Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII

[payitforward]

...
There is a large sample size 3 years running of Ben Simmons getting worse...not better....

I'd challenge that statement -- no, let me take it further: that statement is flat out wrong. It's not the case at all. No, Ben Simmons has not been "getting worse...not better..." over "3 years running."

Ok, now defend the claim.

Ummm. Didnt think it was that profound of a statement, but ok.
- His rebounding %, AST%, and USG% have all gone down, while his TOV% and foul rate have gone up
- His BPM, VORP, and On/Off have gone down.

And sure his TS has gone up, but thats not because he has gotten better. He went from taking 78% of his FGA within 10 feet of the basket to 94% !!!
For reference, Giannis shoot about 64% of his shots within 10 feet of the basket. So no, his 60% doesnt impress me anymore than Jarrett Allen, Deandre Jordan, or any other bigs in the league.

Not sure whether that last bit is meant as a critique of Giannis? You may not be impressed by Jarrett Allen or DeAndre Jordan (in his case on the career not his current play), but those guys help teams win games.

Your treatment of Simmons in the previous sentences has the usual problem: in essence what you want to say is that because he hasn't gotten better his better numbers don't mean that he's gotten better. Thing is more points per 40 minutes on (overall) fewer shots/FTAs is better. Period. Producing 1.45 points per shot is "better" than 1.28 pps (his rookie year -- & already above average).

Now, maybe we have a problem of defining terms differently: I define "better" in the statement "A is a better player than B" to mean "provides more help in winning games" & absolutely nothing else.

"Winning" = having more points than your opponent when the game ends.
Points are produced by two things & two things only: TS% & number of FGAs/FTAs -- both compared to your opponent.

Ben Simmons is one of the best players in the league at delivering those two things. Period.

[pcbothwel]

I'd challenge that statement -- no, let me take it further: that statement is flat out wrong. It's not the case at all. No, Ben Simmons has not been "getting worse...not better..." over "3 years running."

Ok, now defend the claim.

Ummm. Didnt think it was that profound of a statement, but ok.
- His rebounding %, AST%, and USG% have all gone down, while his TOV% and foul rate have gone up
- His BPM, VORP, and On/Off have gone down.

And sure his TS has gone up, but thats not because he has gotten better. He went from taking 78% of his FGA within 10 feet of the basket to 94% !!!
For reference, Giannis shoot about 64% of his shots within 10 feet of the basket. So no, his 60% doesnt impress me anymore than Jarrett Allen, Deandre Jordan, or any other bigs in the league.

Not sure whether that last bit is meant as a critique of Giannis? You may not be impressed by Jarrett Allen or DeAndre Jordan (in his case on the career not his current play), but those guys help teams win games.

Your treatment of Simmons in the previous sentences has the usual problem: in essence what you want to say is that because he hasn't gotten better his better numbers don't mean that he's gotten better. Thing is more points per 40 minutes on (overall) fewer shots/FTAs is better. Period. Producing 1.45 points per shot is "better" than 1.28 pps (his rookie year -- & already above average).

Now, maybe we have a problem of defining terms differently: I define "better" in the statement "A is a better player than B" to mean "provides more help in winning games" & absolutely nothing else.

"Winning" = having more points than your opponent when the game ends.
Points are produced by two things & two things only: TS% & number of FGAs/FTAs -- both compared to your opponent.

Ben Simmons is one of the best players in the league at delivering those two things. Period.

You're killing PIF (Said in jest, Your input on this board is valued)
Giannis: He has been criticized for needing to expand his game to succeed in the playoffs. Im simply pointing out that Ben is FAAARRR behind Giannis in that respect. Just adding context.

Allen/Jordan: They are good players, but how many players in the league can average a TS of 60% when 90%+ of their FGA occur that close to the basket... again, just providing context on how pointing to TS for Simmons needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Winning: The problem you make is isolating Ben Simmons production. Basketball is a fast paced, fluid game where one players actions reverberate throughout the court (Also due to having less participants, 10, than other sport).
This is why things like +/-, RPM, RAPTOR, etc.... have become so important.

