Washington Wizards

The most frustrating thing about the draft is trying to compare prospects to All-Star players. Go back to when some recent players were drafted, and think about their comparisons. Bradley Beal could be Ray Allen or Dwayne Wade? Ricky Rubio and Pistol Pete? Victor Oladipo and Michael Jordan? Nerlens Noel and Marcus Camby? Derrick Williams and David West? It all makes your head spin. How about comparing this year's prospects with recent prospects? I think there are some similarities that are obvious, and thought this might be an interesting way to re-calibrate our thinking in a draft that is iffy at best. Full disclosure here: I will show my bias towards Otto Porter and Alex Len, and against Anthony (Tony!) Bennett. I am also throwing out the guards, so my apologies to lovers of Oladipo, Ben McLemore and Trey Burke. Also keep in mind I am trying to compare in a vacuum of how players were viewed leading up to the draft. 1. Nerlens Noel: JaVale McGee. Obvious differences are the programs the two came from and high draft status for Noel, but they are both extremely tall and long and can jump out of the gym. JaVale had much better offensive skills. Both are excellent shot blockers, but Noel appears to be a more judicious jumper. Good defender with extremely limited offense. Other candidates: Larry Sanders, Ed Davis. 2. Otto Porter: Kawhi Leonard. Prototypical small forward in size, length and skills. Limited record to analyze. Good 3 and D guy. Not super sexy though. I mean, Leonard went 15th! SMH. Gym rat, mature kid. Other candidates: Michael Kidd Gilcrest, Chris Singleton, Harrison Barnes. 3. Alex Len: Enes Kanter. Euro player with limited history and injury history. Prototypical center who has the size and weight to bang and develop a post game, good rebounder. Other candidates: Cole Aldrich, Greg Monroe, Roy Hibbert. 4. Anthony Bennett: Derrick Williams. Excellent offensive game and rebounding. Questionable defense. A bit of a tweener but good weight to bang with the big boys. Other candidates: Andray Blatche (couldn't resist), Markieff Morris, Anthony Randolph. The most interesting comparisons to me are Derrick Williams and Enes Kanter, because they remind me so much of Bennett and Len. The most frustrating thing about the draft is trying to compare prospects to All-Star players. Go back to when some recent players were drafted, and think about their comparisons. Bradley Beal could be Ray Allen or Dwayne Wade? Ricky Rubio and Pistol Pete? Victor Oladipo and Michael Jordan? Nerlens Noel and Marcus Camby? Derrick Williams and David West? It all makes your head spin. How about comparing this year's prospects with recent prospects? I think there are some similarities that are obvious, and thought this might be an interesting way to re-calibrate our thinking in a draft that is iffy at best. Full disclosure here: I will show my bias towards Otto Porter and Alex Len, and against Anthony (Tony!) Bennett. I am also throwing out the guards, so my apologies to lovers of Oladipo, Ben McLemore and Trey Burke. Also keep in mind I am trying to compare in a vacuum of how players were viewed leading up to the draft. 1. Nerlens Noel: JaVale McGee. Obvious differences are the programs the two came from and high draft status for Noel, but they are both extremely tall and long and can jump out of the gym. JaVale had much better offensive skills. Both are excellent shot blockers, but Noel appears to be a more judicious jumper. Good defender with extremely limited offense. Other candidates: Larry Sanders, Ed Davis. 2. Otto Porter: Kawhi Leonard. Prototypical small forward in size, length and skills. Limited record to analyze. Good 3 and D guy. Not super sexy though. I mean, Leonard went 15th! SMH. Gym rat, mature kid. Other candidates: Michael Kidd Gilcrest, Chris Singleton, Harrison Barnes. 3. Alex Len: Enes Kanter. Euro player with limited history and injury history. Prototypical center who has the

