Image ImageImage Image

Trading High vs Low

Moderators: HomoSapien, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, fleet, AshyLarrysDiaper, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson, Ice Man, dougthonus

transplant
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 3,408
Joined: Aug 16, 2001
Location: state of perpetual confusion
       

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#21 » by transplant » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:21 pm

I've been reading about "trading high/low" on message boards for more years than I care to think about. As it did the first time I read it, what strikes me is that none of us knows when a player is near his high or low point before GMs around the league. 3 seasons ago, some thought it was the time to "sell high" on Butler. This keeps coming up with regard to Butler and he just keeps getting better.

You guys have fun with this, but I freely admit that I don't know if Butler has reached his ceiling or Mirotic his floor.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app
Until the actual truth is more important to you than what you believe, you will never recognize the truth.

- Blatantly stolen from truebluefan
User avatar
Rerisen
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 105,369
And1: 25,052
Joined: Nov 23, 2003

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#22 » by Rerisen » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:21 pm

Beside the dimension of trading 'High' or 'Low', I think our weakness is not being able to find balancing trades or moving out redundancy, as that is where you can possible have both teams win a trade even if you are swapping equal talent players.

For instance right now I'd say the Bulls have too many one dimensional shooter types weak(er) on defense: Doug, Niko, Valentine, Canaan.

If you could find a team that is more defensive weighted and maybe needs a shooting punch in their 2nd unit, you might look to deal with them for a more all around player, who might not be the shooter our guys have the potential to be, but would fit in more of our lineups better.

Snell for MCW would be the type of trade that theoretically could have been that, but in some ways MCW fits worse than Snell. But talent for talent at the time (or at least production wise) it was pretty much a wash with two sub 10 PER players. Having found a low rent 3 and D PG would have been more illustrative of successfully executing a balance trade. As MCW is more "Drive and D" style.
User avatar
Mech Engineer
RealGM
Posts: 16,802
And1: 4,804
Joined: Apr 10, 2012
Location: NW Suburbs

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#23 » by Mech Engineer » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:29 pm

Trading high/buy low means the Gasol type of trades when Memphis got Marc for Pau. Pau would have been worthless for Memphis because he would have bolted. The Bulls have to look for those Marc Gasol sleeper types in other teams and get them for a redundant asset. It probably isn't obvious who those guys are but the Bulls FO should know them.

Identifying them from draft workouts, scouting and projecting is what you need to trade for although Memphis might have been just lucky with Marc. That's how you do well in trades. I thought Jerian Grant might be one of those guys. But, we have to give him another year.
transplant
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 3,408
Joined: Aug 16, 2001
Location: state of perpetual confusion
       

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#24 » by transplant » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:33 pm

Mech Engineer wrote:Trading high/buy low means the Gasol type of trades when Memphis got Marc for Pau. Pau would have been worthless for Memphis because he would have bolted. The Bulls have to look for those Marc Gasol sleeper types in other teams and get them for a redundant asset. It probably isn't obvious who those guys are but the Bulls FO should know them.

Identifying them from draft workouts, scouting and projecting is what you need to trade for although Memphis might have been just lucky with Marc. That's how you do well in trades. I thought Jerian Grant might be one of those guys. But, we have to give him another year.

In fairness, the idea of "trade high/buy low" can't be based on the Pau Gasol for Marc Gasol trade. Pau Gasol was an all star on a bad team who went on to be the #2 player on a multiple championship team. Marc Gasol was sort of a throw in (as a 2nd-round pick) on the trade that sent Pau to the Lakers. For the Grizz, M.Gasol becoming an all star in his own right was as close to blind luck as you can get.
Until the actual truth is more important to you than what you believe, you will never recognize the truth.

- Blatantly stolen from truebluefan
MC3
RealGM
Posts: 14,260
And1: 7,747
Joined: Jul 21, 2014

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#25 » by MC3 » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:36 pm

Grizzlies got robbed in that trade. Getting Marc becoming what he is, is their definition of our 1.9% chance in winning a lottery as 9th seed.
transplant
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 3,408
Joined: Aug 16, 2001
Location: state of perpetual confusion
       

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#26 » by transplant » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:30 am

Rerisen wrote:Beside the dimension of trading 'High' or 'Low', I think our weakness is not being able to find balancing trades or moving out redundancy, as that is where you can possible have both teams win a trade even if you are swapping equal talent players.

For instance right now I'd say the Bulls have too many one dimensional shooter types weak(er) on defense: Doug, Niko, Valentine, Canaan.