Sure, Ben is so gifted that he can score and defend at a high level....but how does his play style effect others? Curry changed the game, not because of how efficient he was, but his ability to force the defense to spread out well beyond their comfort zone.

Why do you think Boban cant seem to stay on the court or secure a big contract? Because the things he does, he does VERY well, but the things he is deficient at are glaring and kill your team. Enes Kanter had this issue his whole career.

Again, this is not to say I dont like Simmons. I agree he is a fantastic player, but I think his ceiling is lower than many think and I dont trust his personality to lead my franchise... Two things I value highly if Im moving a star like Beal. I think trading for him next year with a package of Wall plus picks, troy brown, etc. would be great... but not for Beal...not now.

[payitforward]

Let's take a little closer look at this piece of reasoning:

...sure his TS has gone up, but thats not because he has gotten better. He went from taking 78% of his FGA within 10 feet of the basket to 94% !!!

Now, obviously, what's true for one guy -- if this is true -- would be true for 2 guys. Hence it would be true for a whole roster of guys.

Well, if a whole roster of guys -- a team -- posted a TS% of .602, as Simmons did this year, how many games do you think they would win? No, let me put that differently -- how many games do you think that team would lose? Doesn't matter how they did it. The points go on the board independent of where the shot was taken.

Well, in the 4 seasons starting 2015-16, the Golden State Warriors roster produced a TS% of just under .600 & won 256 games -- 64 games per season average.

Where those shots were taken from is not what won all those games -- even though where they were taken from, because the team shot so well, contributed to the TS%. It was the TS% -- the points themselves -- that won the games. Another team could have taken all those shots, missed a lot more than GS did, & posted a lot lower TS%: that team would have won fewer games.

[payitforward]

You're killing PIF (Said in jest, Your input on this board is valued)

Thanks -- yours too!

We shouldn't continue this for too long. I doubt it interests many others.

...Winning: The problem you make is isolating Ben Simmons production. Basketball is a fast paced, fluid game where one players actions reverberate throughout the court (Also due to having less participants, 10, than other sport).
This is why things like +/-, RPM, RAPTOR, etc.... have become so important....

No. Pure & simple.

1. Can you demonstrate that Ben's tremendously productive numbers hold down the numbers of other guys on the Sixers? If not, your first claim is empty. As to RAPTOR, etc. as soon as you can tell me how they are calculated we can have a meaningful conversation about them. Until then, it's just religion. As to +/-, individual on/off was long ago demonstrated as having virtually zero meaning.

Sure, Ben is so gifted that he can score and defend at a high level....but how does his play style effect others? Curry changed the game, not because of how efficient he was, but his ability to force the defense to spread out well beyond their comfort zone.

Dude... think about what you just wrote! What was it that gave him the "ability to force the defense to spread out well beyond their comfort zone?" It was, precisely & only, "how efficient he was." He, individually, could do what others could not do. All those reverberations you like to talk about proceed from an individual excelling at something.

Why do you think Boban cant seem to stay on the court or secure a big contract? Because the things he does, he does VERY well, but the things he is deficient at are glaring and kill your team. Enes Kanter had this issue his whole career.

But... but... but... the things Boban & Enes can't do show up in the numbers as points scored by the opponent! Duh. This is the opposite of Simmons! You're arguing against yourself.

Again, this is not to say I dont like Simmons. I agree he is a fantastic player, but I think his ceiling is lower than many think and I dont trust his personality to lead my franchise... Two things I value highly if Im moving a star like Beal. I think trading for him next year with a package of Wall plus picks, troy brown, etc. would be great... but not for Beal...not now.

Ceiling? Right now, Ben Simmons is one of the 10 best players in the league. That's something Brad Beal is not & (barring a miracle) never will be -- despite the fact that he is a tremendous player & one of my favorites in the league.

That said, I would have no interest, zero, in that trade you postulate for next year. We aren't nearly good enough to give up that "package of... picks, troy brown, etc." Nor would Philly have any reason to take on Wall's contract.

