Season Speculation, Trade Ideas and Discussion

[OGBAH]

Frye Shump and Mo for Knight and Tuck

[Zelaznyrules]

I don't want to trade anyone other than Knight and PJ Tucker.

Knight is the only one I really want to trade. I'd trade Tucker (or Chandler) if the offer was good enough but as long as we start using PJ correctly, I don't mind keeping him. I'd even be willing to trade Bledsoe if a motivated buyer came our way but I wouldn't go looking for a deal. We're stuck with Dudley and probably Barbosa but it would be tough to trade either of them without creating some bad PR and I can't see us getting an offer for either that would be worth more bad press.

[lilfishi22]

Frye Shump and Mo for Knight and Tuck

uhhhh that does nothing for me. I'd rather have the young players over the old ones if neither are going to move the needle.

[OGBAH]

Ok
Thunder in Gay
Kings in Knight and Tucker
Suns in Kanter

[Zelaznyrules]

Ok
Thunder in Gay
Kings in Knight and Tucker
Suns in Kanter

If we're making a move for a big man I think I'd rather send Knight and a pick to Philly for Okafor. I wouldn't mind even trading for Gay but Kanter's reputation on D really worries me. Personally, I think Gay is hugely underrated and has been ever since he stopped being grossly overrated. Fans early on thought he could be the number one man on a contender but he's better suited as a sidekick or 3rd banana. With Booker and Warren, he'd blend in nicely I believe.

[lilfishi22]

Ok
Thunder in Gay
Kings in Knight and Tucker
Suns in Kanter

If we're making a move for a big man I think I'd rather send Knight and a pick to Philly for Okafor. I wouldn't mind even trading for Gay but Kanter's reputation on D really worries me. Personally, I think Gay is hugely underrated and has been ever since he stopped being grossly overrated. Fans early on thought he could be the number one man on a contender but he's better suited as a sidekick or 3rd banana. With Booker and Warren, he'd blend in nicely I believe.

Me too but I don't see that happening.

OGBAH's deal is much closer to reality than Sixers giving up Okafor for Knight and a pick.

[bwgood77]

Ok
Thunder in Gay
Kings in Knight and Tucker
Suns in Kanter

If we're making a move for a big man I think I'd rather send Knight and a pick to Philly for Okafor. I wouldn't mind even trading for Gay but Kanter's reputation on D really worries me. Personally, I think Gay is hugely underrated and has been ever since he stopped being grossly overrated. Fans early on thought he could be the number one man on a contender but he's better suited as a sidekick or 3rd banana. With Booker and Warren, he'd blend in nicely I believe.

Me too but I don't see that happening.

OGBAH's deal is much closer to reality than Sixers giving up Okafor for Knight and a pick.

Yes, I thought that was an interesting deal that makes sense. I wonder how it would go on the trade board. Probably as usual, every team's fans would say they were getting screwed in the deal, but it addresses needs for all teams.

[AtheJ415]

It's funny I changed the year to 2015 to scan where they were last year and it was interesting to see where they each were last year.

You mean Lavine being tied with Warren at .549 instead of being ranked 50 places higher as he currently is?

Yes, I thought it was funny in looking at a huge list for two players that they were ranked exactly the same at 155 and 156.

I didn't really weigh in on who I think is better. They are different players and I think both are great prospects. Lavine is actually shooting 45% from 3 so far so he is playing extremely well. I wouldn't compare him to Warren though. He'd be a better person to compare to Booker. Lavine has definitely started off the season better at SG than Booker has at SG, but he also has an extra year in the league and is almost 2 years older.

Warren is a completely different type of player. More of what a SF should be. CAN hit the 3, but elite at mid range and is a better rebounder. More than 3x the number of steals as well. It will be interesting to see if Lavine can continue to shoot over 45% from 3 on high volume. He's in the top 20 in percentage now

3-Pt Field Goal Pct
1. Joe Johnson • UTA .542
C.J. Miles • IND .542
3. Iman Shumpert • CLE .538
Goran Dragic • MIA .538
5. Mike Conley • MEM .531
6. Paul George • IND .528
7. Channing Frye • CLE .526
8. Tyler Johnson • MIA .500
Courtney Lee • NYK .500
Karl-Anthony Towns • MIN .500
11. Jimmy Butler • CHI .476
Dwyane Wade • CHI .476
13. Jae Crowder • BOS .474
14. Patrick Mills • SAS .472
15. Hollis Thompson • PHI .467
16. C.J. McCollum • POR .460
17. Zach LaVine • MIN .452
18. Tobias Harris • DET .450
Rudy Gay • SAC .450
20. Avery Bradley • BOS .444
Jared Dudley • PHO .444

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2017_leaders.html

By the way, I always though you liked and were high on Rudy Gay?