If you could find a team that is more defensive weighted and maybe needs a shooting punch in their 2nd unit, you might look to deal with them for a more all around player, who might not be the shooter our guys have the potential to be, but would fit in more of our lineups better.

Snell for MCW would be the type of trade that theoretically could have been that, but in some ways MCW fits worse than Snell. But talent for talent at the time (or at least production wise) it was pretty much a wash with two sub 10 PER players. Having found a low rent 3 and D PG would have been more illustrative of successfully executing a balance trade. As MCW is more "Drive and D" style.

I congratulate you for taking the road less traveled...nearly all the posts coming into the season were about the team's lack of shooting.

In any case, I disagree. Give me more shooters.
Until the actual truth is more important to you than what you believe, you will never recognize the truth.

- Blatantly stolen from truebluefan
User avatar
Rerisen
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 105,369
And1: 25,052
Joined: Nov 23, 2003

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#27 » by Rerisen » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:40 am

transplant wrote:
Rerisen wrote:Beside the dimension of trading 'High' or 'Low', I think our weakness is not being able to find balancing trades or moving out redundancy, as that is where you can possible have both teams win a trade even if you are swapping equal talent players.

For instance right now I'd say the Bulls have too many one dimensional shooter types weak(er) on defense: Doug, Niko, Valentine, Canaan.

If you could find a team that is more defensive weighted and maybe needs a shooting punch in their 2nd unit, you might look to deal with them for a more all around player, who might not be the shooter our guys have the potential to be, but would fit in more of our lineups better.

Snell for MCW would be the type of trade that theoretically could have been that, but in some ways MCW fits worse than Snell. But talent for talent at the time (or at least production wise) it was pretty much a wash with two sub 10 PER players. Having found a low rent 3 and D PG would have been more illustrative of successfully executing a balance trade. As MCW is more "Drive and D" style.

I congratulate you for taking the road less traveled...nearly all the posts coming into the season were about the team's lack of shooting.

In any case, I disagree. Give me more shooters.


You missed the part where I specified shooters 'weak on defense'.

Stacking the team with more one dimensional shooting won't get you anywhere.

Team balance is all about putting the right skills in the right place, as opposed to generic prescriptions like 'get more shooting'. Namely, the one place we need shooting most, PG, we didn't get it.
MC3
RealGM
Posts: 14,260
And1: 7,747
Joined: Jul 21, 2014

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#28 » by MC3 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:09 am

Trading high would be trading Portis last year after he go toe to toe with Towns and Zingis. You could have get likely pick this year in top 15. Trading low would be trading Portis in his last year for player with some big flaw.
transplant
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 3,408
Joined: Aug 16, 2001
Location: state of perpetual confusion
       

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#29 » by transplant » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:22 am

Rerisen wrote:
transplant wrote:
Rerisen wrote:Beside the dimension of trading 'High' or 'Low', I think our weakness is not being able to find balancing trades or moving out redundancy, as that is where you can possible have both teams win a trade even if you are swapping equal talent players.

For instance right now I'd say the Bulls have too many one dimensional shooter types weak(er) on defense: Doug, Niko, Valentine, Canaan.

If you could find a team that is more defensive weighted and maybe needs a shooting punch in their 2nd unit, you might look to deal with them for a more all around player, who might not be the shooter our guys have the potential to be, but would fit in more of our lineups better.

Snell for MCW would be the type of trade that theoretically could have been that, but in some ways MCW fits worse than Snell. But talent for talent at the time (or at least production wise) it was pretty much a wash with two sub 10 PER players. Having found a low rent 3 and D PG would have been more illustrative of successfully executing a balance trade. As MCW is more "Drive and D" style.

I congratulate you for taking the road less traveled...nearly all the posts coming into the season were about the team's lack of shooting.

In any case, I disagree. Give me more shooters.


You missed the part where I specified shooters 'weak on defense'.

Stacking the team with more one dimensional shooting won't get you anywhere.

Team balance is all about putting the right skills in the right place, as opposed to generic prescriptions like 'get more shooting'. Namely, the one place we need shooting most, PG, we didn't get it.

You're slicing that salami kinda thin. If I've got you right, you want to trade the Bulls players you view as one-dimensional shooters for players who can play defense a little better and shoot a little worse. Sounds like ordering custom draperies. I'm not sure this is that easy to do in the NBA.
Until the actual truth is more important to you than what you believe, you will never recognize the truth.

