Cleveland - Washington - Sacramento

[arusinov]

I have this as rather too good for Washington. But admittedly I'm just not sold that Deni is a 40% shooter for real since he's only done the once and on very low volume. And I know Nate cites some end of season counting totals, but someone puts up stats even on bad teams. I need more evidence before thinking he's worth more than Garland.

I think Avdija is better than Garland because big wings who defend are more playable late in a playoff run than diminutive guards with defensive issues. But let's just assume that Garland is slightly better than Avdija for the purposes of this analysis.

The MASSIVE difference between the two is contract. Avdija will be paid a total of $54M over the next 4 years. Garland is going to cost $162M! That's a difference of $27M a year! Would you rather have Garland or Deni AND a $27M-a-year player?

Deni is also a year younger than Garland and still clearly in an upswing. Statistically, Garland's production plateaued a year ago and has even declined a bit, though that is partially explained by sharing the court with Mitchell.

Garland also has durability issues, missing an average of 17 games a season for the past 3 seasons. Deni has missed a grand total of 11 games in the last 3 years combined (and 3 of those missed games were at the end of the 2022-23 season when he could have played but the team shut him down because they were tanking).

But at least this is a real offer for Deni. Garland is a good NBA player who even snuck into an All-Star game once. This is a heck of a lot better than the crap offers we saw 2 weeks ago where people thought Deni could be had with the #9 pick in this draft, or with two late future FRP's.

I would politely turn down this deal from Washington's perspective, but at least it's not an insulting proposal. It's the type of deal that might make sense if Washington had a significant positional imbalance and needed to trade a forward for a guard. But since the Wizards lack any such motivations to push for such a move, I'd rather stick with Deni and see how he develops further.

The Cavs lost Game 4 to the Celtics by 7 points. They were without Mitchell and in desperate need of offense. Garland dropped 30 points. Okoro, who is from Deni's draft and shoots better from 3 than Deni, scored 2 points. Guess which one was more playable?

This is silly. You're not getting to the playoffs, let alone competing in them, without putting the ball in the hoop.

Okoro this season had 1 20+ pts game. Deni had 17 20+ pts games.

Okoro FGM were 14% unassisted, Deni's - 36.9% unassisted. And they had almost same ts%

You can think that Deni will not be able to score much on better team, but you can't claim that Deni's scoring and Okoro's scoring are even remotely similar.

[nate33]

The Cavs lost Game 4 to the Celtics by 7 points. They were without Mitchell and in desperate need of offense. Garland dropped 30 points.

Not really that impressive. It took him 28 shot attempts to get those 30 points. And in the next game, he went 4-17. So in the two games without Mitchell, he averaged 20.5 points of a TS% of .444. That encapsulates the issue with Garland perfectly. He is a good scorer, but not a number 1 guy. He is a number 2 guy. But if you're only a number 2 guy, you really need to be a breakeven defender or plus defender (because most #1 guys are also bad defenders). Garland is a minus defender.

Deni can't be a primary option scorer, but in that situation, I'd expect Deni to average about 14-15 points while also pulling down 10 boards, dishing out 4 assists, and being the team's best defender. Which is more valuable? Good all around play or poor efficiency scoring with bad defense?

Okoro, who is from Deni's draft and shoots better from 3 than Deni, scored 2 points. Guess which one was more playable?

That's because Okoro has no other offensive game other than catch-and-shoot 3's. Deni has developed a very good dribble drive game and can very efficiently attack a closeout, run secondary pick and roll or post a mismatch. Deni averaged 19 points a game throughout the second-half of the season on a TS% of .600.

You could give Deni 28 shots against the Celtics in the playoffs, with Strus as the only other perimeter threat on the floor, and he wouldn't sniff 30. I suspect you could give him 48 shots and he couldn't get there. I get that Wizrads fans are high on Deni. I understand why, but this is silly.

I don't dispute that Garland is a better scorer than Avdija and would do a better job than Avdija if he was thrust into a number 1 option position. But that's not the important distinction. I'm saying that Deni has a definable role on a winning team more so than Garland does. I know Deni can be a 3rd or 4th starter on a winning team, play plus defense at 4 positions, and contribute enough offensively that teams can't ignore him to load up on teammates.

