Official Trade Thread - Part XXXI

[Dark Faze]

That's irrelevant. The point is that beating Toronto was hardly a difficult feet and means very little as to what we have now.

Lmao, it's not irrelevant. We lost to a team that was better than them in the Hawks while John Wall was injured as well.

It's completely relevant. It shows that teams that are roughly as strong as what we would face now were teams that this core was able to go toe to toe with. By comparison the Celtics haven't even gotten out of the first round yet, a team that supposedly has a much better future than us. Now of course, we aren't capable of much right now, but the core has improved. Otto is better, Wall is better, Brad is better. It's a very large hill to climb to get the rest of the team up to par yes, but what your core players have proven is absolutely relevant when it comes to deciding whether to tear it down or not.

So, this is your point: "Otto is better, Wall is better, Brad is better"? And this means that we are, as you originally claimed, one Cavs injury from competing for the EC finals?

That is what people are finding ridiculous. That and the idea that you want to hang some big claim about the team on the fact that we beat Toronto two years ago! When we had Paul Pierce instead of Markieff Morris. When Rasual Butler had his imitation-all-star year. When we had Ramon Sessions instead of Trey Burke, Nene instead of Jason Smith/Andrew Nicholson, etc.

My point is that rebuilding the bench isn't the insanely difficult job that people act like it is. You trade the pick for a great deal, that's it. That's how you do it. That's the economy of the NBA. Teams planning on being bad move their veteran good players to get picks to both decrease their quality as a team (leading to more lottery balls) and to get another young player in the draft.

The problem is when you are forced to use the pick because your big man does down (Emeka) and you don't want to waste the season. So you get a guy like Gortat who you could have easily gotten in free agency with patience. And then again, a pick is used recklessly on a player like Markieff--who was not worth an effing first.

Ernie has used firsts so recklessly that the time that we're actually meant to use one, we're terrified of now doing it. For good reason--we're supposed to get far better value with our firsts than we've gotten in the past.

[payitforward]

Dat -- I know you hate WP48, but in this instance it's an easy tool to use, so lets give it a try.

If we'd had Thaddeus Young starting at the 4 instead of Morris (they've played about the same minutes so far), and we'd had Morris playing Nicholson's minutes so far we could easily be 3 wins better than we are so far. That's a huge difference: 1.375 times our current wins.

If we had Temple instead of Burke & Satoransky, both of whom have been awful while Temple is having his best season, add 2 more wins.

Plug in Dedmon and give him Smith's minutes: add another 2 wins.

Now... all this is based on the productivity of Young, Temple & Dedmon this season on their real-world teams. Obviously, there'd be some difference playing here -- but that's an incalculable.

It's an eye-opener, I have to say. Even at this level of abstraction the idea that we could have 15 wins instead of 8 wins does support the notion that we'd be one of the better teams in the East. This is especially interesting in that we could certainly have had Temple. And we could very likely have had Dedmon.

Ok, to add some realism, budget should figure in as well, right? Temple & Dedmon make $11m this year. That's equal to Satoransky, Burke & Smith.

But, give Young his $12m instead of Nicholson's $6m, and we are $6m to the bad. Is there a $6m/year PF (to keep our replacement players at the exact cost of those they replace) to use instead of Young in this imaginary idea, and how does that guy affect our wins?

You can argue that we wouldn't have signed Mahinmi, but that's wiggling out of the problem. Esp. since we'd still likely have signed Satoransky.

[payitforward]

My point is that rebuilding the bench isn't the insanely difficult job that people act like it is. You trade the pick for a great deal, that's it. That's how you do it. ...

That's a different point. I assume you have in mind to trade Nicholson, Smith & the pick for... what? That's all that's required to rebuild the bench? Then let Burke go at the end of the season? Cross your fingers about Satoransky? Count on rapid development from Oubre? Live the dream with Sheldon McClellan?

