Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official Washington Basketball Thread: Wizards, Mystics etc


BRAVEONAWARPATH

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Teams that commit the bulk of their team building resources to the guard position rarely contend.

 

You realize you are saying this after GS went to five straight finals and has three Championships? 

Edited by Hersh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

This is the common lot for pure guards.  It's why teams built around guards rarely contend, and it's why teams with good guards and trash front court players like ours don't win at all.

I don't know... Steph Curry, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson. Maybe they were the exception that make your guard rule, but I dunno.

 

Edit: On the other hand... I don't think anyone would confuse Beal with Curry, Jordan, or Johnson.

Edited by Burgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I don't know... Steph Curry, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson. Maybe they were the exception that make your guard rule, but I dunno. 

 

Those teams weren't built solely around the back court.  Pippen, Rodman, and Grant made up potent front courts for the Bulls, Worthy and Kareem were as good as it gets, and Curry has had Draymond, Iggy, and Durant.  These are multiple hall of fame front court players in their primes and the Bulls/Warriors/Lakers spent premium assets to get and keep them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Those teams weren't built solely around the back court.  Pippen, Rodman, and Grant made up potent front courts for the Bulls, Worthy and Kareem were as good as it gets, and Curry has had Draymond, Iggy, and Durant.  These are multiple hall of fame front court players in their primes and the Bulls/Warriors/Lakers spent premium assets to get and keep them.

I don't know. I think you're putting together a pretty weak argument. You're basically saying that no player can do it completely alone (which no one would argue with). Even so, I don't think anyone would argue that the Bulls' teams weren't built around shooting guard Jordan and that he was their main star. For a while the same was true of Steph Curry. The other guys were complimentary pieces.

 

Magic Johnson is a bit different. At one point the billing was Larry Bird vs. Magic Johnson so clearly he was the marquis guy, but at other times, he was the secondary star. Jordan was always the star of the team. I'd think I'd argue that Curry was too... in fact, that was why Durant found the Warriors attractive because they were already pre-built and great without him. Durant was that weird case of a transcendent luxury.

 

I think the better argument is that it is tough to build around a nontranscendent player. Beal is a good/very good player, but not good enough to anchor a team.

Edited by Burgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

And they've got some forwards named Andre Iguoudala, Draymond Green, and Kevin Durant who were a big part of that.

 

Seriously dude, you are just wrong on this. Durant joined a 73 win team build around the splash brothers. Houston was the 2nd or 3rd best team the last couple seasons. 

 

No team actually wins with only one player contributing but teams built around guards win championships

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

I don't know. I think you're putting together a pretty weak argument. You're basically saying that no player can do it completely alone (which no one would argue with). Even so, I don't think anyone would argue that the Bulls' teams weren't built around shooting guard Jordan and that he was their main star. For a while the same was true of Steph Curry. The other guys were complimentary pieces.

 

Magic Johnson is a bit different. At one point the billing was Larry Bird vs. Magic Johnson so clearly he was the marquis guy, but at other times, he was the secondary star. Jordan was always the star of the team. I'd think I'd argue that Curry was too... in fact, that was why Durant found the Warriors attractive because they were already pre-built and great without him. Durant was that weird case of a transcendent luxury.

 

I think the better argument is that it is tough to build around a nontranscendent player. Beal is a good/very good player, but not good enough to anchor a team.

 

You are forgetting Kobe, the pistons back courts, d-wade, etc. Of course teams win building around guards

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I don't know. I think you're putting together a pretty weak argument. You're basically saying that no player can do it completely alone (which no one would argue with). Even so, I don't think anyone would argue that the Bulls' teams weren't built around shooting guard Jordan and that he was their main star. For a while the same was true of Steph Curry. The other guys were complimentary pieces.

 

My argument is that, given every team has finite team building resources, if you spend the bulk of yours on the guard position, you will probably not contend.  That is something that the three dynasties you mentioned absolutely, positively did not do.  They had elite front court players and they spent premium team building assets to acquire them and keep them.  I am not just saying that no one can contend on their own.  I am saying that if you try and build a team around guards, your front court will probably suffer and you will not be able to win a championship because your team won't be able to rebound or play defense.  In the cases you mentioned, each of those front courts had multiple Hall of Fame players in their primes in them.

