Official Trade Thread XIX: 3/14/12 - 6/22/12

[nate33]

Let's say Detroit won't give up their lotto pick. Would you do this trade if we exclude Booker and replace their first with their 2nd (or both of them) and a future first with "descending" protection, like this year's Minnesota pick or the Charlotte pick that Chicago has?

So....

Lewis
for
Prince, Gordon, #39 and/or #44, future first with protection like this:

Detroit's own 2013 1st round draft pick to Washington (top-14 protected in the 2013 Draft, top-12 protected in 2014, top-10 protected in 2015, top-8 protected in 2016 and unprotected in the 2017 Draft.)

No.

[fishercob]

Care to elaborate?

[nate33]

Care to elaborate?

Prince and Gordon are too expensive to take off their hands unless we get some decent compensation back. A late 1st round pick in the distant future is not enough compensation.

[fishercob]

Fair enough, though I think that worse case scnenario of a "late pick in a distant future draft" is unlikely. How much so is conjecture, obviously.

How would you convince Detroit to do the deal as originally proposed. What is reasonable for us to include?

[nate33]

Fair enough, though I think that worse case scnenario of a "late pick in a distant future draft" is unlikely. How much so is conjecture, obviously.

How would you convince Detroit to do the deal as originally proposed. What is reasonable for us to include?

I think your original deal is fair. Instead of Detroit giving us a heavily protected future pick, they give us their lotto pick and we give them Booker.

The entire premise of the trade is that Detroit is legitimately interested in saving money. If they don't consider our taking Gordon and Prince to be a substantial benefit to them, then there's really no way we're going to find common ground.

[fishercob]

OK, I think it makes sense. Just making sure I wasn't crazy in the premise. A couple Piston fans on the trade board reacted negatively, but that is to be expected.

The beauty to me is that the instant savings almost completely pay for amnestying Villanueva. The combined effect of getting all three guys off the books would really help their re-build.

[rockymac52]

Let's say we land the number one pick and get Davis. I feel like most people here believe that we're on the come up and with Davis we'll be fighting for a playoff spot this coming season, even if Davis still isn't that polished. If that's the case, I think we should try and make a draft day trade involving our 1st round pick next season (and perhaps another player or two that isn't that important) in order to acquire a 2nd lottery pick this season. I know people don't love Barnes on this board, but if we had Davis already on our roster, wouldn't it be nice to add a guy like Barnes just by giving up our first round pick next year (which will likely be a worse pick than where Barnes will be drafted, in a weaker draft class) along with a player we don't really need (Vesely?).

Some team might be interested in that package if they believe in Vesely or whoever we throw in at least somewhat, or if they think we won't be nearly as good as we think we will next season, so we'd be giving up another high lottery pick.

[Upper Decker]

So Washington gives up Booker to get the 9th pick, while taking on 3 years of Prince, whose declining steadily, and 2 more years of Gordon. I don't see value in Prince one iota. Gordon I can understand. Honestly though, who is Washington taking with the 9th pick that's better than Booker, especially considering all the flexibility sacrificed in the process? Is Sullinger better? No, is Perry Jones better? No, is Jeremy Lamb better, maybe, but at the expense of 3 years of Prince, prolly not. I wouldn't even consider this unless Washington lands Davis.

[Upper Decker]

Let's say we land the number one pick and get Davis. I feel like most people here believe that we're on the come up and with Davis we'll be fighting for a playoff spot this coming season, even if Davis still isn't that polished. If that's the case, I think we should try and make a draft day trade involving our 1st round pick next season (and perhaps another player or two that isn't that important) in order to acquire a 2nd lottery pick this season. I know people don't love Barnes on this board, but if we had Davis already on our roster, wouldn't it be nice to add a guy like Barnes just by giving up our first round pick next year (which will likely be a worse pick than where Barnes will be drafted, in a weaker draft class) along with a player we don't really need (Vesely?).

Some team might be interested in that package if they believe in Vesely or whoever we throw in at least somewhat, or if they think we won't be nearly as good as we think we will next season, so we'd be giving up another high lottery pick.

To get Barnes, which I'd be in favor in if they land Davis, Washington would probably need to get the 6th pick in the draft. I suspect Barnes will impress with his measurables and will settle in as the top player in the bottom half of the lottery. That'll take some kind of trade to acquire a top 6 pick. Probably Seraphin and taking back bad contracts, which I'm against.

