Woj: Deni to Portland for 14th pick and Brogdon

[nate33]

Another benchmark signing to compare with Deni's contract:

Read on Twitter

Note, it's not really a 5/$150M deal. It's a 4/$145M deal tacked on to the final, $5M year of his rookie contract.

Deni was signed for 4-years $55M. Statistically, he is about as good as Johnson, only much more durable. And he is paid one-third as much.

I'm never going to get over this!

[Dark Faze]

The salary on top of his unique attributes (6'9, two way, passing ability, 23 years old) means the trade is more likely than not to be looked at as having been weak compensation. I said before, if he improves moderately on last years numbers, and you pair it with that contract, then we didn't get nearly enough back.

But I'm not going to speak any more on it until the season begins to play out because of course there is some chance he regresses.

My problem with the Bub pick is not that I dislike him. But going from a 6'9 swiss army knife wing to a mostly score first guard is...not really close in terms of the rarity of the asset. But again, perfectly willing to give Bub the chance to show out.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

Another benchmark signing to compare with Deni's contract:

Read on Twitter

Note, it's not really a 5/$150M deal. It's a 4/$145M deal tacked on to the final, $5M year of his rookie contract.

Deni was signed for 4-years $55M. Statistically, he is about as good as Johnson, only much more durable. And he is paid one-third as much.

I'm never going to get over this!

Geez.

Legitimately traded away arguably the best contract in the league. If Deni only slightly ups his game this season, it is a runaway.

Dawkins has to be secretly hoping Deni is a dud in Portland, because if he has another leap, the franchise is going to look like absolute fools.

[Endless Loop]

If Deni plays well, and if Sarr this year doesn't show promise commensurate with where he got drafted, then I'd expect Dawkins to be out the door after the season ends. I suspect Ted's royally pissed about the trade. Even if the trade was OK in a basketball sense, fact is that Deni was popular with fans and a decent draw.

Reminds me of the Rui trade a bit- I think that was a significant reason (one of many) for Sheppard's ouster. Rui sold tons of merch and tix. And btw, the verdict is in on that trade- it sucked.

Popular players for the Wiz are a little like the good guys in Game of Thrones- management keeps getting rid of them.

[nate33]

Reminds me of the Rui trade a bit- I think that was a significant reason (one of many) for Sheppard's ouster. Rui sold tons of merch and tix. And btw, the verdict is in on that trade- it sucked.

I disagree on this point. The Rui trade was not a bad trade, either at the time or in retrospect. They got three SRP's for a guy who was about to get modestly overpaid to be a 5th starter. His salary slot was essentially used to take on Bagley, who is only marginally worse than Rui, and we got two more SRP's in that transaction. So, essentially, it was Rui for Bagley plus 5 second round picks. On a rebuilding team, that's a no-brainer.

Sheppard really only made two key mistakes: the drafting of Davis, and giving Beal that no-trade clause which utterly tanked his trade value (and that may have been a Ted decision). Other than that, Sheppard was pretty good. He turned Wall into Westbrook and got us into the playoffs again, and then turned Westbrook into Kuzma, KCP and Harrell. He acquired Porzingis for Dinwiddie, and Porzingis went on to be a top 30 NBA player during his tenure here. He traded Troy Brown for Gafford. He drafted Avdija and Kispert.

Mostly, Sheppard was ousted because Ted finally got it right and decided to institute a rebuild starting with a blank slate including a new management team.

I also don't think the Deni trade is putting management in jeopardy. Wizards Twitter and the media in general seems to think it was a fine trade. They're wrong, but nevertheless, their opinion presumably shapes Ted's opinion on the merits of the trade.

[AFM]

I dont really agree with anything in that post at all. Dawkins will be out the door this year? If Sarr doesn't look good? Everyone knows Sarr is a long term project and we didn't get his pick from the Deni trade so I don't understand the connection at all.

[DCZards]

If Deni plays well, and if Sarr this year doesn't show promise commensurate with where he got drafted, then I'd expect Dawkins to be out the door after the season ends. I suspect Ted's royally pissed about the trade. Even if the trade was OK in a basketball sense, fact is that Deni was popular with fans and a decent draw.