It's not interesting to see imo because he very clearly won't. Happy to eat crow if he proves me wrong but there's a reason his career numbers look so much worse. He is not a 45% 3 point shooter. Almost nobody is. It's a function of the early season.

[bwgood77]

It's not interesting to see imo because he very clearly won't. Happy to eat crow if he proves me wrong but there's a reason his career numbers look so much worse. He is not a 45% 3 point shooter. Almost nobody is. It's a function of the early season.

I don't know if you just haven't looked at his career numbers or what exactly. He's improved every season and is playing well.

This statement is just so very wrong. Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren.

You were clearly incorrect in stating he has never been as efficient as scorer as T.J. I wouldn't have thought so either without looking at the numbers that clearly show he has been better this year (yes a small sample size), but they were identical last year, and the year before, T.J. was better. But career TS%, Warren only slightly edges him 54.7% to 53.7%.

I'd much rather have T.J., particularly because we have Booker, but Lavine certainly hasn't been a scrub.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Phoenix has seriously upgraded with young talent. Gortat is real tight with Jared Dudley. Both are sharp guys, probably future coaches. Marcin Gortat would be an ideal mentor for Alex Len and Dragan Bender! Gortat is a seasoned, skilled professional.

Washington is paying Ian Mahinmi considerably more than Marcin.

Would the Suns take him back?

(Washington could also include Jason Smith and a round 2 pick for PJ A Tucker.)

Any others care to weigh in?

I would do it but being Polish I'm obviously biased I guess you will not find many takers for Marcin because people here mostly remember his fondness for layins instead of dunks and forget that his midrange game is much better than Chandler's.
To me both are similar players putting up comparable numbers but Gortat is younger and healthier. Both are professionals and great mentors for younger players. I would say Gortat would be easier to trade away in a couple of years if necessary. The problem might be that Gortat being more of a PnR player is more dependant on his PG and ours are laughable distrbutors compared to Wall.

Dziękuję Ci, m1chal.

[AtheJ415]

It's not interesting to see imo because he very clearly won't. Happy to eat crow if he proves me wrong but there's a reason his career numbers look so much worse. He is not a 45% 3 point shooter. Almost nobody is. It's a function of the early season.

I don't know if you just haven't looked at his career numbers or what exactly. He's improved every season and is playing well.

This statement is just so very wrong. Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren.

You were clearly incorrect in stating he has never been as efficient as scorer as T.J. I wouldn't have thought so either without looking at the numbers that clearly show he has been better this year (yes a small sample size), but they were identical last year, and the year before, T.J. was better. But career TS%, Warren only slightly edges him 54.7% to 53.7%.

I'd much rather have T.J., particularly because we have Booker, but Lavine certainly hasn't been a scrub.

No. He's not as efficient a scorer. If you want to use a 7 game span than I can argue that Gerald Green and Marcus Banks were more efficient scorers than Michael Jordan and argue that you would be incorrect at whatever given point of time I could find to show that (and I could, that's why a 7 game span does not determine things). You're right that if Zach LaVine ends up shooting 45% from 3 on the year he will be more efficient than TJ, and basically everyone on the planet including maybe even Steph Curry, but it will not hold there and everyone knows it. That's why it's not interesting to see. Zach's lower career numbers and absolutely abhorrent advanced stats comparison overall speak volumes about who is actually better at the game of basketball. It's not even a discussion.

This is the true stat that basically says it all--per 100 possessions TJ Warren scores 11 more points than Lavine for his career on the same number of shots (19.6 to 19.7). That is not even comparable efficiency. Efficiency is more than just FG% (for instance TJ cleans up a huge amount of his own misses, meaning he costs the team 1 trip net). He also turns the ball over less than a 3rd of the rate Lavine does. That's before we even get to the fact that Lavine has one of the worst O-D ratings in his class because he gives up 113 points per 100 despite being a freak athlete. He has a negative 13 differential. To put that into context--Brandon Knight gives up fewer and his differential is 3 points better than Lavine's. Yes, Brandon freaking Knight. In fact, Knight's career per 100 points products is HIGHER than Lavine's.