I don't think it'll be so easy to dump Nicholson & Smith. And I don't see what we're acquiring in return that "rebuilds the bench." Gonna do that via FAs next off season? If you think it's not difficult, please provide some ideas for who's going to be on our bench.

The problem is when you are forced to use the pick because your big man does down (Emeka) and you don't want to waste the season. So you get a guy like Gortat who you could have easily gotten in free agency with patience. And then again, a pick is used recklessly on a player like Markieff--who was not worth an effing first.

Ernie has used firsts so recklessly that the time that we're actually meant to use one, we're terrified of now doing it. For good reason--we're supposed to get far better value with our firsts than we've gotten in the past.

With this I agree, but it's not to the point at issue.

[NatP4]

2 first round picks plus Jason Smith for Nerlens Noel. Who says no?

[Dat2U]

I ignored them b/c they didn't say anything special. Pretty much every team has at least some core players good enough to be on a playoff team. Nor was there a "decision to... tank a year... to have enough salary for Kevin Durant." Nor did I say we should "dismantle" the Wizards. And, of course the bench is horrible, and of course we should fire Ernie before doing anything else.

But, no, this is not a team that's a player or so away from contending in the East, which is your claim. This is a very bad team with a few good players and a tight salary bind. The Wizards aren't going anywhere. We're getting worse not better.

I said 3 players. One quality starter at PF and two solid bench players. Would you disagree with this?

I was responding to Faze not you, Dat.

A starter and two good bench guys could amount to almost 6000 minutes of PT. That's 30% of the total. There is no question that it would be possible to plug in the names of 3 guys who could make us a lot better!

But, whom do you have in mind? I.e. plug in the 3 guys and remove (I assume) Nicholson, Smith and Burke.

Keep in mind that at least 2 of our starters would be playing fewer minutes. That's good of course; it's hard to imagine those guys getting through the season w/o injury at this rate. But it also means that lower production players will be taking those minutes.

Ok as a hypothetical trade let's say you got:
Cousins at PF moving Morris to the bench.
Temple at SG replacing Beal.
Casspi at SF replacing Oubre.
Lawson at PG replacing Burke.

So:
Gortat / Mahinmi / Smith
Cousins / Morris / Nicholson
Porter / Casspi / House
Temple / Thornton / McClellan
Wall / Lawson / Satoransky

How many games would this team win? How would they compare to the better teams in the East outside of Cleveland? Would they make the playoffs and are the capable of winning a series or two?

[Dat2U]

Dat -- I know you hate WP48, but in this instance it's an easy tool to use, so lets give it a try.

If we'd had Thaddeus Young starting at the 4 instead of Morris (they've played about the same minutes so far), and we'd had Morris playing Nicholson's minutes so far we could easily be 3 wins better than we are so far. That's a huge difference: 1.375 times our current wins.

If we had Temple instead of Burke & Satoransky, both of whom have been awful while Temple is having his best season, add 2 more wins.

Plug in Dedmon and give him Smith's minutes: add another 2 wins.

Now... all this is based on the productivity of Young, Temple & Dedmon this season on their real-world teams. Obviously, there'd be some difference playing here -- but that's an incalculable.

It's an eye-opener, I have to say. Even at this level of abstraction the idea that we could have 15 wins instead of 8 wins does support the notion that we'd be one of the better teams in the East. This is especially interesting in that we could certainly have had Temple. And we could very likely have had Dedmon.

Ok, to add some realism, budget should figure in as well, right? Temple & Dedmon make $11m this year. That's equal to Satoransky, Burke & Smith.

But, give Young his $12m instead of Nicholson's $6m, and we are $6m to the bad. Is there a $6m/year PF (to keep our replacement players at the exact cost of those they replace) to use instead of Young in this imaginary idea, and how does that guy affect our wins?

You can argue that we wouldn't have signed Mahinmi, but that's wiggling out of the problem. Esp. since we'd still likely have signed Satoransky.

