Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: MrMichaelLee and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Training camp concerns Part IV: Who is the answer at small forward?


That's a silly question, it's me. (Ned Dishman/NBAE/Getty Images)


The Wizards' strength heading into the season is their backcourt, where they have a three-time all-star (Gilbert Arenas), a former starting point guard for Team USA (Kirk Hinrich), and the No. 1 overall pick (John Wall). They have a relatively inexperienced but tantalizing collection of front court talent that could either blossom or be frustratingly inconsistent. Either way, there is talent with JaVale McGee, Andray Blatche, Yi Jianlian and the rookies.

The area where the Wizards don't have a clear-cut answer is at small forward, where the best candidate to finish the season is a 30-year-old coming off knee surgery (Josh Howard) and the best candidate to start the season is a 26-year-old who has an annoying ability to dominate and then disappear (Al Thornton).

Thornton will likely be given the first shot at small forward, and word is he really put in a lot of work to be better conditioned in order to be more consistent. Without knowing what the Wizards would do in free agency -- they considered Josh Childress and bringing back Mike Miller before signing Howard -- the team told Thornton that he needed to be more focused and serious for the upcoming season.

After arriving from the Los Angeles Clippers in a trade deadline deal, the 6-foot-8 Thornton averaged 10.7 points and 4.3 rebounds in 24 games, including 16 starts. But the Wizards never knew what to expect from him and he had a minor groin injury that limited his effectiveness down the stretch.

In his time with the Clippers, Thornton proved to be a capable starter, as he averaged nearly 17 points in his second season and had some incredible offensive outbursts. He had a surprising Wizards debut against Denver, when he scored 20 points -- no shocker given his reputation as a scorer -- but also played impressive defense against Carmelo Anthony -- a complete revelation, since Thornton was never known for being a lock down defender (he did, however, let it be known that he could do it, if necessary).

Thornton has considerable talent, but the challenge is making sure that his oscillations in production aren't so dramatic. Thornton will be a restricted free agent next summer, so he has some motivation to take advantage of this opportunity.

The reason Thornton will be the first choice early on is because Howard will be on the shelf recovering from his torn anterior cruciate ligament. Howard is the oldest player on the incredibly young Wizards roster, but he also is one of the most accomplished, having been an all-star and appearing in the 2006 NBA Finals. He also comes from Dallas, where he got used to winning and competing for championships over the first 6½ years of his career.


Don't count me out. (AP Photo)

Howard considered joining other teams that are closer to contending but felt some loyalty to the Wizards, who offered him a better playing situation (and more money). He wants to be back in for the season opener, but the Wizards aren't expecting him to be seriously ready until early December. They won't rule out an early return, since bodies heal at different rates (check out New England Patriots receiver Wes Welker) but certainly won't push him to make one before he's ready. With Howard on a one-year, incentive-laden deal, he certainly wants to play as quickly as he can. But with his production declining over the past three seasons, and his recent history of injury troubles, there is no guarantee what the Wizards will get.

The Wizards, though, are hoping that Howard will play with an extra large chip, since he was never able to fully take out his frustrations over his trade from Dallas on the rest of the league. And, if Howard can provide that same feisty and relentless attitude as last season, it could go a long way in changing the mentality within the locker room.

Nick Young is a dark horse candidate to see time at the position. He's just an inch shorter than Thornton and could be used at times when the Wizards want to push the tempo, providing some perimeter shooting from the wing.

Young has been a shooting guard through his time with the Wizards, but the minutes at that position will be limited with Wall, Arenas and Hinrich expected to get the bulk of the time in the backcourt. Hinrich will probably get some time at small forward to have the three of them on the floor together, which would be reminiscent of two seasons ago in Chicago, where Hinrich got action with Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon.

The 7-foot Yi Jianlian could also get added to the mix. The idea of a 6-11-and-above frontline with JaVale McGee, Andray Blatche and Yi would be intriguing to Coach Flip Saunders, who once implemented a lineup with four 7-footers as Western Conference coach during the 2004 NBA all-star game. The versatile and athletic Yi played some small forward as a rookie in Milwaukee and has the ability to spread the floor with his shooting, but the instances when he's at that spot will likely be rare given the defensive problems it could create for the Wizards. Saunders will certainly have some creative options.

As for Young, he's had his ups and downs in Washington. The fourth-year guard wasn't able to crack to the starting rotation in the second half of last season until the coaching staff was left with no other options. The odd part about Young's season was that the Wizards had relative success with him in the starting lineup. They were 5-5 with Young as the starter the final 10 games.

Not wanting to let another season slip by, Young dedicated himself to getting stronger this summer and added about eight pounds. He also got a new tattoo across his chest that reads, "Faith." Like Thornton, Young will also enter a contract year as a restricted free agent, so he'll need to have a big season.

By Michael Lee  | September 17, 2010; 11:59 AM ET
Categories:  Al Thornton, Josh Howard, Nick Young, Training camp concerns 2010-11, Yi Jianlian  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Training camp concerns Part III: Do the Wizards have enough size?
Next: Training camp concerns Part V: Is John Wall ready to lead?

Comments

What about Yi?

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

That is to say, what about Yi as the starter? Yeah, he'll be a defensive liability at SF. But (A) he'll be a defensive liability at any position and (B) assuming Howard is out/not full-strength in the beginning, every other SF option will be a defensive liability as well (to differing degrees).

Not saying Yi should be the starting SF, but looking at the options, he's not appreciably worse than any of the other options.

Which is, of course, damning with very faint praise.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

i dont see the benefit of having Wall/Gil/Kirk on the floor at the same time, there's only one ball to dribble. And I noticed Hinrich didnt seem particularly enthused at his intro presser when EG mentioned he might play the 3 sometimes.

Can Josh Howard get back to 95% this year? That would seem to be good enough, dude can play.

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

At any rate, can you say with a straight face that Haywood is worth $55 million?

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 11:09 AM

Never said that, nor am I saying it now. The fact that he got $55 million isn't a validation that he deserved it and I am not making that assertion.

What I am asserting is that Haywood's value has been largely underestimated, underappreciated, and has been easy to overlook.

Could be partly his fault, but also coaching and team direction also play apart in this.

It is like a worker that has an opinion of himself that he is getting the job done, but the supervisor thinks he isn't. The worker and the supervisor never came to a meeting of the minds. So at first chance the worker says, I think I will consider another job and the supervisor then says, well go ahead.

In reality they never sat down and figured out what the worker really thought he was worth. Haywood had an idea and so did the Wizards.

The Wizards believed and it cannot be refuted that there was no way they would pay Brendan Haywood market value(MV). Brendan believed he could get MV for the simple fact because he knew he was doing his job.

It is a guarantee that Brendan had no idea that it would turn out to be $55M.

I also guarantee you that after Brendan turned the initial offer down that the Wizards never went back to Brendan's agent to find out what Brendan thought he was worth (as in what BH thought his MV was).

You see, what Brendan thought he was worth could have meant everthing in coming to an agreement of his MV.

The Wizards, bad negotiaters, never even attempted to see if Brendan could be had for a price they could live with.

Why??? Simply this. They already decided they would not pay him MV because they placed a low estimation on his value to the TEAM.

This same low balling, bad negotiating strategy stills plays out with this Team, Sean Livingston being another example.

Like I said last night, as Red would say, Are There Really Any Real Architects Here?

So, ts35, I am not saying the Wiz should be wussies in resigning their players, I am saying they do a terribly bad job of negoitiating and determining value.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I also like the ieda of using Young at the three, but not as the primary starter. Maybe you start Thornton with the idea that Young and even Yi add major roles at the three by committee.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Check out this article on Brendan Haywood..

http://nbaroundtable.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/haywood-free-agency/

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The Wizards almost have to add Cartier Martin for a little bit of insurance. I know 3 pt shooting is the biggest concern here, but a help defender is a need, too. Wasn't Booker being considered as an option at SF?

Posted by: djnnnou | September 17, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

So, ts35, I am not saying the Wiz should be wussies in resigning their players, I am saying they do a terribly bad job of negoitiating and determining value.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD

There's team value and economic value and the two don't always coincide. Sure, having a legit, veteran center with a little heft would be nice, but despite your 'guarantees', BTH, his agent and the Wiz knew what Haywood would get on the open market. The only part of the Haywood's contract in Dallas that surprised me was the number of years. The per year amount was pretty much in line with what most expected all along. It was a figure that the Wizards were unable or unwilling to match.

Before the season when the team was talking playoffs and they were negotiating BTH's extension, they were faced with the escalating contracts of AJ, Gil, and Caron (and Caron's impending free agency after next year). Given Abe's reluctance to go deep into Luxury Tax land, short of having a team that was contending right now, they weren't going to give BTH the kind of contract he was looking for.

Once the season went to hell and EG decided to blow-up the team, Haywood become one of the most tradable pieces for a team that knew it was changing directions and seeking cap space. Even if Dallas had allowed BTH to spend some time on the FA market, it's unlikely the Wiz would have spent the coin to bring him back given Ted's preference to build with younger players.

It wasn't poor assessment of his team value, it was realistic assessment of his economic value. It wasn't poor negotiating, it was economic reality.

The only 'problem' with the Shaun Livingston situation was that he was a player *you* wanted to keep. Given drafting Wall and trading for Hinrich, the team obviously had other priorities. Shaun did, too. Not sure why Shaun would want to sign with a team where at best he would be the third guard, but more likely the fourth or potentially the fifth. He wanted a chance to compete for playing time at least, a starting position at best. The drafting of John Wall assured that that would not happen here.

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Can any team in the league field a longer, more athletic 5 than:

Wall
NY
Yi
AB
Mcgee

And they'd run the floor too.

Onviously NY will be lucky to sniff that, but substitute Gil or Kirk and you've added some handle. Point being Flipper has options

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

and_1, ts35, somebody, anybody, help me out. I have been googling here a bit and maybe I am not putting in the right keywords.

It has been said on this blog that Brendan Haywood turned downed an offer from the Wizards to sign in favor of testing FA.

I can't find a report/article of that anywhere.

Again, a presumed offer by the Wizards that I cannot find evidence of.

Come on. I will readily accept being wrong on this one.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Why is it assumed that Haywood or Livingston would have returned to the Wizards, everything considered? Then, what would it have taken to keep them? How would signing them to MV or >MV impact next years salary cap?

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Larry, I remember Grunfeld talking about an extension for Haywood, I can't remember if there was a specific offer on the table that Haywood rejected. But I do remember Haywood repeatedly saying that he was interested in testing Free Agency.

Here's the closest I could find, and it speaks a bit to both sides:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100802142.html

But ultimately it's moot to your argument. Had Haywood not been traded, EG still had 4 or 5 months to negotiate an extension for Haywood if that's what they wanted to do. So it's tough to say it's bad negotiation. Circumstances changed mid-stream.

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

To the SF question, I think Flip will monkey with it a bit based on who's playing the best and who's the best matchup on a given night. Personally, I don't really see Yi in the picture. Until Howard is full speed, I expect mainly Thornton and Young. Maybe Martin as he might combine some of the better attributes of both. He's a more consistent defender right now than Nick, and a better shooter than Thornton.

I don't think anyone will necessarily command "starter's" minutes at the 3. Nor do I think we necessarily have anyone who should, depending on Howard's health.

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I also believe letting Haywood go was a mistake. I would've traded Blatche and kept Haywood.

Haywood has developed to be a consistent and solid player. Especially @ 7.2mil per year, which is what is contract averages out to be AND that includes a TEAM OPTION for the last year.

I like EG, but didn't quite get this one. But maybe Cuban didn't want Blatche??

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Wall, Kirk and Gilbert would rule the court together.

All three are exceptionally quick, smart and handle the ball with both hands.

Hinrich is a defensive specialist which doesn't hurt the equation and Gil has fast hands that produce steals.

Wall is going to be like a shorter version of Magic Johnson, so look-out for the:

"We-some, Threesome"!

Peace, Chef John

Posted by: upscalechef | September 17, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I also believe letting Haywood go was a mistake. I would've traded Blatche and kept Haywood.

Haywood has developed to be a consistent and solid player. Especially @ 7.2mil per year, which is what is contract averages out to be AND that includes a TEAM OPTION for the last year.

I like EG, but didn't quite get this one. But maybe Cuban didn't want Blatche??

Posted by: kevenjones

So you believe McGee should still be a back-up?

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the 3 position, as much as I liked Caron, I think healthy Josh plays much harder. I just like his game better than Caron's. If he can get back healthy and be as productive as before he got hurt, I think EG did a good job with that swap, not including BWood. But he got Stevenson's sorry ass outa here...

Here's hoping that Josh can come back full strength. He is a hardnosed 3..The kid has much game...

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I guess this is the opportunity for Blatche to prove you wrong. Until he hurt his foot, all signs were positive that he was ready to build on last year. I think they ended up keeping the better player(Blatche), although I still think they could have used Haywood too.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

And btw, Haywood signed at $55M for 6 years. That's @ $9.2M / season averaged.

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

@ts35,

I like McGee. He is a great athlete. But Haywood will school him. We will see when we play Dallas in the preseason real soon here.

McGee has a looooooong way to go. It will take work. Again, I like this kid but you can't compare the two right NOW in my book.

NBA game is so much more than athleticism. You have to be able to think the game as well as so far McGee can't do it. But we will see real soon.

