RealGM

Cleveland gets: Deni Avdija, Bilal Coulibaly, Johnny Davis and the 2nd pick
Washington gets: Darius Garland and Jarrett Allen

Why?
Cleveland gets better fitting pieces.
Washington bolsters their roster with two all-star caliber players.

JJ_PR wrote:Cleveland gets: Deni Avdija, Bilal Coulibaly, Johnny Davis and the 2nd pick
Washington gets: Darius Garland and Jarrett Allen

Why?
Cleveland gets better fitting pieces.
Washington bolsters their roster with two all-star caliber players.

I'm interested in Deni to Cleveland, but not for any of the core 4 unless part of a bigger deal.

From a talent standpoint Washington gets the better talent vs potential.
But I see Washington looking north to Brooklyn and realizing being ehh just isn’t good enough.

Totally out of the question for Washington. Regardless of whether this is fair value wise (it's not, BTW), this makes no sense at all for Washington given their current situation. Making this deal puts them in No-Man's Land of 35-wins a year. Too good to get in the high lottery, but too bad to ever seriously compete for anything more than a Play-In berth. They didn't blow up the Beal/Porzingis team to end up here.

Hell to the NO for the Wizards. No one is untouchable on the Wizards, but Deni and Bilal sure as hell isn't getting traded for this. Garland and Allen are good, but why trade for Robin with no Batman.

Like Nate said, a team built around Garland and Allen is destined for 35 wins.

TGW wrote:Hell to the NO for the Wizards. No one is untouchable on the Wizards, but Deni and Bilal sure as hell isn't getting traded for this. Garland and Allen are good, but why trade for Robin with no Batman.

Like Nate said, a team built around Garland and Allen is destined for 35 wins.

The Cavs aren't going to trade both Allen and Garland for a single solid prospect, but a team built around Allen and Garland has already won more than 35 wins (before Mitchell got to Cleveland).

jbk1234 wrote:

TGW wrote:Hell to the NO for the Wizards. No one is untouchable on the Wizards, but Deni and Bilal sure as hell isn't getting traded for this. Garland and Allen are good, but why trade for Robin with no Batman.

Like Nate said, a team built around Garland and Allen is destined for 35 wins.

The Cavs aren't going to trade both Allen and Garland for a single solid prospect, but a team built around Allen and Garland has already won more than 35 wins (before Mitchell got to Cleveland).

The roster surrounding those two consisted of Lauri Markkenin, Colin Sexton, Mobley, Levert, Kevin Love, and Ricky Rubio. To suggest that the team's success was solely because of Garland/Allen is not a good faith position.

jbk1234 wrote:

TGW wrote:Hell to the NO for the Wizards. No one is untouchable on the Wizards, but Deni and Bilal sure as hell isn't getting traded for this. Garland and Allen are good, but why trade for Robin with no Batman.

Like Nate said, a team built around Garland and Allen is destined for 35 wins.

The Cavs aren't going to trade both Allen and Garland for a single solid prospect, but a team built around Allen and Garland has already won more than 35 wins (before Mitchell got to Cleveland).

I don't think the Wizards should take this deal, but I would be more likely to support it if you switched Bilal for Kispert.

The Wizards have zero intention of trying to win for the next two years as their pick is owed to the Knicks with protections (top 10 protected next season and top 8 protected the year after that). They are not trying to get back on the treadmill after being on it for 5 plus years. This deal makes zero sense.

this might not be terrible value for Washington (I think it’s pretty bad) but they’d need to know what New Orleans is paying for Allen/Garland before doing this…and it has to be a better rebuilding piece than what they give up. Maybe it would be?

For the OP to actually make sense for Washington, they’d have to have the ability to trade for a player better than Allen/Kuzma/Garland.

I don’t see them with that ability, so the OP is just creating a low end fighting for play-in team that eventually needs to trade four firsts and go all in just to win a playoff series.

This probably pushes CLE timeline back a year, although not necessarily a problem. I like the fits.

For WAS, as many have mentioned, they'd really need to be motivated to start turning things around right away for this to make sense. It's good value though.

TGW wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

TGW wrote:Hell to the NO for the Wizards. No one is untouchable on the Wizards, but Deni and Bilal sure as hell isn't getting traded for this. Garland and Allen are good, but why trade for Robin with no Batman.

Like Nate said, a team built around Garland and Allen is destined for 35 wins.

The Cavs aren't going to trade both Allen and Garland for a single solid prospect, but a team built around Allen and Garland has already won more than 35 wins (before Mitchell got to Cleveland).

The roster surrounding those two consisted of Lauri Markkenin, Colin Sexton, Mobley, Levert, Kevin Love, and Ricky Rubio. To suggest that the team's success was solely because of Garland/Allen is not a good faith position.

Sexton and Rubio both had season ending knee injuries early on, LeVert was traded for at the deadline and then got injured, Kevin Love was coming off the bench, Mobley was a rookie, and Lauri was solid, but playing at SF.

Darius Garland was an all-star with a +12.1 on/off that season. Allen was an all-star with a +4..2 on/off that season. Our record was abysmal when either of them got injured that year. They carried the team that season.

I respect Garland and Allen, and I don't think the odds are that great that the overall strength of on-court contributions of what Washington would be giving up are going to match what those two will offer over the short term. That said, this very likely to turn the Wizards into a much worse version of the current Cavs without a clear route to be anything more or better, so I think it behooves the team to hope that the high end of the stuff in the trade works out for them. Not a crazy value idea, but not one that I think really makes sense.