Poll: Grade Ernie Grunfeld

[nate33]

Chad Ford has been EXTREMELY high on Wall for a long time. He considers Wall one of the best talents in years. It doesn't surprise me that he is positive about the Wizards' prospects.

[JonathanJoseph]

John Wall : Ernie Grunfeld as Kevin Durant : Sam Presti

Fact is, it takes some luck to become a genius.

Outside of Durant and Iguadala, did any 2 players turn more heads this summer than McGee and Yi?

The jury is in on the Yi move. Since it was literally free, it's all upside. A no risk steal.

Everyone but the armchair GMs who prefer cap space to actual basketball players said the Hinrich/Seraphin move is a steal, and that's before we even know what will become of Seraphin. It's a steal if Seraphin is only a fringe contributor.

It's going to be a long year for those of you who have made a sport out of hating on Grunfeld. Seems that if Seraphin and Booker don't pan out, Grunfeld still gets a "B" for the summer. If Seraphin and Booker are contributors as rookies, Grunfeld will not only get an "A", but he'll be in the running for Executive of the Year.

[verbal8]

The jury is in on the Yi move. Since it was literally free, it's all upside. A no risk steal.

I am a little more optimistic about Yi based on the FIBA tournament. However to say the jury is in on the Yi move before he plays a minute as a WIzard seems a bit premature.

[montestewart]

The jury is in on the Yi move. Since it was literally free, it's all upside. A no risk steal.

I am a little more optimistic about Yi based on the FIBA tournament. However to say the jury is in on the Yi move before he plays a minute as a WIzard seems a bit premature.

Agreed. Still, he has a background of two teams in three years with a changing and perhaps poorly defined role, and a present of being called upon to lead for the first time at this level (for the Chinese team) and playing for a team that's looks to be on a severe upswing during his contract year. He wouldn't be the first 7-footer that took some time to figure how to use his height to his advantage at the pro level. Maybe this is the year he puts it all together.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The jury is in on the Yi move. Since it was literally free, it's all upside. A no risk steal.

I am a little more optimistic about Yi based on the FIBA tournament. However to say the jury is in on the Yi move before he plays a minute as a WIzard seems a bit premature.

Agreed. Still, he has a background of two teams in three years with a changing and perhaps poorly defined role, and a present of being called upon to lead for the first time at this level (for the Chinese team) and playing for a team that's looks to be on a severe upswing during his contract year. He wouldn't be the first 7-footer that took some time to figure how to use his height to his advantage at the pro level. Maybe this is the year he puts it all together.

Yi showed in FIBA play that he can score and rebound reasonably well. That's enough for me because that's what he'll need to do off the bench.

I was watching NBATV replay a playoff game in which Kevin McHale was one of the announcers. The other announcer commented how Red Auerbach convinced McHale, one of his best player to come off the bench. McHale commented that Red had done so earlier with great scorers Jack Ramsey and John Havlicek. He also commented that after he became a starter, Bill Walton won a sixth man award. That commentary led me to thing about the value of having a scoring OR rebounding specialist off the bench.

I think with Wall being a penetrator, Arenas a multi-talented scorer, Blatche being talented in many aspects; that Yi could catch other teams by surprise because he's got WAY MORE TALENT AROUND HIM than he had in New Jersey or Milwaukee and Yi is a BETTER, TOUGHER PLAYER in a CONTRACT YEAR.

Yi can be an effective sixth man with a license to score and rebound off the bench if Flip's system can hide his poor defense.

[Dat2U]

Seems that if Seraphin and Booker don't pan out, Grunfeld still gets a "B" for the summer.

There's no point of even arguing with you about it. Your so in the tank for Ernie that you might as well call him Ernest, tell us how much you love him and how he makes your leg tingle.

IMO his whole off-season grade revolves around what Seraphin & Booker do, and we might not know that for a couple years. Even I, a supposed Grunfeld hater, have no problem admitting that. I admit if Seraphin & Booker turn out to be studs, then his off-season was incredibly successful, but we don't know. But your so in the tank, it really doesn't matter what happens. Even if a stat geek like David Berri turns out to be right and were potentially one of the worst teams of all time, you'll still praise Ernie no matter what. Just admit what you are and lets move on.