[Ruzious]

I think Wall's contract is rather... toxic. I'd make virtually any Wall/Paul trade because Paul's contract is a year shorter.

[pcbothwel]

Let's take a little closer look at this piece of reasoning:

...sure his TS has gone up, but thats not because he has gotten better. He went from taking 78% of his FGA within 10 feet of the basket to 94% !!!

Now, obviously, what's true for one guy -- if this is true -- would be true for 2 guys. Hence it would be true for a whole roster of guys.

Well, if a whole roster of guys -- a team -- posted a TS% of .602, as Simmons did this year, how many games do you think they would win? No, let me put that differently -- how many games do you think that team would lose? Doesn't matter how they did it. The points go on the board independent of where the shot was taken.

Well, in the 4 seasons starting 2015-16, the Golden State Warriors roster produced a TS% of just under .600 & won 256 games -- 64 games per season average.

Where those shots were taken from is not what won all those games -- even though where they were taken from, because the team shot so well, contributed to the TS%. It was the TS% -- the points themselves -- that won the games. Another team could have taken all those shots, missed a lot more than GS did, & posted a lot lower TS%: that team would have won fewer games.

What theoretical wormhole are you going down? You're making my point for me. A team of all Ben Simmons DOES NOT produce a TS of 60%, precisely for the reason I mentioned.
How about a team of 5 Jared Allens?!? I mean, my god, they would set too many NBA records to even list with their scoring efficiency, shot blocking and rebounding.... Or... And hear me out... They would never even get the ball up to half court most possessions.

A team of Ben Simmons would be facing another 5 man squad that would pack the paint and dare him shoot (Though he may hesitate so he can actually figure out which had he is supposed to shoot with )

We are having a chicken and egg argument. You are correct in saying
"Where those shots were taken from is not what won all those games... It was the TS% -- the points themselves"

The problem is the points themselves and the efficiency that came with it directly correlates to how the offense functioned and defense responded in each and every possession. Simply inserting a player with similar efficiency, but far different playing style would not result in that same play/possession existing.

[payitforward]

Let's drop it -- I could show you that your thought experiment doesn't make sense -- but if I did, you'd come back from some other angle. In other words, we could never resolve this on the level that we are dealing with it, & we don't really have recourse to another context.

Maybe it would be worth it to keep at it if there really were a trade in view by way of which we acquired Ben Simmons. Since there isn't, it turns into argument for argument's sake. To put it slightly differently:

Spoiler:

my arguments reflect pure reason & nothing else, while you are blinded by your prejudices. Since you obviously can't help yourself, we might as well drop it.

Or

Spoiler:

I Just kidding, amigo! As you know, I enjoy your POV & your insights! Peace!

[Ruzious]

With Steph at 32, and Klay and Draymond at 30 each, is GS one of those quality teams that could fall apart in a few years - and once again have very high 1sts? And they have Minnesota's 2021 pick - which is bound to be high. There's all kinds of talk that they want to trade Wiggins - who gained a bad rep because he's failed to live up to enormous hype. But he's actually a good young player - just not worth his contract. If we were offered Beal for him, the 1st pick in the 2020 draft (could fall to as low as 5), MN's 2021 1st, and GS's 2023 and 2025 1sts without any restrictions - do you do it? In 2023, Steph's gonna be 35 and Klay and Dray will be 33 each. In 2025, add 2. GS might be a mess. I'd do it. Wiggins contract is essentially the same as Beal's and ends the same year. I think they're the same age.

[payitforward]

Well, first off, if we really didn't at all care how we did over the next 3 seasons (meaning that our own R1 picks in those same years would be bumped higher by the trade), then it would be hard to say no to such an offer. I.e. from a purely rational POV.

In that case, of course, there would be no reason to re-sign Bertans; hence, we would actually save some $$ as well.

[Ruzious]

Well, first off, if we really didn't at all care how we did over the next 3 seasons (meaning that our own R1 picks in those same years would be bumped higher by the trade), then it would be hard to say no to such an offer. I.e. from a purely rational POV.

