Official Trade Thread - Part XXX

[dalton749]

The good news there is that if he really does develop a strong work ethic, he can improve quite a lot.

yea that's basically torontos entire 11-15 end of bench. A bunch of guys who have all of the tools to be really good 2 way players, but maybe 1 of the 5 pans out.

I think Wright and Powell were both underrated prospects who can play in the NBA. Bennett - never liked him and wow, was he over-rated, but yeah, I guess he could possibly become a decent player if he worked harder.

I've given up on Bennett he's not an nba player. Wright can't get minutes because he doesn't have a consistent 3 ball, same as Powell who's got some jimmy butler in him. None of them will reach their potential in Toronto though, maybe Bruno

[Dark Faze]

gallo

gallo

gallo

[nuposse04]

gallo

gallo

gallo

Why would you want a win-now player who would clearly cost any future potential we could build? Sounds like the hallmark of an EG trade

[payitforward]

...When I look at these rosters, the word that keeps coming to mind for Ernie Grunfeld: charlatan.

I understand why it would. But in fact, I don't think that's what it is. I just think he is altogether out of touch w/ how you acquire talent.

He's from the era when pretty much all GMs were ex-players. They tended to over-value veterans, to have no theory of valuation, i.e. no perspective over time and potential for development, and to rely on "the eye test" (and a pretty basic version of it at that) as opposed to numbers.

As a result, they have (i.e. Ernie in particular has) no real way to predict future results, and no way to measure themselves against other GMs. Failure always seems like a surprise, and chance always seems to be working against them. E.g. injuries and so forth.

Moreover, when chance *helps* them -- as in Session's surprising play this year and Butler's early last season -- they don't see chance or hazard at work; they don't think they got lucky, instead they think it means they "can really pick 'em." Which reinforces their belief in the eye test, etc.

When the whole league worked this way, and basically all GMs were ex-players, a few still stood out. Mostly, they were brilliant horse-traders like Red Auerbach (I'll never forget when he traded Al Attles, the GM of the then-my-team Warriors, the #1 pick in the 1980 draft for the #3 pick and Robert Parish!).

Ernie doesn't have the tools to compete w/ the top GMs in the NBA. Worse yet, he doesn't believe those tools exist!

Imagine where we'd be had the ping pong balls not given us an overall #1 and an overall #3 pick! Scary huh?

[TheSecretWeapon]

...When I look at these rosters, the word that keeps coming to mind for Ernie Grunfeld: charlatan.

I understand why it would. But in fact, I don't think that's what it is. I just think he is altogether out of touch w/ how you acquire talent.

He's from the era when pretty much all GMs were ex-players. They tended to over-value veterans, to have no theory of valuation, i.e. no perspective over time and potential for development, and to rely on "the eye test" (and a pretty basic version of it at that) as opposed to numbers.

As a result, they have (i.e. Ernie in particular has) no real way to predict future results, and no way to measure themselves against other GMs. Failure always seems like a surprise, and chance always seems to be working against them. E.g. injuries and so forth.

Moreover, when chance *helps* them -- as in Session's surprising play this year and Butler's early last season -- they don't see chance or hazard at work; they don't think they got lucky, instead they think it means they "can really pick 'em." Which reinforces their belief in the eye test, etc.

When the whole league worked this way, and basically all GMs were ex-players, a few still stood out. Mostly, they were brilliant horse-traders like Red Auerbach (I'll never forget when he traded Al Attles, the GM of the then-my-team Warriors, the #1 pick in the 1980 draft for the #3 pick and Robert Parish!).

Ernie doesn't have the tools to compete w/ the top GMs in the NBA. Worse yet, he doesn't believe those tools exist!

Imagine where we'd be had the ping pong balls not given us an overall #1 and an overall #3 pick! Scary huh?

Very much agree. One of the odd things, though, is the part about Grunfeld not knowing about the various tools that could help him do a better job. The team actually spends on analytics. They have some very smart people working for them, and I've seen some of their excellent work (both stuff they published before getting hired, and some of the work they've done for the team). Yet there's a real disconnect between the analytics side of things and the operations side.

