Official Trade Thread Part XLVI

[payitforward]

...I'll add that I don't really value Brogdon much either, not on an expiring contract paying him $22.5M. If you want to be precise, leave Russell in there so at least you can match him up with Brogdon in terms of value.

So it's:

Deni, Russell, #51
or
Kuzma, Brodgon, Kyshawn, 2029 FRP, 2028 SRP, 2030 SRP

And that's assuming a worst-case scenario that we had to trade the #26 to move up from #17 to #15.

It's possible we're taking this too far into the minutiae, nate... what do you think?

Yet... I was about to continue doing the same.

In the end, it's the Deni trade at the center of this not some speculative deal involving Kuzma.

If Deni continues to improve for the next couple of years (or longer! why not?), while Bub proves to be good but not that good, it may well seem that we should have gotten more for Deni. OTOH, if Bub proves to be as good or better than Deni over time, then that will not seem an issue.

For that matter, of course, more than Bub came our way in the deal. If some of those picks pan out exceptionally well, that too will affect our view of the trade. Ditto what comes to us for Brogdon.

Meanwhile, would I have been happy to trade Kuz to LA for their #17 this year plus Russell? Sure! Even assuming Russell was simply waived.

[doclinkin]

I think Bub will produce more and better in his first contract than Deni did. By year 4 he may not have reached the same level, on defense in particular, but still, I think Wiz fans will assess that they got good value by this swap alone. Some of us were frustrated that Deni tended to shy from the spotlight his first few years. Scared to shoot. If history is a guide, Bub is a fast starter. He came into the NCAA and hit a triple double. Likewise in his first Summer League game he damn near did the same thing.

More though I think fans will embrace him for who he is as a leader. Team oriented guy, he had his Pitt teammates come to the Draft to support him. And for his intro with the Wizards he had a mess of BMore friends and teammates come down as well. He was vocal on court during the Summer league games, calling out assignments on offense. In interviews he says he hopes to use his platform to be a positive role model for DMV youth. Cites Carmelo Anthony's involvement in their hometown AAU team for giving him an example of how to use the advantages of celebrity to help out with school drives etc.

I'm not crying that we did not swap Kuz for D'Lo in some retroactive fantasy trade. I don't think that offer was on the table at draft time. From everything I can glean that sounds like a recent conversation after various other players have dropped to their respective teams. Lakers were hunting bigger names like PG13; LeBJ was holding off on his massive extension to give them room to make that happen. It didn't, so now they are sniffing for bargains.

But I am looking forward to the season so that the play of rookies like Bub has a chance to help the fanbase heal from their bruised feelings over the Deni loss. I get it, it would have been nice to have both Bub and Deni. But wishing doesn't make it so. If you like Bub you have to accept the loss of Deni. We traded one, which gave us the opportunity for the other. Grieve for the loss and move on. If Bub plays well it should help heal the hurt, no point holding on to the pain based on an alternate reality where we were able to get both. Let the power of Bub heal the feels my brethren.

[payitforward]

Wise words, doc....

[DCZards]

Wise words, doc....

Ditto

[barelyawake]

I think Bub will produce more and better in his first contract than Deni did. By year 4 he may not have reached the same level, on defense in particular, but still, I think Wiz fans will assess that they got good value by this swap alone. Some of us were frustrated that Deni tended to shy from the spotlight his first few years. Scared to shoot. If history is a guide, Bub is a fast starter. He came into the NCAA and hit a triple double. Likewise in his first Summer League game he damn near did the same thing.

More though I think fans will embrace him for who he is as a leader. Team oriented guy, he had his Pitt teammates come to the Draft to support him. And for his intro with the Wizards he had a mess of BMore friends and teammates come down as well. He was vocal on court during the Summer league games, calling out assignments on offense. In interviews he says he hopes to use his platform to be a positive role model for DMV youth. Cites Carmelo Anthony's involvement in their hometown AAU team for giving him an example of how to use the advantages of celebrity to help out with school drives etc.

