Woj: Deni to Portland for 14th pick and Brogdon

[doclinkin]

Still, I liked seeing Deni play and would have been nice to receive a bit more but time will tell and maybe Carrington will be better than we all anticipate.

If he’s any better than I anticipate he’ll be a damn good player. Because what I’m seeing right now projects to be Tyus Jones with better defense and better rebounding.

Top-notch mid range game, reliable outside shooting, floor general, high assist to turnover ratio, chemistry leader. Smart and learning quickly. Plus 4 inches of height over Jones.

[gambitx777]

I can't express how much I want this thread locked lol. But officially after we didn't trade Brogdon the trade is what it is.

Sent from my SM-S926U1 using RealGM mobile app

[AFM]

To the contrary, this thread should be pinned!!!

[badinage]

One of the things that’s interesting about this trade — this, at the very least, curious trade and, for some of us, boneheaded trade — is that to the best of my knowledge the FO never came out and explained it. Did Winger or Dawkins explain it, and I missed it? Doc has, but Doc didn’t make the trade.

This notion that Avdija didn’t fit the new timeline — I mean, maybe? Seems like grasping. Seems like a bunch of cope. We can say that, and we can say — the team wanted another bite of the lottery apple; but we don’t know. I find it odd that — unless, again, I missed it — no media member has really asked the FO to explain the move.

All of which is to say — if you want to know why the thread is this long, THIS is a big part of the reason.

Because to a lot of us it didn’t make sense.

And because no one in the FO stepped forward to say: let me explain our rationale; you don’t have to like what you hear, but we feel it’s important that you should hear it, and know how we look at things.

Also …

A lot of us like Bub Carrington. How can you not? He’s really likable. As a player and as a kid.

Both things can be true — namely:

The trade was mystifying and bad AND Bub is promising and likable.

Personally, I would have preferred that they shipped Kuz out at the trade deadline, pocketed a pick, and — if that pick wasn’t in the 2024 draft, and they couldn’t have added a third via a trade of someone else — contented themselves with two players, Sarr and George.

Sarr, Avdija, Coulibaly, and George is a nice group, and then you add Flagg and you have an intriguing and versatile and defensive-minded foundation.

[9 and 20]

To the contrary, this thread should be pinned!!!

I enjoy it too. I thought it was a garbage trade but man, to still be hung up on it is something.

But then I catch myself because I'm still made about trading Webber and Ben Wallace. First round pick for plantar fasciitis Price, and Sheed for Stricland. So, if Deni turns out to be anything close to an all star, I look forward to another 20 or 25 years of this thread.

[GoneShammGone]

One of the things that’s interesting about this trade — this, at the very least, curious trade and, for some of us, boneheaded trade — is that to the best of my knowledge the FO never came out and explained it. Did Winger or Dawkins explain it, and I missed it? Doc has, but Doc didn’t make the trade.
...

Agree with this part. But the fact that they haven't said anything says a lot, no? It's pretty clear to me that a major part of the trade was that they believed Deni would lead the team to too many wins. And you just can't say that, no matter that its true and obvious.

[nate33]

It's pretty clear to me that a major part of the trade was that they believed Deni would lead the team to too many wins. And you just can't say that, no matter that its true and obvious.

I don't buy this at all. We're talking about the same team who added Jonas Valanciunas and traded for veteran Malcolm Brogdon because they would help us be more competitive.

If we had kept Deni, we would be in no danger of winning enough games to knock us out of the bottom 3 (where the lottery odds for the top 4 picks are identical); and we definitely wouldn't have fallen past 4th-worst (where the pick odds are only marginally worse than the bottom 3). We are currently 5 wins out of 4th worst place and 9 wins out of 5th worst. I like Deni, but he isn't adding THAT many wins.

And if he played so well that we were in danger of winning that much, then he would have been even more valuable as a trade asset at the Trade Deadline in February.

The only logic for trading Deni was a belief that him being on the roster NEXT year, in addition to our 2025 high lotto pick, might be enough to risk the protection on the 2026 FRP we owe to NY. But in that scenario, we could have simply traded Deni THIS summer. We didn't need to trade him last summer.

[GoneShammGone]

It's pretty clear to me that a major part of the trade was that they believed Deni would lead the team to too many wins. And you just can't say that, no matter that its true and obvious.

I don't buy this at all. We're talking about the same team who added Jonas Valanciunas and traded for veteran Malcolm Brogdon because they would help us be more competitive.

