Discussing Other Teams' Moves - Part 8

[Dat2U]

Westbrooks gonna get traded for sure and i am putting money on Westbrook being on this team by oct

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I'll take the other side of that bet. Westbrook is not joining the Wizards.

I don't think he'll have many options. Maybe Wiz or Charlotte. Possibly no one signs him.

[penbeast0]

Maybe he goes and plays in China with Allen Iverson; what a backcourt that would be in both a very good and a very bad way.

[gambitx777]

Westbrooks gonna get traded for sure and i am putting money on Westbrook being on this team by oct

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I'll take the other side of that bet. Westbrook is not joining the Wizards.

I think he got hunny dicked by labron and it didn't work. But it was working with Beal. Westbrook would play really well with KP too. Like we have a pretty good guard core now add Westbrook to that it's a deep versitile rotation of dudes who can defend and shoot around Westbrook. Westbrook could absolutely average 15 plus ppg , 5rpg and 10 ast. Which isn't bad. And Westbrook on the vet mins or a 2-3 year deal for the rest of the mid level that I think we have left would be perfectly fine.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

Westbrooks gonna get traded for sure and i am putting money on Westbrook being on this team by oct

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I'll take the other side of that bet. Westbrook is not joining the Wizards.

I think he got hunny dicked by labron and it didn't work. But it was working with Beal. Westbrook would play really well with KP too. Like we have a pretty good guard core now add Westbrook to that it's a deep versitile rotation of dudes who can defend and shoot around Westbrook. Westbrook could absolutely average 15 plus ppg , 5rpg and 10 ast. Which isn't bad. And Westbrook on the vet mins or a 2-3 year deal for the rest of the mid level that I think we have left would be perfectly fine.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

Westbrook can't "play really well" with anybody anymore. He can't shoot and he plays terrible, undisciplined defense. Adding him to this team will only take shots away from more efficient players like Porzingis, Beal and others.

[gambitx777]

I'll take the other side of that bet. Westbrook is not joining the Wizards.

I think he got hunny dicked by labron and it didn't work. But it was working with Beal. Westbrook would play really well with KP too. Like we have a pretty good guard core now add Westbrook to that it's a deep versitile rotation of dudes who can defend and shoot around Westbrook. Westbrook could absolutely average 15 plus ppg , 5rpg and 10 ast. Which isn't bad. And Westbrook on the vet mins or a 2-3 year deal for the rest of the mid level that I think we have left would be perfectly fine.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

Westbrook can't "play really well" with anybody anymore. He can't shoot and he plays terrible, undisciplined defense. Adding him to this team will only take shots away from more efficient players like Porzingis, Beal and others.

I think Westbrook is still good enough that's he's a value at the vet min. Even carmello was able to adjust at an older age and I think with some tweaks Westbrook can be a valuable piece.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

To me, the question whether Cleveland overpaid for Mitchell depends on 3 things:

1. How good you think Mitchell is,
2. What they could have gotten for Sexton in a different sign and trade deal w/ some other team, &
3. How much upside you think Ogbaji has.

I think Mitchell is good, but I've never thought he was a star or had it in him to become one. I could be wrong about that....

I have zero idea what they could have gotten for Sexton. He's not a player I like, but maybe some people like him a lot...?

Ogbaji is the wild card -- if you think he will be a good NBA 2-guard, it's hard to like the trade. I have no fix at all on him.

That said, in principle, if I'd been able to get something valuable for Sexton in some other way, I wouldn't have made the trade.

Put it another way: looks to me like Danny Ainge is doing one hell of a job remaking the Utah Jazz!

Good to see you're not just extremely negative about the Wizards' players.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

BTW, re the DM trade, after seeing the Fin-Isreal highlights of Markanen, he could be more
than an afterthought. CLE gave up a lot and will continue to give up a lot in salary for DM.
JMO.

The three seven footers starting line up/offence was a decent success and fun to watch. But I can see that the Cavs had doubts about its long term sustainability. Lauri is probably/maybe an NBA starter, but would always be behind Mobley and Allen, so he probably had to go at some point. I don't really see that they have salary worries. If they'd kept the players and signed Sexton to 40/4 they'd be in the same position, so ... squinting at it ... they are 30/4 up on the deal.

[payitforward]

To me, the question whether Cleveland overpaid for Mitchell depends on 3 things:

1. How good you think Mitchell is,
2. What they could have gotten for Sexton in a different sign and trade deal w/ some other team, &
3. How much upside you think Ogbaji has.

