Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVI

[NatP4]

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2796610-jimmy-butler-trade-rumors-t-wolves-star-requests-deal-gives-shortlist-of-teams.amp.html?%24deeplink_path=article%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Farticles%2F2796610-jimmy-butler-trade-rumors-t-wolves-star-requests-deal-gives-shortlist-of-teams&%24fallback_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsyndication.bleacherreport.com%2Famp%2F2796610-jimmy-butler-trade-rumors-t-wolves-star-requests-deal-gives-shortlist-of-teams.amp.html&_branch_match_id=530945837692521568

So it looks like Jimmy Butler wants out. Although the Wiz are supposedly not on his list of teams where he would sign an extension, we should probably entertain the though of a trade. He would be great at small ball SF, and back fill Beal at SG. I haven't checked the trade checker, but wonder if Butler + filler FOR Mahinmi + Sato would work.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

That’s not getting it done, but flipping Oubre and a pick might. People need to remember, this is Jimmy Butler, not Paul George, not an injured/disgruntled Kawhi Leonard. This is one of the best players in the NBA with leadership qualities. Adding him would transform the wizards into a championship contender.

I cant think of any team, not on his list of where he would sign an extension, giving up a ton to get him. I can see EG throwing in a pick with Sato and Mahinmi. It may not be the right price for Butler, but I dont see teams offering more right now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

the wolves aren't going to take Mahinmi's deal back while giving away their star player. Indiana got Oladipo, Sabonis and a 1st round pick for Paul George (even though he said he would only re sign in LA).

I could be wrong of course, but I would assume we would have to give up atleast Oubre, and a 1st round pick, which I would be totally fine with.

[queridiculo]

Bracing myself for Ernie to do something stupid.

[payitforward]

I'm not interested into any further consolidation of this core. I want better usage/lineups/growth from our current group. Once that ceiling is realized, I prefer to 1) Rebuild by trading at least 2/3 of the core if they dont look competitive, or 2) Retool if they look good by trading 1/3 to cut cost and get cheaper depth.

No further consolidation except that you want to trade either 1 or 2 of the 3 guys... Ok, got it.

Players have ceilings. Individuals, not groups. & individuals improve. Of those 3 guys, 1 may improve & 2 get worse. 2 may get better & a third plateau or decline. Or 1 could get better, 1 plateau at his ceiling, & the 3d be worse. Or they all 3 could get better -- as individuals. Or all of them could decline. Or all plateau. As individuals

If Wall & Beal come back strong, but what they do is play as they did 2 years ago, will that not tell you that you are seeing their ceilings?

Brad Beal just turned 25. Doesn't he have to improve rather than plateau? If he plateaus, doesn't that make it likely we are seeing his ceiling? Perhaps the same in Porter's case?

John Wall, otoh, is 28. John Wall is entering his 9th NBA season; he's a veteran not a developing young player. Plus, he's played a lot... 4000 more minutes than Jimmy Butler, the guy who's supposed to have all that "wear and tear" on his body.

I'm not saying he can't have a little better year than 2 years ago. Of course he can. Or not quite as good; that can happen too. But, significant development? Hey, I don't have a crystall ball. But, Wall's game is based on athleticism; isn't he more likely to start declining some time in the next couple of years than to become meaningfully better than he already is?

Edit: Actually, I'm making it sound like there's a bigger difference between our POV than there really is. The main difference is that I sort of think I've already seen -- or seen enough of -- what you seem to feel you still need to see this season.

IOW, I think we could have quite a good regular season, perhaps our best in many decades. But I still can't see us getting out of R2 of the playoffs -- no matter how many positive pieces of good fortune we have. To me, this far into building a generation of a team, if you can't do that it's time to overhaul.

But... I could be wrong -- no, better, I hope I'm wrong! But... for the moment I can't convince myself I am.

Chris Paul got traded for folks like Sam Dekker,Montrez Harrell, and Lou Williams but for whatever reason, this board always seems intent on giving up your best players for one year rentals, especially one year rentals with a ton of wear and tear and possible locker room issues. You think Boston would give up Jayson Tatum or Jaylen Brown? Probably not. You think Philly is going to give up Ben Simmons or Fultz? Probably not. So why should we? ****, Jimmy Butler got traded for Zach LaVine, the 7th pick and Kris Dunn. Any GM that trades one of their top 3 or 4 players for a rental should be fired.

