Official Trade Thread Part XLV

[gambitx777]

I wonder if the nicks would give us our pick back plus something in a
Monte, wright, Gill
For
Even F

Trade ?

Give them a lot of depth and injury insurance and allows us to open some team slots. Also gives us a French vet to make the kid feel more at home even was a good scorer back in him prime. Maybe gelap the kid with his game.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

That’s a lot of assets to give up for two 2nd round picks.

What if we slip out of the top 8 I mean this team isn't really that far off of what we where last year with everyone out for a month at a time. We could end up at nine or end up at 5 and have 4 teams jump. Then what? We loose the pick and we can't include a pick in a trade up if we want. Like it's not a terrible thing to get our pick back and I assume we get some other stuff like some seconds or what ever .

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[penbeast0]

Dude I would 100000% percent do a trade with det
Shamett
For
Bagley....

This makes good sense for us. But does Detroit want Shamet?

Or to put it another way, are they that anxious to get rid of Bagley which would be a bad sign for his maturity.

[JAR69]

How about cut out Houston instead?

Knicks trade Fournier and our protected first round pick back to us in exchange for our 2026 and 2027 second round picks (the picks they would get if the first rounder doesn't convey by 2026).

Based on our rebuilding plan, there is a decent chance the first rounder doesn't convey. And they get salary relief to help sign Josh Hart, stay farther away from the luxury tax and aprons, keep the full non-taxpayer MLE, and get an $18.8 million TPE. Maybe the Knicks think that's a little light for a potential back-of-lottery pick.

I don’t understand. As you point out, that pick we owe the. Is very unlikely to convey, so it really is two 2nds. Essentially we get absolutely nothing in return from the Knicks. We are turning Jones into Fournier with no compensation at all.

Thanks, nate.... I was trying to figure out what I wasn't understanding in JAR's idea....
Wait... I just saw Jar's explanation.

The R1 pick isn't going to convey. Hence this trade amounts to giving the Knicks 2 R2 picks now rather than later. In return for which we eat Fournier's expiring salary. Don't see a reason to do this.

My view is that guaranteeing the return of our R1 pick now has value. My guess (and it is a guess) is that the chance the pick conveys to the Knicks is 25-30%. We will be terrible next year and almost certainly in 2024-25. But are we guaranteed to be bottom 8 in 2025-26? I don't think so. OKC did it's teardown after the 2019-20 season. Last season was the third season after that, and they finished 11th worst in the league. Of course, their teardown brought back SGA and they have drafted/traded pretty well since then, but it is certainly possible we are in the conversation for 9th worst in 2025-26.

Getting the pick back also provides certainty and flexibility. As for flexibility, I was very happy that the protections on the pick tied the hands of the last administration in trading future firsts. I shudder to think Tommy and team might have done if they weren't lashed to the mast. It is too early to fully judge, but I don't feel that was about the new kids on the block. If there might be something massive to be gained by trading our 2027 pick at the 2026 deadline, it would be nice to have that flexibility.

It is also helpful for planning and playing to have the certainty of having our own pick back. Let's say in the spring of 2026 our record is good enough that we could be considering a push for the play-in. If the Knicks would get our pick in that situation, there will be a significant incentive to semi-tank. I'd rather be in a position to let the team go for it than pull our punches, and potentially lose out on the developmental benefits of being in a playoff (OK, play in) race.

I also agree that there is some value in having a French-speaker on the team this season for Bilal, but that is a fairly minor consideration. I very much doubt that Fournier would be flippable at the deadline with his salary, but stranger things have happened.

Edited: I see Gambix made similar points while I was writing this.

[mhd]

I don’t understand. As you point out, that pick we owe the. Is very unlikely to convey, so it really is two 2nds. Essentially we get absolutely nothing in return from the Knicks. We are turning Jones into Fournier with no compensation at all.

Thanks, nate.... I was trying to figure out what I wasn't understanding in JAR's idea....
Wait... I just saw Jar's explanation.