 

The Blazers and Wizards and Rockets and the Raptors with DeRozan are all examples of teams built around guards who can't/couldn't contend.  The Warriors back when they were built around Monta Ellis and Curry, before they got Iggy and Draymond, are another example.  They spent big to fix their front court--A six overall pick on Harrison Barnes which didn't really pan out, a big money free agency deal for Iggy after they struck out on Dwight Howard, a max deal to keep Draymond Green, and a max deal to sign Kevin Durant.  These are what gave them the balance to make the jump to dynasty status, and it took a lot of luck for them to be able to do it.  In Draymond they got a future hall of famer with a second round pick, and thus were able to use bird rights to keep him at a near max contract.  Then they benefited from a fortunate extension schedule and a massive cap spike to sign Kevin Durant to a max deal.  Most teams that build via super heavy commitment to the guard position aren't so lucky, and they get stuck.  We did.  Portland has.  Houston did.  You can go back throughout NBA history and see the same pattern happening over and over.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to see Beal's prime squandered like what happened to Wall.  I want him to have an actual chance to compete for a championship right now.  Trading him gets the Wizards on the fast track to a much-needed rebuild and gets Beal (hopefully) on a contender.  This squad is at it's ceiling with the Wall/Beal pairing and they have to start dumping these guys off when the get a chance.  Holding on to him will lessen the return.  The time is now (or this season) to deal him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Seriously dude, you are just wrong on this. Durant joined a 73 win team build around the splash brothers. Houston was the 2nd or 3rd best team the last couple seasons. 

  

No team actually wins with only one player contributing but teams built around guards win championships 

 

You are forgetting Kobe, the pistons back courts, d-wade, etc. Of course teams win building around guards

 

You know Kobe won those championships with Shaq and Gasol and Odom and Bynum right?  Those were not insignificant pieces of their build, neither in cost, nor impact.  They overwhelmed teams with those two and three seven footer line ups.  Wade won his rings with Shaq and LeBron and Bosh.  Those Pistons teams had unbelievable front court depth, Aguirre, Dantley, Rodman, Mahorn, Laimbeer, Sally, etc.  That is a depth of front court quality that could never be achieved today because of the cap.

 

You are the one who is dead wrong about this.  Find me a team that has won a championship without a hall of fame or future hall of fame front court player. 

 

And that pre-Durant Golden State team spent huge resources on the front court even before they spent a max contract to acquire Durant.  They signed Iggy with a near max deal in 2012, after striking out with Dwight Howard.  They traded their second best player at the time to acquire Andrew Bogut.  They signed Draymond to a near max contract in 2015.  They spent a sixth overall pick on Harrison Barnes.  And despite the talent of their back court, it still took DPOY caliber seasons from Bogut and Draymond plus major contributions from Iggy to beat a severely depleted Cavs team in the Finals in 2015. 

 

You mention Houston, they had one great season of the Harden era, a season where they got significant contribution from Ariza, Capela, and Tucker, and it still wasn't enough to beat a balanced Warriors team.  Prior to that, they had a modicum of success in the few seasons they got with Dwight before he got washed up.  What have they done in any of the other seasons Harden has been there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are shifting the conversation.

 

Those teams were built around the backcourt. The Bulls were with Jordan. The Warriors were with Curry. And Kobe lead title teams. You need great complimentary players to win NBA titles, which is what those teams had, but those guys were the centerpieces. You are shifting the argument to a encompass everything. Lamar Odom did not have equal standing with Kobe. Neither did Gasol. The Warriors had no inside scoring presence in 2015. Pippen was a perimeter player and had no equal standing with Jordan.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You are shifting the conversation.

 

Those teams were built around the backcourt. The Bulls were with Jordan. The Warriors were with Curry. And Kobe lead title teams. You need great complimentary players to win NBA titles, which is what those teams had, but those guys were the centerpieces. You are shifting the argument to a encompass everything. Lamar Odom did not have an equal standing with Kobe. Neither did Gasol. Klay Thompson actually stunk it up in the playoffs and finals in 2015.

