Official Trade Thread - Part XXX

[Ruzious]

PIF is a little older than I thought. To have seen Russell in person - that must have been cool. I got into pro hoops when Lew Alcindor was a rookie for Milwaukee playing with over the hill Oscar Robertson - and Bobby D. Young Alcindor vs old Wilt were some epic battles. But to what PIF said, I didn't mean to watch George because he's entertaining. I don't care much if a player's entertaining and not real good. If you're not good, you're not entertaining, imo. But it's nice if the game is compelling. I concur with TSW on his faults (George's not TSW's), but I still think he's the second best forward in the East, and I expect he'll improve next year - as this season was a comeback from the brutal injury he had. Otto's a good solid player - no more and no less.

[80sballboy]

Paul George scored 40, 38 and 21 points against the Wizards this season for a 33ppg average. Shooting 30 of 50 from the field and 12 of 22 fro 3pt line. Who was covering him most of the time?

[dckingsfan]

Otto's a good solid player - no more and no less.

And slightly better than Beal

[CobraCommander]

Wall+Gortat to Indy for Greorge+Hill+Mahinmi? Go after Whiteside, trade Porter for future picks, and re-sign Beal/Sessions/Dudley.

Whiteside/Mahinmi
Morris/Dudley
George/Dudley
Beal/Oubre
Hill/Sessions

Wow. I don't like disagreeing w/ your ideas three times in a row, LR, but this....

First off, trading Gortat would only be sensible if we already had Whiteside. What would you say the chances are of him coming here? Maybe 1%? 3%?

Secondly, Porter is three years younger than George, makes much less, and is already the better player in most ways. Paul George is very good, true, but for his level of production he is way over-paid. Porter, on the other hand, is already one of the dozen best SFs in the league -- he's not the guy to trade for picks!

As well, Mahinmi is unrestricted. Can't trade for him. But, we might try to sign him if the price is right.

You have Dudley playing the 4. Dudley is not a 4. He can't play the position. You also have Oubre playing the 2 -- ?

Your deal makes us older and worse. I'm leaving out Whiteside in that comment. Every fan on every board of every team is saying "go after Whiteside."

Sorry!

PIF, did you actually imply that you'd rather have Otto Porter than Paul George? I like Otto, I've defended him many times on this board, but Otto is not in the same class - not even close - as Paul George. And Otto's got just one more year on his rookie contract. He'll get a new contract when the cap goes up to enormous heights, so if he's in George's class, he'll get a bigger contract. But he's not, so he won't. And George is likely not going to be over-paid based on where the cap is. George could be top 2 at SF and PF in the East next season. That's a rare versatility he has. Let's see how he plays through the playoffs.

You can't trade Wall for George because neither one of them is good enough to lead either of the teams you constructed to a title. You would be simply trading one great but not elite player for another great but not elite player --- then surrounding him with OK talent. I know you all love Whiteside but let's see him give you more than one good year of production and let's make sure he isn't a NUTCASE...because his talent doesn't trump his potiential immaturity...coupled with the fact that the NBA is moving away from dominate big men...I don't see either team as significantly better because of this trade. What you would need to do is figure out a way to have Wall, George and Whiteside on one team...then you would have something in either DC or Indy

[Dark Faze]

there isn't a player in the league good enough to lead scrubs to a title--the team defense has evolved too much

I really wish we could get Cousins...you look at who the Kings are considering hiring...its a waste of everyones time for that franchise to pretend they can keep Cousins.

[payitforward]

Pif, for whatever reason I thought you were a young lion.

I'm impressed by the passion and thoroughly well-thought arguments that you consistently post. This shifts my paradigm about message board posters.

Thanks, CCJ. When I first posted here, I allowed myself to be too argumentative. I could claim that I was tempted into it by the whacko things Hands used to post, but in the end it was on me.

I'm still a little too sure of myself now and then (Zards might say it's more than "a little" and more often than "now and then" ), but I do make an effort.... I remember my English teacher my junior year in high school saying, "PIF (of course she used my real name), we're not holding a dual professorship here!"

She was the first, but she was *not* the last.

I enjoy your posts as well, and especially your keen eye for talent and your championing the R2 and undrafted underdogs -- always my favorites as well. When Alan Williams shows what a good NBA player he can be, you and I can gloat.

[payitforward]

His crankiness gave it away a long time ago.

