doclinkin wrote:Now 6 months later, it looks like it may be a push, with the benefit of hindsight. The fact that it included zero blue chip zone picks struck me was a "light" offer, the fact that there were two random firsts, one of which was definitely not top 10, was not a selling point to me.
At this point, Bub is making me think randomness/scouting may have it be a push, but I think in terms of process, it was subpar.
Back when I was arguing he might be traded last winter, and spring, my reasoning was that the build would basically waste the value of his epic cheap contract, and he'd be due for a new one by the time we were contending, so he should be a spun out for a blue chip pick in '25 or '26, but not in the crap '24 class (which we didn't even get a top 10 pick from), which is why I was disappointed, considering the value of his contract, the term, and his youth and versatility, I expected top 10 value, and it didnt come. I still view it at an underweight offer, but looks like we might win it anyway and I think it speaks well to management that they also understood the time lines involved, the value, and pulled the trigger to add young prospects/assets and to help the tank in the process, from that perspective, it was totally sound in my view, just the goodies back that I was disappointed in.
Paradoxically in the new CBA cheap contracts have dubious value though. Overcapped teams in the 2nd apron can’t consolidate contracts in a 2-for-1 trade and the 90% rule says you have to pay someone or lose out on the tax rebate to the tune of millions in free cash. It is helpful to have a few big money guys up top who are paid what they are worth.
Not to say you want to spend stupid money. It’s a good problem to have. Just saying due to Deni’s cheap contract it may make it impossible to really get his true value in returning players. He’s worth more than he’s paid.
Funny when fans sound sorta sour that the front office outsmarted them. It wasn’t random chance. It proved not to be underweight. If a better deal was out there we would have taken it. Pundits were surprised we got as much as we did. If it’s already a push and we haven’t yet cashed in 4/5ths of the deal then these guys did a damn good job.
Especially if they scout the next picks as well as Bub. Or I dunno consistently get ‘random’ly lucky. Whichever you want to believe.
I try to grade things through both process, and outcome, and not just outcome. Sometimes teams do stupid things, and the outcome is fabulous, but the process was ick. Josh Allen is a good example of that. He is a MEGA outlier. An enormous outlier of a football player who beat the odds actually becoming vastly more accurate as a pro compared to what he was in a crap conference playing against crap players as an elite prospect nearly a decade ago. The outcome for Josh Allen is an A+, but the process to risk that kind of draft capital on a profile in terms of accuracy that pays off like 1% of the time, and they nailed that 1%? That's not good process to me, regardless of the outcome, it was exceptionally risky, and they got a MASSIVE pay off. It's like taking Will Levis a few years ago. The pay off if Will Levis turned his athleticism and howitzer arm would be HUGE, but part of the reason he dropped is that people were less sanguine about the chances of him paying off, and they turned out to be right. Randomness more than anything is why Josh Allen is Josh Allen now, it's not Bills Genius. He was a lot like Levis as a prospect but even less accurate (and far more athletic). Good for them but don't tell me it was brilliant. 29 times out 30 a Josh Allen just ends up being Jake Locker. They got the 1 time it didn't.
With the Deni trade, for me, I thought half the process was right (the timing, cost and value did literally nothing to help the team long term: all those cheap cost controlled years would be wasted on a team that maxed out as a 15-30 win side), so I liked that angle, and I liked the "weaken the team's competitiveness going into the loaded '25 class and hopefully loaded '26 (I have no idea), I liked that too.
What I didn't like was that the best we got beyond that was a random first years from now and a post top 10 first in a meh and worse draft in '24 (granted the quality of the draft was apparently more or less similar to average drafts once you cancelled out the lack of a blue chip zone of prospects), and a player in Brogdon who apparently might return a 2nd which is worthless to me (if you can buy it with cash, then why not just do that, at least in the past). I'll nod to you on the idea that the $$$'s are what they are and it hampered things more than helped.
So for me, I'm left thinking:
Process why's: I like the long term team building strategy behind it, and the maxing of an asset off a good season (basically the opposite of how they handled Kuzma), the bad process piece for me is the return feels to me light, for a guy with that kind of value. I will concede that maybe I'm just wrong about that. But I think its far more likely new management valued drafting "their guys" and getting goodies now, compared to treating Deni like a prime asset regardless of what FO got for it, and holding till they got the right offer (again, I concede, I could be totally wrong here).
Outcome: For now anyway, it looks awesome. They clearly scouted Bub well (and George too) and I'll be shocked if there was more than 1 or 2 players taken after Bub who end up more valuable long term, especially to a team like us. Bub looks legit, period to me. I don't know if he will be a starter on a great team, but at worst, he's probably the best draft pick we've made along with Deni, since Beal. Not saying a lot, but after the trash we acquired in the '18-'22 classes, landing Bub outside the typical blue chip zone and in landing him, acquiring someone you can start, not have to hide and may have a ceiling beyond league average starter is a HUGE win, especially in a disappointing class like this (kind of like Deni in the 2020 class loaded with land mines around our slot).
Anyway, I'm open and flexibile on this. As proof of it, I bashed the trade back in June, and I'm not 100% not bashing it anymore, though most of that is the outcome side rather than the process, but even there, I'm open to your arguments. Sometimes I'm 1000% of something (like trading Beal immediately after Wall went down as a locked in objective, dependent upon the FO scouting determinations on the relative quality of the '19, '20 and '21 draft classes), other times I'm more wishy washy. This one I'm quite a bit wishy washy on.
