Woj: Deni to Portland for 14th pick and Brogdon

[playoffs]

My humble opinion is that I understand the reasoning behind the trade but I disagree with it and I think it's flawed logic based on the history of the NBA. Historically, when you tear a team down to the studs to get a #1 (or very high) pick, it almost never works out. In fact, the last #1 who won a ring with the team that drafted him is LeBron - drafted over 20 years ago - and even he had to leave, let them rebuild, and then come back in order to win it, and even that took a **** ton of luck and Draymond's stupidity. Prior to LeBron, it was Tim Duncan, but San Antonio was a already a good team that tanked due to David Robinson's injury. Then you have to go back to David Robinson himself (who had to get injured and get Tim Duncan to win) and Hakeem in 1984.

First picks come with a certain status and a lot of pressure to win. If the team doesn't have a solid foundation, it's extremely hard to build a great supporting cast around them before they end up leaving for greener pastures. If you find a gem like Giannis or Jokic or Steph lower in the draft, they come with less pressure and more humility and gratitude to the team that gave them a chance and developed them. But yeah, you have to focus a lot of effort on development and scouting, which the Wizards haven't excelled at.

The other way teams have reached championship level in the last 10-15 years is by fleecing other desperate teams for assets. Boston built their championship team on the back of Brooklyn's draft picks. OKC is a strong championship contender still collecting assets from the Westbrook and Paul George trades.

Everything is a gamble to some extent. You can gamble on the 14% chance of getting Cooper Flagg, but even if you hit the jackpot, there's no guarantee he sticks around if you can't put other excellent players around him, like a Deni, for example...

You could have also gambled on Deni making the leap he has made this year, and then sold him at the deadline to a contender with more assets than what Portland was offering. OKC, Houston, San Antonio, GSW would all have picked up the phone and would've probably offered way more assets than what WAS got. To a contender, a piece that could put it over the top is absolutely worth the Bridges/Gobert package. What WAS got I honestly don't think will move the needle enough.

[dckingsfan]

I do think there's evidence that if we'd kept Deni, we wouldn't have been that much better, only 3 of our 59 losses were by 5 or fewer points, or a product of OT. This team has habitually been smashed, or thoroughly beaten at minimum in 56 of 59 of its losses, so what does Deni change there? Maybe 3 wins, or 4, maybe 5 tops?

Good stuff here. 5 more wins still has us in the third-worst or fourth-worst position, tied with New Orleans. Our odds of landing the top 4 pick would have been unchanged, or, at worst, just marginally lower.

Yes, our chances at landing a top 4 pick marginally decrease, but the chances of dropping out of the top 5 or 6 increase drastically.

Not sure there is a material difference in drafting 5, 6 or 7, IMO.

[prime1time]

Good stuff here. 5 more wins still has us in the third-worst or fourth-worst position, tied with New Orleans. Our odds of landing the top 4 pick would have been unchanged, or, at worst, just marginally lower.

Yes, our chances at landing a top 4 pick marginally decrease, but the chances of dropping out of the top 5 or 6 increase drastically.

Not sure there is a material difference in drafting 5, 6 or 7, IMO.

I think good GMs might feel differently

[closg00]

My humble opinion is that I understand the reasoning behind the trade but I disagree with it and I think it's flawed logic based on the history of the NBA. Historically, when you tear a team down to the studs to get a #1 (or very high) pick, it almost never works out. In fact, the last #1 who won a ring with the team that drafted him is LeBron - drafted over 20 years ago - and even he had to leave, let them rebuild, and then come back in order to win it, and even that took a **** ton of luck and Draymond's stupidity. Prior to LeBron, it was Tim Duncan, but San Antonio was a already a good team that tanked due to David Robinson's injury. Then you have to go back to David Robinson himself (who had to get injured and get Tim Duncan to win) and Hakeem in 1984.