Think of me as ageless, my friend. Think of me as eternal. An entity before whom it is best to bow, to whom it is best to show fealty, in whose name it is best to make large contributions to only the very very top non-profit organizations.

Better than all that, however, would be if Ted were to call me and say, "PIF, I'd like you to have the honor of firing Ernie Grunfeld."

[payitforward]

PIF is a little older than I thought. To have seen Russell in person - that must have been cool. I got into pro hoops when Lew Alcindor was a rookie for Milwaukee playing with over the hill Oscar Robertson - and Bobby D. Young Alcindor vs old Wilt were some epic battles. But to what PIF said, I didn't mean to watch George because he's entertaining. I don't care much if a player's entertaining and not real good. If you're not good, you're not entertaining, imo. But it's nice if the game is compelling. I concur with TSW on his faults (George's not TSW's), but I still think he's the second best forward in the East, and I expect he'll improve next year - as this season was a comeback from the brutal injury he had. Otto's a good solid player - no more and no less.

I'm a fan of PG, as I've said. You overrate him, IMO, but it's not worth arguing about a subject when there's no way to get to agreement.

But, what you say about Otto -- ?? This is a kid who won't even turn 23 until a few months from now. How can you presume to come to judgment on him? And with such ex cathedra certainty too: "no more and no less." I can't see why you would want to go there.

Lets drop it for now, however. You can be sure I'll remind you of it in a year or two as he develops. (And if he doesn't you can be equally sure I *won't* remind you! )

[Ruzious]

PIF is a little older than I thought. To have seen Russell in person - that must have been cool. I got into pro hoops when Lew Alcindor was a rookie for Milwaukee playing with over the hill Oscar Robertson - and Bobby D. Young Alcindor vs old Wilt were some epic battles. But to what PIF said, I didn't mean to watch George because he's entertaining. I don't care much if a player's entertaining and not real good. If you're not good, you're not entertaining, imo. But it's nice if the game is compelling. I concur with TSW on his faults (George's not TSW's), but I still think he's the second best forward in the East, and I expect he'll improve next year - as this season was a comeback from the brutal injury he had. Otto's a good solid player - no more and no less.

I'm a fan of PG, as I've said. You overrate him, IMO, but it's not worth arguing about a subject when there's no way to get to agreement.

But, what you say about Otto -- ?? This is a kid who won't even turn 23 until a few months from now. How can you presume to come to judgment on him? And with such ex cathedra certainty too: "no more and no less." I can't see why you would want to go there.

Lets drop it for now, however. You can be sure I'll remind you of it in a year or two as he develops. (And if he doesn't you can be equally sure I *won't* remind you! )

PIF, have you ever scouted a player? Based on the way you write, I get the impression you haven't - or at least believe that there is no value in scouting. Otherwise, I just don't understand the way you think. No offense intended because usually I'll agree with your conclusions on players - just an observation on how you write.

[payitforward]

PIF is a little older than I thought. To have seen Russell in person - that must have been cool. I got into pro hoops when Lew Alcindor was a rookie for Milwaukee playing with over the hill Oscar Robertson - and Bobby D. Young Alcindor vs old Wilt were some epic battles. But to what PIF said, I didn't mean to watch George because he's entertaining. I don't care much if a player's entertaining and not real good. If you're not good, you're not entertaining, imo. But it's nice if the game is compelling. I concur with TSW on his faults (George's not TSW's), but I still think he's the second best forward in the East, and I expect he'll improve next year - as this season was a comeback from the brutal injury he had. Otto's a good solid player - no more and no less.

I'm a fan of PG, as I've said. You overrate him, IMO, but it's not worth arguing about a subject when there's no way to get to agreement.

But, what you say about Otto -- ?? This is a kid who won't even turn 23 until a few months from now. How can you presume to come to judgment on him? And with such ex cathedra certainty too: "no more and no less." I can't see why you would want to go there.

Lets drop it for now, however. You can be sure I'll remind you of it in a year or two as he develops. (And if he doesn't you can be equally sure I *won't* remind you! )

PIF, have you ever scouted a player? Based on the way you write, I get the impression you haven't - or at least believe that there is no value in scouting. Otherwise, I just don't understand the way you think. No offense intended because usually I'll agree with your conclusions on players - just an observation on how you write.

When I was younger I used to scout women a lot. But even then I always relied on the numbers.