I'm not crying that we did not swap Kuz for D'Lo in some retroactive fantasy trade. I don't think that offer was on the table at draft time. From everything I can glean that sounds like a recent conversation after various other players have dropped to their respective teams. Lakers were hunting bigger names like PG13; LeBJ was holding off on his massive extension to give them room to make that happen. It didn't, so now they are sniffing for bargains.

But I am looking forward to the season so that the play of rookies like Bub has a chance to help the fanbase heal from their bruised feelings over the Deni loss. I get it, it would have been nice to have both Bub and Deni. But wishing doesn't make it so. If you like Bub you have to accept the loss of Deni. We traded one, which gave us the opportunity for the other. Grieve for the loss and move on. If Bub plays well it should help heal the hurt, no point holding on to the pain based on an alternate reality where we were able to get both. Let the power of Bub heal the feels my brethren.

Yes, we either could have had Deni or Bub. Or we could have traded down and gotten both of them and Clingan. I understand we are dealing in fantasy land, but it’s highly possible since we got one pick from Portland already. Hard to imagine they wouldn’t take the second pick instead of Deni. I understand it would be hard to, under the public eye, trade away Sarr. But, that’s only if you highly value Sarr, not Bub.

Of course, I agree with you. Just merely keep hearing a lot of this front office did what they could. When doing way beyond average is what is needed to derail the Titanic of all sporting records for the last fifty years. We need way above what us as mere posters could envision. Maybe Sarr pans out, and makes my way worse. I’m not seeing that yet. Could happen.

[dckingsfan]

Headline: Wizards not interested in D'Angelo Russell

I say, why not - he is an expiring and would help the tank drive. Maybe not enough additional assets to go along with the trade?

[dckingsfan]

It seems that there are three camps (or maybe 3) based upon the entirety of the body of work thus far.

Camp 1: This is an amazing FO
Camp 2: This is a good FO
Camp 3: This is a horrible FO (Tommy/Grunfeld)

Just to clarify, I am in Camp 2.

[gambitx777]

Headline: Wizards not interested in D'Angelo Russell

I say, why not - he is an expiring and would help the tank drive. Maybe not enough additional assets to go along with the trade?

They probably were not willing to put in two firsts.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

...Yes, we either could have had Deni or Bub. Or we could have traded down and gotten both of them and Clingan. I understand we are dealing in fantasy land, but it’s highly possible since we got one pick from Portland already. Hard to imagine they wouldn’t take the second pick instead of Deni. I understand it would be hard to, under the public eye, trade away Sarr. But, that’s only if you highly value Sarr, not Bub....

I find it hard to believe that you'd write something of this kind, to tell the truth. It's 100% fantasy land; that's for sure.

It would certainly NOT be hard for our side to "trade away Sarr" (i.e. the #2 pick -- or are you determining who they'd pick?) for 7 & 14. I'd grab that deal in a minute.

Only, no one would ever give you 7 & 14 for 2. That's a substantial over-pay.

Point to something even vaguely resembling that trade in the last, say, 15 years of draft history, why don't you?
Except... you won't be able to!

So yeah, it's "fantasy land." Just in a different way than you mean.

...Just merely keep hearing a lot of this front office did what they could. When doing way beyond average is what is needed to derail the Titanic of all sporting records for the last fifty years. We need way above what us as mere posters could envision....

Oh sure...

we should have traded Beal for Anthony Edwards.
we should have picked whoever is going to turn out to be the best player in the 2024 draft at number 2. No, wait. We should have picked him at #26 -- maybe even 51. Yeah, that's it. That's what a really good FO would have done. Right?

"Mere posters" such as we could have gotten a huge flying start simply by doing the impossible. How much more would have been within the reach of Will Dawkins... right?

[penbeast0]

It seems that there are three camps (or maybe 3) based upon the entirety of the body of work thus far.

Camp 1: This is an amazing FO
Camp 2: This is a good FO
Camp 3: This is a horrible FO (Tommy/Grunfeld)

Just to clarify, I am in Camp 2.