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

ts35, that all sounds logical and makes good sense, but once the season went to pot and Haywood became prime beef, did we really have to trade him? According to the article I posted Haywood's prime MV figure was $8mpyr. 8X6 is 48. That means that Dallas paid $9+mpyr.

There was some negotiating to be had before and after the season went to pot that the Wizards did not seize upon.

Reference Livingston, everyone believes that with the addition of Wall/Arenas/Hinrich that he would be an afterthought.

You see that is an assumption that I don't neccessarily adhere to.

I believe that Livingston's talents are so good that he would if fairly evaluated would be first off the bench to sub for Wall and not Hinrich.

Here is where assessing the value of your team/players based upon performance on the floor has been an extreme failure for the Wizards.

Livingston IMO with Wall/Arenas/Hinrich would have made this Team ever better. However, the Wizards believe and posters here including yourself believe that Livingston became a liability for us to keep because we already placed a low value on his play with Wall/Arenas/Hinrich.

This is where we differ. I don't believe at all that the 4 of them together would have negated Livingston's play.

If as a Team the Wizards believed as I do that it would be an tremendous benifit to have kept Livingston, then their negotiations to keep him would have been entirely different.

If Livingston knew that this Org considered him to be the first major alternative to run the team while Wall sits, would that have changed his perception?

He dosen't have a guarantee that he will be running the Team in Charlotte and even if he did his minutes on the court would probably be comparable to being the major sub for Wall.

Hinrich could not and would have not beat Livingston out as the primary sub for Wall. We/Wizards assumed that and all but gave the slot to him.

Why???

You cannot build competitive top notch teams that way.

Again, Are There Any Real Architects Here?

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

LarryInClintonMD

"I also guarantee you that after Brendan turned the initial offer down that the Wizards never went back to Brendan's agent to find out what Brendan thought he was worth (as in what BH thought his MV was)."

No, you can't guarantee that. You were not involved in any way with the negotiations.

"The Wizards, bad negotiaters, never even attempted to see if Brendan could be had for a price they could live with."

Again, how do you know this? You and Ernie are tight?

"This same low balling, bad negotiating strategy stills plays out with this Team, Sean Livingston being another example."

You can't make up your mind, huh, Larry? Did the Wizards not make Shaun Livingston an offer or did they lowball him? Which was it? You seem to switch your view daily.

The bottom line is Haywood and Livingston are gone and likely never to return to the Wizards. Both have their negatives and positives. Neither makes the Wizards appreciably better, imo.

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The Wizards almost have to add Cartier Martin for a little bit of insurance. I know 3 pt shooting is the biggest concern here, but a help defender is a need, too. Wasn't Booker being considered as an option at SF?

Posted by: djnnnou | September 17, 2010 1:13 PM

I like the idea of Martin on the team. If he makes it, i wouldn't be surprised to see him in the regular rotation getting a fair number of minutes.

As for Haywood . . . there was no good reason for the Wizards to sign a soon-to-be 31-year-old, B-list (at best) C to a multiyear contract, given their current state of rebuilding. None. Doesn't matter what his "market value was." Moreover, given that state, there would have been no good reason for Haywood to sign such a contract with the Wizards, unless the money was significantly more than anyone else was offering.

So they basically had two choices: Either overpay to keep Haywood or let him walk. They made the right one.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Especially @ 7.2mil per year, which is what is contract averages out to be AND that includes a TEAM OPTION for the last year."

And how old will he be at the end of the deal? Or even in 2yrs from today? At his very best, Haywood was decent. Last thing EG should have done is signed him just as he starts to age and the team is in total rebuild mold.

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Blatche is getting $6.7mill total over the next 2 years, so his presence on the payroll didnt affect decisions re: Haywood

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

@ts35,

I'm not sure. Here are his cap numbers for the next 6 years and the last year is an option.looks more like 52mil. Maybe the other 3 is in the bonus? Either way his cap number is not bad for his position/experience.

Brendan Haywood

$6,900,000
$7,624,500
$8,349,000
$9,073,500
$9,798,000
$10,522,500

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"I also guarantee you that after Brendan turned the initial offer down that the Wizards never went back to Brendan's agent to find out what Brendan thought he was worth (as in what BH thought his MV was)."

The Wizards shouldn't have had to go "back to Brendan's agent to find out what Brendan thought he was worth. . ." If Haywood had any intention of re-signing here then his agent would have told them what he thought his client was worth. If they rejected the Wizards offer and walked away from the table and left the building (and, of course we have no idea if that's what happened, but since you seem determine to pretend it is, let's go with it) then that's a pretty good sign they weren't all that keen on further negotiations.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"I guess this is the opportunity for Blatche to prove you wrong. Until he hurt his foot, all signs were positive that he was ready to build on last year."

Even after the injury there have been positive signs, if the talk of him having kept his weight down is accurate. I was thinking he'd show up to camp with a pot belly and goatee to hide the double chin.

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"If as a Team the Wizards believed as I do that it would be an tremendous benifit to have kept Livingston, then their negotiations to keep him would have been entirely different."

True. And the fact that they weren't would seem to be an indication that they didn't believe he would have been a "tremendous benefit." That being the case, they did the right thing by not overpaying to keep a player whose value was limited to them

So . . . what's your point, exactly?

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

@divi3,

I don't recall Blatche ever having a weight problem. In fact he probably needs to put on a few pounds.

His problem has been CONDITIONING, which speaks directly to how dedicated he is or isn't at this point in his career...

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Larry,

First with Livingston...

- Any indication that he preferred to stay here? Or does he not have a say?

- Any chance he starts over Wall? Because he does have a chance to start in Charlotte. And I'm sorry, Wall will be playing at least 30 mins a game. If he starts in Charlotte, he'll be getting more than the 18 minutes left over.

- It is your belief that Livingston would have beaten out Hinrich. It's certainly not a fact. Even with that, he's at best the #3. Plus, there's always the chance Flip would let Gil pick up the remaining minutes at the point, which pretty much leaves SL with not much to do.

- Point being, if I'm Shaun, I look at competing against 3 guys for PG time. Two of whom are accomplished players, one an All-Star caliber player, and the third who is the #1 overall pick. Who is SL competing against in Charlotte?

I like Shaun, I like his game, but it's a reach to say that his signing in Charlotte is a failure of the organization. Players go where they have a chance to play, and where they have a chance to win, and where they have a chance to make the most money. All three of those categories favor Charlotte right now.

And overpaying (which they would have had to) to keep him here to be the third or fourth guard just doesn't make sense for the Wizards right now.

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"don't recall Blatche ever having a weight problem. In fact he probably needs to put on a few pounds. "

He's come into camp carry some pretty obvious extra weight at least a couple of times. Not Derrick Coleman magnitude or anything, but still . . .

And for most athletes, weight and conditioning issues tend to go hand-in-hand, in that (A) the exercises and drills used to develop/improve conditioning also serve to work off extra weight and (B) carrying extra weight tends to contribute to their difficulties getting up and down court/field.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Larry,

Even IF Livingston wanted to re-sign (and I've seen nothing to indicate that he did), it comes down to style of play and health.

Flips wants a tougher, more defensive-oriented team and with the notable exception of Yi, everybody who the Wizards have acquired more or less fits that description.

Shaun Livinston is damaged goods. He always appeared to drag that leg to me and had NO lateral movement. Perhaps the Wizards have their suspicions about his knee after seeing him up close for half a season.

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't recall Blatche ever having a weight problem. In fact he probably needs to put on a few pounds.

His problem has been CONDITIONING, which speaks directly to how dedicated he is or isn't at this point in his career...

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 2:20 PM

I think he usually looks doughy to start the season, and has noodle arms. Maybe the more accurate description would be body composition issues rather than weight

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Haywood is better defensively, and experience-wise, but JaVale should close the gap experience wise quickly. Haywood has improved his offense, but you still are doing the defense a favor when you throw the ball into the post to him. It ain't like he automatic. He will always be clumsy with the ball. And defenders will not pay as dearly for cheating off Haywood as they will for cheating off JaVale. The same for running the break.

The problem with Haywood is he is the main person who overrates him. He thinks he is better than he is.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Blatche's main problem was a maturity issue. Cure that, and he'll be a better pro. Don't expect him to be 28 years old when he ain't. Encourage him, don't discourage him.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Next with BTH,

Larry, I think the part you're missing is that the Wizards weren't interested in paying a 31 year old C seven, eight or nine mil a year. Having a 22 year old with a metric ton of upside sitting behind him may also have been a factor.

Did they have to trade him after the season went to hell? No, of course not. Seems clear though that the mantra at that point was to cut salary. AJ, gone. CB, gone. BTH, the easiest to trade, gone. Heck, they traded McGuire just to shed that extra $300 thou to get under the LT line.

From my vantage point, tough to call it bad negotiation without knowing all of the relevant factors. Either how his salary fits into the pre-blowup Wizards, or how his contract would fit into a rebuilding post-blowup Wizards.

I appreciate Haywood's play, but given where the team is at this point, and what their goals, I don't think his absence is that great of a loss.

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Haywood has improved his offense, but you still are doing the defense a favor when you throw the ball into the post to him....The problem with Haywood is he is the main person who overrates him. He thinks he is better than he is."

Truer words never spoken. Look back at the San Antonio series. 6 game series and there were two games where BTH went for 2pts. 2pts twice! Meanwhile Duncan went for 25 then 17. That only works if you're so good defensively that Timmy is forced into a 3-15 type night...and BTH (nor Dampier) is that kind of defender.

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

@G-Man11,

Haywood's main problem is he has small hands not his attitude..

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Blatche's main problem was a maturity issue. Cure that, and he'll be a better pro. Don't expect him to be 28 years old when he ain't. Encourage him, don't discourage him.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 2:33 PM

Since when did 28 become the official age of maturity?

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

@G-Man11,

It's just aren't you we all tired of not KNOWING what to expect from these guy's??

Regardless of age, Blatche is entering into his 6th season so I don't think we have to eat the whole cow to know we are eating beef here do we??

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Small hands aint the problem when you shooting fadeaways and turnaround 5 footers. His athleticism limits him more than his hands.

Now the fact of the matter is he has no hands, so to speak is different, but size, doesn't matter unless you are dunking with 1 hand, something he NEVER does, or shooting a finger-roll type layup, another thing he doesn't do much. A lot of ball-players can't palm the ball but have hands. Haywood has none.

Was he EVER doubled?

So now you got a smart, but limited athletically 7fter on the defensive end, who is not athletic and has no hands on the offensive end. He was nothing to fret over, and part of the main reason the Wiz never got out the 2nd round.

I regret not being able to see Wall throwing oops to Brendan.

Now Blatche will be the first low-post threat that Arenas has ever played with as a Wizard. He has shown that the defense will at least think about doubling down on him. Haywood, the defense will cheat off of.

JaVale, you cheat off him and you get ooped.
And the fact of the matter

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

@G-Man11,

No my man. Haywood has a history of not catching the ball. That is one of his main problems. And it is precisely because he has bad(in this case small) hands.

Either way, ooping is a small part of what you need from the 5 spot. Rebounding and defense is far more important, especially on these guard heavy squads we are talking about.

I'm not saying Haywood is, was, or ever will be an allstar, but he is a very consistent and solid center and he will be in the league for a while barring a major injury. He has a great body type that will lend to him having a long career. watch.

And one more thing, "Blatche" and low-post threat don't belong in the same sentence. This is seriously funny.

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

And one more thing, "Blatche" and low-post threat don't belong in the same sentence. This is seriously funny.

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 3:04 PM

You weren't paying attention if you're saying that Blatche didn't go to work in the paint last year. It's one of the reasons he started getting doubled when he was on the block.

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

KJ

I hear you on Blatche. But Jamison was Abe's pet. And Jamison was putrid defensively. Do you think Jamison was shutting down Blatche in practice? Do you think Blatche could have ever taken the PF position with Jamison around?

Now I agree he had/has maturity issues, but if I was outplaying someone but knew I would never start, I might get discouraged too. I was hoping they got rid of Jamison a year earlier.

What you saw after Jamison was traded, was Blatche taking the bull by the horns and showing what he is capable. I wish Nick took the bull by the horns last year but he blew that.

Blatche has shown that he can be effective with or without the ball. And when the offense runs thru him, it is not a black hole, like Haywood, Etan, Jamison. He is a playmaker too. So now you got 3 starters who are above average players at their positions, with playmakers being able to setup other players for easy baskets.

Wall is an excellent playmaker.
Gil is an average playmaker for a point, but above average for a 2guard.
Blatche is an above average playmaker for a 4/5.

Of note, playmaker does not necessarily mean running an offense.

Caron was a below average playmaker for a 2-guard, average for a 3. Jamison is below average at 3 and 4 positions. Haywood, Etan, well lets just say the next play they make for somebody will be their first.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

and-1. thanks


I guess he saw them doubling Blatche when he was shooting 15 footers.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Any indication that he preferred to stay here? Or does he not have a say?

- Any chance he starts over Wall? Because he does have a chance to start in Charlotte. And I'm sorry, Wall will be playing at least 30 mins a game. If he starts in Charlotte, he'll be getting more than the 18 minutes left over.

- It is your belief that Livingston would have beaten out Hinrich. It's certainly not a fact. Even with that, he's at best the #3. Plus, there's always the chance Flip would let Gil pick up the remaining minutes at the point, which pretty much leaves SL with not much to do.

