Luka-AD trade versus other bad trades in history

[durantbird]

The Luka trade is dubbed as the worst trade in NBA history. Do you agree? How do you compare it to other bad trades? What would be the, let's say, next 3 worst trades after it (or others that seems worse)?

[AEnigma]

The Billy King / Danny Ainge trade was so egregious that the NBA put in protections so it never happens again.

The Garnett to Celtics trade was pitiful even by the unequal standards of nearly every superstar trade (see also, Oscar to Bucks, Chris Paul to Lakers/Clippers, Barkley to Suns, etc.), but there you have the additional motivation of the Timberwolves “doing right” by Garnett and, like all these trades, being wholly incapable of contending with him.

The Celtics in general have a rich history here. Both they and the Lakers had some comically exploitative pick/prospect trades in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but those were more purely bad in hindsight when the picks/prospects turned into franchise cornerstones. And Auerbach had been doing that since the 1950s, with Bill Russell the greatest coup of all.

Harden to Rockets forever lives in infamy.

The Hawks trading down instead of taking Luka was also pretty obviously terrible, even if Luka was a less proven commodity and thus abstractly could have only been worth an extra first above Trae. It receives less criticism though because plenty of hall-of-famers have been draft day trades (e.g., Pippen, Dirk, Kobe…), and the return is rarely as good as Trae.

What makes the Mavericks’ trade historic is that it more quantifiably sacrificed their future (as opposed to the abstraction of trading picks or players yet to take the leap into superstardom) and their title-contending present (had just been in the Finals) with a known commodity committed to the team.

[ShotCreator]

Absolutely nothing comes close. Even horrible trades like SGA and tons of picks for PG. That was a 1000x more justified trade, that just didn’t work out.

What happened in Dallas was sabotage.

[penbeast0]

Just from Wizards history, giving up prime Chris Webber for end of career Mitch Richmond AND the bad contract of aging Otis Thorpe (then signing Richmond to a max type contract in addition) is similar. Doncic is clearly much better than Webber ever was but AD is much better than Richmond was too.

Sending the pick that turned into Joe Barry Carroll (who got nicknamed Joe Barely Cares) for a young Robert Parish and rookie Kevin McHale was pretty one-sided.

There have been others but Luka is up there just below Wilt, Kareem, Erving, in terms of most valuable player ever traded at time of trade.

[Special_Puppy]

It’s rare to have a trade that’s completely indefensible (barring Luka having Embiid level medicals) the moment the details come out. Even the infamous Paul George trade could be rationalized because it made the Clippers the most talented team in the NBA

[MartinToVaught]

I think only the Babe Ruth trade even comes close to this. And even then I'd still say this trade is worse because of how blatantly and risibly corrupt it is from so many different angles: the league's palpable desperation to boost ratings, the Mavs' new owners forcing their hybrid casino-arena into existence one way or another, Harrison being best friends with Pelinka, the Mavs' refusal to start a bidding war with any other team and maximize Luka's value, etc. This isn't just a bad trade, it's practically a humiliation ritual for any non-Lakers fan who still follows this sport.

[sp6r=underrated]

Just from Wizards history, giving up prime Chris Webber for end of career Mitch Richmond AND the bad contract of aging Otis Thorpe (then signing Richmond to a max type contract in addition) is similar. Doncic is clearly much better than Webber ever was but AD is much better than Richmond was too.

This is a good callout. Obviously the caliber of players involved in Luka-Davis is much higher but the Webber-Richmond trade is probably the best parallel trade for WTF logic.

Let's get older, worse in the short-term, a lot worse in the long-term and severely piss off our fans.

[sp6r=underrated]

The Billy King / Danny Ainge trade was so egregious that the NBA put in protections so it never happens again.

This is probably unpopular but I don't think the NBA should protect teams from bad trades.