How about, "I am hopeful, but the jury is still out until we see how the draft picks work out."

[barelyawake]

I always value your responses, pay it. It’s always great speaking with you.

[dckingsfan]

It seems that there are three camps (or maybe 3) based upon the entirety of the body of work thus far.

Camp 1: This is an amazing FO
Camp 2: This is a good FO (JO)
Camp 3: This is a horrible FO (Tommy/Grunfeld)

Just to clarify, I am in Camp 2.

How about, "I am hopeful, but the jury is still out until we see how the draft picks work out (JO)."

Fair enough. Bub, Sarr, Bilal and George could turn out really well. And additional picks are coming.

I am just not in the Camp 1 any longer. I also don't think they are anywhere near the stink that was Tommy & Grunfeld.

[payitforward]

Every single trade, with no exceptions, can be described as follows: GM Joe gives GM Harry as little as he has to for as much as he can get, while GM Harry gets as much as he can from GM Joe for as little as he has give.

That's all of them. Not some of them. Not a majority of them. Every. Single. One.

How does GM Joe know the minimum he can get away with giving?
Because he also talks with GM Bill, GM John, GM Dan, & all the rest of them.

How does GM Harry know what the most is he can get?
Because he also talks with GM Bil, GM John, GM Dan, & all the rest of them.

Now, of course, a trade can turn out to be better for GM Joe than it is for GM Harry -- if one or more of the players involved in the trade plays significantly better (or worse) than expected.

None of this is about being "ruthless."
None of this is about being ""a soft touch."

Will Dawkins let his GM brethren know that "for the right deal, Deni Avdija can be had."
He let GMs Joe, Harry, Bill, John, Da, & all the rest of them.

Some number of them responded with offers -- no doubt several of them, maybe the majority of them, since Deni is a young player who is both good & improving. Depending on what he had to give, pretty much any GM would be interested.

Moreover, this entire model of interaction, including the particular trade we are discussing, takes place in a context where GMs Joe, Harry, John, Dan, & all the rest of them talk all the time -- probably multiple times a week. Week in & week out. During the season & in the off season. They know each other well.

Which means that Will Dawkins, who's been in the business for a long time, found out exactly what he could & could not get for Deni. I.e. he didn't field one offer & then say, "yeah, that sounds good: I'll do it."

Is that much clear? To everyone here?

Sometimes, of course, a trade can be initiated in the other direction:

Joe: "hey Harry, I know you're not really interested in trading Smoky Robinson, but I tell you what I really like him, I might be willing to give you more than you think you can get for Smoky. What do you think, would you be interested in Ray Charles?"

Harry: "Well, Joe, of course I'd be interested in Ray Charles -- who wouldn't be? Are you offering Ray straight up for Smoky?"

Joe: "Oh come on, Harry! You know that's not what I meant. But you've also got that young talent, Gladys Knight. How about we add Gladys to the deal?

Harry: "You know I can't do that, Joe! But, if you add that R1 pick you got from Jim last month, wel, then... I might be interested. Of course, I'l have to run it past my crew, especially the analytics guys, to see if they think it makes sense.

etc. etc. etc. until the deal is worked out, or Joe & Harry just can't find common ground, of Bill calls with a different idea. Or Joe & Harry think that maybe if they call Dan, there's a 3-way that would be better....

Here's what doesn't happen. & I mean never.
It never happens that Joe calls Harry & says "I'll give you Ray for Smoky -- take it or leave it."

It doesn't happen, that is, unless Joe has to get rid of Ray, & he knows for sure that Harry will do the deal.

The above -- every last bit of it -- should be entirely clear & entirely obvious to anyone who's ever run a business.

[dckingsfan]

Every trade or business transaction also falls under the heading of return on investment.

ROI can be broken down into three categories, Quantitative, Qualitative and Enabling.

The hypotheticals above notwithstanding. This FO has done a good job but not a great on any of the above, IMO.

And yes, in business as in transactions, there are cases where you have a goal that can be accomplished by a transaction and only that transaction and you say, "take it or leave it".