I'm less convinced about Garland's role. He is not good enough offensively to be a number 1 option scorer. And if you play him as the number 2 option, chances are your defense will be compromised because you will have two bad defenders. I think there's a reason why Cleveland plays just as well without him as with him.

[jbk1234]

Not really that impressive. It took him 28 shot attempts to get those 30 points. And in the next game, he went 4-17. So in the two games without Mitchell, he averaged 20.5 points of a TS% of .444. That encapsulates the issue with Garland perfectly. He is a good scorer, but not a number 1 guy. He is a number 2 guy. But if you're only a number 2 guy, you really need to be a breakeven defender or plus defender (because most #1 guys are also bad defenders). Garland is a minus defender.

Deni can't be a primary option scorer, but in that situation, I'd expect Deni to average about 14-15 points while also pulling down 10 boards, dishing out 4 assists, and being the team's best defender. Which is more valuable? Good all around play or poor efficiency scoring with bad defense?


That's because Okoro has no other offensive game other than catch-and-shoot 3's. Deni has developed a very good dribble drive game and can very efficiently attack a closeout, run secondary pick and roll or post a mismatch. Deni averaged 19 points a game throughout the second-half of the season on a TS% of .600.

You could give Deni 28 shots against the Celtics in the playoffs, with Strus as the only other perimeter threat on the floor, and he wouldn't sniff 30. I suspect you could give him 48 shots and he couldn't get there. I get that Wizrads fans are high on Deni. I understand why, but this is silly.

I don't dispute that Garland is a better scorer than Avdija and would do a better job than Avdija if he was thrust into a number 1 option position. But that's not the important distinction. I'm saying that Deni has a definable role on a winning team more so than Garland does. I know Deni can be a 3rd or 4th starter on a winning team, play plus defense at 4 positions, and contribute enough offensively that teams can't ignore him to load up on teammates.

I'm less convinced about Garland's role. He is not good enough offensively to be a number 1 option scorer. And if you play him as the number 2 option, chances are your defense will be compromised because you will have two bad defenders. I think there's a reason why Cleveland plays just as well without him as with him.

They don't. It's been covered ad nauseaum. Look at his actual +/- and on/off numbers.

[nate33]

You could give Deni 28 shots against the Celtics in the playoffs, with Strus as the only other perimeter threat on the floor, and he wouldn't sniff 30. I suspect you could give him 48 shots and he couldn't get there. I get that Wizrads fans are high on Deni. I understand why, but this is silly.

I don't dispute that Garland is a better scorer than Avdija and would do a better job than Avdija if he was thrust into a number 1 option position. But that's not the important distinction. I'm saying that Deni has a definable role on a winning team more so than Garland does. I know Deni can be a 3rd or 4th starter on a winning team, play plus defense at 4 positions, and contribute enough offensively that teams can't ignore him to load up on teammates.

I'm less convinced about Garland's role. He is not good enough offensively to be a number 1 option scorer. And if you play him as the number 2 option, chances are your defense will be compromised because you will have two bad defenders. I think there's a reason why Cleveland plays just as well without him as with him.

They don't. It's been covered ad nauseaum. Look at his actual +/- and on/off numbers.

Yes, his on/off this year was -1.6. He was better last year though.

[jbk1234]

I don't dispute that Garland is a better scorer than Avdija and would do a better job than Avdija if he was thrust into a number 1 option position. But that's not the important distinction. I'm saying that Deni has a definable role on a winning team more so than Garland does. I know Deni can be a 3rd or 4th starter on a winning team, play plus defense at 4 positions, and contribute enough offensively that teams can't ignore him to load up on teammates.

I'm less convinced about Garland's role. He is not good enough offensively to be a number 1 option scorer. And if you play him as the number 2 option, chances are your defense will be compromised because you will have two bad defenders. I think there's a reason why Cleveland plays just as well without him as with him.

