Woj: Deni to Portland for 14th pick and Brogdon

[The Consiglieri]

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.

I think what makes this different with Flagg or anyone else from this class is the sheer quality of these classes back to back in terms of loaded to the gills stars.

Next years draft is regarded as better than this one. Its loaded to the gills. I imagine when you have a team bottoming out during a rare era of great classes, maybe this is different? It wouldn't surprise me if this is part of the reason you haven't seen a lot of connectedness of teams building effectively around 1.01's or whatever (which by the way, I'm not even arguing for, because we have a what, 6 in 7 chance of not getting Flagg? To me the objective is to tank in drafts with loaded elite prospects, and try to pull 2 of them. These drafts '25 and '26 are as top heavy as any of the top drafts of the past 18+ years, really since LeBron or Wade etc. If we get reasonably lucky (About a 40% chance this year, and probably 40% next year of top 3) we get at least 1 of these guys, and if we get really lucky, we get 2 of them. Even if we aren't lucky, if we get one of the top 6 or 7 picks of the draft, in the fullness of time, at slot 4 or 5 this year, that may just be enough.

What changes the dynamics, this year, right here and right now, is the sheer scale of the elite talent available at the top of the draft, and the relative upside and cream of the guys just after this this year, and especially next year. Most era's, you simply don't get drafts this top heavy and deep through 4-6 in back to back classes, but here we are. '26 looks fantastic, '25 looks good to very good. I'm not pining on Flagg, that would be amazing, but again, there's a 6 out of 7 chance we aren't getting Flagg but only about a 6 out of 10 chance we aren't getting any of Flagg, Harper, Edgecombe or Bailey (or whatever someone likes more than Bailey).

For me, that's a HUGE HUGE deal, especially when you add it to '26 (with the added ping pong balls from Phoenix if they complete their implosion next year).

[prime1time]

This board loves to obsess about people that don't affect winning. Blazers are a lottery team. Wizards are a lottery team. If Avdija was still a Wizard we would still be a lottery team. And if the Blazers didn't have Avdija they would still be a lottery team. Deni Avdija is fools gold. These stats are fools gold. He's a ball dominant role player. The only teams where he could keep the same play style are Denver with Jokic and Steph with Curry. Everyone else would take the ball out of his hands.

Here's a question. Would this board rather have the Blazers roster or the Wizards roster going forward?

[The Consiglieri]

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 metastasis 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.

When was the last time we attracted an elite mega free agent? 1962? I just don't seen any chance whatsoever we're drawing any FA interest from anyone until '26 or '27 at the earliest whether we traded Deni or not.

[The Consiglieri]

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

I think three separate things on this:
#1 Just a lazy superficial analysis of 10 years of drafts suggests that teams inside the top 3-4 typically do something really odd, on average about every other draft. If somebody does something really stupid or just off the board inside the top 4, and you pick 5, you are the team benefiting from the weirdness. If you pick 6, you need two teams to do something weird or stupid, which is far less likely to happen.

#2 If we're at 5, and the draft goes consensus 1-4 (if not at slot), I can live with probably peeling off the guy that the combine+workout+interview+tape+analytics tells our FO is the best choice (I would assume Maluach or Tre, but Tre doesn't sound like they're kind of pick, seems a bit one dimensional, maybe? Maluach seems more like they're ceiling bet type). But at 1.06 it starts to get really hard. What if Maluach is gone and we are looking at Tre, and his issues according to scouts, Kon and his lack of athleticism, that Illinois dude Jakucionsis who everyone seems to hate? After a season of sub 20 wins, and you fall to 1.06 and you're looking at Kon or freaking Jackucionsis is a disaster in my view (I tend to doubt they'd take them, but still, its what is there along with some other guys). For me anyway, after the top 4, it gets scary at 1.05 but there are outs. Once you fall to 1.06, you either need two teams to do something really stupid, or you need whomever falls to 6 to be exactly right, and we hit anyway, which is a lot of "if's. The further we fall, the more the ifs get scary to me.

