There is a lot of chatter about what to do with #6 pick and when to draft a prospect, starter, or role player. I don't feel the draft slot itself is very meaningful. There is a difference in salary commitment between the #1, #20, #40 and #60 picks, but it is less than the MLE ($5.5 million or so per season). It is not a huge financial burden if you miss.

  What matters more than the position slot are the players themselves and the opportunity cost. If you are taking a flyer on a superstar prospect, what other players are you passing up? How does your prospect compare to these guys? What are their likely floors? What are their ceilings? How much “developing” effort do they need on their part to become a solid starter? How much “developing” effort on their part do they need to reach their potential? How long should it take? Can it occur over the first contract? Where do you project them to be four to five years out when it is time to sign their second contract? How likely are they to develop? What type of development is needed (physical, skills, mental, emotional, basketball IQ, etc)? How do their intangibles compare (motor on the court, effort off the court, diet, desire, lifestyle, etc). What is available in free agency? How much do the free agents cost? What do you already have on your roster? What are your other financial commitments? etc, etc, etc…

  You compare players to the other players available and have some semblance how their profiles place historically. The actual draft slot doesn’t matter so much because they will be a relatively inexpensive investment. You take a flyer on potential when it is inexpensive if you are wrong and the opportunity cost is low.

  In our situation, we need everything but a starting point guard. With so many other needs, it really does not make any sense in our situation to acquire another starting point guard who is not a veteran mentor for JW. We have prospects at other positions to varying degrees, but they all have their story.

  Some examples:

Generally speaking in this draft the profiles go something like this: a few solid prospects but none with superstar visibility. DW is the only likely solid starter with good visibility at a position of need for us. Then there are about a half dozen guys or so that might evolve into solid starters. Then there are about 25 guys projected to be role players. Then there are the rest. That is my interpretation of this draft listening to several sources. If you disagree with that assessment, dont miss my bigger point. It is my base assumption.

  So at #6, we are on the bubble. We might get a solid starter prospect (Jonas V or Kanter, etc), an potential all star prospect (Biyombo or Burks) or we might be in solid role player land (Leonard, Singleton, etc). You need stars to win it all. And you shoot for a star prospect when the opportunity cost is lowest. This is a great draft to take on star prospects. You are not passing up a Shane Battier level talent to pick a Yi (both #6 picks I think).

  Yi last year was inexpensive with potential. He was still on his rookie contract. He was dirt cheap. He was a good flyer. But for next season at the QO, he is not the same prospect. And he is not worth the investment at the QO. I think most people recognize that.

  Somewhere around the MLE level salary is where I draw the line on a veteran prospect. It is also about what the #1 pick in the draft is paid. And why should any veteran prospect be given more than what the top young prospect makes? It starts to really hurt your cap flexibility. They have had years to develop and still aren’t there despite being paid millions of dollars to do so.

  Hence, Yi is no longer a prospect for us. He can be resigned cheap but not at the level his contract demands. AB should have been resigned the first time when it was inexpensive. But it was premature to resign him last summer. It was better to let him play out this past season and see what happened. Ernie tried to save a couple million dollars per season by resigning him early, and it will cost us many more millions for an overpaid backup on a team that needs starters.

  JVM is the interesting one because he is on his last year. I don’t want to get into all his potential. I know it. He isn’t there yet, bottom line. And he will command a salary next year- based on his potential- north of the MLE and probably in the $8-12mm range. That is too much money for a prospect still developing after four years in the league. It is better to move on and build the pieces we need. And maybe we circle back and try to land him as a developed player in free agency at a crazy salary when we are adding that final piece to make a run- like Dallas did with Chandler.

  Hence, in this draft, which is considered weak in top-level prospects, I feel you make a move for one or some of them because the opportunity cost is low. You are not passing up on a solid, well rounded starter. I would trade JVM for #2 and #20 if I could secure Williams only.

  As for the rest, you have to kick the tires and figure out floor, ceilings, likelihood to develop, all the stuff I mentioned earlier. At #6, Burks could be a star, Biyombo is interesting, Kanter could play some center, and Jonas will likely develop into a solid center.

