and make decisions. Those guys are valuable and can give you flexibility to run different sets and play different combinations of players. Anderson is merely a catch-and-shoot player on offense. You can make it work, but it puts restrictions on the types of players that must be around him....

It's a fair point; the problem is that there's no great reason to think that McRae is particularly good at those things -- even if he can do them where Anderson can't.

In 5 seasons since he was drafted #58 in 2014, he hasn't established himself in the league. Now, it's true that his 333 minutes for us last year were a bit better than his stints the previous years of his career, so that's in his favor.

On the other hand, Anderson was quite a good wing his first 3 years in the league. So he does different things from McRae, but he's shown that he can do them well. McRae hasn't shown he can do those other things well. & he's 28, so there's really not much likelihood that he will improve significantly.

Don't get me wrong; McRae is not a disaster! But, Anderson is actually good -- & we don't have enough good players that we can afford to let one go no matter what position he plays. So... if we must have McRae, then cut Miles. He does more or less the same stuff Anderson does, only he's never done any of it well, & he's looked totally cooked for 2 years now.

...What I don't get is why they value BOTH of Chiozza and Robinson over Anderson.

In this case, the roles are reversed between us -- I have no trouble whatever understanding why both guys are on the roster at present.

Robinson is on the roster, b/c we quasi-"drafted" him, & he has a guarantee of some size. He'll get some runway. No problem. OTOH, Chiozza is on the roster, b/c IT is unable to play. Chiozza isn't guaranteed, & we have no room for him anyway. IOW, we won't be keeping both those guys -- just Robinson.

Now, if we get the player exception, then the situation changes. Maybe we pick Anderson up again. I still can't see keeping Chiozza along with Robinson -- in that we do agree -- but to me that just means I can't see keeping Chiozza.

[Mojo Amok]

I dislike the Anderson cut quite a bit, but offensive initiation skills are really something you need to have available for a full 48 minutes a night, especially if one of your primary objectives is to develop young bigs. You're not going to get into pick and roll sets through osmosis - you need someone to actually begin these plays from the perimeter, and threaten the opposing defense. McRae checks that box.

With Isaiah Thomas being questionable, you've really only got Beal, Ish, Troy Brown, and Chiozza as guys who have any ability whatsoever to start sets outside of McRae. Then Brown is injured and still finding his way. Chiozza is a fringe guy. Cutting McRae would just put that much more pressure on Beal to initiate and Brooks to play him too many minutes. It could also push the young bigs into bad habits trying to shake and bake from isos too often. McRae just addresses too many issues to be let go given the roster construction. We're very thin with perimeter shot creators.

[payitforward]

The more I think about Tommy waiving Justin Anderson, the less I understand why they did it. I can't think of any sensible reason at all. Especially since I assume they could have signed him to an extremely team-friendly 3-year deal.

Why keep McRae instead? Anderson is by far the better player, 3 years younger, etc. No difference in cost.

Why keep Miles instead? Again, Anderson is the better player. Admittedly, we'd have had to eat Miles's salary, but the overall delta is only $1.65m.

I find this a mystifying decision. The only excuse I can think of is that they have a deal worked out with his agent to sign him once the player exception comes through.

Worth mentioning that they have not picked up McRae's option yet; he's still unguaranteed. So, maybe there's another shuffle of the deck coming?

I wanted to keep Anderson, but... it's not hard to understand him getting cut - especially when compared to McRae. The main reason he was picked was that he's a good run and jump athlete who made 3's in his junior season at UVA. He's never been even adequate at 3 point shooting in any of his other seasons - college or pro. And while he's a good run/jump athlete, there's no wiggle in his game - he's strictly straight ahead. He can't drive by anyone. He's a VERY limited player. His offensive skills are nowhere near what McRae's are - who can handle, create, pass, and score. And actually McRae's size and length are similar to Anderson's even though Anderson's a forward and McRae's a guard. Anderson weighs about 30 lbs more, but that's his only real advantage. I know you're a McRae "hater", but he's simply a better basketball player than Anderson.

Ruz, I knew who McRae was well before you did. I knew that he scored 36 points for the Cavs in a game late in the 2015-16 season. As far back as the Summer after the '14 draft, I thought he had a shot to be a player in this league. So, no, I'm not a McRae "hater." Far from it.

