Official Trade Thread Part XLVI

[Dat2U]

I mean, I’ll gladly take Devin Carter and Daron Holmes over a single 2025 protected 1st.

People always initially overrate the next draft. Who the hell knows what 2025 will look like this time next year.

Lol bro feening for them 7th/8th man types every year.

Are we ready to bring over Issuf Sanon & Aaron White yet or have you finally stopped putting them in future lineups?

[NatP4]

I mean, I’ll gladly take Devin Carter and Daron Holmes over a single 2025 protected 1st.

People always initially overrate the next draft. Who the hell knows what 2025 will look like this time next year.

Lol bro feening for them 7th/8th man types every year.

Are we ready to bring over Issuf Sanon & Aaron White yet or have you finally stopped putting them in future lineups?

Give me a break. Let me know when you wanna talk about Sharife Cooper. Mr self proclaimed “draft expert”.

Maybe afterwards we can talk about Scoot Henderson and Jaden Ivey.

[nate33]

I mean, I’ll gladly take Devin Carter and Daron Holmes over a single 2025 protected 1st.

People always initially overrate the next draft. Who the hell knows what 2025 will look like this time next year.

Lol bro feening for them 7th/8th man types every year.

Are we ready to bring over Issuf Sanon & Aaron White yet or have you finally stopped putting them in future lineups?

Give me a break. Let me know when you wanna talk about Sharife Cooper. Mr self proclaimed “draft expert”.

Maybe afterwards we can talk about Scoot Henderson and Jaden Ivey.

Honest question for NatP4: are you projecting Carter and/or Holmes to pan out as good enough to be a starter on a .500 team?

[Dat2U]

Scoot Henderson is 20 and he would go #1 in this draft.

Ivey would go top 3 if he came out this year.

[NatP4]

Honest question for NatP4: are you projecting Carter and/or Holmes to pan out as good enough to be a starter on a .500 team?

Yes. Carter won’t be available that late in round 1 though.

Podziemski and Clowney project as NBA starters, actually Podziemski already started 28 games for GS. Was all over Christian Braun and Walker Kessler in the previous draft.

To repeat: I will gladly take a couple of late 2024 1sts over one single 2025 pick in the 13-18 range.

[NatP4]

Scoot Henderson is 20 and he would go #1 in this draft.

Ivey would go top 3 if he came out this year.

Ivey could be acquired with a couple 2nd round picks.

We’ll continue to kick the can down the road with Scoot for awhile.

[payitforward]

Hey! Everybody gets draft picks wrong! Even I get draft picks wrong! So do you, nat, & so do you, dat! I mean... if NBA Front Offices get some wrong -- as they obviously do! -- then what do you expect of yourself? Perfection...?

[payitforward]

Honest question for NatP4: are you projecting Carter and/or Holmes to pan out as good enough to be a starter on a .500 team?

Yes. Carter won’t be available that late in round 1 though.

Podziemski and Clowney project as NBA starters, actually Podziemski already started 28 games for GS. Was all over Christian Braun and Walker Kessler in the previous draft....

You were 100% on Podziemski. For that matter, a lot of us liked him -- to me his future jumped out of his college numbers. Ditto Christian Braun the previous year; you liked him a lot.

But I don't remember you on Clowney -- or on Kessler -- though that doesn't mean you weren't high on them; I just don't remember it....

...To repeat: I will gladly take a couple of late 2024 1sts over one single 2025 pick in the 13-18 range.

Well of course! Anyone with brain cells would!

[NatP4]

Clowney at 15!! Nice!!

Would take Clowney over Hendricks.

Why? He's got some nice tools but the skill level of a C in a PFs frame. He's not a shot blocker and outside of one outlier game, he looks a long way from being a reliable shooter. Hendricks is much further along skill wise and displays verticality & excellent timing around the rim.

I know you aren’t, but I’m buying the 3pt shot, and I love that he already takes them at an extremely high rate.

His rebounding is the key difference that will allow him to be a true 4/5. Hendricks rebounds like Rui right now. All the physical tools in the world, but no motor or feel for rebounding. The other major difference is that IMO, Clowney is already a quality defender at 18, while Hendricks makes some flashy defensive plays, but overall, is average at best on that end. He gets totally lost and doesn’t understand team defense/rotations. He ball watches and his motor runs very hot and cold.

Clowney rebounds, has great feel for the game, and never stops hustling. He’s also elite around the rim, whereas Hendricks really struggles as a finisher.

Clowney is like Kevon Looney, another guy that was undervalued and dropped to 30, and has been a really good NBA player, but Clowney has the ability to shoot 3s at volume and space the floor. All the tools are there, he just needs to refine what looks like a really nice jumpshot from the eye test.

https://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=noah-clowney--kevon-looney

[doclinkin]

Do we want to be adding players 2 or 3 years from now, when hopefully we’re reaching a point of trying to win games, that need need 2 or 3 years to develop or is it better to add those players now so at that point they’re ready to contribute? I do concede, if we draft a guy like Ware, having someone like Kuz here to mentor him could be beneficial. And adding 5 rookies all at once could be too many to handle ... I guess my feeling is now is the time for building and developing, and I’m hoping 3-4 years from now will be the time for winning. I’d like to see the front office braintrust aggressive in their approach to add as much young talent as possible.