A major reason contending in the NBA is so hard is the CBA. The CBA places so many barriers on decision making (individual salary limits/contract length limits/rookie caps/trade pick limitations) that the only recourse most teams have is just deciding to be bad for a period of years until they get lucky in the draft.

That's bad. Management quality should matter and we want management quality to expose itself via trading/contract offers rather than willingness to tank.

[Doctor MJ]

The Luka trade is dubbed as the worst trade in NBA history. Do you agree? How do you compare it to other bad trades? What would be the, let's say, next 3 worst trades after it (or others that seems worse)?

Time will tell how damaging it is - entirely possible it won't be as big as, say, trading SGA and a million picks for disappointment - but in terms of shock, I'd call it the biggest in NBA history.

I'd mention stuff like Gretzky to the Kings in hockey or Ruth to the Yankees in baseball as the points of comparison for it.

[MartinToVaught]

This is probably unpopular but I don't think the NBA should protect teams from bad trades.

A major reason contending in the NBA is so hard is the CBA. The CBA places so many barriers on decision making (individual salary limits/contract length limits/rookie caps/trade pick limitations) that the only recourse most teams have is just deciding to be bad for a period of years until they get lucky in the draft.

That's bad. Management quality should matter and we want management quality to expose itself via trading/contract offers rather than willingness to tank.

A CBA with strict rules is the only way to make management quality matter at all. Otherwise the only thing that matters is who can spend the most. Just look at the free-for-all that college sports are now, where most schools can no longer afford to keep any good player for longer than a season, let alone seriously contend for anything. Or the farce that the Dodgers have turned baseball into. You can have the most genius front office in sports history and it doesn't matter when the Dodgers can just casually spend more than your owner's entire net worth on Ohtani and not even feel it.

[Jaivl]

Don't know about the other major yankee sports, but I can only think of the Hazard or Coutinho signings being close.

[falcolombardi]

This is probably unpopular but I don't think the NBA should protect teams from bad trades.

A major reason contending in the NBA is so hard is the CBA. The CBA places so many barriers on decision making (individual salary limits/contract length limits/rookie caps/trade pick limitations) that the only recourse most teams have is just deciding to be bad for a period of years until they get lucky in the draft.

That's bad. Management quality should matter and we want management quality to expose itself via trading/contract offers rather than willingness to tank.

A CBA with strict rules is the only way to make management quality matter at all. Otherwise the only thing that matters is who can spend the most. Just look at the free-for-all that college sports are now, where most schools can no longer afford to keep any good player for longer than a season, let alone seriously contend for anything. Or the farce that the Dodgers have turned baseball into. You can have the most genius front office in sports history and it doesn't matter when the Dodgers can just casually spend more than your owner's entire net worth on Ohtani and not even feel it.

I agree with this, people following leagues like nfl or nba dont realize how bad it gets out there in other leagues lol

Paris saint germain can win 9 out of 10 years regardless of how well or badly they manage their resources

Nba level parity would be unthinkable to most sports fans in the world who mainly follow soccer leagues

[sp6r=underrated]

This is probably unpopular but I don't think the NBA should protect teams from bad trades.

A major reason contending in the NBA is so hard is the CBA. The CBA places so many barriers on decision making (individual salary limits/contract length limits/rookie caps/trade pick limitations) that the only recourse most teams have is just deciding to be bad for a period of years until they get lucky in the draft.

That's bad. Management quality should matter and we want management quality to expose itself via trading/contract offers rather than willingness to tank.

A CBA with strict rules is the only way to make management quality matter at all. Otherwise the only thing that matters is who can spend the most. Just look at the free-for-all that college sports are now, where most schools can no longer afford to keep any good player for longer than a season, let alone seriously contend for anything. Or the farce that the Dodgers have turned baseball into. You can have the most genius front office in sports history and it doesn't matter when the Dodgers can just casually spend more than your owner's entire net worth on Ohtani and not even feel it.

The salary cap addresses your concerns.

[zimpy27]

What if Mavs won a championship in next 3 years?
What if Luka never plays better than last season due to ongoing conditioning issues?

