Official Trade Thread Part XLVII

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Yep, you always summarize it quite nicely.

Who me? Summarize?

A doclinkin summary requires Cliffs Notes.

From me, who doclinkin called "bipolar bear."

Side notes: 1. Polar bear kinda fits. I was born in Anchorage . 2. Bipolarism. The movie Silver Linings Playbook gives an excellent portrayal of the behaviors and mannerisms of a bipolar individual and family members.

[nate33]

Flagg/Harper or not, I don't think we'll have much trouble holding on to that pick. right now, the 8th worst team is at 32-44. Hence a 34 or 35 win season. We are not getting there next year!

Doesn't mean there is no deal, Blockwatcher -- what do you have in mind?

The Knicks are so close to the 2nd apron I can’t wrap my head around a logical deal between just our teams. Maybe a sign and trade involving Precious Achiuwa? With Smart or Kispert going to another team? I don’t really know who’s kicking the tires on either of them.

I truly don’t know how eager the wizards would be to get that pick back under control so I can’t speak to what player you would send out. Here’s something outta left field.
Wiz get their pick and Achiuwa
Suns swap is voided
Knicks get Nick Richards

Zero chance the Wiz would void the Suns swap. It likely doubles their chances of a top 4 pick. The team has shown a willingness to trade for big contracts though to help a team drop below the 2nd apron.

Trade pieces for the right price: Smart, Kispert, Middleton when he picks up his option, Villanova player Saddiq Bey, Poole if the right deal comes along. But I think Thibs might be more interested in a productive Big like Richaun Holmes. Cheap, unguaranteed and productive. But for us to give you significant cap relief we'd want more than a cancellation of a pick that the odds are against us giving up anyway. And flat no on erasing the PHX pick. We are expecting to extract full value over the years for the Beal trade.

Looking at the Knicks cap, oof, you really have no one you can trade to burn your cap down. Achiuwa? he's not under contract with you next year. Unrestricted free agent. Not a player we want, so no point in the sign and trade.

Mitchell Robinson for Richaun Holmes is about the only thing you're looking at. If the Knicks send incentive.

The trade that might make sense is for the Wizards to send Champagne to NY in exchange for increasing the protection on that pick back up to top 20 or so. (Essentially guaranteeing that the FRP won't convey and instead it will convert into two SRP's)

Champagne makes sense because the Knicks would have a lot of interest in a useful rotation player locked into an vet minimum deal, given their salary cap woes.

[doclinkin]

And Thibs would like the way he plays.

[tontoz]

Hopefully Poole has played well enough that someone will take him off our hands this summer and we can hand the reigns to Bub/AJ next season.

[9 and 20]

Milwaukee deserves a bit of pain for what they did to us. They could have warned us off off Ernie Grunfeld as GM all those years ago but they kept their mouths shut. Then we got Grundled for 20 years, coming up for air for 40 win seasons just a couple of times.

[payitforward]

The Knicks are so close to the 2nd apron I can’t wrap my head around a logical deal between just our teams. Maybe a sign and trade involving Precious Achiuwa? With Smart or Kispert going to another team? I don’t really know who’s kicking the tires on either of them.

I truly don’t know how eager the wizards would be to get that pick back under control so I can’t speak to what player you would send out. Here’s something outta left field.
Wiz get their pick and Achiuwa
Suns swap is voided
Knicks get Nick Richards

Zero chance the Wiz would void the Suns swap. It likely doubles their chances of a top 4 pick. The team has shown a willingness to trade for big contracts though to help a team drop below the 2nd apron.

Trade pieces for the right price: Smart, Kispert, Middleton when he picks up his option, Villanova player Saddiq Bey, Poole if the right deal comes along. But I think Thibs might be more interested in a productive Big like Richaun Holmes. Cheap, unguaranteed and productive. But for us to give you significant cap relief we'd want more than a cancellation of a pick that the odds are against us giving up anyway. And flat no on erasing the PHX pick. We are expecting to extract full value over the years for the Beal trade.

Looking at the Knicks cap, oof, you really have no one you can trade to burn your cap down. Achiuwa? he's not under contract with you next year. Unrestricted free agent. Not a player we want, so no point in the sign and trade.