  At #18 and #20, you could go with a role player on the wing (Hamilton) or in the frontcourt (Vucevic) or upside prospects like Jeremy or Harris. I am tempted to do one of each, but it is hard to say exactly without knowing who is available. I suspect I would use them both on prospects if I selected someone who could play center at #6. And I would have to look hard at Vucevic or similar talent in that area if not.

  In this draft, I would look to trade JVM for #2 and #20 and come out of this draft with the top overall prospect likely to develop at a need position (Williams), two upside prospects (a Harris, Burks, Biyombo, Tyler), and a role player/possible starter (Kanter, Jonas, Singleton, Vucevik, Leonard, etc). Again, don’t get too caught up in the specific players in this post. They are simply representative of the philosophy for how to frame this draft.

  And I would cut ties with JVM to add more picks to land the solid starter we need and take some shots on interesting prospects that need a shot to develop into stars. JVM is a good person and has out of this world potential, but he has had his shot to develop with us. He is reaching that point that he is too expensive to keep carrying on the roster and wait to see what happens. The risk is amplified because we resigned AB already above the MLE. It is VERY risky to carry two expensive veteran prospects, much less one! Trading McGee is striking when his value is highest in a draft light in clear starters and all stars. 

  We will still be a low pick lottery team next year and will add a star level prospect (Barnes?), a quality starter level talent (Kanter or Jonas V), and two really solid potential star prospects (Burks, Biyombo, Harris, Tyler, etc), or a star prospect and a solid role player (Leonard, Singleton, et al). We are a better team with better financial flexibility and better prospects!

respectfully, i disagree with mike in his post outlining the case for Singleton #6. and i know he is smart and follows this game much closer than me. on the other hand, i offer 20-30 years of perspective depending on how you value those teen years.

the wizzards went 20-21 at home and 3-38 on the road. it is beyond obvious there is a consistency problem, which would make an interesting post to debate in itself. the biggest hole that needs an ER response is the front court- STAT!

the wizzards have passable starters next season at the 1-3 spot. i know lewis needs to be upgraded with young talent at the 3. and there is debate to how well NY fills the 2. the ultimate answer to that depends how the roster is filled out. if you get two more stars at 3-5, then NY’s skillset and salary complements a group of core stars well as a role player initially. there is a salary cap after all. if not, we need to upgrade that spot as well. but our starting SG four years from now wont be determined this season.

we dont have a starting caliber 4 or 5 right now. Haywood  amd Jamison, our previous best front court starters are reserves on a championship and crappy team, respectively. I know all about AB’s and JVM’s potential. i dont want to get into all that or what amount of their potential they will eventually realize in this initial post.

the fact is they are both reserve level talents right now with how they played last year. if either one of those guys were more developed or consistent, we win a lot more than 23 games- including the 6 wins that came in the last 10 games when we played against the other team’s reserves and/or tank-like efforts. and we definitely win more than a measly, and that is being generous, three road games over six months. or we need to acquire that front court player in free agency. though the draft stays within Ted’s vision for rebuilding this franchise better; the open market will be a more expensive option, if it is an option at all.

whether we keep the pick at six or trade it, we need to draft the best front court prospect with our first pick to try and land a legit starter who will give real effort for all 82 games within two years. (assuming we dont trade it or acquire one in free agency).

if AB and/or JVM develop into legitimate starters and haven’t been traded, great, we still need AT LEAST three very solid front court players to go deep in the playoffs. so under no scenario is drafting a front court player at #6 a luxury. 3 road wins all season does not cut it- at all- under any circumstance when there is a 15 player roster and $60-70mm cap. our inconsistency on the road is the elephant in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring. it needs to be addressed immediately. as fans, we can have fun playing gm and trading this for that pre-draft, speculating on how much players develop, etc. next year’s draft is deep, and we will still have many needs, etc. but ernie has his hands full with this matter. Ernie needs to add at least one legitimate, young, front court piece this off-season because as you know, young front court players need a few years to develop. it will probably cost or cement ernie's job status with us over the next few years. i am hopeful and wish him luck.

what are your thoughts?

the trade for us to make is JVM and #6 to minnesota for wes johnson and #2. and we take kanter at #2...thoughts???

obviously, i would prefer to trade AB in this scenario, but I dont think that is very realistic. This trade I think could happen and is an interesting one to consider. FYI, I would make this trade, and I think it helps both teams. I'd then look for a SG with 18, back up PG at 34, and target the best PF/C complement to Kanter with our lottery pick next year. What do you think?