- Blatantly stolen from truebluefan
Am2626
Analyst
Posts: 3,034
And1: 1,005
Joined: Jul 13, 2013

Re: RE: Trading High vs Low 

Post#30 » by Am2626 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:57 am

Axxo wrote:
League Circles wrote:With the new CBA apparently making it even harder to lure free agents (good ones) away from their teams, and our FO being a mixed bag in the draft department, I think it's more important than ever for them to look closer at trading to make us better. They haven't been too bad at the trades they've made, they're just really, really hesitant to trade at all.

I get it. The Bulls are perhaps the NBA's only team that can look free agents and guys they're looking to extend and honestly say, look, we value continuity, and as long as you work hard and try to gel with the team, we're unlikely to trade you unless it's for a premiere talent or in the last year of your deal and you reject our extension offer or otherwise indicate you want to leave. To me, that is part of Chicago's relative advantage over most of the league in the free agency department. I don't know if the benefit is worth the cost in this area, but you guys can comment on that if you have thoughts.

Anyways, we never, ever trade high. I can't think of one example in the Pax era.

Trading high is better than trading low. Since we need to try trading at this time, let's identify the high water mark guys.

IMO, they are:

1. Lopez - very solid but not good center on a theoretically reasonable deal for a couple more years after this one. No notable health or attitude issues. Can probably fit into a good role on most teams I guess.
2. Portis - are you kidding me? A PF with size who has proven to shoot the three and rebound well, with 2.5 years left on a dirt cheap deal? (not to mention he looks much worse than the numbers indicate)
3. McD - still 1.5 years left cheap, proved to be an elite 3pt shooter last year. Limited upside. The team that pays his next deal has a pretty good chance to regret when he can't guard anyone. But for the next 1.5 years he has promise and is cheap.
4. Butler - obviously
5. Grant - rookie deal, doesn't look like a good player. Not much value but probably will get lower and lower and may be out of the league after this deal. Thus high water mark now for cheapness and potential.
6. 2017 pick? Well, we don't look that great, so the pick should be decent, and it's supposed to be a good draft. This is kind of an against-the-grain type idea since most teams hold onto their ultimately **** draft picks like they're gold or something.

Are there packages of the above that could yield something decent?

I've just got to think we could maybe get two pretty good players each for one of these packages:

A. Lopez, Grant, 2017 first rounder
B. McD, Portis

Thoughts?

I think Niko has trade value. He has alot of tools. The inconsistency he shows could be due in part to the way he is being used, system he is in, pieces around him, etc which could mean a change in scenery, philosophy, system could help him overcome those flaws and maybe even remove the need for a higher BBIQ.

I think looking for teams in flux who need to make roster changes, have unexpected injuries, or need to add a versatile player right away would be good places to start to look for an exchange or generate a TPE for future use.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


Regardless of how much value Niko brings to a team, his trade value is dictated by how he is playing. This season has definitely lowered his trade value.
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 21,752
And1: 10,036
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#31 » by MrSparkle » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:45 am

MC3 wrote:Grizzlies got robbed in that trade. Getting Marc becoming what he is, is their definition of our 1.9% chance in winning a lottery as 9th seed.


The thing that baffled me about Marc even dropping to the 2nd round, was that he looked pretty solid in FIBA/Spain. Sure, he was a bit on the heavy side, but he had very good mobility and skill for a 275-lb. fella. Worst case scenario, you were gonna get a decent backup center.

I was pissed that Chicago didn't try and trade up, or why every other team decided to pass on him deep into the 2nd round. Bulls picked Aaron Gray right after Marc. :oops:

I was watching a lot of FIBA/Euro ball at the time. Marc looked very promising. Nothing like a 2nd round pick. :-? His mechanics and finesse were far beyond those of a Gray or Bairstow. He was a overweight and needed to lose the fat, but you could way more potential.

But my question is whether MEM knew who they're getting, and made the deal secretly centered around Marc. He was after all, a HS kid in Memphis during Pau's early NBA days.
Am2626
Analyst
Posts: 3,034
And1: 1,005
Joined: Jul 13, 2013

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#32 » by Am2626 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:52 pm

Mech Engineer wrote:Trading high/buy low means the Gasol type of trades when Memphis got Marc for Pau. Pau would have been worthless for Memphis because he would have bolted. The Bulls have to look for those Marc Gasol sleeper types in other teams and get them for a redundant asset. It probably isn't obvious who those guys are but the Bulls FO should know them.