If we had kept Deni, we would be in no danger of winning enough games to knock us out of the bottom 3 (where the lottery odds for the top 4 picks are identical); and we definitely wouldn't have fallen past 4th-worst (where the pick odds are only marginally worse than the bottom 3). We are currently 5 wins out of 4th worst place and 9 wins out of 5th worst. I like Deni, but he isn't adding THAT many wins.

And if he played so well that we were in danger of winning that much, then he would have been even more valuable as a trade asset at the Trade Deadline in February.

The only logic for trading Deni was a belief that him being on the roster NEXT year, in addition to our 2025 high lotto pick, might be enough to risk the protection on the 2026 FRP we owe to NY. But in that scenario, we could have simply traded Deni THIS summer. We didn't need to trade him last summer.

I mostly agree with the details of what you're saying here, but I'm thinking of a broader context. My response was to Badinage's point that no one in the front office has ever really publicly justified the trade. And that is because Winger and Dawkins want to lose games. Trading Deni was part of that. I don't think Deni was going to make us a winning team, but from the W and D perspective, even if he helped us win five more games this year, that is a negative. So we can criticize the deal from the perspective that we didn't get the max value back for Deni that we could have if we had, say, waiting a year before trading him, but for W and D, the return wasn't just two picks and Brogdan, but two picks, Brogdan, and a half dozen or so more losses this year. Will those half dozen really be worth anything in the end? I dunno. But I think you could make a model of how much each loss increases our odds of a top three pick, and then have a reasonable answer to the question. I'm pretty sure W and D did exactly that. Its also factors into the reason they didn't trade Kuz to the Mavs or in the off season. He made us worse, which from their perspective made him more valuable.

Anyway, thinking this way is what I would expect of an executive team that was serious about rebuilding. But what I was trying to point out is: you can't just come out and say it. It would make the NBA look bad. It would upset a lot of people. Hence, a very significant trade with no real public explanation behind it.

[AFM]

I don't really buy the "we'd be too good" reasoning either, we won 15 games with Deni last year. Not exactly a game changer. Seems far more likely management knows the NBA is a star driven league and we have a grand total of zero on our roster. So you trade for picks and hope on one you strike gold. What exactly do you want Dawkins to say--"We traded him because he's good but not good enough"?

[payitforward]

...Personally, I would have preferred that they shipped Kuz out at the trade deadline, pocketed a pick, and — if that pick wasn’t in the 2024 draft, and they couldn’t have added a third via a trade of someone else — contented themselves with two players, Sarr and George....

Sure -- in retrospect who wouldn't? &, obviously, that's independent of trading Deni.

But, again, we don't really know what got in the way of the proposed Kuz trade to Dallas. Him exercising his trade kicker seems the most likely to me.They sure as h#ll didn't put the whole thing together & then give him the choice yay or nay. That's just not a believable order of events.

Think about it: there is simply no way that they went through the whole exercise of crafting a deal with Dallas for any reason except that they wanted to trade Kuz! The whole "we gave Kuz the choice" bit just seems a way of framing the fact that it didn't go down.

As well, Kuz's declining salary would have given us reason to expect a trade ala the proposed Dallas move to be available again in '24. I.e. we certainly didn't expect him to tank his trade value.

As to the "in retrospect" angle... whatever. We're all right in retrospect!

[Kanyewest]

It's pretty clear to me that a major part of the trade was that they believed Deni would lead the team to too many wins. And you just can't say that, no matter that its true and obvious.

I don't buy this at all. We're talking about the same team who added Jonas Valanciunas and traded for veteran Malcolm Brogdon because they would help us be more competitive.

If we had kept Deni, we would be in no danger of winning enough games to knock us out of the bottom 3 (where the lottery odds for the top 4 picks are identical); and we definitely wouldn't have fallen past 4th-worst (where the pick odds are only marginally worse than the bottom 3). We are currently 5 wins out of 4th worst place and 9 wins out of 5th worst. I like Deni, but he isn't adding THAT many wins.

And if he played so well that we were in danger of winning that much, then he would have been even more valuable as a trade asset at the Trade Deadline in February.

The only logic for trading Deni was a belief that him being on the roster NEXT year, in addition to our 2025 high lotto pick, might be enough to risk the protection on the 2026 FRP we owe to NY. But in that scenario, we could have simply traded Deni THIS summer. We didn't need to trade him last summer.

