2024 Draft Thread - Part II

[The Consiglieri]

The fanbase has been overstating the length of this rebuild IMO. They intentionally tank for one more year and most likely have a fairly competitive roster in 2025/2026.

Will add two top 5 drafted players and atleast two more 1st round drafted players (via a Kuzma trade). The 2025 pick will be an instant impact player: Traore/Flagg/Bailey/Harper.

We know for a fact that we sucked this past season, and we will suck next year. So that's a guarantee of 2 horrible years of rebuild. And it's a pretty sure bet that we will suck in the 2025-26 season as well, unless our 2025 draft pick has a Wemby/Lebron/Shaq tier of dominance as a rookie. (There's also the issue of our 2026 protected FRP owed to NY.)

I think it's more likely that our 2025 pick will have a Banchero/Edwards type of impact as a rookie - meaning they will impress, but they'll also be inefficient and turnover-prone in a manner that doesn't not promote much immediate winning. Even with improved play from Bilal and our 2024 pick, I don't think we climb out of the bottom of the East in the 2025-26 season. I wouldn't expect much winning until 2026-27, which means 3 years of misery. And if we strike out with our 2025 pick, it could be a 4th year of misery.

What I see as well.

I think barring that mega superstar landing in our laps in '25, we're pretty well locked in for 3 certain 30 or fewer win seasons, with 2 possibly being 60+ loss seasons. I think that '26-'27 could offer hope, but more likely its '27-'28 that is our first chance at 45+ wins and that would also require us to to make some huge wins happen in the drafts of '24, '25, and '26, and that for now is highly speculative.

I'm extremely confused by the belief that this could be a quick turn around. I can't see anyway that happens without a huge superstar landing in our lap the next two years, and us landing an elite player out of this '24 draft that doesn't appear to show signs of having someone we're likely to get that is elite. Complimentary, maybe but elite? That would require a lot of luck and when you're just projecting most likely scenarios, if you automatically are assuming we have good luck, you're already indulging a bit of fantasy at the very least.

Most likely this is a 3-5 year rebuild with the sweet spot being 4 years ('23, '24, '25, and '26 draft hauls and trades), but the problem is, we aren't getting a superstar from '23, and we are unlikely to get one from '24 which already puts us in a real pinch to hit a grand slam in '25 or '26, preferably both, just simply to keep the trajectory of a successful rebuild in play.

So to me, yeah, this is more likely 5-6 years, than 2-4. We'll need one of Bilal, Vucevic, or Deni to become a superstar to make it 3 or 4 instead of 4-6. Whats weird to me is that there's no middle here, it feels like some of us see this as taking a really long time, and some of us seem to think its reasonable to expect we should be good by '25, or '26 at the latest which just defies the way this works. It took forever just to become a .500 team with the Wall+Beal+Porter+Gortat etc team....That build was five years in the making, and was done in a more friendly environment for tear down/rebuilds, and we landed the #1 pick in a class with a legit stud viewed #1 guy....So, applying that scenario to the current situation, it feels like 2028 or 2029 even but nobody wants to even contemplate that possibility (because we botched our '22 pick, got a solid player maybe with upside in '23, and our stuck in a crappy '24 class, not an auspicious start to a tear down rebuild). I'm just baffled at why people would think we should be competitive in 2 years. We don't have anything worth a damn on the roster beyond Deni, and hopes for Bilal and Vucevic, and future draft picks and pick swaps. Its going to take a long time, even if we hit a grand slam, just 1, between '24-'26. It's definitely not gonna be fixed in 2-3 years barring a miracle, which is never something you simply "assume" is going to happen.

[The Consiglieri]

I can't take anyone seriously if they think we should trade Deni given his contract, age and breakout season.

When do you think it's reasonable to expect that we could be playing playoff basketball, w/o landing a superstar in '24?

[The Consiglieri]

I can't take anyone seriously if they think we should trade Deni given his contract, age and breakout season.

The only reason why I wouldn't trade Avdija, is if you think we would be selling low. I.e. Avdija, has another level he can reach. He can take his game from being a good role player, to a 3rd option on a championship team. In that case, I'd hold off until he has shown that he can do that. Then I'd trade him. Do people on this board not understand that Avdija has more value to a team trying to win right now, than he does a team trying to win 4 years from now? What do people envision? Avdija playing his whole career with the Wizards?