Identifying them from draft workouts, scouting and projecting is what you need to trade for although Memphis might have been just lucky with Marc. That's how you do well in trades. I thought Jerian Grant might be one of those guys. But, we have to give him another year.


The Gasol for Gasol trade ended up being pretty even but Marc Gasol was an unknown at the time so it looked very lopsided. Memphis really should have gotten back a lot more in that trade based on the actual value of all players at that time. From my understanding, Pau was locked into a contact for at least a few years at that time so it wasn't about losing him for nothing. Yes he wanted out but he wouldn't have been in a position to leave Memphis right then.
rosenthall
Senior
Posts: 525
And1: 282
Joined: May 26, 2001

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#33 » by rosenthall » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:41 pm

This thread is mostly about the market value of a player, but it's also important to consider their replacement value. Arguably, it's more important when considering whether or not it's the right time to trade someone.

I subscribe to the idea that a good team has to be able to fulfill a variety of competencies at minimally acceptable levels in order to compete, so if you're trading someone who gets you over the minimally accepted threshold of some part of the game you also have to account for the cost of replacing that part of your team if it's not coming immediately back in the trade.

A good example would be RoLo. I agree that he'll probably never have a higher trade value throughout the rest of his career as he does right now since he's a decent but aging player on a good contract. His play will probably roll downhill from here and his good contract becomes less valuable the closer it comes to expiration.

However, I think you need to have a level of interior defense that's at least comparable to what RoLo provides right now, and the guys that can do it better than him are almost all more expensive, so even if you get "peak value" for him, you arguably have an even bigger, more expensive hole to fill by trading him even if you a good deal for him.

Of course if you think Felicio can provide the same things at an acceptably high level then it's an easy decision. But if you worry that Felicio's rim protection just isn't quite good enough to be the primary center on a playoff team, then arguably it's a better decision to hold on to Rolo.

The same line of thinking creates a strong case for trading Doug right now. I think he probably is at his high water mark right now, is unlikely to be a good value on his second contract, and there's someone on the team (Valentine) who projects to fill an almost identical role in the NBA. I doubt you can play Doug and Valentine on the same court right now, so moving Doug while the going's still good is a good way to make the most out of your existing assets.

As for guys' current value (relative to the rest of their careers, not what they once were), I'd group them like this:

High Water Mark: Wade, Jimmy, Doug, RoLo
Guys Who Will Be At High Mark After This Offseason: Taj, Niko, Felicio, MCW (maybe)
The thinking here is that these guys all figure to be productive on their next contracts, so pending FA hurts them right now.
Risers: Grant, Valentine

Zipser is almost impossible to tell. Portis is a tough nut to crack to. His value has taken a dip lately, but I can still imagine him landing in a good spot somewhere since he has NBA talent.
User avatar
Mech Engineer
RealGM
Posts: 16,802
And1: 4,804
Joined: Apr 10, 2012
Location: NW Suburbs

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#34 » by Mech Engineer » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:49 pm

Am2626 wrote:
Mech Engineer wrote:Trading high/buy low means the Gasol type of trades when Memphis got Marc for Pau. Pau would have been worthless for Memphis because he would have bolted. The Bulls have to look for those Marc Gasol sleeper types in other teams and get them for a redundant asset. It probably isn't obvious who those guys are but the Bulls FO should know them.

Identifying them from draft workouts, scouting and projecting is what you need to trade for although Memphis might have been just lucky with Marc. That's how you do well in trades. I thought Jerian Grant might be one of those guys. But, we have to give him another year.


The Gasol for Gasol trade ended up being pretty even but Marc Gasol was an unknown at the time so it looked very lopsided. Memphis really should have gotten back a lot more in that trade based on the actual value of all players at that time. From my understanding, Pau was locked into a contact for at least a few years at that time so it wasn't about losing him for nothing. Yes he wanted out but he wouldn't have been in a position to leave Memphis right then.


It is all media speculation/analysis on how Memphis got hosed. We have no idea of how much Memphis scouted Marc especially considering he grew up there. Pau was locked in which means they sold him high....The premise of the thread is sell high/buy low ...that's all I meant. Pau's value might have remained the same or decreased. I remember the team getting swept in the 1st round in 2 consecutive years which means his value would have decreased.