Deni is a 23 yr old who is very likely to improve. The Zards—and Leonsis--knew that when he was traded. Ted has clearly bought into the rebuild and almost certainly signed off on the Deni trade.

Deni was indeed popular with fans. He was my favorite Zard. But he was not the kind of player who put more butts in the seats. He may have someday—and Bub may someday as well.

I’m sure that Dawkins’ job does not hinge on a raw, skinny, 19 year old rookie turning into an overnight sensation. His development will take time...and Leonsis and the FO know that.

[dckingsfan]

Reminds me of the Rui trade a bit- I think that was a significant reason (one of many) for Sheppard's ouster. Rui sold tons of merch and tix. And btw, the verdict is in on that trade- it sucked.

I disagree on this point. The Rui trade was not a bad trade, either at the time or in retrospect. They got three SRP's for a guy who was about to get modestly overpaid to be a 5th starter. His salary slot was essentially used to take on Bagley, who is only marginally worse than Rui, and we got two more SRP's in that transaction. So, essentially, it was Rui for Bagley plus 5 second round picks. On a rebuilding team, that's a no-brainer.

Sheppard really only made two key mistakes: the drafting of Davis, and giving Beal that no-trade clause which utterly tanked his trade value (and that may have been a Ted decision). Other than that, Sheppard was pretty good. He turned Wall into Westbrook and got us into the playoffs again, and then turned Westbrook into Kuzma, KCP and Harrell. He acquired Porzingis for Dinwiddie, and Porzingis went on to be a top 30 NBA player during his tenure here. He traded Troy Brown for Gafford. He drafted Avdija and Kispert.

Mostly, Sheppard was ousted because Ted finally got it right and decided to institute a rebuild starting with a blank slate including a new management team.

I also don't think the Deni trade is putting management in jeopardy. Wizards Twitter and the media in general seems to think it was a fine trade. They're wrong, but nevertheless, their opinion presumably shapes Ted's opinion on the merits of the trade.

Adding on. We can also look at how long it takes for Ted to pull the trigger. I would say he is going to give this team several more years to work on their rebuild. And given how they have started the process, unless they nail it in next year's draft - it is going to take a very long time.

2027-28 is when Poole & Kuz come off the books.
2027-28 is the third season for the '25 rookie
2027-28 is the fourth season for the current rookies

I think we won't be a winning team until then (I think longer). I think this current management team will survive until then as well. I don't see them as a great management team but they aren't terrible either.

[Dat2U]

After looking at A.J. Dybantsa, I understand why the Wizards traded Deni. I agree 100% with doc, Deni could have gotten in the way of a nice clean tank over the next two years. But in retrospect the one thing I would have done differently is kept him and let him get off to a roaring start this year to extract more value and because I was not in love with with the mid-1st options this past year. I understand why they made the move ... partly based on the scouting of Carrington so we'll see if it pays dividends in the long run.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

After looking at A.J. Dybantsa, I understand why the Wizards traded Deni. I agree 100% with doc, Deni could have gotten in the way of a nice clean tank over the next two years. But in retrospect the one thing I would have done differently is kept him and let him get off to a roaring start this year to extract more value and because I was not in love with with the mid-1st options this past year. I understand why they made the move ... partly based on the scouting of Carrington so we'll see if it pays dividends in the long run.

This whole Deni would have hurt the tank just doesn't compute with me. Jettisoning a young, talented player because they "might" jeopardize the tank is the epitome of horrible asset management. If the franchise couldn't have managed holding onto a player that is up and coming, and balance the tank, then they've got bigger problems than a 23 year-old making or breaking their upcoming draft.

I've never been a big fan of Kuzma, but moving him off the roster alone would almost assuredly kept the tanks team just as strong given he can get hot offensively every now and then and the team just wouldn't have enough scoring on almost every night. Again they let him veto a trade that would have made this true. Another example of bad asset management.