The draft is all about projecting talent, right? So if that's the case and we're discussing 19,20, and 21 year old players, why is their collegiate experience not being factored into the debate? I think it's a major oversight not to assume that if these freshman players stayed another year in college or even two more years that they would clearly separate themselves from those that have. Look at the two SG's McLemore and Oladipo. Oladipo played three seasons at IU and used that time to improve his game to the level of now being discussed as a top 5 pick. On the other hand you have McLemore, who is nine months younger, with much less college experience and they're in the same debate. Couldn't you assume that if McLemore were to stay at KU one more season that his game would improve drastically as well? Same goes in the debate of the bigs with Len and Zeller being sophomores, while Noel is only a freshman. Same would go for Porter being compared to Bennett or Muhammad. Another issue not getting much time is the fact that Oladipo and Zeller played together and are the only two teammates projected to go in the lottery. Zeller entered the season as a projected top 3 pick, with lots of attention and Oladipo reaped those benefits from teams sagging to double or triple team Zeller, leaving openings for Vic to be very efficient with his scoring. The point of all this is that these player's can't be compared apples to apples, because that's not the case. You have to factor that the longer a prospect is in college the longer they're working with a strength and conditioning coach, the longer they have access to higher level coaching, and the longer they have to just worry about themselves and improving their craft, the better player they're going to become. Due to the fact that the draft is all about projecting talent 2-4 years into the future, you would have to factor that the sophomores and juniors in the class are already that much further along in their development and thus closer to their ceilings. I think if you look at it like that you would project McLemore to be dropping 20+ ppg, especially alongside Wiggins (think Oladipo with Zeller), Bennett is a 20 and 10 big, while Noel is probably getting a stat line of 15 ppg, 13 rpg, 5 bpg next season as sophomores. So if we're debating between two players and everything else seems to be even, shouldn't the deciding factor go in favor of the least developed player? I know that's a scary thing to envision with the Wizards historical lack of player development, but nonetheless the better option to have in the long term if they're trying to find the best player of the bunch? The draft is all about projecting talent, right? So if that's the case and we're discussing 19,20, and 21 year old players, why is their collegiate experience not being factored into the debate? I think it's a major oversight not to assume that if these freshman players stayed another year in college or even two more years that they would clearly separate themselves from those that have. Look at the two SG's McLemore and Oladipo. Oladipo played three seasons at IU and used that time to improve his game to the level of now being discussed as a top 5 pick. On the other hand you have McLemore, who is nine months younger, with much less college experience and they're in the same debate. Couldn't you assume that if McLemore were to stay at KU one more season that his game would improve drastically as well? Same goes in the debate of the bigs with Len and Zeller being sophomores, while Noel is only a freshman. Same would go for Porter being compared to Bennett or Muhammad. Another issue not getting much time is the fact that Oladipo and Zeller played together and are the only two teammates projected to go in the lottery. Zeller entered the season as a projected top 3 pick, with lots of attention and Oladipo reaped those benefits from teams sagging to double or

More anti-name-change news was made yesterday. Really, has a city ever been held under such an enduring siege of controversy surrounding the names of two of its professional sports team as Washington, D.C. has? Doubt it. You have the “Redskins,” which can be a terribly racist term, and you have the “Wizards,” which can just be terrible—specifically, for a pro basketball team in the nation’s capital. This latest tid-bit of info naturally pertains to the “Wizards,” previously known as the “Bullets” from 1963 to 1997. On Monday, Joe Dupriest, senior vice president and chief marketing officer for Monumental Sports & Entertainment, told John Ourand of the Sports Business Journal that the franchise would “probably not” be renamed the Bullets, also alluding to the locker room gun incident between Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton as being a factor. “I don’t see us changing the name to the Bullets. But I see us using the Bullets with the Wizards mark and using that history a lot more,” Dupriest also told Ourand. The DC Sports Bog’s Dan Steinberg called the statement, “the strongest thing I can remember a team executive saying on this topic.” Unlike Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who told USA Today in mid-May, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER—you can use caps,” Dupriest evidently did not specify a preference for CAPS in his statement. Perhaps related but not so much, the current description on Dupriest’s Twitter account (@joedupe) reads: “Caps, Wizards, Duke, Braves with plenty of Ronald Reagan ideology mixed in.” So there’s that. Steinberg also rehashed Ted Leonsis’ punting of this very issue in his Bog post. The team owner has several times claimed how “major” a name-change process would be, indicating that it would take “years” to accomplish. Meanwhile, over this offseason, the New Orleans Hornets have changed their name to the Pelicans, and the Charlotte Bobcats will soon return to being call the Hornets. Sure, there is a process [note: "process" is Ernie Grunfeld's favorite word], but if someone wanted to make it happen, it would’ve happened by now. For Leonsis, the action has only been in the bottomless pixel-talk. So, this latest news is not really news. The language may be the strongest to date, and perhaps it came out of nowhere, but it is hardly a surprise. Even with the blessing of Irene Pollin, it’s long been suspected, by this blogger at least, that a return to the “Bullets” would be out of the question. My advice to people has been to move on. That said, the name “Wizards” should not be accepted. And choosing not to more strongly consider a name change puts Ted Leonsis in the realm of “obtuse” with the warden from The Shawshank Redemption. Then again, the ole pixel warden himself could have a trick up his sleeve. Anyhow… in light of knowing that I will not be punished for blasting “Ave Maria” over a loudspeaker, I shall blog with freedom about the non-Wizards team name options that may or may not exist. >The Washington Lincolns. The city is named after the first U.S. President, George, but the argument can be made that Abe Lincoln is the most iconic. Not many teams are named after a person (the Cleveland Browns, the Charlotte Bobcats, technically (for now)), but Lincoln would be a worthy exception to make. I mean, if Lincoln is worthy of being the subject of DeShawn Stevenson’s frontal neck tattoo, then what other reason do you need? Now, the marketing wizards at Monumental might have to get creative with team branding, but calling them the “Lincs” for short and having a fake beard promotional give-away night seems easy. Also, beards are popular these days. Worth noting: there are calls for the U.S. Mint to kill the penny, which features an