They don't seem to get that.

He has a cheap contract the next four years.

We are entering year 2 of a full tear down where we are unlikely to have acquired that franchise transforming superstar in our '23, or '24 draft classes, and completely blew our '22 draft. As such, during Deni's 4 year cheap contract, we will suck in year 1, we will suck in year 2, and we will very likely suck in year 3, and maybe to probably suck in year 4.

He is infinitely more valuable during the length of this contract to contenders, and to promising teams ending their rebuild years this year, last year, or next season than he is to us.

I don't know why that is hard to understand. Unless he becomes a true superstar, a guy you build a franchise around, our #1 and #2 targets over the next 5 years, he's much more valuable as a trade piece, than an empty calories piece on a team that will likely suck during the entire (or most of the) duration of his now starting cheap contract.

People are assuming he's a found piece so we can build around him as a linch pin long term, but unless we turn this ship completely around and become a 50+ win team with foundational superstars in the next 18-24 months, that's simply not true. Instead, what he is, is what Beal should have been circa 2019-2021, the vet we traded for beaucoup prospects and picks to help start the tear down with real tangible assets. Hes very likely to have played out either 3 years, or all of that cheap deal before we are competitive again.

[NatP4]

This is a different conversation at the trade deadline in 4 years, whenever Deni is still right in the middle of his prime, at age 27, and making an absurd 11 million in 2027-2028. Will obviously have a ton of trade value as a high end starter/all star. Who knows if we are a playoff team or still sellers by then.

Deni won’t lose any trade value between now and then, barring some kind of catastrophic injury.

[tontoz]

I can't take anyone seriously if they think we should trade Deni given his contract, age and breakout season.

The only reason why I wouldn't trade Avdija, is if you think we would be selling low. I.e. Avdija, has another level he can reach. He can take his game from being a good role player, to a 3rd option on a championship team. In that case, I'd hold off until he has shown that he can do that. Then I'd trade him. Do people on this board not understand that Avdija has more value to a team trying to win right now, than he does a team trying to win 4 years from now? What do people envision? Avdija playing his whole career with the Wizards?

They don't seem to get that.

He has a cheap contract the next four years.

We are entering year 2 of a full tear down where we are unlikely to have acquired that franchise transforming superstar in our '23, or '24 draft classes, and completely blew our '22 draft. As such, during Deni's 4 year cheap contract, we will suck in year 1, we will suck in year 2, and we will very likely suck in year 3, and maybe to probably suck in year 4.

He is infinitely more valuable during the length of this contract to contenders, and to promising teams ending their rebuild years this year, last year, or next season than he is to us.

I don't know why that is hard to understand. Unless he becomes a true superstar, a guy you build a franchise around, our #1 and #2 targets over the next 5 years, he's much more valuable as a trade piece, than an empty calories piece on a team that will likely suck during the entire (or most of the) duration of his now starting cheap contract.

People are assuming he's a found piece so we can build around him as a linch pin long term, but unless we turn this ship completely around and become a 50+ win team with foundational superstars in the next 18-24 months, that's simply not true. Instead, what he is, is what Beal should have been circa 2019-2021, the vet we traded for beaucoup prospects and picks to help start the tear down with real tangible assets. Hes very likely to have played out either 3 years, or all of that cheap deal before we are competitive again.

Right, let's trade Deni for "Mr Hypothetical to be named later".

Cool story bro.

The Beal comparison makes no sense. We had tried for years to build a competitive team around Wall and Beal. After several years it was clear it wasn't going to happen.
That is a completely different scenario.

[The Consiglieri]

Many people on this board seem to think that trades are one sided endeavors where the Wizards should unload their undesirables and other teams should give us their assets. Instead of, "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" Wizards fans want, to quote Stephen Colbert, where "you scratch my back and I get my back scratched." To get value you have to give value. Yes, the Wizards should trade Avdija. Should they trade him this season? Idk, what are the offers. The question isn't whether or not we should trade Avdija, unless you're going to argue that Avdija should be untouchable, but rather what kind of return we'd have to get back to make the trade worth it. It's not a slight to say that a player should be traded. In this situation, it's actually the opposite. It's a compliment.

