Championship: why not, or how. Strategy, tactics, best hopes

[barelyawake]

Well, I hadn't read this thread until now. And in fairness I never saw Nate's original quote. I do alot of skimming and don't read 90% of what is written here these days. But, I will answer your question. Just not tonight since I got back from the greatest date in the world (with a chick I'll never see again because that's my damn life on the road). The short answer is this. I would call the oversized SFs "gamechanging bigs" and I'll explain why later.

The thing being missed with these arguments boils down to one word -- leadership. You cannot have only guards being able to completely take over a game and put it on their backs -- either offensively or defensively. You need someone at sf-c who can do that -- change the game themselves on a nightly basis. Someone who can lead with their play. We have no such beast.

[closg00]

For all the talk of tanking being what's best for the team, Don't you think we are paying the Head Coach a little bit too much per year to be tanking? Flip has never been known as some groomer of young talent (aside from lucking out with KG). I don't see how Flip Saunders fits the role of a Coach to guide the team as they tank while hoping for High Draft picks. I mean, even if the team were to trade Arenas and decide we are not looking to compete, what makes anyone think Flip is going to be happy losing games? The man has a pretty good overall Head Coaching Record and I don't see him jeopardizing that just to bide time and hope for draft picks. That would be him putting his own career on the line, and may cost him jobs in the future.

The team is built to compete right now AND in the future. Until we fire Saunders I can't see how it makes sense to rack up ping pong balls at all. When you see Tapscott running the team again, then we can talk about tanking, until then we are Playoff Hopefuls.

My assesment as-well. I will be pleasantly surprised to see any rotation that gives our rookies (besides Wall) more than 12 minutes per game.

[DCZards]

The thing being missed with these arguments boils down to one word -- leadership. You cannot have only guards being able to completely take over a game and put it on their backs -- either offensively or defensively. You need someone at sf-c who can do that -- change the game themselves on a nightly basis. Someone who can lead with their play. We have no such beast.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Zards could use a game changing big. Some of us just believe that that player doesn't necessarily have to be a superstar...just a very good NBA player, especially if the GA/Wall backcourt does indeed turn out to be one of the best in the NBA. In fact, there is some hope that Blatche (or McGee) might turn out to be that very good NBA big man. So, rather than trade GA with the hope of being in a position to draft a game changing big or pick one up as a free agent, I'm of the opinion that you wait and see what the combo of GA, Wall and Blatche can do. At least with that trio our chances of becoming a winning team and attracting a quality big man is far better than if we traded GA and chose the tanking route.

[JonathanJoseph]

Well, I hadn't read this thread until now. And in fairness I never saw Nate's original quote. I do alot of skimming and don't read 90% of what is written here these days. But, I will answer your question. Just not tonight since I got back from the greatest date in the world (with a chick I'll never see again because that's my damn life on the road). The short answer is this. I would call the oversized SFs "gamechanging bigs" and I'll explain why later.

The thing being missed with these arguments boils down to one word -- leadership. You cannot have only guards being able to completely take over a game and put it on their backs -- either offensively or defensively. You need someone at sf-c who can do that -- change the game themselves on a nightly basis. Someone who can lead with their play. We have no such beast.

Why can you not have only guards being able to completely take over a game? Didn't Chauncey Billups ride that model in Detroit? Does that mean no one wants a Chris Paul or Deron Williams anymore?

And as for SF-C who can take a game over, didn't Blatche prove he could be that guy before his 24th birthday?

[BanndNDC]

My current strategy/hope is that Seraphin's height was accidentally measured in imperial inches and Young is found to have had a crayon stuck up his nose since childhood. If those two things are discovered then we're good to go right now.

Other than that our primary need is a rebounding talent somewhere between the skill of ruffin and rodman. i hope they use this season to scout and identify potential targets who can fill this need (love?, patterson?) and then actively push to acquire them in the offseason. the following year do the same for the defensive 3. one position/need a year to let them grow together. that's the true okc model.

[hands11]

The thing being missed with these arguments boils down to one word -- leadership. You cannot have only guards being able to completely take over a game and put it on their backs -- either offensively or defensively. You need someone at sf-c who can do that -- change the game themselves on a nightly basis. Someone who can lead with their play. We have no such beast.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Zards could use a game changing big. Some of us just believe that that player doesn't necessarily have to be a superstar...just a very good NBA player, especially if the GA/Wall backcourt does indeed turn out to be one of the best in the NBA. In fact, there is some hope that Blatche (or McGee) might turn out to be that very good NBA big man. So, rather than trade GA with the hope of being in a position to draft a game changing big or pick one up as a free agent, I'm of the opinion that you wait and see what the combo of GA, Wall and Blatche can do. At least with that trio our chances of becoming a winning team and attracting a quality big man is far better than if we traded GA and chose the tanking route.