#3 what you say in your last thoughts is why I'm paritcularly scared of 6-8. I have really no idea the further we get away from the luck portion of the draft (1-4 and 5 if someone does something weird in 1-4), and just as importantly, I have nothing to do with it. The FO will make the choice, and if we fall out of the top 5, they are not likely to do what I want (not that I'd be right anyway), but it comes with massive risk: they'll likely bet on the things you've talked about, size, athleticism, length, high ceiling, low floor etc and as we both know, the further you fall in slot, the lower that floor gets, especially when you swing for ceiling, while risking floor, rather than taking the boring, low celing, but safe floor Kispert/Kon K type picks.

So for me, locking in the lowest fall possible, is crucial because it lowers the floor risk and ramps up the ceiling potential, if we are 6 7 or 8, the chances of a straight up swing and miss, are just really really, far bigger, than to me at 1-5. Maybe the historical data points say, not so much, but I'd also argue that drafts are different in terms of their tiers, and this is definitely a draft which in the fullness of time will probably show a clear tier break happening somewhere between 4 and 6 in terms of historical production 20 years from now. No doubt there will be some big hits, somewhere in that 6-30 zone and beyond, but the further you drop from 5 and the deeper and sharper the cliff in production in a draft that to me has a high floor and ceiling 1-2, reasonably floor and high ceiling 3-4, and ceiling but immensely lower floor 5 and below.

So for me, as I've said, I want no part of 6-7-8. Of course, it looks like I'll have no choice, nor will our FO, as for now, the Jazz have the advantage in schedule quality.

I get why you disagree though, your math is right in terms of the odds, and my feelings about a couple of guys, but again, it bears repeating, my liking Maluach, and Tre to differing degrees means nothing to the guys who will actually make the decision and probably 1 or both of them won't even be in our top 6.

[The Consiglieri]

This board loves to obsess about people that don't affect winning. Blazers are a lottery team. Wizards are a lottery team. If Avdija was still a Wizard we would still be a lottery team. And if the Blazers didn't have Avdija they would still be a lottery team. Deni Avdija is fools gold. These stats are fools gold. He's a ball dominant role player. The only teams where he could keep the same play style are Denver with Jokic and Steph with Curry. Everyone else would take the ball out of his hands.

Here's a question. Would this board rather have the Blazers roster or the Wizards roster going forward?

I definitely disagree with you in terms of Deni's talent. You're definitely on the "sell to borderline hate" side of valuation with Deni.

It doesn't matter, though, as I agree w/the general premise as I posted earlier. i think our chances of building a 50-60 win team were and are infinitely better, having completely torn down the roster to the studs in time for these loaded back to back drafts, than having gone with Deni+what we could get out of the '24 class, and what we did in this season and next with Deni as a part of the build. I just think landing 1 or 2 elite players in '25 and '26, plus whatever we get out of '27 and beyond, builds a better team than Deni+the extra wins this season and 'before the '26 class.

My only quibble with my own argument there, is that I think there's a decent chance the best of all potential roads, was keeping Deni and instead moving him winter '25 for '25 and/or '26 draft assets+. In that scenario, we get a pick better than the Bub pick, maybe OKC's pick from Philly which ends up either being top 7-10 in this class, or top 5 or above in '26 if it doesn't convey, maybe Miami's first, maybe one of Houston's pieces of booty related to Phoenix etc. That would have been better, especially as a part of a package with another future first and a second or 2 and/or more.

Probably the best road to me was that move, the second best was what we actually did, and to me the worst, was just keeping him, and pretending a 50+ win team was possible in such a construction (which barring spectacular lottery luck, just wasn't gonna happen).

[AFM]

This board loves to obsess about people that don't affect winning. Blazers are a lottery team. Wizards are a lottery team. If Avdija was still a Wizard we would still be a lottery team. And if the Blazers didn't have Avdija they would still be a lottery team. Deni Avdija is fools gold. These stats are fools gold. He's a ball dominant role player. The only teams where he could keep the same play style are Denver with Jokic and Steph with Curry. Everyone else would take the ball out of his hands.