First picks come with a certain status and a lot of pressure to win. If the team doesn't have a solid foundation, it's extremely hard to build a great supporting cast around them before they end up leaving for greener pastures. If you find a gem like Giannis or Jokic or Steph lower in the draft, they come with less pressure and more humility and gratitude to the team that gave them a chance and developed them. But yeah, you have to focus a lot of effort on development and scouting, which the Wizards haven't excelled at.

The other way teams have reached championship level in the last 10-15 years is by fleecing other desperate teams for assets. Boston built their championship team on the back of Brooklyn's draft picks. OKC is a strong championship contender still collecting assets from the Westbrook and Paul George trades.

Everything is a gamble to some extent. You can gamble on the 14% chance of getting Cooper Flagg, but even if you hit the jackpot, there's no guarantee he sticks around if you can't put other excellent players around him, like a Deni, for example...

You could have also gambled on Deni making the leap he has made this year, and then sold him at the deadline to a contender with more assets than what Portland was offering. OKC, Houston, San Antonio, GSW would all have picked up the phone and would've probably offered way more assets than what WAS got. To a contender, a piece that could put it over the top is absolutely worth the Bridges/Gobert package. What WAS got I honestly don't think will move the needle enough.

Deni's trade value one season later Corey will be getting paid more than Deni his last two seasons.

[dckingsfan]

My humble opinion is that I understand the reasoning behind the trade but I disagree with it and I think it's flawed logic based on the history of the NBA. Historically, when you tear a team down to the studs to get a #1 (or very high) pick, it almost never works out. In fact, the last #1 who won a ring with the team that drafted him is LeBron - drafted over 20 years ago - and even he had to leave, let them rebuild, and then come back in order to win it, and even that took a **** ton of luck and Draymond's stupidity. Prior to LeBron, it was Tim Duncan, but San Antonio was a already a good team that tanked due to David Robinson's injury. Then you have to go back to David Robinson himself (who had to get injured and get Tim Duncan to win) and Hakeem in 1984.

First picks come with a certain status and a lot of pressure to win. If the team doesn't have a solid foundation, it's extremely hard to build a great supporting cast around them before they end up leaving for greener pastures. If you find a gem like Giannis or Jokic or Steph lower in the draft, they come with less pressure and more humility and gratitude to the team that gave them a chance and developed them. But yeah, you have to focus a lot of effort on development and scouting, which the Wizards haven't excelled at.

The other way teams have reached championship level in the last 10-15 years is by fleecing other desperate teams for assets. Boston built their championship team on the back of Brooklyn's draft picks. OKC is a strong championship contender still collecting assets from the Westbrook and Paul George trades.

Everything is a gamble to some extent. You can gamble on the 14% chance of getting Cooper Flagg, but even if you hit the jackpot, there's no guarantee he sticks around if you can't put other excellent players around him, like a Deni, for example...

You could have also gambled on Deni making the leap he has made this year, and then sold him at the deadline to a contender with more assets than what Portland was offering. OKC, Houston, San Antonio, GSW would all have picked up the phone and would've probably offered way more assets than what WAS got. To a contender, a piece that could put it over the top is absolutely worth the Bridges/Gobert package. What WAS got I honestly don't think will move the needle enough.

Agreed with you on the Deni trade. What I did like was getting AJ, but potentially that would have been Bub? Then it becomes really sad, IMO.

I think what it was is that this FO couldn't see Deni improving. It was just a swing and miss.

Having said that, I think this FO going for the rebuild in earnest was terrific. They have a coach that was willing to shamelessly tank to try to get a higher pick. Now it is down to luck. If they do get Flagg, they need to shamelessly tank again.

[dckingsfan]

Yes, our chances at landing a top 4 pick marginally decrease, but the chances of dropping out of the top 5 or 6 increase drastically.

Not sure there is a material difference in drafting 5, 6 or 7, IMO.

I think good GMs might feel differently

Shmaybe you are right.