In general, when making decisions among a lot of directions (i.e. not a simple choice between 2 variables), *negative* decisions (i.e. eliminating some of the options) provides the most effective way to proceed through the meat of the process -- tho not when you are down to 2 or 3 options. If a choice to *eliminate* someone is still your best next step when you're down to 2 or 3, then you've done a bad job in the preceding steps: at that point you want to be strictly weighing benefits and their differences.

Of course, as with any other thought>action process, you can make *bad* negative decisions, eliminate options for the wrong reason. I remember Ernie was asked about Biyombo in the run-up to the 2011 draft and replied "we're looking for a different kind of player" (or words to that effect). To me, that was a big hint that his utility as a GM was over.

Yet, in fact, choosing whom to draft is a great example of where the initial rounds of decision-making are negative ones. How would you handle making a pick if you had to weigh positive differentials among 20 or so guys w/ 15 minutes on the clock! Remember, you almost never know for sure who's going to be there when you choose.

Scouting is *extremely* valuable. For one thing it lets you establish those important negatives. For another, it also lets you quantify positives: if you're deciding e.g. between a point guard and a power forward, you'd better have *very* detailed knowledge of the players. Otherwise, it's obviously a lot harder than deciding between point guard A and point guard B.

So, no, I've never scouted players. But I've hired people, I've chosen to publish people, etc. etc. And, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night as well.

Ruz -- have you scouted basketball players, and if so at what level?

[Ruzious]

Pif, by your answer it sounds like you don't understand the question. Scouting a player is simply watching a player and evaluating him as a potential pro. It's just as important as looking at the players numbers. To adequately evaluate a player, you have to do both - evaluate the numbers and watch the player. And part of that process is evaluating how good a player will become. So when I say I think a player like Otto will be a good solid player - no better or worse - I'm saying that's my opinion based on scouting him and looking at his numbers. It's not meant to imply that I KNOW what the future holds.

Btw, about your scouting women... scouting in not the same as stalking...

[payitforward]

PIF is a little older than I thought. To have seen Russell in person - that must have been cool. I got into pro hoops when Lew Alcindor was a rookie for Milwaukee playing with over the hill Oscar Robertson - and Bobby D. Young Alcindor vs old Wilt were some epic battles. But to what PIF said, I didn't mean to watch George because he's entertaining. I don't care much if a player's entertaining and not real good. If you're not good, you're not entertaining, imo. But it's nice if the game is compelling. I concur with TSW on his faults (George's not TSW's), but I still think he's the second best forward in the East, and I expect he'll improve next year - as this season was a comeback from the brutal injury he had. Otto's a good solid player - no more and no less.

I'm a fan of PG, as I've said. You overrate him, IMO, but it's not worth arguing about a subject when there's no way to get to agreement.

But, what you say about Otto -- ?? This is a kid who won't even turn 23 until a few months from now. How can you presume to come to judgment on him? And with such ex cathedra certainty too: "no more and no less." I can't see why you would want to go there.

Lets drop it for now, however. You can be sure I'll remind you of it in a year or two as he develops. (And if he doesn't you can be equally sure I *won't* remind you! )

PIF, have you ever scouted a player? Based on the way you write, I get the impression you haven't - or at least believe that there is no value in scouting. Otherwise, I just don't understand the way you think. No offense intended because usually I'll agree with your conclusions on players - just an observation on how you write.

One other response to the above:

We've talked a fair amount about Jimmy Butler. How aware of him were you in the run up to the 2011 draft? Did you have him on your list of possibles for our #18 pick? If so, where was he on that list? Of the guy available at #18 he was my #4 -- Faried, Harris, Mirotic, Butler was how I had them ordered. How about you?

As with your question, no offense intended. It's in re: your remarks about Porter that I'm curious, because obviously this kind of ranking has to involve projecting "upside", "development," etc., and on draft day 2011 Butler was only @ one year younger than Otto Porter is now.

[Ruzious]

I'm a fan of PG, as I've said. You overrate him, IMO, but it's not worth arguing about a subject when there's no way to get to agreement.

But, what you say about Otto -- ?? This is a kid who won't even turn 23 until a few months from now. How can you presume to come to judgment on him? And with such ex cathedra certainty too: "no more and no less." I can't see why you would want to go there.

Lets drop it for now, however. You can be sure I'll remind you of it in a year or two as he develops. (And if he doesn't you can be equally sure I *won't* remind you! )

PIF, have you ever scouted a player? Based on the way you write, I get the impression you haven't - or at least believe that there is no value in scouting. Otherwise, I just don't understand the way you think. No offense intended because usually I'll agree with your conclusions on players - just an observation on how you write.