Just to play devil's advocate, the added benefit of having the worst record is at worst having the 5th worst pick. It could be beneficial in a draft like this. Also the Blazers have 7 more wins already than they did last year. Of course Deni isn't the only reason but probably the biggest one. I also imagine that Deni's numbers would be even better here which could lead to more wins.

But yeah, I would have probably held out for more. Although maybe there was no offer coming like the one for Bridges given that Bridges not only had a nba finals experience and gained some noteriety but also had the Villanova connection.

[Dat2U]

It's pretty clear to me that a major part of the trade was that they believed Deni would lead the team to too many wins. And you just can't say that, no matter that its true and obvious.

I don't buy this at all. We're talking about the same team who added Jonas Valanciunas and traded for veteran Malcolm Brogdon because they would help us be more competitive.

If we had kept Deni, we would be in no danger of winning enough games to knock us out of the bottom 3 (where the lottery odds for the top 4 picks are identical); and we definitely wouldn't have fallen past 4th-worst (where the pick odds are only marginally worse than the bottom 3). We are currently 5 wins out of 4th worst place and 9 wins out of 5th worst. I like Deni, but he isn't adding THAT many wins.

And if he played so well that we were in danger of winning that much, then he would have been even more valuable as a trade asset at the Trade Deadline in February.

The only logic for trading Deni was a belief that him being on the roster NEXT year, in addition to our 2025 high lotto pick, might be enough to risk the protection on the 2026 FRP we owe to NY. But in that scenario, we could have simply traded Deni THIS summer. We didn't need to trade him last summer.

In retrospect, the front office realized the cupboard was bare with exception of Deni & Bilal. Deni's development is at the point where he's starting to impact winning. We didn't have a ton of future 1sts (though some options to swap Phx's future picks) and even owed a 1st along with having a bunch of future 2nds. Deni's youth meant he had trade value and was their best asset. They know they needed as many bites at the apple as possible yet had so little to build from.

So I believe they traded Deni to help restock their assets and they specifically targeted Bub as a future core piece while getting some future picks as well. It was a specific choice to trade their best asset and arguably best core player (and in turn truly bottoming out) to provide a shot in the arm of the rebuild. Brogs was not acquired to provide wins but as another piece on the chessboard to acquire future assets while being a professional while he's here. Same for Jonas. These guys are no longer starters or capable of major minutes. They are veteran role players known for their maturity and willingness to do whatever asked without complaint.

[DCZards]

To be fair, while we fans might want them to, NBA teams rarely provide much of a public explanation for their trades.

[nate33]

It's pretty clear to me that a major part of the trade was that they believed Deni would lead the team to too many wins. And you just can't say that, no matter that its true and obvious.

I don't buy this at all. We're talking about the same team who added Jonas Valanciunas and traded for veteran Malcolm Brogdon because they would help us be more competitive.

If we had kept Deni, we would be in no danger of winning enough games to knock us out of the bottom 3 (where the lottery odds for the top 4 picks are identical); and we definitely wouldn't have fallen past 4th-worst (where the pick odds are only marginally worse than the bottom 3). We are currently 5 wins out of 4th worst place and 9 wins out of 5th worst. I like Deni, but he isn't adding THAT many wins.

And if he played so well that we were in danger of winning that much, then he would have been even more valuable as a trade asset at the Trade Deadline in February.

The only logic for trading Deni was a belief that him being on the roster NEXT year, in addition to our 2025 high lotto pick, might be enough to risk the protection on the 2026 FRP we owe to NY. But in that scenario, we could have simply traded Deni THIS summer. We didn't need to trade him last summer.

Just to play devil's advocate, the added benefit of having the worst record is at worst having the 5th worst pick. It could be beneficial in a draft like this. Also the Blazers have 7 more wins already than they did last year. Of course Deni isn't the only reason but probably the biggest one. I also imagine that Deni's numbers would be even better here which could lead to more wins.

But yeah, I would have probably held out for more. Although maybe there was no offer coming like the one for Bridges given that Bridges not only had a nba finals experience and gained some noteriety but also had the Villanova connection.

I think, with patience, we could have gotten a similar offer to the Portland deal, but with the lotto pick not coming from the worst draft in a generation.

[TheBlackCzar]

I don't buy this at all. We're talking about the same team who added Jonas Valanciunas and traded for veteran Malcolm Brogdon because they would help us be more competitive.