I'm less worried about a game changing big than I am in making the transition from a " ball dominate SG/PG or PG/SG" to a stud SG/SF/PG or SF/SG/PG.

That is the player were are missing and I see it as not a sure thing that this kind of player will mix well with Wall, Gil and Dray. I see it as more likely that we are going to have to play it really smart and get really lucky to find that player and it's going to work best if we move Gil when we get that player if not no other reason than we may not have the money to have both. To bad Gil contract wasn't a little shorter because there is a chance Gil could work at SG on a team like that but I believe he is going to be to expensive and to ball dominate to be that player. We need our R Allen just signing for 10M after they paid top dollar for him while they made a run. Just not sure his contract is structured in a way that we can keep him that long and even if we did, I'm not sure there is enough ball to go around to have Wall, Dray, Gil and a stud SF/SG. Maybe we luck out with the new CPA or something. If not, if we want to be a championship level team, that is probably going to take moving Gil and his contract to get there. The only question is when do you do it.

I'm holding out hope that between Dray, McGee, Seraphin and maybe Yi and Armstrong that we have enough bigs to get it done. A lot of this will depend of Seraphin. I'll be pulling for the kid to show us something special.

[DaRealHibachi]

We don't need to put a $ sign next to our needed player... We don't need a Ray Allen when we have Gilbert Arenas... I'm sorry...

What people seem to forget is that for our max contract in Gil, we have a potential All-NBA PG and a potential All-Star PF on the cheap... That pretty much balances things out until the contracts need to be extended/renewed... When all is said and done, we'd have pretty much the same payroll in about 4 years, maybe even less... (Gil making making much less, Blatche making more)

And like hands said himself, there aren't enough balls to go around...

Well then why not just use Gil (since we already got a elite scoring option in him anyway) as said stud...??? Then use the rest of our recources to get a big defensive SF with some range to put next to him... There's no need for a stud SF if you have a stud wing player anyway... And we have 2 (Arenas, Wall)...

Oh and a defensive C who's a beast on the boards is needed, he doesn't even have to have an offense...

[Silvie Lysandra]

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_featur ... onclusion/

And there you have it - to me, this is why we have to keep Gilbert Arenas for the forseeable future.

We don't know if Arenas will ever get back to 100%.
We don't know if Arenas can still be as productive offensively as he was during that 3 year run.
But if a three-year run of greatness was enough to project Arenas into a "bronze medal superstar", then imagine if Arenas had not had the next 3 years lost to injury?

The point is, Arenas has the potential to be a legitimate superstar once more. And regardless of what baggage he brings to the table, or the injury risk, the overwhelming premium on superstar-level players, combined with the difficulty of getting them, makes it foolhardy to discard such a player for pennies on the dollar, especially when there is no need to.

[barelyawake]

Alright Nate,
Well, I've been in Vegas, and then L.A., and now I'm going on vacation in New Mexico. So, I haven't been able to write the extensive post that I have wanted to replying to your question. And although I feel this argument has been completely beaten into the ground, your question deserves an answer. Too bad I don't have time to give you the two page post I was expecting, but here's how I see it.

I base my rankings on leadership, talent, work ethic, game mentality and draft position. The part no one here seems to want to acknowledge is the last one. Do you not remember how many years it took Gilbert to get the calls he eventually got? Top picks are expected to succeed. They get the calls. They attract free agents. The NBA wants to develop them as a product. This is a star's league. We keep falling into the trap that it's all about x's and o's. It ain't and never will be. It takes a tremendous amount of talent to vault from a low pick to a position where you get the refs' favor. A tremendous amount.

Now, if I were to write the post I want to, I'd explain how certain "talented" players will never be the leaders of a championship team (and how a leader is absolutely essential to a championship team). Zach Randolph, though talented and a stat grabber, will never, ever, be the key player of a championship team. I'd also describe how teams like the Pistons (despite what has been written here) had such leaders -- both on the court and in practice. And further, I'd go on to explain why I feel oversized SFs (who play game changing defense) qualify as "game changing bigs." In other words, a guy who can cover the two forward positions, or roam to zone off the lane, can lead a championship team. I just ain't got time for that (because each of the sentences above take about a page or more to detail). And I'll be gone for a couple weeks on vacation. But, you asked for a list, so I'll give you mine.