Mitchell Robinson for Richaun Holmes is about the only thing you're looking at. If the Knicks send incentive.

The trade that might make sense is for the Wizards to send Champagne to NY in exchange for increasing the protection on that pick back up to top 20 or so. (Essentially guaranteeing that the FRP won't convey and instead it will convert into two SRP's)

Champagne makes sense because the Knicks would have a lot of interest in a useful rotation player locked into an vet minimum deal, given their salary cap woes.

nate... you know what my response will be, right? No way!

We are not in danger of being better next year than the 8th worst record -- which, this year, is at 34-42 right now (i.e. likely a 36-46 record).
Above all, there is zero chance of our being in the top 10 next year -- i.e. no conceivable need to up our protection from worst 8 to worst 20.

Champagnie is only 23 & still developing. He's under a tremendous bargain 4-year contract. He's going to have a long, productive career as the kind of player every team needs. & no he is by no means someone you can pick up every off season for little or no expense.

[9 and 20]

Any difference between Champagnie and Nique Clifford? Is Champagnie worth a late first?

[payitforward]

Any difference between Champagnie and Nique Clifford? ...

I'd say the difference is fairly obvious. Clifford has a shot to establish himself as a productive NBA player. Champagnie has already done so.

...Is Champagnie worth a late first?

Obviously, Champagnie is "worth a late first." He is an established, productive player in the NBA at the age of 23. Do you think there's a 100% chance of getting that with a single late R1 pick? More like 60% -- tops.

[nate33]

Any difference between Champagnie and Nique Clifford? ...

I'd say the difference is fairly obvious. Clifford has a shot to establish himself as a productive NBA player. Champagnie has already done so.

...Is Champagnie worth a late first?

Obviously, Champagnie is "worth a late first." He is an established, productive player in the NBA at the age of 23. Do you think there's a 100% chance of getting that with a single late R1 pick? More like 60% -- tops.

I like Champagnie and there's certainly a good argument that he is more valuable than a late FRP, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is "obviously" worth a late FRP. If it was obvious that the market considered him worth a late FRP, I seriously doubt his agent would have agreed to that horrible (for Champagnie) long term contract he just signed. It only pays him the vet minimum; he is locked into it for 4 years; and each year is non-guaranteed.

[DCZards]

Any difference between Champagnie and Nique Clifford? ...

I'd say the difference is fairly obvious. Clifford has a shot to establish himself as a productive NBA player. Champagnie has already done so.

...Is Champagnie worth a late first?

Obviously, Champagnie is "worth a late first." He is an established, productive player in the NBA at the age of 23. Do you think there's a 100% chance of getting that with a single late R1 pick? More like 60% -- tops.

I like Champagnie and there's certainly a good argument that he is more valuable than a late FRP, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is "obviously" worth a late FRP. If it was obvious that the market considered him worth a late FRP, I seriously doubt his agent would have agreed to that horrible (for Champagnie) long term contract he just signed. It only pays him the vet minimum; he is locked into it for 4 years; and each year is non-guaranteed.

Yeah…Champagnie is on a great contract from the standpoint of the Zards. Would have liked to see him get paid at least a little more.

I agree that you’re unlikely to get a FRP for Justin. Teams don’t give up FRPs for role players who are probably 7th or 8th men on a good team.

When I was watching Champagnie play a couple of games ago a possible comp came to mind—Josh Hart.

Ironically, a few minutes later Drew Gooden came up with the same comp.

Justin is no Hart. But, if Champagnie got to that level, then yes he would be worth a FRP.

[payitforward]

Any difference between Champagnie and Nique Clifford? ...

I'd say the difference is fairly obvious. Clifford has a shot to establish himself as a productive NBA player. Champagnie has already done so.

...Is Champagnie worth a late first?

Obviously, Champagnie is "worth a late first." He is an established, productive player in the NBA at the age of 23. Do you think there's a 100% chance of getting that with a single late R1 pick? More like 60% -- tops.

I like Champagnie and there's certainly a good argument that he is more valuable than a late FRP, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is "obviously" worth a late FRP. If it was obvious that the market considered him worth a late FRP, I seriously doubt his agent would have agreed to that horrible (for Champagnie) long term contract he just signed. It only pays him the vet minimum; he is locked into it for 4 years; and each year is non-guaranteed.

