Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVII

[gambitx777]

What's the feeling around Washington? Are they going blow it up this off season? Think Beal becomes available? Or is he untouchable?

Because if y'all are looking to start over been messing around the Trade machine on ESPN. Beal for Fournier and Bamba works. Obviously judging we resign Vuc.

Bamba is a decent chip to start the rebuild around. Plus Fournier's contract becomes more manageable after this year with only 2 years left on it. Evan is competent but if he is your lead off guard he will help you get a high pick next year lol. Then he becomes tradeable with one year left on his deal. Think he would be really good as a 3rd or fourth option on a contender now.

We just won't win without upgrading our 2 spot. Beal is the piece we need in my estimation. I'd be willing to throw in our first in 2020 as well.

Of course all this is moot if y'all arent in blowup mode.

There's very little chance they trade Beal. It sounds like he's committed to the Wizards, and the Wizards are committed to him. Of course, there's always a chance that changes, but it would take a huge offer, and Fournier and Bamba does not cut it. Look at Beal's stats since the all-star game (which he was in), and compare them to Fournier's - he's slipped badly this season, and while Bomba's a nice piece, gotta wonder about him getting a stress fracture while averaging just 16 minutes a game.

The wizards are more likely to use a high first to dump wall than they are trading Beal imo.

[nate33]

Yes. I think it could very well be a win-win trade.

I think PIF has a point that, Simmons may be more intrinsically talented than Beal and is capable of ultimately doing more things that contribute to winning. The problem with Simmons is that he is unwilling or unable to space the floor, which limits the type of teammates he is likely to excel alongside. As it stands now, Embiid happens to be the type of teammate that doesn't mesh ideally with Simmons' skill set.

Beal strikes me as a guy who is damn near as good as Simmons, but also way more complementary to the other pieces they already have on the roster. Trading Simmons for Beal might ultimately lead to more wins for Philly, even if Simmons is slightly better than Beal in the abstract.

Right, Philly doesn't need to "win the trade" to become a better team.

...& presumably we would also win more games? Sorry, no. Basketball is a zero sum game: a trade cannot make both teams better. Period.

Moreover, Simmons is not "slightly better than Beal in the abstract," he's much better than Brad concretely, while both guys are on the floor playing the game. And again, that is not a ding on Brad Beal!

Yes, this year Brad has scored 7.66 more points than Simmons per 40 minutes. But, his TS% is actually a little lower than Ben's. & when you look at the rest of the stuff, it just absolutely blows you away! Start with:

6.5 more possessions to other teammates from taking fewer shots
3.7 more possessions to teammates from getting more defensive boards

That is 10.2 extra possessions per 40 minutes for the rest of the team from having Ben Simmons instead of Brad Beal, the net effect of which is a lot more than 7.66 extra points.

Again... this isn't about Brad Beal! It's about a guy who is on his own level.

I'm sure Zards remembers predicting that, unless he developed a jump shot, Simmons would decline this season, because the league would have scouted him. Well, his jump shot is unchanged -- but he is better than last season not worse.

Ben Simmons is 22.

Sigh.

You are a broken record with this stuff. The problem with this evaluation is that things like rebounds and steals are measured by box score stats, but things like spacing the floor and drawing defensive attention away from teammates despite not having the ball are not similarly measured. Simmons can produce more box score stats without being a better player than Beal.

And it's ludicrous to state that there is no such thing as a win-win trade. If one team has two awesome PG's and no decent center, and the other team has two awesome centers and no decent PG, then trading one of the spare PG's for one of the spare C's is likely to make both teams better than they were before.

[payitforward]

Well, of course, if there are guys who don't play & they are traded for guys who do play, then both teams can win. Foolish of me not to note that explicitly.

But, if you exchange 2 players who both play lets say 2500 minutes per season, then the result depends entirely on who puts up the better numbers -- because, as we all know, numbers & only numbers win games.

The other subject you raise -- the effect of one guy's play on the numbers other players' put up -- is an interesting one. It too has been studied. I assume we are treating this as an empirical matter, right? Not a picture of the world drawn in someone's mind which is "correct" because it seems so correct in that mind? Do I have that right? By and large the effects are minor.

In a way, debates like this are foolish, & I should (& I will) try to stay out of them. It's a little bit like the idea of "clutch" or "being good when it counts," which operates on the assumption that somehow when the score is counted up to find the winner, points scored at one point in the game weigh more heavily than those scored at another point in the game.

