RealGM

PIF... You're getting to specific. Im talking about the general attitude and valuation around the league. Pointing out Euro players like Bonga and Doncic gets a bit more complicated... Also, Draymond was considered a swiss army knife, not a traditional big, so not sure what your point is.

Its simple. When a prospect is considered a limited ceiling prospect, guards and wings will always go higher than Bigs. There are plenty of reasons as to why this is the case, but numbers (Demand) seems to be the most obvious. You can only have so many players in the league that can only guard 1 position (And an increasingly rare position) without having some sort of elite offensive upside.

Also, going back to 2012 seems a bit disingenuous as the league has drastically changed since then.
Again, I pointed out Valentine, Vassell, Bey, Robinson, etc. All players who in skill set and/or age were perceived to be solid players, but never top 3 options on a high end playoff team, let alone all stars. And they were taken in the top half of the 1st round.
I just don't see bigs falling the same category.

Its allocation of resources. You cant have a 5-only player on the team (Bamba) with another 5-only player (Bryant) and expect to get a quality return on your investment. You claim Rui is a PF only... so would you prefer Bryant guarding a stretch 4, or Rui guarding a 3?
If you pick the former, I feel you are just digging in at this point. Both are below average defenders (Though Rui is probably a bit worse at this stage), yet you damn well know that he could at least make some solid plays guarding the perimeter whereas Bryant would look foolish guarding them.

I dont see why this that controversial. There are only so many minutes at the 5 spot available and the skill set required to be effective there is far cheaper and widely available than other skill sets.
You think Boston took even a slight hit from going from Horford to Theis?

CCJ already pointed out how good Jalen Smith looks along with his improvements from his freshman year. Nothing about his age or statline would lead you to believe he should be drafted behind Avdija, Josh Green, or Sadiq Bey... but all three are quite likely to do so. Why?
Because if it is believed Smith can only guard 5's at an average to above average level while having little to no projection on the perimeter, then his value is depressed...
Again... look at Reggie Perry, Vernon Carey, Isaiah Stewart... Their age & production is clearly a lotto pick 10-12 years ago, but now they are projected behind Maxey (Who you rightfully point out is older and less productive), Josh Green, and Cole Anthony.

Also... Im unclear of your Gary Clark reference. I liked him coming out, but more productive? The guy turns 26 in 2 months, which makes him 2.5 years older than an "Older" prospect like Robinson and 5 years older than a young one like Troy Brown!
And even then, Clark has been thoroughly underwhelming in his small sample size with negative BPM & On/Off numbers along with middling stats.

pcbothwel wrote:PIF... You're getting too specific.

I am? Reread your post!

At this point you are debating against positions I don't hold. Which means that either I am not being clear about what I'm saying, or that you aren't "getting it" for some other reason.

Or else, by way of rhetoric rather than substance, we are widening the gap between what we think rather than narrowing it. As a way of, as it were, underlining one's position. This is a common development in any context when people go back and forth repeatedly. Pretty soon, no one is adding anything of value.

Here's a simple example of what I mean:

pcbothwel wrote:...Valentine, Vassell, Bey, Robinson, etc. All players who in skill set and/or age were perceived to be solid players, but never top 3 options on a high end playoff team, let alone all stars. And they were taken in the top half of the 1st round.

Common sense tells you that a GM takes the best player available when his turn comes around. Thus, where in the draft a player is picked tells you how good GMs thought he was compared to other players in that draft. Since an elementary examination demonstrates that GMs are wrong much of the time, there's no info in the fact you cite that supports any thesis whatever.

OTOH, many points you raise are perfectly sensible on their own. Obviously, for example, if you don't need a young C on your team, you don't trade for Mo Bamba! Yet, since I didn't suggest trading Rui for Bamba it's not a fact which addresses anything relevant. I do think the 2 guys have about equal trade value, but that's an entirely different matter.

As to comparing these two players' futures, which one projects to be the better player (in any sense you prefer to use), please recall that I wrote, "both these guys are projects." That's simply true.

The fact that you "like" Rui, feel like comparing him with Kawhi (!), doesn't change that. Every positive projection you make of Rui's future is simply a movie playing in your mind; it has zero objective reality. How could it? Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any idea how good or not good a player Rui will be. How could we?

What is objectively real is that both Rui & Bamba put up lousy numbers as rookies. Bamba came back & posted significantly better numbers in his 2d year. That's a positive fact; I don't care who the player is or what position he plays. Rui hasn't had the opportunity to do that yet; if he does, it will be a positive fact about Rui.

In that sense, Bamba has established a little bit more about his future than Rui has. This is no earth-shaking claim. In fact, it's no claim at all -- it just describes a difference in situation between two guys. Duh.

For the rest, & above all your claim that wings are viewed as more valuable than bigs (if that's your claim), every fact you cite in support of it can be matched by a fact that points in the opposite direction. Of course, over time, you may turn out to be right for some restricted period -- followed by a reaction in the other direction. Every field of endeavor is subject to waves of fashion.