One other response to the above:

We've talked a fair amount about Jimmy Butler. How aware of him were you in the run up to the 2011 draft? Did you have him on your list of possibles for our #18 pick? If so, where was he on that list? Of the guy available at #18 he was my #4 -- Faried, Harris, Mirotic, Butler was how I had them ordered. How about you?

As with your question, no offense intended. It's in re: your remarks about Porter that I'm curious, because obviously this kind of ranking has to involve projecting "upside", "development," etc., and on draft day 2011 Butler was only @ one year younger than Otto Porter is now.

I had no idea that Butler would develop offensively to the extent he did. Not sure how anyone could have. Everyone makes mistakes. I've made a lot. I was pushing for picking Faried when the Wiz had their 2nd 1st round pick in the Singleton draft - just like most of us did that draft. No matter what type of analysis people did that draft, they should have had Faried over Singleton. I was pulling for the Bucks (my 2nd favorite team) to pick Harris when they did. Like I've said, I've usually agreed with your conclusions on players.

[payitforward]

Pif, by your answer it sounds like you don't understand the question. Scouting a player is simply watching a player and evaluating him as a potential pro. It's just as important as looking at the players numbers. To adequately evaluate a player, you have to do both - evaluate the numbers and watch the player. And part of that process is evaluating how good a player will become. So when I say I think a player like Otto will be a good solid player - no better or worse - I'm saying that's my opinion based on scouting him and looking at his numbers. It's not meant to imply that I KNOW what the future holds.

Oh... I misunderstood; I thought you were asking had I ever done it *professionally* -- i.e. had I ever been a scout. But you mean do I actually look at games and tape as part of thinking about whether a player will be good in the NBA or how good a young player might become?

Of course I do! In the case of Porter, obviously I've watched *a lot* of his minutes in the league (and in SL, and some back in college -- though not enough to make a difference any more, given how much more there's been to see of him).

My evaluation of Otto Porter is based on more or less the same data -- numbers and "scouting" (i.e. watching thoughtfully) -- as yours. Where we may differ is in our definition of "good" (and, of course, "very good," "excellent," etc.). Lets say a person had a single model (or dominating model), whether conscious or not, of what an "excellent" NBA SF was, and that model was, lets say, Paul George. Then, of course, it would be hard to feel confident that Otto Porter would be "excellent," as he is unlikely ever to be a player on the model of Paul George.

I don't have any reason to think of you as operating w/ that kind of model (and certainly not consciously). But, it's definitely true that the Paul George model would lead a person to the same conclusion about Otto that you express.

Models are pictures in the mind, and in my experience they are more often misleading than helpful (e.g. Ernie: "we're looking for a different kind of player") -- even though it's probably true that they are hard to avoid and maybe even necessary. If the latter is true, then the great talent is being able to *abandon* a model, because facts (numbers being one kind of fact) lead elsewhere. In both tech and the arts, the two areas where most of my life has been spent (wasted?), that's certainly what drives innovation.

I'm by no means good enough, or anywhere *near* that, to "innovate" in understanding or grading basketball players! So, like you, I don't KNOW that Otto will be what I say he'll be. But... I hope so! I'm sure you hope so too, for that matter. No better way to be "wrong" than when a kid does better than you think he might (in any field).

Btw, about your scouting women... scouting in not the same as stalking...

One of the greatest poems ever on the subject (though this is "stalking" in the other direction!)
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/45589

[payitforward]

Mistakes -- oh yes, I've made plenty. Mistakes here don't mean much, but I've made mistakes galore in life, where they can mean a whole hell of a lot!

At the same time, a friend of mine in the tech world used to have the following phrase in her email sig: "Always make new mistakes." On the money.

[fishercob]

Pif, by your answer it sounds like you don't understand the question. Scouting a player is simply watching a player and evaluating him as a potential pro. It's just as important as looking at the players numbers. To adequately evaluate a player, you have to do both - evaluate the numbers and watch the player. And part of that process is evaluating how good a player will become. So when I say I think a player like Otto will be a good solid player - no better or worse - I'm saying that's my opinion based on scouting him and looking at his numbers. It's not meant to imply that I KNOW what the future holds.