[dckingsfan]

Deni's trade value one season later Corey will be getting paid more than Deni his last two seasons.

Yeah, the Kispert and Kuz signings were just checkers, IMO.

[prime1time]

Not sure there is a material difference in drafting 5, 6 or 7, IMO.

I think good GMs might feel differently

Shmaybe you are right.

Also, next year our 1st round pick is protected 1-8...

[dckingsfan]

I think good GMs might feel differently

Shmaybe you are right.

Also, next year our 1st round pick is protected 1-8...

yep, just make sure that we are one of the worst 4 teams and we are good...

[nate33]

Yes, our chances at landing a top 4 pick marginally decrease, but the chances of dropping out of the top 5 or 6 increase drastically.

Not sure there is a material difference in drafting 5, 6 or 7, IMO.

I think good GMs might feel differently

I don't think so.

The chance of dropping out of the top 6 do not increase drastically. The third-worst team has the exact same odds as the worst team at landing a top 4 pick, and just a 7% chance of falling out of the top 6.

The fourth-worst team has barely worse odds than the worst team of landing a top 4 pick, and just an 18.9% chance of falling out of the top 6.

That 18.9% possibility of picking 7th instead of 5th or 6th is not worth the loss of Deni Avdija's 20/9/4 production with high efficiency and excellent defense.

[DCZards]

Deni's trade value one season later Corey will be getting paid more than Deni his last two seasons.

Yeah, the Kispert and Kuz signings were just checkers, IMO.

The Kuz signing may have been checkers at the time but given that it led to obtaining another FRP in AJ Johnson it may end up being chess.

[dckingsfan]

Deni's trade value one season later Corey will be getting paid more than Deni his last two seasons.

Yeah, the Kispert and Kuz signings were just checkers, IMO.

The Kuz signing may have been checkers at the time but given that it led to obtaining another FRP in AJ Johnson it may end up being chess.

Just to be clear. If we didn't sign Kuz and had that cap space unencumbered, you don't think you could have received at least as many assets?

Or, if we didn't sign Kuz, there wasn't a better player to sign later on?

Rhetorical questions, no need to answer.

All that said, at least we are in the rebuild mode in earnest. And the coach and the FO are on the same page, tanking shamelessly. It will turn out better than the two horrible FOs that preceded this one. I really hated those FOs - they sucked big time. This one is on the right track, just making a few mistakes along the way.

[The Consiglieri]

I do think there's evidence that if we'd kept Deni, we wouldn't have been that much better, only 3 of our 59 losses were by 5 or fewer points, or a product of OT. This team has habitually been smashed, or thoroughly beaten at minimum in 56 of 59 of its losses, so what does Deni change there? Maybe 3 wins, or 4, maybe 5 tops?

Good stuff here. 5 more wins still has us in the third-worst or fourth-worst position, tied with New Orleans. Our odds of landing the top 4 pick would have been unchanged, or, at worst, just marginally lower.

I try to be fair, even to the extent of ending up vaguely disagreeing with myself in the same post sometimes lol.

I will say, and I mentioned it yesterday, that the fact that only 56 of 59 losses were 5 or less, and 49 of 59 10 or less, that if you go into a game and stay in it, early on, w/Deni, in place, maybe the game doesn't get out of hand early (although to be fair, i'm way too lazy to check the box scores of 59 losses to find out how the losses played out, minute to minute). So I do need to asterisk the fact that only 55 or 56 of the 59 losses were close, with the fact that when you change fundamental factors on the ground, like the availability for a game of a legit really good to good player like Deni, the whole story of the game can change, period (see the Star Trek TNG episode "Tapestry), and it could actually end up being close.

