Woj: Deni to Portland for 14th pick and Brogdon

[nate33]

I was higher on Bub last summer than I am now. He has more games played than free throw attempts, and it is a rare occurrence to see him make a layup in the half court offense.

Yeah, I feel like Bub is on his way to being a fine rotation player, but not a difference maker. He just lacks an "it factor" on offense. He is a game manager, but not defense bender. I do like his effort on defense. He is pretty effective now and will get better with strength and experience, but I don't see the innate reflexes, base strength and footspeed that would enable him to be an elite defensive guard in the same category as Jrue, Dort, Caruso and Suggs.

If he is neither a defense bender on offense nor a truly disruptive defender, then he is merely a rotation player, not a building block.

He is still young enough to surprise me. There are some guards who manage to become legit defense-benders through skill and savvy rather than overwhelming strength and quickness - guys like Brunson and Murray. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Bub can get to that level. But I'd bet against it at this point.

And by calling him a "rotation player", I don't mean to demean him. I think he is going to have a long career in the NBA and probably be a 4th/5th starter or a 6th/7th man during his peak, depending on the quality of the team he is on. That's a quality pick at #14, particularly in a bad draft.

[dckingsfan]

Look, let's be real, we traded Deni because of this.




Deni is a really **** good player. But I suspect there was an imperative to get him the **** off the team so he doesn't play us out of range for Flagg/Harper/Bailey. And the Blazers have a real chance to make the playin with the Suns a mess and the Mavericks shattered. Now, the Wizards are a lot worse than the Blazers, in theory, but it's simply not best to take the chance. The return was too light, but again I think the imperative was for him to not play a second for us this season when we're trying to tank for Flagg, and it's possible other teams got wise to that. Add to that the fact that a lot of the contenders Deni would help have already traded their 1sts, and suddenly the trade market narrows a lot.

Again, keeping Deni was not an option this season, unless you're committing to not getting a top 3 pick.

Another way to look at it is differential.

Portland this year -4.1 vs last year -9.0

But they have had other players step up including Camara and Scoot. So, let'say Deni is half of that? Maybe 2.5?

We are at -12.3, so we might have been at -9? We won 15 games last year at -9.

So, it is possble we would be sitting with the 3rd worst record vs. the worst record.

That wouldn't materially change the probability of getting one of the top 3 picks.

So, I disagree that there was an actual imperative.

[DCZards]

I was higher on Bub last summer than I am now. He has more games played than free throw attempts, and it is a rare occurrence to see him make a layup in the half court offense.

That’s a fair—and accurate—criticism of Bub’s game. He definitely needs to get much better at getting to the rim and FT line.

It will interesting to see what Bub looks like in 2-3 years, after he’s gotten stronger, has had a couple summers to work on his game, and is accustomed to going up against grown arse men.

There are some encouraging signs…the 3pt shooting, the low assist-to-turnover ratio, the midrange jumper, and the solid and physical defense.

I also like Bub’s poise and oncourt leadership, especially for a 19 yr old.

[dckingsfan]

Give Bub time and we will still be asking the questions at the end of his rookie contract. If we can move him now for other draft assets - do it and hope there is another team that wnats to "see what he looks like in 3 years".

[payitforward]

Give Bub time and we will still be asking the questions at the end of his rookie contract. If we can move him now for other draft assets - do it and hope there is another team that wnats to "see what he looks like in 3 years".

"...move (Bub) now for other draft assets" is not a strategy, not a tactic, not even an idea! It's just rhetoric.

Any & every player on any & every team should be available in a trade. No exceptions. It all depends on what the offer is. Period.

For example, don't you think Will would be happy to trade Bub for the first pick in the 2025 draft? But no one will give us that will they?

So... exactly WHAT "other draft assets" do you have in mind? What will they give us?

As soon as you suggest who might give us what for Bub, we can take the idea seriously. There will be something to discuss. Until you do, it's just rhetoric. There's nothing to discusss.

[dckingsfan]

Give Bub time and we will still be asking the questions at the end of his rookie contract. If we can move him now for other draft assets - do it and hope there is another team that wnats to "see what he looks like in 3 years".

"...move (Bub) now for other draft assets" is not a strategy, not a tactic, not even an idea! It's just rhetoric.

Any & every player on any & every team should be available in a trade. No exceptions. It all depends on what the offer is. Period.

For example, don't you think Will would be happy to trade Bub for the first pick in the 2025 draft? But no one will give us that will they?

So... exactly WHAT "other draft assets" do you have in mind? What will they give us?

As soon as you suggest who might give us what for Bub, we can take the idea seriously. There will be something to discuss. Until you do, it's just rhetoric. There's nothing to discusss.