This probably falls into the "never going to happen", "pipe dream" category that the Demarcus Cousins trades are in. However, I wanted to share my dreams with the rest of you and see if there is any way that we could make this happen (even though there probably isn't). If there is one big man in the whole league that I want on this team, It's Favors. He has insane potential and great athletic ability. I think he could be just as good as Cousins (eventually), and he doesn't have the attitude problems or arrogance. If he did, he certainly wouldn't have been with the Jazz for this long. It takes a lot to swallow your pride of being picked #3 and sitting behind Paul Millsap and Al Jefferson for 2 years while playing 23-24 mpg. I know that he is probably untouchable, as he and Kanter are the future of that Organization in the frontcourt. But, that said, I would be 100% willing to give up our #3 pick and anyone not named Wall or Beal in order to acquire Favors. I mean, who knows, they need a point guard, maybe Trey Burke is their guy, and maybe they want to dump some salary in the long term. I'm not going to go into exact contract details with other players because I don't think it's worth it. I guess what I'm saying is that I would love for this to happen, and there is like a less than 1% chance that it will happen, but it could. If this did happen, what would you guys think? or am I just wasting my time? This probably falls into the "never going to happen", "pipe dream" category that the Demarcus Cousins trades are in. However, I wanted to share my dreams with the rest of you and see if there is any way that we could make this happen (even though there probably isn't). If there is one big man in the whole league that I want on this team, It's Favors. He has insane potential and great athletic ability. I think he could be just as good as Cousins (eventually), and he doesn't have the attitude problems or arrogance. If he did, he certainly wouldn't have been with the Jazz for this long. It takes a lot to swallow your pride of being picked #3 and sitting behind Paul Millsap and Al Jefferson for 2 years while playing 23-24 mpg. I know that he is probably untouchable, as he and Kanter are the future of that Organization in the frontcourt. But, that said, I would be 100% willing to give up our #3 pick and anyone not named Wall or Beal in order to acquire Favors. I mean, who knows, they need a point guard, maybe Trey Burke is their guy, and maybe they want to dump some salary in the long term. I'm not going to go into exact contract details with other players because I don't think it's worth it. I guess what I'm saying is that I would love for this to happen, and there is like a less than 1% chance that it will happen, but it could. If this did happen, what would you guys think? or am I just wasting my time?

