Wizards trade Brown and Wagner for Gafford and Hutchinson

[payitforward]

Queridiculo won't take it that way -- actually, if he writes that, I assume he has some substantial reason to think it's so.

No question Gafford was the get in the deal. But, keep in mind that if we'd wanted Gafford it would have been easy enough to come out of the 2019 draft with him.

[Ruzious]

The trade wasn't stupid. What was stupid was the Wiz actually making the decision to devalue TJB for absolutely no good reason.

[payitforward]

It was idiotic to deal Brown; it was stupid, the single thing Tommy has done that most puts him in doubt in my mind.

Brooks has to go, & Brown showed what a nice future he has in his play last year. Plus, we didn't trade Brown for Gafford -- the guy was a throw in.

The Bulls didn't value Gafford; there would have been another way to get him.

E..g. Moe straight up for Gafford. Bulls could still have moved Wagner to Boston for Theis. We'd have Brown and Gafford.

I think you're totally wrong, PIF. The most important person in the trade from the Zards standpoint was Gafford. Why? Because he fills the need for a rim protector. He was not a "throw in." And the Bulls don't make the trade unless they get Brown.

The Zards don't trade Brown for Hutchinson and the Bulls don't trade Gafford for Moe. It was a Brown for Gafford trade. The throw ins were Hutch and Moe.

On top of that, you have no idea how much or how little the Bulls valued Gafford.

Well, first off, you are totally right that I can't *know* that we simply wanted to dump Brown & took whatever we could get -- as opposed to our, somehow, "targeting" Daniel Gafford. I can't "know" the related things I claimed either. E.g. "how little the Bulls valued Gafford."

Then again, old friend, in just the way that I can't know these things, you can't know the opposite. You can't know whether Gafford was "the most important person" for us. Or that the Bulls wouldn't have traded Gafford "unless they get Brown.

Unfortunately, neither the Wiz nor the Bulls give us a call to explain the moves they contemplate -- bummer!

So, perhaps I should have put it differently: the Bulls only played Gafford in just over 1/2 their games this season, & when he played he only got @12 minutes per game. In both cases, that's a significant drop from what he got as a rookie.

Probably I should also have pointed out that the FO that picked Gafford was fired after his rookie season. & the coach was fired too. So the guys who wanted him were gone.

I'd say these are pretty good indicators that Gafford wasn't highly valued. Do you really think that's unreasonable of me?

Certainly, we had made it clear that we didn't value Troy Brown -- he got very few minutes, & Tommy announced that he was "extremely available" before the Trade Deadline. We also made it clear we didn't value Wagner by not picking up his option.

In fact, I'd say that the evidence is extremely strong that the guys we traded & the guys Chicago traded, all 4 of them, were pretty clearly players that the two teams valued very little indeed. Of course, the fact that it looks obvious from the evidence doesn't mean that I "know" it.

Worth noting that most of the people posting that it was all about Gafford, we were after Gafford, are the very same ones who were claiming, right after the trade, that we'd gotten a steal b/c... we'd acquired Hutchison!

Finally, your calling Moe a "throw in" indicates that you don't recall the trade very clearly. Moe didn't go to the Bulls -- he went to Boston, which sent Theis to the Bulls.

Boston wanted to lower their salary (presumably to facilitate their acquisition of Evan Fournier?), so they moved a backup Center, Theis, to the Bulls for another backup Center, Moe, with a lower salary.

I guess Chicago thought Gafford was so terrific that they were willing to trade him in order to acquire a late-career journeyman veteran with an expiring salary 3 times as high as his.

But, it seems, they couldn't get Boston to take Gafford for Theis -- otherwise, why would they acquire Moe simply to move him?

So, no, Zards, sorry: every aspect of this trade was a team wanting to get rid of somebody. I'm delighted we wound up with Gafford. Otherwise, we'd have traded an extremely promising, extremely young Troy Brown for absolutely nothing.

[NatP4]

Queridiculo won't take it that way -- actually, if he writes that, I assume he has some substantial reason to think it's so.

No question Gafford was the get in the deal. But, keep in mind that if we'd wanted Gafford it would have been easy enough to come out of the 2019 draft with him.

If “not scoring a lot of points” is substantial reasoning, then sure.

We could’ve just done what a good portion of this board would’ve done and just picked Robert Williams and Brandon Clarke.

[9 and 20]

Not sure at all why the Bulls traded Gafford.

Hutchison seems to have a lot of the same skills as Bonga, but less/worse. Not looking good for him.

[queridiculo]

This trade was never for Hutchinson, it was always about Gafford....

Evidence?

Probably because it's **** obvious?

Hutchinson hasn't done anything in the league to warrant a look whereas Gafford has looked competent at times and fills a clear need, a rim runner and a defensive presence inside.

[queridiculo]

No question Gafford was the get in the deal. But, keep in mind that if we'd wanted Gafford it would have been easy enough to come out of the 2019 draft with him.

I suppose it would have been as easy as the Wizards manifesting a 2019 2nd round selection out of thin air?

[dckingsfan]

This continues to be a terrific trade for both teams - intentional or not. I am extremely happy with this trade.

[payitforward]

This trade was never for Hutchinson, it was always about Gafford....

Evidence?

Probably because it's **** obvious?

Hutchinson hasn't done anything in the league to warrant a look whereas Gafford has looked competent at times and fills a clear need, a rim runner and a defensive presence inside.

