ImageImageImageImageImage

Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1641 » by payitforward » Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:47 pm

dangermouse wrote:Jarrett Allen would be great for this team. Good fit next to Rui. I'd do that trade in a heartbeat if we are picking around #6-10 this year.

Allen would be great for this (or any) team, to be sure.

But, it would be foolish to trade Bryant for him in this deal. These are very different players, but they are both very strong players & very young. They complement each other.

Yes, Bryant had a down season this year -- but it was still a whole, whole lot better than Rui Hachimura's rookie season. It would take a few huge jumps on Rui's part to post a year equal to Bryant's down season. It's a big speculation to imagine that he'll ever do it.

It's also worth noting that Rui is 2.5 months older than Jarrett Allen.

Rui is also only 6 months & 8 days younger than Thomas Bryant.

It would make far more sense to trade Rui for Allen -- assuming Brooklyn would do that trade (I wouldn't consider it if I were Sean Marks).
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1642 » by payitforward » Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:16 pm

I just posted this on the Nets board --

From the Wizards board -- I come in peace (& hoping you are all staying safe.... I have family in NYC; a tough time).

This thread has trailed off, but I have a couple of questions:

1. Why would you trade Jarrett Allen? He's a terrific player & just turned 22. I can only guess that you're thinking you might get a veteran player who'd vault the Nets into legitimate contenders to win the East next year. Is that it, or... what am I missing?

2. Would you take Rui Hachimura straight up for Allen? Now... that's a very different trade idea than the one w/ which this thread began -- there's no veteran-vault involved. Still, I'm curious how you see the value proposition in that trade.

Thanks for considering this. Look forward to your thoughts.

I'll be interested to see whether they jump on the idea or are instantly negative about it. IOW, I proposed it for the information that comes out of the idea -- what can be learned from the responses of another set of NBA fans.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,036
And1: 9,566
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1643 » by nate33 » Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:29 pm

payitforward wrote:
dangermouse wrote:Jarrett Allen would be great for this team. Good fit next to Rui. I'd do that trade in a heartbeat if we are picking around #6-10 this year.

Allen would be great for this (or any) team, to be sure.

But, it would be foolish to trade Bryant for him in this deal. These are very different players, but they are both very strong players & very young. They complement each other.

Yes, Bryant had a down season this year -- but it was still a whole, whole lot better than Rui Hachimura's rookie season. It would take a few huge jumps on Rui's part to post a year equal to Bryant's down season. It's a big speculation to imagine that he'll ever do it.

It's also worth noting that Rui is 2.5 months older than Jarrett Allen.

Rui is also only 6 months & 8 days younger than Thomas Bryant.

It would make far more sense to trade Rui for Allen -- assuming Brooklyn would do that trade (I wouldn't consider it if I were Sean Marks).

It would be unwise to keep both Bryant and Allen. That's too much salary devoted to the center position (after Allen's presumably substantial raise). If we traded for Allen, Wagner would be sufficient as the backup - a stretch 5 at a cheap price.

I agree with you that Bryant had a better season than Rui, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Bryant will be better going forward. And more importantly, if I had to choose one of Rui or Bryant to be a teammate of Wall, Beal and Allen, I'd choose Rui. He could share the floor with the others. He's also cheaper, younger and locked in for longer.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1644 » by payitforward » Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:29 pm

The comparison with Rui had two goals:

1. To make the point that Bryant's "down season" was actually a pretty good season -- tho not to be compared with the blistering numbers he put up in '18-19.

2. To make the point that Bryant is extremely young. Not much different in age from Rui. Kevin emphasizes his youth as well.

Otherwise, you are right that there is no compelling reason to compare the two guys. One is not a model for the other. How good either of them has been, is or ever will be has nothing to do w/ those same issues for the other guy. Above all, one guy being good doesn't contribute the other guy being less good! I didn't mean to give that impression.

Otoh, this...
nate33 wrote:...Bryant had a better season than Rui, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Bryant will be better going forward....

...while correct theoretically is no more correct than it would be if the names were reversed or replaced by 2 other names.