I can only speak for myself after being so vocal about the trade, but I would have definitely been open to trading Deni. The problem is this was a bad trade, plain and simple. Light ass return, because management just wanted to tear down house and wanted their dude just for the sake of it, throwing out the baby with the bathwater have you. Several posters on this board flip-flopped from their original stance that it was a horrible trade because they probably had David Aldridge, some Twitter twat, or someone in the sycophantic local sports media tell them it was good because they uttered "change," "vision," and "strategy."

[doclinkin]

If Deni plays well, and if Sarr this year doesn't show promise commensurate with where he got drafted, then I'd expect Dawkins to be out the door after the season ends. I suspect Ted's royally pissed about the trade. Even if the trade was OK in a basketball sense, fact is that Deni was popular with fans and a decent draw.

Deni is a 23 yr old who is very likely to improve. The Zards—and Leonsis--knew that when he was traded. Ted has clearly brought into the rebuild and almost certainly signed off on the Deni trade.

Deni was indeed popular with fans. He was my favorite Zard. But he was not the kind of player who put more butts in the seats. He may have someday—and Bub may someday as well.

I’m sure that Dawkins’ job does not hinge on a raw, skinny, 19 year old rookie turning into an overnight sensation. His development will take time...and Leonsis and the FO know that.

Right. And with Ted's PR emphasis on community and looking good to the locals, having a local kid who charms the fans will more than offset the sales potential of a foreign market. The link has been made clear between Deni and Bub, not Sarr. If Bub plays well and excites the fans then nobody's job is in jeopardy. Thing is Bub has a chance to get a ton of minutes, so even if he is not efficient early his raw stats will look pretty good. I expect we will see a few double doubles from him this year. In points and rebounds, not assists. Give us that and energy and active looking defense and heavy minutes this year and he will be a fan favorite. Nobody in management will worry too much about whatever Deni's stats are. Only if Deni is an all-star or MIP we'll hear grumbles. But I agree with Zards. Deni's game is to blend in and make a team better, it's the exact sort of game that is underappreciated except by diehards and stat heads.

[doclinkin]

I can only speak for myself after being so vocal about the trade, but I would have definitely been open to trading Deni. The problem is this was a bad trade, plain and simple. Light ass return, because management just wanted to tear down house and wanted their dude just for the sake of it, throwing out the baby with the bathwater have you. Several posters on this board flip-flopped from their original stance that it was a horrible trade because they probably had David Aldridge, some Twitter twat, or someone in the sycophantic local sports media tell them it was good because they uttered "change," "vision," and "strategy."

Not me. I hated the trade on draft night. But switched up for 2 reasons: I heard how much they got for it. And I did a deeper dive on Bub.

This franchise needs a total roster overhaul. We can't do it by trading 1-for-1 and adding a single pick every year. As much as everybody wants to trade Kuzma, we haven't been able to do it. Nobody wants him enough to eat his salary + 15% trade kicker AND send us something of value for it. Other teams watch basketball too. They know what Kuz is good for: irrational confidence, empty stats and an occasional highlight night.

So who were we going to trade? Deni is good now. Is he better than Bub plus a 1st plus two 2nds, plus a huge expiring contract that can be shipped for more? Is he worth 5 assets? Does he help us with a total overhaul? Is he a franchise star we can build around?

If you don't have a star in the NBA, you got nothing. No chance. The next era of stars has only just started to land with Wemby. Stef & LeBJ are on the back steps of their career. There is an opportunity right now to get in on the ground floor of the next era. Next dynasties. To build the next Celtics out of draft picks and smart trades. To do so, sorry Deni fans, we need to do more than hold on to one good asset and fantasize about other ways we might have picked up others. Nobody on a 15 win team is indispensable. You have to be willing for it to hurt. To gamble that the big hurt will feel better and better as you cash in on the assets you recoup.

I wouldn't trade Deni for Bub straight up, of course not. But at some point when the Blazers are adding picks to the scale, the trade balances out. What more should we have gotten? Another 2nd? A third 1st round pick? Who was going to pay that. Even if he played well to start the year, I don't see that his value would have climbed. Teams don't overbid for guys on losing teams. We couldn't raise his value by trying to win.