The R1 pick isn't going to convey. Hence this trade amounts to giving the Knicks 2 R2 picks now rather than later. In return for which we eat Fournier's expiring salary. Don't see a reason to do this.

My view is that guaranteeing the return of our R1 pick now has value. My guess (and it is a guess) is that the chance the pick conveys to the Knicks is 25-30%. We will be terrible next year and almost certainly in 2024-25. But are we guaranteed to be bottom 8 in 2025-26? I don't think so. OKC did it's teardown after the 2019-20 season. Last season was the third season after that, and they finished 11th worst in the league. Of course, their teardown brought back SGA and they have drafted/traded pretty well since then, but it is certainly possible we are in the conversation for 9th worst in 2025-26.

Getting the pick back also provides certainty and flexibility. As for flexibility, I was very happy that the protections on the pick tied the hands of the last administration in trading future firsts. I shudder to think Tommy and team might have done if they weren't lashed to the mast. It is too early to fully judge, but I don't feel that was about the new kids on the block. If there might be something massive to be gained by trading our 2027 pick at the 2026 deadline, it would be nice to have that flexibility.

It is also helpful for planning and playing to have the certainty of having our own pick back. Let's say in the spring of 2026 our record is good enough that we could be considering a push for the play-in. If the Knicks would get our pick in that situation, there will be a significant incentive to semi-tank. I'd rather be in a position to let the team go for it than pull our punches, and potentially lose out on the developmental benefits of being in a playoff (OK, play in) race.

I also agree that there is some value in having a French-speaker on the team this season for Bilal, but that is a fairly minor consideration. I very much doubt that Fournier would be flippable at the deadline with his salary, but stranger things have happened.


Edited: I see Gambix made similar points while I was writing this.

If I'm the Wiz FO, I'm doing everything I can to get that pick back. Trade away Morris for two future seconds, package those 2nds to NY (along with potentially Gallo), and take on Fournier (I think we have the space to do so).

[gesa2]

I don’t see why we have to add value to a trade of a toxic contract for a pick that is 1/3 likely to be late lottery and 2/3 likely to be 2 seconds. Seems fair value as it stands if NY needs the financial flexibility this year

[nate33]

[My guess (and it is a guess) is that the chance the pick conveys to the Knicks is 25-30%. We will be terrible next year and almost certainly in 2024-25. But are we guaranteed to be bottom 8 in 2025-26? I don't think so.

Yes. Absolutely. We will be a bottom 8 team in 2025-26. Guaranteed.

[payitforward]

[My guess (and it is a guess) is that the chance the pick conveys to the Knicks is 25-30%. We will be terrible next year and almost certainly in 2024-25. But are we guaranteed to be bottom 8 in 2025-26? I don't think so.

Yes. Absolutely. We will be a bottom 8 team in 2025-26. Guaranteed.

Does look that way -- our 35 wins in '22-23 put us in the bottom 8.

[JAR69]

[My guess (and it is a guess) is that the chance the pick conveys to the Knicks is 25-30%. We will be terrible next year and almost certainly in 2024-25. But are we guaranteed to be bottom 8 in 2025-26? I don't think so.

Yes. Absolutely. We will be a bottom 8 team in 2025-26. Guaranteed.

Does look that way -- our 35 wins in '22-23 put us in the bottom 8.

If that's the case, then the other aspects of getting the pick back clearly aren't worth using $18.8 million in cap space.

But I do think guaranteed is too strong. Over the last seven seasons:

Wins for 8th place teams: 35, 33, 31, 28.5 (82-game equivalent because shortened for covid), 33, 28, 33
Wins for 9th place teams: 37, 34, 31, 29 (82-game equivalent because shortened for covid), 33, 29, 33

I looked at 8th place, too, because it is possible that a team below 8 could jump up in the lottery.

As Nate said in the offseason thread, with the variability of the 3 ball, it is hard these days to win or lose more than 60 games in a season. Is it crazy to think that we could boost that minimum 22 wins to 28 or 29 (or even 31) with, say, a third season Bilal, positive development from Deni, Poole dropping 25, and two additional lottery picks? Maybe. There are a whole lot of "ifs" in my scenario.