My impression from very brief, very limited stints "on the inside" was that they have lots of good data, but use it horribly.

Oh well.

[payitforward]

Well... I remember your quoting one of them that Jae Crowder "lacked ideal size" (i.e. why they didn't pick him) but were "glad to see him doing well in Dallas."

A perfect example of how *not* to use data. Or, better, how not to understand what the "data" is! They thought the data was his size. In his case, however, the data was in how well he did as college 4 *despite* his size.

Meanwhile, he comes into the league, turns himself into a 2-3, and all of a sudden guess what? He's the ideal size!

[TheSecretWeapon]

Well... I remember your quoting one of them that Jae Crowder "lacked ideal size" (i.e. why they didn't pick him) but were "glad to see him doing well in Dallas."

A perfect example of how *not* to use data. Or, better, how not to understand what the "data" is! They thought the data was his size. In his case, however, the data was in how well he did as college 4 *despite* his size.

Meanwhile, he comes into the league, turns himself into a 2-3, and all of a sudden guess what? He's the ideal size!

Not only that, Boston has been having success using Crowder as a stretch four in small-ball lineups. Like you said -- they chose one piece of information and let that overrule ALL the other information that said he was likely to be a good pro.

There's one story I could tell that doesn't belong on the message board...your reaction would probably be face palm followed by a series of stuttering attempts to summarize how nonsensical this request/approach was. Nearly a decade later, and I still shake my head at the memory.

[AFM]

Well... I remember your quoting one of them that Jae Crowder "lacked ideal size" (i.e. why they didn't pick him) but were "glad to see him doing well in Dallas."

A perfect example of how *not* to use data. Or, better, how not to understand what the "data" is! They thought the data was his size. In his case, however, the data was in how well he did as college 4 *despite* his size.

Meanwhile, he comes into the league, turns himself into a 2-3, and all of a sudden guess what? He's the ideal size!

There's one story I could tell that doesn't belong on the message board...your reaction would probably be face palm followed by a series of stuttering...

Does it involve your size?

[montestewart]

Well... I remember your quoting one of them that Jae Crowder "lacked ideal size" (i.e. why they didn't pick him) but were "glad to see him doing well in Dallas."

A perfect example of how *not* to use data. Or, better, how not to understand what the "data" is! They thought the data was his size. In his case, however, the data was in how well he did as college 4 *despite* his size.

Meanwhile, he comes into the league, turns himself into a 2-3, and all of a sudden guess what? He's the ideal size!

There's one story I could tell that doesn't belong on the message board...your reaction would probably be face palm followed by a series of stuttering...

Does it involve your size?

Bogues lacked ideal size. So did Muresan.

[nate33]

From Brian Windhorst:

The Cavs would love to get their hands on Jared Dudley. They kicked around trading for Dudley last summer, the Bucks basically gave him away. He plays for the Wizards. He's shooting over 40 percent from three-point range, quality defensive player, quality locker room guy on the last year of his contract.

The problem is, the Wizards have the easiest schedule in the league after the All-Star break. So even though they've been a disappointment to this point, the difficulty is they still feel like they can make a run because of what their schedule is and they're going to be healthy. So right now, he's not available.

So that's one of the things, if you're looking for something to root for between now and the deadline, it's for the Wizards to lose every game so that they get more interested in trading Dudley. But I just don't think the Wizards are going to do it because he's valuable to them and they feel like they're going to make a second-half run.

Unbelievable how stupid the management on this team is. They really do believe they're going to make a second-half run based on the weak schedule. The problem is, the Wizards have sucked even against weak teams. Against sub-.500 teams, they're only 12-7, which is a .631 pace. So even if they played exclusively sub-.500 teams, they wouldn't make the playoffs. And that's most certainly not the case. Their schedule is weak, but not THAT weak. They still face Golden State again, the Clippers again, Cleveland twice, Atlanta three times, plus another 10 games against above .500 teams like Chicago, Utah, Detroit and Miami. There's NO WAY IN HELL that they accumulate just 11 losses over the next 33 games.