Empirically, OTOH, a player who has a good season is more likely than one who has a bad season to follow that up with more good seasons going forward. But, that's not about Bryant/Rui either -- & of course, it has to be qualified with other parameters (age, experience, etc.

while this...
nate33 wrote:...if I had to choose one of Rui or Bryant to be a teammate of Wall, Beal and Allen, I'd choose Rui. He could share the floor with the others..

...would not be a reason to give more in a trade. Thomas Bryant is a way better player than Rui Hachimura right now. They are @ the same age, & each of their futures is speculative.

yet, this...

nate33 wrote:...He's also cheaper, younger and locked in for longer.

...is absolutely relevant.

But, to tell the truth, the main reason we wouldn't & won't trade Rui is completely different -- he has a whole lot of extra economic value! The Japanese market. Someone in the trade thread pointed out that 25% of all jerseys, etc. sold in Japan is Rui merchandise.

Ted won't give up that revenue stream -- for good reason! So... it's a totally theoretical discussion we're having! :)
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
gambitx777
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,163
And1: 569
Joined: Dec 18, 2012

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1645 » by gambitx777 » Fri Apr 24, 2020 5:30 am

nate33 wrote:
payitforward wrote:
dangermouse wrote:Jarrett Allen would be great for this team. Good fit next to Rui. I'd do that trade in a heartbeat if we are picking around #6-10 this year.

Allen would be great for this (or any) team, to be sure.

But, it would be foolish to trade Bryant for him in this deal. These are very different players, but they are both very strong players & very young. They complement each other.

Yes, Bryant had a down season this year -- but it was still a whole, whole lot better than Rui Hachimura's rookie season. It would take a few huge jumps on Rui's part to post a year equal to Bryant's down season. It's a big speculation to imagine that he'll ever do it.

It's also worth noting that Rui is 2.5 months older than Jarrett Allen.

Rui is also only 6 months & 8 days younger than Thomas Bryant.

It would make far more sense to trade Rui for Allen -- assuming Brooklyn would do that trade (I wouldn't consider it if I were Sean Marks).

It would be unwise to keep both Bryant and Allen. That's too much salary devoted to the center position (after Allen's presumably substantial raise). If we traded for Allen, Wagner would be sufficient as the backup - a stretch 5 at a cheap price.

I agree with you that Bryant had a better season than Rui, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Bryant will be better going forward. And more importantly, if I had to choose one of Rui or Bryant to be a teammate of Wall, Beal and Allen, I'd choose Rui. He could share the floor with the others. He's also cheaper, younger and locked in for longer.
Even though I had a different point about rui , that's kind of where I was going with this. I also don't want to trade away picks but if Bryant and a second get you Allen from a team that doesn't seem to want him . Do that all day ! You have to take temple as filler but who cares. And you still l keep the 9 and get to take the best player still there or do a trade back and get more vale than just Allen.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1646 » by payitforward » Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:20 pm

gambitx777 wrote:
nate33 wrote:
payitforward wrote:Allen would be great for this (or any) team, to be sure.

But, it would be foolish to trade Bryant for him in this deal. These are very different players, but they are both very strong players & very young. They complement each other.

Yes, Bryant had a down season this year -- but it was still a whole, whole lot better than Rui Hachimura's rookie season. It would take a few huge jumps on Rui's part to post a year equal to Bryant's down season. It's a big speculation to imagine that he'll ever do it.

It's also worth noting that Rui is 2.5 months older than Jarrett Allen.

Rui is also only 6 months & 8 days younger than Thomas Bryant.

It would make far more sense to trade Rui for Allen -- assuming Brooklyn would do that trade (I wouldn't consider it if I were Sean Marks).

It would be unwise to keep both Bryant and Allen. That's too much salary devoted to the center position (after Allen's presumably substantial raise). If we traded for Allen, Wagner would be sufficient as the backup - a stretch 5 at a cheap price.

I agree with you that Bryant had a better season than Rui, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Bryant will be better going forward. And more importantly, if I had to choose one of Rui or Bryant to be a teammate of Wall, Beal and Allen, I'd choose Rui. He could share the floor with the others. He's also cheaper, younger and locked in for longer.
Even though I had a different point about rui , that's kind of where I was going with this. I also don't want to trade away picks but if Bryant and a second get you Allen from a team that doesn't seem to want him . Do that all day ! You have to take temple as filler but who cares. And you still l keep the 9 and get to take the best player still there or do a trade back and get more vale than just Allen.