I agree with the vision, the strategy. You're telling me that you don't want change? What other plan do you have. That we are going to outsmart 29 other teams, luck out, and pick the right player every time? That's not a plan. It's a vision, sure, but you know, mushrooms are legal nowadays -- you can get all the visions you want, they're not going to make you a better basketball team. Reality is we need to take every possible chance and advantage in order to improve. Sometimes that means losing a good player for more chances to get better ones.

[DCZards]

This whole Deni would have hurt the tank just doesn't compute with me. Jettisoning a young, talented player because they "might" jeopardize the tank is the epitome of horrible asset management. If the franchise couldn't have managed holding onto a player that is up and coming, and balance the tank, then they've got bigger problems than a 23 year-old making or breaking their upcoming draft.

I don’t believe Deni “hurting the tank” was a significant factor in the decision to trade him. In fact, it might not have factored in at all. I believe that a FO intent on rebuilding saw an opportunity to add four talented 19-20 year players (Bilal, Sarr, Bub & George) to the roster in a little over a year and went for it.

These youngin’s certainly fit the timeline and skillset that the new FO seems to be looking at and for.

We really won’t know whether the Deni trade was a good or bad one until the verdict is in on Bub and what the Zards are able to do with the other assets from the trade.

[AFM]

I can only speak for myself after being so vocal about the trade, but I would have definitely been open to trading Deni. The problem is this was a bad trade, plain and simple. Light ass return, because management just wanted to tear down house and wanted their dude just for the sake of it, throwing out the baby with the bathwater have you. Several posters on this board flip-flopped from their original stance that it was a horrible trade because they probably had David Aldridge, some Twitter twat, or someone in the sycophantic local sports media tell them it was good because they uttered "change," "vision," and "strategy."

Not me. I hated the trade on draft night. But switched up for 2 reasons: I heard how much they got for it. And I did a deeper dive on Bub.

This franchise needs a total roster overhaul. We can't do it by trading 1-for-1 and adding a single pick every year. As much as everybody wants to trade Kuzma, we haven't been able to do it. Nobody wants him enough to eat his salary + 15% trade kicker AND send us something of value for it. Other teams watch basketball too. They know what Kuz is good for: irrational confidence, empty stats and an occasional highlight night.

So who were we going to trade? Deni is good now. Is he better than Bub plus a 1st plus two 2nds, plus a huge expiring contract that can be shipped for more? Is he worth 5 assets? Does he help us with a total overhaul? Is he a franchise star we can build around?

If you don't have a star in the NBA, you got nothing. No chance. The next era of stars has only just started to land, with Wemby. Stef & LeBJ are on the back steps of their career. There is an opportunity right now to get in on the ground floor of the next era. Next dynasties. To build the next Celtics out of draft picks and smart trades. To do so, sorry Deni fans, we need to do more than hold on to one good asset and fantasize about other ways we might have picked up others. Nobody on a 15 win team is indispensable. You have to be willing for it to hurt. To gamble that the big hurt will feel better and better as you cash in on the assets you recoup.

I wouldn't trade Deni for Bub straight up, of course not. But at some point when the Blazers are adding picks to the scale, the trade balances out. What more should we have gotten? Another 2nd? A third 1st round pick? Who was going to pay that. Even if he played well to start the year, I don't see that his value would have climbed. Teams don't overbid for guys on losing teams. We couldn't raise his value by trying to win.

I agree with the vision, the strategy. You're telling me that you don't want change? What other plan do you have. That we are going to outsmart 29 other teams, luck out, and pick the right player every time? That's not a plan. It's a vision, sure, but you know, mushrooms are legal nowadays -- you can get all the visions you want, they're not going to make you a better basketball team. Reality is we need to take every possible chance and advantage in order to improve. Sometimes that means losing a good player for more chances to get better ones.

GREAT POST DOC!!!!!!

[badinage]

Another benchmark signing to compare with Deni's contract:

Read on Twitter

Note, it's not really a 5/$150M deal. It's a 4/$145M deal tacked on to the final, $5M year of his rookie contract.

Deni was signed for 4-years $55M. Statistically, he is about as good as Johnson, only much more durable. And he is paid one-third as much.