- Point being, if I'm Shaun, I look at competing against 3 guys for PG time. Two of whom are accomplished players, one an All-Star caliber player, and the third who is the #1 overall pick. Who is SL competing against in Charlotte?

I like Shaun, I like his game, but it's a reach to say that his signing in Charlotte is a failure of the organization. Players go where they have a chance to play, and where they have a chance to win, and where they have a chance to make the most money. All three of those categories favor Charlotte right now.

And overpaying (which they would have had to) to keep him here to be the third or fourth guard just doesn't make sense for the Wizards right now.

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 2:20 PM

This is all very good, ts35. And from Livington's POV you may very well be spot on.

The perception is though that Hinrich was brought in to be the 3rd guard. There wasn't any perception that Livingston had an equal chance to compete for the 3rd guard slot. We gave it to Hinrich.

Even before Wall, there was no real projections of how Livingston fit into the Wizards plans going forward. It was all speculative as to whether we were going to resign him.

From the Wizards POV, Livingston was like the last morsels of food on your plate and you haven't decided rather to eat it or not.

I've said this a million ways before. It is what and how the Org' does it business that mean a lot to me.

It may be right for Livingston and Haywood to have not been signed, but I believe the organization is failed in the way it handled it's business with those two.

And I keep asking myself, why is it a foregone conclusion that we would have had to overpay for either of them?

Is Hinrich overpayed? What do we really mean, when we say overpayed? If we went from $5mpyr to $7mpyr for Haywood and he is a great value to our Team, is that really overpaying?

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

LarryinClinton:

Shaun Livingston is the truth... he is a 6'7 PG. He wouldve been so nasty if he didnt twist his knee 540 degrees

Posted by: gilmax93 | September 17, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

don't recall Blatche ever having a weight problem. In fact he probably needs to put on a few pounds.

His problem has been CONDITIONING, which speaks directly to how dedicated he is or isn't at this point in his career...

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 2:20 PM

I think he usually looks doughy to start the season, and has noodle arms. Maybe the more accurate description would be body composition issues rather than weight

Posted by: divi3
to that extent, I think Al Thornton could stand to play about 10/15 pounds or so lighter.

Posted by: gmac78 | September 17, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Are you saying people with small hands can't catch a basketball KJ? I am an average sized man with average sized hands. Do you think Haywoods hands are "smaller" than mine? On the basketball court, I always had GREAT hands and caught the ball. Haywood has no hands. Size don't matter.

I do agree that there is more to playing the center position than catching oops.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

@G-Man11,

Agree with the Jamison aspect. But like Jamison the boy doesn't even attempt to play defense.

He averaged 28mpg, and only grabbed 6 boards, but turned the ball over 2 times per game. Why, because he dribbles the ball entirely too much AND over 60% of his shots are long jumpers. All these are facts.

He doesn't have a single low post move. Hopefully that has changed but again, I'm not looking for anything special from him and would trade him if I were the GM..But I'm not, only a dumb fan..i'll give you that. :)

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Now as far as JaVale is concerned, he still has not gotten to the point where the game "slows down" for him. Everything is rushed. But when it does and he starts consistently making that 12 footer they already give him, watch out. I saw some practice footage of some wizards scrimmaging, and he was playing at a "slowed down" pace and his 12 footers were layups.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Now as far as JaVale is concerned, he still has not gotten to the point where the game "slows down" for him. Everything is rushed. But when it does and he starts consistently making that 12 footer they already give him, watch out. I saw some practice footage of some wizards scrimmaging, and he was playing at a "slowed down" pace and his 12 footers were layups.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Larry,

What, exactly is your point? On the one hand, your panties are all twisted because the Wizards "botched" negotiations with Livingston and lost out on a chance to keep him. on the other hand, you seem to tacitly acknowledge that the team's handling of Livingston's FA indicates that they didn't really value him all that highly. Those two positions would seem to be directly contradictory. If they didn't value him that highly (and by "that highly" I mean "as highly as you do") then their handling of the situation seems quite appropriate.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Blatche defends better than Jamison, he doesn't rebound as well. He can improve. True, he doesn't have a pure low-post, back to the basket game, but he does work in the post.

He does however, have a lot of skill. In a lot of ways, he is similar to C-Webb without the explosion. His passing ability opens up a lot of things for him. Just because he aint trying to back you down and shoot over you like KG does not mean he aint effective. I wonder how many low post moves you think Chris Bosh has?

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 17, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

@G-Man11,

While I would never but Bosh and Blatche in the same encyclopedia, I don't know what all the hoopla is over Bosh..

On that note, Miami ain't gonna win jack sh*t. Laker's will win the championship again and I think Boston or Orlando will win the east.

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

He doesn't have a single low post move. Hopefully that has changed but again, I'm not looking for anything special from him and would trade him if I were the GM..But I'm not, only a dumb fan..i'll give you that. :)

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 3:17 PM

It's becoming more and more obvious that you're just talking junk about Blatche. He's has a nice up-and-under move and a reliable jump hook.

There's also a disconnect between what you say and reality when it comes to Haywood. Twelve-year olds catch the ball better than Brendan and their hands aren't even half the size of his. Face it. Brendan's gift is having a seven-feet tall body. His curse? Not being able to fully and quickly coordinate it.

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

kevinjones, i'm not sure what you were watching because as the starter last year 60% of ABs shots were definitely not long jumpers. In fact I would bet majority of his attempts were within 15ft.

As to the no post-moves, again, I'm just not sure we were watching the same games. Blatche showed an array of post-moves, often using more than needed because he just wont (or cant) score on the left side of the bucket.

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm having a little trouble understanding the lingering discussion about Haywood and Shaun Livingston. I mean, what part of 'blow the team up' did we not understand? It was pretty clear that the core of the Old Whizz -- Jamison, Butler, and Haywood -- would be going, and Arenas if they could find someone who would take him (they couldn't). And that the team wouldn't be a contender for quite a while. So why would a player who thought he was good enough to play elsewhere want to stick with Washington?

That's before John Wall came into the picture. The Wiz' future looks considerably brighter now, but that's really because of Wall. The other acquisitions -- Hinrich, Yi, Booker and Seraphin, Josh Howard -- are based on the idea that they might mesh well with Wall.

Blatche isn't dumb. He knows Washington will have to run a lot of plays through him if they want inside scoring. He's got a chance to become an All-Star.

If you're Shaun Livingston, do you want to play behind John Wall? You'd rather go to a playoff club that needs a PG, like Charlotte. By the way, word is that Charlotte is still looking for a PG. Was hoping to trade Dampier for a decent one.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 17, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The size of a players hands can definitely make a difference, although maybe less regarding his ability to catch it than his ability to control it and do something with it once he has it. Of course, Haywood's hands (size, softness, whatever) were just one of many problems he had offensively.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Blatche's only real "move" in the post is that reverse pivot/show-the-ball thing he does, to get defenders off their feet so he can work the up and under. Which isn't bad, but it's not exactly world-class, either. And when that doesn't work he tends to devolve into a mass of pump fakes, because he lacks the explosion to power the ball to the hoop through people and the strength to finish over them.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

If we look at our past, the way we negotiate and express our stances with players (and we can't because we have a new owner) there is no way in hell that Blatche and McGee would not be offered more money than the Wizards would be willing to pay.

Hopefully, with Ted that statement isn't and will not be an accurate assessment of the team going forward, but what I have seen with this team is that they will not be able to hold there players.

You must develop a comraderie with your players and also foster comradership from player to player.

If this isn't achieved organizationally, there will always be reasons not to place adequate value on them and causing them to seek greener pastures.

This I know doesn't sound like much, but it is huge. However, Red Auerbach would understand that for sure and hopefully, so does Ted.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I am interested to see what Booker does here. Given his size and skills he looks like a guy that will come off the bench in the NBA, but to play quality minutes - not as a garbage time player.

Still, the team traded to get that pick and select him.

Nice to see somebody that wants to rebound on the club, though.

Posted by: RoyHobbs4 | September 17, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Trade Blatche and Arenas to the Pistons for Prince, Maxiell and Wilcox. Gives you two bigs, and a SF, and two of them have played for Flip. Plus, you get rid of Arenas, and the Pistons could use a PG.

Posted by: Working_Man_Esq | September 17, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse


You must develop a comraderie with your players and also foster comradership from player to player.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 3:44 PM

Actually, you must pay them as much or more than anyone else will. Then, you will keep them from seeking greener pastures. It's not 1962. Money talks, my friend.

Posted by: gtown85 | September 17, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"The size of a players hands can definitely make a difference, although maybe less regarding his ability to catch it than his ability to control it and do something with it once he has it. Of course, Haywood's hands (size, softness, whatever) were just one of many problems he had offensively.
Posted by: kalo_rama | "

Glen Rice used to insist that small hands were the mark of a jump shooter. His were among the league's smallest.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 17, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

@Divi3,

Blatche only started 28 games last year. And I'm saying 60% of his shots are jump shots from the perimeter..That is correct.. Look it up...

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Mcgee dunks the ball constantly, so it's pointed out he has no skills and is just an athlete.

AB consistently gets around post defenders for ez layups....and it's he lacks the strength and explosion to go through/over people.

Talk about glass half full!

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"AB consistently gets around post defenders for ez layups . . . "

That would be great if it were true. Of course, it's really not.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Trade Blatche and Arenas to the Pistons for Prince, Maxiell and Wilcox.

That's not a viable trade, but Detroit does have some really bad contracts. Arenas for Villanueva and Hamilton? Who gets the better end of that deal?

Posted by: djnnnou | September 17, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Trade Blatche and Arenas to the Pistons for Prince, Maxiell and Wilcox.

That's not a viable trade, but Detroit does have some really bad contracts. Arenas for Villanueva and Hamilton? Who gets the better end of that deal?
-------------------------------------------

According to ESPN Trade Machine, it works. Why is not viable? I don't think we are ready to give up on CV yet.

Posted by: Working_Man_Esq | September 17, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Glen Rice used to insist that small hands were the mark of a jump shooter. His were among the league's smallest.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 17, 2010 3:56 PM

Small hands can be a drawback but they're not a death sentence. Kevin Willis not only had small hands for a 7-footer but also cartoonishly short arms. But he was still an excellent rebounder and solid low post scorer because he was skilled, smart, strong, and tough, with a nasty streak and knew how to create space.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Blatche only started 28 games last year. And I'm saying 60% of his shots are jump shots from the perimeter..That is correct.. Look it up...

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 3:59 PM

You're wrong about the number of games he started and I don't know where you're getting this 60% perimeter number. Provide a link, if you have one.

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

That is correct.. Look it up...

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 3:59 PM

Could you show me where to look that up? Or tell me how far out "perimeter" means?

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

@ and_1,

your right, it's 36 games not 28. My bad. nba.com

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Why is not viable?

Detroit would have around 150 million dollars tied up in Arenas, Gordon and Hamilton.

Posted by: djnnnou | September 17, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

According to ESPN Trade Machine, it works. Why is not viable? I don't think we are ready to give up on CV yet.

Posted by: Working_Man_Esq | September 17, 2010 4:06 PM |

The Wilcox/Maxiell/Prince trade isn't viable because Wilcox is a useless bust, Maxiell is an undersized 20 mpg backup who makes about 2 or 3 times as much money as Booker, the undersized backup PF we already have, and Prince is pretty much the opposite of what the Wizards need in a SF. The only thing the Wiz would really get out of that deal is cap space, as both Prince and Wilcox have expiring deals.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Anyone aware of nba.com having a stat on "perimeter" percentage that Keven Jones alludes to? Sounds nebulous.

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

http://www.82games.com/0910/09WAS20.HTM

The majority of AB's attempts are jumpers.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09WAS19.HTM

Very similar to our last PF. Like I said yesterday.

Just for the record.

Posted by: SDMDTSU | September 17, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse


64% of Bosh's shots were jumpers.

http://www.82games.com/0809/08TOR15.HTM

57% of Tim Duncan's shots were jumpers.

http://www.82games.com/0809/08SAS17.HTM

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

According to:

http://www.nba.com/hotspots/

The vast majority of AB's shots came from within about 3 feet of the hoop.

Posted by: mcasady | September 17, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

a 5ft shot at 82games is considered a "jumper" exactly the same as a 19ft shot.

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

@and_1, this is not formatted correctly but here you go. I'm defining perimeter as anything not @ the rim. But none the less a jump shot regardles of where.

Shot Locations At Rim Player Name Yr Tm Pos GP Min M A FG% %As M A FG% %As M A FG% %As M A FG% %As M A eFG% %As
Andray Blatche 2007 WAS PF 56 12.2 1.0 1.7 62.0 46.6 0.1 0.4 40.0 12.5 0.0 0.1 33.0 50.0 0.3 0.9 27.0 57.1 0.1 0.5 22.2 100.0
Andray Blatche 2008 WAS PF 82 20.5 1.9 3.0 61.0 53.9 0.4 1.0 44.0 44.1 0.2 0.5 30.0 38.5 0.6 1.7 35.0 52.0 0.0 0.2 34.7 100.0
Andray Blatche 2009 WAS C 71 23.9 2.2 3.6 62.0 55.1 0.6 1.5 44.0 28.3 0.4 1.0 38.0 38.5 0.9 2.5 35.0 59.7 0.1 0.3 35.7 60.0
Andray Blatche 2010 WAS PF 81 27.8 2.6 4.2 62.2 52.8 1.0 2.1 45.8 35.1 0.7 1.7 40.1 38.2 1.5 3.8 39.0 70.6 0.2 0.5 44.3 84.6

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

@and_1,

Really. You wish to engage in a conversation regarind TIM DUNCAN and Blatche. GTF

I don't care if the majority of DUNCAN shots are from the 3 pt line. There is nothing to compare here. come on man

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Keven,

You have a brain. Use it.