Rafael122 -- next year we will owe W/B/P $92.5m in salary. The cap will be @$108m. It really doesn't seem possible to keep all 3 of those guys, or I should better say that I don't see how we'd manage it. If you do, feel free to explain.

What Chris Paul, who is probably the best PG in basketball history & likely also the best player pound for pound as well, has to do with this I don't know. Nor Tatum, Brown, Simmons or even Fultz. The salaries of those 4 players, added up, is about what Beal makes.

But, you are certainly right that if we trade one of W/B/P, we should try to get as much back as possible. Duh.

In short... what's your point?

[payitforward]

Chris Paul got traded for folks like Sam Dekker,Montrez Harrell, and Lou Williams but for whatever reason, this board always seems intent on giving up your best players for one year rentals, especially one year rentals with a ton of wear and tear and possible locker room issues. You think Boston would give up Jayson Tatum or Jaylen Brown? Probably not. You think Philly is going to give up Ben Simmons or Fultz? Probably not. So why should we? ****, Jimmy Butler got traded for Zach LaVine, the 7th pick and Kris Dunn. Any GM that trades one of their top 3 or 4 players for a rental should be fired.

EG should have been fired long ago for putting us in this position... it isn't that we WANT to let one of our players go, it is that we are going to be in the repeaters tax for a mediocre team.

The issue isn’t trading Beal (or Wall/Porter) in order to avoid the tax, the issue is trading one of them for a one-year rental (Butler). I agree with Raf that that would be a mistake…even if it made it possible for the Zards to resign both Sato and Oubre.

On the other hand, PIF’s idea for trading a Beal, Wall or Porter for young assets/pick has merit. Of course, the bar needs to be set high when considering trades for all-star level players like Beal, Wall and Porter.

Of course. Get as much as you can. But... the market decides what that will be.

Avoiding the tax is an issue, though. It's one thing to pay huge salaries; it's another to have them multiplied by lux tax specialties. It's untenable.

The only reason Jimmy Butler came up in this context was as a response to pcbothwei's idea of trying to have a maximally productive season this year, & begin to restructure if we aren't finals contenders. Well, although Brad is a terrific player, I don't think an objective person would claim that he's at the level of Jimmy Butler. So if we swap them solely with this year in mind, we are more likely to be that "contender." & it helps get us under the tax this year & maybe next year as well.

The downside, obviously, is that we'd do it knowing full well that Butler would depart. Meaning that although we got a short term benefit out of the trade we wouldn't get any longer term benefit.

Sigh... training camp will start soon!

[NatP4]

EG should have been fired long ago for putting us in this position... it isn't that we WANT to let one of our players go, it is that we are going to be in the repeaters tax for a mediocre team.

The issue isn’t trading Beal (or Wall/Porter) in order to avoid the tax, the issue is trading one of them for a one-year rental (Butler). I agree with Raf that that would be a mistake…even if it made it possible for the Zards to resign both Sato and Oubre.

On the other hand, PIF’s idea for trading a Beal, Wall or Porter for young assets/pick has merit. Of course, the bar needs to be set high when considering trades for all-star level players like Beal, Wall and Porter.

Of course. Get as much as you can. But... the market decides what that will be.

Avoiding the tax is an issue, though. It's one thing to pay huge salaries; it's another to have them multiplied by lux tax specialties. It's untenable.

The only reason Jimmy Butler came up in this context was as a response to pcbothwei's idea of trying to have a maximally productive season this year, & begin to restructure if we aren't finals contenders. Well, although Brad is a terrific player, I don't think an objective person would claim that he's at the level of Jimmy Butler. So if we swap them solely with this year in mind, we are more likely to be that "contender." & it helps get us under the tax this year & maybe next year as well.

The downside, obviously, is that we'd do it knowing full well that Butler would depart. Meaning that although we got a short term benefit out of the trade we wouldn't get any longer term benefit.

Sigh... training camp will start soon!

Paul George stayed in OKC

[deneem4]

Rather trade Otto than beal for butler...
Somebody going to have to stop kwahi or Irving or hayward or Simmons ...

And still be able to score on kwahi or hayward or brown or Simmons...