That's a fair point, & "obvious" was a poor choice of a word on my part.

What I should have said is that based on his production, I'd put my $$ on Champagnie over a single pick in the second half of a future NBA draft. All the more b/c of his bargain contract!

[payitforward]

...Teams don’t give up FRPs for role players who are probably 7th or 8th men on a good team.....

"FRP" is too generic. I bet you could get e.g. the #25 pick for Justin. I would certainly give that!

...When I was watching Champagnie play a couple of games ago a possible comp came to mind—Josh Hart. ...
Justin is no Hart. But, if Champagnie got to that level, then yes he would be worth a FRP.

That's a terrific comp, Zards! Well done.
&, in fact, Josh Hart is one of my favorite players.

Is he better than Justin right now? You bet.
Yet, you may be under-estimating Justin, because the two guys' per-40-minute numbers this season are quite close overall.

And... Hart is in the peak years of his career, while Champagnie is only 23.

In fact, Justin Champagnie in '24-25 has been better than Josh Hart in any of his first 4 years.

Justin playing his axx off! He has logged almost 1200 minutes & is grabbing over 10 rebounds per 40 minutes.

Above all, his offensive efficiency is exceptional: he has a 59.8% TS%, which is extremely high for a wing, but there's much more to it than that. In the time it takes Justin to commit 2 turnovers, he gets over 6.5 combined offensive boards & steals.

Justin Champagnie is simply outstanding.

[doclinkin]

...Teams don’t give up FRPs for role players who are probably 7th or 8th men on a good team.....

"FRP" is too generic. I bet you could get e.g. the #25 pick for Justin.

Hmm. I don't think you could. Teams look at first round picks as what they could be, not the likely outcome. There's always a little extra sauce in the mystery of a pick. A guy like JChamp is looked at as a nice throw in to a deal, but teams don't tend to regard this sort of player as exciting. Too where a player gets drafted has residual value over the first few years in the league. Value in both directions. If a guy was a 2nd rounder or undrafted he doesn't have the perceived upside of a 'first round pick' or better still, a lottery pick. Teams want to think they will draft the next Giannis with that pick. A guy putting up nice numbers on a losing team is also kinda looked at askance. If he were so good why didn't he start all year and why aren't they winning. Nevermind that in our recent spate of wins he did play a more major role. Players taken from losing teams tend to get less in trade, like they're harvested from the ding and dent pile. Thrift store. It's one reason why Deni's deal was looked at as a surprising 'get' in assets returned.

[Tyrone Messby]

I was today years old when I found out Bradley Beal’s agent is the son of the Suns CEO.

[payitforward]

...Teams don’t give up FRPs for role players who are probably 7th or 8th men on a good team.....

"FRP" is too generic. I bet you could get e.g. the #25 pick for Justin.

Hmm. I don't think you could. Teams look at first round picks as what they could be, not the likely outcome. There's always a little extra sauce in the mystery of a pick. A guy like JChamp is looked at as a nice throw in to a deal, but teams don't tend to regard this sort of player as exciting. Too where a player gets drafted has residual value over the first few years in the league. Value in both directions. If a guy was a 2nd rounder or undrafted he doesn't have the perceived upside of a 'first round pick' or better still, a lottery pick. Teams want to think they will draft the next Giannis with that pick. A guy putting up nice numbers on a losing team is also kinda looked at askance. If he were so good why didn't he start all year and why aren't they winning. Nevermind that in our recent spate of wins he did play a more major role. Players taken from losing teams tend to get less in trade, like they're harvested from the ding and dent pile. Thrift store. It's one reason why Deni's deal was looked at as a surprising 'get' in assets returned.

Although any single point you make in the above may be (& probably has been) true in one or more or many cases, I don't think any of them constitute general truths.

Take a look at the arc of, say, Jarred Vanderbilt's career. Or, for that matter, our (ex-)own Spencer Dinwiddie. Or... well the list is too long. What do the following guys have in common: Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson, Bruce Brown, Gary Trent Jr. All from a single draft.

Being a GM is a business job; you are competing with your peers.
Go with common perceptions or nostrums like the above, & you will be out of a job one day pretty soon.