I think Mitchell is good, but I've never thought he was a star or had it in him to become one. I could be wrong about that....

I have zero idea what they could have gotten for Sexton. He's not a player I like, but maybe some people like him a lot...?

Ogbaji is the wild card -- if you think he will be a good NBA 2-guard, it's hard to like the trade. I have no fix at all on him.

That said, in principle, if I'd been able to get something valuable for Sexton in some other way, I wouldn't have made the trade.

Put it another way: looks to me like Danny Ainge is doing one hell of a job remaking the Utah Jazz!

Good to see you're not just extremely negative about the Wizards' players.

Not sure what you're criticizing in my post. But I'm not "extremely negative" about our players.

Beal has been a terrific player.
Porzingis has a ton of talent, just has found it hard to stay healthy.
I loved the acquisition of Morris & Barton & our signing Delon Wright too.
I'm also high on Deni & thought that Kispert had an extremely solid rookie year.
i've certainly been very positive about Daniel Gafford.

[gambitx777]

I think Westbrook has enough skill as a passer left to be able to adjust and be helpful to the team on a vet min deal.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[Cappy_Smurf]

The FRP's included are from 2025, 2027 and 2029. In 2025, Cleveland is going to be much better than the 15th best team in the league three seasons from now. They will have Mitchell, Garland and Allen in their prime, and Mobley just entering his prime. They'll probably be a legit contender by then, or at least a top 4 team in the East.

It could go that way, but 3 years is a long time in the NBA. 2 years ago, Utah had the best record in the NBA. Now they are blowing it up. Things can change quickly.

Injuries can happen, players butting heads and not getting along, guys seeking a bigger stage/greener grass, etc.

I think it was a good gamble for Cleveland to take, but 3 years out is a long time to be predicting how good a team will be, one way or the other.

[payitforward]

I think that's a sensible comment.
Plus, it's hard to know the value of a pick 3 years from now, high or low. This is especially important given the non-linearity of draft results.

Again... there's no question that Mitchell is a good player, but there's a legitimately wide range of judgement as to how good. Not to mention the question of how good Agbaji becomes.

In all, I guess, it seems to me that the more draft picks (& as yet unplayed rookies) are involved in a trade, the harder it is to get a real grip on how it's likely to work out.

At the same time, if you're Cleveland & you think you might just have a shot at a title if you add one guy, then... roll the dice! Those opportunities don't come along very often.

[nate33]

The FRP's included are from 2025, 2027 and 2029. In 2025, Cleveland is going to be much better than the 15th best team in the league three seasons from now. They will have Mitchell, Garland and Allen in their prime, and Mobley just entering his prime. They'll probably be a legit contender by then, or at least a top 4 team in the East.

It could go that way, but 3 years is a long time in the NBA. 2 years ago, Utah had the best record in the NBA. Now they are blowing it up. Things can change quickly.

Injuries can happen, players butting heads and not getting along, guys seeking a bigger stage/greener grass, etc.

I think it was a good gamble for Cleveland to take, but 3 years out is a long time to be predicting how good a team will be, one way or the other.

Sure. The future can't be predicted with 100% certainty. But that Utah analogy is silly. 2 years ago, Utah was good but also capped out and facing luxtax issues in a small media market, lacking in future picks, and relying upon a supporting cast on the wrong side of 30. Three of their top 6 guys in minutes played were 31, 33 and 33 years old respectively (Bogdanovic, Conley and Ingles). It was far from a sure thing that that crew could be held together for more than a couple more years.

Cleveland is a very young team that made the 7th seed last year despite injuries. (They were actually 35-21 in games when Jarrett Allen played. That's a projected 51-win season, good enough for the 4th seed.) Mobley is 21. Garland is 22. Allen is 24. Mitchell is 26. And they have everyone locked into reasonable deals for 4 more years. They have no luxtax concerns at all until the 2025-26 season when Mobley comes off his rookie deal. If any team in the league can be projected to be reliably winning over a timeframe 3-7 years from now, it's Cleveland. The only concern at all is Jarrett Allen's so-so durability. But even that is probably less likely to be a factor down the road as Mobley fills out and becomes able to man the center position in Allen's absence.

[payitforward]

Cleveland is the very story you'd like the Wizards to be.

- In 2018-19, the year when we went 32-50, the Cavs posted a 19-63 record.
- The following year (first of the 2 shortened seasons) their record was 19-46.
- In 2020-21, they weren't much better: 22-50.