I'm never going to get over this!

Yeah, no. It’s one of the signature oddities/stupidities in franchise history. And this is a franchise that has a boatload of them.

[payitforward]

The rhetoric around this is extraordinary.

Let's start by comparing Johnson & Avdija in 22-23 -- Johnson's 2d year & Deni's 3d.

Johnson's numbers are better than Deni's. More points, at a higher TS%, more defensive boards, more offensive boards, fewer turnovers, more steals, more blocks. Deni had slightly more assists.

Now compare the two last year. The difference narrows, but Johnson's numbers overall continue to be a bit better than Deni's.

Would you have given Carrington, a R1 pick, Brogdon & a pair of R2 picks for Jalen Johnson? If no, then you wouldn't have given that much for Deni either. If yes, then a fortiori you think that's a lot to get for Deni.

OTOH, it's certainly the case that with his new contract Johnson is not the bargain Deni is!
Yet, he has shown more in 3 years than Deni has in his 4 years. & Johnson is also a year younger than Deni.

Conclusion?

1. Deni is a very good player for what he makes. Obviously, he might decline rather than advance, but so what? That's a factor in any trade of anyone no matter what.

2. Until we see how the assets we received work out (all of them) we have no way to judge this trade.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

I can only speak for myself after being so vocal about the trade, but I would have definitely been open to trading Deni. The problem is this was a bad trade, plain and simple. Light ass return, because management just wanted to tear down house and wanted their dude just for the sake of it, throwing out the baby with the bathwater have you. Several posters on this board flip-flopped from their original stance that it was a horrible trade because they probably had David Aldridge, some Twitter twat, or someone in the sycophantic local sports media tell them it was good because they uttered "change," "vision," and "strategy."

Not me. I hated the trade on draft night. But switched up for 2 reasons: I heard how much they got for it. And I did a deeper dive on Bub.

This franchise needs a total roster overhaul. We can't do it by trading 1-for-1 and adding a single pick every year. As much as everybody wants to trade Kuzma, we haven't been able to do it. Nobody wants him enough to eat his salary + 15% trade kicker AND send us something of value for it. Other teams watch basketball too. They know what Kuz is good for: irrational confidence, empty stats and an occasional highlight night.

So who were we going to trade? Deni is good now. Is he better than Bub plus a 1st plus two 2nds, plus a huge expiring contract that can be shipped for more? Is he worth 5 assets? Does he help us with a total overhaul? Is he a franchise star we can build around?

If you don't have a star in the NBA, you got nothing. No chance. The next era of stars has only just started to land with Wemby. Stef & LeBJ are on the back steps of their career. There is an opportunity right now to get in on the ground floor of the next era. Next dynasties. To build the next Celtics out of draft picks and smart trades. To do so, sorry Deni fans, we need to do more than hold on to one good asset and fantasize about other ways we might have picked up others. Nobody on a 15 win team is indispensable. You have to be willing for it to hurt. To gamble that the big hurt will feel better and better as you cash in on the assets you recoup.

I wouldn't trade Deni for Bub straight up, of course not. But at some point when the Blazers are adding picks to the scale, the trade balances out. What more should we have gotten? Another 2nd? A third 1st round pick? Who was going to pay that. Even if he played well to start the year, I don't see that his value would have climbed. Teams don't overbid for guys on losing teams. We couldn't raise his value by trying to win.

I agree with the vision, the strategy. You're telling me that you don't want change? What other plan do you have. That we are going to outsmart 29 other teams, luck out, and pick the right player every time? That's not a plan. It's a vision, sure, but you know, mushrooms are legal nowadays -- you can get all the visions you want, they're not going to make you a better basketball team. Reality is we need to take every possible chance and advantage in order to improve. Sometimes that means losing a good player for more chances to get better ones.

I want change, not change for the sake of change though. Why is the so hard for folks like that for you to grasp? Saying change doesn't beget change, you have to execute. They executed extremely poorly here. They executed extremely poorly when they let Kuzma veto a trade (where the f**ck is the vision there, huh?). They executed poorly trading for Poole. Jury is out on the picks, only time will tell, but not feeling confident there.