We also don't know if there were other teams bidding for Pau and if they were ready to give up a lot. I agree there is that "creepy" Laker favoritism element in that trade but not sure either. They did definitely buy low on Marc even if he was a throw-in. Imagine what the Lakers would ask for Marc in a few years...they would have wanted 2 or 3 Pau Gasols.
User avatar
Concept Coop
Analyst
Posts: 3,040
And1: 608
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#35 » by Concept Coop » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:24 pm

Trading high/low doesn't apply to roster management. More specifically, it doesn't apply to NBA players as assets.
Real GM Bulls Board: Step 2 - Anger
User avatar
Concept Coop
Analyst
Posts: 3,040
And1: 608
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#36 » by Concept Coop » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:38 pm

transplant wrote:I've been reading about "trading high/low" on message boards for more years than I care to think about. As it did the first time I read it, what strikes me is that none of us knows when a player is near his high or low point before GMs around the league. 3 seasons ago, some thought it was the time to "sell high" on Butler. This keeps coming up with regard to Butler and he just keeps getting better.

You guys have fun with this, but I freely admit that I don't know if Butler has reached his ceiling or Mirotic his floor.


Exactly. It makes no sense. There is no liquid currency; the assets are humans with definitive shelf lives; how you treat said assets has an effect on landing future assets; chemistry and fit are real; the goal is not to simply beat the market... and so on and so on and so on.
Real GM Bulls Board: Step 2 - Anger
AirP.
RealGM
Posts: 33,316
And1: 28,263
Joined: Nov 21, 2007

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#37 » by AirP. » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:56 pm

League Circles wrote:I get it. The Bulls are perhaps the NBA's only team that can look free agents and guys they're looking to extend and honestly say, look, we value continuity, and as long as you work hard and try to gel with the team, we're unlikely to trade you unless it's for a premiere talent or in the last year of your deal and you reject our extension offer or otherwise indicate you want to leave. To me, that is part of Chicago's relative advantage over most of the league in the free agency department. I don't know if the benefit is worth the cost in this area, but you guys can comment on that if you have thoughts.

WHAT? They traded Hinrich twice even after he took less to join Chicago the 2nd time(it was pretty bad that 2nd trade). Deng got moved to save 20 million dollars to a team that wasn't that good. Kyle Korver got moved for an exception they never expected to use. Ben Wallace played what a year and a half of his 4 year contract he signed with Chicago? Oh.. and there is that thing that they were even trying to trade their head coach. These are just a few off the top of my head in the last decade.
User avatar
JeremyB0001
General Manager
Posts: 7,582
And1: 810
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#38 » by JeremyB0001 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:03 pm

League Circles wrote:With the new CBA apparently making it even harder to lure free agents (good ones) away from their teams, and our FO being a mixed bag in the draft department, I think it's more important than ever for them to look closer at trading to make us better. They haven't been too bad at the trades they've made, they're just really, really hesitant to trade at all.

I get it. The Bulls are perhaps the NBA's only team that can look free agents and guys they're looking to extend and honestly say, look, we value continuity, and as long as you work hard and try to gel with the team, we're unlikely to trade you unless it's for a premiere talent or in the last year of your deal and you reject our extension offer or otherwise indicate you want to leave. To me, that is part of Chicago's relative advantage over most of the league in the free agency department. I don't know if the benefit is worth the cost in this area, but you guys can comment on that if you have thoughts.

Anyways, we never, ever trade high. I can't think of one example in the Pax era.

Trading high is better than trading low. Since we need to try trading at this time, let's identify the high water mark guys.

IMO, they are:

1. Lopez - very solid but not good center on a theoretically reasonable deal for a couple more years after this one. No notable health or attitude issues. Can probably fit into a good role on most teams I guess.
2. Portis - are you kidding me? A PF with size who has proven to shoot the three and rebound well, with 2.5 years left on a dirt cheap deal? (not to mention he looks much worse than the numbers indicate)
3. McD - still 1.5 years left cheap, proved to be an elite 3pt shooter last year. Limited upside. The team that pays his next deal has a pretty good chance to regret when he can't guard anyone. But for the next 1.5 years he has promise and is cheap.
4. Butler - obviously
5. Grant - rookie deal, doesn't look like a good player. Not much value but probably will get lower and lower and may be out of the league after this deal. Thus high water mark now for cheapness and potential.
6. 2017 pick? Well, we don't look that great, so the pick should be decent, and it's supposed to be a good draft. This is kind of an against-the-grain type idea since most teams hold onto their ultimately **** draft picks like they're gold or something.

Are there packages of the above that could yield something decent?

