Lombardi's_kid_brother

Amare has an UNINSURED contract through 2015. No thanks.

If they are even thinking of taking Beal, they should drop back and take Lamb or Rivers. I just don't think any franchise can justify taking guards in the top three in two out of three years. One of them would have to be named Derrick Rose for that to make sense.

By the time Drummond is ready, Wall would be gone. The team that should draft Drummond is Charlotte. They are going to suck for the next four years regardless of what happens in this draft. They have all the time in the world to take long-term projects.

JR was fired in 1994, two weeks after his first Bells' Palsy attack. Take that for what you will.

I'm still trying to process this Unseld thing. I have extremely vague memories of 70s basketball. (Though, apparently, my dad like to put my baby swing in front of NBA games. It apparently soothed me. On a related note, I like falling asleep to games broadcast by Marv Albert. I'm also almost 40). Wes was famous for rebounds, outlet passes, setting picks, and being awesome despite weighing 300 pounds and not being able to jump over a deck of cards. Are you guys thinking of Elvin Hayes? I think you dudes might be thinking of Elvin Hayes. Hayes averaged 28.4 as a rookie. That would have won the scoring title this year and last year.

Everybody needs to calm down. A. When the hell did Wes Unseld average 20 points per game? His career high was 16.2. He averaged 13.8 as a rookie. His career average was 10.8. Seriously, who are you thinking of? A. You can't extrapolate numbers from college to pros. The college game is 40 minutes with a 35-second shot clock. The pro game is 48 minutes with a 24 second shot clock. Pros get a lot more opportunities for blocks and rebounds. B. You can't compare numbers from the 70s to today. In 1978, the average NBA team scored 110 points per game. In 2006-2007, it was 98.7 per game. I can't find last year's numbers (which I believe were slightly up but I know the numbers collapsed this year). C. You can't compare anyone to Kareem. Kareem was the perfect center. This is like looking at Steven Strasberg and comparing him to Cy Young or something. "Oh, he's not as good as the single greatest offensive force in the history of basketball. Therefore, he stinks."

I never said he was a finished product. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. I said he would have an immediate impact. Dwight Howard was 10/10 guy the first time he stepped on a basketball court in the NBA. That already put him in a very small group. He eventually became a 25/15 guy. I think Davis will immediately grab double digit boards for the Hornets and he will probably challenge for the league title in blocks. He'll score but it will mostly be on put-backs and dunks and junk like that. Down the road, I think he will be perennial all defense and challenge for league titles in rebounds and blocks. I don't think he'll ever be Duncan or Hakeem or even Shaq on offense. But I can see him averaging 15 to 18 per game. I do expect him to develop a decent jumper. I've already seen glimpses of it. I think his ceiling is a bunch of all-defense teams and numbers like 19/14/3. You should make the playoffs every year with that at the center spot. The rest of the team will be easy to build around that. To compare, I don't think Drummond will get more than 12 minutes a game as a rookie. He just doesn't understand the game well enough. This is what I keep emphasizing. The Wizards are not looking for their #1 star this year. They (supposedly) already have that. What they need is Wall's lieutenant. That's what keeps bringing me back to MKG. I think he is legitimately talented but also has the makeup to play off a star for the next ten years.

Vince seems to hate JR - yet he constantly keeps him employed. Vince is insane, it should be noted. I know he's not a fan of the Southern accent, because Vince hates rasslin'. I also know that he didn't like putting JR on tv when the Bells' Palsy was acting up.

He is no prize winning beauty, I'll say that much.

Like I said earlier, I don't think he's used to his body yet. He had such a late growth spurt, that he still seems a little shocked at how big he is - at least on offense. I've seen the guy score with his left and right hand on consecutive possessions. That's enough for me to know that he's going to be ok on offense. To me, he's really not that different than Patrick Ewing at 19. Ewing was nothing but arms, legs, and a raw offensive game at that point. He developed a very polished offensive game over time - though his knees went bad and he lost that insane athleticism. Seriously, raise your hand if you watched Patrick Ewing play in college.

