OakleyDokely wrote:Scase wrote:OakleyDokely wrote:
The players selected do matter though. The point of the trade was to get younger and cheaper and if you get good players with those assets, the deal becomes a win for the Raps regardless of whether people think they got enough or not. Don't see how getting potentially 2-3 rotation players on rookie deals is somehow a bad thing for a rebuilding team.
Yeah
if you get good players. My point is, that if you trade Siakam for a 1st OA pick, or trade him for 3 picks in the 20's one of those is objectively a better trade than the other.
Trading for 3 picks that have a low % chance of actually playing out isn't all of a sudden a good trade because you got lucky on one of them.
Again, trading prime lebron for a SRP that turns into Jokic is a bad trade no matter how you look at it. Trading him for 5 top 5 picks that all bust is still a better trade. You can flip those top 5 picks into other good players as they have inherent value, no one is sending you anything of value for a pick in the early to late 20's.
Unless you think you can go and convince the bucks to send us Giannis for a couple early SRPs cause you know "The trade isn't bad until you see the players you draft". It's utter nonsense. Picks hold value irrespective of who is inevitably picked with them. This is not a controversial or even subjective statement.
I think a lot of people just overestimated what a 30 year old looking for 1/4 billion dollars was going to bring back.
Expecting a superstar package for a non superstar was never realistic. He isn't Lebron. His isn't that tier of player. No team was giving up a top prospect or top pick for him. The Raps were always going to get a combination of mid-late picks and B/C tier prospects unless they traded him when he was in his mid 20s. If this type of package is unacceptable, you keep him and re-sign him.
But I'm not talking about
expecting a superstar return, I'm just stating that the players picked does not turn a bad trade into a good trade. You're focusing too much on the example, and not the reality. Picks have value, period. There is no discounting that, it is an objective statement.
A 1st is worth more than a 2nd, a 2nd is worth more than a 5th, and a 10th is worth more than a 20th. Again, this is all objective fact. Claiming that a trade is only able to be considered bad
after the players are picked is again, nonsense. If Siakam was traded for a singular SRP, would you still be saying "Well just wait until we see the player we get"? No, you would say it's a bad trade, cause it is.
So far we received the 19th, 29th, and a fair estimate for 2026 based on current trends is the 20th.
The average outcome of a player picked in the 19th spot is 5% Star 15% Solid starter 20% Role player 50% Deep bench 10% Bust
The average outcome of a player picked in the 29th spot is 5% Star 10% Solid starter 10% Role player 30% Deep bench 20% Bust 25% never a minute in the NBA
The average outcome of a player picked in the 20th spot is 5% Star 10% Solid starter 35% Role player 30% Deep bench 20% BustThe likelihood of getting 2-3 role players is statistically low, and when the likelihood of picking an actual usable player is low, the value of the pick is low as well. These picks inherently have low value. Getting lucky and finding a good one in the bunch does not in any way excuse the bad return of a trade, it simply makes it easier to swallow.
So again, I say to you. Do you think that the Bucks would take low value picks, if you argued to them "You don't know, maybe one of those picks could turn out great."?
The player being traded is not relevant, bad value is bad value.
wb homez!