Of course, as well, no one likes to be called "a broken record," when what they are doing is reminding fellow-conversationalists that you can't divide by zero or what the structure is of a quadratic equation or the definition of the figure of speech anadiplosis or the fact that there is no such thing as a universe-wide "present tense," etc. For that reason, confrontational though I no doubt am, I try not to characterize my comrades here too tightly. But... I fail often enough, don't I? & I do characterize them.

Bradley Beal is a wonderful basketball player. So is Ben Simmons. If your unbroken record, the one that keeps playing past minor scratches, was characterized by being a fan of, say, the Milwaukee Bucks, you would have no difficulty in understanding that Ben Simmons is an even more wonderful basketball player than Brad, & that the difference between them isn't a minor one. Or so I assume in any case. All fans overvalue their own players, "fan" being a shortening of "fanatic" after all.

Still... arguments are rarely enlightening; usually they simply devolve into people repeating their previously stated positions rather than finding a way to use "difference" as a tool for understanding or even discovery. Worse yet, these repetitions are often characterized by increasing overstatement of the positions of the parties.

Got to be something better to do than that, right? Do you like science fiction, nate? Have you read the work of Samuel R. Delaney? His first novel was published when he was 18, I believe. By his mid-twenties he'd won 3 Nebula awards. He's won at least 2 Hugo Awards (the ne plus ultra of the field). Guy's a genius, really.

He's also black. & gay. Both still sort of unusual for the field. For a long time there were no women sci-fi writers to speak of either. Now there's Ursula Leguin. I haven't read a word by her. I rarely read anything by women writers (except by friends). But, ssshh... don't tell anyone, please -- I don't want to get a rep.

There's my win-win trade for tonight. Off to bed!

[prime1time]

Yes. I think it could very well be a win-win trade.

I think PIF has a point that, Simmons may be more intrinsically talented than Beal and is capable of ultimately doing more things that contribute to winning. The problem with Simmons is that he is unwilling or unable to space the floor, which limits the type of teammates he is likely to excel alongside. As it stands now, Embiid happens to be the type of teammate that doesn't mesh ideally with Simmons' skill set.

Beal strikes me as a guy who is damn near as good as Simmons, but also way more complementary to the other pieces they already have on the roster. Trading Simmons for Beal might ultimately lead to more wins for Philly, even if Simmons is slightly better than Beal in the abstract.

Right, Philly doesn't need to "win the trade" to become a better team.

...& presumably we would also win more games? Sorry, no. Basketball is a zero sum game: a trade cannot make both teams better. Period.

Moreover, Simmons is not "slightly better than Beal in the abstract," he's much better than Brad concretely, while both guys are on the floor playing the game. And again, that is not a ding on Brad Beal!

Yes, this year Brad has scored 7.66 more points than Simmons per 40 minutes. But, his TS% is actually a little lower than Ben's. & when you look at the rest of the stuff, it just absolutely blows you away! Start with:

6.5 more possessions to other teammates from taking fewer shots
3.7 more possessions to teammates from getting more defensive boards

That is 10.2 extra possessions per 40 minutes for the rest of the team from having Ben Simmons instead of Brad Beal, the net effect of which is a lot more than 7.66 extra points.

Again... this isn't about Brad Beal! It's about a guy who is on his own level.

I'm sure Zards remembers predicting that, unless he developed a jump shot, Simmons would decline this season, because the league would have scouted him. Well, his jump shot is unchanged -- but he is better than last season not worse.

Ben Simmons is 22.

I wasn't going to respond but all of this praise for Simmons has forced me to. Beal is a better player than Simmons right now. And there's a good chance that Simmons will never be better than Brad. You can take Brad and put him on any team and his game could fit right in. Ben Simmons' inability to shoot limits any offense he plays for. I look forward to the playoffs when good teams and good defenses make the 76ers pay for having Simmons on the floor with Embiid. Do you remember his 0-4 1 point game in the playoffs last year? That wasn't an aberration. In a slow pace, half court game how does Ben Simmons score? And, perhaps more importantly, what happens when Ben Simmons doesn't have the ball? Is his defender helping to stop other players? I predict that Simmons terrible shooting will bottleneck his improvement and he will stagnate as a player. Very much like how Wall stopped getting better.

Here's a thought experiment. Switch Ben Simmons for Klay Thompson. Do the Warriors get better or worse?