The only reason why I wouldn't trade Avdija, is if you think we would be selling low. I.e. Avdija, has another level he can reach. He can take his game from being a good role player, to a 3rd option on a championship team. In that case, I'd hold off until he has shown that he can do that. Then I'd trade him. Do people on this board not understand that Avdija has more value to a team trying to win right now, than he does a team trying to win 4 years from now? What do people envision? Avdija playing his whole career with the Wizards?

Nonsense. At this point we are trying to aquire young talent, not trade it away. The odds of us being able to get a young player who is equally/more talented on a good contract is practically nil. Of course that doesn't even take into account the continuity factor.

I certainly havent seen you mention anyone specific you are targeting. You probably don't have anyone in mind because you are talking nonsense. If you are trying to fall back on the "anyone is tradable" argument that is just lame.

Why don't you give us some examples of trades that actually happened that would be comparable to the Deni trade you want to see?

Yeah, this argument is sophistry. Saying Avdija should theoretically be tradeable is entirely different from saying the Wizards should trade Avdija. Obviously, everyone on the team should be tradeable in a trade that brings back better talent in our window of opportunity. I just fail to see why you should single out Avdija of all players as being the guy the Wizards should focus on trading. I think the odds of the Wizards getting a return for him that is better than his value to us going forward is extraordinarily slim.

If Cleveland is offering Mobley for Avdija, sure, I'd probably do that. But we are still at the stage where other teams are trying to steal Deni with a late FRP or two. Nobody is valuing him as an above-average starter and elite role player for the next 10 years locked into an absurdly cheap contract for the next 4. I suspect the offers we get for Avdija would be something like Giddey plus a 2025 top 10 protected HOU FRP. I'd rather keep Deni.

I do agree w/your latter point, and I understand what tontoz is trying to say too. I'm not advocating trading him for crap, I'm advocating the idea that trading him should be on the table because having a guy like him on our roster when we're going to suck throughout the entirety or nearly the entirety of that cheap deal is not going to suddenly make a meaningful difference to us long term. If we'd traded Beal like some of us argued, 4 or 5 years ago, and landed some stars from the '19-'23 classes, then I'd be 1000% for keeping Deni long term, he'd be a key piece on a team with a bright future. Instead, he's a very valuable contract and player for a team going nowhere throughout the vast majority and possibly all of that contract. As such, if we can get a legit trade offer, not the Gafford crap, but a real tangible one, involving an elite young prospect, or a legit lottery pick or picks in a good draft (not this crap one) I want to do it, but yeah, of course, if someone is offering me a pick in the teens or twenties, or two late firsts from a playoff team? Who gives a ----. It has to have legit franchise changing value because he's one of the most valuable things in basketball, a good to very good player with an unknown ceiling and a good floor under a cheap cost controlled deal for four more years. As such, he's basically like an elite young veteran on the first year of a rookie deal....I want real tangible value for that. I don't want Seraphin and Booker type picks for that. ---- that.

I am not supporting the idea of just flipping him for some middling 1sts in a whatever class, and if we don't get that deal, so be it, we simply keep him as a good player, he should be good or better for at least 5 more years. Chances are, we get a nice offer at some point, and if not, we just keep him and help him grow the kiddos around him. Im just dubious of the idea we wont get a good or great offer because what he represents is basically the second best asset to get after a superstar for little (cost control good floor and upside long term).

[TGW]

I get both sides of the argument. I think about Myles Turner and how grateful he was to the Pacers' organization for not trading him when they had multiple offers on the table for him for the past few seasons. I think Deni would feel the same way.

[closg00]

I get both sides of the argument. I think about Myles Turner and how grateful he was to the Pacers' organization for not trading him when they had multiple offers on the table for him for the past few seasons. I think Deni would feel the same way.

The Pacers themselves tried multiple times to trade Turner..

[The Consiglieri]

There are people in this thread 4x as old as Deni.

Thanks for that, but not quite there...

In roster math I think my guy PIF is about 4 Coulibaliys old. I'm PIF minus a Tyus Jones or thereabouts.