Where do I begin from there. So first off, more is not better, it's just more. I'll reiterate, light ass return. Don't try to sell me the pipe dream that two seconds (yay, payitfoward like you back), a first that isn't even PORs best pick when we get it 5 years from now, and a glass-made, over-the-hill point are "a vision" or anything sniffing great assets. They're junk aside from maybe us getting extremely lucky with that first, but really just a complete gamble. The only tangible asset being Carrington who they didn't even know he'd be there. Which begs to say how strategic could their thinking have been? So the one tangible asset, from a horrible draft, they they weren't sure they'd get, that apparently has monster potential because he's tall while having a suspect ability to shoot. As if we haven't seen tall point guards a dime-a-dozen that have never amounted to anything. Oh but, but, but, he's a local product, just like our old friend Juan Dixon, gotta love em. I know all these experts suddenly say he'll be one of the best from the draft class, but I keep asking why wasn't he drafted higher then? Just another straw to grasp at to say we got so much for Deni.

I also love how somehow this narrative has come together that who was going to give more in a trade? No idea, but since when do you take the best offer because there are no other offers? That's when you stand pat. I've seen too many trying to sell this notion that we couldn't have done better, so we had to do this. I can't disagree with you that Deni was on a losing team but he wasn't the problem. Again, babies and bathwater.

Deni had so many amazing things going for him. First and foremost, he fit even in on even an extremely generous rebuild timeline given he is 23, so he could have been a piece. Again, there were dude his age and near his age just drafted. The only piece? The biggest piece? Certainly not, but why couldn't he been one of the pieces? No one for the trade has come close to articulating that other then him being an asset to why that couldn't be the case. He's the exact kind of kinda older guy on the roster you'd love the babys to pick up habits from. He is also still developing, you could see the strides he was making, so good chance he get's even better which makes him an even better asset to trade for a better return, or he gives us a better additional piece to build around.

[doclinkin]

2. Until we see how the assets we received work out (all of them) we have no way to judge this trade.

Minor correction: until one player landed from this trade ends up better than Deni, we can't judge the trade.

But as soon as one of the picks is better than Deni: it's a win.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

The rhetoric around this is extraordinary.

Let's start by comparing Johnson & Avdija in 22-23 -- Johnson's 2d year & Deni's 3d.

Johnson's numbers are better than Deni's. More points, at a higher TS%, more defensive boards, more offensive boards, fewer turnovers, more steals, more blocks. Deni had slightly more assists.

Now compare the two last year. The difference narrows, but Johnson's numbers overall continue to be a bit better than Deni's.

Would you have given Carrington, a R1 pick, Brogdon & a pair of R2 picks for Jalen Johnson? If no, then you wouldn't have given that much for Deni either. If yes, then a fortiori you think that's a lot to get for Deni.

OTOH, it's certainly the case that with his new contract Johnson is not the bargain Deni is!
Yet, he has shown more in 3 years than Deni has in his 4 years. & Johnson is also a year younger than Deni.

Conclusion?

1. Deni is a very good player for what he makes. Obviously, he might decline rather than advance, but so what? That's a factor in any trade of anyone no matter what.

2. Until we see how the assets we received work out (all of them) we have no way to judge this trade.

This is what straw grasping look like, folks.

Yes. Jalen Johnson has had a somewhat better start to his career counting stat wise, and is a year young, but all in all very similar players to where they are at this very moment which is quite important. Now say Deni was 4-5 years older, I'd say you'd have a hell of a point, but he'd just one year older.

So the point of the original post, I think by nate is that JJ is going to be make what nearly 3-4 times what Deni is?

So yes, some posts are extraordinary. Extraordinarily silly, mental gymnastics you've given us today.

[doclinkin]

Don't try to sell me the pipe dream that two seconds (yay, payitfoward like you back), a first that isn't even PORs best pick when we get it 5 years from now, and a glass-made, over-the-hill point are "a vision" or anything sniffing great assets. They're junk aside from maybe us getting extremely lucky with that first, but really just a complete gamble. The only tangible asset being Carrington who they didn't even know he'd be there.