Here's a question. Would this board rather have the Blazers roster or the Wizards roster going forward?

I'd rather be in the Wizards situation, sure. We are rebuilding properly while I'm not sure what the Blazers' actual plan is.

That being said, COSC was right, we did sell low on Deni. Had we traded him this year we could have gotten a larger return. It is what it is now. The front office is still on the right track. Stockpile picks and suck for the next two years. That's our only option, unless you think a perennial all NBA player is going to willingly sign here.

[payitforward]

This thread is starting to read like science fiction!

OF COURSE Deni is the single biggest reason Portland has won 65% more games this year than last. He's the only significant difference.

OF COURSE whatever Deni is doing in Portland he would have done here had we not traded him. That's the only sensible premise. & if he wouldn't have, then what's your argument against the trade?

OF COURSE, we have a strategic focus on getting the most possible value out of the 2025 & 2026 drafts -- both by way picking high & not losing a pick as the final payment for trading John.

OF COURSE, it would have been nice to get more assets for Deni than only 2 R1 picks, 2 R2 picks, & Brogdon, but obviously there wasn't a better offer than that.

KEY POINT -- People seem to think that the better Deni is the worse the trade was. That is simply not true.

[nate33]

This board loves to obsess about people that don't affect winning. Blazers are a lottery team. Wizards are a lottery team. If Avdija was still a Wizard we would still be a lottery team. And if the Blazers didn't have Avdija they would still be a lottery team. Deni Avdija is fools gold. These stats are fools gold. He's a ball dominant role player. The only teams where he could keep the same play style are Denver with Jokic and Steph with Curry. Everyone else would take the ball out of his hands.

I think that argument was applicable to the Deni of two years ago. But since last year, and especially since this year, Deni has become a more reliable 3-point shooter and in general a better off-ball scorer than before. He knows when to cut, he knows when to quickly attack a close-out, and he knows when to catch-and-shoot. He doesn't have to have the ball in his hands for an entire half-court set like Luka Doncic or James Harden to be effective offensively.

I think Deni is playing very much like Jalen Williams or Jaylen Brown on offense. And those guys are legit second-option scorers on successful NBA offenses despite not having Jokic or Curry.

[prime1time]

This board loves to obsess about people that don't affect winning. Blazers are a lottery team. Wizards are a lottery team. If Avdija was still a Wizard we would still be a lottery team. And if the Blazers didn't have Avdija they would still be a lottery team. Deni Avdija is fools gold. These stats are fools gold. He's a ball dominant role player. The only teams where he could keep the same play style are Denver with Jokic and Steph with Curry. Everyone else would take the ball out of his hands.

Here's a question. Would this board rather have the Blazers roster or the Wizards roster going forward?

I definitely disagree with you in terms of Deni's talent. You're definitely on the "sell to borderline hate" side of valuation with Deni.

It doesn't matter, though, as I agree w/the general premise as I posted earlier. i think our chances of building a 50-60 win team were and are infinitely better, having completely torn down the roster to the studs in time for these loaded back to back drafts, than having gone with Deni+what we could get out of the '24 class, and what we did in this season and next with Deni as a part of the build. I just think landing 1 or 2 elite players in '25 and '26, plus whatever we get out of '27 and beyond, builds a better team than Deni+the extra wins this season and 'before the '26 class.

My only quibble with my own argument there, is that I think there's a decent chance the best of all potential roads, was keeping Deni and instead moving him winter '25 for '25 and/or '26 draft assets+. In that scenario, we get a pick better than the Bub pick, maybe OKC's pick from Philly which ends up either being top 7-10 in this class, or top 5 or above in '26 if it doesn't convey, maybe Miami's first, maybe one of Houston's pieces of booty related to Phoenix etc. That would have been better, especially as a part of a package with another future first and a second or 2 and/or more.

Probably the best road to me was that move, the second best was what we actually did, and to me the worst, was just keeping him, and pretending a 50+ win team was possible in such a construction (which barring spectacular lottery luck, just wasn't gonna happen).