You throw out a "perimeter" percentage with nothing else and you expect that to have relevance? I provided the links to show that "perimeter" percentage alone doesn't say much. And please note: You compared Duncan to Blatche, not me.

The stat you provided was lame. I'm sure you'll do better as you gain more basketball knowledge.

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Trying to post this again. Not formatting correcly

Shot Locations At Rim Player Name Yr Tm Pos GP Min M A FG% %As M A FG% %As M A FG% %As M A FG% %As M A eFG% %As
Andray Blatche 2007 WAS PF 56 12.2 1.0 1.7 62.0 46.6 0.1 0.4 40.0 12.5 0.0 0.1 33.0 50.0 0.3 0.9 27.0 57.1 0.1 0.5 22.2 100.0
Andray Blatche 2008 WAS PF 82 20.5 1.9 3.0 61.0 53.9 0.4 1.0 44.0 44.1 0.2 0.5 30.0 38.5 0.6 1.7 35.0 52.0 0.0 0.2 34.7 100.0
Andray Blatche 2009 WAS C 71 23.9 2.2 3.6 62.0 55.1 0.6 1.5 44.0 28.3 0.4 1.0 38.0 38.5 0.9 2.5 35.0 59.7 0.1 0.3 35.7 60.0
Andray Blatche 2010 WAS PF 81 27.8 2.6 4.2 62.2 52.8 1.0 2.1 45.8 35.1 0.7 1.7 40.1 38.2 1.5 3.8 39.0 70.6 0.2 0.5 44.3 84.6

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

@and_1,

When did i compare Duncan and Blatche?

Fact remains, he shoot's too many jump shots and he has not developed a low post game.

You pointed out how many jumper's Bosh and Duncan take as to make the argument about Blatche's game I'm making irrelevant.

So you compared Blatche to Duncan and Bosh. I would NEVER do such a thing. Use your brain...lol

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Haywood has developed to be a consistent and solid player. Especially @ 7.2mil per year, which is what is contract averages out to be AND that includes a TEAM OPTION for the last year.

I like EG, but didn't quite get this one. But maybe Cuban didn't want Blatche??

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse


OK, this is just one example of how all the haywood lovers are missing the point.

Haywood is pretty consistent... consistently mediocre. that's fine if you have the talent around him to get somewhere in the playoffs. A guy the size of haywood who can doa few things down low has a place on a playoff team.

Maybe..on the best of luck, this team would win 3 extra games with Haywood here, but that still isn't getting us a contender.

Haywood has maxed out. he may have a "great" season playing alongside Dirk et al this year, but he is on the downward slide from maxed out mediocrity.

Why would you want to be saddled with another untradeable contract for a player in the decline (and never that good to begin with) as your young team is getting better?

You keep talking about how he is better than Mcgee this year. Who the F cares about this who would be a better center on a team destined for 30-40 wins?

You want to develop the player with the most potential and Haywood blew his potential with petty squables, unrealistic self-expectations, bad coaching and a moderate work ethic.

Let it go. For once, I would say the Wiz made the absolute best choice in letting him go.

Posted by: Blurred | September 17, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Umm, Keven?

Kindly look at what you posted at 4:37 pm.

Up until that time, NOONE had compared Duncan to Blatche. Get a grip, dude.

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Small hands can be a drawback but they're not a death sentence. Kevin Willis not only had small hands for a 7-footer but also cartoonishly short arms. But he was still an excellent rebounder and solid low post scorer because he was skilled, smart, strong, and tough, with a nasty streak and knew how to create space.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse


our own jeff Ruland had arms that barely made it to his waist..but his shoulders were wide enough for two guys and he had a nasty glare (and pornstache) to go with it.

Loved watching him and Moses go toe to toe. Dirty both ways.

Posted by: Blurred | September 17, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

@and_1,

Stop playing. I posted that in response to what you posted here:

64% of Bosh's shots were jumpers.
http://www.82games.com/0809/08TOR15.HTM
57% of Tim Duncan's shots were jumpers.
http://www.82games.com/0809/08SAS17.HTM

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 4:29 PM

YOU brought Duncan and Bosh into this not me..

@blurred, I hear you but again, I'm not saying he is a great center, but who is McGee learning the position from now? That's the real question..Flip, Sam,

Haywood not only is a better center right now, but could teach McGee alot.

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"Fact remains, he shoot's too many jump shots and he has not developed a low post game."

Odd you say that, because the stats you are trying to post show "at the rim" as the largest percentage of ABs shots. Also show that 65% of his shots come from within 15ft. 51% of his attempts are within 10ft.

http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Andray+Blatche

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 4:59 PM

LOL! No comparison was made. Put your thinking cap on!

Posted by: and_1 | September 17, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

@divi3,

Whether it is 5 feet or 15 feet, Blatche shoots too many jump shots. That's all I'm saying. You don't agree?

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

and just for the record, 52% of AJs shots last season (with us) were within 15ft.

Posted by: divi3 | September 17, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

@divi3,

And it does not say at the rim as the largest percentage of his shots. At the rim is only 42% of his shots. What it says is his highest made % is at the rim, which should be obvious..

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

@blurred, I hear you but again, I'm not saying he is a great center, but who is McGee learning the position from now? That's the real question..Flip, Sam,

Haywood not only is a better center right now, but could teach McGee alot.

Posted by: kevenjones | September 17, 2010 4:59 PM

Good question. Again, it goes to the value you place on the players on your team and how you want to build it.

The Lakers, Celts, Spurs, have no problem deciding what value is in their players and have no problems keeping them.

The Wizs on the other hand let good player after good player just walk out the door.

With Ted here, lets hope that has changed. But who is teaching McGee now and instilling in him the desire and comraderie to be a Wizard for life. This is what winners do.

Folks keep thinking I am a bit off for pointing out half-butt negotiations, but the way you handle your business goes a long way towards being winners.

It isn't all just the players being this or that. It is the whole way of the entire organization that wins Rings.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse


The Lakers, Celts, Spurs, have no problem deciding what value is in their players and have no problems keeping them.

The Wizs on the other hand let good player after good player just walk out the door.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 5:54 PM

You think the Lakers, Celts or Spurs would pay Haywood $55M? Not on your life, because those teams know a thing or two about value. Under Leonsis, it looks like the Wizards will too.

Posted by: 2020doc | September 17, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

The Lakers, Celts, Spurs, have no problem deciding what value is in their players and have no problems keeping them.
Posted by: LarryInClintonMD

Except when the Celtics won the title, but didn't value James Posey enough (who they thought they might retain based on loyalty and other warm and fuzzy feelings) and he walked.

Except when the Spurs decided there wasn't as much value in Luis Scola and traded him to the Rockets for players to be named later.

Except when the Lakers let Derek Fisher walk in favor of guys like Jordan Farmar, only to get him back later to help them win back-to-back titles.

Posted by: ts35 | September 17, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

"our own jeff Ruland had arms that barely made it to his waist..but his shoulders were wide enough for two guys and he had a nasty glare (and pornstache) to go with it."

A very underrated big man, particularly next to Ricky Mahorn. Talk about your half-court game...

Posted by: Samson151 | September 17, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"The Lakers, Celts, Spurs, have no problem deciding what value is in their players and have no problems keeping them."

I think it's the classic error known as 'winner's bias' -- the assumption that because a team wins a lot of games, it's better managed than any other team. Put that way, you can see the flaw. Fact is, GMs of winning clubs make their share of mistakes and need good fortune to bail them out.

The reality is that some of the less successful teams may be as well-run and well-coached as the champions, especially if you measure performance in terms of improvement rather than wins and losses. But that's never going to be a popular standard with sports fans. It falls to a smart owner to recognize when he has the right team in place and let them operate without interference.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 17, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

On another subject: A pundit was saying that it was the NCAA's good luck that Kansas won the championship a couple seasons back -- saved them from having to take the national title away from a Memphis team they knew even then was going to be in big trouble. Hard to imagine the Kentucky fans can't see what's about to happen there, in view of some of Calipari's recent recruits. Hope nothing comes back to bite Wall. I wouldn't be surprised to see Calipari on the road again next season or the one after, and UK on probation.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 17, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"The Lakers, Celts, Spurs, have no problem deciding what value is in their players and have no problems keeping them."

I think it's the classic error known as 'winner's bias' -- the assumption that because a team wins a lot of games, it's better managed than any other team. Put that way, you can see the flaw. Fact is, GMs of winning clubs make their share of mistakes and need good fortune to bail them out.

The reality is that some of the less successful teams may be as well-run and well-coached as the champions, especially if you measure performance in terms of improvement rather than wins and losses. But that's never going to be a popular standard with sports fans. It falls to a smart owner to recognize when he has the right team in place and let them operate without interference.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 17, 2010 7:52 PM

That is interesting Samson151. Did some bright fella dream that up to placate teams that never win it all or never compete to win it all.

How does that square with the fact that mostly it is the same few teams that constantly win it all and are repeat winners as well?

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Larry,

What, exactly is your point? On the one hand, your panties are all twisted because the Wizards "botched" negotiations with Livingston and lost out on a chance to keep him. on the other hand, you seem to tacitly acknowledge that the team's handling of Livingston's FA indicates that they didn't really value him all that highly. Those two positions would seem to be directly contradictory. If they didn't value him that highly (and by "that highly" I mean "as highly as you do") then their handling of the situation seems quite appropriate.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 3:26 PM

Actually, the points are not opposites at all. You see, the fact that they did not value Livingston directly impacts the way they dealt with him.

If they rightfully did value him, of which they did not, then they would have negotiated and handled the whole affair differently.

It is the same with Haywood. Haywood's value to them did not measure up to MV, so it directly impacted the way they dealt with him.

There isn't anything contradictory here. The whole point of the matter is that the Wizards had a certain dollar value it was willing to pay and the low value it had for Livingston and Haywood trumped any serious negotiations.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

You just don't get it, do you?

"If they rightfully did value him, of which they did not, then they would have negotiated and handled the whole affair differently."

Yeah, that's what I already said. And the fact that they handled it the way the did is because they didn't think he was all that vital to keep. Which makes all your inane ranting about how they mishandled the negotiation more sewage from the pipe. They handled the negotiation exactly the way they should have for a player that they were only willing to go so far to keep.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 17, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

How does that square with the fact that mostly it is the same few teams that constantly win it all and are repeat winners as well?

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 17, 2010 10:02 PM |

When you have transcendent superstars on your roster, you can overcome a multitude of sins. With the exception of Detroit in 2004, every recent winner has had at least one on their team.

Remember when Joe Dumars was the 'Golden Child' who could do no wrong? How's he doing now after drafting Darko over Carmelo, trading away Billups for Iverson and signing Villanueva and Gordon to absurd contracts? If he had Tim Duncan on his team, he'd probably be doing just fine. As it stands, he's on the hot seat and might be looking for employment next summer.

Conversely, Mitch Kupchak gambled on the likes of Adam Morrison, Jordan Farmar, Javaris Crittenton, etc., yet he's hailed as one of the best in the league because Kobe Bryant's the best player in the game and is on his roster.

With Tim Duncan getting a little long in the tooth, I expect Popovich in San Antonio to start looking like a mere mortal.

Posted by: 2020doc | September 17, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Haywood wanted to leave. He improved and wanted a big raise and wanted to leave. He wanted to leave because he was benched, criticized, and admonished over his career here. Etan took his job. He was called soft. He couldn't handle a pass for most of his career. He and Eddie Jordan bickered and he held it against the Wizards. He improved and developed his game. He wanted to play somewhere else and show up the Wizards. He spoke ill of the Wizards when he left. He's a top 12 center but he didnt want to be here. Lets move on!!!

Posted by: 1bmffwb | September 17, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

trade the gunslinger and blarche to portland for camby, ruddt fernandez, and andre miller...

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | September 18, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

how about the gunslinger and ab to the spurs for manu, richard jefferson, and ,matt bonner...

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | September 18, 2010 12:45 AM | Report abuse

how about the gunslinger and ab to the spurs for manu, richard jefferson, and ,matt bonner...

