ImageImageImageImageImage

Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,311
And1: 6,551
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1661 » by Ruzious » Fri May 22, 2020 1:04 pm

payitforward wrote: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.

I kinda like both Dinwiddie and Lavert, but... I'd be really hesitant to trade for either one. Lavert's getting paid an average of 17.5 mil per year for the next 3 seasons - that's too much for an injury-prone wing who's never really excelled, and I don't trust Dinwiddie trying to change the compensation system while being a stat accumulator who can't make 3's. I'd stay away from both of them. I do like Allen, but he'll be a free agent after this season and doesn't have a lot of trade value.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,311
And1: 6,551
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1662 » by Ruzious » Fri May 22, 2020 1:46 pm

Here's an interesting 3-way Beal trade idea. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1965825&p=83084736#p83084736
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
pcbothwel
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,076
And1: 1,482
Joined: Jun 12, 2010
     

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1663 » by pcbothwel » Fri May 22, 2020 1:57 pm

Ruzious wrote:Here's an interesting 3-way Beal trade idea. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1965825&p=83084736#p83084736

Still going to pass.
This is one of those situations where the organizations goals actually align in maximizing Beals trade value.
The FO, and a lot of fans, want to see how the team does with another year of maturity for the young guys and a healthy/mature Wall. This also works from a trade perspective as I much prefer a top 5-7 pick next year than this year.
LyricalRico
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 30,297
And1: 668
Joined: May 23, 2002
Location: Back into the fray!
Contact:
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1664 » by LyricalRico » Fri May 22, 2020 2:17 pm

Ruzious wrote:Here's an interesting 3-way Beal trade idea. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1965825&p=83084736#p83084736


Interesting, but not exciting IMO. Feels like quantity over quality, and I'm not sure any of the assets we get back are going to Net us (pun intended lol) anyone as good. This is something I'd be more okay with if we ever got to the point where we knew for sure Beal wanted out.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,263
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1665 » by payitforward » Fri May 22, 2020 2:45 pm

Ruzious wrote:
payitforward wrote: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.

I kinda like both Dinwiddie and Lavert, but... I'd be really hesitant to trade for either one. Lavert's getting paid an average of 17.5 mil per year for the next 3 seasons - that's too much for an injury-prone wing who's never really excelled, and I don't trust Dinwiddie trying to change the compensation system while being a stat accumulator who can't make 3's. I'd stay away from both of them. I do like Allen, but he'll be a free agent after this season and doesn't have a lot of trade value.

Well, I suppose "kinda like" is faint praise, but even so it was odd to read your descriptions of the 2 guys that followed! :)

You covered my "no interest" remark -- Lavert makes too much, Dinwiddie can't be predicted so probably does too.

Plus, the shape of the trade makes sense for them but not us. Love Jarrett Allen, but we'd need to trade front court players for him, not Beal.

If there's anything to the rumor, it indicates that Brooklyn wants to go all in -- to win a title or at least win the East & try to get a title. Makes sense in that the previously dominant team in the West is no longer, & nobody in the East looks unbeatable. Not that I think they'd get to their goal, I don't.

But, if you're going all in, then you need to trade big pieces of your future for the benefit in the present that you're after. Allen fits that paradigm, but the other guys don't. It would take at the very least a couple of high draft picks plus Allen just to make it worth starting the conversation.

Only... they don't have them, which is why I suggested that a 3d team would have to be involved.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,311
And1: 6,551
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1666 » by Ruzious » Fri May 22, 2020 2:50 pm

payitforward wrote:
Ruzious wrote:
payitforward wrote: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.

I kinda like both Dinwiddie and Lavert, but... I'd be really hesitant to trade for either one. Lavert's getting paid an average of 17.5 mil per year for the next 3 seasons - that's too much for an injury-prone wing who's never really excelled, and I don't trust Dinwiddie trying to change the compensation system while being a stat accumulator who can't make 3's. I'd stay away from both of them. I do like Allen, but he'll be a free agent after this season and doesn't have a lot of trade value.

Well, I suppose "kinda like" is faint praise, but even so it was odd to read your descriptions of the 2 guys that followed! :)

You covered my "no interest" remark -- Lavert makes too much, Dinwiddie can't be predicted so probably does too.

Plus, the shape of the trade makes sense for them but not us. Love Jarrett Allen, but we'd need to trade front court players for him, not Beal.

If there's anything to the rumor, it indicates that Brooklyn wants to go all in -- to win a title or at least win the East & try to get a title. Makes sense in that the previously dominant team in the West is no longer, & nobody in the East looks unbeatable. Not that I think they'd get to their goal, I don't.

But, if you're going all in, then you need to trade big pieces of your future for the benefit in the present that you're after. Allen fits that paradigm, but the other guys don't. It would take at the very least a couple of high draft picks plus Allen just to make it worth starting the conversation.

Only... they don't have them, which is why I suggested that a 3d team would have to be involved.

I did say I wouldn't trade for either Dinwiddie or Lavert, so... that's kindofan indication that I wouldn't make that trade. :)
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,263
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1667 » by payitforward » Fri May 22, 2020 3:29 pm

Oh I know... & I probably "kinda like" 1 of those guys too.