Or perhaps you'd prefer a single good team as an example of what I mean?
Here's a really good one.

1. Isaiah Hartenstein, Luguentz Dort, & Aaron Wiggins are making a combined $60,000,000 this year.
Hartenstein was the 43d pick in the draft. Dort was undrafted. Wiggins was the 49th pick.

2. Makes Alex Caruso, Kenrich Williams, & Isaiah Joe look like pikers, huh? With their measly $30m combined current salary, I mean.
The first two of those three went undrafted. Joe was a #49 pick.

3. The Thunder have 65 wins, so... how many of their players were out of that "all-important" top handful of picks?

Spoiler:

1 -- Chet Holmgren.

4. Yeah, but how many of the rest of hem were at least taken in the top ten where at least we can hope for elite players?

Spoiler:

1 -- Cason Wallace

5. Ok, fine. But, still, how many of the rest of 'em were at least taken somewhere in the bottom part of the lottery?

Spoiler:

3 -- Ousmane Dieng, SG-A, & Jalen Wiliams

6. Of the remainder of their 15-man roster, how many were Round 1 picks?

Spoiler:

1 -- rookie Dillon Jones, who's played 460 minutes -- that's it.

Only 6 R1 picks on the entire roster of the best team in the NBA. How about that?

Reality rarely looks anything like the commonly-shared picture of it. It's hard to keep in mind, I know, but it's a good idea to try.

[doclinkin]

"FRP" is too generic. I bet you could get e.g. the #25 pick for Justin.

Hmm. I don't think you could. Teams look at first round picks as what they could be, not the likely outcome. There's always a little extra sauce in the mystery of a pick. A guy like JChamp is looked at as a nice throw in to a deal, but teams don't tend to regard this sort of player as exciting. Too where a player gets drafted has residual value over the first few years in the league. Value in both directions. If a guy was a 2nd rounder or undrafted he doesn't have the perceived upside of a 'first round pick' or better still, a lottery pick. Teams want to think they will draft the next Giannis with that pick. A guy putting up nice numbers on a losing team is also kinda looked at askance. If he were so good why didn't he start all year and why aren't they winning. Nevermind that in our recent spate of wins he did play a more major role. Players taken from losing teams tend to get less in trade, like they're harvested from the ding and dent pile. Thrift store. It's one reason why Deni's deal was looked at as a surprising 'get' in assets returned.

Although any single point you make in the above may be (& probably has been) true in one or more or many cases, I don't think any of them constitute general truths.

Fans on RealGM and reddit are better informed than most casual fans. Many are deep diving stat nerds with respect for a players output off the bench. I suggest you go ahead on the General Board and float the idea to fans of any team with a pick in the 20's if they'd swap their mid-20's pick for Justin Champagnie. I suspect the answer would be a near universal GTFO here.

Narrative matters. Owners meddle, GMs get fired, fan reaction and media hubbub have an influence. You often hear a player's draft position cited in a trade. It's especially unusual to hear about trades of players on their rookie contract. Teams and fans tend to invest more patience in their home grown draft pick. (Searching for the study that showed the higher up a player is drafted, the more patient a team tends to be relative to their production. One of those studies I stumbled over when trying to find the early Pelton conversations on the APBR board). Basically the summation was: GMs are not immune to sunk cost fallacy. The flipside was also shown to be true, that in the main teams value more highly the *potential* of a draft pick then the supposed historical production of all players at that pick. Here Grunfeld used to drive all of us draftniks crazy by selling 2nd rounders or trading 1sts.

Point being Justin Champagnie likely has more actual value than perceived value. To everyone else: he's an undrafted guy who bounced around for a few years, now has earned one year of solid play on an abysmal team, playing mostly against back-ups, at 20 mins a game.
That's not a guy you scour the league looking for. Not a guy you daydream about as a possible allstar. There's a reason he went undrafted 3 years ago, despite all the markers you noted that pointed towards him as a good player. The numbers exist and yet GMs still overlook them. Here you give them too much credit, yet are still often flabbergasted when they ignore perfectly good data.