Lol at the "sell to borderline hate" notion. Avdija is a ball dominant player. The problem is that if you list all of the superstars in the league, there is really only 4 or 5 that can have a superstar impact without being ball dominant. Bradley Beal is a great example of this. Before Beal left everyone said Beal's game can mesh with anyone team. Look at Phoenix now. Look at Beal's numbers now. Fool's gold. Same goes for Avdija. Steph, Jokic, Embiid and now maybe Bron. Every other star in the league is taking the ball out of Avdija's hands.

I have to read on this board why Derik Queen can't win. And then I turn around and see the same people cheering for Avdija. Why doesn't anyone ask if Avdija can win or is that not a relevant question? 3 years from now lets say the Blazers are competing for a championship and Avdija is putting up 23/9/5. What does that team look like? Honest question. How is that team shaped? The problem is that on this board people are hypocrites. They like what they like in terms of play style. So they give bonus points to guys who, in their mind, "play the game the right way."

I'm glad to see Avdija playing better but let's be consistent. If we're going to say players like Derik Queen and Julius Randle can't win, why don't we say the same about Deni Avdija?

[playoffs]

"Ball dominant" in Deni's context is pretty misleading. Yes, Deni is most effective with the ball and is not an off-ball savant like Steph. However, he is not the type of on-ball guy that pounds the ball for 14 seconds each possession. He either attacks or moves the ball (which also contributes to his TO problem, but overall is a big positive for his team). Portland, with Deni as its best player, is not a stagnant offensive team. The players move and the ball moves. Deni would seamlessly fit in Boston, OKC (in the JWill role), GS, Denver, Houston, Memphis, Cavs, etc. No reason to think that if Deni and Portland's other players improve, plus whoever they add in the draft and whatever they do with Ant and Grant's contracts, they can't become a really good team. In fact, if their play from mid-January to present continues into next season with incremental improvement, I predict they will be a playoff team next season.

[The Consiglieri]

I don't have a right way lol, I think I'm pretty clear that I walk around with less Basketball acumen than anyone on the board in terms of the particulars of the game, and the players themselves. I've just spent nearly 40 years evaluating drafts and team building, and I'm pretty good at analyzing the rights and wrongs of strategic approaches.

I promoted the idea of the team potentially trading Deni in late winter/early spring '24 months before it happened after all, suggesting that with his contract value what it was, and his burdgeoning improvement in play, he was clearly the most valuable asset on the books they could float to improve the tank, and gain the most draft capital possible for '25 and '26. I was just shocked they made the trade in June of '24 rather than winter deadline '25 or summer '25, but did I think the trade was gonna happen? Eventually, absolutely. The value of the contract was empty calories for us, because we would suck for at least half and possibly 3/4's or more of the term of the cheap extension. It made 100% sense to deal him. I just viewed the package back as weak, and the timing as odd.

I have no axe to grind one way or the other on Avdija, definitely seems like there were some people heavily riding the "sell train" seems like you're one of them, but I don't really care one way or the other since I agree w/you on what made the most sense in terms of building a long term contender.

[dckingsfan]

If you want to win and you coach to win, you will win more games. If you want to lose and coach to lose (and have the backing of the FO to do so), you will lose.

If we had Deni and played him like our other vets we would still have lost.

If we had kept Deni we would be closer to winning while still being able to go after the top draft picks in the draft.

The point. It wasn't a good trade, IMO.

Not sure why this is science fiction? It is a solid opinion although I understand the other opinion of it could make the difference between the 5th and 7th pick. To me that isn't material. Others have stated it is to them, an understandable opinion.

[The Consiglieri]

I guess the difference, to me, is, with Deni, I think the team is probably somewhere between 20-55 right now and 23-52. That would more likely have us at 1.04 which correspondingly gives us a 44.6% chance of picking 1.06-1.08, which for me, just isn't remotely worth it, especially considering the possibility that are odds are even worse for a probably better and a bit deeper '26 class.

