ImageImageImageImageImage

Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,263
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1681 » by payitforward » Thu May 28, 2020 6:55 pm

gambitx777 wrote:]I would consider 9 and our second for Bagley and 12. But I wouldn't trade rui for him, imo.

Since a #9 pick is not likely to get you a better player than a #12 pick, this is in effect trading our R2 pick for Bagley.

That's a cheap roll of the dice on Bagley.

Oh... & then go buy the #33 or #35 pick from Elton Brand for $2-3m. In effect, that $$ turns out to be what it costs you to acquire Bagley.

Note that this is not particularly about Bagley. Could be anyone you thought was worth a roll of the dice.
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#1682 » by gambitx777 » Thu May 28, 2020 11:46 pm

Yeah basically and I don't know if they would do this but that's about what I'm willing to give up for Bagley who clearly sees himself as more than he is and needs a lot of work.
payitforward wrote:
gambitx777 wrote:]I would consider 9 and our second for Bagley and 12. But I wouldn't trade rui for him, imo.

Since a #9 pick is not likely to get you a better player than a #12 pick, this is in effect trading our R2 pick for Bagley.

That's a cheap roll of the dice on Bagley.

Oh... & then go buy the #33 or #35 pick from Elton Brand for $2-3m. In effect, that $$ turns out to be what it costs you to acquire Bagley.

Note that this is not particularly about Bagley. Could be anyone you thought was worth a roll of the dice.


Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
gambitx777
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,163
And1: 569
Joined: Dec 18, 2012

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1683 » by gambitx777 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:19 am

More Beal trade talk.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app
ILOVEIT
RealGM
Posts: 10,218
And1: 1,694
Joined: May 28, 2004

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1684 » by ILOVEIT » Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:51 pm

Warrior fan...I come in peace :)
Would you guys be interested in Klay for Beal straight up assuming it's a fully recovered Klay Thompson? The thought is that Warriors may wish to get younger so to extend their run.
Would you have any interesting Draymond Green and this years OR next year's (top three protected) lottery pick?
Looking forward to 2073....bye bye pouting moody Durant...hello again the 73 win style of hoops!
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,741
And1: 4,263
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1685 » by payitforward » Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:10 pm

Welcome -- I lived 20 years in SF & was a big-time Warriors fan.

I'm not sure whether you are suggesting 2 different trades here, or...?

Klay for Brad -- no, absolutely not. Not even if the salary obligations were the same. &, in any case, Klay's contract alone puts it totally out of the question.

Actually, although I don't consider the offer insulting or anything, I don't think it's at all realistic. Brad is the better player, plus he's younger, costs less, & isn't coming off a major injury like Klay. If this is how you are valuing Klay Thompson, I think it's unlikely you'll move him.

I just read an article suggesting you trade Klay for Giannis. Jaw-dropping idea!

Am I right in understanding that your 2d idea is Draymond plus 1 (top-3 protected) pick for Brad?

Strong pass on that one as well.
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#1686 » by gambitx777 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:04 pm

I just don't see the wizards having much to do with trades to the Bay right now. Not Insuulting by any means.but if the team was trading Beal I doubt it would be flat for a player.
ILOVEIT wrote:Warrior fan...I come in peace :)
Would you guys be interested in Klay for Beal straight up assuming it's a fully recovered Klay Thompson? The thought is that Warriors may wish to get younger so to extend their run.
Would you have any interesting Draymond Green and this years OR next year's (top three protected) lottery pick?


Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,311
And1: 6,551
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVIII 

Post#1687 » by Ruzious » Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:31 pm

Klay's been great, but 30 years old and coming off an ACL... GS would have to add their 2020 FRP to get Beal.
"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#1688 » by payitforward » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:42 pm

Ruzious wrote:Klay's been great, but 30 years old and coming off an ACL... GS would have to add their 2020 FRP to get Beal.

I wouldn't even want that deal. At least not unless I a lot of confidence in Wiseman. Anthony Edwards doesn't thrill me as much as perhaps he does others.

But, it's kind of irrelevant -- we could not afford to take on Klay's salary.
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#1689 » by Ruzious » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:49 pm

payitforward wrote:
Ruzious wrote:Klay's been great, but 30 years old and coming off an ACL... GS would have to add their 2020 FRP to get Beal.