And can we all step back for a second and accept that OKC didn't discover fusion. What they did was draft two top ten players, a top fifteen/twenty player, and the league's best shot blocker in consecutive in under five years. If the Wizards draft three All Stars in the next three years, all their problems are over too. What the Thunder have done well is clear the decks so their young stars could develop and play. If you have too many young guys - even if they are talented - you don't end up with the Thunder. You end up with the 2000 Bulls. Just look at the 2000-01 Bulls to see my nightmare: Elton Brand - 21 years old Ron Mercer - 24 years old Ron Artest - 21 years old Marcus Fizer - 22 years old Brad Miller - 24 years old Khalid Al-Amin - 21 years old Corey Benjamin - 22 years old That team won 15 games. Their genius move the next season was somehow getting YOUNGER by drafting Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler. They did try to add some leadership by drastically overpaying Jalen Rose. They won 21 games. What they should have done is said "Our front line is going to be Brand, Miller, and Artest and that's all we care about" and dumped everyone else. Instead, they ran the NBA equivalent of a daycare center for 5 years.

Davis will be. I seem to be higher on MKG than most, but I think he would either be a starter or a 6th man on 20+ teams.

Two points: 1. Dwight Howard started every game as a rookie, shot 52 percent and averaged 10 rebounds. By his third year, he was a superstar. Orlando has done a wonderful job with him, but the first day he walked onto the court, he was already one of the best centers in the league. 2. This is a question more than a point: How many goddamn under 22 year olds do you people want? Are you trying to beat Kentucky or make the playoffs? The only thing I would trade the #3 for is an established player of the Cousins ilk. You add two more lottery picks to this team, and it's going to be Romper Room next year.

By the time he develops, John Wall will be playing in a state without income taxes. Do the Wizards have the luxury of waiting three or four years? ---------- Post added June-1st-2012 at 08:07 AM ---------- In other words, he is Tyson Chandler and will be on this third team at that point. Bynum is the only big I can think of that stuck with his original team through years and years of development. And the Lakers had the luxury of patience with him. I think Drummond will one day be good. I also think that the team that drafts him will be developing him for someone else. That's just the nature of young bigs and the lottery.

What's really sad is that people even knew then how bad it was. Generally, it takes a few years perspective. That year, the thought was - "well, if you take Battier #1, you can be confident that you are drafting a starter. The rest of these guys....eeeshhhhh."

Are you high? I'm not entirely sure Veesely will be in the league in three years. In the absolute worst case scenario, I see Davis being like Marcus Camby - a defensive force with a limited offensive game. But I think he is ultimately going to be better offensively than that. He has really good hands. He's shown the ability to score with either hand around the basket. His jumper is already okay - if he has a problem with it, it's that he doesn't seem to have completely grown into his body yet. He always seems surprised by the actual release point of his jumper. Davis would be a top three pick in nearly any draft over the last 30 years, and a number one pick in most of them.

Isn't that the thesis of the SI article on Javale McGhee from last month?

ROH has gotten reasonably popular with that approach. I think you can train the fans to like whatever you want to show them. The WWE has no trouble getting the fans to buy into longer matches at Wrestlemania. I think if they gave Punk and Bryan 25 minutes on the next Raw, the fans would buy into it. HHH is apparently a huge fan of old-school territory style wrestling so it's possible that they eventually go in that direction. Two thoughts: 1. You can't do it right away, and 2. You can't do it with everyone. The NWA did not have the Road Warriors do 60 minute Broadways on a nightly basis, you know. PS Dutch Mantel is exactly right, which is not shocking. Dutch is kind of a wrestling savant. I want to like ROH but they sometimes seem to forget that they are in the entertainment business. My favorite wrestling promotion is still mid-80s Crockett which would give you real mat-based wrestling, would give you bloody brawls (Seriously...has anything ever touched the Magnum-Tully I Quit match), and would give you some really goofy but entertaining storylines (Jim Cornette versus Baby Doll actually headlined house shows for God's sake. That's fat manager versus a fatter woman). The main problem in the WWE right now is simple: Why are these guys fighting? I don't want to sound like a bad method actor, but what is the motivation of the wrestler's in these matches? I will give them credit: They have done a good job in creating a reason for the Big Show-Cena match. And Big Show is just good enough on the mic to pull it off. The problem is, I don't give a damn about The Big Show any longer. He's just a guy who has switched from heel to face 65 times over the past decade, and he's a physical monster who seems to lose more than he wins.