Otoh, you also have to be reasonable, and I think it's reasonable to assume that if games generally speaking went in one of three directions this season:

We win (20% of the time)
We lose in a close game (4 or 5% of games)
We lose by 6-9 (around 10% of games)
We lose by 10 or more (around 65% of games)

I think providing further evidence that we wouldn't have won 16 more games if Deni was around (like he did for Portland) is the fact that 49 of 75 games (nearly 2/3's) involved double digit losses, and of our 75 games, we got killed (15+ point losses) 33 freaking times (check my work, I might be 1 off):

so essentially, we got the doors blown off of us in 44% of our games.

The Final #'s through 75 games are:
20% of games we won...
Close games won or lost was basically 25%
6--9 point losses were about 10% of games
we lost by 10 or more 65% of the time
we lost by 15 or more 44% of the time.
20+ point losses were 22.6% of games

so you could say that basically our wins and our 20+ point doors blown off losses were nearly even.

If you add 19 point losses to the 20, it jumps even further, to 20 of 75 games or 26.6% of games were 19+ point losses.


I'm going overboard, but you've got to be fair about the evidence, I know I was surprised by it, I was shocked when I looked 2 or 3 weeks ago, when we had around 50 losses, and only 2 or was it 3 of them were by 5 or less, I expected it to be distorted from what was typical, just not to that degree.

As you can see above, the season basically broke up into Quarter or 1/5 pieces of pie:
25% of games were close.
26% of games were colossal blowouts (19+ point losses)
10% of games were somewhat close (6-9 point losses)
and I believe 39% of games were 10-18 point losses.



So how much does Deni potentially help? I think the most reasonable guess is that he could have proven a difference in somewhere between 3-10 games total. The most reasonable guess is he could probably have flipped 3-7. That puts us at risk of going 1.02, 1.03, 1.04 and at worst, 1.05 which would have meant that Deni was HUGELY impactful for us to be caught by the sixers.

So yeah, I think the most reasonable suposition is that if there's no Deni trade, we probably are either:
33% chance of landing 1.06 or 1.07 and a 48% chance of landing 1.05-1.07 in a best case scenario (fewest extra wins)
44% chance of landing 1.06 or 1.07 or 1.08 (42% chance of 1.06 or 1.07) in a reasonable scenario
55.6% chance of landing 1.06-1.09 in the Sixers slot (w/a worst case of 1.08 or 1.09 being about 9% and about .5% respectively)

For me, as crazy as it sounds, I'm still trading Deni, because man oh man oh man do I not want those odds of 1.05-1.09 and in particular, 1.06-1.08, increasing so exponentially high from where they are now, especially since I get Bub, another first, and multiple seconds, plus a much worse team in '25-'26 in probably a better draft too, then if we had Deni+Sarr+whatever we got from the '25 class etc.

Otoh, I get why people may look at that, and say, the change is negligable, ---- it, give me back Deni, screw that "lose from the jump" low ball the Blazers gave us. I totally get it, I just think the value of tanking nearly perfectly in two loaded classes like '25 and '26, is worth the risk and loss in value of Deni departing. The counter argument to that, I concede is sound to some degree, I just disagree with it. With Deni in play, I think we are far less likely to land pieces that could be transformative in the '25-'27 draft classes, and instead we are most likely, barring blind luck, going to do what the Blazers will end up doing instead, peak as a 30-42 win club. But I get that in fairness, the most likely scenario is that our odds for landing a top pick don't change significantly, if at all, I just think we are more likely to both get one of those payoffs and also far more likely to avoid the horror show drop, having dealt Deni.

Otoh, if Deni is developing into a tier 2 star, not a superstar, but pretty expletive damn good, was it worth it, seriously? That's an open question, for which many already have their answer.

[The Consiglieri]

I do think there's evidence that if we'd kept Deni, we wouldn't have been that much better, only 3 of our 59 losses were by 5 or fewer points, or a product of OT. This team has habitually been smashed, or thoroughly beaten at minimum in 56 of 59 of its losses, so what does Deni change there? Maybe 3 wins, or 4, maybe 5 tops?

Good stuff here. 5 more wins still has us in the third-worst or fourth-worst position, tied with New Orleans. Our odds of landing the top 4 pick would have been unchanged, or, at worst, just marginally lower.