I didn't see this before my post. That's quite interesting. Definitely a cool excercise. Do you still feel like we need a complete reset or would you go along with the theory that if we had a smart GM capable of making shrewd moves, we could be much better than we are now without necessarily trading our best players.

[payitforward]

Dat -- I know you hate WP48, but in this instance it's an easy tool to use, so lets give it a try.

If we'd had Thaddeus Young starting at the 4 instead of Morris (they've played about the same minutes so far), and we'd had Morris playing Nicholson's minutes so far we could easily be 3 wins better than we are so far. That's a huge difference: 1.375 times our current wins.

If we had Temple instead of Burke & Satoransky, both of whom have been awful while Temple is having his best season, add 2 more wins.

Plug in Dedmon and give him Smith's minutes: add another 2 wins.

Now... all this is based on the productivity of Young, Temple & Dedmon this season on their real-world teams. Obviously, there'd be some difference playing here -- but that's an incalculable.

It's an eye-opener, I have to say. Even at this level of abstraction the idea that we could have 15 wins instead of 8 wins does support the notion that we'd be one of the better teams in the East. This is especially interesting in that we could certainly have had Temple. And we could very likely have had Dedmon.

Ok, to add some realism, budget should figure in as well, right? Temple & Dedmon make $11m this year. That's equal to Satoransky, Burke & Smith.

But, give Young his $12m instead of Nicholson's $6m, and we are $6m to the bad. Is there a $6m/year PF (to keep our replacement players at the exact cost of those they replace) to use instead of Young in this imaginary idea, and how does that guy affect our wins?

You can argue that we wouldn't have signed Mahinmi, but that's wiggling out of the problem. Esp. since we'd still likely have signed Satoransky.

I didn't see this before my post. That's quite interesting. Definitely a cool exercise. Do you still feel like we need a complete reset or would you go along with the theory that if we had a smart GM capable of making shrewd moves, we could be much better than we are now without necessarily trading our best players.

Well, keep in mind that this being an exercise where a) I've got free choice to pick who I want to plug in (w/o worrying about whether/how I acquire them), and b) I get to use hindsight to pick the guys who have performed best, I'd say it's no surprise I can come up w/ these outstanding results! E.g. had I gone for Seth Curry -- the guy both of us wanted last Summer -- the same analysis has us picking up 1/2 win not the 2 wins we get w/ Temple.

Moreover, we didn't have a shot at Thaddeus Young. Not to mention that, we'd be paying more money.

As to needing a complete reset or not -- to achieve what goal? Also, given what conditions? Our current condition is pretty bad.

To me, the goal should always be the same -- contend for a title. I don't see how this group ever gets there. If I say instead the goal for me as a fan is to have a more interesting team to watch, a team as good lets say as we were a couple of years ago, which I remind you was never in the top 4 in the EC, never a team w/ a R1 home court advantage in the playoffs -- for that it's not necessary to do a complete reset.

But 3 things -- 1) that kind of team has no path to contending for a title either, it's too dependent on being lucky (Pierce being available, Sessions actually playing well, Butler having an outlier 1/3 season, etc.), 2) Ernie had to do a complete reset to wind up w/ that kind of team, and 3) a good GM doesn't have to aim that low.

[nate33]

2 first round picks plus Jason Smith for Nerlens Noel. Who says no?

I wouldn't trade one 1st rounder for Noel. He's injury prone and about to be overpaid as a free agent.

[pcbothwel]

2 first round picks plus Jason Smith for Nerlens Noel. Who says no?

I wouldn't trade one 1st rounder for Noel. He's injury prone and about to be overpaid as a free agent.

Agreed, Noel is the opposite of Otto in that he is a specialist that, while talented, is hard to fit into a rotation seamlessly. He needs to be with a another big that can spread the floor and guard bigs down low. It seems KAT would be an amazing fit with Noel. Those two and Dieng would be a great bigman rotation.

[pcbothwel]

Lmao, it's not irrelevant. We lost to a team that was better than them in the Hawks while John Wall was injured as well.