[Dark Faze]

gallo

gallo

gallo

Why would you want a win-now player who would clearly cost any future potential we could build? Sounds like the hallmark of an EG trade

Because it virtually is a win now situation soon. Porter coming up on a contract year, Beal up for renewal, John a few years away from a contract year--we've had lottery players from every year since 2010 to now sans 2014. It's time to make a run. That doesn't mean you make bad trades--a top 5 pick for two roleplayers is an example of that.

[payitforward]

From Brian Windhorst:

The Cavs would love to get their hands on Jared Dudley. They kicked around trading for Dudley last summer, the Bucks basically gave him away. He plays for the Wizards. He's shooting over 40 percent from three-point range, quality defensive player, quality locker room guy on the last year of his contract.

The problem is, the Wizards have the easiest schedule in the league after the All-Star break. So even though they've been a disappointment to this point, the difficulty is they still feel like they can make a run because of what their schedule is and they're going to be healthy. So right now, he's not available.

So that's one of the things, if you're looking for something to root for between now and the deadline, it's for the Wizards to lose every game so that they get more interested in trading Dudley. But I just don't think the Wizards are going to do it because he's valuable to them and they feel like they're going to make a second-half run.

Unbelievable how stupid the management on this team is. They really do believe they're going to make a second-half run based on the weak schedule. The problem is, the Wizards have sucked even against weak teams. Against sub-.500 teams, they're only 12-7, which is a .631 pace. So even if they played exclusively sub-.500 teams, they wouldn't make the playoffs. And that's most certainly not the case. Their schedule is weak, but not THAT weak. They still face Golden State again, the Clippers again, Cleveland twice, Atlanta three times, plus another 10 games against above .500 teams like Chicago, Utah, Detroit and Miami. There's NO WAY IN HELL that they accumulate just 11 losses over the next 33 games.

Looking at the schedule, it seems to me that the best, the very best, the team could do is go 20-13 (note: I'm *not* suggesting they will do that; I don't think we'll be close to that). But, I don't think this is an issue of "stupid... management."

Ted Leonsis isn't a Wizards *fan* -- he is the owner of a company called Monumental Sports & Entertainment. The "competition" he looks at isn't for a title, it's for a profit -- he's competing w/ other companies offering entertainment products (especially in sports but also in general).

If the Wizards close strong (even against a weak schedule), he has a narrative to explain away the overall non-success. Assume for a moment we go 18-15 in our last 33 games. He gets to say "we're right on schedule; 18-15 is just like going 45-37, so you can see that if it hadn't been for all those unpredictable injuries...."

Hence, no way we trade Dudley. But, what's worse is that there's a good chance we trade a future #1 pick for someone who would make that BS success I describe above more likely.

Then too, if achieving the heights of wow-dom I just described looks unlikely a month from now, why... you always have Plan B: fire the coach and blame the problems on his having "lost the team."

That's your Washington Wizards right there. Ted's not stupid, and I'm not even sure you can call him cynical. He's just working in a different space from the one we all work in here.

We care about building a team that can contend for a title. He cares about building a business that can sustain itself, grow, make a profit, and become more and more valuable (because, of course, one day he's going to sell the business). I'm sure he'd be delighted if along the way we *did* contend for a title, and even more delighted if we won one. But that's not the main chance, not a bit.

[Dark Faze]

Again--even from a marketing standpoint, it doesn't make any sense to devalue your product by enabling people who fail at their job. Refusing to go over the luxury tax--that's an economic move. Choosing to keep a front office thought to be complete trash by the overwhelming majority--that's not going to help his wallet; as has been proven by the loss in viewership (34%) this year in the tv ratings.

This is why ownership frustrates me so much in sports in general. Even the laziest "all I care about is money" owner doesn't have a narrative in which being complete garbage helps him or anyone else. I don't get the logic.

