RealGM

Wiggins was GS's 3rd best player on a 39-33 team - their 2nd scoring option and a quality defender. He's also been one of the most durable players in the NBA in his 7 years - rarely misses a game - and still just 26. He's a good player - just overpaid. And with just 2 years left on his contract. A very versatile defender - GS even played him at PF when they played him with Oubre. Also, unlike Oubre, he wouldn't celebrate after each 3 pointer - he's a quiet no-nonsense player. I think it helped him playing with leaders like Draymond Green and Curry - after years of chaos at Minnesota. Made 38% of his 3's and 53% of his 2's.

Yeah Wiggins does not suck lol. I wouldn't trade beal for him but if we go out and trade for him in game. I can see GS reading him. He's a solid 3-4 the best guy on a good team and clay and Steph are gonna go right back to being them. Who do they get better than that? Maybe they move him for a couple of smaller contracts for depth. But honestly I'd hold on to him if I were them unless they really just can't afford to keep eating that taxm

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

I think GSW will be moving that Twolves pick. If it moves up from 6 to Top 4, then they wait until 2022 to get the pick and will probably wait until the deadline to make a move. But if the pick stays at 6/7, then they probably move it draft night.

pcbothwel wrote:I think GSW will be moving that Twolves pick. If it moves up from 6 to Top 4, then they wait until 2022 to get the pick and will probably wait until the deadline to make a move. But if the pick stays at 6/7, then they probably move it draft night.

I think GSW should trade Wiseman and one of their picks for Myles Turner (not sure if it will cost the #6 or just the #14). The addition of Turner and Klay to their current roster should make them formidable. Turner is the perfect center for them because he is a rim protector who can offset Draymond's inability to shoot. Turner's lackluster rebounding will be offset by Draymond's good rebounding from the PF position. I think the Warriors with Turner could make one more title run if Klay is 90% of his former self.

I for the life of me can't understand why people continue to believe that turner is worth the moon.

nate33 wrote:

pcbothwel wrote:I think GSW will be moving that Twolves pick. If it moves up from 6 to Top 4, then they wait until 2022 to get the pick and will probably wait until the deadline to make a move. But if the pick stays at 6/7, then they probably move it draft night.

I think GSW should trade Wiseman and one of their picks for Myles Turner (not sure if it will cost the #6 or just the #14). The addition of Turner and Klay to their current roster should make them formidable. Turner is the perfect center for them because he is a rim protector who can offset Draymond's inability to shoot. Turner's lackluster rebounding will be offset by Draymond's good rebounding from the PF position. I think the Warriors with Turner could make one more title run if Klay is 90% of his former self.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

gambitx777 wrote:I for the life of me can't understand why people continue to believe that turner is worth the moon.

nate33 wrote:

pcbothwel wrote:I think GSW will be moving that Twolves pick. If it moves up from 6 to Top 4, then they wait until 2022 to get the pick and will probably wait until the deadline to make a move. But if the pick stays at 6/7, then they probably move it draft night.

I think GSW should trade Wiseman and one of their picks for Myles Turner (not sure if it will cost the #6 or just the #14). The addition of Turner and Klay to their current roster should make them formidable. Turner is the perfect center for them because he is a rim protector who can offset Draymond's inability to shoot. Turner's lackluster rebounding will be offset by Draymond's good rebounding from the PF position. I think the Warriors with Turner could make one more title run if Klay is 90% of his former self.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

He's not worth the moon, but GSW has a chance to win an NBA championship, and he's a MUCH better fit than Wiseman at this point in their careers. But yeah, they shouldn't include the 6th pick - even in this draft where the 6th pick isn't all that great.

nate33 wrote:

DCZards wrote:This narrative about Wiggins being a terrible player is rooted in the past and ignores his improved play, especially last season.

Agreed. It's easy to conflate "overpaid" with "bad", when it's not the case. Wiggins was a respectable starter last season. He plays legitimately good defense, and hits his 3 point shots. He's an underwhelming rebounder and he doesn't get to the line, so it's not like he is a star or anything, but he's not bad. He would be the 3rd or 4th best player on our roster (depending on how you grade Gafford given his limited minute load).

The problem is that Wiggins is a $15M dollar player being paid $30M.

I'm glad to be corrected on this: I was wrong to call Wiggins "a terrible player." That's a fair characterization of his career overall, but it's not true of the current Andrew Wiggins. There is no question that Wiggins has improved.

But, you can be an improved player & still not be an especially good player, right? Wiggins was not "a terrible player" with GS this year. But... he wasn't an especially good player either.