But, in 5 seasons of spot play in and out of the league, he never really made good on the promise I'd seen. Not at Phoenix. Not at Cleveland. Then he was out of the league for a year. Until we picked him up as a 2 way player.

The idea that he's "a better basketball player than Anderson" is... off the wall, as we used to say decades ago when I was young. For sure, it's not based on anything you've actually seen in either player over the years, though I don't doubt that we both watched the 3 pre-season games this year & saw McRae play all of his 333 minutes for the Wizards last year. & it's not based on numbers -- that is for absolutely sure! -- given how mediocre McRae's numbers were. Anderson was a far better college player, & he was far better than McRae for both his first two NBA teams, Dallas & Philly.

McRae may improve. Anderson may not maintain the ability to shoot the 3 that he showed with us. McRae certainly doesn't shoot it well. I wish both these guys well. McRae is a Wizard, so I especially wish him well.

But, lets be real: as Dat wrote, what he's shown in his career is that he is "a 12th to 15th guy on an NBA roster." That's accurate, because it's direct observation & no more -- it's what he's actually done, not a narrative about his abilities to do x, y & z.

[Mojo Amok]

Hey... that's a little harsh, don't you think? I mean... the guy's made almost 14,000 posts....

He needs to up his game - at first, I was thinking "don't shame the great Fran Fraschilla with a distorted understanding of league rules" until I realized it wasn't even the same spelling and variations of it are probably Sicilian for Smith.

http://www.namespedia.com/details/Fraschilla

Anyway, "traded by January" must have set me off. I'd apologize, but it would be entirely insincere.

You could always help someone "up his game," rather than pointing to the door. Obviously, there must be something you don't know too, right?

Unlike me, that is. I know everything, & I'm also nice to everyone. Just ask JWizMentality & I_Like_Dirt, right?

I could, but he's got 14,000 posts for Pete's sake. If he don't get the etiquette yet, what are a few more words likely to accomplish?

And anyway, let's not oversell my sensibilities here. It's like my Gramma used to say: don't expect much from anyone who's forum avatar is a muppet with an axe. Wise woman.

[DCZards]

Yup...it's McRae's ability to create for himself and others that makes him at least somewhat more valuable than Anderson. When given the opportunity to run the offense at the end of last season, McRae proved he could handle, create and get to the basket. Those are very important skills in today's NBA.

[doclinkin]

It’s the team they’re trying to build: ballhandling and outside shooting. McRae fits. The players they dropped don’t. They’re really doubling down on offense. I guess with inflated offensive numbers you can raise trade value of players,so maybe they can be swapped. But It really seems this year that is all they care about: can they handle or shoot. That’s it. And I think they plan to cycle players to the G Squad often, trying to build a team down there that can play a similar style.

[Illmatic12]

Watch on YouTube

[payitforward]

It’s the team they’re trying to build: ballhandling and outside shooting. McRae fits. The players they dropped don’t....

Only, McRae can't shoot from the outside. He was 28.6% on 3's last year. Moreover, Anderson came in & outshot him from the outside this month as well.

But I think there's little reason for me to cause this discussion to continue. Done is done, & I don't want to make it seem like McRae vs. Anderson is some earth-shaking, or even team-shaking, issue. It's not.

I've always liked McRae (& wished he was a better player! -- ), so lets just hope he plays his butt off this year & earns himself a nice new contract somewhere. Seems to me, as well, that Anderson ought to land somewhere based on his Sept/Oct with us. So... all's well that ends well.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The one thing I'm not clear on is to what degree does the team control an Exhibit 10 guy. Is that guy forced to stay with the Wizards even if another team wants to sign him to an NBA contract?

I don't believe there's any control beyond the G league. If another team wants to come in and offer that player an NBA contract, they can do it. The thing is that G league players without 2-way or rookie scale contracts aren't necessarily the most likely batch to produce an immediately obviously star or anything.

The cost is extremely negligible and the advantage is more of a long-term strategic one. The team gets to pay players more. give them a chance to learn their specific system, and get them used to the city. It allows them to call up players knowing they'll be already know the system they have in place and be able to fit them in easily. It also creates an avenue for other players to do the same thing; it might not be a particular player that develops into a useful NBA player but by being part of a committed system that the NBA team is running, they help provide an environment that is conducive to developing players that play the way the team wants them to. In the end, it's an opportunity for the team to show some commitment to developing players over time with a G league contract potentially developing into a 15th man NBA contract for some players.