If we had kept Deni, we would be in no danger of winning enough games to knock us out of the bottom 3 (where the lottery odds for the top 4 picks are identical); and we definitely wouldn't have fallen past 4th-worst (where the pick odds are only marginally worse than the bottom 3). We are currently 5 wins out of 4th worst place and 9 wins out of 5th worst. I like Deni, but he isn't adding THAT many wins.

And if he played so well that we were in danger of winning that much, then he would have been even more valuable as a trade asset at the Trade Deadline in February.

The only logic for trading Deni was a belief that him being on the roster NEXT year, in addition to our 2025 high lotto pick, might be enough to risk the protection on the 2026 FRP we owe to NY. But in that scenario, we could have simply traded Deni THIS summer. We didn't need to trade him last summer.

Just to play devil's advocate, the added benefit of having the worst record is at worst having the 5th worst pick. It could be beneficial in a draft like this. Also the Blazers have 7 more wins already than they did last year. Of course Deni isn't the only reason but probably the biggest one. I also imagine that Deni's numbers would be even better here which could lead to more wins.

But yeah, I would have probably held out for more. Although maybe there was no offer coming like the one for Bridges given that Bridges not only had a nba finals experience and gained some noteriety but also had the Villanova connection.

I think, with patience, we could have gotten a similar offer to the Portland deal, but with the lotto pick not coming from the worst draft in a generation.

But the question should be where would Bub as a sophomore rank in this 25 draft if he'd come out a year later at 19 going on 20 instead of hating 24 in its entirety......

[DCZards]

I think, with patience, we could have gotten a similar offer to the Portland deal, but with the lotto pick not coming from the worst draft in a generation.

Worst draft in a generation? Says who?

I keep hearing this narrative about how bad last year’s draft was but, imo, that remains to be seen.

Is the #4 pick in this year’s draft going to turn out to be a better player than Castle? I have my doubts.

Jordan Hawkins went 14 in the 2023 draft and Bub went 14 in the 2024 draft. Hawkins is an outstanding shooter but Bub is a much better all around player.

Jared McCain went 16 in the 2024 draft. He’d likely be top ten in the 2023 draft.

George went 24 in the 2024 draft. There may be 3-4 players who went 9-24 in the 2023 draft who I would take over Kyshawn.

[dckingsfan]

I think, with patience, we could have gotten a similar offer to the Portland deal, but with the lotto pick not coming from the worst draft in a generation.

Worst draft in a generation? Says who?

I keep hearing this narrative about how bad last year’s draft was but, imo, that remains to be seen.

Is the #4 pick in this year’s draft going to turn out to be a better player than Castle? I have my doubts.

Jordan Hawkins went 14 in the 2023 draft and Bub went 14 in the 2024 draft. Hawkins is an outstanding shooter but Bub is a much better all around player.

Jared McCain went 16 in the 2024 draft. He’d likely be top ten in the 2023 draft.

George went 24 in the 2024 draft. There may be 3-4 players who went 9-24 in the 2023 draft who I would take over Kyshawn.

Sigh. You don't think that the four players listed earlier by Doc in the '25 draft aren't going to be materially better? My guess is there will be at least 10 (maybe 15) players that will be better from this draft than all three of the players we took.

And yes, it is a the 2024 draft was terrible and it wasn't a secret going into the draft. It doesn't remain to be seen. It is. If it walks like a duck...

I don't get this line of thinking. You can still focus on what this FO has done right rather than doubling down.

[dckingsfan]

It's pretty clear to me that a major part of the trade was that they believed Deni would lead the team to too many wins. And you just can't say that, no matter that its true and obvious.

I don't buy this at all. We're talking about the same team who added Jonas Valanciunas and traded for veteran Malcolm Brogdon because they would help us be more competitive.

If we had kept Deni, we would be in no danger of winning enough games to knock us out of the bottom 3 (where the lottery odds for the top 4 picks are identical); and we definitely wouldn't have fallen past 4th-worst (where the pick odds are only marginally worse than the bottom 3). We are currently 5 wins out of 4th worst place and 9 wins out of 5th worst. I like Deni, but he isn't adding THAT many wins.

And if he played so well that we were in danger of winning that much, then he would have been even more valuable as a trade asset at the Trade Deadline in February.

The only logic for trading Deni was a belief that him being on the roster NEXT year, in addition to our 2025 high lotto pick, might be enough to risk the protection on the 2026 FRP we owe to NY. But in that scenario, we could have simply traded Deni THIS summer. We didn't need to trade him last summer.