In that case, of course, there would be no reason to re-sign Bertans; hence, we would actually save some $$ as well.

Yeah, unless they sign him with the idea that they'll probably trade him - maybe for another future 1st rounder.

[nate33]

With Steph at 32, and Klay and Draymond at 30 each, is GS one of those quality teams that could fall apart in a few years - and once again have very high 1sts? And they have Minnesota's 2021 pick - which is bound to be high. There's all kinds of talk that they want to trade Wiggins - who gained a bad rep because he's failed to live up to enormous hype. But he's actually a good young player - just not worth his contract. If we were offered Beal for him, the 1st pick in the 2020 draft (could fall to as low as 5), MN's 2021 1st, and GS's 2023 and 2025 1sts without any restrictions - do you do it? In 2023, Steph's gonna be 35 and Klay and Dray will be 33 each. In 2025, add 2. GS might be a mess. I'd do it. Wiggins contract is essentially the same as Beal's and ends the same year. I think they're the same age.

Yes. I would do that. That 2021 pick from Minny will definitely be a lotto pick and probably a fairly high one. The West is a murderer's row of good teams, particularly with Phoenix and Memphis up and coming, not to mention Golden State back in the mix. There's no way Minnesota is making the playoffs.

And I think Dray and Steph will be pretty washed up by 2023. They'll have too much mileage and too many deep runs by then, on a team that will have no depth because of salary issues. The lottery is certainly possible, and probably even likely if there are injuries. 2025 will surely be the middle of a rebuild.

That could plausibly be Beal for 4 lotto picks. Then factor that our picks will be higher the next couple of years with no Beal. Now THAT'S how to do a true rebuild!

[nate33]

Well, first off, if we really didn't at all care how we did over the next 3 seasons (meaning that our own R1 picks in those same years would be bumped higher by the trade), then it would be hard to say no to such an offer. I.e. from a purely rational POV.

In that case, of course, there would be no reason to re-sign Bertans; hence, we would actually save some $$ as well.

Yeah, unless they sign him with the idea that they'll probably trade him - maybe for another future 1st rounder.

With no short term chance of making the playoffs, we'd be in the position to take on a bad contract in return if it sweetened the value of the 1st round pick we'd be getting.

[payitforward]

I see we are in violent agreement here. Which one of us is going to call the Warriors & suggest they propose the trade?

Hmmm, have I ever told the story about how I tried to become the GM of the Warriors? A long, long time ago -- mid 1970s.... It's pretty amusing. Probably I have, but let me know if not (assuming you're interested...).

[dckingsfan]

This - make that damn trade...

[Ruzious]

I see we are in violent agreement here. Which one of us is going to call the Warriors & suggest they propose the trade?

Hmmm, have I ever told the story about how I tried to become the GM of the Warriors? A long, long time ago -- mid 1970s.... It's pretty amusing. Probably I have, but let me know if not (assuming you're interested...).

You've mentioned it, but I don't remember if you've given the details, so I'd like to hear it. Man, you'd be almost famous - that was my favorite movie back in the day, btw. I hear they're having a reunion. Tiny Dancer... but I digress - just a bit.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Paul is better than Wall, cheaper than Wall, and has a shorter contract. Why would OKC trade him for Wall?

This might have made sense before this season, but Paul has shown that he's still an elite player who knows how to win.

Paul better than Wall? He's also five-and-a-half years older than Wall. Thirty-five vs about to be thirty.

Shorter deal and why this? Because it moves a soon-to-be disgruntled Chris Paul to a team that's in more of a win-now mode. It moves a pretty pricey contract in Shroeder. It allows encumbent Shai Gilgeous-Alexander to take more of the lead as Wall works his way back as a distributor, exactly what SGA needs at this time in his career. One thing Wall will do better than Paul is push the ball faster.

This only makes sense WHEN Paul wants to be moved.

I have to agree with Nate on this one... It doesnt make sense for OKC to make that trade.