Then, boom, the moves they'd been making started to really pay off, & last season they jumped all the way up to 44-38.

In particular, those "moves" were --

- Signing Jarrett Allen*
- Making 3 good R1 picks in a row (Garland**, Okoro & Mobley)
- Adding a few judicious, high-value vets

One other point worth mentioning is that they somehow used the decision to pass on extending a not-so-good draft pick (Sexton) as part of their acquisition of Donovan Mitchell. That was really good work -- both the decision about Sexton & managing to get value out of him any way!

* I recall the reactions here when I & a few others suggested trading for Allen -- almost entirely negative. "He's gonna need to get paid." "He doesn't shoot the 3." Etc.
** OTOH, credit to Zards & a couple of others who thought the Garland pick was a good one -- I didn't see it. I was way wrong.

[doclinkin]

- Signing Jarrett Allen*
- Making 3 good R1 picks in a row (Garland**, Okoro & Mobley)
...

* I recall the reactions here when I & a few others suggested trading for Allen -- almost entirely negative. "He's gonna need to get paid." "He doesn't shoot the 3." Etc.
** OTOH, credit to Zards & a couple of others who thought the Garland pick was a good one -- I didn't see it. I was way wrong.

Jarrett Allen who was selected with the Wizards pick that we had to give to dump Andrew Nicholson and get a short term rental of Bojan Bogdanovic.


I had Garland, since he was a star on the Bradley Beal Elite AAU squad and was picking up accolades from all at that level. I liked his game and figured he would be a good candidate for Beal to mentor. If so perhaps we could re-sign Beal on a slight hometown discount if he was looking ahead to coaching etc as he matured and moved on in his career. Ha!

Garland had good wiggle. Poise. Had the look of a heads-up attacking PG with leadership skills even if his defense might be slight.

[payitforward]

- Signing Jarrett Allen*
...

* I recall the reactions here when I & a few others suggested trading for Allen -- almost entirely negative. "He's gonna need to get paid." "He doesn't shoot the 3." Etc.
** OTOH, credit to Zards & a couple of others who thought the Garland pick was a good one -- I didn't see it. I was way wrong.

Jarrett Allen who was selected with the Wizards pick that we had to give to dump Andrew Nicholson and get a short term rental of Bojan Bogdanovic.

I had Garland, since he was a star on the Bradley Beal Elite AAU squad and was picking up accolades from all at that level. I liked his game and figured he would be a good candidate for Beal to mentor. If so perhaps we could re-sign Beal on a slight hometown discount if he was looking ahead to coaching etc as he matured and moved on in his career. Ha!

Garland had good wiggle. Poise. Had the look of a heads-up attacking PG with leadership skills even if his defense might be slight.

Yes, on all the above. Ernie... what a PITA !!!

I have no idea why I crossed out Garland in my mind. Biggest reason was probably b/c I'm an idiot!

In all 2019 offered a particularly egregious example of how utterly incapable GMs are, overall, of predicting who's going to be a really good player. Once you get past Zion & Ja, 6 of the 8 guys taken from 3-10 have been bad or else complete busts, & the best players out of that draft other than Zion/Ja were all taken from #20 down -- or, in one case, went undrafted (Caleb Martin).

[payitforward]

The Timberwolves have inked my guy Nathan Knight to a 2-year deal. Another example of a very solid resource available free, but we are not well-managed enough to notice it & take advantage.

[doclinkin]

- Signing Jarrett Allen*
...

* I recall the reactions here when I & a few others suggested trading for Allen -- almost entirely negative. "He's gonna need to get paid." "He doesn't shoot the 3." Etc.
** OTOH, credit to Zards & a couple of others who thought the Garland pick was a good one -- I didn't see it. I was way wrong.

Jarrett Allen who was selected with the Wizards pick that we had to give to dump Andrew Nicholson and get a short term rental of Bojan Bogdanovic.

I had Garland, since he was a star on the Bradley Beal Elite AAU squad and was picking up accolades from all at that level. I liked his game and figured he would be a good candidate for Beal to mentor. If so perhaps we could re-sign Beal on a slight hometown discount if he was looking ahead to coaching etc as he matured and moved on in his career. Ha!

Garland had good wiggle. Poise. Had the look of a heads-up attacking PG with leadership skills even if his defense might be slight.

Yes, on all the above. Ernie... what a PITA !!!

I have no idea why I crossed out Garland in my mind. Biggest reason was probably b/c I'm an idiot!