 

No, I'm not shifting the conversation.  You all are shifting it by distorting my original argument.  I'm not saying that a guard can't lead a championship team.  I'm saying that a team that spends all of its money and good draft picks on guards will almost never be a contender, and the reason is because they will probably have to run trash frontcourts unless they get really lucky, and in doing so, they will be terrible on defense and on the glass.

 

All of the teams Hersh and Burgold mentioned spent big money and/or draft picks on front court players and got major contributions from Hall of Fame front court players in the years they won championships.  I'm specifically saying that you need top notch contribution from your front court to contend for a championship because they are the positions that your defense and rebounding are founded upon.  You can put two Hall of Fame guards together and they can play great, but if they have trash front court players, they're not going to win a championship.  But if you pair a Hall of Fame guard with a Hall of Fame forward or center, then that is the foundation for a dynasty, even if your other guard spot is a trash player that you're spending nothing on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who wants to pair Beal and Wall with trash front court?  We need a number 1 (who will likely be a forward or center) because Beal and Wall are 2 and 3 caliber on a contender.  Since we can't attract top free agent even if we saved cap space on Beal, only way we would get a number 1 is through the draft.  Even if we land one this year, by the time rookie contract is over, Wall's supermax is over.  Then you pay max to the new player and Beal and lower salary to Wall (unless Wall recovers worthy of a max contract, then you'll just have to pay lux tax).

 

Point being, having two max contract tied up in the two guard position for the next four years isn't likely to be the roadblock to building a contender.  Questions surrounding Wall's recovery, immovability of his contract, inability to attract top tier free agent or trade prospect, those are the issues a new GM will have to overcome.  (And the only way to overcome it to build a contender and not merely middle of the pack playoff hopeful is by drafting a transcendent superstar).  Moving Beal for two to three more darts at the board doesn't necessarily solve those problems unless you hit big on the draft two more times.  If you already hit it once with a near top level player like Beal, what's the point of going back to the well to try to get someone else? (unless he just doesn't want to stay).  Worst case, you draft your superstar, but he wants out after first extension because you can't get a second top player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

giphy.gif

 

essentially the only way you think this is going to end well is if you think Leonsis is some brilliant mastermind playing chess at a level we can't comprehend.

 

Remember how the Skins ended up with Zorn?

Edited by StillUnknown
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

Who wants to pair Beal and Wall with trash front court?

 

Realistically, this is what will likely happen when you tie up so much of your team building resources in two guards.  You have to get really lucky and strike gold with a lower value asset to get the kind of forwards you need.  Golden State is being held up as an example of a team built around two guards, but they spent far more team building resources on their front court than their back court during this Bob Myers era.  And it still took two remarkable strokes of luck to end up with the team they did--digging up a Hall of Famer in the second round, and benefiting from an unprecedented jump in the cap in the same offseason Durant became a UFA and the offseason before they had to pay Curry.

 

The point of trading Beal is to acquire the assets to start over.  Beal is potentially worth far more to us as a trade asset than he is worth on the court.  If you get three draft picks and/or swaps for him plus young assets, then you are talking about getting multiple shots to find foundation players who are more valuable than him.  And I'm also arguing that his value as a foundation player is overrated because he is only a foundation player for offense, who adds no value to our defense and rebounding foundations.  And he's also not a transcendent offensive player either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

essentially the only way you think this is going to end well is if you think Leonsis is some brilliant mastermind playing chess at a level we can't comprehend.

 

Yeah this is turning the offseason into a waste of time.  Best realistic scenario: Sheppard just picks a bunch of role players who don't really make a dent while better players get drafted behind him/get traded for prices we could have afforded.  Worst case scenario, he picks a draft bust and signs Jabari Parker and Bobby Portis and Thomas Bryant to a bunch of crippling extensions that we can't move once we get a real GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

No, I'm not shifting the conversation.  You all are shifting it by distorting my original argument.  I'm not saying that a guard can't lead a championship team.  I'm saying that a team that spends all of its money and good draft picks on guards will almost never be a contender, and the reason is because they will probably have to run trash frontcourts unless they get really lucky, and in doing so, they will be terrible on defense and on the glass.