Well reasoned. I get what you're saying. But consider that just because you invest picks and time and training in 5 rookies, does not make them good. Or better than the guy next year. Does not make that player instantly one of the 500 best basketball talents on the planet. Or better than the next 60 players drafted next year.

Or the next or the next. To the end of his rookie deal. He is filling a spot that could be used by a player that may be better. A guy that may not be in this draft.

And you can't shuffle them out as easily as you can pick them. A contract is a contract. You signed them, you have to pay them and keep them. Even if you can't play them. They are filling that locker. They count against the cap. That's your guy.

The argument that every draft has a player lower down that is better than some picked ahead of him is faulty reasoning. It's not even about the argument that 'Not every draft has a Giannis. Jokic.' Even if there was an exception in every draft. Like, okay, but you don't get to pick ALLL the players after the lottery then shake it til you find the one outlier. You have 17 spots to fill. Not 20/20 hindsight's best pick of every guy after your spot.

If you look at the history of the 1st pick, 2nd pick, 3rd, etc. Asking "how many all-star games?" "how many wins in their career?" "how long did they play?" or whatever metric of success you use, the fact is you TEND to get better production out of those high picks. The exceptions do not negate that fact.

What team do you want: Every player picked at #5 or every player ever picked at #25?

Me I'm taking 5th picks: Vince Carter, Dwayne Wade, Kevin Garnett, Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Kevin Love, Steve SMith, Mitch Richmond, Trae Young, Moses Malone, Walt Frazier... and many other HOFers

Over the 25th: Quickley, Mo Wagner, Clint Capela, Nico Batum, Tony Allen, Mark Price, and Al Harrington...

(Or even the fluke 15th pick which is better than some picks ahead of it: Giannis, Kawaii, Steve Nash, um... Dell Curry, Al Jefferson, Steven Hunter? But I'm scratching for others.)

Studies show that statistically there is a drop off in overall production the further down the draft you go. Even when they correct for the bias that teams will be more likely to invest in their lottery pick and not quit on them after the 1st contract. The guys at the top tend to produce at a higher level. TEND to. You have to shave the %'s in your favor.

So instead of loading up now because it hurts less and the expectations are low, it seems to me EVERY year you want to keep a chair open for the guy who is better than the guy you already got. Shoot you might get lucky in the lottery instead of being locked in to those lower picks.

Imagine if that guy shows up at a time when you are already winning, and he can learn good habits from a team that knows how to win. He can be added to a core of young vets in a culture that outgrew losing. Learn to expect excellence. Wouldn't it be cool to have a winning team that is constantly adding the next rising star ready to take over when the guy in front of him slips?

OR, to be good enough that you can afford to package a few of those young cats in a trade for the guy who is a perfect fit next to the guys you already have and fit the time table better. And you know you can afford to let your young talent go because you have extra picks next year and the year after, etc.

I like the idea of an extra pick or two every year, but too many extra picks just complicate your improvement plan. The average NBA career is 4.5 years. Pretty much a rookie contract's worth, with options picked up. If you are constantly shuffling the back end of your roster with extra picks, you might hit on a few that fight their way up the depth chart and claim a spot. Or you might trade for a pick that turns into a lotto pick from a team that slips. But if a third of your team is locked in from a random draft year, you are losing the chance to find that mutant Giannis or Jokic because you're already wedded to guys from a year where maybe you guessed wrong. Or the talent was worse and those freak statistical improbabilities were not in that draft. Shuffle out 2-3 chairs every year, not 4-6 chairs every 4 years.

[dckingsfan]

...Shuffle out 2-3 chairs every year, not 4-6 chairs every 4 years.

So, doing the math... if you are a bad team and do say 3 players every year, you have turned over your roster in 5 years.

Let's say you get 1 of 3 to "stick", so at the end of the 5 years you have 5 starters (I know, I am making this up - but I will get to my point).

The question is (and I don't have the answer), do you keep trying to add 3 players every year or does that decrease as your team gets better.

[doclinkin]

...Shuffle out 2-3 chairs every year, not 4-6 chairs every 4 years.

So, doing the math... if you are a bad team and do say 3 players every year, you have turned over your roster in 5 years.

Let's say you get 1 of 3 to "stick", so at the end of the 5 years you have 5 starters (I know, I am making this up - but I will get to my point).

The question is (and I don't have the answer), do you keep trying to add 3 players every year or does that decrease as your team gets better.

Never stop, never surrender. Constant assessment. Periodic renewal. The league is set up to punish stasis. You want the option to sell a guy at peak value and know you have his replacement coming up. Not have to overpay relative to his production if he's not winning you a chip. It is why we are in this hole. We knew Beal wasn't going to win us much. Running the treadmill year after year. If you have his understudy coming up cheaper, you have freedom to listen to the godfather offers, instead of trying to bribe him to stay. How many 1st round picks was Beal worth 3-4 years ago?