[prime1time]

If I'm the 76ers I take that trade and don't look back. Beal compliments the 76ers pieces perfectly. He spaces the floor so everyone else can do their thing without a help defender lurking. He can create for others. And he doesn't force offense. Tbh, if you just focus on what Beal has done since Wall went down, it's actually kind of outlandish to even suggest that Simmons is on the same level as Beal. Since Wall has gone down, Beal has provided efficient high volume scoring while also creating for others and being a solid rebounder. But the best thing about Beal, is that he's still getting better. There's still room for him to improve! There's no reason why Beal can't get up to 10/11 threes in a game. And as his ball handling improves, there's no reason why he can't average 7-8 Free throws a game. Here's a question for everyone. Is Bradley Beal on James Harden growth curve?

Bradley will never be the passer that James is, but there are a lot of similarities between the two players. And, as Harden has shown, players with this kind of skillset can really improve their game. For the month of March Beal averaged 31, 7 and 5 on 52.4% shooting from the field, 33% from the three point line on 7.3 3 pointers attempted a game and 7.3 free throws a game. He's doing that being the only real weapons the Wiz have. But, looking at those numbers, Bradley can still get better. Increase the number of 3's attempted to 10 or 11.

[payitforward]

This is really a pointless exchange. I'm sorry I commented at all on the Beal-Simmons fantasy trade.

People have pictures in their minds, & they think those pictures are reality. Key to most of those pictures is the belief that a guy who scores more points than another guy is a better player than that guy. & the reason that he's better, of course, is because he scores more points. & why does he score more points? Because he's a better player, obviously. I mean... do you see how many points Brad scores?

Etc. etc. etc. as the toy train goes around and around the track....

edit: I forgot -- if the Warriors had Ben Simmons instead of Klay Thompson they would threaten to go 82-0 every year & win the title in 16 games.

[Ruzious]

Yes. I think it could very well be a win-win trade.

I think PIF has a point that, Simmons may be more intrinsically talented than Beal and is capable of ultimately doing more things that contribute to winning. The problem with Simmons is that he is unwilling or unable to space the floor, which limits the type of teammates he is likely to excel alongside. As it stands now, Embiid happens to be the type of teammate that doesn't mesh ideally with Simmons' skill set.

Beal strikes me as a guy who is damn near as good as Simmons, but also way more complementary to the other pieces they already have on the roster. Trading Simmons for Beal might ultimately lead to more wins for Philly, even if Simmons is slightly better than Beal in the abstract.

Right, Philly doesn't need to "win the trade" to become a better team.

...& presumably we would also win more games? Sorry, no. Basketball is a zero sum game: a trade cannot make both teams better. Period.

To me, that's an insane comment, and it probably gets to the heart of most of our disagreements over ther years. We're not using the same basic logic.

[dckingsfan]

Well, you could start with a logical assertion here.

Assume one team had 15 guards on the roster. Assume another team has 15 front court players on the roster. Most likely any trade between the two would make both teams better.

[Ruzious]

Well, you could start with a logical assertion here.

Assume one team had 15 guards on the roster. Assume another team has 15 front court players on the roster. Most likely any trade between the two would make both teams better.

Correct. And a team isn't just a collection of assets that retain the same values and that are fluidly traded from day to day. Each player has different plusses and minuses that affect the synergy of the team.

[payitforward]

Both your points are correct, & I mentioned that in a follow up. Of course, neither of your points apply to the specific situation -- we would be trading one guard for another guard, & we would be trading two players each of whom play heavy minutes now & would play heavy minutes in the fantasy world of the trade.

Denying that how the two guys play would be key to judging the trade is... lets just say it's something you can't really mean to suggest.

[payitforward]

...a team isn't just a collection of assets that retain the same values and that are fluidly traded from day to day. Each player has different plusses and minuses that affect the synergy of the team.

If I understand you, you are saying either --

1. As a general rule, players change quite a bit as they move from team to team -- i.e. the numbers they put up do.

Or you are saying:

2. Although guys stay more or less the same (leaving aside the normal arc of development > peak > decline), still, as a general rule players' impact on their teammates' numbers -- & therefore on the team -- changes quite a bit as they move from team to team. I.e., the other guys' numbers change in a significant way.

Or maybe both? Well, for sure there are examples of both of those things happening -- no doubt about it. But, as a general rule, I don't think either is the case.

Still, it should be easy for you to support the position.

Btw, I don't think you mean to say #1. If you did, then why would you claim that Brad Beal will be the same player for the Sixers that he is for us & therefore would help them in the ways you mention?

It's the second variant that's really an interesting claim. I'd love to see some actual empirical support for it. I don't think you will be able to find much. Now, obviously we're not talking about a new player arriving & someone has to sit, so that person's numbers change. Duh. I see you as making a different kind of claim that is kind of summed up in the word "synergy" -- am I right?