You are probably right if you think JC is likely better than the majority of players picked at 25 or later. But teams are not calling up the WIzards front office asking if we'd let him go for their late first. Tacked on to a deal he's a valuable guy. He's the defnintion of a journeyman. An undersized forward with good hustle stats. But not a *maybe all-star*. That is what many teams swing for in the draft. Potential all-stars. (Except say, a team like the Grizzlies who value production above all). There is value in 'maybe'. People already know what JC is, they think they might get something better in another guy.

Sunk cost also exists in execs justifying their jobs. Sunk time in hours of footage watching college games and overseas players, hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in scouting departments, etc. GMs are not immune to falling in like with their favorites and valuing their vision of a player's upside over the box score production of a guy already in the league. You can cherry pick any one team and how they acquire players. We can debate the best way to build a team. But history shows that rarely does a single role-playing bench guy get traded for first round picks, unless they are part of a bigger deal.

[payitforward]

You're probably right. I.e. it's hard to think of an example that would exemplify my position. Not to mention that there is absolutely no incentive to trade Champagnie for a late FRP, even if it were possible.

He's still only 23, he's obviously quite good, he's tied up for next to no $$ for a loooong time. Why ever would you move him for a pick that, like any pick, has way more maybes floating around in its penumbra than Justin. Keep him, count yourself lucky, give him something of a raise in a couple of years.

[gambitx777]

You're probably right. I.e. it's hard to think of an example that would exemplify my position. Not to mention that there is absolutely no incentive to trade Champagnie for a late FRP, even if it were possible.

He's still only 23, he's obviously quite good, he's tied up for next to no $$ for a loooong time. Why ever would you move him for a pick that, like any pick, has way more maybes floating around in its penumbra than Justin. Keep him, count yourself lucky, give him something of a raise in a couple of years.

Yeah you at least don't trade him until he ages out of the second round draft age which at its oldest is like 25 ish. You keep that guy for a while if he remains cheap!

Sent from my SM-S926U1 using RealGM mobile app

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

"FRP" is too generic. I bet you could get e.g. the #25 pick for Justin.

Hmm. I don't think you could. Teams look at first round picks as what they could be, not the likely outcome. There's always a little extra sauce in the mystery of a pick. A guy like JChamp is looked at as a nice throw in to a deal, but teams don't tend to regard this sort of player as exciting. Too where a player gets drafted has residual value over the first few years in the league. Value in both directions. If a guy was a 2nd rounder or undrafted he doesn't have the perceived upside of a 'first round pick' or better still, a lottery pick. Teams want to think they will draft the next Giannis with that pick. A guy putting up nice numbers on a losing team is also kinda looked at askance. If he were so good why didn't he start all year and why aren't they winning. Nevermind that in our recent spate of wins he did play a more major role. Players taken from losing teams tend to get less in trade, like they're harvested from the ding and dent pile. Thrift store. It's one reason why Deni's deal was looked at as a surprising 'get' in assets returned.

Although any single point you make in the above may be (& probably has been) true in one or more or many cases, I don't think any of them constitute general truths.

Take a look at the arc of, say, Jarred Vanderbilt's career. Or, for that matter, our (ex-)own Spencer Dinwiddie. Or... well the list is too long. What do the following guys have in common: Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson, Bruce Brown, Gary Trent Jr. All from a single draft.

Being a GM is a business job; you are competing with your peers.
Go with common perceptions or nostrums like the above, & you will be out of a job one day pretty soon.

Or perhaps you'd prefer a single good team as an example of what I mean?
Here's a really good one.

1. Isaiah Hartenstein, Luguentz Dort, & Aaron Wiggins are making a combined $60,000,000 this year.
Hartenstein was the 43d pick in the draft. Dort was undrafted. Wiggins was the 49th pick.

2. Makes Alex Caruso, Kenrich Williams, & Isaiah Joe look like pikers, huh? With their measly $30m combined current salary, I mean.
The first two of those three went undrafted. Joe was a #49 pick.

3. The Thunder have 65 wins, so... how many of their players were out of that "all-important" top handful of picks?

Spoiler:

1 -- Chet Holmgren.

4. Yeah, but how many of the rest of hem were at least taken in the top ten where at least we can hope for elite players?