[willbcocks]

Here's a link to the Berri article for those interested: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-ber ... 16801.html

I've been bored so I've been reading some of the other forums here, and I've gotta say, everyone is optimistic in the offseason. Detroit and Cleveland fans are both expecting 40 wins and the playoffs.

I don't usually like the wages of wins guys, but I agree with them this time: we are likely to be a pretty bad team unless everything breaks our way.

[JonathanJoseph]

Seems that if Seraphin and Booker don't pan out, Grunfeld still gets a "B" for the summer.

There's no point of even arguing with you about it. Your so in the tank for Ernie that you might as well call him Ernest, tell us how much you love him and how he makes your leg tingle.

IMO his whole off-season grade revolves around what Seraphin & Booker do, and we might not know that for a couple years. Even I, a supposed Grunfeld hater, have no problem admitting that. I admit if Seraphin & Booker turn out to be studs, then his off-season was incredibly successful, but we don't know. But your so in the tank, it really doesn't matter what happens. Even if a stat geek like David Berri turns out to be right and were potentially one of the worst teams of all time, you'll still praise Ernie no matter what. Just admit what you are and lets move on.

That's just it. This has nothing to do with "in the tank" and everything to do with being objective. That's why Chad Ford described the Yi move as a "steal" AND the Hinrich move as a "steal".

It doesn't matter if Yi stinks up the joint, it's still a win because IT WAS FREE. Something for nothing. Something being a 1 year tryout for a guy dripping with talent and potential. The Wizards even made the Nets PAY THEM to do it. Something may be great, average or at worst a mediocre 7-footer on a 1 year, $4M contract, but no matter what it's better than nothing. What other backup PF, 7-footer who average 12/7 last year was available at 1 yr/$4M? None. So unless you can argue that nothing is better than something, Grunfeld wins that move.

Seraphin is the same thing. Grunfeld got that pick for taking on Hinrich's cap space. If Hinrich becomes a valuable 3rd guard/backup PG for the next 2 years (which most think will be the case), then even if Seraphin is unable to contribute it was a free shot. Unless Hinrich becomes a problem AND Seraphin busts, that move will be chalked up to a win (and no the cap space issue is not relevant because....we still have cap space for the duration of Hinrich's contract)

When you are in a casino and they comp you a bunch of money to gamble with, it's called "playing with house money". You can play aggressively with it because if you lose it, you didn't actually lose any of your own money. Yi and Seraphin are both "house money" thanks to a GM who had a good offseason. If neither turn out, all the Wizards will have to carry with them in Seraphin's cap hit for 3 years which is minimal. In a world of guaranteed contracts, EG made moves that didn't cost anything and have almost zero downside, the equivalent of playing with house money.

The only move in which Grunfeld had something to lose is the combination of 30/35 for Booker. If that move turns out to be a bust, then Grunfeld could duly be criticized for turning 2 draft picks into nothing, but that's picking nits at 30/35 since those are 50/50 shots anyway. But when you take into account John Wall and TWO trades labeled "steals" balanced by missing on 30/35 for Booker, you are still looking at an overall grade of "B". How can you suggest otherwise?

If we are one of the worst teams of all time or even just this season I'll end my Wizards fandom, because it will be the most cursed franchise in sports. I'm still expecting 45 wins and the playoffs, and not because I'm in the tank for the GM, but because that's the kind of talent on the roster.

[Illuminaire]

JJ,

Even when you're playing with house money, results still matter. Yi was acquired cheaply, but he was NOT free. Taking on his salary was an opportunity cost that prevented other moves from being made. If Yi ends up being terrible and those other moves could have netted someone more useful or valuable for future trades, then yes, we did pay for Yi.

Opportunity costs are often difficult to calculate, but they are real, and they cannot be ignored if you want to accurately assess a GM's decisions.

[Hoopalotta]

Dat obviously missed the memo. The "Discussion Board" is on hiatus and has hereby been "rebranded" (word of the summer, BTW, I feel awesomeness oozing from my pores just saying it) as the "Assertion Board".

Personally, I'm pretty comfortable with the moves overall, but with my greatest reticance being wrapped around Hinklerich's second year. If the CBA negotiations clacks the gavel on the cap downward and we're looking to spend in the next signing period (post lockout or next summer), that could cause trouble for us yet. it wasn't so expensive in cash terms, but it was a lot of cap space. As to the incentive, no matter what happens with Seraphin, I like the pick as the upside is probably the best from the 17th pick on short of something like a guard turning into an outright star (and taking into account that I never liked Whiteside).