Point is, it's way too early to judge this trade.

[RTG HD]

Look at how Wilt and Kareem got to the Lakers. The Lakers have a long history of ripping off teams to get their next star player.

[GSP]

What if Mavs won a championship in next 3 years?
What if Luka never plays better than last season due to ongoing conditioning issues?

Point is, it's way too early to judge this trade.

This ppl saying no trade comes close are crazy. All the ppl mentioning other trades where teams got a boatload of picks and saying Mavs didnt get same return also keep ignoring **** Ad a top 10 player Dpoy candidate...........I think they should have asked for a 1st or 2 but those other bad trades featured role players like Mikal Bridges or unproven prospects like Sga at the time. Comparing return w/o mentioning a proven commodity in Ad is bizarre. There is a high chance all those 1st round picks Nba fans jerk themselves over dont amount to Ads value these next few years

W/ all that said i dont see how this is worse than the Harden trade. Or even close. Okcheap chose keeping Kendrick Perkins the worst starting center prolly for years over paying Harden a few more million at least that next season who were arguing if he was a real star or not but was 6moy and clearly improving. Player they got back was Kevin **** Martin i remember pro Okc ppl were defending that then Harden in 1st week in Houston Harden was dropping 30pt near triple doubles already and everyone knew it was a Woat trade immediately. Everyone knew it was bad before Harden debuted in Houston besides some Okc fans coping but immediately we know just how bad it was

[zimpy27]

What if Mavs won a championship in next 3 years?
What if Luka never plays better than last season due to ongoing conditioning issues?

Point is, it's way too early to judge this trade.

This ppl saying no trade comes close are crazy. All the ppl mentioning other trades where teams got a boatload of picks and saying Mavs didnt get same return also keep ignoring **** Ad a top 10 player Dpoy candidate...........I think they should have asked for a 1st or 2 but those other bad trades featured role players like Mikal Bridges or unproven prospects like Sga at the time. Comparing return w/o mentioning a proven commodity in Ad is bizarre. There is a high chance all those 1st round picks dont amount to Ads value these next few years

W/ all that said i dont see how this is worse than the Harden trade. Or even close. Okcheap chose keeping Kendrick Perkins the worst starting center prolly for years over paying Harden a few more million at least that next season who were arguing if he was a real star or not but was 6moy and clearly improving. Player they got back was Kevin **** Martin i remember pro Okc ppl were defending that then Harden in 1st week in Houston Harden was dropping 30pt near triple doubles already and everyone knew it was a Woat trade immediately. Everyone knew it was bad before Harden debuted in Houston besides some Okc fans coping but immediately we know just how bad it was

I don't think they are crazy, I think they are just being tricked by the potential of draft picks. Potential in picks is very overvalued in the NBA. I'm not saying they aren't valuable but just that they are over valued. Dallas want to compete now and traded for the piece they think brings them closer to a ring.

Dallas feel like Davis is the right piece for their team and there is a bit of logic behind it:
Davis-Lively combo will be devastating defensively with 2 bigs that can switch on perimeter.
They have Kyrie who is one of a handful of guys who would not be impacted offensively by a twin tower lineup, plus he's become a decent defender.
They have scorers like Grimes, Klay and Naji who don't need plays set up for them and can all defend to a point that they aren't a weakpoint.

Anyway, don't want to get too deep into it but a giant picks package is not better for the Mavs than Davis based on what their plan is. Obvioulsy if the plan was to blow up and rebuild then Nico failed miserably.

[Jaivl]

What if Mavs won a championship in next 3 years?

Yeah, what if tomorrow Klay suddenly wakes up 7 feet tall? We're not considering all the options.

[eminence]

I find it more likely that AD never wins a series with the Mavs than that he wins a title there.

[Dupp]

This one is worse than the sga one for example because it’s two known and developed players yet they still did it. Without shopping him. He’s 25. Offensive goat potential.