It's completely relevant. It shows that teams that are roughly as strong as what we would face now were teams that this core was able to go toe to toe with. By comparison the Celtics haven't even gotten out of the first round yet, a team that supposedly has a much better future than us. Now of course, we aren't capable of much right now, but the core has improved. Otto is better, Wall is better, Brad is better. It's a very large hill to climb to get the rest of the team up to par yes, but what your core players have proven is absolutely relevant when it comes to deciding whether to tear it down or not.

So, this is your point: "Otto is better, Wall is better, Brad is better"? And this means that we are, as you originally claimed, one Cavs injury from competing for the EC finals?

That is what people are finding ridiculous. That and the idea that you want to hang some big claim about the team on the fact that we beat Toronto two years ago! When we had Paul Pierce instead of Markieff Morris. When Rasual Butler had his imitation-all-star year. When we had Ramon Sessions instead of Trey Burke, Nene instead of Jason Smith/Andrew Nicholson, etc.

My point is that rebuilding the bench isn't the insanely difficult job that people act like it is. You trade the pick for a great deal, that's it. That's how you do it. That's the economy of the NBA. Teams planning on being bad move their veteran good players to get picks to both decrease their quality as a team (leading to more lottery balls) and to get another young player in the draft.

The problem is when you are forced to use the pick because your big man does down (Emeka) and you don't want to waste the season. So you get a guy like Gortat who you could have easily gotten in free agency with patience. And then again, a pick is used recklessly on a player like Markieff--who was not worth an effing first.

Ernie has used firsts so recklessly that the time that we're actually meant to use one, we're terrified of now doing it. For good reason--we're supposed to get far better value with our firsts than we've gotten in the past.

Exactly, Everyone should step back for moment and think about one thing in regards to trading our 2017 pick:

-What if we end up in the same scenario as Portland last year? ... Let me explain

On December 23rd the Blazers capped off a 5 game losing streak by losing by 26 to the Pelicans and dropped to 11-19. At that point, they were projected to pick 5th overall in the upcoming draft (We're currently looking at the 9th pick) ...
They ended up finding cohesion and finished 44-38, so they picked 19th (Pick went to Denver from Afflalo trade, but not relevant).

Now, Im not saying that we WILL do the same, but no one doubts the productivity of our starting unit and the overall hopeless environment of the NBA this year in that the Cavs seem CERTAIN to win the East and GSW in the West (Spurs and Clippers will also stay relevant). These two facts lead me to believe we will not only get better, but that many other teams will be sellers and drop off.

So its not a matter of trading the pick to just salvage the season or EG's job, but selling a stock while it's high.

Example:
2017 1st, Smith, Nicholson for Faried and Nurkic
or
1st, Nicholson, Gortat for Vucevic, Gordon, Meeks

[immortalone23]

What would it take to get Wall?

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

2 first round picks plus Jason Smith for Nerlens Noel. Who says no?

No

[AFM]

NO!

[stevemcqueen1]

What would it take to get Wall?

The earliest the team would trade him is February 2019.

[ozthegap]

What would it take to get Wall?

get rid of Ted Leonis and Ernie Grunfeld for us first then we will talk.

[payitforward]

2 first round picks plus Jason Smith for Nerlens Noel. Who says no?

I wouldn't trade one 1st rounder for Noel. He's injury prone and about to be overpaid as a free agent.

Agreed, Noel is the opposite of Otto in that he is a specialist that, while talented, is hard to fit into a rotation seamlessly. He needs to be with a another big that can spread the floor and guard bigs down low. It seems KAT would be an amazing fit with Noel. Those two and Dieng would be a great bigman rotation.

I don't know whether I quite agree w/ Nate (it might depend on what # R1 pick and on the circumstances), but Nat's proposed trade is waaaay out of proportion, that's for sure!

Noel hasn't played at all this season. I assume he's injured (haven't paid much attention obviously...). He might not get a big contract...?