Yes, our chances at landing a top 4 pick marginally decrease, but the chances of dropping out of the top 5 or 6 increase drastically.

Which is one of the reasons I'm fine with the deal even if it was an underapay (which I believed at the time and which I 1000% believe now). If you want to build an epic tank and suck your way to top 5 to 6 locked in pick in the Flagg/Harper class of '25, and the OMG draft of '26 with Peterson/Dybansta/Boozer and what appears to be much deeper, higher ceilinged group outside of the top 3 (supposedly Dyson Daniels little brother Dash is bigger, stronger, and longer w/the same profile for instance, and apparently Nate Ament has flown up to the top 4 after not being in the picture as of Summer '23) you have to empty out your roster of talent. WE DID. It cost us Deni, and a bunch of crap we didn't care about (again, I think they would have traded Deni anyway, even if we had traded Kuzma in Feb '24, I just think we probably would have gotten more because we probably would have waited until winter deadline '25), but we bottomed out for back to back elite classes. That is the right way to play that, even if most of us (me included) would agree that we handled Deni poorly as an asset in terms of getting the best possible asset collection back (I will note, there were not a bunch of teams around that probably would have traded the assets I wanted: picks likely to convey inside the top 10 of either '25 or '26, and value circa '28 or '29). Honestly who could have given us that? I tend to think the most likely scenario was getting late firsts from a good team, or getting the late lottery Blazers pick and another first much later. If we're trading Deni to a contender, other than OKC, and Houston, nobody owned a first from another team that was attractive (and Philly's first was expected to be low which is why they were willing to protect it so poorly). Indeed, the only places I think we could have imagined trading Deni, beyond Portland, and gotten a proper asset in a proper class this year were:

OKC (Philly's first which now easily could not convey because of the Embid injury/shut down)

Houston (while we like Phoenix imploding for our own interests, the implosion has gone even better than we expected and the pick still is just in the teens)

Miami (not many would have predicted Jimmy Butler would quit on the team and demand a trade, and no one smart would trade for Miami futures knowing how attractive that city is to future free agents).

That's probably the biggest difficulty of the Deni trade.

Who would have given us what we needed? In the end, it really does feel like the only options more attractive than what we did get was getting a market value pay off from OKC or Houston, and even those scenarios wouldn't have played out brilliantly this year (I would be scared ----less that the Philly pick wouldn't convey at all, though I'd love it not being protected beyond the top 4 in '26).

It's a difficult situation. The only thing I think is clear, with certainty now, is that we got low balled, and got a clear underpay, and lost the trade in terms of pure asset value involved, but honestly, I thought that the second the trade was made. A 14th pick in a crap draft, and a random first several years later, and a couple of 2nds was not commensurate value with a guy climbing up the charts like Deni and just as importantly, locked into an idiotically cheap extension for the forseeable future. That was always true, even if some people were in denial about because the "words" if not the value of the "2 firsts and 2 seconds" piece actually sounded good (to them), the actual reality of a mid first in a crappy draft, and a speculative first down the road, is not remotely as valuable as speculative firsts (with limited or no protections) in loaded drafts like '25 and '26 (of course maybe that's why we couldn't potentially find that offer, but then I would have tried to earn such an offer by playing him and trading him before the winter '25 deadline).

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

This thread has jumped the shark!

Cousin Oliver is about to enter the thread.

[The Consiglieri]

Not sure there is a material difference in drafting 5, 6 or 7, IMO.

I think good GMs might feel differently

I don't think so.

The chance of dropping out of the top 6 do not increase drastically. The third-worst team has the exact same odds as the worst team at landing a top 4 pick, and just a 7% chance of falling out of the top 6.

The fourth-worst team has barely worse odds than the worst team of landing a top 4 pick, and just an 18.9% chance of falling out of the top 6.