I've just got to think we could maybe get two pretty good players each for one of these packages:

A. Lopez, Grant, 2017 first rounder
B. McD, Portis

Thoughts?


I don't think that anyone really ever trades high. It's extremely rare. GMs, owners, and fans are human and thus tend to lack the outside-the-box and courage to truly trade high, which is trading a good player at his best. Truly trading high isn't moving the players you mentioned, who aren't at their peaks and/or are not good. Truly trading high would be moving Butler. This is almost certainly his peak and there's no telling how soon it could end. Some do want to trade Butler because they're enamored with tearing down the team and tanking. But selling high isn't always a good idea. It looks like the best the Bulls could have gotten for Butler this past off-season was Kris Dunn or Jalen Brown and some complementary players. That would have been a terrible trade for the Bulls. Plus, there's a damn good argument that it's inadvisable to trade a game-changing player and lose 60 games a season for the indefinite future.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 33,230
And1: 9,138
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#39 » by League Circles » Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:04 am

JeremyB0001 wrote:
League Circles wrote:With the new CBA apparently making it even harder to lure free agents (good ones) away from their teams, and our FO being a mixed bag in the draft department, I think it's more important than ever for them to look closer at trading to make us better. They haven't been too bad at the trades they've made, they're just really, really hesitant to trade at all.

I get it. The Bulls are perhaps the NBA's only team that can look free agents and guys they're looking to extend and honestly say, look, we value continuity, and as long as you work hard and try to gel with the team, we're unlikely to trade you unless it's for a premiere talent or in the last year of your deal and you reject our extension offer or otherwise indicate you want to leave. To me, that is part of Chicago's relative advantage over most of the league in the free agency department. I don't know if the benefit is worth the cost in this area, but you guys can comment on that if you have thoughts.

Anyways, we never, ever trade high. I can't think of one example in the Pax era.

Trading high is better than trading low. Since we need to try trading at this time, let's identify the high water mark guys.

IMO, they are:

1. Lopez - very solid but not good center on a theoretically reasonable deal for a couple more years after this one. No notable health or attitude issues. Can probably fit into a good role on most teams I guess.
2. Portis - are you kidding me? A PF with size who has proven to shoot the three and rebound well, with 2.5 years left on a dirt cheap deal? (not to mention he looks much worse than the numbers indicate)
3. McD - still 1.5 years left cheap, proved to be an elite 3pt shooter last year. Limited upside. The team that pays his next deal has a pretty good chance to regret when he can't guard anyone. But for the next 1.5 years he has promise and is cheap.
4. Butler - obviously
5. Grant - rookie deal, doesn't look like a good player. Not much value but probably will get lower and lower and may be out of the league after this deal. Thus high water mark now for cheapness and potential.
6. 2017 pick? Well, we don't look that great, so the pick should be decent, and it's supposed to be a good draft. This is kind of an against-the-grain type idea since most teams hold onto their ultimately **** draft picks like they're gold or something.

Are there packages of the above that could yield something decent?

I've just got to think we could maybe get two pretty good players each for one of these packages:

A. Lopez, Grant, 2017 first rounder
B. McD, Portis

Thoughts?


I don't think that anyone really ever trades high. It's extremely rare. GMs, owners, and fans are human and thus tend to lack the outside-the-box and courage to truly trade high, which is trading a good player at his best. Truly trading high isn't moving the players you mentioned, who aren't at their peaks and/or are not good. Truly trading high would be moving Butler. This is almost certainly his peak and there's no telling how soon it could end. Some do want to trade Butler because they're enamored with tearing down the team and tanking. But selling high isn't always a good idea. It looks like the best the Bulls could have gotten for Butler this past off-season was Kris Dunn or Jalen Brown and some complementary players. That would have been a terrible trade for the Bulls. Plus, there's a damn good argument that it's inadvisable to trade a game-changing player and lose 60 games a season for the indefinite future.

I am defining trading hi simply as any player who could be traded now for more than he likely could for the duration of the rest of his contract. Contract length and status have a huge impact on player value IMO
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
Chitownbulls
General Manager
Posts: 8,573
And1: 2,463
Joined: Jun 05, 2013

Re: Trading High vs Low 

Post#40 » by Chitownbulls » Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:28 pm

Trade Jimmy now.....hes as good as he will be. He probably has 3-4 great years left. GO GET SOME HIGH DRAFT PICKS....CASH IN. This draft is loaded
DENG HE SUCKS!!!!

Return to Chicago Bulls