[payitforward]

So, this is your point: "Otto is better, Wall is better, Brad is better"? And this means that we are, as you originally claimed, one Cavs injury from competing for the EC finals?

That is what people are finding ridiculous. That and the idea that you want to hang some big claim about the team on the fact that we beat Toronto two years ago! When we had Paul Pierce instead of Markieff Morris. When Rasual Butler had his imitation-all-star year. When we had Ramon Sessions instead of Trey Burke, Nene instead of Jason Smith/Andrew Nicholson, etc.

My point is that rebuilding the bench isn't the insanely difficult job that people act like it is. You trade the pick for a great deal, that's it. That's how you do it. That's the economy of the NBA. Teams planning on being bad move their veteran good players to get picks to both decrease their quality as a team (leading to more lottery balls) and to get another young player in the draft.

The problem is when you are forced to use the pick because your big man does down (Emeka) and you don't want to waste the season. So you get a guy like Gortat who you could have easily gotten in free agency with patience. And then again, a pick is used recklessly on a player like Markieff--who was not worth an effing first.

Ernie has used firsts so recklessly that the time that we're actually meant to use one, we're terrified of now doing it. For good reason--we're supposed to get far better value with our firsts than we've gotten in the past.

Exactly, Everyone should step back for moment and think about one thing in regards to trading our 2017 pick:

-What if we end up in the same scenario as Portland last year? ... Let me explain

On December 23rd the Blazers capped off a 5 game losing streak by losing by 26 to the Pelicans and dropped to 11-19. At that point, they were projected to pick 5th overall in the upcoming draft (We're currently looking at the 9th pick) ...
They ended up finding cohesion and finished 44-38, so they picked 19th (Pick went to Denver from Afflalo trade, but not relevant).

Now, Im not saying that we WILL do the same, but no one doubts the productivity of our starting unit and the overall hopeless environment of the NBA this year in that the Cavs seem CERTAIN to win the East and GSW in the West (Spurs and Clippers will also stay relevant). These two facts lead me to believe we will not only get better, but that many other teams will be sellers and drop off.

So its not a matter of trading the pick to just salvage the season or EG's job, but selling a stock while it's high.

Example:
2017 1st, Smith, Nicholson for Faried and Nurkic
or
1st, Nicholson, Gortat for Vucevic, Gordon, Meeks

Logic is good. Facts not so much -- a lot of speculative assumptions.

OTOH, your Denver trade is defensible -- if it were Jokic instead of Nurkic I'd be all over it! But... I just don't see any team going for those two boat anchor contracts of Smith/Nicholson.

[Dark Faze]

to think the schedule is as easy as its ever going to get

starting to turn towards just keeping the pick now honestly

[gambitx777]

Example:
2017 1st, Smith, Nicholson for Faried and Nurkic
or
1st, Nicholson, Gortat for Vucevic, Gordon, Meeks

Logic is good. Facts not so much -- a lot of speculative assumptions.

OTOH, your Denver trade is defensible -- if it were Jokic instead of Nurkic I'd be all over it! But... I just don't see any team going for those two boat anchor contracts of Smith/Nicholson.[/quote]
To be fair Faried is not a good contract either, yes he is a talented athletic big, he would fit well with wall, it would make us better cuz either him or morris off the bench would be awesome. But, he is not a shooter, he is an interior player, and he is an average defender who gets it done with his effort not his defencive talent. he is getting paid 12 mill about what smith and nicholson make together. So at 12 mill for a limited player even though he is good, he has a similar game to nene. But if we could some how swindle them out of gary harris who is the odd man out in that wing rotation full of young wings, that would be worth an unprotected 2017 pick in my mind. that would allow us to trade mahinmi for an over paid or struggling back up point guard some where that would still be an upgrade over burke.

[SizzlinSimms]

What would it take to get Wall?

The earliest the team would trade him is February 2019.

A ton. He's borderline untradeable until he declares he wants out.