Woj: Deni to Portland for 14th pick and Brogdon

[Silvie Lysandra]

A lot of it is that it's easier to pretend a hard choice is actually easy. Deni is absolutely capable of being a 3rd, or maybe even a low end 2nd option on a contender. But what is he as a 1st option? Because unless you're projecting a Giannis level breakout from Sarr or Bilal, he's your first option. Period. And he's almost certainly not good enough as a first option. Sure, he might prove us wrong, but its simply not likely. And if Deni is your first option, you're a treadmill team, exactly the thing we brought in Dawkins and Winger *not* to be.

The idea that we could have somehow tanked nearly as much as this season (btw, we also kind of have to tank next year unless Flagg or Harper provide ATG level impact, or Sarr/Bilal blow up into stars) while playing a "3rd best player on a contender" 30 mins a game at a position that directly takes minutes away from our worst players, is kind of wild to me. Don't say Lauri Markkanen, he's looked more like his Chi/Cle days in terms of production. and isn't remotely the same defender. Btw, the Jazz have been trying to trade him for years, and will likely have to take pennies on the dollar, because they did exactly what this board is saying to do, which is hold out for a grandfather deal. Also, when Lauri *was playing at an All-Star level, they won 37 and 30 games. Was that all him? No, but it's really hard to tank with borderline All-Stars playing like borderline all-stars, especially when they're multi-tool players like Deni.

Does it suck to trade away an all-star multi-tool wing in his prime? Yes. Can you envision building a decent team around him, maybe even a 50 win team? Yes. Is there a risk all this blows up in our face and we have to start all over again in 4 years? Yes. But the road not taken involves treadmilling until we luck into a Giannis or a Jokic or even get a chance to fix the Steph Curry mistake. There's no easy answers, other than that keeping Deni would have resulted in a more watchable team, which I guess means something, but it likely makes it more likely we're *just* watchable. The Wall/Beal teams were watchable. The Arenas teams were watchable. Etc. But I'd love to hope for something more.

[doclinkin]

There's a now rich and well established tradition of people being intensely weird about Deni by denigrating him to bizarre degrees on the board too.

Ha! This again.

I’ve seen the exact opposite. People defending Deni as though he were their baby brother who never did nothin bad and people better stop pickin on him. That’s one thing I don’t miss from the Deni trade, the handful of Deni-only fans who would pop in here to blame everybody else but Deni for basically anything. Even during stretches when his play was subpar. But otherwise they’d disappear on any topic but Deni.



The only thing negative anybody ever said about Deni was that he needed to be more aggressive. And not whine at the refs since that tends to piss them off and they’ll call the game the opposite way. In other words: don’t use Bradley Beal as a role model in this.

That and to shoot better from 3 when he has an open shot. Don’t hesitate. Put it up.

That and when he was drafted I personally doubted if his defense would translate since Euro play allows for more hacking and rough stuff. His footwork proved that not to be true. Then the very next year the refs started allowing more physical play and his defense improved even more. When he wasn’t on the bad side of the refs.

During his transition to ‘Turbo Deni’ he did become more aggressive. He learned to push the ball and outpace defenders so that his weaker interior finishing or lack of a left hand became irrelevant. From that followed confidence and the rest of his game opened up.

Nobody’s in here talking bad about Deni or hurting his feelings. Hell those of us who support the trade do so because he would have added double digit wins in years when we are trying to bottom out and not lose our picks. His growth the year of his breakout was satisfying. Nice to see a young player actually develop on the wizards for once. Why I threw a fit when he was traded. Til I thought about it and saw the reasoning.

But yes. I am glad it’s only Wizards fans arguing in this thread. As opposed to Deni fans. Because that bunch could be hard to take.




By which I mean: hey Woodsy. Good to see ya here. come back when you have things to say on OTHER topics as well. Your brains are appreciated.

[payitforward]

...a team that wants to lose can find all sorts of ways to lose.

You "tank" structurally -- by sacrificing the present for the future (e.g. trading deni for mostly future assets).

When the ball goes up for the tip-off you try your best to win. Make half-hearted efforts & you will never build a good team.

Our kids are out there busting their butts to win every game.