Between my "foolish" to do the trade & nate's "unwise" to keep both guys is a difference in how we are looking at team-building.

My approach could not be more simple-minded: just get/keep the best players you can w/o worrying about position, then treat any of them, no matter what position, as tradable -- but make sure you get equal value when you trade anyone. You could say that I'm just treating this like building a tower of player-value: taller tower is better than shorter tower; forget what the towers are composed of.

My rationale is equally simple: if you make every move that way, you'll have the best group of players. There will be plenty of opportunity to trade equal value players to achieve position balance -- & the result is still that you have the most value, i.e. it turns out you have the best possible team.

nate's approach (if I have him right; I don't mean to speak for him) is far more thoughtful. He's looking at what goes with what, who goes with whom. If Allen, don't keep Bryant. Rui goes well with Wall, Beal and Allen.

In many ways, that's a far more sensible approach than mine. You can't make a choir out of nothing but baritones! All the same, I see a couple of problems with it.

The first is that if you choose players on fit, you will achieve fit -- but you won't achieve equivalent quality. If you take a less-talented player in the draft because the most-talented player available doesn't fill a position need, then you will have a less talented roster. Period. If you scale that practice, you wind up with an average team. This is not a fact about basketball, it's a fact about life.

The second problem is that "fit" is a more complex, subtle thing to make judgments about than talent is. It's speculative, multi-dimensional & abstract. You are certain to make more mistakes about "fit" than about "talent" (about which, of course, you will also make mistakes; nothing in life is easy).
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,036
And1: 9,566
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1647 » by nate33 » Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:06 pm

payitforward wrote:All the same, I see a couple of problems with it.

The first is that if you choose players on fit, you will achieve fit -- but you won't achieve equivalent quality. If you take a less-talented player in the draft because the most-talented player available doesn't fill a position need, then you will have a less talented roster. Period. If you scale that practice, you wind up with an average team. This is not a fact about basketball, it's a fact about life.

The second problem is that "fit" is a more complex, subtle thing to make judgments about than talent is. It's speculative, multi-dimensional & abstract. You are certain to make more mistakes about "fit" than about "talent" (about which, of course, you will also make mistakes; nothing in life is easy).

I think it's the exact opposite. Fit is much easier to see than talent, particularly when we know that two players can only play one position.

If we had Bryant and Allen, one of them would have to come off the bench. It's situations like that (two starting caliber players, one position available) where you inevitably get forced into a trade from a position of weakness. Assuming Bryant comes off the bench, teams would only assign backup value to him in any trade for him. Basically, we'd have two choices. Trade him at 50 cents on the dollar, or keep him and pay him a starter's salary to play 18 minutes a night.

If at all possible, I'd much rather trade Bryant (and stuff) for Allen than trade Rui (and stuff) for Allen. (That's assuming a relatively equivalent trade value for Rui and Bryant.)
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1648 » by payitforward » Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:33 pm

nate33 wrote:
payitforward wrote:All the same, I see a couple of problems with it.

The first is that if you choose players on fit, you will achieve fit -- but you won't achieve equivalent quality. If you take a less-talented player in the draft because the most-talented player available doesn't fill a position need, then you will have a less talented roster. Period. If you scale that practice, you wind up with an average team. This is not a fact about basketball, it's a fact about life.

The second problem is that "fit" is a more complex, subtle thing to make judgments about than talent is. It's speculative, multi-dimensional & abstract. You are certain to make more mistakes about "fit" than about "talent" (about which, of course, you will also make mistakes; nothing in life is easy).

I think it's the exact opposite. Fit is much easier to see than talent, particularly when we know that two players can only play one position.

If we had Bryant and Allen, one of them would have to come off the bench. It's situations like that (two starting caliber players, one position available) where you inevitably get forced into a trade from a position of weakness. Assuming Bryant comes off the bench, teams would only assign backup value to him in any trade for him. Basically, we'd have two choices. Trade him at 50 cents on the dollar, or keep him and pay him a starter's salary to play 18 minutes a night.