In some ways, I'm sorry to continue this debate. I'm just spitballing here, and guessing aplenty. I fully agree that the chance of losing the pick is low. I just don't think it is zero (or that close to it).

[closg00]

Can't chase-down the Simmons Tweet, but FWIW. Portland?

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Dude I would 100000% percent do a trade with det
Shamett
For
Bagley....

This makes good sense for us. But does Detroit want Shamet?

Or to put it another way, are they that anxious to get rid of Bagley which would be a bad sign for his maturity.

Bagley is never going to be good, IMO. Add that to his maturity and injuries and well, there you have it.

[nate33]

Yes. Absolutely. We will be a bottom 8 team in 2025-26. Guaranteed.

Does look that way -- our 35 wins in '22-23 put us in the bottom 8.

If that's the case, then the other aspects of getting the pick back clearly aren't worth using $18.8 million in cap space.

But I do think guaranteed is too strong. Over the last seven seasons:

Wins for 8th place teams: 35, 33, 31, 28.5 (82-game equivalent because shortened for covid), 33, 28, 33
Wins for 9th place teams: 37, 34, 31, 29 (82-game equivalent because shortened for covid), 33, 29, 33

I looked at 8th place, too, because it is possible that a team below 8 could jump up in the lottery.

As Nate said in the offseason thread, with the variability of the 3 ball, it is hard these days to win or lose more than 60 games in a season. Is it crazy to think that we could boost that minimum 22 wins to 28 or 29 (or even 31) with, say, a third season Bilal, positive development from Deni, Poole dropping 25, and two additional lottery picks? Maybe. There are a whole lot of "ifs" in my scenario.

In some ways, I'm sorry to continue this debate. I'm just spitballing here, and guessing aplenty. I fully agree that the chance of losing the pick is low. I just don't think it is zero (or that close to it).

The way I look at it, we haven’t even started the rebuild yet. Most teams start their rebuild with a decision to tank by the trade deadline end up with a top-five pick. We decided way too late to tank, so our pick is 8th, not really a very good pick historically. Basically, we are still very much on the down slope. We won’t bottom out until we get a high pick and give him a full year to develop. Then, maybe, we will start climbing our way out of the bottom.

I target the 2025-2026 season to be the 1st season where we actually make substantial improvement over the prior season. And by substantial improvement, I mean improving from 16+18 wins to maybe 22+24 wins. I don’t see us vying for the play in tournament until the following season.

[dckingsfan]

Does look that way -- our 35 wins in '22-23 put us in the bottom 8.

If that's the case, then the other aspects of getting the pick back clearly aren't worth using $18.8 million in cap space.

But I do think guaranteed is too strong. Over the last seven seasons:

Wins for 8th place teams: 35, 33, 31, 28.5 (82-game equivalent because shortened for covid), 33, 28, 33
Wins for 9th place teams: 37, 34, 31, 29 (82-game equivalent because shortened for covid), 33, 29, 33

I looked at 8th place, too, because it is possible that a team below 8 could jump up in the lottery.

As Nate said in the offseason thread, with the variability of the 3 ball, it is hard these days to win or lose more than 60 games in a season. Is it crazy to think that we could boost that minimum 22 wins to 28 or 29 (or even 31) with, say, a third season Bilal, positive development from Deni, Poole dropping 25, and two additional lottery picks? Maybe. There are a whole lot of "ifs" in my scenario.

In some ways, I'm sorry to continue this debate. I'm just spitballing here, and guessing aplenty. I fully agree that the chance of losing the pick is low. I just don't think it is zero (or that close to it).

The way I look at it, we haven’t even started the rebuild yet. Most teams start their rebuild with a decision to tank by the trade deadline end up with a top-five pick. We decided way too late to tank, so our pick is 8th, not really a very good pick historically. Basically, we are still very much on the down slope. We won’t bottom out until we get a high pick and give him a full year to develop. Then, maybe, we will start climbing our way out of the bottom.