Doing the math, I was the equivalent of 2 Deni's and like his foot lol. 2.12x or something like that.

[dckingsfan]

I get both sides of the argument. I think about Myles Turner and how grateful he was to the Pacers' organization for not trading him when they had multiple offers on the table for him for the past few seasons. I think Deni would feel the same way.

The Pacers themselves tried multiple times to trade Turner..

I do think that Deni would be grateful for that though... I really think he wants to be here (but maybe I am projecting).

[The Consiglieri]

According to the wiretap, it's Sarr or Risaccher.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/275882/Wizards-Looking-To-Re-Sign-Tyus-Jones;-Deciding-Between-Drafting-Alex-Sarr-Zaccharie-Risacher-With-No-2-Pick

And no, I don't think it's a smoke screen. I think those are the consensus top 2 picks right now.

Can anyone steel man the reasoning? I know much of the board hates Risaccher, and some hate Sarr, and some hate both, I'd love to hear the steel manning. I'm not at the Johnny Davis level of terror of us taking either guy, but I am concerned at how many of the board hate the guys. While I don't always agree w/the board on who some of the consensus guys are, most of the time you guys on aggregate are right when you hate a selection or at least). I'm curious, what do you guys think, rationally, analytics based, and scouting wise, explains the interest in Risaccher and Sarr so high. What does the league believe about them, that you think is right, and that you think is wrong? I'm super curious. The sense I get is simply the ceiling bet w/both, if they hit on the total upside piece....but I'd be curious to hear what you guys think they love, and how it could be right or wrong etc.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Good podcast on the Wizards draft right here!


https://player.fm/series/the-wizards-groupchat

[The Consiglieri]

But then he is part of the rebuild. He is a material asset that should be considered if it is as a player or as a trade asset. The point that he should be considered like Kuzma is just wrong-headed.

If he continues to improve at his current pace, there will be lots of good trade offers (if someone blows you away with 4 first round picks you take it).

And there are lots of reasons to keep him, he is on a terrific contract through the 2027-28 season, wants to be here and continues to improve.

Haven't looked at this since yesterday and can't remember if I responded already, but if I didn't, I definitely want to underline that I don't few him as Kuzma. Kuzma needs to be traded at some point within the next 13 or 14 months, Deni could be kept or traded, if he's traded, at some point in the next two years and 2 months while his contract is still quite valuable, but he doesn't have to be, I just view him as more valuable as a trade chip in '25-'26 than as a piece of the foundation (unless he becomes mega elite, I don't see that happening, I do see him being good to very good, but not a superstar).

I get the general concept of why Deni's value can be maximized the most in a trade.

Basically, Deni is valuable because he is a very good player. And he is valuable because he is a very cheap player. The Wizards don't really get much benefit from his cheap contract, so if he could be traded for an even better player who is perhaps a bit more expensive, it would benefit the Wizards even more. And presumably, there is another team willing to take a slight downgrade in talent for a cheaper contract.

The trick is to find the team in that situation. And it's really, really hard. Most really good teams with good players are in title contention and aren't willing to trade down in talent even if it saves them a lot of money. And chances are, the guy they would be trading to get Deni would be older (because not many players are both younger than Deni and better).

A theoretical construct would be something like Deni for Jaylen Brown. Boston saves a boatload of luxtax money and gets under the Second Apron, and we get an upgrade in talent. But would Boston actually do that? Would they risk a small net reduction in talent when they need every scrap of talent to win a title? Likewise, would we do it? Do we want to get older and more expensive even if it makes us a little better in the short term? Another construct would be Deni for Garland, but I think Deni is better straight up, and he is way more valuable when factoring contracts. Deni for Mobley I would certainly do, but Cleveland wouldn't.

The only other alternative would be to trade Deni for a package of picks. But they would have to be either really good picks, or a whole lot of decent picks. I wouldn't trade Deni for the #1 pick in this draft. And I probably wouldn't trade him for anything worse than a top 5 pick in the next draft. And if we are only being offered picks in teens, I would need about four of them to give me enough optimism to believe that the player we draft would be better than Deni. So, will any team meet my demands for Deni? I doubt it.