I continue to think the best idea (and granted this is self-aggrandizing) would be to have done what I suggested last spring before rumors or the trade even went down, which would be if we did trade him, trade him for '25 and '26 assets, probably at the winter '25 deadline.

It's interesting to consider what are record might have been in such a scenario. Oddly, I think it might have ended up worse (post-trade fall off in performance maybe w/no Deni, before the trade there were only a handful of close games in this alternate universe where we did actually trade him last summer), but who knows, we don't exist in that world, we're in this world, with 16 wins and 59 losses, and reasonable odds to win a top 3 or top 4 pick. Hopefully we get lucky.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

This board loves to obsess about people that don't affect winning. Blazers are a lottery team. Wizards are a lottery team. If Avdija was still a Wizard we would still be a lottery team. And if the Blazers didn't have Avdija they would still be a lottery team. Deni Avdija is fools gold. These stats are fools gold. He's a ball dominant role player. The only teams where he could keep the same play style are Denver with Jokic and Steph with Curry. Everyone else would take the ball out of his hands.

Here's a question. Would this board rather have the Blazers roster or the Wizards roster going forward?

I definitely disagree with you in terms of Deni's talent. You're definitely on the "sell to borderline hate" side of valuation with Deni.

It doesn't matter, though, as I agree w/the general premise as I posted earlier. i think our chances of building a 50-60 win team were and are infinitely better, having completely torn down the roster to the studs in time for these loaded back to back drafts, than having gone with Deni+what we could get out of the '24 class, and what we did in this season and next with Deni as a part of the build. I just think landing 1 or 2 elite players in '25 and '26, plus whatever we get out of '27 and beyond, builds a better team than Deni+the extra wins this season and 'before the '26 class.

My only quibble with my own argument there, is that I think there's a decent chance the best of all potential roads, was keeping Deni and instead moving him winter '25 for '25 and/or '26 draft assets+. In that scenario, we get a pick better than the Bub pick, maybe OKC's pick from Philly which ends up either being top 7-10 in this class, or top 5 or above in '26 if it doesn't convey, maybe Miami's first, maybe one of Houston's pieces of booty related to Phoenix etc. That would have been better, especially as a part of a package with another future first and a second or 2 and/or more.

Probably the best road to me was that move, the second best was what we actually did, and to me the worst, was just keeping him, and pretending a 50+ win team was possible in such a construction (which barring spectacular lottery luck, just wasn't gonna happen).

Lol at the "sell to borderline hate" notion. Avdija is a ball dominant player. The problem is that if you list all of the superstars in the league, there is really only 4 or 5 that can have a superstar impact without being ball dominant. Bradley Beal is a great example of this. Before Beal left everyone said Beal's game can mesh with anyone team. Look at Phoenix now. Look at Beal's numbers now. Fool's gold. Same goes for Avdija. Steph, Jokic, Embiid and now maybe Bron. Every other star in the league is taking the ball out of Avdija's hands.

I have to read on this board why Derik Queen can't win. And then I turn around and see the same people cheering for Avdija. Why doesn't anyone ask if Avdija can win or is that not a relevant question? 3 years from now lets say the Blazers are competing for a championship and Avdija is putting up 23/9/5. What does that team look like? Honest question. How is that team shaped? The problem is that on this board people are hypocrites. They like what they like in terms of play style. So they give bonus points to guys who, in their mind, "play the game the right way."

I'm glad to see Avdija playing better but let's be consistent. If we're going to say players like Derik Queen and Julius Randle can't win, why don't we say the same about Deni Avdija?

So a few things:

1. A guy that is excellent at getting to the rim, has a knack for getting to the line and isn't a liability there, can finish through contact, is a legitimate threat from three, cuts, and posts up, is going to be a offensive priority on any good team. Pure silliness for you to sit here and try to argue otherwise. Now do I think he's a number one offensive option on a contender? No. Do I think he's already moved into the territory of a second or third option on a contender? Yep. Can he make a further leap? I'd say there's a good chance. But the notion that he'd somehow would be cast back to sitting in the corner like he did his first couple of seasons on a good contending team is simply not living in the realm of facts based on his skill set and how he's playing.