I target the 2025-2026 season to be the 1st season where we actually make substantial improvement over the prior season. And by substantial improvement, I mean improving from 16+18 wins to maybe 22+24 wins. I don’t see us vying for the play in tournament until the following season.

This. We don't even need to trade Wright or Morris before the season starts. Wait until a PG goes down for a defending team. For example.

[payitforward]

Some things you really can't calculate.

It's a low likelihood that we lose the pick, but we still have to make optimal team-development decisions, & if we hit on a lucky pick that accelerated it -- e.g. an exceptionally good R2 pick -- no one's going to complain.

In any case, whether we do or don't trade Morris, Wright or anybody is a decision that will be based on the specific opportunity.

I'm not predicting anything, but I'll be surprised if there are not another 3 (or more) roster changes before the season starts.

[The Consiglieri]

I don’t understand. As you point out, that pick we owe the. Is very unlikely to convey, so it really is two 2nds. Essentially we get absolutely nothing in return from the Knicks. We are turning Jones into Fournier with no compensation at all.

Thanks, nate.... I was trying to figure out what I wasn't understanding in JAR's idea....
Wait... I just saw Jar's explanation.

The R1 pick isn't going to convey. Hence this trade amounts to giving the Knicks 2 R2 picks now rather than later. In return for which we eat Fournier's expiring salary. Don't see a reason to do this.

My view is that guaranteeing the return of our R1 pick now has value. My guess (and it is a guess) is that the chance the pick conveys to the Knicks is 25-30%. We will be terrible next year and almost certainly in 2024-25. But are we guaranteed to be bottom 8 in 2025-26? I don't think so. OKC did it's teardown after the 2019-20 season. Last season was the third season after that, and they finished 11th worst in the league. Of course, their teardown brought back SGA and they have drafted/traded pretty well since then, but it is certainly possible we are in the conversation for 9th worst in 2025-26.

Getting the pick back also provides certainty and flexibility. As for flexibility, I was very happy that the protections on the pick tied the hands of the last administration in trading future firsts. I shudder to think Tommy and team might have done if they weren't lashed to the mast. It is too early to fully judge, but I don't feel that was about the new kids on the block. If there might be something massive to be gained by trading our 2027 pick at the 2026 deadline, it would be nice to have that flexibility.

It is also helpful for planning and playing to have the certainty of having our own pick back. Let's say in the spring of 2026 our record is good enough that we could be considering a push for the play-in. If the Knicks would get our pick in that situation, there will be a significant incentive to semi-tank. I'd rather be in a position to let the team go for it than pull our punches, and potentially lose out on the developmental benefits of being in a playoff (OK, play in) race.

I also agree that there is some value in having a French-speaker on the team this season for Bilal, but that is a fairly minor consideration. I very much doubt that Fournier would be flippable at the deadline with his salary, but stranger things have happened.

Edited: I see Gambix made similar points while I was writing this.

Basically I can see us making a trade to take away any risk in the 2025-2026 season, but wed be getting more than just that security to eat a bad deal because the chances of us potentially losing that pick in a trade are quite low, if we eat a very real, very tangible ---- contract, we need a lot more than a ghost draft pick for our trouble. If they're still game, cool, if not, then no.

[gambitx777]

Am I the only person who thinks we could be way better than people think we might be the next 2 years.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[The Consiglieri]

[My guess (and it is a guess) is that the chance the pick conveys to the Knicks is 25-30%. We will be terrible next year and almost certainly in 2024-25. But are we guaranteed to be bottom 8 in 2025-26? I don't think so.

Yes. Absolutely. We will be a bottom 8 team in 2025-26. Guaranteed.

Does look that way -- our 35 wins in '22-23 put us in the bottom 8.

And we're likely to be minus Kispert, and potentially minus Deni at that point.

I think the only risk to the pick is if the team eats crappy contracts and is stupid enough to have a coach playing the vets w/the crappy contracts instead of the young players and the vets are reasonably decent, but even then its nearly impossible to believe that that will happen. I don't think it's 1 in 3, I think it's more like 1 in 15 to 1 in 20 chance.