In all 2019 offered a particularly egregious example of how utterly incapable GMs are, overall, of predicting who's going to be a really good player. Once you get past Zion & Ja, 6 of the 8 guys taken from 3-10 have been bad or else complete busts, & the best players out of that draft other than Zion/Ja were all taken from #20 down -- or, in one case, went undrafted (Caleb Martin).

I liked Deandre Hunter as the best fit for us. Big defender with range. Liked Garland as an upside pick. Liked that other Gonzaga guy as a trade down prospect. Tyler Herro and Keldon Johnson as the two players who had a match of Wins Produced --I think-- and youth (on the idea that the earlier you begin putting up winning stats, the better your upside may be). But contrarian-wise I picked Luka Samanic because I was tired of hearing the name of that guy from Gonzaga

I was saucy when the Spurs took both him and Keldon Johnson. But I guess Luka had work ethic issues, and then foot problems. So flamed out of the league despite showing promise here and there. So, yeah, a crapshoot.

[payitforward]

On the same subject, OKC just extended Kenrich Williams for 4 years/$28m -- he's a guy I liked in 2018 when he went undrafted. A solid player.

[payitforward]

Jarrett Allen who was selected with the Wizards pick that we had to give to dump Andrew Nicholson and get a short term rental of Bojan Bogdanovic.

I had Garland, since he was a star on the Bradley Beal Elite AAU squad and was picking up accolades from all at that level. I liked his game and figured he would be a good candidate for Beal to mentor. If so perhaps we could re-sign Beal on a slight hometown discount if he was looking ahead to coaching etc as he matured and moved on in his career. Ha!

Garland had good wiggle. Poise. Had the look of a heads-up attacking PG with leadership skills even if his defense might be slight.

Yes, on all the above. Ernie... what a PITA !!!

I have no idea why I crossed out Garland in my mind. Biggest reason was probably b/c I'm an idiot!

In all 2019 offered a particularly egregious example of how utterly incapable GMs are, overall, of predicting who's going to be a really good player. Once you get past Zion & Ja, 6 of the 8 guys taken from 3-10 have been bad or else complete busts, & the best players out of that draft other than Zion/Ja were all taken from #20 down -- or, in one case, went undrafted (Caleb Martin).

I liked Deandre Hunter as the best fit for us. Big defender with range. Liked Garland as an upside pick. Liked that other Gonzaga guy as a trade down prospect. Tyler Herro and Keldon Johnson as the two players who had a match of Wins Produced --I think-- and youth (on the idea that the earlier you begin putting up winning stats, the better your upside may be). But contrarian-wise I picked Luka Samanic because I was tired of hearing the name of that guy from Gonzaga

I was saucy when the Spurs took both him and Keldon Johnson. But I guess Luka had work ethic issues, and then foot problems. So flamed out of the league despite showing promise here and there. So, yeah, a crapshoot.

Not to engender controversy, just as a comment, I've never liked the term "crapshoot." There's no action to be taken against a "crapshoot," right? It's pure randomness.

Better to consider that "uncertainty" plays a big role in all these endeavors (not just the draft). & there *is* something to do about uncertainty. If you want to raise the likelihood of seeing heads when you flip a coin, then flip it more than once.

& that's the benefit of trading down, obviously. Now, in this particular draft, we could have absolutely scored big-time by trading down -- that was a feature of this particular situation, this particular set of prospects. But, because you get more chances, trading down will *always*, in any draft, increase your chances of getting an NBA-quality player.

Of course, there's a cost too. You have to devote an extra roster spot to a rookie if you trade down for multiple picks. You may not have that spot, or you may have a higher-value use for it. In principle, there are constraints on every decision. Entropy everywhere, & no free lunch.

But... in our particular situation at that particular moment it happened that there actually weren't any constraints that would have prevented any decision we wanted to make: we turned over virtually the whole team that off season!

Doesn't mean you always do it -- that's obvious! I wouldn't have traded down from the #2 that year! Even in a situation rife with uncertainty, you still roll the dice on Ja Morant.

As to DeAndre Hunter, I don't know what happened with him. He was awful as a rookie, but then he was really good his 2d year but only played @700 minutes b/c of injury. This last year he went back down the tubes. 3 pt. % went up, but everything slid a lot. We'll see....

[AFM]

Not to engender controversy, just as a comment, I've never liked the term "crapshoot." There's no action to be taken against a "crapshoot," right? It's pure randomness.

Not to be confused with “crap chute” ie, where Ted keeps his head.