If I'm right, what are some examples where that happened? &, can you think of examples where it wasn't true?

E.g. when LeBron, Bosh & Wade were suddenly on the same team -- they hadn't played together in the past -- that was an enormous difference. Did it happen in that case? If so, which one of them got worse because the others were there? Or, for that matter, which one of them put much better numbers because the others were there? Or even significantly different numbers?

Maybe that's not a good example. Look forward to hearing about one.

[Ruzious]

...a team isn't just a collection of assets that retain the same values and that are fluidly traded from day to day. Each player has different plusses and minuses that affect the synergy of the team.

If I understand you, you are saying either --

1. As a general rule, players change quite a bit as they move from team to team -- i.e. the numbers they put up do.

Or you are saying:

2. Although guys stay more or less the same (leaving aside the normal arc of development > peak > decline), still, as a general rule players' impact on their teammates' numbers -- & therefore on the team -- changes quite a bit as they move from team to team. I.e., the other guys' numbers change in a significant way.

Or maybe both? Well, for sure there are examples of both of those things happening -- no doubt about it. But, as a general rule, I don't think either is the case.

Still, it should be easy for you to support the position.

Btw, I don't think you mean to say #1. If you did, then why would you claim that Brad Beal will be the same player for the Sixers that he is for us & therefore would help them in the ways you mention?

It's the second variant that's really an interesting claim. I'd love to see some actual empirical support for it. I don't think you will be able to find much. Now, obviously we're not talking about a new player arriving & someone has to sit, so that person's numbers change. Duh. I see you as making a different kind of claim that is kind of summed up in the word "synergy" -- am I right?

If I'm right, what are some examples where that happened? &, can you think of examples where it wasn't true?

E.g. when LeBron, Bosh & Wade were suddenly on the same team -- they hadn't played together in the past -- that was an enormous difference. Did it happen in that case? If so, which one of them got worse because the others were there? Or, for that matter, which one of them put much better numbers because the others were there? Or even significantly different numbers?

Maybe that's not a good example. Look forward to hearing about one.

Sorry, don't have the patience or time right now - maybe later.

[gambitx777]

Look, I want wall gone so bad. If we jump the loto and we can u loaf him for that and we get junk and a late first back in return or something like that I might be happy .

[nate33]

Look, I want wall gone so bad. If we jump the loto and we can u loaf him for that and we get junk and a late first back in return or something like that I might be happy .

I get the sentiment, but my question to you is, what's the hurry?

What do we gain by having Wall off the roster this summer? Are we going to land Kevin Durant or Kawhi Leonard with the cap room?

The answer to that question is, "no".

Understand that free agency is typically a sucker's game. Bidding up free agents in an open market, particularly in a season with a lot of money chasing not so many players, is a recipe for overpaying players. In free agency, the values are max contracts for elite players, and vet-minimum contracts for overlooked players. So, assuming we have no opportunity to land a free agent who is actually a bargain on a max contract (Durant, Kawhi), then all we would do with the cap room generated by dumping Wall is to sign other overpriced free agents. It's better to reap the value of that 1st round pick, who can hopefully get us a guy like Hunter who can be a starter in 3 of the next 4 years at price of about $4M a year, and maybe he turns out to be a legit star and is a value on his 2nd contract as well (like Beal).

Also, every year that we postpone trading Wall, the cost to dump him becomes cheaper as he gets healthier and his contract gets shorter, and the chances that some foolish team becomes desperate for a "star" becomes greater.

[Jay81]

it hurts knowing that we could of traded wall this year to the lakers and we rejected their offer. What a terrible organization we are

[DCZards]

Fascinating Beal vs. Simmons debate. And, yes, PIF, I do recall saying that Simmons #s would take a hit once teams force him to become a shooter, which is what was done in the playoffs last year and will be done again this year. Ben’s perimeter shooting and his FT% shooting can be a liability…no question about that.

But kudos to Ben for having an even better regular season this year than he did last year. If I’m the Sixers though, I’d probably trade Simmons for Beal. It would be a tough call—for both teams, imo—but fit, synergy and team balance matter (sometimes more than stats) and Beal could very well be a better fit alongside Embiid, Harris, Butler, etc. than Simmons.

It's a big mistake to look at the Beal vs. Simmons stats in a vacuum.

[payitforward]

Fascinating Beal vs. Simmons debate. And, yes, PIF, I do recall saying that Simmons #s would take a hit once teams force him to become a shooter, which is what was done in the playoffs last year and will be done again this year. Ben’s perimeter shooting and his FT% shooting can be a liability…no question about that.