In retrospect, the front office realized the cupboard was bare with exception of Deni & Bilal. Deni's development is at the point where he's starting to impact winning. We didn't have a ton of future 1sts (though some options to swap Phx's future picks) and even owed a 1st along with having a bunch of future 2nds. Deni's youth meant he had trade value and was their best asset. They know they needed as many bites at the apple as possible yet had so little to build from.

So I believe they traded Deni to help restock their assets and they specifically targeted Bub as a future core piece while getting some future picks as well. It was a specific choice to trade their best asset and arguably best core player (and in turn truly bottoming out) to provide a shot in the arm of the rebuild. Brogs was not acquired to provide wins but as another piece on the chessboard to acquire future assets while being a professional while he's here. Same for Jonas. These guys are no longer starters or capable of major minutes. They are veteran role players known for their maturity and willingness to do whatever asked without complaint.

Solid points. But Nate's point(s) stand as well. He wouldn't have impacted winning enough to get us out of the bottom three. They could have either waited to trade Deni or not trade into the '24 draft. If they had waited, I believe they would have been able to get more for him at the '24 trade deadline (or before that in the season).

[DCZards]

I think, with patience, we could have gotten a similar offer to the Portland deal, but with the lotto pick not coming from the worst draft in a generation.

Worst draft in a generation? Says who?

I keep hearing this narrative about how bad last year’s draft was but, imo, that remains to be seen.

Is the #4 pick in this year’s draft going to turn out to be a better player than Castle? I have my doubts.

Jordan Hawkins went 14 in the 2023 draft and Bub went 14 in the 2024 draft. Hawkins is an outstanding shooter but Bub is a much better all around player.

Jared McCain went 16 in the 2024 draft. He’d likely be top ten in the 2023 draft.

George went 24 in the 2024 draft. There may be 3-4 players who went 9-24 in the 2023 draft who I would take over Kyshawn.

Sigh. You don't think that the four players listed earlier by Doc in the '25 draft aren't going to be materially better? My guess is there will be at least 10 (maybe 15) players that will be better from this draft than all three of the players we took.

And yes, it is a the 2024 draft was terrible and it wasn't a secret going into the draft. It doesn't remain to be seen. It is. If it walks like a duck...

I don't get this line of thinking. You can still focus on what this FO has done right rather than doubling down.

You don't judge the entirety of a draft based solely on the top 4-5 players. That's the line of thinking that's foolish.

No one ever suggested at any point that last year's draft had high end talent at the top...especially compared to this year's draft.

And you may "guess" that the 2025 draft will have 10 or more players better than Sarr, Bub & George...but your guessing or thinking that doesn't mean squat.

[dckingsfan]

Worst draft in a generation? Says who?

I keep hearing this narrative about how bad last year’s draft was but, imo, that remains to be seen.

Is the #4 pick in this year’s draft going to turn out to be a better player than Castle? I have my doubts.

Jordan Hawkins went 14 in the 2023 draft and Bub went 14 in the 2024 draft. Hawkins is an outstanding shooter but Bub is a much better all around player.

Jared McCain went 16 in the 2024 draft. He’d likely be top ten in the 2023 draft.

George went 24 in the 2024 draft. There may be 3-4 players who went 9-24 in the 2023 draft who I would take over Kyshawn.

Sigh. You don't think that the four players listed earlier by Doc in the '25 draft aren't going to be materially better? My guess is there will be at least 10 (maybe 15) players that will be better from this draft than all three of the players we took.

And yes, it is a the 2024 draft was terrible and it wasn't a secret going into the draft. It doesn't remain to be seen. It is. If it walks like a duck...

I don't get this line of thinking. You can still focus on what this FO has done right rather than doubling down.

You don't judge the entirety of a draft based solely on the top 4-5 players. That's the line of thinking that's foolish.

No one ever suggested at any point that last year's draft had high end talent at the top...especially compared to this year's draft.

And you may "guess" that the 2025 draft will have 10 or more players better than Sarr, Bub & George...but your guessing or thinking that doesn't mean squat.

I wasn't. It is the entirety of the class (and it was predicted).

And yet, we traded into it

And it isn't just a guess. Sarr, Bub and George aren't even the best in this year's class. Saying that there won't be 10 or more players that are better in an exceptional class is irrationally hoping for them to pan out. Or... quoting from the NBA draft room:

Unless you’ve been living under a rock you already know that the 2025 draft class is a really nice group of prospects. This class has been hyped-up for two years and so far many of the top prospects have lived up to the hype.