The roster that season will still likely be a couple of bad contracts, plus draftees from '23, '24, and '25, plus maybe Deni, plus rando free agent scrubs, and maybe speculative cheap undrafted free agent types we signed. We will at most have a big 1 at that point, not a big 2 or big 3, and that will likely guarantee bottom 3 finishes pre lottery the next 2-4 years minimum. The only things that can change it to me are if we land a franchise player early (highly unlikely considering the quality of the drafts in '24 and '25) and if we have veterans and young players rocketing up our floor and a weird thing happens with the lottery where 3 teams jump ahead of us which strikes me as highly unlikely.

So yeah, generally speaking I agree w/the common perspective that wasting a bad contract on a pick unlikely to convey is probably a waste of time and value. It's also worth noting, the most likely scenario if the pick does convey, is that something really, really good happened (we landed a monster stud) in which case we won't care as much, or something fan ending worthy happens (the team just totally botches the rebuild with high performing vets) at which point you should abandon fandom anyway lol, or at least take a long half decade vacation from wizards fandom.

[mhd]

My latest:

Wiz trade Gallo (expiring)+Morris (expiring) for Fournier (expiring)+protected Wiz future 1st (via Knicks)
Houston trades 2024 OKC 2nd for Morris
Knicks trade Fournier (team option (i.e. expiring))+future protected Wiz 1st for Gallo (expiring)+2024 OKC 2nd (via Houston)


Why for the Knicks?
1). They save some serious cash as the difference between Gallo & Fournier in salary is 12.1 million.
2). The protected Wizards first probably never conveys considering the Wiz are rebuilding. They get a 2024 2nd for their troubles of relinquishing the pick.
3). Gallo actually would help them as a stretch big.

Why for the Rockets?
1). They need a vet PG for all the young guys. Morris has always had a great A/T ratio and he doesn't make much money. They have the raw cap space to absorb him in. All it costs is a 2nd rounder that will likely be in the 45-60 range.

Why for the Wiz?
1). Get their pick back allowing them flexibility in the future and some relief in the unlikely case they are good in 2-3 years.
2). Fournier could help as a fellow frenchman for newest Wiz Bilal.
3). Clear a roster spot.

[The Consiglieri]

Does look that way -- our 35 wins in '22-23 put us in the bottom 8.

If that's the case, then the other aspects of getting the pick back clearly aren't worth using $18.8 million in cap space.

But I do think guaranteed is too strong. Over the last seven seasons:

Wins for 8th place teams: 35, 33, 31, 28.5 (82-game equivalent because shortened for covid), 33, 28, 33
Wins for 9th place teams: 37, 34, 31, 29 (82-game equivalent because shortened for covid), 33, 29, 33

I looked at 8th place, too, because it is possible that a team below 8 could jump up in the lottery.

As Nate said in the offseason thread, with the variability of the 3 ball, it is hard these days to win or lose more than 60 games in a season. Is it crazy to think that we could boost that minimum 22 wins to 28 or 29 (or even 31) with, say, a third season Bilal, positive development from Deni, Poole dropping 25, and two additional lottery picks? Maybe. There are a whole lot of "ifs" in my scenario.

In some ways, I'm sorry to continue this debate. I'm just spitballing here, and guessing aplenty. I fully agree that the chance of losing the pick is low. I just don't think it is zero (or that close to it).

The way I look at it, we haven’t even started the rebuild yet. Most teams start their rebuild with a decision to tank by the trade deadline end up with a top-five pick. We decided way too late to tank, so our pick is 8th, not really a very good pick historically. Basically, we are still very much on the down slope. We won’t bottom out until we get a high pick and give him a full year to develop. Then, maybe, we will start climbing our way out of the bottom.

I target the 2025-2026 season to be the 1st season where we actually make substantial improvement over the prior season. And by substantial improvement, I mean improving from 16+18 wins to maybe 22+24 wins. I don’t see us vying for the play in tournament until the following season.