Not much has changed for the Washington Wizards in Chad Ford's latest NBA Mock Draft. Once again, the Wizards have a choice between Otto Porter (BF scouting report | SBNation.com scouting report) and Anthony Bennett (BF scouting report | SBNation.com scouting report). Once again, Ford has the Wizards taking Porter. Once again, Ford notes that the front office is divided on the issue. There continues to be a pretty strong debate on this one inside the front office, and it might come down to risk aversion for the Wizards. Do they go with more of a sure thing (Porter) or gamble on the guy with more upside (Bennett)? Ford suggests that both players remain in the mix for the Cavaliers at No. 1, but trail Nerlens Noel and Alex Len at this point. Bennett ends up going No. 4 to Charlotte in Ford's latest mock. Draft Express also has the Wizards taking Porter, with Bennett falling No. 6 to the Pelicans. More on BF: All of BF's draft scouting reports. All of SBNation.com's scouting reports. The Wizards' workout database. Noel loves D.C. Otto Porter comes to town "Shy" Bennett visits D.C. Atlantic Division trade targets Central Division trade targets Southeast Division trade targets

Eight days before the 2012 NBA Draft, the Washington Wizards made a trade that was met with mixed reaction from fans, writers and the basketball intelligencia. Rather than sit on a decent amount of cap room over the next two seasons had they released Rashard Lewis and used the amnesty clause on Andray Blatche, the Wizards opted to cash in for certainty in the form of Hornets veterans Trevor Ariza and Emeka Okafor. Most of the objections centered around the two player's salaries, which were seen as a bit much for players of their quality and might have prevented the Wizards from using cap flexibility in other ways. Here's what I wrote about the deal after it happened: Essentially, the Wizards are getting two potentially useful rotation pieces that are excellent defensively, not great offensively and don't address the Wizards' biggest need (though the draft pick might). They're short-term upgrades on the incumbents -- Ariza on Chris Singleton, Okafor on the combination of Trevor Booker and Jan Vesely -- but the cost is any possible salary-cap flexibility the Wizards have for the next two seasons, as described here. Nobody really knows for sure what would have resulted from that flexibility, but I would argue that doing nothing here was preferable to getting Ariza and Okafor. Now that we're a year into the deal, we have a better idea of what Ariza and Okafor were worth on the court and whether any good potential opportunities slipped by the Wizards. It's as good a time as any to reflect on a trade that prompted some of this site's biggest arguments. Brad Mills-USA TODAY Sports THE PLAYERS Emeka Okafor and Trevor Ariza's stocks were at a low point before Ernie Grunfeld acquired them. Both players floundered on an aimless Hornets team that was ticketed for the top of the lottery after trading away Chris Paul right before the season. Two years before, they were starters on a 46-win team that challenged the Lakers in the first round of the playoffs, but without Paul, their usefulness went away. Okafor's season was lost in February with a knee injury, while Ariza was told to sit in April so the Hornets could get closer looks at Al-Farouq Aminu and Xavier Henry. Grunfeld made the trade figuring that Okafor and Ariza would recover to their 2010-11 levels while playing for a similar kind of team. For the most part, he was right, though it wasn't always so clean. Faced with the prospect of once again not having their star point guard, both players began the year dreadfully. Okafor found himself benched at the start of the year, while Ariza loafed on both ends and failed to provide the kind of scoring the Wizards needed without John Wall and Nene. The trade initially looked like a disaster as the Wizards struggled. Things started to turn around, though, once the Wizards' stars returned. Nene came back in early December and was eventually moved into the starting lineup with Okafor. Together, they were a solid defensive tandem, with Nene doing most of the lateral switching on the floor and Okafor cleaning up at the rim and on the defensive glass. (They remained a bad offensive duo, but the defense more than made up for it on many nights). Ariza, after missing most of December with a calf injury, benefited from Wall's health more than anyone, shooting 45 percent from the field and 42 percent from three-point range after the All-Star Break. BF's 2012-13 Player Evaluations: Emeka Okafor Trevor Ariza With the Wizards' stars healthy, Okafor and Ariza could focus on what they did best. Okafor's scoring efficiency took a major hit because he was forced to shoot more mid-range jump shots than he wanted, but his defensive rebound percentage was the highest of his career. He also proved to be as good a teammate as advertised, lighting into Wall when he was struggling in a moment that may have turned Wall's season around. Ariza's shot distribution changed significantly once Wall arrived, as he shot significantly mo

Wizards Pre-Draft Workout Schedule: Wednesday, June 19

Tahj Tate Profile

Kevin Foster Profile

Dejan Musli Profile