If we can pull up the trade without porter...
(Sato, oubre etc...) pull the trigger

But this ain 2k (even though we’re the 5th best team in the game already)

[payitforward]

Read on Twitter

Lavoy Allen is one of those guys who has always outperformed expectations. I'm sure he's going to play in the league again. But, it's hard to see him making our roster -- mostly b/c I don't see why the Wiz would add a 15th player.

Btw, Chris Chiozza from our SL team will also be in camp. Along with Tiwian Kendley.

Notably absent, btw, is Sheldon Mac. I liked that kid! Google doesn't tell me where he is right now.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I'm not interested into any further consolidation of this core. I want better usage/lineups/growth from our current group. Once that ceiling is realized, I prefer to 1) Rebuild by trading at least 2/3 of the core if they dont look competitive, or 2) Retool if they look good by trading 1/3 to cut cost and get cheaper depth.

No further consolidation except that you want to trade either 1 or 2 of the 3 guys... Ok, got it.

Players have ceilings. Individuals, not groups. & individuals improve. Of those 3 guys, 1 may improve & 2 get worse. 2 may get better & a third plateau or decline. Or 1 could get better, 1 plateau at his ceiling, & the 3d be worse. Or they all 3 could get better -- as individuals. Or all of them could decline. Or all plateau. As individuals

If Wall & Beal come back strong, but what they do is play as they did 2 years ago, will that not tell you that you are seeing their ceilings?

Brad Beal just turned 25. Doesn't he have to improve rather than plateau? If he plateaus, doesn't that make it likely we are seeing his ceiling? Perhaps the same in Porter's case?

John Wall, otoh, is 28. John Wall is entering his 9th NBA season; he's a veteran not a developing young player. Plus, he's played a lot... 4000 more minutes than Jimmy Butler, the guy who's supposed to have all that "wear and tear" on his body.

I'm not saying he can't have a little better year than 2 years ago. Of course he can. Or not quite as good; that can happen too. But, significant development? Hey, I don't have a crystall ball. But, Wall's game is based on athleticism; isn't he more likely to start declining some time in the next couple of years than to become meaningfully better than he already is?

Edit: Actually, I'm making it sound like there's a bigger difference between our POV than there really is. The main difference is that I sort of think I've already seen -- or seen enough of -- what you seem to feel you still need to see this season.

IOW, I think we could have quite a good regular season, perhaps our best in many decades. But I still can't see us getting out of R2 of the playoffs -- no matter how many positive pieces of good fortune we have. To me, this far into building a generation of a team, if you can't do that it's time to overhaul.

But... I could be wrong -- no, better, I hope I'm wrong! But... for the moment I can't convince myself I am.

The Wizards need to trade Wall IF they ever get a better GM than EG.

The guy who needs to go elsewhere can bring the biggest return and IMO they're going to be better without him in the long run.

[Ruzious]

I'm not interested into any further consolidation of this core. I want better usage/lineups/growth from our current group. Once that ceiling is realized, I prefer to 1) Rebuild by trading at least 2/3 of the core if they dont look competitive, or 2) Retool if they look good by trading 1/3 to cut cost and get cheaper depth.

No further consolidation except that you want to trade either 1 or 2 of the 3 guys... Ok, got it.

Players have ceilings. Individuals, not groups. & individuals improve. Of those 3 guys, 1 may improve & 2 get worse. 2 may get better & a third plateau or decline. Or 1 could get better, 1 plateau at his ceiling, & the 3d be worse. Or they all 3 could get better -- as individuals. Or all of them could decline. Or all plateau. As individuals

If Wall & Beal come back strong, but what they do is play as they did 2 years ago, will that not tell you that you are seeing their ceilings?

Brad Beal just turned 25. Doesn't he have to improve rather than plateau? If he plateaus, doesn't that make it likely we are seeing his ceiling? Perhaps the same in Porter's case?

John Wall, otoh, is 28. John Wall is entering his 9th NBA season; he's a veteran not a developing young player. Plus, he's played a lot... 4000 more minutes than Jimmy Butler, the guy who's supposed to have all that "wear and tear" on his body.

I'm not saying he can't have a little better year than 2 years ago. Of course he can. Or not quite as good; that can happen too. But, significant development? Hey, I don't have a crystall ball. But, Wall's game is based on athleticism; isn't he more likely to start declining some time in the next couple of years than to become meaningfully better than he already is?