And having run many businesses, I can tell you that tactic has served me well when it was the only course of action. And this goes especially for other partner business owners that I know - you can explain to them why it is a take it or leave it proposition for you.

[doclinkin]

Yes, we either could have had Deni or Bub. Or we could have traded down and gotten both of them and Clingan. I understand we are dealing in fantasy land, but it’s highly possible since we got one pick from Portland already. Hard to imagine they wouldn’t take the second pick instead of Deni. I understand it would be hard to, under the public eye, trade away Sarr. But, that’s only if you highly value Sarr, not Bub.

Of course, I agree with you. Just merely keep hearing a lot of this front office did what they could. When doing way beyond average is what is needed to derail the Titanic of all sporting records for the last fifty years. We need way above what us as mere posters could envision. Maybe Sarr pans out, and makes my way worse. I’m not seeing that yet. Could happen.

I was team Trade Down all off season. I wanted Castle and Edey. But Portland had been linked to Clingan for months, they were dialed in on that pick. With all the uncertainty of this draft I didn't see a single team eager to trade up for Sarr. Everyone had question marks at the top. Not worth trading 2 first round picks for one big question mark.

I'm of a mind to give credit to the front office for doing better than average. And when we look back in a few years I think we will give a nod of respect. Given what we started with. If you look at the number of extra picks we have harvested in the next half dozen years, we have a ton of assets to make moves. Which seems to me the only way to dig out of the hole we are in given that we had nothing to trade.

Okay nothing but Deni. We have followed all the rumors but I haven't heard a credible one that would have gotten us better return than 5 assets for 1 player like we got in the Deni trade. We have a ton of wouldacoulda trades that frankly seem unlikely. We all know the basket of chewed dog toys we have on our roster. Nobody wants castoffs from a 15 win team.

The only thing that works to our benefit in trades is that the play of guys like Gafford and Porzingis (and Caldwell-Pope etc) suggests to other front offices that the problem lies in the organization, not the talent. OR it suggests that you can't win with the guys we do have. Chiefly: Kuzma. Yes the front office pumps him up in the market saying he is worth 2 FRP, and that is why we haven't traded him, but really nobody is offering it. We are just pretending he's worth it to preserve his value. For all that he has a decent contract he also has a 15% trade kicker which he would probably be willing to waive if a contender wants him, but most contenders know better. Kuzma is junk food. Nice highlight reels, but so upsy-downsy that he contributes only to losing if you rely on him as a main producer. Works for us right now. Especially if Kuzma + Poole = Cooper Flagg in the lotto.

Beal. We traded a sometimey beta star with an impossible contract. I really don't care what else we got back from that. Except that the gamble on the underperforming Poole has put us firmly in the running for top picks over the next few years if we rely on him as a high usage player.

In addition we got:

Spoiler:

Bilal Coulibaly (Traded Suns 2nd rounder to move up to the No. 7 pick, via trade with the Pacers)
Kyshawn George (traded W's 2024 second-round pick to move up)
2025 second-round pick
2026 first-round pick swap
2026 second-round pick
2027 second-round pick
2028 first-round pick swap
2028 second-round pick
2030 first-round pick swap
2030 second-round pick

Plus from the CP3 trade:
2027 Warriors second-round pick
2030 Warriors first-round pick (if they have a top 10 record)

Six 2nd round picks. A possible late 1st rounder if the W's stay a top 10 team.
And 3 possible pick swaps with PHX. This last piece is significantly undervalued by most pundits who measure these things. Basketball blowhards tend to dismiss the swaps as 'unlikely to convey'. But it misses the entire point contained in the word 'unlikely'.

Spoiler:

It is 'unlikely' that anyone wins the lottery. But one team does every year. The worst 3 teams in the league each get a 14% chance of winning the top spot. Not great odds, but teams like the Spurs will sell off assets like DJ Murray and bottom out for a few years in a row to set themselves up for the best odds when a generational player like Wemby is coming up through the draft.