[Ruzious]

Well... I remember your quoting one of them that Jae Crowder "lacked ideal size" (i.e. why they didn't pick him) but were "glad to see him doing well in Dallas."

A perfect example of how *not* to use data. Or, better, how not to understand what the "data" is! They thought the data was his size. In his case, however, the data was in how well he did as college 4 *despite* his size.

Meanwhile, he comes into the league, turns himself into a 2-3, and all of a sudden guess what? He's the ideal size!

Not only that, Boston has been having success using Crowder as a stretch four in small-ball lineups. Like you said -- they chose one piece of information and let that overrule ALL the other information that said he was likely to be a good pro.

There's one story I could tell that doesn't belong on the message board...your reaction would probably be face palm followed by a series of stuttering attempts to summarize how nonsensical this request/approach was. Nearly a decade later, and I still shake my head at the memory.

And my understanding is that he's actually done a good job defensively against PF's. He's certainly got the strength to play against most of today's stretch 4's. He and Wes Matthews (son of former Bullet Wes Matthews) are players who were deemed oddly shaped for the NBA, but I wouldn't want to play against either one of them. They are both physically tough as bleep.

[nate33]

Looking at the schedule, it seems to me that the best, the very best, the team could do is go 20-13 (note: I'm *not* suggesting they will do that; I don't think we'll be close to that). But, I don't think this is an issue of "stupid... management."

Ted Leonsis isn't a Wizards *fan* -- he is the owner of a company called Monumental Sports & Entertainment. The "competition" he looks at isn't for a title, it's for a profit -- he's competing w/ other companies offering entertainment products (especially in sports but also in general).

If the Wizards close strong (even against a weak schedule), he has a narrative to explain away the overall non-success. Assume for a moment we go 18-15 in our last 33 games. He gets to say "we're right on schedule; 18-15 is just like going 45-37, so you can see that if it hadn't been for all those unpredictable injuries...."

Hence, no way we trade Dudley. But, what's worse is that there's a good chance we trade a future #1 pick for someone who would make that BS success I describe above more likely.

Then too, if achieving the heights of wow-dom I just described looks unlikely a month from now, why... you always have Plan B: fire the coach and blame the problems on his having "lost the team."

That's your Washington Wizards right there. Ted's not stupid, and I'm not even sure you can call him cynical. He's just working in a different space from the one we all work in here.

We care about building a team that can contend for a title. He cares about building a business that can sustain itself, grow, make a profit, and become more and more valuable (because, of course, one day he's going to sell the business). I'm sure he'd be delighted if along the way we *did* contend for a title, and even more delighted if we won one. But that's not the main chance, not a bit.

Fair point about the money angle. But still, couldn't Ted trade Dudley and then watch the team go 16-15 with Oubre getting big minutes and still make the same argument? "We are an up and coming team with a bright future. The team, formed almost exclusively from recent draft picks plus Gortat, played above .500 ball down the stretch last season once they got healthy. Next year, all those young player return with another year of experience, we will have a lottery pick, and we will invest $33M in cap dollars to put role players around them. The future is bright!"

[queridiculo]

Unbelievable how stupid the management on this team is. They really do believe they're going to make a second-half run based on the weak schedule. The problem is, the Wizards have sucked even against weak teams. Against sub-.500 teams, they're only 12-7, which is a .631 pace. So even if they played exclusively sub-.500 teams, they wouldn't make the playoffs. And that's most certainly not the case. Their schedule is weak, but not THAT weak. They still face Golden State again, the Clippers again, Cleveland twice, Atlanta three times, plus another 10 games against above .500 teams like Chicago, Utah, Detroit and Miami. There's NO WAY IN HELL that they accumulate just 11 losses over the next 33 games.

To be fair, what exactly do the Cavaliers have that would be of interest to the Wizards? They don't have a 2016 first rounder and their 2nd rounder is so low that it's not worthwhile.

I suppose they could attempt to talk them out of a 2017 choice, but who knows whether they're on-board with that?