Edit: Actually, I'm making it sound like there's a bigger difference between our POV than there really is. The main difference is that I sort of think I've already seen -- or seen enough of -- what you seem to feel you still need to see this season.

IOW, I think we could have quite a good regular season, perhaps our best in many decades. But I still can't see us getting out of R2 of the playoffs -- no matter how many positive pieces of good fortune we have. To me, this far into building a generation of a team, if you can't do that it's time to overhaul.

But... I could be wrong -- no, better, I hope I'm wrong! But... for the moment I can't convince myself I am.

The Wizards need to trade Wall IF they ever get a better GM than EG.

The guy who needs to go elsewhere can bring the biggest return and IMO they're going to be better without him in the long run.

Given Wall's contract, who's going to trade for him? That extension was 170 mil over 4 years. Anything's possible but I just can't see anyone trading for that. It's an extraordinary amount - even in this era.

[pcbothwel]

No further consolidation except that you want to trade either 1 or 2 of the 3 guys... Ok, got it.

Players have ceilings. Individuals, not groups. & individuals improve. Of those 3 guys, 1 may improve & 2 get worse. 2 may get better & a third plateau or decline. Or 1 could get better, 1 plateau at his ceiling, & the 3d be worse. Or they all 3 could get better -- as individuals. Or all of them could decline. Or all plateau. As individuals

If Wall & Beal come back strong, but what they do is play as they did 2 years ago, will that not tell you that you are seeing their ceilings?

Brad Beal just turned 25. Doesn't he have to improve rather than plateau? If he plateaus, doesn't that make it likely we are seeing his ceiling? Perhaps the same in Porter's case?

John Wall, otoh, is 28. John Wall is entering his 9th NBA season; he's a veteran not a developing young player. Plus, he's played a lot... 4000 more minutes than Jimmy Butler, the guy who's supposed to have all that "wear and tear" on his body.

I'm not saying he can't have a little better year than 2 years ago. Of course he can. Or not quite as good; that can happen too. But, significant development? Hey, I don't have a crystall ball. But, Wall's game is based on athleticism; isn't he more likely to start declining some time in the next couple of years than to become meaningfully better than he already is?

Edit: Actually, I'm making it sound like there's a bigger difference between our POV than there really is. The main difference is that I sort of think I've already seen -- or seen enough of -- what you seem to feel you still need to see this season.

IOW, I think we could have quite a good regular season, perhaps our best in many decades. But I still can't see us getting out of R2 of the playoffs -- no matter how many positive pieces of good fortune we have. To me, this far into building a generation of a team, if you can't do that it's time to overhaul.

But... I could be wrong -- no, better, I hope I'm wrong! But... for the moment I can't convince myself I am.

The Wizards need to trade Wall IF they ever get a better GM than EG.

The guy who needs to go elsewhere can bring the biggest return and IMO they're going to be better without him in the long run.

Given Wall's contract, who's going to trade for him? That extension was 170 mil over 4 years. Anything's possible but I just can't see anyone trading for that. It's an extraordinary amount - even in this era.

Agreed, No reason to trade Wall right now. In 12 months I think we'll be in a VERY different environment. I think Wall has a great year similar to two years ago, the cap will be at 118M, and the 2019 FA class will have signed their contracts.

I've said it before. You wont see a bunch of guys making 38-40M like Wall, but you'll see a ton of players making 25-30M that will be head scratchers

[payitforward]

The issue isn’t trading Beal (or Wall/Porter) in order to avoid the tax, the issue is trading one of them for a one-year rental (Butler). I agree with Raf that that would be a mistake…even if it made it possible for the Zards to resign both Sato and Oubre.

On the other hand, PIF’s idea for trading a Beal, Wall or Porter for young assets/pick has merit. Of course, the bar needs to be set high when considering trades for all-star level players like Beal, Wall and Porter.

Of course. Get as much as you can. But... the market decides what that will be.

Avoiding the tax is an issue, though. It's one thing to pay huge salaries; it's another to have them multiplied by lux tax specialties. It's untenable.

The only reason Jimmy Butler came up in this context was as a response to pcbothwei's idea of trying to have a maximally productive season this year, & begin to restructure if we aren't finals contenders. Well, although Brad is a terrific player, I don't think an objective person would claim that he's at the level of Jimmy Butler. So if we swap them solely with this year in mind, we are more likely to be that "contender." & it helps get us under the tax this year & maybe next year as well.