2. The PHX/Beal comparison is just lazy, I don't know how else to describe it. Beal's problem isn't fitting in as a third option on PHX, he's actually a pretty efficient on the offensive side of the ball, his problem is that he's a prima donna who is a turn style on defense, is never healthy, and hasn't really wanted to do anything on the basketball court aside from get shots up for about 5-6 years now. Deni is an excellent defender where he can guard any position with his height and strength, an excellent rebounder, plays hard on every play, and plays the game the right way (I know, so unfair to say so, but oh well), all things Beal either hasn't shown interest in just about forever or never did or simply isn't capable of (see defensive versatility). Even aside from Beal, PHX problems run way deeper than just him but more so to do with them hollowing out their team for a soon-to-be over the hill Durant. Couple that with a haphazardly constructed roster that lacks meaningful playmakers on defense, a team that has little to no depth, and has limited trade options to get them out of there situation, that's why they are in the shape they are not because you want to make some piss poor comparison between Deni and Beal in some half baked notion that Deni is now some ball-dominant ball hog.

3. Blazers have one of the youngest rosters in the league (with the veterans on the team all missing a ton of time), complete nonsense that the measure of Deni being a good player or not should be weighed against him not getting them to the playoffs. Not to mention that they've already won 12 more games then last season even that being the case, probably will get another 2-3 before the season is over.

[dckingsfan]

I guess the difference, to me, is, with Deni, I think the team is probably somewhere between 20-55 right now and 23-52. That would more likely have us at 1.04 which correspondingly gives us a 44.6% chance of picking 1.06-1.08, which for me, just isn't remotely worth it, especially considering the possibility that are odds are even worse for a probably better and a bit deeper '26 class...

Just let Keefe do what Keefe does and not let him play enough minutes to actually affect the outcome of many games. We did that with Sarr playing over Jonas.

I mean, if we didn't tank hard this current roster could have won more games.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

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 metastasis 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.

When was the last time we attracted an elite mega free agent? 1962? I just don't seen any chance whatsoever we're drawing any FA interest from anyone until '26 or '27 at the earliest whether we traded Deni or not.

Paul Pierce was a star at the end of his career. That's been a franchise tradition dating back to Gus Williams and Bernard King. Moses Malone was acquired in exchange for Jeff Ruland.

Sorry if this isn't my best post. I'm spent today.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

This board loves to obsess about people that don't affect winning. Blazers are a lottery team. Wizards are a lottery team. If Avdija was still a Wizard we would still be a lottery team. And if the Blazers didn't have Avdija they would still be a lottery team. Deni Avdija is fools gold. These stats are fools gold. He's a ball dominant role player. The only teams where he could keep the same play style are Denver with Jokic and Steph with Curry. Everyone else would take the ball out of his hands.

Here's a question. Would this board rather have the Blazers roster or the Wizards roster going forward?

I definitely disagree with you in terms of Deni's talent. You're definitely on the "sell to borderline hate" side of valuation with Deni.

It doesn't matter, though, as I agree w/the general premise as I posted earlier. i think our chances of building a 50-60 win team were and are infinitely better, having completely torn down the roster to the studs in time for these loaded back to back drafts, than having gone with Deni+what we could get out of the '24 class, and what we did in this season and next with Deni as a part of the build. I just think landing 1 or 2 elite players in '25 and '26, plus whatever we get out of '27 and beyond, builds a better team than Deni+the extra wins this season and 'before the '26 class.

My only quibble with my own argument there, is that I think there's a decent chance the best of all potential roads, was keeping Deni and instead moving him winter '25 for '25 and/or '26 draft assets+. In that scenario, we get a pick better than the Bub pick, maybe OKC's pick from Philly which ends up either being top 7-10 in this class, or top 5 or above in '26 if it doesn't convey, maybe Miami's first, maybe one of Houston's pieces of booty related to Phoenix etc. That would have been better, especially as a part of a package with another future first and a second or 2 and/or more.