I’ll be laughing when Kawhi and the Clippers get eliminated by the Nuggets.

It’s going to happen.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:I’ll be laughing when Kawhi and the Clippers get eliminated by the Nuggets.

It’s going to happen.

Their 7th game should be fun. As a general rule, I never bet against Kawhi in game 7's. Gotta love the way Jokic is playing - and he seems so calm about it. But in the end, LAC's defense is going to win it, imo.

Garry Harris and Michael Porter Jr. bring a lot of scoring, rebounds and playmaking.

I think the Nuggets simply have too many weapons because Jokic and Murray have a lot more help than do Leonard and George.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:Garry Harris and Michael Porter Jr. bring a lot of scoring, rebounds and playmaking.

I think the Nuggets simply have too many weapons because Jokic and Murray have a lot more help than do Leonard and George.

I don't know - the Clips are pretty loaded with options - Harrell, Lou Williams, Beverly, Zubac, and Marcus "The Better Morris Brother" Morris.

On the trade board they are discussing rumors that the Nets are pushing to acquire Jrue Holiday from the Pelicans.

An initial offer is likely to include Allen, and a number of posters believe Allen should go to a 3rd team.

How about the following hypothetical trade ahead of the draft:

Nets get Jrue Holiday, Bryant
Pels get Wiz #9 pick, Levert, Prince
Wiz get Allen, Nets #19 pick, Temple (TO)

The Nets get their third star and Bryant as a back-up to D Jordan
Pels gets a like-for-like replacement for Jrue plus Prince to help in the wing and the #9 pick
Wiz get their rim protector of the future and Temple for a year to help in the wing. At #19 they could pick a guard (Terry, RJ Hampton), wing (Bane or if he drops S Bey -unlikely-) or 4/5 (Jalen Smith, Tillman).

Another way to accomplish what you've been suggesting....

But... can't you get us the Pels #39 in the deal as well? Or else their #42 plus the Nets #55?

What would the cost be for a team to get Thomas Bryant from the Wiz?

What is it your team would be looking to improve at? Not necessarily a celtic, but just in regards to overall talent upgrade for your roster?

100proof wrote:What would the cost be for a team to get Thomas Bryant from the Wiz?

What is it your team would be looking to improve at? Not necessarily a celtic, but just in regards to overall talent upgrade for your roster?

I view Bryant as a poor man's Clint Capella with a jumpshot, but minus the rebounding ability. He would be an ideal D'Antoni center because he can shoot the 3 and he's a solid rimrunner with the ability to finish above the rim. He's pretty horrible defensively, so that's his major shortcoming.

It's hard to say what we'd want in return without knowing what the offer is. What did you have in mind?

100proof wrote:What would the cost be for a team to get Thomas Bryant from the Wiz?

What is it your team would be looking to improve at? Not necessarily a celtic, but just in regards to overall talent upgrade for your roster?

We're not interested in moving him for just an average package. He's 22 and is already putting up a per 36 of 20 & 10 on elite efficiency. And while his defense needs to improve, he has a great work ethic & motor while putting up statistical indicators that show future improvements are coming soon (He averages more Assist + Steals + Blocks > Turnovers + Fouls)

He is already a top 5-6 Center offensively who might be a better Vucevic within 2 years.

If we truly loved Okongwu and he fell to us, then a Robert Williams + 14 would be that basic framework of a deal…. But again, not that interested in breaking up a quarter for a couple dimes.

TGW wrote:

100proof wrote:What would the cost be for a team to get Thomas Bryant from the Wiz?

What is it your team would be looking to improve at? Not necessarily a celtic, but just in regards to overall talent upgrade for your roster?

I view Bryant as a poor man's Clint Capella with a jumpshot, but minus the rebounding ability. He would be an ideal D'Antoni center because he can shoot the 3 and he's a solid rimrunner with the ability to finish above the rim. He's pretty horrible defensively, so that's his major shortcoming.

It's hard to say what we'd want in return without knowing what the offer is. What did you have in mind?

Not sure. Celtics have pieces that could add up, give a little youth to you as well.

Kanter, and either Edward, Poirier and #26
or
Kanter and Romeo Langford and a second work salary wise.

TGW wrote:

100proof wrote:What would the cost be for a team to get Thomas Bryant from the Wiz?

What is it your team would be looking to improve at? Not necessarily a celtic, but just in regards to overall talent upgrade for your roster?

I view Bryant as a poor man's Clint Capella with a jumpshot, but minus the rebounding ability. He would be an ideal D'Antoni center because he can shoot the 3 and he's a solid rimrunner with the ability to finish above the rim. He's pretty horrible defensively, so that's his major shortcoming.

It's hard to say what we'd want in return without knowing what the offer is. What did you have in mind?