The downside, obviously, is that we'd do it knowing full well that Butler would depart. Meaning that although we got a short term benefit out of the trade we wouldn't get any longer term benefit.

Sigh... training camp will start soon!

Paul George stayed in OKC

True, & I guess you are suggesting that might mean Butler would want to stay in DC. You're right -- he might.

I'm a big fan of Jimmy Butler, Nat. I was a fan of his -- as a player & a person -- well before the 2011 draft. If we'd have taken him at #18 that year I'd have been delighted (as I would have been if we'd taken Kawhi Leonard #6).

But, that was not the context of my post. Which was that a swap of Beal for Butler (with the idea that Butler would be leaving) would address our salary squeeze next year. But, obviously, if he stayed -- &, inevitably, got a max contract ala what OKC gave George -- it wouldn't address the salary squeeze.

Given a choice between Beal & Butler in the abstract, & especially w/ short-term benefit in mind, I imagine most people would prefer to have Jimmy Butler. Put another way, the only real reason I can see for a person to prefer Beal over Butler is that Brad is so much younger.

[Ruzious]

Butler's a better player than Beal, but I doubt he makes the difference of more than 2 games in the standings, because he's not a real good 3 point shooter, and Wall needs to be surrounded with 3 point shooters to be most effective.

[Dark Faze]

Oubre, a first, and Mahinmi might nab Butler for a rental. That's a decent package under the current scenario.

I think he'd stay should we be willing to pay (probably not, very expensive roster), but I think it's worth it even as just a rental. One really fun year at going for it, and if he leaves its not like the team is in ruins. Oubre has a chance at getting snatched anyway and a first to shed Mahinmi's deal has always been a possibility.

[payitforward]

Butler's a better player than Beal, but I doubt he makes the difference of more than 2 games in the standings, because he's not a real good 3 point shooter, and Wall needs to be surrounded with 3 point shooters to be most effective.

??
Last season...
Butler got to the line much more than Brad & shot a significantly higher FT percentage.
Butler was a better defensive rebounder & offensive rebounder than Brad.
Butler got more assists than Brad.
Butler turned the ball over about 2/3 as often as Brad.
Butler got @ 60% more steals than Brad.
Butler committed @ 2/3 as many fouls as Brad.
Butler had a 2.6% higher TS% on about the same usage as Brad.

The prior year the differences in everything but shooting were larger -- much larger -- in Butler's favor, but Brad had a 1.8% higher TS% than Butler on about the same usage.

On their careers the differences overall are even greater in Butler's favor -- across the board.

I'd say that if we'd had Jimmy Butler instead of Bradley Beal in 2016-17 (Brad's best year -- & Butler's best as well), we'd have won 57-58 games instead of 49. Last year, Butler was dinged up & played less than 2200 minutes, so it's harder to compare -- who would have played the extra 800 minutes for us, & how well would he have played them? -- but I'd still say we'd have won 4-5 more games -- 47 or 48 instead of 43.

This is not in any way meant as a criticism of Bradley Beal. It's just that Jimmy Butler has proved over the years to be one of the top 3-4 wings in the game -- really one of the top handful of players in the game.

[Ruzious]

Butler's a better player than Beal, but I doubt he makes the difference of more than 2 games in the standings, because he's not a real good 3 point shooter, and Wall needs to be surrounded with 3 point shooters to be most effective.

??
Last season...
Butler got to the line much more than Brad & shot a significantly higher FT percentage.
Butler was a better defensive rebounder & offensive rebounder than Brad.
Butler got more assists than Brad.
Butler turned the ball over about 2/3 as often as Brad.
Butler got @ 60% more steals than Brad.
Butler committed @ 2/3 as many fouls as Brad.
Butler had a 2.6% higher TS% on about the same usage as Brad.

The prior year the differences in everything but shooting were larger -- much larger -- in Butler's favor, but Brad had a 1.8% higher TS% than Butler on about the same usage.

On their careers the differences overall are even greater in Butler's favor -- across the board.

I'd say that if we'd had Jimmy Butler instead of Bradley Beal in 2016-17 (Brad's best year -- & Butler's best as well), we'd have won 57-58 games instead of 49. Last year, Butler was dinged up & played less than 2200 minutes, so it's harder to compare -- who would have played the extra 800 minutes for us, & how well would he have played them? -- but I'd still say we'd have won 4-5 more games -- 47 or 48 instead of 43.