Probably the best road to me was that move, the second best was what we actually did, and to me the worst, was just keeping him, and pretending a 50+ win team was possible in such a construction (which barring spectacular lottery luck, just wasn't gonna happen).

Lol at the "sell to borderline hate" notion. Avdija is a ball dominant player. The problem is that if you list all of the superstars in the league, there is really only 4 or 5 that can have a superstar impact without being ball dominant. Bradley Beal is a great example of this. Before Beal left everyone said Beal's game can mesh with anyone team. Look at Phoenix now. Look at Beal's numbers now. Fool's gold. Same goes for Avdija. Steph, Jokic, Embiid and now maybe Bron. Every other star in the league is taking the ball out of Avdija's hands.

I have to read on this board why Derik Queen can't win. And then I turn around and see the same people cheering for Avdija. Why doesn't anyone ask if Avdija can win or is that not a relevant question? 3 years from now lets say the Blazers are competing for a championship and Avdija is putting up 23/9/5. What does that team look like? Honest question. How is that team shaped? The problem is that on this board people are hypocrites. They like what they like in terms of play style. So they give bonus points to guys who, in their mind, "play the game the right way."

I'm glad to see Avdija playing better but let's be consistent. If we're going to say players like Derik Queen and Julius Randle can't win, why don't we say the same about Deni Avdija?

Why won't Derik Queen succeed? (Per the Wizards Board consensus)

Queen lacks athleticism.
Queen is "totally disinterested in playing defense."
He's "top-heavy."
He's "not springy. "
He "will be a defensive liability."
"Who is he going to cover?"
"He's too short to play C and too slow to play PF."
Queen is a "poor perimeter defender"
Queen has foot odor

[dckingsfan]

I definitely disagree with you in terms of Deni's talent. You're definitely on the "sell to borderline hate" side of valuation with Deni.

It doesn't matter, though, as I agree w/the general premise as I posted earlier. i think our chances of building a 50-60 win team were and are infinitely better, having completely torn down the roster to the studs in time for these loaded back to back drafts, than having gone with Deni+what we could get out of the '24 class, and what we did in this season and next with Deni as a part of the build. I just think landing 1 or 2 elite players in '25 and '26, plus whatever we get out of '27 and beyond, builds a better team than Deni+the extra wins this season and 'before the '26 class.

My only quibble with my own argument there, is that I think there's a decent chance the best of all potential roads, was keeping Deni and instead moving him winter '25 for '25 and/or '26 draft assets+. In that scenario, we get a pick better than the Bub pick, maybe OKC's pick from Philly which ends up either being top 7-10 in this class, or top 5 or above in '26 if it doesn't convey, maybe Miami's first, maybe one of Houston's pieces of booty related to Phoenix etc. That would have been better, especially as a part of a package with another future first and a second or 2 and/or more.

Probably the best road to me was that move, the second best was what we actually did, and to me the worst, was just keeping him, and pretending a 50+ win team was possible in such a construction (which barring spectacular lottery luck, just wasn't gonna happen).

Lol at the "sell to borderline hate" notion. Avdija is a ball dominant player. The problem is that if you list all of the superstars in the league, there is really only 4 or 5 that can have a superstar impact without being ball dominant. Bradley Beal is a great example of this. Before Beal left everyone said Beal's game can mesh with anyone team. Look at Phoenix now. Look at Beal's numbers now. Fool's gold. Same goes for Avdija. Steph, Jokic, Embiid and now maybe Bron. Every other star in the league is taking the ball out of Avdija's hands.

I have to read on this board why Derik Queen can't win. And then I turn around and see the same people cheering for Avdija. Why doesn't anyone ask if Avdija can win or is that not a relevant question? 3 years from now lets say the Blazers are competing for a championship and Avdija is putting up 23/9/5. What does that team look like? Honest question. How is that team shaped? The problem is that on this board people are hypocrites. They like what they like in terms of play style. So they give bonus points to guys who, in their mind, "play the game the right way."