I don't disagree w/anything you've said, and let me add, I probably wouldn't trade him for a Jaylen Brown because I see no value in it unless we can flip Brown. He will be 30 to 32 when/if we're good again. He's not the kind of player that will suddenly make us a 55 win team if we hit a grand slam in '25 or '26 w/our picks, so for me the trade would need to be for lottery picks, or for known slotted picks post lottery. Like you, I have no interest in simply trading him to say, Minnesota or Dallas for 3 firsts in like '25, '27 and '29 or whatever. That does nothing for me. It has to be known top 3-6 picks in solid to good drafts....Whats the chances of that? Or a comparable player? Probably pretty low. I want to trade him for the right package, but you are right. The right package may just be impossible to find. It has to either be a young player with elite potential, or the picks that could potentially land us that, and why does a team do that with us? The only reason I could think of that happening, is if its a team like OKC, that is ready to win already, and doesn't want another rookie, just needs a win now player, and say, owned the firsts of some team that's locked in to suck and gift a top 6 pick in '25 and '26 to us or something like that. Is that even possible? Sometimes, but we'd have to find the perfect fit, and it may just not be out there, probably isn't and Im not settling for picks in the teens from playoff teams, or some guy like Jaylen Brown who will be in his 30s when we're good again.

What do I think the team will do? Nothing in '24-'25, but I do think, if Deni locks in as the player we saw in '24, they may start getting serious offers in '25 and '26, at that point, they might consider, but until they get offers, if ever, that match the value of his good play on a crazy good contract, they'll pass. They will need a godfather, or close to a godfather offer to move him. They might get it, its just there aren't many teams at all that could do it, either w/the assets, or dumb enough to simply mega overpay. Im skeptical it happens in the next 18 months, and generally skeptical it happens at all, especially w/so little talent on the roster to begin with. It will be hard to trade the only quality veteran when the entire roster is mostly garbage to begin with.

[tontoz]

According to the wiretap, it's Sarr or Risaccher.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/275882/Wizards-Looking-To-Re-Sign-Tyus-Jones;-Deciding-Between-Drafting-Alex-Sarr-Zaccharie-Risacher-With-No-2-Pick

And no, I don't think it's a smoke screen. I think those are the consensus top 2 picks right now.

Can anyone steel man the reasoning? I know much of the board hates Risaccher, and some hate Sarr, and some hate both, I'd love to hear the steel manning. I'm not at the Johnny Davis level of terror of us taking either guy, but I am concerned at how many of the board hate the guys. While I don't always agree w/the board on who some of the consensus guys are, most of the time you guys on aggregate are right when you hate a selection or at least). I'm curious, what do you guys think, rationally, analytics based, and scouting wise, explains the interest in Risaccher and Sarr so high. What does the league believe about them, that you think is right, and that you think is wrong? I'm super curious. The sense I get is simply the ceiling bet w/both, if they hit on the total upside piece....but I'd be curious to hear what you guys think they love, and how it could be right or wrong etc.

Hate is extreme. My view on Sarr is that there is nothing special about him. His size and athleticism are good, roughly equal to Gafford in the combine measurements/athletic testing. His skills certainly aren't great and he doesnt seem to embrace contact which is worrisome for a big. I see him as a poor mans Mobely, who isn't exactly lighting up the league.

Risacher appears to be fine as a 3 & D guy but those guys have a lot more value on teams that have a legit number 1 scorer/playmaker which we don't have. I certainly don't see him as a tier above Topic who is a better fit.

[The Consiglieri]

Even if Deni only becomes a “very good” player, and not a superstar, I would still hesitate to trade him… unless it’s for an upgrade in talent, which, as Nate points out, is difficult to do.

I don’t buy the suggestion that a 28 or 29 yr old Deni will be “too old” to be an important piece 5-6 yrs from now when, hopefully, the Zards are competitive.

Few, if any, competitive teams are made up solely of 20-24 year olds. Most have at least one or two key contributors who are 28 and older. It’s certainly true of all 4 teams in the conference finals. In fact, other than Dallas, all of the teams in the conference finals have 3-4 players 28 or older making significant contributions.

And the one Dallas player is 32 yr old Kyrie—who is a major contributor.