I wouldn't even want that deal. At least not unless I a lot of confidence in Wiseman. Anthony Edwards doesn't thrill me as much as perhaps he does others.

But, it's kind of irrelevant -- we could not afford to take on Klay's salary.

Sure we can since Beal's in the deal - though it could affect other moves.
"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#1690 » by payitforward » Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:33 am

Ruz -- have you looked at what Klay is owed overall? 50% more than Brad -- including over $43m for the season when he turns 34 years old.

Now... of course it's possible to imagine a scenario in which we'd be able to pay that, but it would be far-fetched. Especially since it's hard to see what the upside would be from the decision to commit to Klay (or anybody, really) at that level or for that long when you've got a team at the stage we're at.
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#1691 » by Ruzious » Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:08 am

payitforward wrote:Ruz -- have you looked at what Klay is owed overall? 50% more than Brad -- including over $43m for the season when he turns 34 years old.

Now... of course it's possible to imagine a scenario in which we'd be able to pay that, but it would be far-fetched. Especially since it's hard to see what the upside would be from the decision to commit to Klay (or anybody, really) at that level or for that long when you've got a team at the stage we're at.

That 50% is very misleading because they don't have the same amount of years.

Look at it year by year. 20-21 - the difference is pay is 6.6 mil. 21-22 - the difference is 3.5 mil. 22-23 - the difference is 3.3 mil. Those differences are obviously not unworkable unless they lower the lux tax threshold.
"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#1692 » by payitforward » Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:42 pm

Understood. I wasn't explicit enough.

The only reason I can see to trade Brad is to significantly increase our flexibility -- presumably so that we can retool the team in a major way for a next generation. Swapping him for Klay isn't a move in that direction, obviously. In fact, it's a move in the opposite direction -- precisely b/c of that extra contract year at $43m.

Klay's contract reduces our flexibility for the next 3 years -- not hugely, but it can't be entirely ignored either. Then it significantly hampers us the 4th year.

That year will be Wall's 14th in the league & Klay's 13th. Those two geezers won't be leading us to contention (assuming we've re-signed John). Moreover, it's whistling in the wind to imagine that, as the years pass, it'll be easy to move Klay's contract (e.g. easier than moving Brad's if we had to).

If Klay Thompson was a much better player than Bradley Beal, & if that difference gave us a shot to contend for a title right now -- sure, why not? But, he isn't. &, even if he were, it wouldn't.

In fact, right now Klay Thompson is not as good a player as Bradley Beal. He was better than Brad his first few years in the league, to be sure -- but I think it's safe to attribute that edge to his being older than Brad by almost 3.5 years.

In short, Klay makes us older not younger, worse not better, more not less hampered in the future, etc. etc. etc. -- not to mention that he's coming off a serious injury. Wish him the best; don't want him in a Wizards uni.
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#1693 » by Ruzious » Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:18 pm

payitforward wrote:Understood. I wasn't explicit enough.

The only reason I can see to trade Brad is to significantly increase our flexibility -- presumably so that we can retool the team in a major way for a next generation. Swapping him for Klay isn't a move in that direction, obviously. In fact, it's a move in the opposite direction -- precisely b/c of that extra contract year at $43m.

Klay's contract reduces our flexibility for the next 3 years -- not hugely, but it can't be entirely ignored either. Then it significantly hampers us the 4th year.

That year will be Wall's 14th in the league & Klay's 13th. Those two geezers won't be leading us to contention (assuming we've re-signed John). Moreover, it's whistling in the wind to imagine that, as the years pass, it'll be easy to move Klay's contract (e.g. easier than moving Brad's if we had to).

If Klay Thompson was a much better player than Bradley Beal, & if that difference gave us a shot to contend for a title right now -- sure, why not? But, he isn't. &, even if he were, it wouldn't.

In fact, right now Klay Thompson is not as good a player as Bradley Beal. He was better than Brad his first few years in the league, to be sure -- but I think it's safe to attribute that edge to his being older than Brad by almost 3.5 years.

In short, Klay makes us older not younger, worse not better, more not less hampered in the future, etc. etc. etc. -- not to mention that he's coming off a serious injury. Wish him the best; don't want him in a Wizards uni.

I didn't even notice that post was here. Obviously I wouldn't trade Beal even up for Thompson. My point was that you were wrong in saying that we couldn't afford to take on Thompson's contract if we traded Beal.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas

Return to Washington Wizards