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | September 18, 2010 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Incoming Players
Emeka Okafor
6-10 PF / C from Connecticut
10.4 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 0.7 apg in 28.9 minutes
Darius Songaila
6-8 PF from Wake Forest
7.2 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 18.8 minutes
Aaron Gray
7-1 C from Pittsburgh
2.3 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 0.3 apg in 6.2 minutes
Marcus Thornton
6-4 SG from Louisiana State
14.5 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.6 apg in 25.6 minutes
Outgoing Players
Gilbert Arenas
6-4 PG from Arizona
22.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 7.2 apg in 36.5 minutes
Andray Blatche
6-11 PF from South Kent Prep (HS)
14.1 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg in 27.9 minutes


Read more: http://www.realgm.com/src_tradechecker/4/#ixzz0zqzJw0Zl

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | September 18, 2010 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Washington Trade Breakdown
Change in Team Outlook: -12.2 ppg, +3.0 rpg, and -5.9 apg.
Incoming Players
Luol Deng
6-9 SF from Duke
17.6 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 2.0 apg in 37.9 minutes
Kurt Thomas
6-9 PF / C from Texas Christian
3.0 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 15.0 minutes
James Johnson
6-8 PF / SF from Wake Forest
3.9 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 0.7 apg in 11.6 minutes
Vladimir Veremeenko
0-0 from
No games yet played in 2009-2010
Outgoing Players
Gilbert Arenas
6-4 PG from Arizona
22.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 7.2 apg in 36.5 minutes
Andray Blatche
6-11 PF from South Kent Prep (HS)
14.1 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg in 27.9 minutes


Read more: http://www.realgm.com/src_tradechecker/4/#ixzz0zr0FJ8hK

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | September 18, 2010 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Washington Trade Breakdown
Change in Team Outlook: -12.4 ppg, -0.3 rpg, and -4.1 apg.
Incoming Players
Hedo Turkoglu
0-0 from
11.3 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.1 apg in 30.7 minutes
Josh Childress
0-0 from
No games yet played in 2009-2010
Hakim Warrick
6-9 SF / PF from Syracuse
10.2 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 0.7 apg in 21.3 minutes
Earl Clark
6-10 PF from Louisville
2.8 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 0.4 apg in 7.5 minutes
Outgoing Players
Gilbert Arenas
6-4 PG from Arizona
22.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 7.2 apg in 36.5 minutes
Andray Blatche
6-11 PF from South Kent Prep (HS)
14.1 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg in 27.9 minutes


Read more: http://www.realgm.com/src_tradechecker/4/#ixzz0zr1QS5qD

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | September 18, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Washington Trade Breakdown
Change in Team Outlook: +12.9 ppg, +8.9 rpg, and -0.4 apg.
Incoming Players
Beno Udrih
6-3 PG from Slovenia (Foreign)
12.9 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.7 apg in 31.3 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 SG / SF from Louisville
8.1 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 1.8 apg in 23.0 minutes
Carl Landry
6-8 PF from Purdue
16.1 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 0.8 apg in 27.2 minutes
Jason Thompson
6-11 PF from Rider
12.5 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 1.6 apg in 31.4 minutes
Outgoing Players
Gilbert Arenas
6-4 PG from Arizona
22.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 7.2 apg in 36.5 minutes
Andray Blatche
6-11 PF from South Kent Prep (HS)
14.1 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg in 27.9 minutes


Read more: http://www.realgm.com/src_tradechecker/3/#ixzz0zr3BJhrp

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | September 18, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

I'd be interested in seeing Booker get some minutes at SF given that the prime candidates at PF (Blatche and Yi) are not exactly what you would call bangers and McGee will probably still be hanging in the air from a pump fake by the time a rebound comes off the rim. Booker comes with the rep as tough and fast and I'd like to know if he can hang defensively with SFs at this level.

Posted by: mugsybol | September 18, 2010 5:20 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: closg | September 18, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

...actually the Wiz dont have a big question at small forward. Their big problem is at PF. AB is the answer at SF, his current skills are much better suited for SF...but the Wiz are forced to play him at PF, because they have NO ONE ELSE on the team who can come close to starting as a PF.

They fixed the backcourt this year...hopefully will fix the front court next year.

Its going to be another long season...

Posted by: oddjob1 | September 18, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

"That is interesting Samson151. Did some bright fella dream that up to placate teams that never win it all or never compete to win it all.How does that square with the fact that mostly it is the same few teams that constantly win it all and are repeat winners as well?LarryInClintonMD."

I usually avoid Larry's perseverations, but he reprinted one of my posts and I got caught before I knew what was happening. Winner's (or in some references, survivor's) bias is a phenomenon that appears in a wide range of fields, usually disguised as 'common sense', although it's really just an underlying assumption. Sports is no exception. Here's a brief article from the Freakonomics column in the NY Times -- about football, but the argument holds.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/survivor-bias-on-the-gridiron/#more-18331

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

in 36 starts last season, blatche's stats rank amongst PFs:

scoring- 4th
reb- 15th
assts- 3rd
stls- 2nd

the rebounding is a glaring weakness, but overall PF is probably the least of the team's concerns.

Posted by: divi3 | September 18, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Popovich was on TV extolling the arrival of Tiago Splitter -- although playing down the Brazilian's value as a scorer ("he won't be a go-to guy"). When he was drafted in '07, here were his measurements:

Height w/o shoes: 6'10.25"
Weight: 233
Wingspan: 7'2"
Standing reach: 9'1.5"
No step vert: 26"
Run-up vert: 31.5"
Bench press: 8
Agility: 11.65
Sprint: 3.38

Figuring he's bigger now that he's older (26 in Jan), the closest size comparison on the Wiz is probably Blatche. You wouldn't play him at center against guys like Cousins who have a three or four inch advantage in reach, and Tiago's wingspan is significantly shorter than most defensive centers (Ndiaye's is 7'6"). Initially, DraftExpress compared him to PJ Brown or (on the low side) Jeff Foster.

He's skilled at the pick and roll and that may be how he makes his living on offense. He averaged 6.7 boards in 28 minutes last season, as well as 2.2 TOs and a little under 3 fouls.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Splitter looked really good against TeamUSA, but he did appear a bit weak and like most international players his defensive style would result in fouling out in the nba. I think he'll thrive as a bigger Oberto alongside Duncan but as TimVP fades it could get tough for him.

Posted by: divi3 | September 18, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"which would be reminiscent of two seasons ago in Chicago, where Hinrich got action with Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon."

Well, apparently, Chicago didn't like that combination, that's why they traded away Hinrich and signed Kyle Korver and Ronnie Brewer (both 6'7" vs. Hinrich's 6'3"), and Luol Deng may move to SF now they have Boozer.

Posted by: sagaliba | September 18, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Guys, I like Haywood, but I would definitely trade Haywood before Blatche. Blatche has more upside, and at a little over 3 millions for the next two seasons is a steal. Besides, I had predicted here last year that Haywood's worth on the open market would be 8-10 mil/yr, and he did fetch that amount.

He might have taken less for an extension, but he already made that mistake once (he signed the extension and got less money than Etan, who went through free agency and got offered a better contract, which Wiz matched and became the source of Haywood's resentment), I doubt if he would do that again.

Posted by: sagaliba | September 18, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"which would be reminiscent of two seasons ago in Chicago, where Hinrich got action with Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon."

"Well, apparently, Chicago didn't like that combination, that's why they traded away Hinrich and signed Kyle Korver and Ronnie Brewer (both 6'7" vs. Hinrich's 6'3"), and Luol Deng may move to SF now they have Boozer. Posted by: sagaliba"

You assume they didn't like Hinrich, but provide no supporting evidence. Chicago management says they let Hinrich go to clear room for a James signing. When that didn't happen, they signed players like Boozer, Korver and eventually Brewer. Deng has been mentioned in trade talks on a weekly basis, but so far nothing's materialized. At this point it seems the Bulls go to camp with a starting lineup of Rose, Boozer, Noah, Deng, and Brewer/Korver. They have Gibson and CJ Watson off the bench, and a new defensive-minded coach, so maybe that will be enough. But if they'd signed LeBron instead of Boozer, they'd be one of the three or four favorites league-wide.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"You assume they didn't like Hinrich, but provide no supporting evidence. Chicago management says they let Hinrich go to clear room for a James signing."

Hinrich trade talk goes back 3 years, doubt they were angling for Lebron then. IMO, the Bulls could be one of the top3 teams in the East.

Posted by: divi3 | September 18, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Well, apparently, Chicago didn't like that combination enough to offer Ben Gordon as much money as he got from Detroit.

Posted by: djnnnou | September 18, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I think chicago is going to be a well balanced team with a potential to go deep in the east.If the new coach master the locker room ,the team will win 50 games. I think deng is going to have a high scoring season. The Pf,SG and center position is well covered. the PG is going to have heavy minutes.If they trade gibson they will have a chance to fail, hard to assume boozer for 82 games.

Posted by: gtefferra | September 18, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

i have never been a haywood fan and never will be,he's too lazy,too selfish and not that talented.i've seen too many times over the years where he just lets guys put up shots right over him and not even try to block it,he has the worst hands for a big man i've ever seen)(except for kwame brown)cant even palm the ball,can he?this past year because it was a contract year he was actually taking rebounds out of his own players hands to pad his numbers,to help his contract. i'm happy for him tho,happy he's gone,happy some other fools paid him and not us,and happy his arch nemesis who cant stand him will take his position this year,they signed to be is backup,cant think of his name right now but they hate each other,yeah good luck brendan and watch out for that left hook!!!

Posted by: bru4bon42z | September 18, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Samson151,

Didn't say they "didn't like Hinrich," but clearly, they didn't like the combination due to the problem with size. All three players are 6'3", and the biggest concern in Gordon's game has always been his size playing against bigger SGs.

They probably would have kept Hinrich had they not drafted Rose.

Posted by: sagaliba | September 18, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Didn't say they "didn't like Hinrich," but clearly, they didn't like the combination due to the problem with size. All three players are 6'3", and the biggest concern in Gordon's game has always been his size playing against bigger SGs."

You realize you haven't offered any evidence to back up your assertion that were unhappy with the trio because of size, right? Example might be the GM or coach complaining about it, for instance.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"Hinrich trade talk goes back 3 years, doubt they were angling for Lebron then."

No, but they didn't actually trade him, did they? Supposedly they were asking too much in return. Impetus for letting him go this season was the desire to make room for James, etc.

"IMO, the Bulls could be one of the top3 teams in the East.Posted by: divi3"

Of course, I didn't say they couldn't. Just noted that if they had James rather than Boozer (to go with Rose, Noah, and Deng), they'd be picked among the top 3-4 in the whole NBA.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"Well, apparently, Chicago didn't like that combination [Rose, Gordon, and Hinrich] enough to offer Ben Gordon as much money as he got from Detroit.Posted by: djnnnou"

So? Anybody cite the trio's lack of size as the reason for Gordon going to Detroit? I'm guessing no.

Gordon had been complaining about money since 2007. He eventually (and with considerable reluctance) took a one-year qualifying deal at $6.4 million, on the heels of a bitter negotiation. That left him a UFA after '08. He wasn't expected to stay in Chicago after all that acrimony. The Pistons surprised some observers by giving him $55 million over 5 years, a very respectable figure for a sixth man.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"They probably would have kept Hinrich had they not drafted Rose.Posted by: sagaliba"

I'm not sure they would have. Based on the trade discussions, at some point they might well have moved him once they were offered something they considered equivalent value. The Bulls insisted the didn't want to give him up for nothing, although eventually that's what they did.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

By the way, I'm not sure why Ben Gordon gets listed as 6'3". His height without shoes was 6'1" when he was drafted. Maybe he wears lifts.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"Well, apparently, Chicago didn't like that combination [Rose, Gordon, and Hinrich] enough to offer Ben Gordon as much money as he got from Detroit.Posted by: djnnnou"

So? Anybody cite the trio's lack of size as the reason for Gordon going to Detroit? I'm guessing no.

I was pointing out that Gordon left before Hinrich.

Posted by: djnnnou | September 18, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"I was pointing out that Gordon left before Hinrich.Posted by: djnnnou"

& I was pointing out that he left for financial reasons.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty much been common knowledge for the reason the Bulls were trying to trade Hinirich. They moved up in the draft and got a star PG (just like we did with Wall.)

At that point paying 9mil/yr for your backup PG makes no sense. It's like us re-signing Livingston to the contract Larry wanted to give him. It makes no sense. If they didn't jump up to #1 and ended up with say Beasley instead...we're probably not having this conversation.

Posted by: SDMDTSU | September 18, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I think the Wizards should consider using:

1.Blatche
2.Booker
3.Thorton
4.Seraphin
5.McGee


Posted by: firemetalrat | September 18, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"At that point paying 9mil/yr for your backup PG makes no sense."

Arent we paying him $9mill to be our backup PG?

Posted by: divi3 | September 18, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Samson151,

Of course Gordon wanted more money, but Chicago was unwilling to give it to him. Had Chicago liked the trio combination that much, they would have.

As for Hinrich, Chicago signed him to a starter salary, doesn't that tell you something? Drafting Rose, however, makes Hinrich expandable.

Posted by: sagaliba | September 18, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"Samson151,Of course Gordon wanted more money, but Chicago was unwilling to give it to him. Had Chicago liked the trio combination that much, they would have."

I think I see where you're going wrong here. The fact that Chicago was unwilling to give Gordon all the $$ he wanted does not prove that Chicago didn't like the trio, as a unit. Just that they didn't want to pay Gordon as much money as he wanted.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"It's pretty much been common knowledge for the reason the Bulls were trying to trade Hinirich. They moved up in the draft and got a star PG (just like we did with Wall.)"

Except Hinrich wasn't really a backup PG. He has two talents that Rose didn't: one, he's a reasonably good outside shooter, and two, he's a good defender. That's why in the playoffs, they played alongside one another.