I'm kind of so-so on the Yi deal as no matter how well he plays, he's still a free agent at the end of the year and I wouldn't want to see us try and retain him as I'm more enthused on the hydra that is Blatche-McGee-Seraphin. Thing is, almost nobody league wide is looking to be a good BOYD partner before the February deadline, so unless we were trying to trade for a disgruntled star with naked cap space, I don't see the damage there. If this years overall cap landscape were the same as last year's with opportunities like the Knicks Jar-Jef deal around, it would be different and we should have kept some space, but I can't think of anyone who looks fiscally desperate in the short term.

All told, I would have rather kept James Shingles as an older mentor/toughness type presence over Yi (hopefully I haven't just destroyed Sino-American relations for more than a year or two in admitting that). I suppose my biggest gripe would be that we have too many non core guys with a proclivity towards shooting in Howard-Yi-Young-Thornton. That's a bit overboard in my view when we're trying to balance shots with Gil-Blatche-Javale-Wall, who themselves are hardly bashful in their bucket binging. Sure, it could all work out, but I'd rather that real 'core 4' didn't have to worry about other high usage players. It could end up detracting from some of the development agenda as I'm not looking for Javale to end up as the 5th option. We'll see - the current roster is probably better even from a developmental aspect if there's injuries and some of the 'fringe-4' can (and probably will) be mothballed deep bench.

Still, all told I think it was pretty respectable in that we might have nabbed a long term core player with the 17th pick and, whoever you want to credit for it (Ted, really), we did avoid the horrific summer of 2010 free agent signing period.

But to compile the above coherently, my current criteria for assessment of the Grunner would be:
1) Did we hose our chemistry/development by bringing on too many scorers? Do actual core players have to sacrifice shots to rentals in a way that hurts development?
2) How do the late draft picks work out? I'm far more hopeful for Seraphin than Booker, though Kevin as a project doesn't need to do much this year for me to still like the pick. I'd be pretty surprised if someone taken later didn't outperform Booker, but I could still live with it if that's a blown pick.
3) Does the second year of Hiney's deal end up hosing us? This could be a problem, though you've got to weigh it against Seraphin.
4) Did we miss out on any opportunities by filling our cap space up this summer? Like I said, I doubt any serious BOYD's get done beyond maybe Vujacic and the 29th pick, so I think we're talking more in the way of grand slams like "Melo and expensive junk" (and I don't even know if we're in that market). We'll see, but I doubt this ends up being much of a problem.

[JonathanJoseph]

JJ,

Even when you're playing with house money, results still matter. Yi was acquired cheaply, but he was NOT free. Taking on his salary was an opportunity cost that prevented other moves from being made. If Yi ends up being terrible and those other moves could have netted someone more useful or valuable for future trades, then yes, we did pay for Yi.

Opportunity costs are often difficult to calculate, but they are real, and they cannot be ignored if you want to accurately assess a GM's decisions.

Very true, but the opportunity cost is that EG could have signed someone else in free agency. But Leonsis' strategy is clearly to use free agency/cap room in 2011/2012 when the new CBA is in place and the Wizards know what they have in Wall/Arenas/Blatche/McGee/Seraphin/Booker.

So given Leonsis' approach to free agency (i.e., not take on contracts longer than 1 or 2 years), which contract signed this offseason that would have been a better fit? Which contract signed this offseason had a better ratio of risk:reward? It's a serious question, because I don't think there is one.

1 free year of Yi seems better than locking up cap room on ANYONE signed in free agency this summer, Carlos Boozer included.

Which NBA free agents signed 1 or 2 year deals? Here's the list:

Ray Allen 2/$20M
Shaq 2/$3M
Big Z 2/$2.8M
Ray Felton 2/$15M
Nate Robinson 2/$8M
Jermaine O'Neal 2/$8M
Matt Barnes 1/$1.7M
Shaun Livingston 2/$7M
Randy Foye 2/$8.5M
Tracy McGrady 1/$1.3M

Take out the guys who signed for less to play for a championship (Heat, Celtics, Lakers) and you are left with Ray Felton, Shaun Livingston (who wanted out), Randy Foye and TMac (and maybe Nate Robinson counts).