[payitforward]

A lot of it is that it's easier to pretend a hard choice is actually easy. Deni is absolutely capable of being a 3rd, or maybe even a low end 2nd option on a contender. But what is he as a 1st option? Because unless you're projecting a Giannis level breakout from Sarr or Bilal, he's your first option. Period. And he's almost certainly not good enough as a first option. Sure, he might prove us wrong, but its simply not likely. And if Deni is your first option, you're a treadmill team, exactly the thing we brought in Dawkins and Winger *not* to be.

The idea that we could have somehow tanked nearly as much as this season (btw, we also kind of have to tank next year unless Flagg or Harper provide ATG level impact, or Sarr/Bilal blow up into stars) while playing a "3rd best player on a contender" 30 mins a game at a position that directly takes minutes away from our worst players, is kind of wild to me. Don't say Lauri Markkanen, he's looked more like his Chi/Cle days in terms of production. and isn't remotely the defender. Btw, the Jazz have been trying to trade him for years, and will likely have to take pennies on the dollar, because they did exactly what this board is saying to do, which is hold out for a grandfather deal. Also, when Lauri *was playing at an All-Star level, they won 37 and 30 games. Was that all him? No, but it's really hard to tank with borderline All-Stars playing like borderline all-stars, especially when they're multi-tool players like Deni.

Does it suck to trade away an all-star multi-tool wing in his prime? Yes. Can you envision building a decent team around him, maybe even a 50 win team? Yes. Is there a risk all this blows up in our face and we have to start all over again in 4 years? Yes. But the road not taken involves treadmilling until we luck into a Giannis or a Jokic or even get a chance to fix the Steph Curry mistake. There's no easy answers, other than that keeping Deni would have resulted in a more watchable team, which I guess means something, but it likely makes it more likely we're *just* watchable. The Wall/Beal teams were watchable. The Arenas teams were watchable. Etc. But I'd love to hope for something more.

Great post. You nailed it.

[DCZards]

Better players can make you a better team — yes, absolutely. Can give you a team with better players — also true.

And it’s also true that a team that wants to lose can find all sorts of ways to lose.

The only way to lose that I know of is to play your younger, less-experienced, not ready for prime time players…and bench your better players, which is exactly what the Zards have been doing for the most part over the past several weeks.

I’m not aware of the “all sorts of ways to lose” that you’re referring to.

[The Consiglieri]

Oh-well, could the Deni trade be worse than the infamous Chris Webber trade? The Deni trade could go down as the worst in Wizards history.

We need five+ seasons of the past 20 games, not 20 games, and we need to get absolutely ---- all out of what we got in the deal (Bub, another first, multiple 2nd's and a more effective tank probably worth an extra 3-7 more losses (I think 3-4 but 5-7 if he's this god mode thing is definitely possible).

People are hyperventilating over him absolutely kicking --- for a month. The month happened, but the trade to be Webber level stupid needs to be 5x how one sided it currently looks, while also generating no value down stream.

If Deni is this new God Mode version for YEARS, and Bub, the other 1st, the tank, and the 2nds yield little of note, it moves from being a low ball, loss, which is what I said 9 months ago, moves to horrific, but even Webber scale is orders of magnitude worse than it currently looks this past month. You guys apparently forget that the Webber trade gave us nothing of long term value and very little of short term value and it permanently ended a build, while giving Sacramento a Title contender that got robbed of 1 NBA Title due to a dirty ref (probably). A month of God mode isn't close, in any universe, to how bad that deal was 27 years ago, not close.

[The Consiglieri]

The assumption that Deni being here would have kept the team out of the Top 3 worst records isn’t true. We see how it’s done — it’s not hard to play well and, oops, fumble away a game in the fourth.

And admittedly, a huge proportion of our losses have been by double digits, very few of them were close (I believe 3-4 by 5 or less), not many more were by 9 or less. When we get beat, we usually get our ----s kicked.

[badinage]

Better players can make you a better team — yes, absolutely. Can give you a team with better players — also true.

And it’s also true that a team that wants to lose can find all sorts of ways to lose.

The only way to lose that I know of is to play your younger, less-experienced, not ready for prime time players…and bench your better players, which is exactly what the Zards have been doing for the most part over the past several weeks.

I’m not aware of the “all sorts of ways to lose” that you’re referring to.