Yes, trade Deni if you get a great deal for him. OTOH, I don’t see the problem with having Deni in a Zards uni when he’s in his prime at 27 or 28 yrs old, especially if he continues to get better…as I think he will.

Oh he'll still be good, the problem is, if he is on the trajectory we hope for, he will no longer be cheap. The advantage of having Beal right now, and the next four years is the contract. We're most likely to be approaching competitiveness, and .500+ as he exits the cheap deal and earns a big time deal (if he continues to be very good), that's the issue. And I agree, in general, anyway, that finding a deal will be hard.

Its unfortunate we butchered 2019-2022 so thoroughly that stealing Deni in the '20 class, and stealing his prime on the cheap won't move the needle much between 2020-2027.

[The Consiglieri]

The only reason why I wouldn't trade Avdija, is if you think we would be selling low. I.e. Avdija, has another level he can reach. He can take his game from being a good role player, to a 3rd option on a championship team. In that case, I'd hold off until he has shown that he can do that. Then I'd trade him. Do people on this board not understand that Avdija has more value to a team trying to win right now, than he does a team trying to win 4 years from now? What do people envision? Avdija playing his whole career with the Wizards?

They don't seem to get that.

He has a cheap contract the next four years.

We are entering year 2 of a full tear down where we are unlikely to have acquired that franchise transforming superstar in our '23, or '24 draft classes, and completely blew our '22 draft. As such, during Deni's 4 year cheap contract, we will suck in year 1, we will suck in year 2, and we will very likely suck in year 3, and maybe to probably suck in year 4.

He is infinitely more valuable during the length of this contract to contenders, and to promising teams ending their rebuild years this year, last year, or next season than he is to us.

I don't know why that is hard to understand. Unless he becomes a true superstar, a guy you build a franchise around, our #1 and #2 targets over the next 5 years, he's much more valuable as a trade piece, than an empty calories piece on a team that will likely suck during the entire (or most of the) duration of his now starting cheap contract.

People are assuming he's a found piece so we can build around him as a linch pin long term, but unless we turn this ship completely around and become a 50+ win team with foundational superstars in the next 18-24 months, that's simply not true. Instead, what he is, is what Beal should have been circa 2019-2021, the vet we traded for beaucoup prospects and picks to help start the tear down with real tangible assets. Hes very likely to have played out either 3 years, or all of that cheap deal before we are competitive again.

Right, let's trade Deni for "Mr Hypothetical to be named later".

Cool story bro.

The Beal comparison makes no sense. We had tried for years to build a competitive team around Wall and Beal. After several years it was clear it wasn't going to happen.
That is a completely different scenario.

I think I've been pretty clear that two separate contradictory things are true:

#1: That his value is something we get nothing out of because we will suck during the bulk of his cheap deal. The asset that his deal is, is valuable to competitive teams, not horrible teams. So matching his value to a team that could actually use it would be wise.

#2: Finding an actual partner for said reasonable deal is next to impossible because the good teams that could use him, almost across the board, do not have the pieces to make a deal work. We'd need top end picks in good drafts, not this one, or players with elite potential from recent classes, which teams wouldn't want to trade anyway. So is there a deal to make? Maybe not? Probablyu not.

I'm not in favor of trading him for some crappy playoff team picks, and I'm not in favor of trading him for a piece that will be in their 30's when we could use him. I don't know if the right trade is possible, but I do think we should trade him if such a trade becomes possible, it may be a 3 team trade that does the trick.

My Beal analogy isn't want you think it is. I'm not using him as an analogy for teams in era's I'm using him as an example of a guy who could be flipped to jump start this rebuild, like Beal should have been four or five years ago and wasn't. The problem is, it would have been easier to flip Beal in '19-'21, then it would to flip Deni for similar assets for a rebuild in '24-'25 or '26. That's it, that's the only area of comparison for me, he's a second chance of a Beal trade to help jumpstar a rebuild, a fire sale move. The problem is, I don't think Deni moves the needle enough for teams to make a huge deal, I think he'd just be Gafford/Kuzma type deal, which simply doesn't move the needle. For someone with Deni's floor, upside, and cheap cost controlled long term deal, we'd need a trade that is more typical of a trade for an All Star. But I very much doubt we could pull that.