Huh? He’s nothing like Capela. See above. He is Vucevic, but with a higher ceiling due to being a little quicker and a better motor.
Again, how many Centers average a per 36 of 20 & 10 on Elite efficiency with only 3 fouls and more assist than turnovers.
He is 22 and shot 80% at the basket, 40% from 3, and 75% from the line… Good luck stopping this guy

Or maybe a larger deal of :

Hayward and #26/edwards, poirier, kanter
for
Bryant, Brown Jr and #9

100proof wrote:

TGW wrote:

100proof wrote:What would the cost be for a team to get Thomas Bryant from the Wiz?

What is it your team would be looking to improve at? Not necessarily a celtic, but just in regards to overall talent upgrade for your roster?

I view Bryant as a poor man's Clint Capella with a jumpshot, but minus the rebounding ability. He would be an ideal D'Antoni center because he can shoot the 3 and he's a solid rimrunner with the ability to finish above the rim. He's pretty horrible defensively, so that's his major shortcoming.

It's hard to say what we'd want in return without knowing what the offer is. What did you have in mind?

Not sure. Celtics have pieces that could add up, give a little youth to you as well.

Kanter, and either Edward, Poirier and #26
or
Kanter and Romeo Langford and a second work salary wise.

Close... Just add in Williams instead of Poirier and 14 instead of 26... and then you're in the ball park.

100proof wrote:

TGW wrote:

100proof wrote:What would the cost be for a team to get Thomas Bryant from the Wiz?

What is it your team would be looking to improve at? Not necessarily a celtic, but just in regards to overall talent upgrade for your roster?

I view Bryant as a poor man's Clint Capella with a jumpshot, but minus the rebounding ability. He would be an ideal D'Antoni center because he can shoot the 3 and he's a solid rimrunner with the ability to finish above the rim. He's pretty horrible defensively, so that's his major shortcoming.

It's hard to say what we'd want in return without knowing what the offer is. What did you have in mind?

Not sure. Celtics have pieces that could add up, give a little youth to you as well.

Kanter, and either Edward, Poirier and #26
or
Kanter and Romeo Langford and a second work salary wise.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't care for any of the Celtic's non-rotational guys like Langford, Poirier, nor Edwards (Ainge really screwed up those picks) in a deal for Bryant. I'd maybe consider Kanter, Langford, and the #14 and #26....maybe. Even then, that doesn't feel like a winning trade for the Wizards.

TGW wrote:

100proof wrote:

TGW wrote:
I view Bryant as a poor man's Clint Capella with a jumpshot, but minus the rebounding ability. He would be an ideal D'Antoni center because he can shoot the 3 and he's a solid rimrunner with the ability to finish above the rim. He's pretty horrible defensively, so that's his major shortcoming.

It's hard to say what we'd want in return without knowing what the offer is. What did you have in mind?

Not sure. Celtics have pieces that could add up, give a little youth to you as well.

Kanter, and either Edward, Poirier and #26
or
Kanter and Romeo Langford and a second work salary wise.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't care for any of the Celtic's non-rotational guys like Langford, Poirier, nor Edwards (Ainge really screwed up those picks) in a deal for Bryant. I'd maybe consider Kanter, Langford, and the #14 and #26....maybe. Even then, that doesn't feel like a winning trade for the Wizards.

What about Hayward and the #26 for Bryant, Brown and #9?

100proof wrote:

TGW wrote:

100proof wrote:
Not sure. Celtics have pieces that could add up, give a little youth to you as well.

Kanter, and either Edward, Poirier and #26
or
Kanter and Romeo Langford and a second work salary wise.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't care for any of the Celtic's non-rotational guys like Langford, Poirier, nor Edwards (Ainge really screwed up those picks) in a deal for Bryant. I'd maybe consider Kanter, Langford, and the #14 and #26....maybe. Even then, that doesn't feel like a winning trade for the Wizards.

What about Hayward and the #26 for Bryant, Brown and #9?

No on value. No on fit. And not financially possible.... soooo

pcbothwel wrote:

100proof wrote:

TGW wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but I don't care for any of the Celtic's non-rotational guys like Langford, Poirier, nor Edwards (Ainge really screwed up those picks) in a deal for Bryant. I'd maybe consider Kanter, Langford, and the #14 and #26....maybe. Even then, that doesn't feel like a winning trade for the Wizards.

What about Hayward and the #26 for Bryant, Brown and #9?

No on value. No on fit. And not financially possible.... soooo

Technically it is financially possible.

Fit, to me seems good. A team friendly player who cam defend, shoot and handle the ball would be a good add for your team.

And on value, well thats why I asked and didnt presume.

100proof wrote:

pcbothwel wrote:

100proof wrote:
What about Hayward and the #26 for Bryant, Brown and #9?

No on value. No on fit. And not financially possible.... soooo

Technically it is financially possible.

Fit, to me seems good. A team friendly player who cam defend, shoot and handle the ball would be a good add for your team.

And on value, well thats why I asked and didnt presume.

Explain how an over the cap team can just add 20M in payroll?