 

 

You said you can’t build around guards, not that you can’t have an all guard team and win it. Maybe what you meant and what you said are two different things. Toronto is the first team in awhile that didn’t have an elite guard while winning a championship. Maybe the Mavericks though they had Kidd. Before that teams were loaded with hall of fame guards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Realistically, this is what will likely happen when you tie up so much of your team building resources in two guards.  You have to get really lucky and strike gold with a lower value asset to get the kind of forwards you need.  Golden State is being held up as an example of a team built around two guards, but they spent far more team building resources on their front court than their back court during this Bob Myers era.  And it still took two remarkable strokes of luck to end up with the team they did--digging up a Hall of Famer in the second round, and benefiting from an unprecedented jump in the cap in the same offseason Durant became a UFA and the offseason before they had to pay Curry.

 

The point of trading Beal is to acquire the assets to start over.  Beal is potentially worth far more to us as a trade asset than he is worth on the court.  If you get three draft picks and/or swaps for him plus young assets, then you are talking about getting multiple shots to find foundation players who are more valuable than him.  And I'm also arguing that his value as a foundation player is overrated because he is only a foundation player for offense, who adds no value to our defense and rebounding foundations.  And he's also not a transcendent offensive player either.

 

I think you and I agree on Beal's value to a large degree.  He can't carry a contender, I agree with you there.  Well, I guess I'm not sure what your opinion of him as a number 2 on a contender is I guess.  I think with a clear number 1 and the right type of construct and coaching, he can be a very valuable number 2.  Players who can simply just score takes on a much higher value in the playoffs imo and I think we'll see his value increase if Wall will stop playing hero ball to end every quarter and game.

 

You also have to factor in the likely haul for Beal.  Three picks (with at least one high lottery and two swaps without or minimal protection) plus young assets, that's the haul Pelicans got for AD.  And people are lauding Pelicans for getting great value.  I agree, if we can get that kind of haul, where at least one pick is high lottery with potential for one more at least to be high lottery and add on young good assets on top of that, then that makes a lot of sense.  But if we're talking several mid lottery picks or just one high pick, even coupled with some good young players, I just don't know how much closer that gets you to a contender.  If you can haul in three superstars, you can get great role players at value or live with one trick ponies.  But having a lot of role players or promising young prospects won't land you any superstars unless you're a major media market.  

 

Whatever path forward to contention requires three superstars in the modern era.  We have to hope Wall can come back at a level to play at least the third piece or this team has no realistic path forward for the next four years.  We need to get super lucky to land a first team nba caliber player in the draft in order to contend.  That doesn't change regardless of what we do with Beal.  But, unless we get AD kind of haul for Beal, I don't know that moving him makes the path to contention more plausible.  Even with a AD type haul, your chances of drafting a number 2 on a contender is not terribly good.  The deal makes sense for NO because AD was gone in a year anyway.  But if Beal is willing to sign an extension, I say keeping him makes more sense than trading him.

 

EDIT:

 

Just saw the denial in interest for Ujiri.  I say BS.  If they weren't waiting for Ujiri, unless the plan is to hire Sheppard (and frankly even if the plan is to hire Sheppard), they should have hired or named a GM by now.  Ted is giving Danny a run for his money

Edited by bearrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“I intend to create a leadership team when it feels exactly right and is in alignment with our findings and our final developed specifications,” Leonsis said in a statement.

 

This might be the dumbest thing I’ve heard an owner say. Ted is  ****ing incompetent. 

Edited by Hersh
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

No, I'm not shifting the conversation.  You all are shifting it by distorting my original argument.  I'm not saying that a guard can't lead a championship team.  I'm saying that a team that spends all of its money and good draft picks on guards will almost never be a contender, and the reason is because they will probably have to run trash frontcourts unless they get really lucky, and in doing so, they will be terrible on defense and on the glass.

 

The same is true for any position. If a team spends all it’s money and draft picks on centers, that team wouldn’t be a championship team. You aren’t making a real point here.

 

For the record I’m down for trading Beal because he isn’t Curry, Jordan, or Kobe.

 

The Wizards problem is that neither Wall or Beal were A-1 players and Grunfeld built a terrible team.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...