If you have a problem with the "no long term contracts" strategy, blame Leonsis, not Grunfeld. But within the strategy, I don't see too many better or even comparable options to a 1 year free rental of Yi.

To be thorough, here are the PF free agent signings:
Ty Thomas 5/$40M
Drew Gooden 5/$32M
Udonis Haslem 5/$20M (hometown Heat discount)
Dirk 4/$80M
Al Harrington 5/$34M
Amir Johnson 5/$34M
Luis Scola 5/$47M
Matt Bonner 4/$16M
Chris Bosh 6/$111M
Amare 5/$100M
Hakim Warrick 4/$18M

Blatche 2/$6.5M + Yi 1/$4M = $10.5M in total cap space tied up in 2 PFs who have both talent and upside. That's less than 1/3rd of what the Raptors gave to Amir Johnson and less than the money committed to Matt Bonner. I'm still having a hard time seeing how this could possibly reflect poorly on EG.

[no D in Hibachi]

It's not just about who he could have signed. At some point there will be a team this year who goes belly up, ala 2009 Wiz, and blows the thing to the moon. Trading raw cap space to a team for a good player is mighty enticing if they're over the lux tax.

Imagine if Cleveland starts out 2-26? It's possible. Then they look at there roster and say we need to get rid of Jamison, Williams, and Verajao. They want to get under the cap in the process. The Wiz could easily send them a TPE and Thornton for Verajao. It'd save Cleveland roughly $8M immediately.

At this point all the Wiz could offer is expirings, which is decent, but expirings alone didn't get the Mav's Bulter and Haywood. The 5 million TPE was the biggest return in the package.

It just goes to show opportunity cost cannot be calculated but who knows what could have happened with 4-5 million of cap space down the road.

[nate33]

Bear in mind that there are a lot of under-the-cap teams. Even if CLE is selling, we'd have to bid against others to get somebody like Varajeo.

[nate33]

Bear in mind that there are a lot of under-the-cap teams. Even if CLE is selling, we'd have to bid against others to get somebody like Varajeo.

[closg00]

That's just it. This has nothing to do with "in the tank" and everything to do with being objective. That's why Chad Ford described the Yi move as a "steal" AND the Hinrich move as a "steal".

It doesn't matter if Yi stinks up the joint, it's still a win because IT WAS FREE. Something for nothing. Something being a 1 year tryout for a guy dripping with talent and potential. The Wizards even made the Nets PAY THEM to do it. Something may be great, average or at worst a mediocre 7-footer on a 1 year, $4M contract, but no matter what it's better than nothing. What other backup PF, 7-footer who average 12/7 last year was available at 1 yr/$4M? None. So unless you can argue that nothing is better than something, Grunfeld wins that move.

Seraphin is the same thing. Grunfeld got that pick for taking on Hinrich's cap space. If Hinrich becomes a valuable 3rd guard/backup PG for the next 2 years (which most think will be the case), then even if Seraphin is unable to contribute it was a free shot. Unless Hinrich becomes a problem AND Seraphin busts, that move will be chalked up to a win (and no the cap space issue is not relevant because....we still have cap space for the duration of Hinrich's contract)

When you are in a casino and they comp you a bunch of money to gamble with, it's called "playing with house money". You can play aggressively with it because if you lose it, you didn't actually lose any of your own money. Yi and Seraphin are both "house money" thanks to a GM who had a good offseason. If neither turn out, all the Wizards will have to carry with them in Seraphin's cap hit for 3 years which is minimal. In a world of guaranteed contracts, EG made moves that didn't cost anything and have almost zero downside, the equivalent of playing with house money.

The only move in which Grunfeld had something to lose is the combination of 30/35 for Booker. If that move turns out to be a bust, then Grunfeld could duly be criticized for turning 2 draft picks into nothing, but that's picking nits at 30/35 since those are 50/50 shots anyway. But when you take into account John Wall and TWO trades labeled "steals" balanced by missing on 30/35 for Booker, you are still looking at an overall grade of "B". How can you suggest otherwise?
If we are one of the worst teams of all time or even just this season I'll end my Wizards fandom, because it will be the most cursed franchise in sports. I'm still expecting 45 wins and the playoffs, and not because I'm in the tank for the GM, but because that's the kind of talent on the roster.