Spoiler:

1 -- Cason Wallace

5. Ok, fine. But, still, how many of the rest of 'em were at least taken somewhere in the bottom part of the lottery?

Spoiler:

3 -- Ousmane Dieng, SG-A, & Jalen Wiliams

6. Of the remainder of their 15-man roster, how many were Round 1 picks?

Spoiler:

1 -- rookie Dillon Jones, who's played 460 minutes -- that's it.

Only 6 R1 picks on the entire roster of the best team in the NBA. How about that?

Reality rarely looks anything like the commonly-shared picture of it. It's hard to keep in mind, I know, but it's a good idea to try.

This is why I refuse to accept that this team must tank next season.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Hmm. I don't think you could. Teams look at first round picks as what they could be, not the likely outcome. There's always a little extra sauce in the mystery of a pick. A guy like JChamp is looked at as a nice throw in to a deal, but teams don't tend to regard this sort of player as exciting. Too where a player gets drafted has residual value over the first few years in the league. Value in both directions. If a guy was a 2nd rounder or undrafted he doesn't have the perceived upside of a 'first round pick' or better still, a lottery pick. Teams want to think they will draft the next Giannis with that pick. A guy putting up nice numbers on a losing team is also kinda looked at askance. If he were so good why didn't he start all year and why aren't they winning. Nevermind that in our recent spate of wins he did play a more major role. Players taken from losing teams tend to get less in trade, like they're harvested from the ding and dent pile. Thrift store. It's one reason why Deni's deal was looked at as a surprising 'get' in assets returned.

Although any single point you make in the above may be (& probably has been) true in one or more or many cases, I don't think any of them constitute general truths.

Fans on RealGM and reddit are better informed than most casual fans. Many are deep diving stat nerds with respect for a players output off the bench. I suggest you go ahead on the General Board and float the idea to fans of any team with a pick in the 20's if they'd swap their mid-20's pick for Justin Champagnie. I suspect the answer would be a near universal GTFO here.

Narrative matters. Owners meddle, GMs get fired, fan reaction and media hubbub have an influence. You often hear a player's draft position cited in a trade. It's especially unusual to hear about trades of players on their rookie contract. Teams and fans tend to invest more patience in their home grown draft pick. (Searching for the study that showed the higher up a player is drafted, the more patient a team tends to be relative to their production. One of those studies I stumbled over when trying to find the early Pelton conversations on the APBR board). Basically the summation was: GMs are not immune to sunk cost fallacy. The flipside was also shown to be true, that in the main teams value more highly the *potential* of a draft pick then the supposed historical production of all players at that pick. Here Grunfeld used to drive all of us draftniks crazy by selling 2nd rounders or trading 1sts.

Point being Justin Champagnie likely has more actual value than perceived value. To everyone else: he's an undrafted guy who bounced around for a few years, now has earned one year of solid play on an abysmal team, playing mostly against back-ups, at 20 mins a game.
That's not a guy you scour the league looking for. Not a guy you daydream about as a possible allstar. There's a reason he went undrafted 3 years ago, despite all the markers you noted that pointed towards him as a good player. The numbers exist and yet GMs still overlook them. Here you give them too much credit, yet are still often flabbergasted when they ignore perfectly good data.

You are probably right if you think JC is likely better than the majority of players picked at 25 or later. But teams are not calling up the WIzards front office asking if we'd let him go for their late first. Tacked on to a deal he's a valuable guy. He's the defnintion of a journeyman. An undersized forward with good hustle stats. But not a *maybe all-star*. That is what many teams swing for in the draft. Potential all-stars. (Except say, a team like the Grizzlies who value production above all). There is value in 'maybe'. People already know what JC is, they think they might get something better in another guy.

Sunk cost also exists in execs justifying their jobs. Sunk time in hours of footage watching college games and overseas players, hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in scouting departments, etc. GMs are not immune to falling in like with their favorites and valuing their vision of a player's upside over the box score production of a guy already in the league. You can cherry pick any one team and how they acquire players. We can debate the best way to build a team. But history shows that rarely does a single role-playing bench guy get traded for first round picks, unless they are part of a bigger deal.

Who would you rather have? Justin Champagnie, Nique Clifford, or R.J. Luis Jr.?