Should have been clearer: there are all sorts of ways to lose games. Subbing in bad players when you take a big lead. Going with weird lineups down the stretch — i.e., four guards vs. a team of bigs, three centers vs. a team playing three or four guards, etc.). Doing the kinds of things we see Utah doing right now — having Kessler take 7 3s a game and camp out on the perimeter to work on developing his shot (using games, IOW, to practice skills).

[dckingsfan]

The assumption that Deni being here would have kept the team out of the Top 3 worst records isn’t true. We see how it’s done — it’s not hard to play well and, oops, fumble away a game in the fourth.

And admittedly, a huge proportion of our losses have been by double digits, very few of them were close (I believe 3-4 by 5 or less), not many more were by 9 or less. When we get beat, we usually get our ----s kicked.

Should have been clearer: there are all sorts of ways to lose games. Subbing in bad players when you take a big lead. Going with weird lineups down the stretch — i.e., four guards vs. a team of bigs, three centers vs. a team playing three or four guards, etc.). Doing the kinds of things we see Utah doing right now — having Kessler take 7 3s a game and camp out on the perimeter to work on developing his shot (using games, IOW, to practice skills).

This and this. There are two ways to tank. Who and how you play and "structurally". © PIF

Those that want to believe that we couldn't have tanked with Deni haven't been paying attention to this team and those teams that are tanking with other good players (this season and in the past).

Did we start Jonas or Holmes? No, because that would have added more wins to our total. We started Sarr with his -0.5 VORP. This is no knock on Sarr or on Keefe, that is what they wanted to do. As much as I don't like the Kispert signing, starting him over Bub would have done the same. We wanted to tank and did so...

Now, can you tank "structurally" as well. All good, that is another way to go about it. But, as a note: Keefe and the FO did BOTH.

[payitforward]

Better players can make you a better team — yes, absolutely. Can give you a team with better players — also true.

And it’s also true that a team that wants to lose can find all sorts of ways to lose.

The only way to lose that I know of is to play your younger, less-experienced, not ready for prime time players…and bench your better players, which is exactly what the Zards have been doing for the most part over the past several weeks. ....

Not sure "better players" are being benched, to tell the truth.

We only have 9 guys older than 23. Smart & Middleton get a lot of minutes. Ditto Poole. Brogdon is injured. Gill is marginal. Kispert is is out for the season, & so is Bey. McDaniels isn't an improvement over anyone, & Holmes, has a banged up shoulder.

[TheBlackCzar]

Stats don't tell the entire picture of how a guy plays..... You could have a bunch of efficient players, who don't have great handles, have limited shot charts, and aren't very agile, and most times they'd lose to a less efficient, athletic team of shot creators..... Analytics is just a tool, not the entire package....

"How a guy plays" is a fuzzy, basically meaningless idea. Guys are "efficient," because they have good handles, extensive shot charts, and high level of agility.

Moreover, for total clarity, a team wins a game BECAUSE it is efficient and/or BECAUSE it gets itself more possessions than the opponent. If you do both, you cannot lose -- it's mathematically impossible. If you do neither, you cannot win -- it's mathematically impossible.

"Analytics" is not a package of any kind. It is, as you say, a tool to understand reality. Simple analysis like the little paragraph just above this one are not optional. There isn't something else. You only win if you score more points than the opponent. You only score more points if you shoot more efficiently or have more chances to shoot. Nothing can make this false. It's true in every game of basketball for all its history all over the world. Period.

But how they play isn't a fuzzy issue or meaningless idea... The way Luka played and how Kyrie played was a model that worked because of Kyrie's ability to play off ball, with the ball dominant Luka.... Now they tried this with numerous efficient players, but until Kyrie they didn't really go anywhere, and that's because of the style of game Kyrie had... It's nothing fuzzy or hard to see about this.....His ability to dribble penetrate combined with his ability to shoot high level is why that worked, and why the ball went into the basket for more points.... Playing with Luka, PJ was highly efficient, and if he was the number 2 they would've got knocked out 1st or 2nd round.....

You can hit more 3's, shoot a lesser overall percentage, lose the rebound battle, and win strictly because of your advantage from the 3..... So there is a situation where you don't have as many possessions and don't necessarily shoot well and still win...... So it is mathematically possible and just made your point false..... Period.... Only absolute certainty is you going die....