Taking a look at the Nets' salary obligations, they are in the tax for 20-21, ditto the following year, & in '22-23 they have 5 guys for $117m. To me, this means that they are not really in a position to pay Allen.

Thus... he should be available for not too overly much in return -- does that make sense?
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#1668 » by gambitx777 » Fri May 22, 2020 4:30 pm

The would have to move Kyrie and I don't see that being easy with all his issues.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app
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#1669 » by nate33 » Sat May 23, 2020 5:12 pm

The bottom line is that Brooklyn doesn't have enough assets to acquire Beal while still keeping KD and Kyrie. It just can't be done.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,311
And1: 6,551
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1670 » by Ruzious » Wed May 27, 2020 12:59 pm

Here's a bad trade suggestion from The Sacramento Bee:

Sacramento gets: Thomas Bryant, 2020 first-rounder (Pick 9)

Washington gets: Marvin Bagley

While the Kings are unlikely to explore trading Bagley, the emergence of Richaun Holmes has made it less than unthinkable. There’s no question Bagley has tons of potential, but Holmes is better right now and the two don’t work together on the court at the same time. If Sacramento could get a rotation-level big man and a top-10 pick, the Kings should consider it.

This could be a great opportunity for the Wizards as well. While he has lost some sticker value after two seasons limited by injury, Bagley’s upside is better than what Washington can hope to add in the draft or free agency. He could be a good selling point to try to get Bradley Beal to stay in town. And if Beal leaves, Bagley is young enough to be part of a new core in Washington.


Bagley's been more injury-prone than Bryant in the NBA and hasn't performed as well. He's arguably not worth either Bryant or the 9th pick. Bagley for Rui might make some sense - though probably not - since Bagley is not a good defender.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,263
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1671 » by payitforward » Wed May 27, 2020 2:24 pm

Yeah, sure, let's trade a good player & the #9 pick for a guy they don't want any more because he is injured often & doesn't yet play particularly well when he's not injured.

How do they come up with this stuff...?

At the same time, it is true that Bagley has a ton of potential. So, how about the #9 & Rui for the Kings' #12 & Bagley. We get higher potential for a 3-spot drop in the draft.

Nah. Not even.
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#1672 » by DCZards » Wed May 27, 2020 5:31 pm

payitforward wrote:Yeah, sure, let's trade a good player & the #9 pick for a guy they don't want any more because he is injured often & doesn't yet play particularly well when he's not injured.

How do they come up with this stuff...?

At the same time, it is true that Bagley has a ton of potential. So, how about the #9 & Rui for the Kings' #12 & Bagley. We get higher potential for a 3-spot drop in the draft.

Nah. Not even.


Nah...it should be the #9 & Bryant for the #12 & Bagley. Doesn't make much sense to add Bagley to a lineup that already has Bryant & Wagner. It would be better to keep Rui.

But given Bagley's injuries I don't make that trade either.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,263
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1673 » by payitforward » Wed May 27, 2020 7:47 pm

Actually... Bagley's injuries are the core question, aren't they? I mean, how do you place a value on him at all unless you know he can play.

Now, if he had no injury history & was healthy, that would be different. Bagley absolutely killed it his one year at Duke, & he just turned 21. Based on that history, he's in an altogether different class than either Rui or Bryant as a prospect. It's not even close.

But, if you don't know whether/when he'll play again -- forget it.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,311
And1: 6,551
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1674 » by Ruzious » Wed May 27, 2020 8:11 pm

payitforward wrote:Actually... Bagley's injuries are the core question, aren't they? I mean, how do you place a value on him at all unless you know he can play.

Now, if he had no injury history & was healthy, that would be different. Bagley absolutely killed it his one year at Duke, & he just turned 21. Based on that history, he's in an altogether different class than either Rui or Bryant as a prospect. It's not even close.

But, if you don't know whether/when he'll play again -- forget it.

2 seasons in the NBA means a bit more than 1 college season. He's played enough so that we have an idea of what he is. Okafor also killed it at Duke, and you could have him for a ham sandwich with spicy mustard - partially chewed. Neither can defend. If we're not going to upgrade on defense, we're just moving the basketballs on the Titanic... or something like that.
"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#1675 » by nate33 » Wed May 27, 2020 8:23 pm

payitforward wrote:Yeah, sure, let's trade a good player & the #9 pick for a guy they don't want any more because he is injured often & doesn't yet play particularly well when he's not injured.

Pretty much, this.

It's pretty much a given that whenever a team wants to trade a rookie contract guy, it's because that guy has no long term value.

When Bagley hits free agency in 2 years, his cost will be less than the MLE, which means if you want him, just wait until then. Don't sacrifice assets to get him now.

You only make trades for guys locked into long term deals on below-market contracts, or for guys who you need RFA rights or Bird Rights to retain them on the open market (and who are good enough that it's worth being the highest bidder to retain them).
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,263
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1676 » by payitforward » Wed May 27, 2020 9:05 pm

Ruzious wrote:
payitforward wrote:Actually... Bagley's injuries are the core question, aren't they? I mean, how do you place a value on him at all unless you know he can play.