They don't. It's been covered ad nauseaum. Look at his actual +/- and on/off numbers.

Yes, his on/off this year was -1.6. He was better last year though.

And his +/- was still +1.8 even last year.

[nate33]

They don't. It's been covered ad nauseaum. Look at his actual +/- and on/off numbers.

Yes, his on/off this year was -1.6. He was better last year though.

And his +/- was still +1.8 even last year.

That just tells me that Cleveland has a pretty good team. It doesn't really say how much Garland was a part of it.

[nate33]

And I don't want to get into a position where I'm bashing Garland. I like Garland. I just think there are real reasons why Deni might be a more winning player. It's not "silly" to dismiss the trade. I think it's a reasonable offer that I would politely decline.

[CraftylikeaFox]

Garland was a legit franchise player before Mitchell showed up and has had to sacrifice a lot to accommodate him. Advija is good, but will he ever be more than just a role player? Also both guys are around the same age. I'd think Washington would be all over this.

[nate33]

Garland was a legit franchise player before Mitchell showed up and has had to sacrifice a lot to accommodate him. Advija is good, but will he ever be more than just a role player? Also both guys are around the same age. I'd think Washington would be all over this.

I posted this on a Deni trade thread a little while back:

Since February 8th, Deni has averaged 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists on a .604 TS%. The team was just -1.2 per 100 possessions in those minutes, so Deni had the talentless Wizards playing like a 37-win team while he was on the floor.

Compare that production to three other All-Stars this season:
Player A: 19.9 points, 8.2 rebounds, 6.1 assists, .566 TS%, will get paid a max contract in 2025 for $42M a year.
Player B: 22.2 points, 6.9 rebounds, 5.4 assists, .545 TS%, will get paid a max contract in 2026 for $45M a year
Player C: 23.0 points, 5.5 rebounds, 3.6 assists, .580 TS%, will be paid $57M a year over the next 5 years
D.Avdija: 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists, .604 TS%, will be paid $13M a year over the next 4 years.

Spoiler:

Player A is Scottie Barnes
Player B is Paulo Banchero
Player C is Jaylen Brown

And these are actual in-game averages, not per-36 numbers. I think it's fair to still be a little dubious since it has only been a half-season, but look at it from the Wizards perspective; they have a 23-year old who has posted All-Star caliber numbers for half a season while playing exceptional defense. They're not just going to ignore that and assume Deni will pan out as a mere role player - not unless he has a major regression next year. And finally, one has to factor that he is locked into the best non-rookie, non-max contract in the league.

[DowJones]

Garland was a legit franchise player before Mitchell showed up and has had to sacrifice a lot to accommodate him. Advija is good, but will he ever be more than just a role player? Also both guys are around the same age. I'd think Washington would be all over this.

I posted this on a Deni trade thread a little while back:

Since February 8th, Deni has averaged 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists on a .604 TS%. The team was just -1.2 per 100 possessions in those minutes, so Deni had the talentless Wizards playing like a 37-win team while he was on the floor.

Compare that production to three other All-Stars this season:
Player A: 19.9 points, 8.2 rebounds, 6.1 assists, .566 TS%, will get paid a max contract in 2025 for $42M a year.
Player B: 22.2 points, 6.9 rebounds, 5.4 assists, .545 TS%, will get paid a max contract in 2026 for $45M a year
Player C: 23.0 points, 5.5 rebounds, 3.6 assists, .580 TS%, will be paid $57M a year over the next 5 years
D.Avdija: 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists, .604 TS%, will be paid $13M a year over the next 4 years.

Spoiler:

Player A is Scottie Barnes
Player B is Paulo Banchero
Player C is Jaylen Brown

And these are actual in-game averages, not per-36 numbers. I think it's fair to still be a little dubious since it has only been a half-season, but look at it from the Wizards perspective; they have a 23-year old who has posted All-Star caliber numbers for half a season while playing exceptional defense. They're not just going to ignore that and assume Deni will pan out as a mere role player - not unless he has a major regression next year. And finally, one has to factor that he is locked into the best non-rookie, non-max contract in the league.