Basically the Bulls gave Hinrich & the 17th pick to Washington in a salary dump.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Ok I know this is late in the the blog but i gotta say this. WHY IS NOONE TALKING ABOUT ANY MINUTES FOR BLATCHE AT THE 3??!! It seem that the obvious choice would be to slide Blatche to the the three, where he can use his speed and length to make up for any defensive weakness in strenth on smaller SFs. Also with early talk being that booker will see time at the 4 this makes even more sense. Yi should also play his best at the PF spot where he can avoid matching up with opposing teams strongest inside player. I think Yi as a 5 is a bad idea. The biggest flaw with this is then the back-up center spot. This team is going to be run and gun and alot of fun to watch, but lockdown, halfcourt defense is still going to be tough unless McGee really comes in to his own on the defensive glass this year and we finally develop some pick and roll defense. CANT WAIT FOR WIZARDS SEASON!!!

Posted by: Powerof13 | September 18, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"I would have kept Haywood and traded Blatche". Are you nuts? AB is finally coming into his own he has crapped away more talent then Haywood could ever dream of having,get real, that was without a doubt the stupidest comment of the numerous stupid comments I have had the displeasure of reading here. Look this team is going to be good, maybe not so much this year but very soon, little tweaking perhaps,but really perhaps not. If Howard comes back at even 75%,we can be really good,Thornton will improve and show us soon,Wall is the BOMB,GA will shut everyone the hell up by the 10th game and McGee will do the same by midseason. This is the youngest most athletic team in the league right now and with Gil and Kirk's veteren leadership,punch in a healthy Howard we will open some eyes and quick. Don't be foolish and underestimate this kid Wall he is the real deal and does not lose. Mark my words just like when all the haters were telling us how the Nats would lose 100 games I said the same then mark my words the Nats won't contend but they wil be much improved, well the Bullets(oops Wizards) will show you all the same they may not contend(but they may) but they will be much improved, 40-55 wins, and depending upon which number they hit will depend on if they contend,either way they WILL be much improved and Wall will wow us all. Count it,write it down,and call me a moron if I'm wrong, but I AM NOT. Go Wizards it's ON.

Posted by: mfowler1 | September 18, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Avg starting SG these days is around 6'6" and well over 200 pounds. You can probably count on 1 hand SGs who are 6'3" or less and under 2 bills.

Posted by: divi3 | September 18, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Avg starting SG these days is around 6'6" and well over 200 pounds. You can probably count on 1 hand SGs who are 6'3" or less and under 2 bills.

Posted by: divi3 | September 18, 2010 5:44 PM |

Somebody of lesser talents than Arenas might have a problem with this. But from where Arena's sits, bring em on.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 18, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Haywood wanted to leave . . . He's a top 12 center . . .

Posted by: 1bmffwb | September 17, 2010 11:28 PM

No.

In no particular order:

DHoward
Bogut
Nene
Horford
Duncan (Yes, he's a C; deal with it)
MGasol
PGasol
Perkins
Camby
Shaq
Bynum
Jefferson
Kaman
DLee
BLopez
Yao
Okafor

And that's not even counting the incoming rookies (Cousins, Aldridge, Monroe) who will likely be better than Haywood this season.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 18, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse


Avg starting SG these days is around 6'6" and well over 200 pounds. You can probably count on 1 hand SGs who are 6'3" or less and under 2 bills.

Posted by: divi3 | September 18, 2010 5:44 PM |

Somebody of lesser talents than Arenas might have a problem with this. But from where Arena's sits, bring em on.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 18, 2010 5:56 PM

It's not 2007 anymore. Arenas is, at best, a glorified 6th man right now. He epitomizes the term "'tweener" and is a man without a position. He is an expensive mistake that will haunt the Wizards for at least the next three years.

Posted by: bobabuie | September 18, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Wiz Fans,
ESPN.com has a pretty cool feature that allows you to vote for the franchise all time starting five.
I found the point guard vote a bit surprising. The link shows my starting five, but there's a start over button.
Check it out.
http://espn.go.com/espn/greatestteam/index/_/teamId/5559655/the-greatest-wizards-team-all-time

Posted by: bozomoeman | September 18, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

It's not 2007 anymore. Arenas is, at best, a glorified 6th man right now. He epitomizes the term "'tweener" and is a man without a position. He is an expensive mistake that will haunt the Wizards for at least the next three years.

Posted by: bobabuie | September 18, 2010 6:44 PM

Good Luck With That.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 18, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure about the contract for Howard. He's coming off a significant injury, it'll take time for him to recover in terms of game-shape and he'll have to be babied along until he reaches that point. Which will be what? game #30 or so? 25? 40?

The minutes he takes recuperating are going to be taken away from a Thornton et al. Someone the team will have next year.

And let's face it: if Howard is able to come back, he's leaving this train next year. This is a year for him to recover and show another team what he might have.

Wasted salary cap and space.

Posted by: SteveMG | September 18, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure about the contract for Howard. He's coming off a significant injury, it'll take time for him to recover in terms of game-shape and he'll have to be babied along until he reaches that point. Which will be what? game #30 or so? 25? 40?

The minutes he takes recuperating are going to be taken away from a Thornton et al. Someone the team will have next year.

And let's face it: if Howard is able to come back, he's leaving this train next year. This is a year for him to recover and show another team what he might have.

Wasted salary cap and space.

Posted by: SteveMG | September 18, 2010 8:51 PM

Yeah. Especially if he recovers well and shows he still has something left in the tank. He will be worth more than the Wizards will be willing to pay.

I am sure they will place a low value on him.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 18, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

...the starting rotation by mid season will have moved AB in as the starting SF. AB just cant rebound adequately to fill the PF spot on this team, the way it is now composed. This means one of the new "tough guys" will have to step up to the starting PF spot. Making AB the defacto best option at the 3...

Posted by: oddjob1 | September 18, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

...the starting rotation by mid season will have moved AB in as the starting SF. AB just cant rebound adequately to fill the PF spot on this team, the way it is now composed. This means one of the new "tough guys" will have to step up to the starting PF spot. Making AB the defacto best option at the 3...

Posted by: oddjob1 | September 18, 2010 10:17 PM

Now this could be a very good thing oddjob1.

If any of those guys are good enough to move AB to the three whilst they hold down the four, it could be a damn good thing.

Course now, AB was good enough to move Jamison to the three last year but Flip did not have a clue.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 18, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

...Wasted salary cap and space.

Posted by: SteveMG

Howard is a placeholder, and he's only taking minutes from Thornton and Young. I doubt either of them will be looking at more than a qualifying offer after next season.

Posted by: djnnnou | September 18, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

"You can probably count on 1 hand SGs who are 6'3" or less and under 2 bills.Posted by: divi3"

I did notice that the average size of SG candidates in this year's draft is 6'3.8" (without shoes) and 207 pounds. That's pretty close to what it's been over the past decade. A guy like Nick Young is actually about the same size as the average SF.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

"You can probably count on 1 hand SGs who are 6'3" or less and under 2 bills.Posted by: divi3"

I did notice that the average size of SG candidates in this year's draft is 6'3.8" (without shoes) and 207 pounds. That's pretty close to what it's been over the past decade. A guy like Nick Young is actually about the same size as the average SF.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 1:07 AM

Samson151, that is interesting. Just going by the comments here, you would think that the average SG is much taller than 6'3".

Gilbert has gotten tremendous criticism for his supposedly inability to match up with the bigger better pg's in the League. If your height calculations are true, then what are most of these comment based upon?

And please don't say defense. Defense is for the few and certainly not the many or even the average PG.

In any event, I never thought Gilbert would have any problems besting his man at the two, but your comment is interesting and should set some folks straight.

I posted here before that 6'3" is not an NBA midget.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 19, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

By the way, I read your link. With all due respects, I think it is weak. Interesting slant, but I don't think he makes the case that winners don't do and go about things a bit differently than the average.

His comment attributing the same comment said in either a loosing game or a winning game really doesn't diminish the premis of why the same few teams are more successful and win more titles time and again.

Good stuff though, you are a resourceful man.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 19, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

6'3.8" in socks equates to 6'5" or so in shoes. Joe Johnson is listed at 6'7" 240. Like Samson said, Nick Young is probably close to avg these days...and he's listed at 6'7" 210 but is probably 220ish

Posted by: divi3 | September 19, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Corrections...SG not PG above. shooting guards

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 19, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

"At that point paying 9mil/yr for your backup PG makes no sense."

Arent we paying him $9mill to be our backup PG?

Posted by: divi3 | September 18, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The Bulls signed him to a 5yr/47.5 million dollar deal. That's too much for a backup PG. I mean hell...they didn't even want to give Gordon that kind of money and he was one of their main scorers.

We got him basically on a 2yr/15mil deal since they gave us 3 million dollars. The assertion that they had been trying to trade him for years because they simply just didn't want him isn't true.

Except Hinrich wasn't really a backup PG. He has two talents that Rose didn't: one, he's a reasonably good outside shooter, and two, he's a good defender. That's why in the playoffs, they played alongside one another.

Basically the Bulls gave Hinrich & the 17th pick to Washington in a salary dump.

Yeah but Hinrich wasn't always a starter. Do you honestly believe if that HAD a decent SG Hinrich wouldn't have been the backup? They simply didn't have one. Who was a SG on that roster last season? Name one. Yes it was a salary dump. Where we got the #1 international player in the draft and a guy that's been an All-NBA defender for on a short contract.

osted by: Samson151 | September 18, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: SDMDTSU | September 19, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

And it so happens that we can use both of his talents...defense and shooting.

Posted by: SDMDTSU | September 19, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

If you ask me I would rather have Livingston as my 3rd guard than Hinrich.

And the other acorn in the side, is that as I have mentioned, we put Hinrich ahead of Livingston, but also Hinrich is now ahead of Young on the depth chart.

I wonder how the dynamics of that will play out, especially when they go to training camp and they find out that Young can ball better than Hinrich. The players will know.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 19, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The players may already know who is better between Young and Hinrich. Let's even say that Hinrich is a least equal to Young and he doesn't show he is any better than Young in training camp.

All this crap about Hinrich and what he is good at will not translate to the team and will not mean anything.

With all of our dissatisfaction with Young, if Hinrich is really not a better baller than him, it will create bad chemistry on the team if Hinrich is given the first guard off the bench role just because.

You see when we made the deal for Hinrich we assumed that he would be our best alternative after Wall and Arenas.

We threw Young under the bus. Young probably is on his way as being the next player, WE PLACE A LOW VALUE IN and is on the way out of the door.

We can't keep doing this people.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 19, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"Yeah but Hinrich wasn't always a starter. Do you honestly believe if that HAD a decent SG Hinrich wouldn't have been the backup? They simply didn't have one. Who was a SG on that roster last season? Name one."

Chicago did have an odd roster in the '09 season, lots of titular PGs who were really combos. But until Feb 18 (first 51 games), didn't they have John Salmons? Looks like he averaged 33 minutes and shot 38% from 3 point range. Salmons is listed as 6'7" and 210 lbs. That trade was salary-driven, too, with Chicago sending him to Milwaukee in exchange for expiring contracts (Hakim Warrick, Joe Alexander) and the option to switch a first rounder if it wasn't Top Ten. Warrick's already gone and I'm not sure Alexander will be around after camp.

Salmons was a real boost to Milwaukee, arguably their MVP after Bogut. His presence really helped Jennings get going again.

It was probably the weirdest season ever, trade-and-release-wise. Chicago gambled big on signing James, drew a blank, and had to scramble to patch things as best they could. I thought they did a pretty good job of patching. But I bet they'd rather have LeBron.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Odd rumors out of Charlotte that Larry Brown is still desperate for a PG. According to the Observer, he was hoping to swap Dampier for a veteran to start over Augustin and Shaun Livingston. Don't know if this is just Larry being Larry or if he's already thinking his two current PGs aren't up to the task.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Just checked the Charlotte roster and they've got 4 former Wiz: Livingston of course, plus Kwame Brown, Larry Hughes, and Dominic McGuire. I guess Hughes can technically play the point, too, next to somebody like Stephen Jackson.

Sherron Collins is the rookie. Another PG.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Samson,

Yeah they had Salmons...and he started the first two months of the season....after that they went to Hinrich. I have no idea why...but when Vinny Del Negro is your coach.......

Posted by: SDMDTSU | September 19, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

If you ask me I would rather have Livingston as my 3rd guard than Hinrich.

And the other acorn in the side, is that as I have mentioned, we put Hinrich ahead of Livingston, but also Hinrich is now ahead of Young on the depth chart.

You see when we made the deal for Hinrich we assumed that he would be our best alternative after Wall and Arenas.

We threw Young under the bus. Young probably is on his way as being the next player, WE PLACE A LOW VALUE IN and is on the way out of the door.

We can't keep doing this people.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 19, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Can I see the depth chart you're looking at Larry? This is what it is, if you ask ANYBODY with common sense. I guarantee they'll take Hinrich over Young or Livingston.

Nick is coming into his 4th season, logged almost 4,500 NBA minutes. No more excuses. He hasn't shown the ability to be a complete player. He can put the ball in the basket sometimes...but that's IT. He said he's dedicated to becoming a better player this season but we heard that last season too. We need to see it actually happen.

I don't wanna hear he wasn't getting minutes or Tapscott anything. Dom got on the court. Was it because he won the "youth coin toss" to get in? No it's because he busted his ass and played hard.

Maybe Nick should've picked up his work ethic since they were friends.