Hell, I'd add even this--per 100 possessions PJ Tucker produces 108 points. Lavine produces 100. For their careers. I'm sorry, but this is not even a close or comparable argument when looking at anything other than 6 games, 1 type of stat, and ignoring all others. When you focus on the broader offensive game Lavine just falls drastically below Warren.

[DRK]

With the Wizards looking terrible early, would Wall want out? There have been rumblings about him not being happy in Washington, and I think he would be great here.

Bledsoe/Miami 2018 1st/Suns 1st/ Len

for
Wall

[bwgood77]

It's not interesting to see imo because he very clearly won't. Happy to eat crow if he proves me wrong but there's a reason his career numbers look so much worse. He is not a 45% 3 point shooter. Almost nobody is. It's a function of the early season.

I don't know if you just haven't looked at his career numbers or what exactly. He's improved every season and is playing well.

This statement is just so very wrong. Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren.

You were clearly incorrect in stating he has never been as efficient as scorer as T.J. I wouldn't have thought so either without looking at the numbers that clearly show he has been better this year (yes a small sample size), but they were identical last year, and the year before, T.J. was better. But career TS%, Warren only slightly edges him 54.7% to 53.7%.

I'd much rather have T.J., particularly because we have Booker, but Lavine certainly hasn't been a scrub.

No. He's not as efficient a scorer. If you want to use a 7 game span than I can argue that Gerald Green and Marcus Banks were more efficient scorers than Michael Jordan and argue that you would be incorrect at whatever given point of time I could find to show that (and I could, that's why a 7 game span does not determine things). You're right that if Zach LaVine ends up shooting 45% from 3 on the year he will be more efficient than TJ, and basically everyone on the planet including maybe even Steph Curry, but it will not hold there and everyone knows it. That's why it's not interesting to see. Zach's lower career numbers and absolutely abhorrent advanced stats comparison overall speak volumes about who is actually better at the game of basketball. It's not even a discussion.

I don't even care much about the 7 game sample, which is why I looked back at last year, and they were tied, so your statement of

Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren.

doesn't hold much weight unless you can prove otherwise.

I do believe, that overall, as games progress and Warren gets more playing time, as he's only played less than half the minutes of Lavine and I think he still probably has more room to improve.

Obviously very few, if any, of those guys in that top 20 list will continue shooting at that rate. But even if Lavine declines quite a bit, he is still quite a ways ahead of Warren in TS% this year.

But regardless of sample size, stating that Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren, is incorrect.

Lavine did improve his 3 pt shooting from 34% to 39% from season one to season 2, so it isn't unreasonable to think he will improve again this year, as he grows as a player, practices it, and gets more open looks because of the talent improving around him. While he obviously won't continue at his current rate, there is a reasonable chance he keeps shooting the 3 above 40%, and that is on a much higher volume than Warren, which is weighted heavily when it comes to efficiency. He has been shooting over 6 3s a game, and no reason to slow down if he is shooting, even at the rate he did last year. Even if he slows down a bit and regresses a bit, he will still be a pretty efficient scorer.

[lilfishi22]

Lavine has the advantage of playing with a legit monster in the post in KAT and another good scorer in Wiggins which helps his cause a lot more than Warren who neither plays with a PG or with another efficient threat (Booker needs to get better here).

Who knows what the advance stats will say at the end of the season. Warren might be stuck at 44fg% while Lavine continues to stay efficient. Who knows

[AtheJ415]

I don't know if you just haven't looked at his career numbers or what exactly. He's improved every season and is playing well.



You were clearly incorrect in stating he has never been as efficient as scorer as T.J. I wouldn't have thought so either without looking at the numbers that clearly show he has been better this year (yes a small sample size), but they were identical last year, and the year before, T.J. was better. But career TS%, Warren only slightly edges him 54.7% to 53.7%.

I'd much rather have T.J., particularly because we have Booker, but Lavine certainly hasn't been a scrub.

No. He's not as efficient a scorer. If you want to use a 7 game span than I can argue that Gerald Green and Marcus Banks were more efficient scorers than Michael Jordan and argue that you would be incorrect at whatever given point of time I could find to show that (and I could, that's why a 7 game span does not determine things). You're right that if Zach LaVine ends up shooting 45% from 3 on the year he will be more efficient than TJ, and basically everyone on the planet including maybe even Steph Curry, but it will not hold there and everyone knows it. That's why it's not interesting to see. Zach's lower career numbers and absolutely abhorrent advanced stats comparison overall speak volumes about who is actually better at the game of basketball. It's not even a discussion.