For the season he only avenged 15ppg. Deni isn’t a great FT shooter and he is an average to below average 3 point shooter. He isn’t explosive and his 6-9 wingspan doesn’t scream defensive ace at the 3/4. I am sure he has upside, but I would need to see more proof before I would consider moving him for Garland, a player who played like an actual all-star at age 22 and 23.

[nate33]

Garland was a legit franchise player before Mitchell showed up and has had to sacrifice a lot to accommodate him. Advija is good, but will he ever be more than just a role player? Also both guys are around the same age. I'd think Washington would be all over this.

I posted this on a Deni trade thread a little while back:

Since February 8th, Deni has averaged 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists on a .604 TS%. The team was just -1.2 per 100 possessions in those minutes, so Deni had the talentless Wizards playing like a 37-win team while he was on the floor.

Compare that production to three other All-Stars this season:
Player A: 19.9 points, 8.2 rebounds, 6.1 assists, .566 TS%, will get paid a max contract in 2025 for $42M a year.
Player B: 22.2 points, 6.9 rebounds, 5.4 assists, .545 TS%, will get paid a max contract in 2026 for $45M a year
Player C: 23.0 points, 5.5 rebounds, 3.6 assists, .580 TS%, will be paid $57M a year over the next 5 years
D.Avdija: 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists, .604 TS%, will be paid $13M a year over the next 4 years.

Spoiler:

Player A is Scottie Barnes
Player B is Paulo Banchero
Player C is Jaylen Brown

And these are actual in-game averages, not per-36 numbers. I think it's fair to still be a little dubious since it has only been a half-season, but look at it from the Wizards perspective; they have a 23-year old who has posted All-Star caliber numbers for half a season while playing exceptional defense. They're not just going to ignore that and assume Deni will pan out as a mere role player - not unless he has a major regression next year. And finally, one has to factor that he is locked into the best non-rookie, non-max contract in the league.

For the season he only avenged 15ppg. Deni isn’t a great FT shooter and he is an average to below average 3 point shooter. He isn’t explosive and his 6-9 wingspan doesn’t scream defensive ace at the 3/4. I am sure he has upside, but I would need to see more proof before I would consider moving him for Garland, a player who played like an actual all-star at age 22 and 23.

That's totally reasonable. I'm not arguing that Cleveland should make this deal. I'm just pointing out why a rational Wizards fan would not be in favor of this deal.

I will say that Deni's explosion in scoring had nothing to do with his 3-point shooting. In fact, his 3P% over the second half of the season was actually lower than in the first half. Deni has developed a very solid dribble drive game where he drives hard right and then Eurosteps to his left while bumping the defender off balance, finishing with a floater. It's a move he learned from Kuzma and it's one Franz Wagner does a lot with success. He has also figured out that he is bigger and stronger than any guard so now he routinely punishes mismatches in the post.

The scoring is not a fluke. He has averaged 19 points a game since February, and he actually hit a new plateau as a scorer at the end of December. That's when his per-minute scoring average jumped. He didn't get the sustained 35 minute per game playing time until February, but the scoring boost began before the start of January.

And his defense is exceptional regardless of what you think of his wingspan. He routinely ranks among the top wing defenders in various defensive metrics.

[arusinov]

Garland was a legit franchise player before Mitchell showed up and has had to sacrifice a lot to accommodate him. Advija is good, but will he ever be more than just a role player? Also both guys are around the same age. I'd think Washington would be all over this.

I posted this on a Deni trade thread a little while back:

Since February 8th, Deni has averaged 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists on a .604 TS%. The team was just -1.2 per 100 possessions in those minutes, so Deni had the talentless Wizards playing like a 37-win team while he was on the floor.

Compare that production to three other All-Stars this season:
Player A: 19.9 points, 8.2 rebounds, 6.1 assists, .566 TS%, will get paid a max contract in 2025 for $42M a year.
Player B: 22.2 points, 6.9 rebounds, 5.4 assists, .545 TS%, will get paid a max contract in 2026 for $45M a year
Player C: 23.0 points, 5.5 rebounds, 3.6 assists, .580 TS%, will be paid $57M a year over the next 5 years
D.Avdija: 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists, .604 TS%, will be paid $13M a year over the next 4 years.