That 18.9% possibility of picking 7th instead of 5th or 6th is not worth the loss of Deni Avdija's 20/9/4 production with high efficiency and excellent defense.

I think it all depends upon how you tier out the draft as to how consequential that loss is to you, especially considering just how good the '25 and '26 classes are (and how deep the '26 class is looking).

To me, '25 is
Tier 1:
Flagg

Tier 1B:
Harper

Tier 2:
Edgcombe
Bailey

Tier 3:
Maluach
Tre Johnson

I tend to think that after my top 3, there's a clear fall off to speculating on what the hell Bailey and Johnson will be as scorers, and whether Maluach's ceiling and floor are good enough to justify him being close to the Bailey/Edgecombe tier. The sense I get from most peoople who are journo's talking to GM's and Scouts is that Maluach simply isn't remotely considered close to the Big 3 or 4, and Johnson has similar question marks, although he has backers just like Maluach as.

That's why the risks to me are much worse than you think they are. Having a near 50% chance at the big 4 isn't the big thing to me, so much as avoiding the drop off, and the potential "reach" pay off that you've seen over the years, first remembered distinctly 25+ years ago with Pierce, later Caron Butler, but historically, just going back 10 years, it seems like there's a surprise pick somewhere between 3-5 in about half of drafts, regardless of how impressive or not impressive any particular class is. About half the time someone either some team does something weird, and reaches outside of the consensus top 4 or 5, or multiple teams let a guy slip they shouldn't have (Pierce, Butler, Haliburton, Deni are that, I probably wouldn't call SGA that, as he's more a Post Facto version of it, since at the time he was consistently tiered in that 9-14 zone or thereabouts).

So for me, the payoff of sucking, is reducing to zero the chance of falling to 1.06.
Improving the possibility of still lucking out if you get hosed and land the 5th (if just one team does something really weird, which happens about 50% of drafts the past decade, you will get a top 4 guy falling to 5).
Reducing to zero the chance of picking 6, and even worse 7 or 8.

Is that worth losing Deni? For me, borderline yes for '25, and definitely yes for '25 and '26 combined (I think our chances of tanking effectively for '26 would have been drastically impacted by the presence of Deni+'24 draftees+'25 draftees) but admittedly '26 is speculative, we have no idea what will happen with the '25-'26 draft.

Let me add, I get your argument and its reasonable, and might even be right (especially if Deni continues to kick --- across a much larger sample size, the star turn numbers are largely small sample size stuff for now, across the large sample size he looks like a good player, across this more recent one is when he looks like he jumped from good to great), or maybe I should say, has a decent to good chance of being right.

I just think the road to future success and 50+ seasons in the future was far more likely without Deni and totally bottoming out, than with Deni and only partially bottoming out. I think we needed to max out the '24-'25-'26-'27 classes, and that wouldn't have happened with Deni. But Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Deni just ends up being star #1 acquired of the 2-3 stars needed. If that's true, I'm 1000% wrong (and I could be in other ways too).

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

It's not gonna die. If Deni is on the roster, the team is going to be more efficent, period, if he's this good, approaching all star level good, is he going to flip a game or two or three in a scenario where we are fighting tooth and nail with the Jazz and Charlotte and even New Orleans for positioning this year, and next. YES. It does, and when I talk top 2, that's half the payoff, the other half, is the band between 1-5.

I think the reason to have kept Deni was his efficiency on his contract given his youth.

I would rather have seen the Wizards use a money ball approach to building the roster. Deni could have been an advantageous player when the Wizards pursued future free agents.

I don't see any chance of that happening whatsoever, and I don't think Deni would have demonstrably changed the trajectory very much this way or that. Portland was a team that was trying to tank too, but butchered their version of it (maybe they were just trying to retool) and for a team that traded away its best pieces, its not surprising that Deni, in an unquestioned role as if not the best player (going into the season) one of the best two or three is producing. He's good AND efficient. Might even become great given time, but again, with him we were gonna suck, as we are without him. I don't know how impressive his future is going to be, I do know his presence is quite good, but it wasn't gonna transform what was and is a moribund roster.