He was there. If he was their guy, the gamble worked. If not they took a risk that there would be a player they liked that fell. In guards alone it could have been one of Castle, Dillingham (unlikely), Devin Carter (good defense and athleticism), Jared McCain (possible best shooter in the draft), Nikola Topic (injured wonderkid), Dalton Knecht, or hell a non-guard. They knew there were guys there they liked as consolation prizes even if Bub was taken. Maybe the guy they really wanted was gone, but they were fine with Bub. It was a risk. We got a player who looks good though. Early returns say the risk is paying off.

Which begs to say how strategic could their thinking have been? So the one tangible asset, from a horrible draft, they they weren't sure they'd get, that apparently has monster potential because he's tall while having a suspect ability to shoot.

True. It reminds me of a few years back when we drafted yet another in a long string of defensive forwards who could't shoot but passed well and rebounded a little bit. 19 year old kid from Israel, I forget his name. His shooting %'s were suspect and he struggled to shoot his first few years in the league, even to the extent that he literally passed on wide open 3's. I remember HOF motivator Russell Westbrook begged him to be aggressive but he refused. Eventually this past year he turned it on and turned it up. Started hitting outside shots and not passing them off. At least this Bub kid is not scared to shoot. Hopefully he puts in similar work to get better.

Jeez. People liked who Deni became, but forget how frustrated with how he played the first few years in the league. When evaluating this trade I'd ask all the Avdija stans to look at his rookie year stats compared to Bubs. That's all. So you're not giving an unfair comparison between a graduated senior and an incoming freshman after his first few practices. Especially given that Bub is 6 months younger than the Baby Deni was when he entered the league.

I also love how somehow this narrative has come together that who was going to give more in a trade? No idea, but since when do you take the best offer because there are no other offers? That's when you stand pat. I've seen too many trying to sell this notion that we couldn't have done better, so we had to do this. I can't disagree with you that Deni was on a losing team but he wasn't the problem.

Disagree with the phrasing. I will say I think it was a *good* deal. Not just the best of a bunch of bad deals. That's where we can agree to disagree. If you read articles on the trade most pundits are saying the Wiz got really good value on the deal. Up to the point of thinking maybe Portland made a bad trade.

As for losing: we have to lose this year. So Deni would still be on a losing team. No chance to raise his value by playing super excellent. While further splitting minutes. And maybe reverting to moping and sulking like HE ADMITS he has done in the past. Where one bad game or benching gets followed by a string of them. He fixed that last year. BUT he didn't have to split time with Rui or whatever. He signed a contract already so could play free.

Deni had so many amazing things going for him. First and foremost, he fit even in on even an extremely generous rebuild timeline given he is 23, so he could have been a piece. Again, there were dude his age and near his age just drafted. The only piece? The biggest piece? Certainly not, but why couldn't he been one of the pieces? No one for the trade has come close to articulating that other then him being an asset to why that couldn't be the case. He's the exact kind of kinda older guy on the roster you'd love the babys to pick up habits from. He is also still developing, you could see the strides he was making, so good chance he get's even better which makes him an even better asset to trade for a better return, or he gives us a better additional piece to build around.

This is where I think everyone agrees and why the trade hurts even for those of us who support it. I think it was a good trade given how terrible the team is and how much we need. And how little we have as assets. But it sucks to trade away an ideal glue guy who has just entering the years where he can both be productive and help mentor younger guys. I think he was looking forward to no longer being everybody's baby brother.

But. We were going to draft a power forward/center. We have a young wing/forward. We have to showcase Kuzma if we are ever going to get offers for him. The best players in the next couple drafts are forwards. Deni hasn't played great when splitting time at the position. For the sake of roster balance we could afford to lose Deni. It would make us worse, yes, but damn. Look at the guys who are coming up. Worse is how we get better.

If you want to crush the front office you could cast doubt on whether Bilal or Sarr were the right choices.

But to me it's a good deal to get two 1sts, two 2nds, and a $22m expiring contract going into a year where multi-year big spenders are going to be forced to dump contract by the end of the season or enter repeater tax and 2nd apron hell.