I break it into the following categories:

Post-game changers: Shaq, Rash Wallace (a workhorse in the locker room, killer mentality)

Could-be: Favors, Griffin (leadership), Cousins (like Rash Wallace, could direct his attitude problems into an asset, at least he has a deep passion -- though nowhere near the work ethic of Rash), Serphin (doesn't deserve to be here, but he's a huge question mark with a workhorse mentality), Oden, Splitter (only because he's a question mark, leader and has a high basketball IQ)

Current: LeBron (has played PF), Gasol, Bogut, Bosh (actually hard for me to include here, as I feel he lacks leadership, and I doubt he would have ever won a championship with simply him and a great back court), Howard, Aldridge (leadership), Horford (leadership and dirty work player -- leads both on and off the court -- and is still developing)

Twilight of their careers (though still gamechangers because of ability, but moreso because of leadership and the refs): Dirk, Duncan, KG

Could have been, but for injury: Yao, Brand, Nene

Borderline: Granger (has played PF), Bynum, Lee, M. Gasol, Josh Smith (has played PF, and despite being a knucklehead at times, has lead). Many of the borderline players it was hard to include or exclude them. And none of them will ever win a championship as the leader of their teams. If you would like me to include Blatche here, if he continues his sudden spurt of work ethic (which is HIGHLY suspect), then fine. Doesn't change the fact that he won't win a championship as the key player on a championship team. How many game winning shots has he taken? How many double teams has he faced? How many times has he inspired other players? How many years was he slack in his workouts? How many times did he show a me mentality, lack of fire, or immaturity?

Possible upcoming: Wiggins, Quincy Miller, Christmas, Drummond, Coleman, Birch, Randle... (and McAdoo, Pollard, Stokes, etc). The caveat being I've only scanned each of these players months ago when the draft happened (only read the draft profiles and a few youtube videos). So, I'm not saying they are surefire anything. I'm saying they are on the horizon and possible.

Again, my point would be you can have talented players at the 3-5, but without leadership at one of those positions (and I mean both on the court and in practice), you aren't winning a championship. The reasons are complex, but it boils down to if you simply have the back court running everything, it's pretty damn easy to game plan against it. You need someone at the 3-5 who can completely put the game on their back's (either offensively or defensively) when shots aren't falling from the outside (or the lane is clogged). We currently have no one at the 3-5 who have the ref's whistle or have an ounce of leadership ability. That's why we aren't in a position to do anything for the forseeable future other than first round of the playoffs -- unless we gameplan as to how to nab ourselves a true leader.

I was asked for a list, I provided one. Again, I'll be on vacation...

[nate33]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply to my question, barelyawake. I'm posting via cell phone right now so I'll have to be brief in my reply.

You have grudgingly ceded that Blatche has the potential to reach "borderline gamechanger" status and that Seraphin can't be ruled out either. (I fail to see much difference between Aldridge and Blatche, but that's more because of my lower esteem for Aldrich rather than my high esteem for Blatche.) Isn't a borderline gamechanging big enough for a championship if he is teamed with the best backcourt in the league plus a few more high upside bigs like Seraphin and McGee? I think the potential is good enough that it wouldbe unwise to blow it up in pursuit of that elusive game changing big.

[JonathanJoseph]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply to my question, barelyawake. I'm posting via cell phone right now so I'll have to be brief in my reply.

You have grudgingly ceded that Blatche has the potential to reach "borderline gamechanger" status and that Seraphin can't be ruled out either. (I fail to see much difference between Aldridge and Blatche, but that's more because of my lower esteem for Aldrich rather than my high esteem for Blatche.) Isn't a borderline gamechanging big enough for a championship if he is teamed with the best backcourt in the league plus a few more high upside bigs like Seraphin and McGee? I think the potential is good enough that it wouldbe unwise to blow it up in pursuit of that elusive game changing big.

This.

[WizarDynasty]

Josh Howard in his prime combined with an english speaking Seraphin put us in the top 8 for the league.
If T. Booker magically develops a consistent three point shot with a camelo anthony or ron artest with consistent three point shot--we might be even higher.
Finding the next Tayshaun Prince in his prime---complete us--Like Jerry McGuire.

[barelyawake]

Nate, you've asked me another question that would take pages to answer. I'd love to have this debate with you, but I gotta get packing.

Let me try to respond briefly. My inclusion of blatche and seraphin on the list has alot to do with them being on our team, and very little to do with the actual faith I have in them. Serphin will have to be exceedingly talented to overcome his draft position, and the only reason he has a slim shot is because of his work ethic. Blatche has zero leadership skills and only shown a small spurt of being in that borderline category -- while actually winning very little, continuing his attitude problems, etc.

Now, add to that Arenas' injury history and the fact that he will not be getting the refs' whistle (for many reasons), and what you have is fools gold disguised as a team with "potential."

Now, as I said, I would love to flesh out the above ideas with a three page post. I gotta run. Enjoy the week all...

[dangermouse]

im just hoping that our FO doesnt get as carried away as some posters here and begin thinking that we have anything more than a decent shot at 8th seed and being swept in the first round.

that will only lead to Oberto being signed as our starting veteran C and taking minutes away from Seraphin and McGee.