[nate33]

Unbelievable how stupid the management on this team is. They really do believe they're going to make a second-half run based on the weak schedule. The problem is, the Wizards have sucked even against weak teams. Against sub-.500 teams, they're only 12-7, which is a .631 pace. So even if they played exclusively sub-.500 teams, they wouldn't make the playoffs. And that's most certainly not the case. Their schedule is weak, but not THAT weak. They still face Golden State again, the Clippers again, Cleveland twice, Atlanta three times, plus another 10 games against above .500 teams like Chicago, Utah, Detroit and Miami. There's NO WAY IN HELL that they accumulate just 11 losses over the next 33 games.

To be fair, what exactly do the Cavaliers have that would be of interest to the Wizards? They don't have a 2016 first rounder and their 2nd rounder is so low that it's not worthwhile.

I suppose they could attempt to talk them out of a 2017 choice, but who knows whether they're on-board with that?

I'd take the Cleveland 2018 1st, with top 10 protection. Of course, EG has a short time horizon and probably isn't interested in acquiring assets for his replacement. Which is why he should be fired immediately.

[Ruzious]

Unbelievable how stupid the management on this team is. They really do believe they're going to make a second-half run based on the weak schedule. The problem is, the Wizards have sucked even against weak teams. Against sub-.500 teams, they're only 12-7, which is a .631 pace. So even if they played exclusively sub-.500 teams, they wouldn't make the playoffs. And that's most certainly not the case. Their schedule is weak, but not THAT weak. They still face Golden State again, the Clippers again, Cleveland twice, Atlanta three times, plus another 10 games against above .500 teams like Chicago, Utah, Detroit and Miami. There's NO WAY IN HELL that they accumulate just 11 losses over the next 33 games.

To be fair, what exactly do the Cavaliers have that would be of interest to the Wizards? They don't have a 2016 first rounder and their 2nd rounder is so low that it's not worthwhile.

I suppose they could attempt to talk them out of a 2017 choice, but who knows whether they're on-board with that?

They can't trade consecutive future 1sts, so 2018 is the best we can get. I'd be fine with that.

Seems like Brian Windhorst correctly portrayed the Wiz trade situation. I hate to root for the Wiz to lose, but I think that's what's best for business now.

[nate33]

Unbelievable how stupid the management on this team is. They really do believe they're going to make a second-half run based on the weak schedule. The problem is, the Wizards have sucked even against weak teams. Against sub-.500 teams, they're only 12-7, which is a .631 pace. So even if they played exclusively sub-.500 teams, they wouldn't make the playoffs. And that's most certainly not the case. Their schedule is weak, but not THAT weak. They still face Golden State again, the Clippers again, Cleveland twice, Atlanta three times, plus another 10 games against above .500 teams like Chicago, Utah, Detroit and Miami. There's NO WAY IN HELL that they accumulate just 11 losses over the next 33 games.

To be fair, what exactly do the Cavaliers have that would be of interest to the Wizards? They don't have a 2016 first rounder and their 2nd rounder is so low that it's not worthwhile.

I suppose they could attempt to talk them out of a 2017 choice, but who knows whether they're on-board with that?

They can't trade consecutive future 1sts, so 2018 is the best we can get. I'd be fine with that.

Seems like Brian Windhorst correctly portrayed the Wiz trade situation. I hate to root for the Wiz to lose, but I think that's what's best for business now.

Yup. The best case scenario is for the team to lose the next two games (@NY and @MIL) and then for Wall to go to Ted and tell him to make some changes in the front office.

As it stands now, we're going to finish 9th or 10th and end up with the #13 pick in the draft. But if we make a couple of shrewd moves right now, we could end up with the #8 or so pick in the draft plus another late 1st round pick.

[WallToWall]

As the trade deadline gets closer, there is no doubt in my mind that we should be sellers. As this team is constructed, and given our schedule (weaker than most other teams), there is still very little chance that we make the playoffs. Even if we do make the playoffs, there is very little chance we make it to the finals. For that reason alone, we should look to improve our team in constructive ways that don't include hoping for KD to choose us.