Consider then what happens if we only have the 3rd worst record in 2026. And everybody is looking to land Karim Lopez, Cam Boozer, Aalijah Arenas, whomever. We still get that 14% chance. And a 62% chance of a top 4 pick. However. All the Suns have to do is miss the playoffs and suddenly we get all of their lotto combinations as well.

And when the Suns fall, they are set up to fall hard. Pheonix has sold off all their draft picks, traded away all of their picks, and those they retained are mortgages with pick swaps to the 3rd power. They are capped out into the 2nd apron, are locked into the Beal contract with no flexibility and rely on 3 oft injured stars to carry them. KD has a rebuilt achilles. Booker relies on top athleticism and has never played a full year. Beal is, as noted above, sometimey even when healthy.

So boom. The Suns in the rising West with aging stars. If any one of their top 3 is unavailable for a time, you think they are even a play-in team? Maybe. Let's say they are. Let's say they are 10th. And lose their play-in game. Lotto. Their picks are ours and we have a 17% chance at the top spot, and a 76% chance of a top 4 pick. What are the chances that the Suns stay healthy and winning in all of '26, '28, '30.

The Wiz are playing the odds and shaving 'unlikely' in their favor. Not just for immediate gain, but as an overall philosophy. They are adding extra swings at the piñata every year. Even if they win, they profit from other's misfortunes.

And as a draft strategy they are intentionally selecting players who will require seasoning and development before they produce on court. Yes I'd agree Clingan would immediately upgrade our interior defense. Would add to our wins this year. A proven player who should produce quickly. That is not the sort of player this team is adding. I might disagree with the mindset, but they are consistent at least. They are betting heavy on development, not box score production. Extra wins now only keep us mediocre. They are not risking anything chipping away at those lotto odds any time soon, but are playing the long game. Long in terms of time and position.

Spoiler:

Consider the similarities in their draft picks.

Bilal. Lengthy for his position. Whatever his position may eventually be. Raw. Athletic. Confident, unrattled hard working. The youngest player in his draft year. European fundamentals where he can take hard coaching. Young with international experience. Now Olympic silver medalist and probable to get more FIBA experience as Wemby takes over the team.

Vukcevic. 6'11.5" outside shooter with smart passing skills. Foot slow on defense and too slim to bang in the middle. But long for his position whether you see him as a 4 or a 5. Young with international pro experience. Potential FIBA experience with the Serbian NT if he develops.

Bub. Drafted at 18 years old, turned 19 in Summer League. In the middle of an 8 inch growth spurt over the past 2 years. Long for his position, still figuring out how to use it. Top 5 youngest player in his draft year. Is he still growing? 6'5" in shoes, as a ballhandling lead guard. Does he top out as a 6'6" PG when he is done? And whatever the shortfalls in his game, his charisma is incandescent. You can see why the team would be willing to risk snatching a potential young leader.

Sarr. Likewise, long and rangy, raw, unformed but standout footspeed and quickness for his position. One of those soccer playing types who has excellent footwork and positioning on defense, even if he has no idea what to do with the ball when he has it. Euro player. Another french speaker. Can he develop confidence at the 4 spot with heavyweight Valanciunas behind him? His defensive instincts on the perimeter allow him to stifle outside shots the way a solid interior shotblocker does in the middle. His hands may be made of iron, but his feet will keep him in the game as he learns.

KGeorge. Another upside swing on a 6'8" player with sweet outside shooting and guard skills. Another late bloomer who just added 6" to his height over the past few years. By the measurements he grew 1" in the NCAA. Currently skinnyfat but long, needs big league trainers to add strength and lateral quicks. Still, that 40% outside shooting stroke is NBA caliber. Swiss national with a francophone Canadian dad, so another french speaker. Could that contribute to chemistry?

I may disagree with their angle, since I tend to prefer players who have already showed aptitude for competition, over the someday-maybe players. But at least they have a philosophy that guides them. They are not taking the Johnny Davis types who are both undersized and underathletic who will have to overachieve to make a career.