How can you suggest otherwise? Easy, Ernie potentially will have missed TWO opportunities for finding young prospects to build-with instead of one. The Wizards as a team will HAVE to be better WITH Booker than had they selected: Lazar Hayward & Hassan Whiteside, or Darington Hobson & Derrick Caracter, or Devin Ebanks & Dexter Pittman...take your picks...and that's not-even taking into account players selected 23-30 had we done the trade early. Without hindsight, you can wager now that two players selected after Booker will have made the team better than with Booker alone.

Lastly, the Hamady Ndiaye pick (as low-risk as it was) could be botched if we fail to get him a contract overseas. Undrafted centers picked after Hamady have already been locked-up by overseas teams. With our team in-need of rebounding and a big-body, I would have Zoubek at 56 rather than paying triple for Sean Marks to warm the bench.

[Ruzious]

How can you suggest otherwise? Easy, Ernie potentially will have missed TWO opportunities for finding young prospects to build-with instead of one. The Wizards as a team will HAVE to be better WITH Booker than had they selected: Lazar Hayward & Hassan Whiteside, or Darington Hobson & Derrick Caracter, or Devin Ebanks & Dexter Pittman...take your picks...and that's not-even taking into account players selected 23-30 had we done the trade early. Without hindsight, you can wager now that two players selected after Booker will have made the team better than with Booker alone.

Lastly, the Hamady Ndiaye pick (as low-risk as it was) could be botched if we fail to get him a contract overseas. Undrafted centers picked after Hamady have already been locked-up by overseas teams. With our team in-need of rebounding and a big-body, I would have Zoubek at 56 rather than paying triple for Sean Marks to warm the bench.

Who cares?

You're talking about players who most likely won't have any significant impact in the NBA. Now, if you were to criticise him for not using the Booker pick on Pondexter, then I'd see your point. I got flat out laughed at in the Milwaukee forum for suggesting last midseason that Zoubek should even get a look by NBA teams. I still think he should, but he's never going to be someone you want to play. To criticise a GM for not taking Zoubek is a little bit on the bizarre side.

[verbal8]

Bear in mind that there are a lot of under-the-cap teams. Even if CLE is selling, we'd have to bid against others to get somebody like Varajeo.

CLE is only a couple million over the luxury tax. I think they are likely inclined to keep Varajeo and move Jamsion or Williams. Another option would be to move a useful role player like Parker for a TPE or cap space.

[JonathanJoseph]

It's not just about who he could have signed. At some point there will be a team this year who goes belly up, ala 2009 Wiz, and blows the thing to the moon. Trading raw cap space to a team for a good player is mighty enticing if they're over the lux tax.

Imagine if Cleveland starts out 2-26? It's possible. Then they look at there roster and say we need to get rid of Jamison, Williams, and Verajao. They want to get under the cap in the process. The Wiz could easily send them a TPE and Thornton for Verajao. It'd save Cleveland roughly $8M immediately.

At this point all the Wiz could offer is expirings, which is decent, but expirings alone didn't get the Mav's Bulter and Haywood. The 5 million TPE was the biggest return in the package.

It just goes to show opportunity cost cannot be calculated but who knows what could have happened with 4-5 million of cap space down the road.

Yes, there is always something else you can do and there are always opportunity costs to everything. There was an opportunity cost to drafting John Wall. There's the potential that trading #1 to NJ for Terrence Williams, #3 (Demarcus Cousins) and another draft pick would have been a better option. But we're obviously not questioning that.

Picking up expensive veterans from teams having firesales is something that contenders do, and the Wizards plan is clearly not to do that this year or next. The Wizards are still building and putting their pieces in place, and teams having firesales do not let "young pieces" under reasonable contracts go away for cap space. It's always overpaid veterans. Being a buyer in a firesale seems unlikely to be something Leonsis wants to do in the short term.

But even then, Yi was in the running for best player at the FIBA tournament not named Kevin Durant. He's a young, talented 7-footer with huge upside (even if there's a remote chance that he realizes it). After FIBA, I'm willing to bet that every GM in the NBA with $4M of cap space would like to have a free, 1 year tryout with Yi.

The risk:reward on the Yi trade is fantastic and you can't just sit on the sidelines in anticipation of scenarios that may or may not play out and are so remote as to not even be identifiable in the near future.