The 2 claims for him in this thread have been his improved 3pt% & that he is a plus defender. Without meaning to doubt the 2d claim, I'll say that it's really hard to measure how good a defender someone is, because defense is so very much a team effort. & as to his 3pt. shooting, one outlier year doesn't suffice to make me want to invest in it.

But, here's what is really to the point: no one recommending this move would consider trading for Wiggins except for the fact that we send out Bertans in the trade. It's the negative value of Davis Bertans' contract, taken as a given, that makes it possible for a person to imagine swallowing Wiggins' contract.

IOW, the trade is predicated to a large degree on a radically recalculated & very much lowered valuation of Davis Bertans.

Yet, it's being recommended by posters who, by & large, were strongly in favor of giving Bertans that contract. While it's being opposed by someone who also opposed giving Bertans that deal.

Opposed for the same reason too. You know how a mirage doesn't quench your thirst? This trade does not help build the future of the Washington Wizards.

payitforward wrote:

nate33 wrote:

DCZards wrote:This narrative about Wiggins being a terrible player is rooted in the past and ignores his improved play, especially last season.

Agreed. It's easy to conflate "overpaid" with "bad", when it's not the case. Wiggins was a respectable starter last season. He plays legitimately good defense, and hits his 3 point shots. He's an underwhelming rebounder and he doesn't get to the line, so it's not like he is a star or anything, but he's not bad. He would be the 3rd or 4th best player on our roster (depending on how you grade Gafford given his limited minute load).

The problem is that Wiggins is a $15M dollar player being paid $30M.

I'm glad to be corrected on this: I was wrong to call Wiggins "a terrible player." That's a fair characterization of his career overall, but it's not true of the current Andrew Wiggins. There is no question that Wiggins has improved.

But, you can be an improved player & still not be an especially good player, right? Wiggins was not "a terrible player" with GS this year. But... he wasn't an especially good player either.

The 2 claims for him in this thread have been his improved 3pt% & that he is a plus defender. Without meaning to doubt the 2d claim, I'll say that it's really hard to measure how good a defender someone is, because defense is so very much a team effort. & as to his 3pt. shooting, one outlier year doesn't suffice to make me want to invest in it.

But, here's what is really to the point: no one recommending this move would consider trading for Wiggins except for the fact that we send out Bertans in the trade. It's the negative value of Davis Bertans' contract, taken as a given, that makes it possible for a person to imagine swallowing Wiggins' contract.

IOW, the trade is predicated to a large degree on a radically recalculated & very much lowered valuation of Davis Bertans.

Yet, it's being recommended by posters who, by & large, were strongly in favor of giving Bertans that contract. While it's being opposed by someone who also opposed giving Bertans that deal.

Opposed for the same reason too. You know how a mirage doesn't quench your thirst? This trade does not help build the future of the Washington Wizards.

Correcting your characterization of Wiggins does not mean a poster is in favor of making any particular trade.

Not to mention, I don't see the purpose of your post other than to take shots at people who were fine with the Bertans signing.

Fwiw, I would have liked trading Bertans for a 1st rounder, as I said several times, but barring that, I think the Wiz made the right decision based on the facts at the time, to re-sign him at the amount they did rather than letting him go for nothing. With Beal and Westbrook, they couldn't afford to go backwards - or everyone gets pissed off. If I was wrong, so be it. None of us get paid for our track record.

Ruzious wrote:

payitforward wrote:

nate33 wrote:Agreed. It's easy to conflate "overpaid" with "bad", when it's not the case. Wiggins was a respectable starter last season. He plays legitimately good defense, and hits his 3 point shots. He's an underwhelming rebounder and he doesn't get to the line, so it's not like he is a star or anything, but he's not bad. He would be the 3rd or 4th best player on our roster (depending on how you grade Gafford given his limited minute load).

The problem is that Wiggins is a $15M dollar player being paid $30M.

I'm glad to be corrected on this: I was wrong to call Wiggins "a terrible player." That's a fair characterization of his career overall, but it's not true of the current Andrew Wiggins. There is no question that Wiggins has improved.

But, you can be an improved player & still not be an especially good player, right? Wiggins was not "a terrible player" with GS this year. But... he wasn't an especially good player either.

The 2 claims for him in this thread have been his improved 3pt% & that he is a plus defender. Without meaning to doubt the 2d claim, I'll say that it's really hard to measure how good a defender someone is, because defense is so very much a team effort. & as to his 3pt. shooting, one outlier year doesn't suffice to make me want to invest in it.

But, here's what is really to the point: no one recommending this move would consider trading for Wiggins except for the fact that we send out Bertans in the trade. It's the negative value of Davis Bertans' contract, taken as a given, that makes it possible for a person to imagine swallowing Wiggins' contract.

IOW, the trade is predicated to a large degree on a radically recalculated & very much lowered valuation of Davis Bertans.