(Edited)

However, all it takes is a hot start from Wall and CP3 to pull a hammy before that calculation shifts,

(Edited)

but again, OKC might not be the best partner as they already have SGA waiting in the wings to shift back from SG.

I'd keep my eye on the Knicks... I could see a package built around Randle's terrible contract and filler (Frank, Gibson, DSJ, Knox, Payton, etc.) to put Wall with RJ Barrett and their 2020 pick (Wiseman?) to try and attract a FA.

My other two teams to watch... Orlando (If Fultz doesnt improve) and the Hornets (Batum & Rozier).

Pcb , thanks!

It CAN happen. Wall’s typically a very high usage not efficient IMO scorer but a wonderful distributor.

The next time Wall is in court he plays alongside Beal, who IIRC averaged somewhere around 35ppg post All Star snub.

Wall never had a Rui scorer, IIRC. Never played a full season with laser shooter Bertans. Never had a Swiss army type Troy Brown ( okay, Ariza, Paul Pierce, Rasual Butler, Otto Porter, Kelly Oubre, .... all hate me now)

Wall might be really valuable if the Wizards put him in position to shine.

I think Paul could just as easily HEAR OF MY IDEA AND OTHERS and think DC is way closer to NC than OKC...

Pcb, this is so doable.

Wall fans: John would be the MFn MAN as an OKC Thunder player IMO. SGA I think is slightly better in potential than Beal and Wall.

There’s a great opportunity here IMO

[Whole Truth]

With Steph at 32, and Klay and Draymond at 30 each, is GS one of those quality teams that could fall apart in a few years - and once again have very high 1sts? And they have Minnesota's 2021 pick - which is bound to be high. There's all kinds of talk that they want to trade Wiggins - who gained a bad rep because he's failed to live up to enormous hype. But he's actually a good young player - just not worth his contract. If we were offered Beal for him, the 1st pick in the 2020 draft (could fall to as low as 5), MN's 2021 1st, and GS's 2023 and 2025 1sts without any restrictions - do you do it? In 2023, Steph's gonna be 35 and Klay and Dray will be 33 each. In 2025, add 2. GS might be a mess. I'd do it. Wiggins contract is essentially the same as Beal's and ends the same year. I think they're the same age.

Memphis own the GS 2024 pick top 4 protected, unprotected in 2026, if not conveyed, from the Iggy salary dump.

Memphis also own Utah's 2022 pick in the double draft when Gobert becomes a FA.

[payitforward]

I wonder whether most of you will agree with this -- I think that in the only way that matters now, we had quite a successful 2019-20 season:

1. Rui showed that he can play in the NBA -- he hasn't yet shown that he can play well, but he's not a bust.
2. Isaac Bonga showed that he has a high ceiling & can develop (already has).
3. Thomas Bryant had a slow start but then improved towards his extraordinary 2018-19 numbers. He has significant problems defensively, but he also has a whole lot going for him.
4. Brad carried an incredible load & carried it off!
5. Troy Brown improved significantly on a very good rookie season.
6. Moe Wagner showed that he could be a solid journeyman big -- if (a big if, alas) he cuts down his fouls & turnovers by a fair amount. Still...
7. We got a pleasant surprise when the undrafted Garrison Mathews gave us good reason to believe that he can play at the NBA level & produce.
8. John Wall healed up & rehabbed with no backwards steps.
9. We came out of the season with Bird rights over 2 potentially helpful veterans: Bertans & Napier.

Were there any negatives? Well, Admiral Schofield looks like a wasted R2 pick, yet he is guaranteed for the coming season. & Jerome Robinson is pretty questionable. OTOH, pretty much every disastrous move by Ernie Grunfeld is behind us.

Timing for any significant success during the Wall/Beal era is not ideal, but there's nothing we can do about that. In fact, the worst thing we could do right now is turn our focus towards acquiring veterans in a quest to become "respectable" in the next year or so.

To me, the message of all this is that we should maximize the number of draft picks we get to add this year & in the next few years. The number of new, young players.

I would cut the cable on Admiral: waive him now & eat the $1.5m we owe him. I wouldn't pick up Pasecniks' option either.