But what we needed were superstars, plural, and to get them, we needed to be well and truly horrible. I do think there's evidence that if we'd kept Deni, we wouldn't have been that much better, only 3 of our 59 losses were by 5 or fewer points, or a product of OT. This team has habitually been smashed, or thoroughly beaten at minimum in 56 of 59 of its losses, so what does Deni change there? Maybe 3 wins, or 4, maybe 5 tops? That would shift us potentially to 1.03 to 1.05 going into the lottery, and potential outcomes that include 1.06-1.08 or 1.09 as possibilities (depending upon how many extra wins he got us compared to Portland for instance), which is a colossal tier drop in perceived talent from what is viewed as the Big Four.

I've seen the Wizards do the moneyball/retool/denial strategy of rebuild since 1989, and it's built ---- all. I don't remotely believe in it. It's just denialism to me. The fact that 56 of our 59 losses were by more than 5, and 49 of 59 were by double digits illustrates quite clearly that even if Utah is tied with us in wins they aren't remotely as bad, as a team, as we were. This team was epic level horrible this year, and moneyball with Deni wasn't gonna fix ----. It needed to bottom out completely, rebuild with youth, and with top 5 picks in '25 and '26's loaded drafts PERIOD and even that might not do it (which is why I have always asterisked the '26-'27 season as a potential season of 50+ losses too).

i get that you love Queen so you don't mind dropping in slotting, and that you (and I too) love(d) Deni, but neither of those players was changing the bottom line. We needed to land mega stars in 2 of the next 3 drafts, and avoid the who the hell knows zone of the draft (which this year seems to start at 5 or 6, and next year, maybe later considering it appears deeper in mega studs and generalized elite depth). If we had just floated off in dreams that we hit a random mega star in the 6-12 zone or whatever, and kept Deni, it would have been more of what we've already had to swallow since the 1980's, a ceiling of 42-45 wins and an expected total 3 out of every 4 years of 20-35 wins, and I don't know about you but I am more than completely sick of competing for 7-10 seeds for decades on end. I'd swallow 10 62 loss+ seasons in a row if it meant we were genuinely trying to build a 50+ game winner for the first time since Jimmy Carter was president. The whining and crying, and Ted supposedly unable to handle this possibility is more than enough to justify ---- canning him as an owner like Snyder. How the hell to DC fans see what happened with Jayden in the fall and still not understand this?!?! This draft hosts 2-4 players that are transformative for sure in terms of perceived potential ceiling as prospects, next year's what, 3-5. Suck it the ---- up people. Jebus!

We didn't need to draft 2 mega stars within the next three drafts, IMO.

How about acquiring one star agent and drafting one megastar along with a Deni and Queen?

I think this notion that the Wizards will become elite from drafting two megastars isn't feasible. Cleveland added Donovan Mitchell to Mobley and Allen. This thought abstract is straining my brain. I'm tapping out.

I've been on testudo times blogging about whether Buzz Williams is a better hire than Tony Skinn and if they should have waited to sign an AD first.

[The Consiglieri]

Good stuff here. 5 more wins still has us in the third-worst or fourth-worst position, tied with New Orleans. Our odds of landing the top 4 pick would have been unchanged, or, at worst, just marginally lower.

Yes, our chances at landing a top 4 pick marginally decrease, but the chances of dropping out of the top 5 or 6 increase drastically.

Not sure there is a material difference in drafting 5, 6 or 7, IMO.

I do, and I think the easiest way to perceive it, is to observe the aggregated results of drafts.

For nearly all mocks for '25, some combo of players consistently is your top 4

For nearly all mocks for '25, after 1.04 it gets weird at 1.05 (there's a pile of different guys projected to go 1.05) and it gets infinitely crazier as it falls to 1.06 or 1.07.