Lastly, if he gets moved, I don't think it would happen until the '25 deadline at the earliest, and more likely '25-'26. It's not something I expect to see in the next year, nor really expect to see period as probable. I'd put it at 5-10% in the next year, and like 25-35% total in the next 2 years.

[The Consiglieri]

According to the wiretap, it's Sarr or Risaccher.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/275882/Wizards-Looking-To-Re-Sign-Tyus-Jones;-Deciding-Between-Drafting-Alex-Sarr-Zaccharie-Risacher-With-No-2-Pick

And no, I don't think it's a smoke screen. I think those are the consensus top 2 picks right now.

Can anyone steel man the reasoning? I know much of the board hates Risaccher, and some hate Sarr, and some hate both, I'd love to hear the steel manning. I'm not at the Johnny Davis level of terror of us taking either guy, but I am concerned at how many of the board hate the guys. While I don't always agree w/the board on who some of the consensus guys are, most of the time you guys on aggregate are right when you hate a selection or at least). I'm curious, what do you guys think, rationally, analytics based, and scouting wise, explains the interest in Risaccher and Sarr so high. What does the league believe about them, that you think is right, and that you think is wrong? I'm super curious. The sense I get is simply the ceiling bet w/both, if they hit on the total upside piece....but I'd be curious to hear what you guys think they love, and how it could be right or wrong etc.

Hate is extreme. My view on Sarr is that there is nothing special about him. His size and athleticism are good, roughly equal to Gafford in the combine measurements/athletic testing. His skills certainly aren't great and he doesnt seem to embrace contact which is worrisome for a big. I see him as a poor mans Mobely, who isn't exactly lighting up the league.

Risacher appears to be fine as a 3 & D guy but those guys have a lot more value on teams that have a legit number 1 scorer/playmaker which we don't have. I certainly don't see him as a tier above Topic who is a better fit.

Thanks, and perhaps I should have said, dislike. I'm not suggesting there are haters, it's more just, most of the board dislike's the idea of taking either guy.

[tontoz]

They don't seem to get that.

He has a cheap contract the next four years.

We are entering year 2 of a full tear down where we are unlikely to have acquired that franchise transforming superstar in our '23, or '24 draft classes, and completely blew our '22 draft. As such, during Deni's 4 year cheap contract, we will suck in year 1, we will suck in year 2, and we will very likely suck in year 3, and maybe to probably suck in year 4.

He is infinitely more valuable during the length of this contract to contenders, and to promising teams ending their rebuild years this year, last year, or next season than he is to us.

I don't know why that is hard to understand. Unless he becomes a true superstar, a guy you build a franchise around, our #1 and #2 targets over the next 5 years, he's much more valuable as a trade piece, than an empty calories piece on a team that will likely suck during the entire (or most of the) duration of his now starting cheap contract.

People are assuming he's a found piece so we can build around him as a linch pin long term, but unless we turn this ship completely around and become a 50+ win team with foundational superstars in the next 18-24 months, that's simply not true. Instead, what he is, is what Beal should have been circa 2019-2021, the vet we traded for beaucoup prospects and picks to help start the tear down with real tangible assets. Hes very likely to have played out either 3 years, or all of that cheap deal before we are competitive again.

Right, let's trade Deni for "Mr Hypothetical to be named later".

Cool story bro.

The Beal comparison makes no sense. We had tried for years to build a competitive team around Wall and Beal. After several years it was clear it wasn't going to happen.
That is a completely different scenario.

I think I've been pretty clear that two separate contradictory things are true:

#1: That his value is something we get nothing out of because we will suck during the bulk of his cheap deal. The asset that his deal is, is valuable to competitive teams, not horrible teams. So matching his value to a team that could actually use it would be wise.

.

Actually Deni's contract makes it easier for us to aquire a star through free agency or trades. Or we can aquire more draft picks by taking on a bad contract. That's how the Cavs got the pick that turned into Kyrie.

[80sballboy]

Anybody on this wretched team should be available for the right price, except I'm not even considering trading Deni until the 2025 draft comes along.

[80sballboy]

Read on Twitter