Sorry, man -- I thought you had empirical evidence. It's kind of obvious now that, as I wrote, Gafford was "the get," but I don't think the Wizards went out to get him. I think they went out to move Troy Brown & would have taken just about anything: I believe "extremely available" was the phrase tweeted by an insider.

As to Hutchison, he had a pretty good rookie year & is meant to be a good defender. But he really does have a fatal flaw, doesn't he? -- can't shoot at all! For his sake, I hope he's shooting 1000 3's a day (& not bricking all of them! ).

As to Gafford, I liked him a lot in the run up to the '19 draft. I was shocked that he fell so far & would have bought a pick to take him if at all possible.

Were you a fan of his back then?

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

I was actually hoping to see Hutch in spot minutes last night... a few minutes here and there to throw a different look at Ingram.

[payitforward]

No question Gafford was the get in the deal. But, keep in mind that if we'd wanted Gafford it would have been easy enough to come out of the 2019 draft with him.

I suppose it would have been as easy as the Wizards manifesting a 2019 2nd round selection out of thin air?

If you're going to try irony, you'll have to take the time to get some chops. Then again, if you know how to manifest picks I predict a great future for you!

First off, we did acquire a R2 pick that year. Miracle of miracles. So... it can be done! Philly had #33 & #34 that year, as I'm sure you recall. They traded one of them.

Which brings up my real point in the post on which you comment.

Perhaps you can think back to my repeated proposal that we trade down with Boston -- the #9 for #20 & #22. That we take Mr. Unnameable @#20 & Matisse Thybulle @#22.

That we then make the same trade with Philly that Boston made -- Thybulle for the #24 & #33.

That we take Keldon Johnson with the #24 pick -- &, lookee there at what I did: I manifested that R2 pick we needed to get Gafford.

Let's see, that's Mr. Unnameable, Keldon Johnson & Daniel Gafford. Not too bad. Oh, & we'd still have Troy Brown Jr.

Of course we would have had to miss on Rui Hachimura, who has pushed his 3 pt. % from the disappointing .29 last year all the way up to the lofty height of .31 this year.

Who cares? We're 5-1 in the last 6 games. & Gafford is a terrific addition! We all agree on that.

[payitforward]

Boston just waived Moritz Wagner . Nice kid.

[Ruzious]

Boston just waived Moritz Wagner . Nice kid.

Yeah, it didn't help that he had 3 to's and basically nothing else in 5 minutes in his last game. I think the roster spot was between him and Luke Kornet, and Moe lost it more than Luke earned it. Consistency is often the key to success, and Moe isn't the most consistently consistent player - on a consistent basis. But he'll bounce back and get another chance by next season. Good luck to him in finding success.

[DCZards]

Sorry, man -- I thought you had empirical evidence. It's kind of obvious now that, as I wrote, Gafford was "the get," but I don't think the Wizards went out to get him. I think they went out to move Troy Brown & would have taken just about anything: I believe "extremely available" was the phrase tweeted by an insider.

I don't believe the Zards would have taken just about anything for Troy...and I also think they targeted Gafford (maybe among other players) because he gives them the rim protector they desperately needed.

Gafford was the focal point of the trade from the Zards standpoint, IMO. He wasn’t a “throw in” as you’ve suggested.

Shep and the Zards put more thought into the trade for Gafford than you're willing to give them credit for.

[nate33]

Evidence?

Probably because it's **** obvious?

Hutchinson hasn't done anything in the league to warrant a look whereas Gafford has looked competent at times and fills a clear need, a rim runner and a defensive presence inside.

Sorry, man -- I thought you had empirical evidence. It's kind of obvious now that, as I wrote, Gafford was "the get," but I don't think the Wizards went out to get him. I think they went out to move Troy Brown & would have taken just about anything: I believe "extremely available" was the phrase tweeted by an insider.

Good grief PIF! You are insufferable! Do you have to argue with everybody about everything?

How in the world is queridiculo supposed to come up with "empirical evidence" about the inner thinkings of management? His opinion that they wanted Gafford and that Hutchison was the throw in seems pretty obvious to me. Gafford was the guy posting 14, 10 and 3 per 36 as a 22-year old rim protector at a position of need. Hutchison is 25, has a career TS% of .500, and couldn't even get on the floor this year and barely played last year.

As to Gafford, I liked him a lot in the run up to the '19 draft. I was shocked that he fell so far & would have bought a pick to take him if at all possible.

Were you a fan of his back then?

And here is the point where you have to try and prove that you are smarter than the rest of us. All hail PIF! He was right about everything!

Go back and look at all of your posts in the past 3 days. You can't help but be nasty, demeaning and arrogant in nearly every one of them. You need to step away from the keyboard. Go take a walk or something.

[Dat2U]

Boston just waived Moritz Wagner . Nice kid.

Yeah, it didn't help that he had 3 to's and basically nothing else in 5 minutes in his last game. I think the roster spot was between him and Luke Kornet, and Moe lost it more than Luke earned it. Consistency is often the key to success, and Moe isn't the most consistently consistent player - on a consistent basis. But he'll bounce back and get another chance by next season. Good luck to him in finding success.

I think he'd have a terrific career overseas if he chose to go that route. I always thought he was a fringe guy and the more I watched him, the more I felt he needed the right matchup to have a chance on a given night. Some nights he just looks overwhelmed against more athletic players and better defenses. Never shot well enough to be able to rely on it.

[tontoz]

Public Service Announcement

The filter (friends and foes) is your friend.