Monitoring the Trade: Rob Dillingham for Jakob Poeltl

[Thaddy]

Dillingham isn't going to be good. Small guards that are weak defenders just aren't it. If the guard is built like Alijah Martin or Shead with defensive chops and shooting ability then maybe.

You have to get to a Brunson like level at that size.

edit: although I guess Brunson is kinda bulky for a small guy so maybe bad example.

He's a weak defender. In crunch time teams can force a switch onto him and expose him as the weak link. Ingram, Barnes, Banchero, Brown, Tatum, and many other forwards would take advantage of him in the post or one on one.

Edit: at minimum be like FVV. If it's FVV plus finishing ability and burst that's a solid guard for a contender

[MEDIC]

I had no problem with the Yak trade at the time. I still don't. We'd be screwed without him. I'm just not sure why this thread is still alive? We are a team that has serious depth problems at the 5. Thank gawd for that trade.

[CPT]

This rule that we must use the player selected to evaluate the trade in some attempt to preserve scientific validity is so **** ridiculous.

This is a message board. None of it matters. Evaluate it however the hell you want.

So if I traded the 10th pick in the Jokic draft, it's reasonable to give it a F grade because we could have possibly drafted him?

1. Let me know when someone does that.

2. Someone could try to argue that. Everyone else could decide that that specific case is ridiculous and respond accordingly. The purpose of the message board has been fulfilled.

[bballsparkin]

Dillingham isn't going to be good. Small guards that are weak defenders just aren't it. If the guard is built like Alijah Martin or Shead with defensive chops and shooting ability then maybe.

You have to get to a Brunson like level at that size.

edit: although I guess Brunson is kinda bulky for a small guy so maybe bad example.

He's a weak defender. In crunch time teams can force a switch onto him and expose him as the weak link. Ingram, Barnes, Banchero, Brown, Tatum, and many other forwards would take advantage of him in the post or one on one.

Edit: at minimum be like FVV. If it's FVV plus finishing ability and burst that's a solid guard for a contender

Yeah I suppose that's true about his defence. His offence is impressive though. If Dillingham turned out anywhere near Brunson offensively he would be a great pick.

[beanbag]

Since you can't evaluate the outcome of a player for pick trade, then you can only do a deal like this on an assessment of the pick when traded.

It would follow then that trading a first round pick in the worst draft in recent years for Jakob Poeltl was the right move. That's literally the point I'm making.......dude.

No, that wouldn't follow. What follows is that it is unknowable if trading a 1st round pick for Poeltl was a good move since we don't know what the alternative would have been.

there not too many options

you keep the pick, draft Edey or Buzelis or ware which would be the two best remaining players
or
you trade it, possibly for what the Spurs got like a far future protected first

Jakob was the correct choice. Not sure where y'all expected to get a starting C otherwise

Well if you don't make the trade then every subsequent front office move leading up to now is potentially different so I'm not sure how you can sit there and act like it's a one or the other.

[Duffman100]

This rule that we must use the player selected to evaluate the trade in some attempt to preserve scientific validity is so **** ridiculous.

This is a message board. None of it matters. Evaluate it however the hell you want.

So if I traded the 10th pick in the Jokic draft, it's reasonable to give it a F grade because we could have possibly drafted him?

1. Let me know when someone does that.

2. Someone could try to argue that. Everyone else could decide that that specific case is ridiculous and respond accordingly. The purpose of the message board has been fulfilled.

I'm not sure I'm following your point.

A) people are allowed to evaluate trades however they want, why are we "restricting" it.

B) 'message boards are meant to discuss and debate the validity of the arguments.

Sort of contradictory?

[Spates]

This thread title needs a trigger warning.
Why not just rename the damn thing.

Ultimately this thread is about opportunity cost. Which is the value of the best forgone alternative. So, technically, it's Jak versus picks 8 through 60. But that isn't realistic. Neither is Dillingham. Raptors have a type, I think we can all agree. I don't think this thread is worthwhile unless we try to project who they would be likely to draft. Maybe Edey.

[CPT]

So if I traded the 10th pick in the Jokic draft, it's reasonable to give it a F grade because we could have possibly drafted him?

1. Let me know when someone does that.

2. Someone could try to argue that. Everyone else could decide that that specific case is ridiculous and respond accordingly. The purpose of the message board has been fulfilled.

I'm not sure I'm following your point.

A) people are allowed to evaluate trades however they want, why are we "restricting" it.

B) 'message boards are meant to discuss and debate the validity of the arguments.

Sort of contradictory?

I mean, if saying you can’t discuss something this way counts as discussion, then sure. If you try to shut down any talk of “maybe we wouldn’t have taken Rob Dillingham, who was frequently mocked several picks lower” in order to follow some arbitrary rule, it’s trying to shut down discussion, not generate it.

To go back to your example, if Team A traded a future second round pick for a borderline all-star, and that second round pick was later used to take Jokic, did Team A make a bad trade?

[Duffman100]

1. Let me know when someone does that.

2. Someone could try to argue that. Everyone else could decide that that specific case is ridiculous and respond accordingly. The purpose of the message board has been fulfilled.

I'm not sure I'm following your point.

A) people are allowed to evaluate trades however they want, why are we "restricting" it.

B) 'message boards are meant to discuss and debate the validity of the arguments.

Sort of contradictory?

I mean, if saying you can’t discuss something this way counts as discussion, then sure. If you try to shut down any talk of “maybe we wouldn’t have taken Rob Dillingham, who was frequently mocked several picks lower” in order to follow some arbitrary rule, it’s trying to shut down discussion, not generate it.

To go back to your example, if Team A traded a future second round pick for a borderline all-star, and that second round pick was later used to take Jokic, did Team A make a bad trade?

It's people's take on how you evaluate the trade. Is it shutting down or voicing an opinion? By your definition, 95% of conversation on this forum is "shutting down discussion".

[WiggOuts]

I feel like these guys would've taken Cody Williams then went after Missi with the Jakobe pick...not bad

[Psubs]

Damn, we poison pilled Poeltl's last 2 years! He needs to be traded in the summer while his contract is $19 million for next season.