Spoiler:

Player A is Scottie Barnes
Player B is Paulo Banchero
Player C is Jaylen Brown

And these are actual in-game averages, not per-36 numbers. I think it's fair to still be a little dubious since it has only been a half-season, but look at it from the Wizards perspective; they have a 23-year old who has posted All-Star caliber numbers for half a season while playing exceptional defense. They're not just going to ignore that and assume Deni will pan out as a mere role player - not unless he has a major regression next year. And finally, one has to factor that he is locked into the best non-rookie, non-max contract in the league.

For the season he only avenged 15ppg. Deni isn’t a great FT shooter and he is an average to below average 3 point shooter. He isn’t explosive and his 6-9 wingspan doesn’t scream defensive ace at the 3/4. I am sure he has upside, but I would need to see more proof before I would consider moving him for Garland, a player who played like an actual all-star at age 22 and 23.

Deni is extremely good in getting to the rim, and very good in finishing there including through contact. It's the way he's scoring. Shooting is very secondary, and needed mostly as support for his driving and scoring inside.

The general point is: you can think that 2nd half of season numbers are just random peak, and don't mean much but Wizards see then as evidence of actual growth envisioning his peak as efficient 20+ / 8+/ 5+ player which serves as 3rd and maybe even 2nd offensive option, and can guard 1-4 pretty well.

You can not believe in this opinion but Wizards aren't going to trade him for 15 ppg role player value this offseason.

p.s
This story about 6'9" wingspan is funny. It's data from u18 tournament and he was 6'7.5" then. He is now 6'8.75" or a bit more. Do you think he grew but wingspan stayed same?

[toooskies]

I don't particularly think it's rational to expect a guy who's averaged 12ppg to suddenly maintain a 19ppg scoring average just because he got some opportunities in the 2nd half of the year on a bad team.

Once you get good enough to get noticed, teams scout you, and then they take away what you like to do. They put good defenders on you.

It might be rational to keep the guy and lean into the gamble-- particularly because a failed gamble helps your draft prospects. But plenty of guys have gotten hot for a few months on bad teams and regressed the next year.

[nate33]

I don't particularly think it's rational to expect a guy who's averaged 12ppg to suddenly maintain a 19ppg scoring average just because he got some opportunities in the 2nd half of the year on a bad team.

Once you get good enough to get noticed, teams scout you, and then they take away what you like to do. They put good defenders on you.

It might be rational to keep the guy and lean into the gamble-- particularly because a failed gamble helps your draft prospects. But plenty of guys have gotten hot for a few months on bad teams and regressed the next year.

You do understand that 22-year-olds can improve, don’t you?

It’s not like this is some random 28-year-old on a hot streak. As I said before, it’s not even a hot streak per se. His 3pt% actually has been worse during this half-season stretch of improved scoring.

Sorry dude, when 22 year olds show massive improvement, their team doesn’t just assume it’s a fluke hot streak and ignore it.

[toooskies]

I don't particularly think it's rational to expect a guy who's averaged 12ppg to suddenly maintain a 19ppg scoring average just because he got some opportunities in the 2nd half of the year on a bad team.

Once you get good enough to get noticed, teams scout you, and then they take away what you like to do. They put good defenders on you.

It might be rational to keep the guy and lean into the gamble-- particularly because a failed gamble helps your draft prospects. But plenty of guys have gotten hot for a few months on bad teams and regressed the next year.

You do understand that 22-year-olds can improve, don’t you?

It’s not like this is some random 28-year-old on a hot streak. As I said before, it’s not even a hot streak per se. His 3pt% actually has been worse during this half-season stretch of improved scoring.

Sorry dude, when 22 year olds show massive improvement, their team doesn’t just assume it’s a fluke hot streak and ignore it.

I didn't say to ignore it. But it's still short enough to be a fluke and not his new normal. Or a guarantee that he can produce on a good team in the playoffs.