Posted by: SDMDTSU | September 19, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

DHoward
Bogut
Nene
Horford
Duncan (Yes, he's a C; deal with it)
MGasol
PGasol
Perkins
Camby
Shaq
Bynum
Jefferson
Kaman
DLee
BLopez
Yao
Okafor
And that's not even counting the incoming rookies (Cousins, Aldridge, Monroe) who will likely be better than Haywood this season.

Posted by: kalo_rama

Depends a bit on what you want from a C I guess. Certains names on that list, I've got no problems with (Howard, Bogut, Nene, Horford, Duncan, The Gasols, Bynum - if healthy, Jefferson, D Lee, Yao - If healthy, and probably B Lopez). Though Haywood is a better one-on-one and team defender than Lee and Jefferson for sure and probably others on that list.

Imo, Haywood's as good as or better than Okafor, Kaman (who has better stats, but not as solid on D), Perkins, Camby, and at this point, Shaq. Shaq is obviously a better scorer, but when you start to factor in his perennial lack of conditioning meaning you're only going to get so many games and so many minutes out of him, I think it balances out. On D, at this point Shaq is just a traffic cone. He's only still effective at all because he's a very, very large traffic cone. Put Haywood on the Celts instead of Perkins and I don't think you'd see a lot of difference, except that Haywood would likely struggle more against D Howard and less against Bynum and PGasol (because he's not giving up as much height).

Cousins may be better this season, but may also struggle. Aldridge is solid and will eventually be at the same level, but not this season. Monroe will struggle if he's asked to play a lot of C this season.

Haywood is what he is. He'll never be anything more than an accessory on offense (except that he usually ranks high on the offensive rebounds list). He's a solid one-on-one and team defender, who seemed at last willing to settle into that role (at least until he got paid). Is he a "Top 12" C? Probably not. But he's solidly in that middle tier of veteran C's who can help teams with the right mix of players. If the biggest knock against him right now is that Dallas benched him in favor of Dampier at the end of last season, the only (fairly resaonable) response I have is that there are many things that the Mavericks have done and continue to do that defy logical explanation.

Posted by: ts35 | September 19, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

All of which goes to say that Haywood is a reasonably valuable center, but he's worth more to a playoff team that what is clearly a rebuilding team.

His defense, size and rebounding would be nice to have, but he's never been the 'mentor' type and he's not worth $8M a season (which is what they would have had to pay him) to the current Wizards. Especially since he would have ended up being another veteran crutch for Flip to lean on instead of playing the youngsters.

Posted by: ts35 | September 19, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

I posted here before that 6'3" is not an NBA midget.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 19, 2010 8:01 AM

SDMDTSU posted that the average height for this year's incoming SGs is 6'-3.8" (without shoes) . Arenas is 6'-2.25 (without shoes). The height difference is about 1.5". I'm willing to bet if you looked at STARTING SGs in the league (and Arenas will matched up against them all season), the height disparity is even greater.

Arenas is a losing proposition at shooting guard and point guard. He can't defend either position and gives up length at the two.

Posted by: bobabuie | September 19, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

"Who was a SG on that roster last season? Name one."

John Salmons.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

If you ask me I would rather have Livingston as my 3rd guard than Hinrich.

Pretty sure we all knew that.

And the other acorn in the side, is that as I have mentioned, we put Hinrich ahead of Livingston, but also Hinrich is now ahead of Young on the depth chart.

You see when we made the deal for Hinrich we assumed that he would be our best alternative after Wall and Arenas.

We threw Young under the bus. Young probably is on his way as being the next player, WE PLACE A LOW VALUE IN and is on the way out of the door.

Did 'we' throw Young under the bus or did he do it to himself? As for his value....exactly what value has he demonstrated? Nick has been given repeated opportunities to grab ahold of the position and....hasn't. We know he can score. And that's skill #1 in the NBA. But lots of guys can score. What else is he bringing to the table? And not just "I think he can be a good defender" or "In one game he did this or that" What value has he demonstrated? I can at least understand the value of Livingston. He was the first legit playmaking PG we had had in a while. But that was made moot by drafting Wall and Gil's return. But what is irreplaceable about Nick?

We can't keep doing this people.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: ts35 | September 19, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"Who was a SG on that roster last season? Name one."

John Salmons.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Who started the first two months of the season. Hinrich was on the bench. They started going with Hinrich ini January.

Posted by: SDMDTSU | September 19, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Because they couldn't get the production they wanted from SALMONS, or an injury, which?

Posted by: glawrence007 | September 19, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Because they couldn't get the production they wanted from SALMONS, or an injury, which?

Posted by: glawrence007 | September 19, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Salmons wasn't hurt. He was just moved to the bench...still playing 25+ minutes per game.

Posted by: SDMDTSU | September 19, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

If KH was an adequate SG he may very well still be in Chicago. IMHO, he got a bum deal being traded here, Charlotte would have been absolutely perfect for him. He's PG, not a SG.

Posted by: divi3 | September 19, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: divi3 | September 19, 2010 12:31 PM

Agreed. But with Gil's suspect knee and Wall's reckless style of play, Hinrich might be pressed into service at PG more than any of us expect.

Posted by: bobabuie | September 19, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

WRT the SG height 'debate'. Generally speaking, teams look for players in the 6'5"-6'6" range. That being said, there are plenty of players who are in the 6'3"-6'4" range who are effective. And plenty who are 6'6" or taller who can't. As in all things hoops-related, it all comes down to whether you can ball or not. Arenas and Hinrich have both established their bona fides as players.

Posted by: ts35 | September 19, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Name the 6'3" SGs under 200 pounds who are considered LEGIT. Jason Terry and? Like I said, I bet you can count them on one hand.

Posted by: divi3 | September 19, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

What difference does it make? It's "Can you play?" Hinrich has proven he can.

Now name all of the 6'6" SGs over 200 lbs who can't crack the starting lineup on their teams. It's going to take the fingers and toes of you and a few dozen friends.

Posted by: ts35 | September 19, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"[Salmons] started the first two months of the season. Hinrich was on the bench. They started going with Hinrich in January.
Posted by: SDMDTSU"

LOL so I guess I named a SG who was on the Bulls' roster.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Thing that puzzles me about the Bulls' roster is, who plays 2 guard? Glancing over the roster, looks like there are 3 candidates -- Ronnie Brewer, Ronald Murray, Keith Bogans, and Devin Brown. All have pronounced flaws. Brewer has the weirdest jump shot in basketball and is 23.4% career from the 3 point line. Murray shot a little better from outside (31%) but at 6'3" is prohibited by divine declaration from playing SG (just kidding). Bogans is an OK shooter but very much a bench player. Maybe Devin Brown, but he's going to be 32 in December so that's not a long-term fix.

To me, that looks like a hole created when they decided to let Salmons and Hinrich go -- one they haven't filled yet.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that was four candidates for SG in Chicago.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Samson, do you think they will try to go big and play Deng and Korver together? With Boozer and Rose, plenty of open looks for those two. Hurts the D a bit, but much better scoring.

Posted by: ts35 | September 19, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"Depends a bit on what you want from a C I guess."

Not really. If there are 12 Cs better than him, then he's not a top 12 Co. It's really that simple.

"Is he a "Top 12" C? Probably not."

Posted by: ts35 | September 19, 2010 11:03 AM

Well, since pointing out that he wasn't a top 12 C was the sole purpose of my previous post, one is left to wonder why you spent 4 paragraphs counter arguing something that, apparently, you actually agreed with.

Oh well.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 19, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

What difference does it make? It's "Can you play?" Hinrich has proven he can.

Now name all of the 6'6" SGs over 200 lbs who can't crack the starting lineup on their teams. It's going to take the fingers and toes of you and a few dozen friends.

Posted by: ts35 | September 19, 2010 1:46 PM

The difference it makes is you cant name them for a reason, namely, 6'3" is not an adequate size to play SG in the nba aside from rare circumstances. And Hinrich absolutely has NOT proven he is a legit SG. If he was the Bulls wouldnt have had such issues on offense and they may not have moved him. SG is home to some of the best offensive talents in the league, along with many guys who take it upon themselves to be lockdown defenders. 6'3" 190 pounds is quite simply overmatched. You put KH at SG and you are running a "two guard" offense (as Flip says he intends to).

Posted by: divi3 | September 19, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I think the Bulls are hoping that Brewer continues to improve. His 3pt% is terrible but at least he knows not to shoot them- less than 1 per game on his career. Contrast that with his career 52%FG and the fact he's a superb defender and you have a guy (at age 25) that could very well be coming into his own. Though no one here wants to hear it, at SHOOTING GUARD he's actually an upgrade over KH on both ends of the floor.

Posted by: divi3 | September 19, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"Thing that puzzles me about the Bulls' roster is, who plays 2 guard? Glancing over the roster, looks like there are 3 candidates -- Ronnie Brewer, Ronald Murray, Keith Bogans, and Devin Brown. All have pronounced flaws."

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 2:03 PM

Most players (particularly non-superstars) have flaws of some kind. Of that group, I think Brewer is the clear frontrunner. He was a very effective starter for a very good Utah team. He's got size (something the Bulls backcourt has been lacking for a long time) and he's a very good defender (something that'll play well into the style of the new coach). And, despite his limited range, he can provide some complementary scoring. His positives outweigh his negatives pretty heavily from what I can see.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 19, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Thing that puzzles me about the Bulls' roster is, who plays 2 guard? Glancing over the roster, looks like there are 3 candidates -- Ronnie Brewer, Ronald Murray, Keith Bogans, and Devin Brown. All have pronounced flaws."

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 2:03 PM

Most players (particularly non-superstars) have flaws of some kind. Of that group, I think Brewer is the clear frontrunner. He was a very effective starter for a very good Utah team. He's got size (something the Bulls backcourt has been lacking for a long time) and he's a very good defender (something that'll play well into the style of the new coach). And, despite his limited range, he can provide some complementary scoring. His positives outweigh his negatives pretty heavily from what I can see.

Posted by: kalo_rama | September 19, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Hinrich is a much better fit with Rose than Brewer. The problem with the Bulls offense last year was post scoring. I have a hard time seeing them correcting that and then negating their perimeter scoring. Even the Wizards can defend a lineup giving Rose, Brewer, and Noah major minutes together.

Posted by: djnnnou | September 19, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Though no one here wants to hear it, at SHOOTING GUARD he's actually an upgrade over KH on both ends of the floor.Posted by: divi3"

No, we're happy to hear it. That's a pronounced flaw for a SG, however -- that miserable 3 point shooting percentage. Playing next to a shooter like Deron Williams, it wasn't much of an issue. Maybe Chicago is hoping Korver can open up the defense from the 3 spot so Brewer can play more of that dunking game he prefers. Korver is something of a liability on defense against small forwards, however. Rose says he's working overtime to improve his own outside shot.

Here's a highlight clip on Brewer. I was hoping to find a jump shot, but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODBYUtG4Pq8

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I imagine everyone agrees that Brewer will be a plus on defense and the fast break. It's more the half-court offense that would concern me. I'd wonder if the coach wouldn't send him to the bench and sub Bogans or Devin Brown at times.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 19, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

I'll be interested to see how Boozer fits in Chicago. To me, Carlos has always been more productive than 'good', if you follow me. The sort who gets a lot out of limited ability and sheer persistence. I'm assuming Deng will be opposite him and will be taking the opponent's best front-line scorer while Boozer stays around the lane. But Rose is very much a penetrator as well as a scorer, and will having Carlos inside limit his path to the basket? The way Shaq did in Cleveland?

Just trying to imagine how this will work...

Posted by: Samson151 | September 20, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

ts35,

I hear all what you are saying about Young, but that isn't the point. Despite all that of what we know about Young, the question is...Can Hinrich outplay him?

And, to the other poster, who said that any Team would rather have Hinrich than Livingston, well maybe, certainly the Wizards felt that way, but, however, would Hinrich outperform Livingston???

I am not convinced, despite the glowing appraisals of Hinrich's game on this board, that he is a better baller on the court than either Young or Livingston.

We might have a chance to see it with Young and Hinrich if the both of them are given a fair chance in games to prove it.

You would think that Young would automatically have an advantage at SG than Young.

If Livingston gets a chance to play in Charlotte as folks keep saying he will and was a major reason he choose to leave, then we can evaluate that as well.

You see, the whole reason I keep bringing up Livingston and now bringing Young verses Hinrich, is because the Wizards it appears have made a decision that Hinrich is a better proposition than either of them.

We will see.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 20, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Well, since pointing out that he wasn't a top 12 C was the sole purpose of my previous post, one is left to wonder why you spent 4 paragraphs counter arguing something that, apparently, you actually agreed with.

Oh well.

Posted by: kalo_rama

Disagreed with the list of centers you put up as better than Haywood. The rest of it was just my two cents on the overall discussion of Haywood's value. Apologies that it's not all about you.

Posted by: ts35 | September 20, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

at SG than Young. )correction)
than Hinrich... I meant to say. Sorry.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 20, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

The difference it makes is you cant name them for a reason, namely, 6'3" is not an adequate size to play SG in the nba aside from rare circumstances. And Hinrich absolutely has NOT proven he is a legit SG. If he was the Bulls wouldnt have had such issues on offense and they may not have moved him. SG is home to some of the best offensive talents in the league, along with many guys who take it upon themselves to be lockdown defenders. 6'3" 190 pounds is quite simply overmatched. You put KH at SG and you are running a "two guard" offense (as Flip says he intends to).