You're read is my read as well. I remain flummoxed at how many people talk about doing the OKC thing, or Houston thing, or Orlando thing or whatever, and I keep trying to mention (about the one and only thing I seem to notice more than others) that every team that's bottomed out the last 15 years has done those tear down trades you refer to early or at least at the midway point. We're the only team stupid enough to wait until it was too late with literally every single high value player on our roster that could have provided seed money metaphorically to invest in the rebuild. Rui went for chump change, Beal went for chump change, Porzingis went for chump change, Kuzma went for nothing, Deni or Kispert will go next, and if the team is smart, they'll deal Kispert sooner rather than later while he has more time on that rookie deal (I cannot see a scenario where a guy was openly questioning the Front Office after his first two seasons, would stick around with an already botched early rebuild).

The facts are the team has some more nose diving to finish, we were, very odd last year: if you break the season into thematic parts, you have this:

10-10 first 20 games.
1-10 next 10 games.
19-11 next 30 games between Christmas Break and Trade Deadline
5-15 finish


Like, what do you even call that?

A ---- show season for sure, and perfectly tailored to destroy team building strategies by providing a false sense of competitiveness before the trade deadline and destroy draft slotting capital value but I'm not sure what else.

Now, exiting that season, we have nothing of consequence on the roster beyond complimentary players, crap veterans, a couple of tradeable vets, and Poole's attempt to resurrect his value so he can get the hell out of here and play on a competitive team.

We'll see what happens, but the team is definitely in the dumpster fire, and without the assets teams normally have which provide short cuts in rebuilds. We don't have a pick that could have gotten us Rubio/Curry in '09, nor 3 firsts the following year like we did in '10, nor basically 5 consecutive drafts with top 5/6 picks, and multiple top 3 picks like we did to construct our previous rebuild 15 years ago. We've got our own picks and seconds and more difficult odds to win the lottery and finish top 3.

It's a recipe for a rebuild that will take twice as long as last time.

[Frichuela]

My latest:

Wiz trade Gallo (expiring)+Morris (expiring) for Fournier (expiring)+protected Wiz future 1st (via Knicks)
Houston trades 2024 OKC 2nd for Morris
Knicks trade Fournier (team option (i.e. expiring))+future protected Wiz 1st for Gallo (expiring)+2024 OKC 2nd (via Houston)


Why for the Knicks?
1). They save some serious cash as the difference between Gallo & Fournier in salary is 12.1 million.
2). The protected Wizards first probably never conveys considering the Wiz are rebuilding. They get a 2024 2nd for their troubles of relinquishing the pick.
3). Gallo actually would help them as a stretch big.

Why for the Rockets?
1). They need a vet PG for all the young guys. Morris has always had a great A/T ratio and he doesn't make much money. They have the raw cap space to absorb him in. All it costs is a 2nd rounder that will likely be in the 45-60 range.

Why for the Wiz?
1). Get their pick back allowing them flexibility in the future and some relief in the unlikely case they are good in 2-3 years.
2). Fournier could help as a fellow frenchman for newest Wiz Bilal.
3). Clear a roster spot.

Sensible proposal. I would just try to grab Garuba off Houston’s hands. He is likely to be buried in Houston’s bench so they should be open to trade him. Garuba is a great defensive prospect with court vision and a developing 3pt shoot (particularly from the corners). He is able to both protect the rim and defend the perimeter. He would fit perfectly as a front court partner of Vukcevic off the bench. He could also play as a small ball center in a Bilal-Deni-Garuba strong and switchable defensive line-up.

[payitforward]

The way I look at it, we haven’t even started the rebuild yet. ...Basically, we are still very much on the down slope. We won’t bottom out until we get a high pick and give him a full year to develop. Then, maybe, we will start climbing our way out of the bottom.

I target the 2025-2026 season to be the 1st season where we actually make substantial improvement over the prior season. And by substantial improvement, I mean improving from 16+18 wins to maybe 22+24 wins. I don’t see us vying for the play in tournament until the following season.

Assuming that every rebuild starts with a tear-down, I'd say ours started with the Beal trade.
But, so what... you are right in the more important sense: with the exception of our draft, we haven't yet added a single player who is part of a rebuilding plan.