But it's other things. We were losing Porzingis for nothing. Nearly lost him at the last second when the Clips backed out of a Brogdon trade. Even getting nothing from Tyus Jones, we turned Porzingis into Bagley + Valanciunas + three 2nd round picks. (Traded Muscala and Gallo for Bagley and picks. Used one of those picks for the Valanciunas sign and trade this offseason). And we may get more mid-season when teams need to get Big and inquire about Valanciunas. Or if we swap out Bagley's expiring contract to a capped out team.

I'm not saying the FO is the best in the league. I'm saying we really don't know yet how good they are. Because the results so far were a 15 win season and mess of raw upside guys. We added 1.5 rookies last year. Are adding 3.5 this year. (I'm counting Vulcevic as .5 since he arrived late). Remains to be seen if they can develop those guys. Hard to say they are not taking big swings though. They traded their best young player for a Veteran mentor/expiring contract and 4 MORE picks. One of which looks good already in Bub.

One thing we do know though is, no matter how good we get we will constantly have opportunities to get better in the draft. And they are bold enough to use the assets they have. Spend 2nd round picks freely to move up for the guys they like. Trade away favorite players to make bigger plays in the future. SO. I can quibble with their talent evaluation. But I like the mindset and overall strategy. Suck early, get great picks, bank on the future, and set yourself up to add talent every year, year after year. So you can constantly rely on an infusion of good talent. And have more whacks at the piñata than anyone else.

[payitforward]

Every trade or business transaction also falls under the heading of return on investment.

ROI can be broken down into three categories, Quantitative, Qualitative and Enabling.

The hypotheticals above notwithstanding. This FO has done a good job but not a great on any of the above, IMO.

And yes, in business as in transactions, there are cases where you have a goal that can be accomplished by a transaction and only that transaction and you say, "take it or leave it".

And having run many businesses, I can tell you that tactic has served me well when it was the only course of action. And this goes especially for other partner business owners that I know - you can explain to them why it is a take it or leave it proposition for you.

Yes, of course every transaction has a "take it or leave it" aspect, though it's best when it doesn't need to be voiced in the transaction. Or, a better way to say it is that the best business transactions are those where what A gives B is worth more to B than it is to A & vice versa.

OTOH, the ROI metaphor isn't ideal for trades -- suppose Jack drafts a guy in the lottery, & Harry drafts a guy in R2 the same year, but then some years later, the two guys are traded straight up for each other, because, in fact, they have turned out to be equally good players.

Jack got a better ROI than Bill from that draft a few years back, but he didn't do better than Bill in the trade!

What you're saying about Will is either that you think he should have bought a different stock (which you think will yield a higher ROI in the future), or that you think he paid too much for an investment he made.

But, neither of those applies.* Not, at least, until you provide your alternative to the Poole trade -- & a pointer to your having so opined right when it took place.

As to the rest, we have no idea what the ROI will be on drafting Bilal. Or Vukcevic. Or Sarr. Or Bub. Or George. You may not like one or another of those draft picks, but that is an entirely different matter. If you knew those guys' futures well enough to use the ROI metaphor in advance of their performance, well... you get my point. & qualifying it with IMO doesn't make it reasonable.

E.g. if it's the Poole trade you disliked, simply point to the post at the time in which you suggested a better thing to have done with CP3 (one which you have good reason to think was practical). Otherwise what does the critique mean?

Honestly, I think you just didn't like the Deni trade. Which returns us to the point of my previous post. We got the most for Deni that anyone was willing to give. Two R1 picks, two R2 picks, & Malcolm Brogdon. Thinking "we shoulda got more" isn't an analysis. Applying the economic metaphor "ROI "doesn't change that!

Otherwise, all it can be is your opinion of Sarr I guess? To which I assume you aren't giving much weight!


* except that he traded #57 in '23 instead of taking TJ-D -- true enough! but as I pointed out, every GM in the league whiffed on that kid. To put it another way, we'd all buy a stock if we knew in advance it was going to go up! Duh.