Posted by: divi3

The reason I 'can't' name them is because I'm not trying. The reason I don't care is because he's our 3rd guard. He's not starting (as far as any of us know). So at least part of the time he'll be playing against backups anyway, and as far as we understand it, will split time at the 1 and 2. So it seems like a lot of handwringing over nothing. Plus, your argument has essentially boiled down to 6'3" under 200 lb guys can't play SG, except when they can.

I also don't have the time, patience or inclination to go through the list of players who have been successful in the NBA with less than ideal 'measurables'.

As to the Bulls' issues on offense, he *may* have contributed, but a scoring SG wasn't their top offseason priority. Even putting aside chasing Wade or LeBron, they went after a component they've been missing for years, someone who can score down low. It's easier to argue that their offensive struggles stem from a lack of frontcourt production than to argue that it's because of Hinrich's height.

Posted by: ts35 | September 20, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't think many in here think that Hinrich is a better 2-guard than Nick. What has been proven is that Hinrich will compete and be involved in the game consistently whereas Nick will disappear on the court.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 20, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Another thing to throw on the wood pile. Why is it that there are comments here that we would have to have paid Haywood 9m a year???

Haywood was making 5m a year when he was here. What did we offer him when he was here versus what he got when he was gone???

I think the answer in both cases is zero dollars. There is some report though that we did offer him something at the beginning of the season 09, but as of yet no verifiable report has surfaced indicating what it was. 5.5, 6., 6.5, 7., 7.5, get my drift... Haywood said he wanted to see what the market would offer so we just threw up our hands and backed off.

We did not feel that Haywood was worth what he thought he could get so we did not negotiate with him or offer him anything.

But funny thing...WHY IS HINRICH WORTH 9M TO THIS TEAM AND HAYWOOD ISN'T???

Was it the draft position that made him worth 9m to this team???

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 20, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Larry,

Would Hinrich outperform Livingston? It depends on what you want. Livingston is an excellent playmaker with a decent mid-range game. He's not a noteworthy defender, hasn't shown the ability to shoot the three, hasn't been asked (as far as I know) to play the 2, and ultimately is still just coming back from a very serious knee injury. He seems to be healthy, but he hasn't played anything close to a full season in years.

Hinrich brings at least a rep and a resume as a good defender, experience in playing with a very talented guard (which could apply to Wall or GA), a solid 3pt %, is a solid playmaker, and has experience playing the 1 and the 2. And has been relatively healthy throughout his career. Not to mention the mid-first-round pick that came with him.

Those attributes may have made Hinrich a more attractive prospect to the Wizards than Livingston. They have what they hope will be an excellent playmaker in John Wall. If Wall is not capable, they have an All-Star caliber player who can play point behind him in Gil. So the things Livingston brings to the table may not be as valuable to the team as what Hinrich brings. So even if you think Livingston is the better player, Hinrich may be more useful to the team.

Young may indeed outperform Hinrich. If he does, hopefully they will reward him accordingly. In the meantime, he's had more than a few opportunities to secure the confidence of the coaches and the organization and for whatever reasons, hasn't. So if I'm the brain trust, can I go into the season assuming that this will be the year? Or do I bring in a veteran who has proven himself?

There are things about Young I like, but he has yet to put it all together over a consistent stretch. Maybe, like AB, it's just taking him more time to mature into a professional. Maybe at this point in his career having someone like Hinrich around will push him to succeed. I hope so. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have guys playing so well that Flip has to struggle to get them all the minutes they deserve. However, nothing should be handed to Young. He hasn't earned it.

Posted by: ts35 | September 20, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Haywood said he wanted to see what the market would offer so we just threw up our hands and backed off.

Where's the evidence of any of that Larry? Meanwhile, looking at the contracts of similar players, it was likely that on the open market Haywood was going to command around $8M a year. The article you posted indicated pretty much the same thing.

The difference with Hinrich is two years at an average of around 8.5M (decreasing over time), with $3M from the Bulls and a draft pick thrown in as opposed to four or five years of Haywood at around the same amount.

Plus, it's a bit of apples and oranges because Haywood's situation went down mid-season when the blow-up and clearing cap space was the priority, as opposed to the rebuilding circumstances Hinrich was brought in under.

Posted by: ts35 | September 20, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Hinrich's 9m a year is second on the Team to Gilbert's 17m and almost 4m more than Wall who will make 5.14m.

Blatche will make 3.2m next year and Hinrich will get 9m.

But we did not want to negotiate with Livingston and Haywood because their perceived worth did not justify the monies to be paid to them in our/Wizards estimation and most on this board.

But we are going to pay Hinrich almost 4 mil more than arguably a can't miss starstudded #1 draft pick and 6m more than Andray Blatche.

So if Haywood isn't worth 6,7,8, or 9m a year on this Team, can somebody explain why Kirk Hinrich is, who incidently probably cannot outplay Nick Young who will make 2m this year.

Sounds like a formula for disharmony, bad chemistry and losing to me.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 20, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I thought the purpose for taking on Hinrich's contract was to acquire another first round pick(Seraphin). The reason for the deal was not Hinrich. He is a temp. That being the case, Livingston didn't play in the matter.

I don't think Livingston would have played behind Wall and Gil, or in a Wall/Gil/Nick/Livingston combination. He wanted to be higher up the food chain. I felt that way after the lottery but before the draft and feel the same way after the draft and Hinrich was acquired.

Posted by: G-Man11 | September 20, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

But we are going to pay Hinrich almost 4 mil more than arguably a can't miss starstudded #1 draft pick and 6m more than Andray Blatche.

C'mon, Larry, you know there's a rookie wage scale. That's why Wall makes $5M. AB signed his extension (hey look! someone they negotiated with and kept!) when his value was low. He was barely a backup when he signed his extension. When Hinrich signed his deal, he was the starting PG for a playoff team.

So if Haywood isn't worth 6,7,8, or 9m a year on this Team, can somebody explain why Kirk Hinrich is, who incidently probably cannot outplay Nick Young who will make 2m this year.

It remains to be seen if Hinrich is worth the $9M, but it's important to keep in perspective that part of his availability was due to his high salary. It's not that the Wiz wanted to pay Hinrich $9M, EG just wanted the him and the pick and taking on the salary was part of the deal. Given the comparatively short term of the contract, I'm guessing it seemed to EG and Ted likely a worthwhile investment. Hopefully it was, we'll see.

As for Hinrich outplaying Nick....he already has. Over the course of their careers. Nick has had his shots, and he will likely get more of them. It's up to him to prove he deserves to be on the floor. He hasn't yet. And Nick makes $2.6M this year because he's still on his rookie deal as well.

Posted by: ts35 | September 20, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

ts35,

You understand the dynamics very well. You can see the reasoning, I can see the reasoning, but do the Wizards and the Team see all of this.

Will there players understand all of what is going on with the Team and will Flip have the wisdom to make this work.

Will Blatche wake up in the middle of the night pissed off about something that happened and decide he wants his contract negotiated because he is making 6m less than Kirk Hinrich?

I know this sounds speculative, but I say this to emphasize, when posters say this player is worth this or that and we end up paying a guy like Hinrich 9m a year and Livingston and Haywood are not even worth negotiating with.

And the bottom line is that Hinrich may well fullfill adequately the role the Wizards have for him, but I cannot swallow/agree with these posters whom say Livingston and Haywood wasn't worth a certain amount of money and Hinrich is.

These are things that the players are well aware as well.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 20, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Honestly Larry, if AB picks up with his production right where he left off last season, I'm sure somewhere around the All-Star break (if not sooner) he'll start mentioning being underpaid. And he won't be wrong. But it is the contract he signed when he wasn't worth more. In fact, a lot of people said EG was wrong to resign him. So EG showed him the faith and loyalty that you keep talking about, will AB return the loyalty? Or is that not relevant?

As for Haywood and Livingston, you're certainly entitled to that belief. I continue to think it's a mistake though to chastise the organization for any negotiations that happened behind closed doors that we know nothing about.

Ultimately everyone's 'worth' is determined by exactly how much someone is willing to pay them.

Posted by: ts35 | September 20, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

One other thing also.

The notion that Haywood was apart of the fire sale because he would not fit in with a rebuilding Team is pure baloney.

Haywood got traded because we the Wizards had already decided that we wasn't gonna pay him market value.

Haywood never said that he would not resign. What he did say is he wanted to test the market.

However, if Haywood knew based on all projections and the Wizards did as well that his MV was 8m and the Wizards wanted him why didn't they offer 8m or 7/7.5 as a negotiation point?

No, we did not want Haywood at that price, the Wizards did not and most poster did not think that Haywood deserved that much either.

So we traded him. I guess since we could not get rid of Arenas, Haywood became apart of the Big Three by default.

So now how do you square that when you end up with a $9m backup guard whom can never bring the value that Haywood could have to this group of players and the Team?

How do you square that?

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 20, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

How do you square that?

Apparently with $3M and a mid first-rounder. :)

Haywood was traded because he was the easiest piece to trade because he still had value as a player and because he had an expiring contract.

Imo, Hinrich's only relatively more valuable because his contract is shorter than Haywood's would have been, meaning they retain financial flexibility.

Furthermore, you have to factor in Abe's death, the sale of the team, the fact that on some level, different people were in charge when the decisions were made, so different criteria were likely behind the decisions. Before the sale to Ted, it may have been more important to get rid of as much salary as possible. They could avoid the Luxury Tax that way and also theoretically ease the sale of the team (lower overhead). So they burned all of the available salary they could.

The Hinrich decision was made after Ted was fully on board. He had already mandated a youth movement, which while Hinrich is certainly not young, came along with a draft pick. He also provides another good role model for the prized #1 pick, Mr Wall.

If you're asking me who is more valuable as a player, straight up, I'd probably say Haywood right now. But timing, finances and circumstances dictated otherwise. In the meantime, there's nothing that says the organization did anything wrong in how they 'negotiated' with Haywood. Extensions often don't get worked out until after the season, and well, by then circumstances had changed.

They will miss Haywood's presence on the court this year for sure. But in the meantime, it does pretty much guarantee that McGee will get as many minutes as he can handle. From the perspective of developing the organization, that, to me, is more important.


Posted by: ts35 | September 20, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Can't scoff at $3m, but let's hope like hell that Seraphin can play. For in all analysis, Seraphin was brought in to help McGee.

By ridding ourselves of Haywood we essentially took three steps backward in our big man game, so lets hope that Seraphin can fill that void.

LarryInClintonMD.

Posted by: LarryInClintonMD | September 20, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Thinking back, the impression I have is that Haywood was something of a surprise inclusion in what was first a deal for Caron Butler. I recall Cuban expressing his pleasure at getting both players (I don't know if he considered Stevenson a plus). Turned out that Brendan had the most immediate impact on Dallas' wins, and I never quite understood why they benched him in favor of Dampier. Certainly didn't seem to be the correct choice. For all his oft-mentioned flaws, Haywood seemed to be a pretty good fit with the Mavs.

For Grunfeld, it was all about starting over with as few core veterans as he could manage. He probably figured he was stuck with Gilbert for the moment. Very different situation from the shedding of players in NJ and Chicago.

Looking at Dallas now, there's Haywood and Chandler backed up by Mahinmi at the 5. Those are role players but it could work as a combination. Nowitzki is still the main scoring option, and Tim Thomas is supposedly out this year, leaving not much behind Dirk (maybe Shawn Marion in some matchups, but not many). Seems to me the guards are going to have to provide more scoring than they have in the past.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 20, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"The difference it makes is you cant name them for a reason, namely, 6'3" is not an adequate size to play SG in the nba aside from rare circumstances. posted by divi3"

I don't think it's the ideal size, but as far as adequate? Looks OK to me. If the average size of SGs in the most recent draft class is 6'3.68" (per draftexpress) without shoes, that means that about half are actually shorter than that figure. They don't publish the median height, but it's never that far away from the average. So let's say that in shoes they're a little under 6'5". We haven't even taken into consideration a number that for guards is sometimes considered more important than height, and that's wingspan. Seems to me that a proven defensive guard could probably defend most of the SGs he'll face, even if they're an inch or so taller than he is. Obviously a really tall guy who can jump should have an advantage on offense, which is what makes Nick Young so mystifying. But somehow a player like Hinrich seems not only to survive, but to prosper.

Posted by: Samson151 | September 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me the guards [for the Mavs] are going to have to provide more scoring than they have in the past.
Posted by: Samson151

Have to figure they're going to try to work Beaubois more into the equation this season too.

I remember the same thing about doing the deal just for Butler and Haywood was an EG throw-in. But for what it's worth here's what Cuban said at one point....

"Although the Mavericks (32-20) received a two-time all-star in Butler, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said the deal would not have been made without the inclusion of Haywood, who is averaging 9.8 points, 10.3 rebounds and 2.1 blocked shots."

Posted by: ts35 | September 20, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I like the idea of Yi at SF. The defensive problems are no greater than those posed by playing No-D Gilbert Arenas. I think they could do well with the all-big front line and Gilbert and Wall in the backcourt -- and hide their defensive problems with a zone. The long arms of Yi and the quickness of Arenas could make a zone work -- at least for short stretches. One thing's for sure -- Yi can get off a jump shot against every SF in the NBA and if Wall sets him up with open look perimeter shots (and hey, they would have to watch McGee and Blatche inside), he could be very productive on offense.

Posted by: dolph924 | September 21, 2010 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company