Yet, it's being recommended by posters who, by & large, were strongly in favor of giving Bertans that contract. While it's being opposed by someone who also opposed giving Bertans that deal.

Opposed for the same reason too. You know how a mirage doesn't quench your thirst? This trade does not help build the future of the Washington Wizards.

Correcting your characterization of Wiggins does not mean a poster is in favor of making any particular trade.

Not to mention, I don't see the purpose of your post other than to take shots at people who were fine with the Bertans signing.

Fwiw, I would have liked trading Bertans for a 1st rounder, as I said several times, but barring that, I think the Wiz made the right decision based on the facts at the time, to re-sign him at the amount they did rather than letting him go for nothing. With Beal and Westbrook, they couldn't afford to go backwards - or everyone gets pissed off. If I was wrong, so be it. None of us get paid for our track record.

Nah... remember I started the post by recanting my own "wrong"ness -- & I didn't have you or anyone in particular in mind with my closing point, which was & is only that Andrew Wiggins wouldn't have come to mind w/o Bertans in the deal, & that trading for Wiggins (for players like him) will not make a team better.

BTW, I don't think anyone would have been upset if we'd traded Davis for a R1 pick -- given that we'd gotten him for, in effect, nothing! How could Tommy look like anything but a magician for doing that!

nate33 wrote:

DCZards wrote:This narrative about Wiggins being a terrible player is rooted in the past and ignores his improved play, especially last season.

Agreed. It's easy to conflate "overpaid" with "bad", when it's not the case. Wiggins was a respectable starter last season. He plays legitimately good defense, and hits his 3 point shots. He's an underwhelming rebounder and he doesn't get to the line, so it's not like he is a star or anything, but he's not bad. He would be the 3rd or 4th best player on our roster (depending on how you grade Gafford given his limited minute load).

The problem is that Wiggins is a $15M dollar player being paid $30M.

Nate - this isn't directed at you, but we could all literally replace the word Wiggins with Porzingis and it's the same idea. We would all have an entirely different conversation if both guys were being paid half of what they're getting paid now.

Regarding Wiggins, he's fools gold. He hasn't sucked, but if he was GSW's version of Wiggins, Minnesota would have never traded him. I think he benefits from their system, and the moment you take him out of it, he goes back to Minnesota Andrew Wiggins.

nate33 wrote:

pcbothwel wrote:I think GSW will be moving that Twolves pick. If it moves up from 6 to Top 4, then they wait until 2022 to get the pick and will probably wait until the deadline to make a move. But if the pick stays at 6/7, then they probably move it draft night.

I think GSW should trade Wiseman and one of their picks for Myles Turner (not sure if it will cost the #6 or just the #14). The addition of Turner and Klay to their current roster should make them formidable. Turner is the perfect center for them because he is a rim protector who can offset Draymond's inability to shoot. Turner's lackluster rebounding will be offset by Draymond's good rebounding from the PF position. I think the Warriors with Turner could make one more title run if Klay is 90% of his former self.

Lol, Great Minds... that was the exact trade I had in mind. To be exact, I was thinking of a Wiggins/Wiseman/7 for Turner/Levert/Justin Holiday/13

GSW gets Turner (You nailed the reasoning), Levert as 2nd ball handler, and Holiday as the 3& D Wiggins replacement.
They then have 13 & 14 to add a PG and Wing (Giddey & Wagner).

Curry / Giddey
Levert / Poole
Klay / Holiday
Draymond / Wagner
Turner / Looney

That is a dangerous, High IQ team that moves the ball and plays defense

Rafael122 wrote:

nate33 wrote:

DCZards wrote:This narrative about Wiggins being a terrible player is rooted in the past and ignores his improved play, especially last season.

Agreed. It's easy to conflate "overpaid" with "bad", when it's not the case. Wiggins was a respectable starter last season. He plays legitimately good defense, and hits his 3 point shots. He's an underwhelming rebounder and he doesn't get to the line, so it's not like he is a star or anything, but he's not bad. He would be the 3rd or 4th best player on our roster (depending on how you grade Gafford given his limited minute load).

The problem is that Wiggins is a $15M dollar player being paid $30M.

Nate - this isn't directed at you, but we could all literally replace the word Wiggins with Porzingis and it's the same idea. We would all have an entirely different conversation if both guys were being paid half of what they're getting paid now.

Regarding Wiggins, he's fools gold. He hasn't sucked, but if he was GSW's version of Wiggins, Minnesota would have never traded him. I think he benefits from their system, and the moment you take him out of it, he goes back to Minnesota Andrew Wiggins.

This is a fair point.