Disagree. It is indeed a strategy. If you have any player you don't deem a #1 or #2 then you push to move them for more trade assets (if indeed you are trying to build through the draft).

Strategy: build through the draft
Tactic(s): acquire as many draft assets as possible
Logistic: Identify any asset with their potential to be a #1 or #2, keep those and move the rest until you hit on a #1 or #2 and have enough trade assets left to build your team.
Logistic: Constantly and realistically assess your current players.
Logistic: Realistically assess the current draft you are trading into.

And you missed the context of the scenario as it was proposed (probably because it was pretty convoluted and in a different thread). Bub + our 24th pick to move up the draft (and the target was in the OP and it was Orlando's 15th pick - is that realistic, smh).

[AFM]

We are now in bizarro world where posters are explaining to PIF about trading for more draft picks

[doclinkin]

We are now in bizarro world where posters are explaining to PIF about trading for more draft picks

[The Consiglieri]

Look, let's be real, we traded Deni because of this.




Deni is a really **** good player. But I suspect there was an imperative to get him the **** off the team so he doesn't play us out of range for Flagg/Harper/Bailey. And the Blazers have a real chance to make the playin with the Suns a mess and the Mavericks shattered. Now, the Wizards are a lot worse than the Blazers, in theory, but it's simply not best to take the chance. The return was too light, but again I think the imperative was for him to not play a second for us this season when we're trying to tank for Flagg, and it's possible other teams got wise to that. Add to that the fact that a lot of the contenders Deni would help have already traded their 1sts, and suddenly the trade market narrows a lot.

Again, keeping Deni was not an option this season, unless you're committing to not getting a top 3 pick.

Another way to look at it is differential.

Portland this year -4.1 vs last year -9.0

But they have had other players step up including Camara and Scoot. So, let'say Deni is half of that? Maybe 2.5?

We are at -12.3, so we might have been at -9? We won 15 games last year at -9.

So, it is possble we would be sitting with the 3rd worst record vs. the worst record.

That wouldn't materially change the probability of getting one of the top 3 picks.

So, I disagree that there was an actual imperative.

Are you also taking into account how low the pick could be, because that is part of the problem too, right? If we end up finishing 3rd worst instead of worst.

2nd worst has a 48% chance of picking 5th or 6th.
3rd worst has a 41% chance of picking 5th or 6th, and a 48% chance of picking 5th or 6th, and a 33% chance of picking 6th or 7th.

Part of the value of being worst is limiting your fall to 5 at worst and avoiding entirely a fall to the 6th-7th and so on.

All it takes is one reach inside the top 4 to have us benefit even if we fall to 5, and those kinds of weird reach picks and fit picks happen reasonably often inside the top 3-6 area. But if you're picking 6th and especially 7th etc, you really are just at the whims of who is in front of you, and picking from the leftovers.

We increased our odds at a top 3 pick by trading Deni, and we also increased our odds of avoiding a 6th or 7th pick too.

[DCZards]

Disagree. It is indeed a strategy. If you have any player you don't deem a #1 or #2 then you push to move them for more trade assets (if indeed you are trying to build through the draft).

Strategy: build through the draft
Tactic(s): acquire as many draft assets as possible
Logistic: Identify any asset with their potential to be a #1 or #2, keep those and move the rest until you hit on a #1 or #2 and have enough trade assets left to build your team.
Logistic: Constantly and realistically assess your current players.
Logistic: Realistically assess the current draft you are trading into.

And you missed the context of the scenario as it was proposed (probably because it was pretty convoluted and in a different thread). Bub + our 24th pick to move up the draft (and the target was in the OP and it was Orlando's 15th pick - is that realistic, smh).

I totally get the need for a 1 and/or 2 player. But no team is made up of only of 1s and 2s. You also need players to fill those 3-6 spots in the lineup—solid rotational players.

I’m not convinced that giving up Bub--who I don’t think is a 1 or 2 player but could be a 4 or 5--and the 24th pick for the 15th pick is a good idea. You’re unlikely to get a 1 or 2 at the 15th pick or higher. It happens…but it’s rare.

The Zards could end up trading Bub AND the 24th pick for a player who turns out not to be as good as Bub. I don’t think they should take that risk.

In fact, I think your strategy runs counter to this front office's view of assets. I'm guessing that they consider Bub and the 24th pick as more valuable than the 15th pick alone. They did a great job drafting George at 24 so I'm sure they're confident picking in that range.

[doclinkin]

I totally get the need for a 1 and/or 2 player. But no team is made up of only of 1s and 2s. You also need players to fill those 3-6 spots in the lineup.

I’m not convinced that giving up Bub--who I don’t think is a 1 or 2 player but could be a 4 or 5--and the 24th pick for the 15th pick is a good idea. You’re unlikely to get a 1 or 2 at the 15th pick or higher. It happens…but it’s rare.