I don't even care much about the 7 game sample, which is why I looked back at last year, and they were tied, so your statement of

Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren.

doesn't hold much weight unless you can prove otherwise.

I do believe, that overall, as games progress and Warren gets more playing time, as he's only played less than half the minutes of Lavine and I think he still probably has more room to improve.

Obviously very few, if any, of those guys in that top 20 list will continue shooting at that rate. But even if Lavine declines quite a bit, he is still quite a ways ahead of Warren in TS% this year.

But regardless of sample size, stating that Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren, is incorrect.

Lavine did improve his 3 pt shooting from 34% to 39% from season one to season 2, so it isn't unreasonable to think he will improve again this year, as he grows as a player, practices it, and gets more open looks because of the talent improving around him. While he obviously won't continue at his current rate, there is a reasonable chance he keeps shooting the 3 above 40%, and that is on a much higher volume than Warren, which is weighted heavily when it comes to efficiency. He has been shooting over 6 3s a game, and no reason to slow down if he is shooting, even at the rate he did last year. Even if he slows down a bit and regresses a bit, he will still be a pretty efficient scorer.

Read my edit. Turnovers, etc. that go into things like points per 100 and which you ignore when you focus on 1 stat over 6-7 games explains it all. They aren't comparable. 11 points is a huge gap. For instance, the gap between TJ at 111 and Steph at 117 and Lebron at 116 is half of what TJ to Lavine is. And I'm not talking net here--just the offensive side of the ball.

It's the equivalent of arguing PJ Tucker compared to Karl Anthony Towns on offense.

[bwgood77]

This is the true stat that basically says it all--per 100 possessions TJ Warren scores 11 more points than Lavine for his career on the same number of shots (19.6 to 19.7). That is not even comparable efficiency. Efficiency is more than just FG% (for instance TJ cleans up a huge amount of his own misses, meaning he costs the team 1 trip net). He also turns the ball over less than a 3rd of the rate Lavine does. That's before we even get to the fact that Lavine has one of the worst O-D ratings in his class because he gives up 113 points per 100 despite being a freak athlete. He has a negative 13 differential. To put that into context--Brandon Knight gives up fewer and his differential is 3 points better than Lavine's. Yes, Brandon freaking Knight. In fact, Knight's career per 100 points products is HIGHER than Lavine's.

Hell, I'd add even this--per 100 possessions PJ Tucker produces 108 points. Lavine produces 100. For their careers. I'm sorry, but this is not even a close or comparable argument when looking at anything other than 6 games, 1 type of stat, and ignoring all others. When you focus on the broader offensive game Lavine just falls drastically below Warren.

I see you added some edits to your previous posts (what is quoted here). Well this is what I wanted to see. Some sort of argument with numbers to back it up, because the only numbers originally provided as a retort to your post by cosmo were TS% numbers, and I knew that wasn't necessarily all inclusive or the only way to look at it, and as a matter of fact, I removed you from my quote of cosmo saying it was interesting that out of all the players in the entire league, as of last year, they had the exact same TS% and were tied in that list of 400 players.

And I certainly wasn't even talking about defense or anything other than TS% which was the only thing I had responded about.

Personally I think Warren is a better overall player and I think he has a good chance of being the best wing out of his draft class, but that remains to be seen.

[AtheJ415]

I don't know if you just haven't looked at his career numbers or what exactly. He's improved every season and is playing well.



You were clearly incorrect in stating he has never been as efficient as scorer as T.J. I wouldn't have thought so either without looking at the numbers that clearly show he has been better this year (yes a small sample size), but they were identical last year, and the year before, T.J. was better. But career TS%, Warren only slightly edges him 54.7% to 53.7%.

I'd much rather have T.J., particularly because we have Booker, but Lavine certainly hasn't been a scrub.

No. He's not as efficient a scorer. If you want to use a 7 game span than I can argue that Gerald Green and Marcus Banks were more efficient scorers than Michael Jordan and argue that you would be incorrect at whatever given point of time I could find to show that (and I could, that's why a 7 game span does not determine things). You're right that if Zach LaVine ends up shooting 45% from 3 on the year he will be more efficient than TJ, and basically everyone on the planet including maybe even Steph Curry, but it will not hold there and everyone knows it. That's why it's not interesting to see. Zach's lower career numbers and absolutely abhorrent advanced stats comparison overall speak volumes about who is actually better at the game of basketball. It's not even a discussion.

I don't even care much about the 7 game sample, which is why I looked back at last year, and they were tied, so your statement of

Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren.

doesn't hold much weight unless you can prove otherwise.