This is not in any way meant as a criticism of Bradley Beal. It's just that Jimmy Butler has proved over the years to be one of the top 3-4 wings in the game -- really one of the top handful of players in the game.

Overreact much? I said... "Butler's a better player than Beal." And then you react as if I said the exact opposite...

???

It'd be nice if you actually addressed my point about the importance of spreading the court. That point has been made probably a 100 times to you - not just by me - and it never factors into your responses. Spreading the floor is a real thing - regardless if it factors into ANY of the stats you use. Yet you ignore it. Is it because you don't know how to mathematically figure it in - therefore it cannot be relevant?

Btw, your reliance on the steals stats - I see you do it over and over again - makes no sense. Steals do not equal defense. Arenas and Hughes was a bad defensive backcourt, but they probably led all backcourt combos in steals when they played together. Butler's a much better defender than Beal, but it's not because of steals.

[payitforward]

Overreact much? I said... "Butler's a better player than Beal." And then you react as if I said the exact opposite...

???

It'd be nice if you actually addressed my point about the importance of spreading the court. That point has been made probably a 100 times to you - not just by me - and it never factors into your responses. Spreading the floor is a real thing - regardless if it factors into ANY of the stats you use. Yet you ignore it. Is it because you don't know how to mathematically figure it in - therefore it cannot be relevant?

Btw, your reliance on the steals stats - I see you do it over and over again - makes no sense. Steals do not equal defense. Arenas and Hughes was a bad defensive backcourt, but they probably led all backcourt combos in steals when they played together. Butler's a much better defender than Beal, but it's not because of steals.

1. I didn't think you'd said the opposite. I was trying to respond to your notion of Jimmy Butler only being worth a couple of wins. His impact is far far in excess of that. All I wanted to do was show that in his numbers. That's where you find it.

2. "the importance of spreading the court" -- all things that lead to good results are good. So, sure, I'm happy to grant the truth of that statement.

But, "spreading the floor" is not good "regardless if it factors into ANY of the stats you use." It's good because it DOES factor into those stats.

Winning a game depends 100% on how many chances to score your team has & what % of those chances your team turn into actual scores (i.e. your team's TS% in the game). If you have more chances to score than your opponent, it's possible to win even if you post a lower TS% than your opponent. If you have a higher TS% than your opponent, it's possible to win even with fewer chances to score.

If you have both -- more chances to score & a higher TS% -- you can't lose. If you have neither, you can't win. Period.

Spreading the floor leads to more open shots. Open shots go into the basket more often than contested shots. That means spreading the floor helps a team post a higher TS% than its opponent. So spreading the floor helps your team win games. That's why it's good, & that's the only reason it's good.

But, what's important is not "spreading the floor," what's important is the result -- the improved TS% -- because that improvement helps you win the game.

3. In the exact same sense & no other, a steal is a good thing -- it results in an opponent having one less chance to score. Hence it helps you win the game. That's why it's good, & that's the only reason it's good. Just as with spreading the floor.

What makes Jimmy Butler a tremendous player, what makes his stats *show* what a tremendous player he is, are one & the same thing: you look at them, & you can see why & how & how much they contribute to his team winning games. The numbers are the contribution to winning. The numbers are what make him an outstanding player.

So, if you think he wouldn't help the Wizards win many more games, it can only mean one of two things: either...

1. you think he'd post different numbers as a Wizard than he has elsewhere. But, there's no reason to think that. When he left the Bulls he took his numbers with him, & they immediately went from 41 wins to 27 wins. When he came to Minny, he brought his numbers with him, & they immediately went from 31 wins to 47 wins.

or...

2. you think the numbers of the player he'd be replacing were very close to Jimmy Butler's numbers. In this scenario, that player would be Bradley Beal. All I did was show that, no, the numbers aren't very close at all.

[Ruzious]

Overreact much? I said... "Butler's a better player than Beal." And then you react as if I said the exact opposite...

???

It'd be nice if you actually addressed my point about the importance of spreading the court. That point has been made probably a 100 times to you - not just by me - and it never factors into your responses. Spreading the floor is a real thing - regardless if it factors into ANY of the stats you use. Yet you ignore it. Is it because you don't know how to mathematically figure it in - therefore it cannot be relevant?