[nate33]

im just hoping that our FO doesnt get as carried away as some posters here and begin thinking that we have anything more than a decent shot at 8th seed and being swept in the first round.

that will only lead to Oberto being signed as our starting veteran C and taking minutes away from Seraphin and McGee.

Seraphin is just 20 years old and has played organized basketball for just 5 years. I seriously doubt that he will be of much use this year. I don't think forcefeeding him minutes is going to significantly help his development right now. I'd have no qualms whatsoever about acquiring a veteran starting center on a one year contract. Seraphin can develop in practice and watch from the bench for a year.

I posted a Yi for Pryzbilla trade in the Trade Thread. I think a move like that one for a decent, low-minute, starting-caliber center would help us win a lot more games, and that will help the development of Wall, Blatche and McGee more than anything else. It allows McGee to come off the bench with high energy and dominate backups for 24 minutes a game. It allows Blatche to play all of his minutes exclusively at PF.

[closg00]

One thing we can do again this year is to keep 1 or 2 roster spots open to audition guys who emerge from the D-League for potential steals. The Wages of Wins has a pretty good stat-analysis of D-league vs late 1st round picks.
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/ ... ng-result/

[hands11]

One thing we can do again this year is to keep 1 or 2 roster spots open to audition guys who emerge from the D-League for potential steals. The Wages of Wins has a pretty good stat-analysis of D-league vs late 1st round picks.
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/ ... ng-result/

That kept things interesting last year. Could be a winning strategy. But not just the D League. We found Livingston sitting on the curve.

I hated when we would have no cap space or slots to do anything and we were just stuck with what we had.

[dangermouse]

im just hoping that our FO doesnt get as carried away as some posters here and begin thinking that we have anything more than a decent shot at 8th seed and being swept in the first round.

that will only lead to Oberto being signed as our starting veteran C and taking minutes away from Seraphin and McGee.

Seraphin is just 20 years old and has played organized basketball for just 5 years. I seriously doubt that he will be of much use this year. I don't think forcefeeding him minutes is going to significantly help his development right now. I'd have no qualms whatsoever about acquiring a veteran starting center on a one year contract. Seraphin can develop in practice and watch from the bench for a year.

I posted a Yi for Pryzbilla trade in the Trade Thread. I think a move like that one for a decent, low-minute, starting-caliber center would help us win a lot more games, and that will help the development of Wall, Blatche and McGee more than anything else. It allows McGee to come off the bench with high energy and dominate backups for 24 minutes a game. It allows Blatche to play all of his minutes exclusively at PF.

Yi for Pryz would be great. When hes healthy i still think id only give him 26mins per game. He could teach McGee and Seraphin a bit about positioning and timing when swatting shots. And it gets rid of Yi.

[WizStorm]

One thing we can do again this year is to keep 1 or 2 roster spots open to audition guys who emerge from the D-League for potential steals. The Wages of Wins has a pretty good stat-analysis of D-league vs late 1st round picks.
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/ ... ng-result/

That kept things interesting last year. Could be a winning strategy. But not just the D League. We found Livingston sitting on the curve.

I hated when we would have no cap space or slots to do anything and we were just stuck with what we had.

Yep ... overpaying players and giving long term contracts to mediocre players does that to a team.

[doclinkin]

Back to productive conversation on how to win:

I base my rankings on leadership, talent, work ethic, game mentality and draft position.

Top picks are expected to succeed. They get the calls. They attract free agents. The NBA wants to develop them as a product. This is a star's league.

[C]ertain "talented" players will never be the leaders of a championship team

[T]eams like the Pistons (despite what has been written here) had such leaders -- both on the court and in practice.

Chauncey Billups. Low-profile, never advertised as a star, by himself doesn't sell tickets, but is respected by refs, gets the calls, wins.

But the point is something I agree with. What I would say is that there can be fallout from superstardom that benefits other players on a team. Here, in Johnny Ballgame, we have a dynamic interesting humble respectful compelling potential superstar who doesn't cheat the game. I suspect whatever we lost in Gilbert's dimmed luster we can make up for with that number one overall pick. And if the team hits some basics of fundamentally sound basketball (better defense most notably) referees will begin to give better benefit of the doubt calls on that end as well.

All we need here is slightly better positioning on defense from the Bigs, and a sub-rasa guerilla PR murmur that gets the word out that these Wizards are playing tough defense, and I suspect refs will respond, allowing extra fouls. I'd also submit that a Head Coach who can intimidate refs or articulate a position or game the media on this front is key. You have to be able to reframe the conversation to benefit your team and have the refs watch out for the things you want them to notice. This is one key reason why LeBJ was able to get away with his travels for so many years: he never faced Pat Riley or Phil Jackson in a playoff series. We never had a coach who could go productively ballistic or superlatively sardonic to draw attention to the cause.

I submit we still don't.