Oh... I misunderstood; I thought you were asking had I ever done it *professionally* -- i.e. had I ever been a scout. But you mean do I actually look at games and tape as part of thinking about whether a player will be good in the NBA or how good a young player might become?

Of course I do! In the case of Porter, obviously I've watched *a lot* of his minutes in the league (and in SL, and some back in college -- though not enough to make a difference any more, given how much more there's been to see of him).

My evaluation of Otto Porter is based on more or less the same data -- numbers and "scouting" (i.e. watching thoughtfully) -- as yours. Where we may differ is in our definition of "good" (and, of course, "very good," "excellent," etc.). Lets say a person had a single model (or dominating model), whether conscious or not, of what an "excellent" NBA SF was, and that model was, lets say, Paul George. Then, of course, it would be hard to feel confident that Otto Porter would be "excellent," as he is unlikely ever to be a player on the model of Paul George.

I don't have any reason to think of you as operating w/ that kind of model (and certainly not consciously). But, it's definitely true that the Paul George model would lead a person to the same conclusion about Otto that you express.

Models are pictures in the mind, and in my experience they are more often misleading than helpful (e.g. Ernie: "we're looking for a different kind of player") -- even though it's probably true that they are hard to avoid and maybe even necessary. If the latter is true, then the great talent is being able to *abandon* a model, because facts (numbers being one kind of fact) lead elsewhere. In both tech and the arts, the two areas where most of my life has been spent (wasted?), that's certainly what drives innovation.

I'm by no means good enough, or anywhere *near* that, to "innovate" in understanding or grading basketball players! So, like you, I don't KNOW that Otto will be what I say he'll be. But... I hope so! I'm sure you hope so too, for that matter. No better way to be "wrong" than when a kid does better than you think he might (in any field).

Btw, about your scouting women... scouting in not the same as stalking...

One of the greatest poems ever on the subject (though this is "stalking" in the other direction!)
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/45589

This is a nice post. The bolded section makes me think of the 48-win Boston Celtics -- a supposed "team of role players." Their star PG went nearly undrafted and was cast off by his first two teams. Their near-star small forward was also a second round pick (btw, Jae is 3 years older than Otto). They have several players who don't "look the part" -- too fat, too short, too whatever -- and yet, they're just good. This tells me that looking the part is one of these "models," a false narrative, you will. The essence of Moneyball.

[adarsh1]

Is a Beal + Otto + 1st (2018) for Cousins + McLemore + Caron Butler trade palpable or would we have to add more? Beal would be a Sign and Trade..but I'm just not sure about the contract numbers in making them work.

[payitforward]

Is a Beal + Otto + 1st (2018) for Cousins + McLemore + Caron Butler trade palpable or would we have to add more? Beal would be a Sign and Trade..but I'm just not sure about the contract numbers in making them work.

Honestly, as a team I don't think we can afford to trade any more picks and certainly not our best young player.

Essentially, Cousins would be all we got out of this trade. McLemore has looked like not much so far, and Caron's career is over. Not for me. But there'll be people on this Board who are all over this trade.

[payitforward]

This is a nice post. The bolded section makes me think of the 48-win Boston Celtics -- a supposed "team of role players." Their star PG went nearly undrafted and was cast off by his first two teams. Their near-star small forward was also a second round pick (btw, Jae is 3 years older than Otto). They have several players who don't "look the part" -- too fat, too short, too whatever -- and yet, they're just good. This tells me that looking the part is one of these "models," a false narrative, you will. The essence of Moneyball.

Thanks.

There's no doubt that "looking the part" is one of those models. I remember when Kev recounted asking our FO about Crowder, and their response was that "he lacks ideal size," a classic brain-dead response.

You do have to use negative criteria in narrowing your choices (as I pointed out in another thread yesterday), no doubt about it. But just because e.g. you use a scissors to cut your hair that doesn't mean you should use a scissors to cut your foot off.

[gambitx777]

Is a Beal + Otto + 1st (2018) for Cousins + McLemore + Caron Butler trade palpable or would we have to add more? Beal would be a Sign and Trade..but I'm just not sure about the contract numbers in making them work.

Honestly, as a team I don't think we can afford to trade any more picks and certainly not our best young player.

Essentially, Cousins would be all we got out of this trade. McLemore has looked like not much so far, and Caron's career is over. Not for me. But there'll be people on this Board who are all over this trade.

I would push beal and Morris for DC and seth curry and a contract of their choosing that they want to loose. We can afford to keep loosing picks.