Btw, your reliance on the steals stats - I see you do it over and over again - makes no sense. Steals do not equal defense. Arenas and Hughes was a bad defensive backcourt, but they probably led all backcourt combos in steals when they played together. Butler's a much better defender than Beal, but it's not because of steals.

1. I didn't think you'd said the opposite. I was trying to respond to your notion of Jimmy Butler only being worth a couple of wins. His impact is far far in excess of that. All I wanted to do was show that in his numbers. That's where you find it.

2. "the importance of spreading the court" -- all things that lead to good results are good. So, sure, I'm happy to grant the truth of that statement.

But, "spreading the floor" is not good "regardless if it factors into ANY of the stats you use." It's good because it DOES factor into those stats.

Winning a game depends 100% on how many chances to score your team has & what % of those chances your team turn into actual scores (i.e. your team's TS% in the game). If you have more chances to score than your opponent, it's possible to win even if you post a lower TS% than your opponent. If you have a higher TS% than your opponent, it's possible to win even with fewer chances to score.

Beal is also capable of making a significant improvement in his game - considering last season was his age 24 season. Players Butler's age are not likely going to improve. Look at Beal's numbers in his age 23 and 24 seasons and compare them to Butler's. Can you say that Butler's age 23 and 24 seasons were better than Beal's? Shouldn't we expect Beal to improve some while Butler doesn't?
If you have both -- more chances to score & a higher TS% -- you can't lose. If you have neither, you can't win. Period.

Spreading the floor leads to more open shots. Open shots go into the basket more often than contested shots. That means spreading the floor helps a team post a higher TS% than its opponent. So spreading the floor helps your team win games. That's why it's good, & that's the only reason it's good.

But, what's important is not "spreading the floor," what's important is the result -- the improved TS% -- because that improvement helps you win the game.

3. In the exact same sense & no other, a steal is a good thing -- it results in an opponent having one less chance to score. Hence it helps you win the game. That's why it's good, & that's the only reason it's good. Just as with spreading the floor.

What makes Jimmy Butler a tremendous player, what makes his stats *show* what a tremendous player he is, are one & the same thing: you look at them, & you can see why & how & how much they contribute to his team winning games. The numbers are the contribution to winning. The numbers are what make him an outstanding player.

So, if you think he wouldn't help the Wizards win many more games, it can only mean one of two things: either...

1. you think he'd post different numbers as a Wizard than he has elsewhere. But, there's no reason to think that. When he left the Bulls he took his numbers with him, & they immediately went from 41 wins to 27 wins. When he came to Minny, he brought his numbers with him, & they immediately went from 31 wins to 47 wins.

or...

2. you think the numbers of the player he'd be replacing were very close to Jimmy Butler's numbers. In this scenario, that player would be Bradley Beal. All I did was show that, no, the numbers aren't very close at all.

Then a couple of wins OVER BEAL in reality is a lot more than you apparently think - especially considering what Jimmy Butler has won - which is 2 first round playoff series' in his entire career. He's a heckuva player, but he's never been a player that's led his team to much success. He's not a superstar. He certainly doesn't rank up there with someone like Harden. His trade value was somewhat determined when he was traded to Minnesota for a modest package - at what is usually the peek year of a player's career.

And you're still making light of the stretching the floor. It's like you've never watched the GS Warriors or the Houston Rockets - the best 2 teams in the NBA last season. Stretching the floor helps the entire TEAM. Maybe your fundamental flaw here is that you see a group of individuals rather than a team. You see all the trees in fine detail, but you don't see the forest. Even in a forest, the trees survive because they help each other. When Gilbert and Larry tried to make every play a steal, they hurt... the team; they didn't help it; but they got a bunch of steals. Yeehah!

And this quote: "So spreading the floor helps your team win games. That's why it's good, & that's the only reason it's good." It's like you don't get that helping to win games is what it's ALL about. Why else do you say "that's the only reason it's good."?

Seems like some of my post got cut off, so I'll try to remember what I just posted - Compare Beal's and Butler's age 23 and 24 seasons. Beal's stats were better. Beal's at an age where it's not unusual for players to make significant improvements - just like Butler did. It's certainly more likely for Beal to improve significantly than it is for Butler, and that's gotta be factored into the equation.