If at all possible, I'd much rather trade Bryant (and stuff) for Allen than trade Rui (and stuff) for Allen. (That's assuming a relatively equivalent trade value for Rui and Bryant.)

Well, first off, there's an obvious sense in which you're right & I'm wrong! It's much easier to see what position a guy plays than how good he is! I didn't express myself very significantly there. Beyond a guy's position, however, I think it's hard to see what players will "fit" with one another -- mostly because that issue involves matters beyond basketball. It is, to some degree, about the players as individuals.

Your point about needing to trade one of the two guys under discussion, b/c otherwise you have a starter-level player coming off the bench, & about being in a position where you'd be forced to take less than the guy's worth... I'm less certain about either of those, nate. & this is less a discussion about basketball than it is about business.

For one thing, every trade occurs because of the needs/desires of two (or more) trade partners. Of course, everyone wants the best deal possible, but if I need a good Center, I'm going into the marketplace to get the best guy I can afford, &, b/c it's a free market, I'll be competing for talent with every other team that is looking to acquire it. I will have to pay the market price -- unless I find a trade partner who doesn't understand the value of what he has (a different issue from the one you raise) or can't keep a guy for some forcing reason (e.g. roster room).

Are there exceptions to this? Of course! For example, some times if you know a guy is good, but you know you can't keep him, you might be motivated to take less for him (or nothing at all) just to get him where you aren't helping an important competitor.

I'm pretty sure that's how Bryant wound up a Wizard, btw. When the Lakers knew they couldn't keep Bryant, they were eager for him to wind up somewhere in the Eastern Conference. I'm guessing that before waiving Bryant, Pelinka called Tommy Sheppard & told him what was going to happen, advising him to grab the kid. Our off season deal with the Lakers -- even our acquisition of Bertans, come to think of it -- are similar cases. If I'm the San Antonio GM, I'm not sending Bertans to Houston for a tpa! I'm sending him to the Wizards!

In the end, though, your point still comes down to who you think is, or will be, the better player: Bryant or Hachimura. &, to an equal degree, your trade partner's thoughts on the same subject!
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 7,776
And1: 2,187
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1649 » by DCZards » Fri May 8, 2020 4:28 pm

Here's a trade suggestion for the Zards. Not sure how I feel about it...but I thought I 'd share.

https://clutchpoints.com/one-trade-the-washington-wizards-need-to-make-in-the-offseason/
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,307
And1: 6,547
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1650 » by Ruzious » Fri May 8, 2020 5:00 pm

DCZards wrote:Here's a trade suggestion for the Zards. Not sure how I feel about it...but I thought I 'd share.

https://clutchpoints.com/one-trade-the-washington-wizards-need-to-make-in-the-offseason/

Fwiw, I think it's a bad idea. Snell does absolutely nothing on offense other than spot up for 3's. Opponents typically play 5 to 10 feet off of him. Most of the time, he's the invisible man. Bucks fans were ecstatic that they were able to dump him off on Detroit.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 56,036
And1: 9,566
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1651 » by nate33 » Fri May 8, 2020 7:27 pm

The Bucks sacrificed their 1st round pick just to dump Snell last summer, and now Detroit is "willing to part with him for a late 1st round pick". LOL

You don't trade a late 1st for a bench-caliber wing owed $12M on the final year of his contract. If Snell was worth a positive return on that contract, he'd opt out of his final year (he's got a player option) and become a free agent.

And finally, the logistics of the trade are difficult because the Wizards lack salary ballast. We'd have to trade either Ish or some combination of our young rookie-contract players, which only further detracts from any benefit of the deal.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1652 » by payitforward » Fri May 8, 2020 7:32 pm

Ruzious wrote:
DCZards wrote:Here's a trade suggestion for the Zards. Not sure how I feel about it...but I thought I 'd share.

https://clutchpoints.com/one-trade-the-washington-wizards-need-to-make-in-the-offseason/

Fwiw, I think it's a bad idea. Snell does absolutely nothing on offense other than spot up for 3's. Opponents typically play 5 to 10 feet off of him. Most of the time, he's the invisible man. Bucks fans were ecstatic that they were able to dump him off on Detroit.

Oh come on, Ruz -- did you see how quickly the Bucks went downhill once they made the mistake of trading Tony Snell?