If Cleveland tanks and if they blow it up and if we outbid all the other teams under the cap and if it's a good idea to take on Varejao's $45M contract then we should have passed on a great deal? A bird in the hand, so to speak, and a lot of armchair GMing. It takes a huge negative turn of events from where we are today to find a scenario where this Yi deal looks like a bad idea.

[Dat2U]

How can you suggest otherwise? Easy, Ernie potentially will have missed TWO opportunities for finding young prospects to build-with instead of one. The Wizards as a team will HAVE to be better WITH Booker than had they selected: Lazar Hayward & Hassan Whiteside, or Darington Hobson & Derrick Caracter, or Devin Ebanks & Dexter Pittman...take your picks...and that's not-even taking into account players selected 23-30 had we done the trade early. Without hindsight, you can wager now that two players selected after Booker will have made the team better than with Booker alone.

Lastly, the Hamady Ndiaye pick (as low-risk as it was) could be botched if we fail to get him a contract overseas. Undrafted centers picked after Hamady have already been locked-up by overseas teams. With our team in-need of rebounding and a big-body, I would have Zoubek at 56 rather than paying triple for Sean Marks to warm the bench.

Who cares?

You're talking about players who most likely won't have any significant impact in the NBA. Now, if you were to criticise him for not using the Booker pick on Pondexter, then I'd see your point. I got flat out laughed at in the Milwaukee forum for suggesting last midseason that Zoubek should even get a look by NBA teams. I still think he should, but he's never going to be someone you want to play. To criticise a GM for not taking Zoubek is a little bit on the bizarre side.

Yeah, the 56th pick in the NBA draft is basically worthless. I don't think 'H' will ever play a minute in the NBA but there's far bigger things I can find to complain about when it comes to Ernie.

Now trading up for Booker on the other hand. All I have is two words on who Ernie will regret passing on: Dominique Jones.

[Dat2U]

Yes, there is always something else you can do and there are always opportunity costs to everything. There was an opportunity cost to drafting John Wall. There's the potential that trading #1 to NJ for Terrence Williams, #3 (Demarcus Cousins) and another draft pick would have been a better option. But we're obviously not questioning that.

Picking up expensive veterans from teams having firesales is something that contenders do, and the Wizards plan is clearly not to do that this year or next. The Wizards are still building and putting their pieces in place, and teams having firesales do not let "young pieces" under reasonable contracts go away for cap space. It's always overpaid veterans. Being a buyer in a firesale seems unlikely to be something Leonsis wants to do in the short term.

But even then, Yi was in the running for best player at the FIBA tournament not named Kevin Durant. He's a young, talented 7-footer with huge upside (even if there's a remote chance that he realizes it). After FIBA, I'm willing to bet that every GM in the NBA with $4M of cap space would like to have a free, 1 year tryout with Yi.

The risk:reward on the Yi trade is fantastic and you can't just sit on the sidelines in anticipation of scenarios that may or may not play out and are so remote as to not even be identifiable in the near future.

If Cleveland tanks and if they blow it up and if we outbid all the other teams under the cap and if it's a good idea to take on Varejao's $45M contract then we should have passed on a great deal? A bird in the hand, so to speak, and a lot of armchair GMing.

Yi was a low risk, no reward signing. The most important word you said above was "FIBA". FIBA! Not the NBA, but stinkin' FIBA! Why don't we sign Kirk Penney for goodness sakes? He'd be a bargain for a couple mil or so since he averaged nearly 25 pts a game during the tourney. The circumstances in FIBA will totally different for Yi in the NBA. He's not going to be the man. He's not even going to start. Flip is not going to be asking him to lead a bunch or rec-quality players to respectability.

With Yi I prefer to look at his body of work, IN THE NBA!!! And we have all the evidence in the world to show that as an NBA player, he stinks to high hell. Could that change? I suppose the raw talent is there, but there's been absolutely no sign in the three years & 4700+ minutes that he's capable of being a useful player. Averaging 12 & 7 in 32 minutes a night, with an eFG of .417 (at PF! How can a PF be that inefficient?) is nothing to celebrate. Using a FIBA performance to justify throwing away money on a complete bust & lousy player is the absolute definition of the armchair GM'ing that you have consistently railed against.

It takes a huge negative turn of events from where we are today to find a scenario where this Yi deal looks like a bad idea.

Ha, IMO it only takes Yi being the same player he was his first three years in the league for this to be a bad idea.