That said, I see two big differences between Porzingis and Wiggins. The first is that Wiggins plays our position of greatest need while Porzingis plays either power forward or center, where we already have Gafford, Rui and Deni (assuming Bertans and Bryant are sent out in any trade). And secondly, Wiggins is durable.

I’m a little disappointed at Wiggins’ improved play being written off as an “outlier” or the result of a “system.”

Could it be that the young guy has simply put in the work and gotten better?

It’s certainly reasonable to believe that Wiggins is smarter and more mature than he was as a 19 or 20 year old in Minny.

Just a stupid thought I had.

What is Ted worked a deal for Westbrook to be HC? Westbrook retires and his cap hit dissapear right. Yes make good on a massive dumb about of hc money. For a bunch of years and we can move forward and bring in some new blood maybe Wiggins maybe Christian wood maybe Derrick rose. But back tommy main thought would it be legal? Would we get fined ? Or worse?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

gambitx777 wrote:Just a stupid thought I had.

What is Ted worked a deal for Westbrook to be HC? Westbrook retires and his cap hit dissapear right. Yes make good on a massive dumb about of hc money. For a bunch of years and we can move forward and bring in some new blood maybe Wiggins maybe Christian wood maybe Derrick rose. But back tommy main thought would it be legal? Would we get fined ? Or worse?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

No. His cap hit would not disappear unless he chose to tear up his contract, and the Players Union would oppose that forcefully. And that doesn't even factor that Westbrook surely has no interest in retiring as a player right now to become a coach.

DCZards wrote:I’m a little disappointed at Wiggins’ improved play being written off as an “outlier” or the result of a “system.”

Could it be that the young guy has simply put in the work and gotten better?

It’s certainly reasonable to believe that Wiggins is smarter and more mature than he was as a 19 or 20 year old in Minny.

Yeah, he is just a better player now - offensively and defensively. And I think he will get marginally better. I think the harder he works, the luckier he gets.

DCZards wrote:I’m a little disappointed at Wiggins’ improved play being written off as an “outlier” or the result of a “system.”

Could it be that the young guy has simply put in the work and gotten better?

It’s certainly reasonable to believe that Wiggins is smarter and more mature than he was as a 19 or 20 year old in Minny.

Absolutely! & he may continue to improve -- or not, of course, tho improvement in the recent past is the strongest indicator of the possibility of improvement in the near future.

Still, is "outlier" too strong a word? Maybe, yet his much better 3pt. % has only been for a single year. Doesn't it seem sensible to be conservative about this? We're talking about acquiring a guy who makes $30m a year.

Litterally just a thought I had lol was currious is anyone knew how that worked

nate33 wrote:

gambitx777 wrote:Just a stupid thought I had.

What is Ted worked a deal for Westbrook to be HC? Westbrook retires and his cap hit dissapear right. Yes make good on a massive dumb about of hc money. For a bunch of years and we can move forward and bring in some new blood maybe Wiggins maybe Christian wood maybe Derrick rose. But back tommy main thought would it be legal? Would we get fined ? Or worse?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

No. His cap hit would not disappear unless he chose to tear up his contract, and the Players Union would oppose that forcefully. And that doesn't even factor that Westbrook surely has no interest in retiring as a player right now to become a coach.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Re: Wiggins, Porzingis, or similar: I guess my overall point is that I think the worst thing the Wizards could do right now is trade for an expensive player. That seems obvious to me.

Clearly, the idea of including Bertans in such deal makes it seem less expensive to some of you, but that's only true if you think we can't move Bertans any other way.

Of course, just because something is obvious to me doesn't mean it's obvious to anyone else -- it doesn't even mean it's true! But, I'm guessing no one wants me to compose & post the treatise explaining why it's obvious!

Of course, if you do want to read such a treatise, well...

nate33 wrote:

pcbothwel wrote:I think GSW will be moving that Twolves pick. If it moves up from 6 to Top 4, then they wait until 2022 to get the pick and will probably wait until the deadline to make a move. But if the pick stays at 6/7, then they probably move it draft night.

I think GSW should trade Wiseman and one of their picks for Myles Turner (not sure if it will cost the #6 or just the #14). The addition of Turner and Klay to their current roster should make them formidable. Turner is the perfect center for them because he is a rim protector who can offset Draymond's inability to shoot. Turner's lackluster rebounding will be offset by Draymond's good rebounding from the PF position. I think the Warriors with Turner could make one more title run if Klay is 90% of his former self.

That is an absolutely awful deal for Golden St. The Warriors can sign Noel, McGee, Howard, or Kanter to bolster their frontcourt. Perhaps they can get Horford for Oubre (S&T).

There is no reason for Golden St to give up Wiseman AND a lotto pick for a guy who has never even made an All-star team.