That kind of thing builds trust with players and agents who are then more likely to want to play for a particular team. Players want to play for teams that are willing to commit to them and that they trust with their development. It doesn't matter at the top of the draft because those guys are getting drafted where they get drafted regardless. It does matter for 2nd rounders and undrafted guys and while stars still run the league, having a cheap supporting cast is still a significant advantage.

[DCZards]

It’s the team they’re trying to build: ballhandling and outside shooting. McRae fits. The players they dropped don’t....

Only, McRae can't shoot from the outside. He was 28.6% on 3's last year. Moreover, Anderson came in & outshot him from the outside this month as well.

But I think there's little reason for me to cause this discussion to continue. Done is done, & I don't want to make it seem like McRae vs. Anderson is some earth-shaking, or even team-shaking, issue. It's not.

I've always liked McRae (& wished he was a better player! -- ), so lets just hope he plays his butt off this year & earns himself a nice new contract somewhere. Seems to me, as well, that Anderson ought to land somewhere based on his Sept/Oct with us. So... all's well that ends well.

Not to belabor this subject, but I do want to point out that "outside shooting" is not limited to 3pt shooting. McRae shot 48% from 16ft to < 3pt. last season.

[nuposse04]

It’s the team they’re trying to build: ballhandling and outside shooting. McRae fits. The players they dropped don’t....

Only, McRae can't shoot from the outside. He was 28.6% on 3's last year. Moreover, Anderson came in & outshot him from the outside this month as well.

But I think there's little reason for me to cause this discussion to continue. Done is done, & I don't want to make it seem like McRae vs. Anderson is some earth-shaking, or even team-shaking, issue. It's not.

I've always liked McRae (& wished he was a better player! -- ), so lets just hope he plays his butt off this year & earns himself a nice new contract somewhere. Seems to me, as well, that Anderson ought to land somewhere based on his Sept/Oct with us. So... all's well that ends well.

Not to belabor this subject, but I do want to point out that "outside shooting" is not limited to 3pt shooting. McRae shot 48% from 16ft to < 3pt. last season.

I actually think McRae does bring something of value to us...and while 48% from long 2s is not the worst...it isn't something...I'd want a player to do at any sort of volume. 55%+ sure but....good luck finding those gems.

[doclinkin]

It’s the team they’re trying to build: ballhandling and outside shooting. McRae fits. The players they dropped don’t....

Only, McRae can't shoot from the outside. He was 28.6% on 3's last year.

He does fill the role of ball-handling attacking 2-guard though. Who else do we have as back-up behind Beal? We are deep in kamikaze PG's but have pretty much only J.McRae in relief in the off guard spot. Brad can't and shouldn't play that ~40 minute work load that he carried in years past.

And as a ball handling shooting guard, McRae will shoot and move. He's got a strange wiggle to his game that destroys lower level competition with the GSquad but has not yet translated to the NBA. He reminds me of players like Jordan Steez Crawford. A weird kinda swagger that translates to buckets and is tough to predict.

[nate33]

Only, McRae can't shoot from the outside. He was 28.6% on 3's last year. Moreover, Anderson came in & outshot him from the outside this month as well.

But I think there's little reason for me to cause this discussion to continue. Done is done, & I don't want to make it seem like McRae vs. Anderson is some earth-shaking, or even team-shaking, issue. It's not.

I've always liked McRae (& wished he was a better player! -- ), so lets just hope he plays his butt off this year & earns himself a nice new contract somewhere. Seems to me, as well, that Anderson ought to land somewhere based on his Sept/Oct with us. So... all's well that ends well.

Not to belabor this subject, but I do want to point out that "outside shooting" is not limited to 3pt shooting. McRae shot 48% from 16ft to < 3pt. last season.

I actually think McRae does bring something of value to us...and while 48% from long 2s is not the worst...it isn't something...I'd want a player to do at any sort of volume. 55%+ sure but....good luck finding those gems.

48% on long 2's is outstanding. Only a handful of guys in the league shoot better - guys like Curry and Chris Paul. The nice thing about long 2's is that you can typically get them off whenever you want to within the shot clock. So you spend the first 15 seconds of the shot clock trying to get a higher percentage shot at the rim or behind the arc, but if that fails, you "settle" for a long 2 at 48% efficiency. Offenses with a 48% shot as a worst case scenario in the half court set tend to do very well.

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

Would he fit here?