After reading Kevin's post titled, Jeff Pash & Roger Goodell Explain the $800 Million Difference, the real motives behind the owner's lockout/NFL strike become clear:

The NFL lockout/strike is about transitioning the fan base from everyday fans to a more “corporate” or higher-end fan base. Certainly, the average person can not afford a PSL. And every team does not need a new $500,000,000 to $1,000,000,000+ stadium. So the NFL is saying we want a different type of fan attending our game. Average fans can watch the game on tv and buy jerseys. But because the demand from the new, higher-end customer cannot cover their spending desires, they have to take it out on the cost side.

The NFL cannot price its product. I live in Tampa Bay, and we do not have a new stadium. They bitch the games are not sold out, but there is enough demand to fill that stadium at least three fold every Sunday- despite our beautiful weather. The stadium is not filled because prices are too high, and it is a nightmare to get to and home from the game.

New stadiums greatly increase costs. Higher capacity definitely reduces interest because the seats arent as good on average and, more importantly, the logistics of attending a game make it a nightmare. I can find a discounted ticket. I do not have a desire to sit in traffic for 100,000 people to clear an area on roads not meant to handle it. A three hour game turns into a seven hour ordeal- four of which is spent sitting in a car creeping.

Maybe this is what happens when you have lawyers running a business operation? The NFLPA is certainly not without their faults for sure. But this strike exists because there is not enough money to change out the fan base and keep everyone happy.

One of Mike's comments/posts struck on something I have been thinking for a while (and this summarizes and expands): we don't have a top two player in the league, two of the top five, a top five and three total in the top 15, etc. And we are middle of the pack at best as a destination for above average talent in their prime. And we have a couple core contracts that cost a bit more than we would like.

So with that in mind, it seems to me barring a transformational trade, the only shot we have at winning deep into the playoffs is putting together the best possible team. A team with no real superstars who play well together and are balanced across the board.  A team with 8-9 players that are really slightly above average at least and are starter quality at two positions with at least one being the 2-4 slot. (really 8 players since we overpay for the arenas, butler, jamison combo)

So my first question is do you think we could potentially have that or are close? 

PG- Arenas, Foye, unidentified under $2mm true backup point guard (Crittendon?)

SG- Miller, Arenas, Foye, Butler (?)

SF- Butler, Miller, Jamison

PF- Jamison, Blatche, McGee, Butler (?)

C- Haywood, Blatche, McGee, unidentified under $2mm back up true center

My thought is if you have 8-9 guys that are good enough to play 25 minutes per game, and can give you depth across the board, then why not.

Some comments: I know Arenas, Miller, and Foye have some question marks, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for now. Blatche and McGee are still young, but they are locked up cheap for the three seasons under $3m each. And neither is ready for 25min per game yet. But don't they overlap positions and are good for 15-20min each?

I guess what I am asking is do you think the best route barring a transformational trade is to have a really solid rotation of 8-9 players on this team with a specialized, inexpensive true backup at the harder to fill PG and C position? Can we keep all three key free agents next season? Why is it assumed we will lose one? Is it just because we keep overpaid, underperforming potential? Then let's let them go. 

Sample team for 10/11 season:

Areans/Jamison/Butler- $42m, 30 min each

Haywood- $9m, 30 min

Foye/Miller- $12m, 30 min each

Blatche/McGee- $5m, 12-25 min each

Backup PG and C- $4m, 5-10 min each

Two practice bodies $1m

Total 2010-11 salary is about $72m, which is pretty darn close to this year's cap and something Abe might stomach. I know it might go down a lot next year, but that will also be reflected in lower signing costs for Miller, Foye, and Haywood- or equivalent players.

Play the starter caliber players and our young prospects about 30 and 18-20 minutes per game, respectively to stay fresh and cut down on injuries. No one wins the title with a major injury any ways. 

And if so, if we jettison all the tweeners (like a Nick Young who might be good but is not good enough for what he is paid). 

What do you think? It just seems silly to offer a person a second contract that is not good enough to start on most teams after three or more years to get there. Pay for the potential just once, and when it is cheap! Ironically, we might just have enough talent to entertain a transformational trade.

What do you think?