But kudos to Ben for having an even better regular season this year than he did last year. If I’m the Sixers though, I’d probably trade Simmons for Beal. It would be a tough call—for both teams, imo—but fit, synergy and team balance matter (sometimes more than stats) and Beal could very well be a better fit alongside Embiid, Harris, Butler, etc. than Simmons.

It's a big mistake to look at the Beal vs. Simmons stats in a vacuum.

Zards, I try never to look at anything in a vacuum -- it's too hard to breathe!

Help me to understand what you mean by "fit, synergy and team balance matter (sometimes more than stats)." Are you suggesting that -- to use our current example -- if Brad moved to the Sixers while Simmons was removed from the Sixers, the better "...fit, synergy and team balance" would mean the the Sixers overall team stats would get better -- while Brad's numbers would stay more or less the same? I.e. the improved "fit, etc." would show itself in other players getting better numbers with Brad in place than they do now w/ Ben in place?

Or do you mean that because of the improved "fit, etc." Brad's numbers would be better than they are with the Wizards -- i.e. better than those that Ben had been putting up before Brad replaced him -- while everyone else on the Sixers would stay about the same? The result still being better overall team stats?

Or, do you mean both? Or, if neither is what you mean -- then what am I missing?

Maybe an even simpler approach would be for me to ask: would better "fit, synergy and team balance" be reflected in better overall team numbers? & if they would not be reflected in better numbers, where would their impact be felt?

[thricethefun]

Hey guys, how's everyone? My first post in a while here. I am of the mindset that we should cash in on Beal's tremendous growth this season this summer and look to move him. While Beal is awesome it will be hard to see us building a contender with Wall and Beal both making so much money and Wall not being what he was after the Achilles. I don't see us as a very forward thinking organization so I don't see Ted actually signing off on this but I think if our goal is actually building a contender in the future I do think the Beal trade would get us on the right track.

[nate33]

Hey guys, how's everyone? My first post in a while here. I am of the mindset that we should cash in on Beal's tremendous growth this season this summer and look to move him. While Beal is awesome it will be hard to see us building a contender with Wall and Beal both making so much money and Wall not being what he was after the Achilles. I don't see us as a very forward thinking organization so I don't see Ted actually signing off on this but I think if our goal is actually building a contender in the future I do think the Beal trade would get us on the right track.

I was in favor of that plan 2 months ago when Beal was a borderline All-Star but not necessarily a superstar. It was possible to envision some trades where we got back enough value to justify trading Beal. I don't think that's the case anymore. Beal has emerged as a legit All-NBA caliber player. Since Wall's injury, Beal has averaged 29, 7 and 6 with a .600 TS%. That's 25-year-old James Harden caliber production - a true superstar. Teams never get fair value when they trade a superstar.

Just name me the trade scenario where a team gives fair value for Beal and I'll consider it. I just can't think of one, short of Dallas or New York landing Zion and trading him for Beal. I wouldn't trade Beal for the poo-poo platter of mediocre young Lakers prospects for example. And I wouldn't trade him for a collection of future 1sts belonging to a team that had Beal carrying them to a .500 or better record.

[Ruzious]

Hey guys, how's everyone? My first post in a while here. I am of the mindset that we should cash in on Beal's tremendous growth this season this summer and look to move him. While Beal is awesome it will be hard to see us building a contender with Wall and Beal both making so much money and Wall not being what he was after the Achilles. I don't see us as a very forward thinking organization so I don't see Ted actually signing off on this but I think if our goal is actually building a contender in the future I do think the Beal trade would get us on the right track.

I was in favor of that plan 2 months ago when Beal was a borderline All-Star but not necessarily a superstar. It was possible to envision some trades where we got back enough value to justify trading Beal. I don't think that's the case anymore. Beal has emerged as a legit All-NBA caliber player. Since Wall's injury, Beal has averaged 29, 7 and 6 with a .600 TS%. That's 25-year-old James Harden caliber production - a true superstar. Teams never get fair value when they trade a superstar.

Just name me the trade scenario where a team gives fair value for Beal and I'll consider it. I just can't think of one, short of Dallas or New York landing Zion and trading him for Beal. I wouldn't trade Beal for the poo-poo platter of mediocre young Lakers prospects for example. And I wouldn't trade him for a collection of future 1sts belonging to a team that had Beal carrying them to a .500 or better record.

And going back to 2 months ago, a trade revolving around Beal and Anthony Davis would have been laughable, but now... Beal and next year's first for Davis would at least be somewhat reasonable - if both teams felt they had a good shot at re-signing them.