That would leave us with only 8 guaranteed contracts. Of course, I would extend Bonga & I would sign Mathews to a conventional roster spot. I would also sign Napier as a solid back up PG & to make it practical to trade Ish if we are able to do so.

That's 11. Because he is a fan favorite & entertaining & might be quite tradable at the deadline, I would also re-sign Davis Bertans.

That's 12 -- & it leaves us room to add 3 rookies to our regular roster & a couple of 2-way contracts as yet another investment in the future.

That's the way: let's do it!

[pcbothwel]

Agreed PIF. This may be moot if we win the lotto tonight, but Im really settling into the thought that we continue to fill this team with high IQ, defensive minded, hardworking players. Sure, we MAY not hit on a star that way, but its a sure fire way to be competitive every night and continue to build the right culture.
That's why im settling in on Devin Vassell at #9 and Tillman/T.Bey/Oturu at 37.

This should go in the Draft Thread I guess, but I think Vassell can be every bit the 2/3 that Otto was at the 3/4.
- High level on ball defender and Team defender. Great feet, hips, hands, communication... sure fire NBA defender that would be the best on the team by year 2.
- Great outside shooter. High release, balanced.
- Great off ball player. Cuts to the basket with a purpose and vision.
- Gathers hockey assist. May not be main facilitator (Hence low Assist), but moves the ball with purpose and timing and doesnt hold the ball.

He allows us to move Brown as a 6th man/glue guy, while Vassell is the perfect low usage 4th option that defends the best wing on the other team.

[Ruzious]

I wonder whether most of you will agree with this -- I think that in the only way that matters now, we had quite a successful 2019-20 season:

1. Rui showed that he can play in the NBA -- he hasn't yet shown that he can play well, but he's not a bust.
2. Isaac Bonga showed that he has a high ceiling & can develop (already has).
3. Thomas Bryant had a slow start but then improved towards his extraordinary 2018-19 numbers. He has significant problems defensively, but he also has a whole lot going for him.
4. Brad carried an incredible load & carried it off!
5. Troy Brown improved significantly on a very good rookie season.
6. Moe Wagner showed that he could be a solid journeyman big -- if (a big if, alas) he cuts down his fouls & turnovers by a fair amount. Still...
7. We got a pleasant surprise when the undrafted Garrison Mathews gave us good reason to believe that he can play at the NBA level & produce.
8. John Wall healed up & rehabbed with no backwards steps.
9. We came out of the season with Bird rights over 2 potentially helpful veterans: Bertans & Napier.

Were there any negatives? Well, Admiral Schofield looks like a wasted R2 pick, yet he is guaranteed for the coming season. & Jerome Robinson is pretty questionable. OTOH, pretty much every disastrous move by Ernie Grunfeld is behind us.

Timing for any significant success during the Wall/Beal era is not ideal, but there's nothing we can do about that. In fact, the worst thing we could do right now is turn our focus towards acquiring veterans in a quest to become "respectable" in the next year or so.

To me, the message of all this is that we should maximize the number of draft picks we get to add this year & in the next few years. The number of new, young players.

I would cut the cable on Admiral: waive him now & eat the $1.5m we owe him. I wouldn't pick up Pasecniks' option either.

That would leave us with only 8 guaranteed contracts. Of course, I would extend Bonga & I would sign Mathews to a conventional roster spot. I would also sign Napier as a solid back up PG & to make it practical to trade Ish if we are able to do so.

That's 11. Because he is a fan favorite & entertaining & might be quite tradable at the deadline, I would also re-sign Davis Bertans.

That's 12 -- & it leaves us room to add 3 rookies to our regular roster & a couple of 2-way contracts as yet another investment in the future.

That's the way: let's do it!

And then you woke up.

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk - it comes naturally to me. Maybe I'd buy in if I read it while listening to Shiny Happy People?

Honestly, I think we can make the tail end of the playoffs if that is the goal, but if we want to contend for anything more than that and don't want to do a complete rebuild, we need to add multiple 2-way players and probably a defensive-minded coach.