The Zards could end up trading Bub AND the 24th pick for a player who turns out not to be as good as Bub. I don’t think they should take that risk.

This is where I am and what I said in the 2024/25 Rookies thread. To me Bub has the foundation to be an ideal supplemental player to a team with high usage stars, or dominant interior finishers. The sort of players we are hoping to land in this years draft or next.

Bub is remarkably steady for a 19 year old. Makes few mistakes. Has a mature game. So far right, he is not over aggressive and using up empty possessions. We have Poole to dribble the thing to death and jack up shots. But when he does create for himself (in his pull-up midrange game) he hits at a high percentage. And he's improving quick at the 3. Bodes well for when he gets stronger and can add range. He's not going to waste a ton of touches, but already shows he will err on the side of making the smart play.

Put Bub next to a paint monster like Maluach, or a me-first scorer like Ace or AJ Dybantsa, and he can feed them all the shots they need without giving it up to the other team. He has shown that he is better as a starter than a 2nd line player. Better when he can initiate his own shots. You need that guy next to your superstars, the steadying hand who doesn't blow up the team trying too hard to star.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

Watch on YouTube

Deni's game winner wiped out by a Bridges buzzer beater, but another strong 27 points, 15 rebounds, 5 assists, though 7 TOs.

[Dat2U]

Who would guys prefer at this stage? Isaiah Coller or Bub Carrington?

[dckingsfan]

Watch on YouTube

Deni's game winner wiped out by a Bridges buzzer beater, but another strong 27 points, 15 rebounds, 5 assists, though 7 TOs.

It took 18 shots for those 27 points though. And yes the TOs and 3 missed FTs would have sealed the game.

Next year?

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

Watch on YouTube

Deni's game winner wiped out by a Bridges buzzer beater, but another strong 27 points, 15 rebounds, 5 assists, though 7 TOs.

It took 18 shots for those 27 points though. And yes the TOs and 3 missed FTs would have sealed the game.

Next year?

Yeah left some points on the board missing some freebies. As for the TOs, can't have 7 in a game, but I was watching the extended highlights, a good 2-3 of them were bobbles off teammates hands, still doesn't have timing right and throws some passes I don't think guys are expecting them.

[dckingsfan]

Watch on YouTube

Deni's game winner wiped out by a Bridges buzzer beater, but another strong 27 points, 15 rebounds, 5 assists, though 7 TOs.

It took 18 shots for those 27 points though. And yes the TOs and 3 missed FTs would have sealed the game.

Next year?

Yeah left some points on the board missing some freebies. As for the TOs, can't have 7 in a game, but I was watching the extended highlights, a good 2-3 of them were bobbles off teammates hands, still doesn't have timing right and throws some passes I don't think guys are expecting them.

Yep, and one thing I really don't understand. When he gets the rebound and heads down court, why are some of the teammates just "dogging it". But okay, that is coaching. Or is it that they are tired and he is outrunning his teammates?

[dckingsfan]

Look, let's be real, we traded Deni because of this.




Deni is a really **** good player. But I suspect there was an imperative to get him the **** off the team so he doesn't play us out of range for Flagg/Harper/Bailey. And the Blazers have a real chance to make the playin with the Suns a mess and the Mavericks shattered. Now, the Wizards are a lot worse than the Blazers, in theory, but it's simply not best to take the chance. The return was too light, but again I think the imperative was for him to not play a second for us this season when we're trying to tank for Flagg, and it's possible other teams got wise to that. Add to that the fact that a lot of the contenders Deni would help have already traded their 1sts, and suddenly the trade market narrows a lot.

Again, keeping Deni was not an option this season, unless you're committing to not getting a top 3 pick.

Another way to look at it is differential.

Portland this year -4.1 vs last year -9.0

But they have had other players step up including Camara and Scoot. So, let'say Deni is half of that? Maybe 2.5?

We are at -12.3, so we might have been at -9? We won 15 games last year at -9.

So, it is possble we would be sitting with the 3rd worst record vs. the worst record.

That wouldn't materially change the probability of getting one of the top 3 picks.

So, I disagree that there was an actual imperative.

Are you also taking into account how low the pick could be, because that is part of the problem too, right? If we end up finishing 3rd worst instead of worst.

2nd worst has a 48% chance of picking 5th or 6th.
3rd worst has a 41% chance of picking 5th or 6th, and a 48% chance of picking 5th or 6th, and a 33% chance of picking 6th or 7th.

Part of the value of being worst is limiting your fall to 5 at worst and avoiding entirely a fall to the 6th-7th and so on.