[TheBlackCzar]

You’re absolutely right about Bub’s shortcomings. He needs to get much better at finishing at the basket and drawing contact. No argument there.

But he’s already an above average midrange shooter, an above average rebounder for a PG, a better defender than you give him credit for, and a poised oncourt leader with a very good assist/TO ratio, especially for a 19 yr old who’s being asked to play more minutes than any rookie in the NBA.

Think about it. Many rookies hit a wall about two-thirds of the way through the season. Bub in his 76th game of the season just played 41 mins against a team competing for the playoffs…and scored 19 pts, had 7 assists, and knocked down 5 threes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Carrington is completely useless. He will stick in the NBA for awhile and has some NBA skills. My issue with Bub is mainly that I don't see much growth in his game. I think he's an average prospect with a low ceiling. I like guards that attack the paint and draw fouls, and are bulldogs defensively (think prime Kyle Lowry). Bub is a game manager that shoots the ball well off the dribble. His archtype is available in the 20's/second round every year IMO. Again, he'll stick because he has a useful nba skillset, but he's not a guy you build around.

How much growth can you witness in a 19year olds rookie season, where he's still physically growing???? You gloss over all his positives to stay harping on what you don't like about his game, but what they need him to do and what you want aren't synonymous..... And with his handling I don't know why you think he can't get quicker or faster or smarter, being that he's still within his physical growth age range and is only going to turn 20 right before next season starts...... You can't make real assumptions of his potential until he's about 22-23.... Until then you can't be sure what size he'll be, how that will affect his athleticism and ability to add weight....... Add to that playing with Smart and Brogdon, he has very good mentors to assist him with his game, in addition to Rudy Gay and Carmelo Anthony..... I think you're short selling the hell outta Bub to be honest.....

[payitforward]

TGW likes the "curmudgeon" role!

[AFM]

I mean, TGW stands for Things Gone Wrong...

[NatP4]

20.3 points 8.7 rebounds 4.7 assists 1.2 steals 0.6 blocks 2.8 turnovers on 60.5% TS at 24 years old. 13 million/year for the next 3 seasons-his prime.

Will never understand how this trade only returned a late lottery pick and a 2029 mid to late 1st. So awful.

[closg00]

No Deni

Read on Twitter

[bsilver]

No Deni

Read on Twitter

Due to his slow start Deni’s stats this year weren’t better than last year. Hard to make the case for MIP. If he plays next year like he did at the end of this season, he’ll have a better chance.

[payitforward]

...You can hit more 3's, shoot a lesser overall percentage, lose the rebound battle, and win strictly because of your advantage from the 3..... So there is a situation where you don't have as many possessions and don't necessarily shoot well and still win...... So it is mathematically possible and just made your point false..... Period.... Only absolute certainty is you going die....

Sorry my brother. If you have fewer possessions in a game, & you shoot a lower TS% than your opponent, you lose the game. Period. It's mathematically impossible for you to win.

A "possession" consists in having the ball, & therefore being able to score 2 or 3 points.
Fold in FTAs by counting each FTA as 1/2 a possession (b/c you can only score a single point with a FTA, obviously).

If you have more possessions than your opponent, it's possible to win the game.
If you post a higher TS%, it's possible to win the game.

If you do both, you cannot lose the game.
If you do neither, you cannot win the game.

There are no exceptions. Period. It's just arithmetic.

[payitforward]

This:

...You can hit more 3's, shoot a lesser overall percentage, lose the rebound battle, and win strictly because of your advantage from the 3.....

is certainly possible -- why not?

But, when you do the simple arithmetic on the game, you'll find that the winning team either had more possessions than the loser (for one reason or another) or posted a higher TS% than the the loser -- or both.

[payitforward]

Let's take a simple example -- your team & mine play a game:

1. My team has 100 possessions. We take 100 shots, all 2-pointers, & we shoot exactly 50%. That's it. So we have 100 points. & our TS% is 50%

2. To win, you have to have scored 101 points, obviously. So tell me, how can you get 101 points without either taking more shots or shooting a higher TS% ?

Answer: you can't.