Now, if he had no injury history & was healthy, that would be different. Bagley absolutely killed it his one year at Duke, & he just turned 21. Based on that history, he's in an altogether different class than either Rui or Bryant as a prospect. It's not even close.

But, if you don't know whether/when he'll play again -- forget it.

2 seasons in the NBA means a bit more than 1 college season. He's played enough so that we have an idea of what he is. Okafor also killed it at Duke, and you could have him for a ham sandwich with spicy mustard - partially chewed. Neither can defend. If we're not going to upgrade on defense, we're just moving the basketballs on the Titanic... or something like that.

Of course! I don't disagree at all (except to say that good as Okafor was at Duke, Bagley was even better, a ton better -- but that's irrelevant).

Bagley didn't turn 20 until a month before the end of his rookie year. For a 19 year old rookie, he did some things well. He sure wasn't as bad as Okafor as a rookie -- & Okafor went on to be equally bad his 2d year. Bagley went on to get injured.

I'm not a fan of Marvin Bagley -- I just think it's unfair to compare him to Okafor.

I also have no interest in trading for him. But, is it that he can't defend -- or is it that he doesn't defend?

Not that it matters. He's injured, & it's his foot. You have to wonder whether he'll ever recover. That's a big big guy putting stress on that foot!
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,263
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1677 » by payitforward » Wed May 27, 2020 9:07 pm

nate33 wrote:
payitforward wrote:Yeah, sure, let's trade a good player & the #9 pick for a guy they don't want any more because he is injured often & doesn't yet play particularly well when he's not injured.

Pretty much, this.

It's pretty much a given that whenever a team wants to trade a rookie contract guy, it's because that guy has no long term value.

When Bagley hits free agency in 2 years, his cost will be less than the MLE, which means if you want him, just wait until then. Don't sacrifice assets to get him now.

You only make trades for guys locked into long term deals on below-market contracts, or for guys who you need RFA rights or Bird Rights to retain them on the open market (and who are good enough that it's worth being the highest bidder to retain them).

Actually... pretty much, this!

Not to mention that, even if you somehow wanted the guy, the terms of the trade were ridiculous.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,311
And1: 6,551
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1678 » by Ruzious » Wed May 27, 2020 10:30 pm

payitforward wrote:
Ruzious wrote:
payitforward wrote:Actually... Bagley's injuries are the core question, aren't they? I mean, how do you place a value on him at all unless you know he can play.

Now, if he had no injury history & was healthy, that would be different. Bagley absolutely killed it his one year at Duke, & he just turned 21. Based on that history, he's in an altogether different class than either Rui or Bryant as a prospect. It's not even close.

But, if you don't know whether/when he'll play again -- forget it.

2 seasons in the NBA means a bit more than 1 college season. He's played enough so that we have an idea of what he is. Okafor also killed it at Duke, and you could have him for a ham sandwich with spicy mustard - partially chewed. Neither can defend. If we're not going to upgrade on defense, we're just moving the basketballs on the Titanic... or something like that.

Of course! I don't disagree at all (except to say that good as Okafor was at Duke, Bagley was even better, a ton better -- but that's irrelevant).

Bagley didn't turn 20 until a month before the end of his rookie year. For a 19 year old rookie, he did some things well. He sure wasn't as bad as Okafor as a rookie -- & Okafor went on to be equally bad his 2d year. Bagley went on to get injured.

I'm not a fan of Marvin Bagley -- I just think it's unfair to compare him to Okafor.

I also have no interest in trading for him. But, is it that he can't defend -- or is it that he doesn't defend?

Not that it matters. He's injured, & it's his foot. You have to wonder whether he'll ever recover. That's a big big guy putting stress on that foot!

I think it's that he's so clueless on D that he can't defend. Btw, the latest Duke big - Carey - also has a rotten rep as a defender. There's a bit of a pattern - though Duke did have Brand, so not all Duke bigs can't defend. The book is still out on Wendell Jr.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 18,497
And1: 5,582
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1679 » by dckingsfan » Wed May 27, 2020 11:44 pm

Sigh... poor Kings

I don't think Bagley's problem is his bball iq - rather it is his ego. When I watch him it seems like he wants to be the guy on both sides of the ball. Wants the ball in the post and it isn't coming out. And doesn't want to work within a team concept on D - he wants to do it himself.
User avatar
gambitx777
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,163
And1: 569
Joined: Dec 18, 2012

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1680 » by gambitx777 » Thu May 28, 2020 6:26 pm

payitforward wrote:Yeah, sure, let's trade a good player & the #9 pick for a guy they don't want any more because he is injured often & doesn't yet play particularly well when he's not injured.

How do they come up with this stuff...?

At the same time, it is true that Bagley has a ton of potential. So, how about the #9 & Rui for the Kings' #12 & Bagley. We get higher potential for a 3-spot drop in the draft.

Nah. Not even.
I would consider 9 and our second for Bagley and 12. But I wouldn't trade rui for him, imo.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Return to Washington Wizards