[rl25g]

If Detroit ends up with the 2nd or 3rd pick, are they still seen as bad trade partners.

trade Lewis, Singleton, Crawford, High second for W. Bynum(so contracts match), Charlie V and Gordon, and #3 pick

Wall/Bynum/Mack
Beal/Gordon
MKG/Martin/Evans
Booker/Vesley
Nene/Seraphin/Charlie V

is taking the bad contracts really that bad? i dont think so... and Detroit would save $30 mil in real dollars, not just in cap savings with this deal.

if we could end up with both MKG and Beal for taking back Gordon and Charlie V id do it any day of the week. We'd be set poistions 1-5 for a vey long time, and our cap is going to look very good with Charlie V and Gordon expiring when Wall, Booker and Seraphin need to re-up, and Nene expiring when Beal and MKG need to re-up, with Seraphin primed to take the place of Nene.

i dont think thats terrible, i think thats a pretty good wishful thought.

[fishercob]

So Washington gives up Booker to get the 9th pick, while taking on 3 years of Prince, whose declining steadily, and 2 more years of Gordon. I don't see value in Prince one iota. Gordon I can understand. Honestly though, who is Washington taking with the 9th pick that's better than Booker, especially considering all the flexibility sacrificed in the process? Is Sullinger better? No, is Perry Jones better? No, is Jeremy Lamb better, maybe, but at the expense of 3 years of Prince, prolly not. I wouldn't even consider this unless Washington lands Davis.

Excellent and fair question. If I'm the GM, this is where I am relying heavily on my basketball scouts for their assessment of Prince. The only thing that seemed to decline for him this year was his two point shooting -- but it did so enough to affect his eFG%, TS% and PER. We've had some discussion of CUban's assertion that this year's data "bad data," so I really need my scouts to tell me what they make of Prince's decline.

Prince was on a terrible team. It stands to reason that in a better situation -- one in which he's a 4th or 5th offensive option and a quintessential "glue guy" -- he would thrive and return to the production of the previous 8 years. By the way, Prince has been astonishingly consistent throughout his career. His teammates have changed a lot, though.

He's a champion, Olympian, and a guy that will accept a role that suits him. Unless I think he's really declining, he's a great fit for the Wizards.

Similarly, Gordon is a guy that did well with good teammates and in a defined role in Chiacgo. He has struggled in Detroit trying to fit with guys like Stuckey, Rip, and Will Bynum. He needs a pure PG next to him and preferrably one with size. As it turns out, we have that.

I think Prince is much closer to being worth his contract than Gordon. But Gordon is at least a good fit and we need shooters desperately.

But I dont know that we'd be any better off with Perry Jones, Gordon and Prince than we would with Booker, the cap space, and whomever it fetched.

[fishercob]

If Detroit ends up with the 2nd or 3rd pick, are they still seen as bad trade partners.

trade Lewis, Singleton, Crawford, High second for W. Bynum(so contracts match), Charlie V and Gordon, and #3 pick

Wall/Bynum/Mack
Beal/Gordon
MKG/Martin/Evans
Booker/Vesley
Nene/Seraphin/Charlie V

is taking the bad contracts really that bad? i dont think so... and Detroit would save $30 mil in real dollars, not just in cap savings with this deal.

if we could end up with both MKG and Beal for taking back Gordon and Charlie V id do it any day of the week. We'd be set poistions 1-5 for a vey long time, and our cap is going to look very good with Charlie V and Gordon expiring when Wall, Booker and Seraphin need to re-up, and Nene expiring when Beal and MKG need to re-up, with Seraphin primed to take the place of Nene.

i dont think thats terrible, i think thats a pretty good wishful thought.

No way Detroit gives up a top 3 pick without a star coming back. None.

[fugop]

Jordan Crawford for Jodie Meeks.

Trevor Booker for Gary Neal.

Jan Vesely for Courtney Lee and Patrick Patterson.

Andray Blatche & Jordan Crawford for Mo Williams.

Trevor Booker for Luke Babbit.

[miller31time]

I think Amare isn't happy in New York. If it ever gets to the point where he requests a trade, would you be interested in dealing Shart and Booker for him?

And if yes, would the Knicks bite or would it take more incentive?

Wall/Mack
Beal/Crawford
C.Singleton/Martin
Amare/Vesely/J.Singleton
Nene/Seraphin

[willbcocks]

Terrible trade for us in my opinion. Amare doesn't play defense and we already have a crowded front court. I would only consider it if they took Blatche off our hands, but even then I'd prefer to form a team with a defensive identity.