[payitforward]

...Then a couple of wins OVER BEAL in reality is a lot more than you apparently think - especially considering what Jimmy Butler has won - which is 2 first round playoff series' in his entire career. He's a heckuva player, but he's never been a player that's led his team to much success. He's not a superstar. He certainly doesn't rank up there with someone like Harden. His trade value was somewhat determined when he was traded to Minnesota for a modest package - at what is usually the peek year of a player's career.

And you're still making light of the stretching the floor. It's like you've never watched the GS Warriors or the Houston Rockets - the best 2 teams in the NBA last season. Stretching the floor helps the entire TEAM. Maybe your fundamental flaw here is that you see a group of individuals rather than a team. You see all the trees in fine detail, but you don't see the forest. Even in a forest, the trees survive because they help each other. When Gilbert and Larry tried to make every play a steal, they hurt... the team; they didn't help it; but they got a bunch of steals. Yeehah!

And this quote: "So spreading the floor helps your team win games. That's why it's good, & that's the only reason it's good." It's like you don't get that helping to win games is what it's ALL about. Why else do you say "that's the only reason it's good."?

Seems like some of my post got cut off, so I'll try to remember what I just posted - Compare Beal's and Butler's age 23 and 24 seasons. Beal's stats were better. Beal's at an age where it's not unusual for players to make significant improvements - just like Butler did. It's certainly more likely for Beal to improve significantly than it is for Butler, and that's gotta be factored into the equation.

If I cut off part of your post, it was unintentional. But, now I've cut off the whole history before this one from you -- just to facilitate bringing this (I think) non-debate to an end.

I say "non-debate" mainly b/c I never had, never would have had, the notion to trade Beal for Butler.

For one thing, if we were to trade Beal it would be b/c we'd realized we couldn't sustain our salary structure w/ all 3 of w/b/p on board. Trading for Butler wouldn't solve that problem if we kept him. IOW we'd only trade for him in order for him to leave. But, surely in that case we'd prefer to trade Brad for multiple, forward-looking assets instead of just for cap space.

Your last paragraph is on the money. I agree that there's plenty reason to hope for/expect improvement from Brad but not from Butler. Plus we need more youth not more age. Plus, even leaving everything else out, Butler's (understandable) motivation to maximize financially while he still can means there couldn't really be mutual interest.

The rest of the exchange between us seems at cross purposes. Of course, you shouldn't "try to make every play a steal." Your goal is to stop the opposing team from scoring. Period. But, if a steal actually happens it's still a good thing not a bad thing: the opposing team didn't score! Some players get more steals than others without that meaning they're doing what you describe Arenas/Hughes as doing.

Analogically, on offense your goal is not "try not to turn the ball over." Your goal is to score. Period. But if a turnover actually happens it's still a bad thing -- you didn't score! & some guys do it more than others.

As to the trees/forest thing, you are absolutely correct: even though simply adding up all the numbers of all the individual players on each side always tells you which team won the game, that doesn't tell you anything at all about the dependencies among the numbers & among the players (well... # of assists tells you something, but that's it I think).

That's a complicated subject, & I'd be happy to discuss it -- but not in this post or in this exchange, both of which are already too long!

[Rafael122]

Read on Twitter

The things that scare me from a potential trade is:

Butler's age, he's turning 30 and if he stays long term, that's 35-40 million dollars on a guy with a lot of minutes and bad knees. His game could tank in a couple of years.

If he walks, you just traded a 22 year old player that still hasn't maximized his potential and an underrated and efficient player like Porter for nothing.

If Butler walks, it's not like this team all of a sudden has a ton of cap room to play with. They would still have to trade Mahinmi, probably by including a pick which you would need if you have 3 max guys, just to get a max room slot.

Out of all the trade proposals Lowe put out, Wizards are arguably taking the most risk. He says Boston wouldn't trade Smaht or any of their top 5 guys but the Wizards trade 3 of their top 6-7 guys? Come on lol.

[nuposse04]

I'm not sure where it belongs but the fact the NBA has changed the shot clock rule on offensive rebounds does seem somewhat important regarding player acquisition and value. Less time for player's to resent and run a set, I would think to less efficient returns from offensive rebounds, but it will be interesting to see if guys like Tristian Thompson and Kenneth Farried who have no discernible basketball skills save for rebounding, particularly offensive rebounding, are as valuable moving forward.