[payitforward]

I always value your responses, pay it. It’s always great speaking with you.

Thanks, amigo... unless you're making fun of me. In which case, thanks all the same!

[dckingsfan]

Every trade or business transaction also falls under the heading of return on investment.

ROI can be broken down into three categories, Quantitative, Qualitative and Enabling.

The hypotheticals above notwithstanding. This FO has done a good job but not a great on any of the above, IMO.

And yes, in business as in transactions, there are cases where you have a goal that can be accomplished by a transaction and only that transaction and you say, "take it or leave it".

And having run many businesses, I can tell you that tactic has served me well when it was the only course of action. And this goes especially for other partner business owners that I know - you can explain to them why it is a take it or leave it proposition for you.

Yes, of course every transaction has a "take it or leave it" aspect, though it's best when it doesn't need to be voiced in the transaction. Or, a better way to say it is that the best business transactions are those where what A gives B is worth more to B than it is to A & vice versa.

OTOH, the ROI metaphor isn't ideal for trades -- suppose Jack drafts a guy in the lottery, & Harry drafts a guy in R2 the same year, but then some years later, the two guys are traded straight up for each other, because, in fact, they have turned out to be equally good players.

Jack got a better ROI than Bill from that draft a few years back, but he didn't do better than Bill in the trade!

What you're saying about Will is either that you think he should have bought a different stock (which you think will yield a higher ROI in the future), or that you think he paid too much for an investment he made.

But, neither of those applies.* Not, at least, until you provide your alternative to the Poole trade -- & a pointer to your having so opined right when it took place.

As to the rest, we have no idea what the ROI will be on drafting Bilal. Or Vukcevic. Or Sarr. Or Bub. Or George. You may not like one or another of those draft picks, but that is an entirely different matter. If you knew those guys' futures well enough to use the ROI metaphor in advance of their performance, well... you get my point. & qualifying it with IMO doesn't make it reasonable.

E.g. if it's the Poole trade you disliked, simply point to the post at the time in which you suggested a better thing to have done with CP3 (one which you have good reason to think was practical). Otherwise what does the critique mean?

Honestly, I think you just didn't like the Deni trade. Which returns us to the point of my previous post. We got the most for Deni that anyone was willing to give. Two R1 picks, two R2 picks, & Malcolm Brogdon. Thinking "we shoulda got more" isn't an analysis. Applying the economic metaphor "ROI "doesn't change that!

Otherwise, all it can be is your opinion of Sarr I guess? To which I assume you aren't giving much weight!

* except that he traded #57 in '23 instead of taking TJ-D -- true enough! but as I pointed out, every GM in the league whiffed on that kid. To put it another way, we'd all buy a stock if we knew in advance it was going to go up! Duh.

You always resort to the micro. I have stated many times that this is a good but not great FO with the entirety of the body of work - against other teams FOs.

And of course there is an ROI to every business transaction.

I get it - you think they are a great FO, to which you provide cover for each of these moves with the hypothetical. What could we have done better - prove that there wasn't a better deal out there. - prove that you didn't like the trade at the time - show me all of your comments in detail so I can obfuscate some more.

I can say the same to you - you haven't proven there weren't better deals out there either. Full stop. You may think you have but not so much.

Not buying in... I think this is a good FO, not a great one (I really liked the Beal trade and the commitment to the rebuild). But we shall see, I started out with higher than high hopes... maybe they will pull off some great deals moving forward. Maybe they will be able to get 5 or 6 FRPs from Jonas, Brogdon, Holmes and Kuzma - we shall see.

As a note, you missed the three aspects of ROI. For example, on the qualitative side, an example would be how your customers perceive the transactions and what you are putting on the floor. We will see how the box office looks over the next decade to see how it translates. I guess that will depend on the long timeline to getting a winning product on the floor.

[DCZards]

It seems that there are three camps (or maybe 3) based upon the entirety of the body of work thus far.

Camp 1: This is an amazing FO
Camp 2: This is a good FO
Camp 3: This is a horrible FO (Tommy/Grunfeld)

Just to clarify, I am in Camp 2.