I do believe, that overall, as games progress and Warren gets more playing time, as he's only played less than half the minutes of Lavine and I think he still probably has more room to improve.

Obviously very few, if any, of those guys in that top 20 list will continue shooting at that rate. But even if Lavine declines quite a bit, he is still quite a ways ahead of Warren in TS% this year.

But regardless of sample size, stating that Lavine does not score, nor has he ever scored, as efficiently or effectively as well as Warren, is incorrect.

Lavine did improve his 3 pt shooting from 34% to 39% from season one to season 2, so it isn't unreasonable to think he will improve again this year, as he grows as a player, practices it, and gets more open looks because of the talent improving around him. While he obviously won't continue at his current rate, there is a reasonable chance he keeps shooting the 3 above 40%, and that is on a much higher volume than Warren, which is weighted heavily when it comes to efficiency. He has been shooting over 6 3s a game, and no reason to slow down if he is shooting, even at the rate he did last year. Even if he slows down a bit and regresses a bit, he will still be a pretty efficient scorer.

If you want to say these things, please realize that Brandon Knight, who has a higher career offensive rating than Lavine after factoring in things like turnovers and trips, has accomplished these very things over a 52 game span. And even then Knight's career rating is a pretty awful 103.

Everything is weighted when it comes to actual efficiency. One produces a bunch more points with lower usage. He produces more points per possession on the offensive end. That is the ultimate judge of efficiency. It factors in turnovers, assists, rebounds, and yes, shooting %s, usage, and TJ does this despite being our 1st or 2nd option while Lavine is at best the 3rd on MN with a true dominating player who commands constant double teams.

[AtheJ415]

All of that said, when I look at Cousins per 100, it's alarmingly bad. His turnovers are REALLY HIGH (5+%). That would be a concern of mine in any trade for him that included any of our youngsters other than Len.

[bwgood77]

Read my edit. Turnovers, etc. that go into things like points per 100 and which you ignore when you focus on 1 stat over 6-7 games explains it all. They aren't comparable. 11 points is a huge gap. For instance, the gap between TJ at 111 and Steph at 117 and Lebron at 116 is half of what TJ to Lavine is. And I'm not talking net here--just the offensive side of the ball.

It's the equivalent of arguing PJ Tucker compared to Karl Anthony Towns on offense.

I was typing a response to your edit when you posted this. Where do you get the pts per 100 possessions? (just so I will know where to look for more additional research).

The initial reason I looked at last year with cosmo's link to TS%, was because I thought the sample was too small and it didn't seem right, based on most of what Lavine did early last year, so I was surprised.

While I can look at offensive rating on b-ref, in which TJ was clearly better in years 1 and 2, which is what I expected, Zach has made drastic improvements each year, and yes, again, I know it's an extremely small sample size this year, but Zach has a higher one so far (and TJ has had an insanely hot start too). He also has a better net rating in this year's extremely smaller sample size, as his net rating each year has gone from -19 to -8 to +11. I do bet his defensive improves a bit under Thibs.

But TJ has been pretty good or at least equal from the start, which is probably rare for a rookie. +1 to +2 to +7. I definitely expect his net rating to surpass Zach's as I think his ortg with decrease more. Not sure about drtg getting worse with more time under Thibs or not.

But I would like to know what you use for pts per 100 possessions so I can take a look. Oh, and I definitely think it's a bit of an exaggeration that Lavine compared to Warren is like Tucker compared to Towns. But perhaps you are using career numbers in which Towns has a rookie year +7 games and Tucker has had many, I could see a distorted discrepancy there.

If you think the difference this year between Lavine and Warren will end up being about the same as Tucker and Towns I'd definitely like to revisit and look into that later.

[bwgood77]

All of that said, when I look at Cousins per 100, it's alarmingly bad. His turnovers are REALLY HIGH (5+%). That would be a concern of mine in any trade for him that included any of our youngsters other than Len.

That would be a concern, but Cousins, purely on what all he could provide as a player not knowing he has any personality issues, adds a so many factors that are rare, with being a beast inside, but also being able to hit 3s now is huge. But between his personality stuff and add the turnovers, and him NEVER winning more than what, 35 games, I'm certainly not interested in trading our young guys for him either.

We are not ready to compete at a really high level yet anyway.

And I think there is less than a 1% chance he ends up here and not a great chance we even pursue him at all. And even if we did, I think he'd find far more other teams appealing and so would the Kings in what other teams would offer.