All it takes is one reach inside the top 4 to have us benefit even if we fall to 5, and those kinds of weird reach picks and fit picks happen reasonably often inside the top 3-6 area. But if you're picking 6th and especially 7th etc, you really are just at the whims of who is in front of you, and picking from the leftovers.

We increased our odds at a top 3 pick by trading Deni, and we also increased our odds of avoiding a 6th or 7th pick too.

You are absolutely spot on. However, I think at this point only the #1 & #2 picks are "givens". The difference between picking 6 or 7 isn't material at this point.

Pretty sure you know where I am going with this.

[Silvie Lysandra]

Look, let's be real, we traded Deni because of this.




Deni is a really **** good player. But I suspect there was an imperative to get him the **** off the team so he doesn't play us out of range for Flagg/Harper/Bailey. And the Blazers have a real chance to make the playin with the Suns a mess and the Mavericks shattered. Now, the Wizards are a lot worse than the Blazers, in theory, but it's simply not best to take the chance. The return was too light, but again I think the imperative was for him to not play a second for us this season when we're trying to tank for Flagg, and it's possible other teams got wise to that. Add to that the fact that a lot of the contenders Deni would help have already traded their 1sts, and suddenly the trade market narrows a lot.

Again, keeping Deni was not an option this season, unless you're committing to not getting a top 3 pick.

Another way to look at it is differential.

Portland this year -4.1 vs last year -9.0

But they have had other players step up including Camara and Scoot. So, let'say Deni is half of that? Maybe 2.5?

We are at -12.3, so we might have been at -9? We won 15 games last year at -9.

So, it is possble we would be sitting with the 3rd worst record vs. the worst record.

That wouldn't materially change the probability of getting one of the top 3 picks.

So, I disagree that there was an actual imperative.

Keep in mind that Poole went from arguably the worst player in the NBA to a decently efficient scoring and playmaking guard and we added JV. Bilal got a touch better. Deni would be taking minutes away from Kuzma (and the less mins Kuzma plays, the better we are), and that's assuming we don't TRADE Kuzma to open up Deni for 33-35 mins a night. Maybe we don't improve to be knocking on the door of the playin, but the point stands that Deni adds too much wasted value in the near term for a team that's tearing it down to the studs and very much is not trying to compete for the playin anytime soon. The question is really that could Dawkins and Winger have played hardball and gotten more? Maybe held out to the deadline at the cost of 3 or 4 additional critical wins (losses) in the tank battle, but maybe got a Bridges package? That's more open to debate for me.

[dckingsfan]

Look, let's be real, we traded Deni because of this.




Deni is a really **** good player. But I suspect there was an imperative to get him the **** off the team so he doesn't play us out of range for Flagg/Harper/Bailey. And the Blazers have a real chance to make the playin with the Suns a mess and the Mavericks shattered. Now, the Wizards are a lot worse than the Blazers, in theory, but it's simply not best to take the chance. The return was too light, but again I think the imperative was for him to not play a second for us this season when we're trying to tank for Flagg, and it's possible other teams got wise to that. Add to that the fact that a lot of the contenders Deni would help have already traded their 1sts, and suddenly the trade market narrows a lot.

Again, keeping Deni was not an option this season, unless you're committing to not getting a top 3 pick.

Another way to look at it is differential.

Portland this year -4.1 vs last year -9.0

But they have had other players step up including Camara and Scoot. So, let'say Deni is half of that? Maybe 2.5?

We are at -12.3, so we might have been at -9? We won 15 games last year at -9.

So, it is possble we would be sitting with the 3rd worst record vs. the worst record.

That wouldn't materially change the probability of getting one of the top 3 picks.

So, I disagree that there was an actual imperative.

Keep in mind that Poole went from arguably the worst player in the NBA to a decently efficient scoring and playmaking guard and we added JV. Bilal got a touch better. Deni would be taking minutes away from Kuzma (and the less mins Kuzma plays, the better we are), and that's assuming we don't TRADE Kuzma to open up Deni for 33-35 mins a night. Maybe we don't improve to be knocking on the door of the playin, but the point stands that Deni adds too much wasted value in the near term for a team that's tearing it down to the studs and very much is not trying to compete for the playin anytime soon. The question is really that could Dawkins and Winger have played hardball and gotten more? Maybe held out to the deadline at the cost of 3 or 4 additional critical wins (losses) in the tank battle, but maybe got a Bridges package? That's more open to debate for me.

All of that might have got us a few more games (as I stated above) if we still played the rookies and youngsters big minutes, it wouldn't have been material.

I think they could have held onto Deni and got more AND in a different draft class.

So, let's agree to disagree on this one. But let's agree that I like the direction, at least we have started the rebuild in earnest.

[payitforward]

We are now in bizarro world where posters are explaining to PIF about trading for more draft picks

How'd I miss this...?

I agree with everybody.