Snell has had 3 pretty good seasons out of 7 -- his 2d, his 4th & his 6th. Not saying they were great -- but they were better than his 1st, 3d, 5th & 7th years in the league. Thus, he is clearly ready to have another good year -- grab him!

The guy that wrote this article has a series of similar "one trade they need" articles for a bunch of teams. It's an interesting shtick I guess, but none of them is particularly compelling. Above all, the idea of giving a R1 pick for Tony Snell makes no sense.

Finally, we have a far better, younger & cheaper starter at the 3 -- Troy Brown Jr.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 27,821
And1: 3,747
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1653 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue May 12, 2020 6:43 pm

Just had the Wizards come up in Indy news media. Thought y'all might like the reference.
https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2020/05/11/pacers-victor-oladipo-isnt-going-anywhere-anytime-soon/3110569001/

Turner attracted a lot of league-wide interest, including from the Washington Wizards. Another league source told IndyStar the team was inquiring about Turner only for future reference.

Another league source told IndyStar that the a key player from the Wizards had a sit-down with someone close to Turner to express their interest directly in the rim-protecting, 3-point shooting big man.

Turner’s representation, another league source told IndyStar, didn’t take any of the overtures seriously because the Pacers weren’t looking to move the center.



In terms of Indy news media, the IndyStar's J. Michael is a pretty conservative writer in terms of "leaks" or "rumors". Having talked to him a couple times, he hears a lot, but refuses to share it unless he can get some really solid confirmations from sources he trusts. If it comes from The Athletic's Scott Agness, you can usually trust it's straight from Pacers management and whatever they would like to put out there.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1654 » by payitforward » Tue May 12, 2020 7:06 pm

Thanks for the heads up, Scoot!

The article sits behind a pay wall, alas, so can't get any detail. Is the article talking about interest back around the trade deadline? Or more current? Or...?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1655 » by payitforward » Tue May 12, 2020 7:09 pm

Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 27,821
And1: 3,747
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1656 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue May 12, 2020 8:01 pm

payitforward wrote:Thanks for the heads up, Scoot!

The article sits behind a pay wall, alas, so can't get any detail. Is the article talking about interest back around the trade deadline? Or more current? Or...?


Ah, thought the IndyStar should give 10 free views a month per the Gannett pay wall.

But yes, it mentions "before the deadline" with no other specificity of exactly when.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1657 » by payitforward » Tue May 12, 2020 8:51 pm

NBD -- seemed like the hoopsrumors article hit the high points. Anyway... not going to happen.

FWIW, I'm not an especially big-time Myles Turner fan myself.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
long suffrin' boulez fan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,857
And1: 1,950
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Location: Just above Ted's double bottom line
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1658 » by long suffrin' boulez fan » Thu May 21, 2020 10:34 pm

Rumors of an Allen, Lavert and Dinwiddie for Beal trade.

What do you all think? Would you do it?

Could we also snitch a couple of 1sts?
In Rizzo we trust
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,739
And1: 4,258
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1659 » by payitforward » Fri May 22, 2020 1:55 am

I have no interest in either Caris Lavert or Spencer Dinwiddie (innovative entrepreneur tho he seems to be). They are similar in having had a couple of good years followed by volume shooting & a decline in their numbers/percentages (points went up of course).

I'd love to have Allen, naturally, but he is not a return for Beal.

If this is anything more than a rumor (reflecting something Brooklyn would like to do), I'll be shocked. If it were to happen, Brooklyn would have to get another team involved; somehow it'd have to be structured so that we mostly took back high R1 picks.

Would be really weird; I find it hard to believe.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
queridiculo
RealGM
Posts: 14,279
And1: 5,666
Joined: Mar 29, 2005
Location: Maximum Pain Zone
   

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1660 » by queridiculo » Fri May 22, 2020 7:00 am

long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:Rumors of an Allen, Lavert and Dinwiddie for Beal trade.

What do you all think? Would you do it?

Could we also snitch a couple of 1sts?


"Nets hold talks internally about acquiring Beal", that's what passes as a trade rumor these days?

That's a terrible return and would get the Nets promptly hung up.

Return to Washington Wizards