Granger went 17th, showed an interest in defense and attacking the rim, and is not really the kind of player you want to take 3 overall. The one saving grace about Granger is that he carries himself like a star even though he isn't really a star. And he plays his balls off. I'm far more lenient on measurables on effort guys and no one has ever doubted Granger's effort. People have been questioning Barnes' effort since high school. If he was 250, it would be one thing but he didn't like physical play in the ACC. I certainly don't seeing him throwing his 220 pounds around in the NBA. I dunno...do the Wizards really want a less intense Danny Granger with this pick? ---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 04:11 PM ---------- PS I really don't like Harrison Barnes. That may not have come across yet. My number one criteria when it comes to these high lottery picks is really simple: Do they play hard? If they don't, then they better absolutely blow me away with something else. Sullenger does play hard. I would probably rather take him over Barnes for that reason. But he doesn't really have the skills/body of a top five player. MKG plays his ass off and has the skills to justify the spot. You know that he will attack the rim. You know he will rebound more than a guy his size should. You have to think his shot will improve in time. Here is something else to consider: Wall and he will love playing together. The Wizards have no finishers. The Wizards have had very few effort guys. If nothing else, Wall will have fun on the fast break with MKG. The Wizards need to get some joy in Wall's life and do it fast. This draft is not about building a team or filling slots. This draft is about making Wall care about playing for the Wizards.

I guess that's why I'm so sour on Barnes. Are there any UNC fans upset that Barnes is leaving school? Did anyone actually enjoy his two years there? He just seems like a skinny, surprisingly unathletic really good shooter who played with absolutely no passion.

I weigh more than him. Who is he going to guard on the Knicks? ---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 03:47 PM ---------- Well, yes, I would trade the pick for Lebron too. Now, let's get back into reality for a second......

I would want no part of Barnes, because I don't think he has a position. ---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 02:59 PM ---------- Tim Duncan was a 7-footer who was fundamentally perfect on both ends of the court and a lot more athletic early in his career than you are giving him credit for. Sullenger is a 6'8 below the rim player. He will figure out ways to score, I think, but a lot of his shots are going to end up in the third row. ---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 03:04 PM ---------- What are you trading down for? Are the Wizards really in "collect a bunch of young pieces" mode? Does this approach ever work?

Trading down seems like an admission of defeat. And the last person I would want to draft is Sullenger. Pairing a dynamic, super-athletic PG with a PF nailed to the floor makes no sense to me. And I still think the last thing this team needs is a lot more young pieces. Like I said, you can develop 8 guys at once. PS The team is weak at SG, but every team is weak at SG right now. If I'm going to have a hole on my roster, I would rather it be at a spot where few teams can exploit me. It's not like any teams in the Atlantic are exploding with dynamism at the 2 guard. ---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 01:25 PM ---------- In all seriousness, why are you even considering this a team? Outside of Wall, if every player on the roster died of Avian Flu tonight, would you be THAT upset? The idea that a Top 3 pick needs to "fit" on a team this bad just seems insane to me. The team needs to fit around a Top 3 pick.

If you never add a veteran presence to a team, you end up with the Bulls of the early part of the 2000s. A bunch of talented young guys who are more interested in playing video games in their rooms than watching film. OKC is the model everyone wants to follow, but they never let Nick Collison go. They dumped young talent to get Perkins. They even saw value in the corpse of Derek Fisher (which was probably a mistake because he is, in fact, a corpse). The Wizards need to figure out the three or four young guys they are going to move forward with and focus their attention on developing them. Right now, they have two ultra-talented lottery picks who do not possess jump shots. They don't have enough coaches or time to develop ten players. I would dump half the roster for high character vets who don't need babysitting. If I have to eat a bad contract or two for a few years, so be it. The goal right now is to convince John Wall to stay beyond his rookie deal. I don't think you can get good in the time you have left. You can become "professional" however. Being a bad and unprofessional team makes you what the Clippers have been historically. Being a bad but professional team makes you what the Pacers and Sixers have been the last few years. You won't be able to attract free agents, but you may be able to keep your own. ---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 10:46 AM ---------- Well...as long as you have no expectations for him.....

This is the wrong way to look at it. The Wizards simply need to pick the best player who is not a PG. If there is someone else on the roster who plays that position, you trade that player or dump them. No one outside of Wall and this year's #1 should be untouchable. The Wizards do not have a roster right now. They have a collection of basketball players.