I’m in a somewhat different camp. I’m in the “This is the right FO for a rebuilding team camp.” I like that this FO has been bold and aggressive when it comes to draft picks and trades.

[payitforward]

You always resort to the micro....

"analysis" means taking things apart. Looking at the details of how they are made.

I have stated many times that this is a good but not great FO with the entirety of the body of work - against other teams FOs.

&... you may be right.
But what you haven't done is establish criteria against which the issue can be measured. But, I ask you, don't turn that last sentence into an argument between us, ok?

What I mean is that you haven't suggested what they might have done instead of what they did. I.e. what they might have done that would have been better. I.e....

1. You like the Beal trade, so we'll move that out of the picture.
2. We agree that it would have been great to use the #57 in '23 on TJ-D (rather than trading it for PBJ & Rollins). But, literally every team whiffed on TJ-D, so I give them a pass on that -- ie. in comparing them to other FOs. Make sense?
3. You haven't suggested what we should have done with CP3 rather than trade him for Poole.
a. Should we simply have kept him?
b. Should we have turned him around immediately -- but not for Poole, for someone else instead? Who?
c. Should we have traded him at the deadline? For whatever resources we could get? If so, what would have been a possible transaction, keeping in mind CP3's enormous salary (matching that in a transaction is what led to acquiring Poole!).
4. Assuming you think we should have -- & could have! -- gotten more for Deni, you haven't backed up the claim. Maybe you can, but I think you need to actually do so. Wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, what's the basis of your critique?
5. Unless I'm missing something (could be!) the rest is just draft picks, & it's too early to judge those young guys.

I get it - you think they are a great FO....

Maybe this is the heart of what we're wrestling with!
No, honestly, I don't "think they are a great FO." I think it's impossible to know whether they are good, great, or whatever.

What I DO think is that they were handed a mess. & I think "total rebuild" was the correct strategic decision. In fairness, I suppose that just means that it's what I would have done!

Like you, I DO think they did what they could w/ respect to Beal. He had all the cards. We agree on that.

Nor am I blind -- I can see that Poole has been awful!
But, that leaves unanswered the question of what could/should have been done with Chris Paul.

I like Gafford, but I don't think we did badly in the trade with Dallas.

& I do think the return on Deni was fair. It's hard for me to imagine we could have gotten more for him, & I don't buy nate's comparison of the trade w/ the Mikal Bridges transaction. Nor should we dive down that rabbit hole in more posts!

Still, as I've also written, the future might still prove the Deni trade a colossal mistake. But, obviously, that's speculation at present. After all, it might also prove the Deni trade to have been miraculously great! We just don't know.

As to the rest, the truth is I can make no judgment, & that's the key fact in my POV -- until we know how good Bilal, Vukcevic, Sarr, Bub, & George are there's just no way to assess the FO as "good," "great," "meh," "disastrous." The only thing I can say is that I like the way they're proceeding.

you provide cover for each of these moves with the hypothetical. What could we have done better - prove that there wasn't a better deal out there. - prove that you didn't like the trade at the time - show me all of your comments in detail so I can obfuscate some more.

I'll give you a break on "obfuscate" this time, ok?
But, you'll note that I haven't tarred you with any negative or judgmental words. Let's just not do that.

I can say the same to you - you haven't proven there weren't better deals out there either. Full stop. You may think you have but not so much...

You are correct. I haven't. Nor do I think I have. That's why I can't judge the FO. I can only say that I like their approach.

...I started out with higher than high hopes...

That's good, of course. & over time we'll see if you were right. It's just way too early to know!

...Maybe they will be able to get 5 or 6 FRPs from Jonas, Brogdon, Holmes and Kuzma....

Holy moly! If that's what they have to do to get top marks from you, they're in trouble! It's plain as day that none of the first 3 would bring a R1 pick in a trade. & Kuzma will bring whatever he brings: it's not like they're responsible for Kuzma! He was/is part of the problem they inherited -- not the solution....

Peace!