I look at 1.05 and especially anything after, as just utterly confounding. I think I would end up just pulling the trigger on a top 4 guy if he fell, or Maluach or Tre and be done with it, but I imagine the FO sees this draft as a big 4, and then a lot of incredibly weird after that, especially after 1.05 (which tended to be one of four: Maluach, Tre, Jakucionsis, or Kon K), but it needs to be said, that's kinda what I think, but if you look at what the guys plugged in say, they definitely say after the top 4, it's a who "knows?" draft for most, which means that at 1.05 at least we could hope someone might fall to us if someone falls in love with Maluach's potential, or Kon K's ACC Tournament performance, Tre's scoring etc, and does a "fit" rather than talent pick. That happens about 40-50% of the time afterall, but at 1.06 the chances of benefiting from 1 weird thing inside the top 4 diminish rapidly, and vanish eventually.

Which is why Utah catching us is so god awful, and falling to Charlotte's or New Orleans so much worse. Your chances of benefiting from a weird pick drop precipitiously if you fall to slot 5, 6 or 7 or 8.

So yeah, i definitely think avoiding 6, 7 and 8 is huge, and 5 if at all humanly possible (since it seems like a 3-4 deep near sure thing draft).

[dckingsfan]

One thing. We could have bottomed out with or without Deni. It is all about who the coach plays. See Jonas and Holmes.

The worst players on this team were given the most minutes. If the coach plays to lose endorsed by the FO - you will lose.

[nate33]

Yes, our chances at landing a top 4 pick marginally decrease, but the chances of dropping out of the top 5 or 6 increase drastically.

Not sure there is a material difference in drafting 5, 6 or 7, IMO.

I do, and I think the easiest way to perceive it, is to observe the aggregated results of drafts.

For nearly all mocks for '25, some combo of players consistently is your top 4

For nearly all mocks for '25, after 1.04 it gets weird at 1.05 (there's a pile of different guys projected to go 1.05) and it gets infinitely crazier as it falls to 1.06 or 1.07.

I look at 1.05 and especially anything after, as just utterly confounding. I think I would end up just pulling the trigger on a top 4 guy if he fell, or Maluach or Tre and be done with it, but I imagine the FO sees this draft as a big 4, and then a lot of incredibly weird after that, especially after 1.05 (which tended to be one of four: Maluach, Tre, Jakucionsis, or Kon K), but it needs to be said, that's kinda what I think, but if you look at what the guys plugged in say, they definitely say after the top 4, it's a who "knows?" draft for most, which means that at 1.05 at least we could hope someone might fall to us if someone falls in love with Maluach's potential, or Kon K's ACC Tournament performance, Tre's scoring etc, and does a "fit" rather than talent pick. That happens about 40-50% of the time afterall, but at 1.06 the chances of benefiting from 1 weird thing inside the top 4 diminish rapidly, and vanish eventually.

Which is why Utah catching us is so god awful, and falling to Charlotte's or New Orleans so much worse. Your chances of benefiting from a weird pick drop precipitiously if you fall to slot 5, 6 or 7 or 8.

So yeah, i definitely think avoiding 6, 7 and 8 is huge, and 5 if at all humanly possible (since it seems like a 3-4 deep near sure thing draft).

You keep repeating the same line of reasoning, but it really doesn't make sense. You admit that the top 4 is pretty consensus, with there being a lot of variation and confusion after that. But that doesn't refute your argument? Assuming the consensus is correct, than the top 4 is where the most value is, and once you get down to 5 or later, it's kind of a crapshoot.

Obviously, you personally think Maluach or Tre are a step above the rest, and perhaps you are right. But given the lack of consensus, it's entirely possible that those guys are on the board even at #7. And if not, the lack of consensus suggests that you may well be wrong in holding Maluach and Tre in significantly higher esteem than guys like Jakucionis, Fears, Queen, Newell and Knueppel