If you have a championship team it is worth it to overpay to ride out the peak. Pay to maintain dynasty status. But anything short of that is worth constant improvement.

Until you have your no-question all-star MVP candidate, you are in constant rebuilding mode. Everybody is subject to trade. Once you get that guy you can build a team around them, without that guy you're still looking.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

...Shuffle out 2-3 chairs every year, not 4-6 chairs every 4 years.

So, doing the math... if you are a bad team and do say 3 players every year, you have turned over your roster in 5 years.

Let's say you get 1 of 3 to "stick", so at the end of the 5 years you have 5 starters (I know, I am making this up - but I will get to my point).

The question is (and I don't have the answer), do you keep trying to add 3 players every year or does that decrease as your team gets better.

Never stop, never surrender. Constant assessment. Periodic renewal. The league is set up to punish stasis. You want the option to sell a guy at peak value and know you have his replacement coming up. Not have to overpay relative to his production if he's not winning you a chip. It is why we are in this hole. We knew Beal wasn't going to win us much. Running the treadmill year after year. If you have his understudy coming up cheaper, you have freedom to listen to the godfather offers, instead of trying to bribe him to stay. How many 1st round picks was Beal worth 3-4 years ago?

If you have a championship team it is worth it to overpay to ride out the peak. Pay to maintain dynasty status. But anything short of that is worth constant improvement.

Until you have your no-question all-star MVP candidate, you are in constant rebuilding mode. Everybody is subject to trade. Once you get that guy you can build a team around them, without that guy you're still looking.

Well said Doc.

[payitforward]

Nat -- right... you were high on Clowney; I'd forgotten....

[payitforward]

The only thing the league gives you free is a R1 & a R2 pick every year. If you draft well, you will get better over time.

OTOH, it's almost impossible to get better reliably by way of trades unless your team is in a destination city like NY or LA. Not saying you can't do it, but you have to be awfully clever & equally lucky.

Plus, as doc hints, being good in the draft is what gives you the player capital you need to make useful trades.

[Rafael122]

We may never see a first round pick from Phoenix, but just getting out of the Beal deal moves that trade to a B, at minimum.

[Frichuela]

We may never see a first round pick from Phoenix, but just getting out of the Beal deal moves that trade to a B, at minimum.

Agreed. But I am more optimistic on those 2026, 28 and 30 pick swaps. I could easily picture a meltdown scenario when Phoenix crashes and burns in a couple of years...

[Rafael122]

We may never see a first round pick from Phoenix, but just getting out of the Beal deal moves that trade to a B, at minimum.

Agreed. But I am more optimistic on those 2026, 28 and 30 pick swaps. I could easily picture a meltdown scenario when Phoenix crashes and burns in a couple of years...

I think we're still going to be terrible in '26.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Just re-highlighting the fact that the worse the Suns are over the next 4 years, the better it is for the Wiz, given all the FRP swaps. If the Suns bottom out, we could see some nice higher FRPs in the coming years.

[The Consiglieri]

I'm alarmed at the fact that they even ran the trade offer from Dallas by him. Unless he had a NTC, I really wouldn't have given a ---- what he thought of it, that's what the $$$ is for, as Don Draper said, I'm not gonna handicap the rebuild for the sake of his feelings or sense of stability. Fans here have been suffering for 44 years, I couldn't give less of a rats --- what he thinks.

I don't take such a negative view of that.

My guess is that if someone offers the Wiz a deal they can't refuse, then they'll trade Kuzma without consulting him. But if they are only offered a barely palatable deal that they're not even sure they like, then it can't hurt to run it past Kuzma. If Kuzma says no, then they can decline the deal while simultaneously showing Kuzma some respect, the kind of respect that generates good will league wide.

Which is exactly what Kuz confirmed happened in interviews. Even to the point of them saying to him that if there was a deal that was too good to pass up they'd take it, but were ambivalent about the deal offered. Kuz looked at Dallas and intimated that he didn't think they would be contending any time soon so all things being equal he's happy here. In other words he likes the situation and people here, so if its up to him on any trade he'd prefer to be with a contender. But he understood and respected the front office approaching him like an adult to say they were listening to offers.

The fact that multiple players say they like it here and want to be a part of a rebuild process to me speaks well about our front office and the atmosphere they are putting together.

This would matter more to me if it involved players that moved the needle appreciating how we do business. Then that might matter, but having guys that are largely irrelevant if we're trying to win, appreciate it, it doesn't matter to me.

I get what you're saying, I just don't care. I don't want some Crumbs Krause/Reinsdorf, self defeating stupidity up top, but I also don't want guys up top bending over backwards to guys that don't really matter, otoh, I agree, the sense I got with the rumored Dallas deal was that it was largely acceptable, but nothing that blew anyone away, and as such, I probably would have stayed pat as well until the contract was better for trade purposes, but once we get a deal worth doing, again, could care less what he wants. We all saw what the pointless NTC given out of respect to Beal got us, a total screw job (and well deserved for the grand mal incompetence of the FO in general in handling Beal for the four years leading up to that trade, if not deserved by the fans).