I'm glad to see Avdija playing better but let's be consistent. If we're going to say players like Derik Queen and Julius Randle can't win, why don't we say the same about Deni Avdija?

Why won't Derik Queen succeed? (Per the Wizards Board consensus)

Queen lacks athleticism.
Queen is "totally disinterested in playing defense."
He's "top-heavy."
He's "not springy. "
He "will be a defensive liability."
"Who is he going to cover?"
"He's too short to play C and too slow to play PF."
Queen is a "poor perimeter defender"
Queen has foot odor

Yeah, I don't get the hate for Queen. I can see some wanting a player more than Queen but to think that Queen has not path forward is "interesting".

[AFM]

I definitely disagree with you in terms of Deni's talent. You're definitely on the "sell to borderline hate" side of valuation with Deni.

It doesn't matter, though, as I agree w/the general premise as I posted earlier. i think our chances of building a 50-60 win team were and are infinitely better, having completely torn down the roster to the studs in time for these loaded back to back drafts, than having gone with Deni+what we could get out of the '24 class, and what we did in this season and next with Deni as a part of the build. I just think landing 1 or 2 elite players in '25 and '26, plus whatever we get out of '27 and beyond, builds a better team than Deni+the extra wins this season and 'before the '26 class.

My only quibble with my own argument there, is that I think there's a decent chance the best of all potential roads, was keeping Deni and instead moving him winter '25 for '25 and/or '26 draft assets+. In that scenario, we get a pick better than the Bub pick, maybe OKC's pick from Philly which ends up either being top 7-10 in this class, or top 5 or above in '26 if it doesn't convey, maybe Miami's first, maybe one of Houston's pieces of booty related to Phoenix etc. That would have been better, especially as a part of a package with another future first and a second or 2 and/or more.

Probably the best road to me was that move, the second best was what we actually did, and to me the worst, was just keeping him, and pretending a 50+ win team was possible in such a construction (which barring spectacular lottery luck, just wasn't gonna happen).

Lol at the "sell to borderline hate" notion. Avdija is a ball dominant player. The problem is that if you list all of the superstars in the league, there is really only 4 or 5 that can have a superstar impact without being ball dominant. Bradley Beal is a great example of this. Before Beal left everyone said Beal's game can mesh with anyone team. Look at Phoenix now. Look at Beal's numbers now. Fool's gold. Same goes for Avdija. Steph, Jokic, Embiid and now maybe Bron. Every other star in the league is taking the ball out of Avdija's hands.

I have to read on this board why Derik Queen can't win. And then I turn around and see the same people cheering for Avdija. Why doesn't anyone ask if Avdija can win or is that not a relevant question? 3 years from now lets say the Blazers are competing for a championship and Avdija is putting up 23/9/5. What does that team look like? Honest question. How is that team shaped? The problem is that on this board people are hypocrites. They like what they like in terms of play style. So they give bonus points to guys who, in their mind, "play the game the right way."

I'm glad to see Avdija playing better but let's be consistent. If we're going to say players like Derik Queen and Julius Randle can't win, why don't we say the same about Deni Avdija?

Why won't Derik Queen succeed? (Per the Wizards Board consensus)

Queen lacks athleticism.
Queen is "totally disinterested in playing defense."
He's "top-heavy."
He's "not springy. "
He "will be a defensive liability."
"Who is he going to cover?"
"He's too short to play C and too slow to play PF."
Queen is a "poor perimeter defender"
Queen has foot odor

Queen will end up a top 5 player from this draft when it's all said and done. The kid is a baller. I really don't care what his vertical leap is, or if he looks good with his shirt off.

[payitforward]

...why Deni is doing what he's doing...he's a damn good player.

Yup!
& improving.
& his new level of play has had a huge positive impact on the Blazers' record.
& if he was still a Wizard he'd be having the same kind of effect on our record.
& you could forget about any real shot at a top pick in the '25 draft.
& you could forget about keeping our 2026 R1 pick.

So, when you think about what we got for Deni, here's your list:

1. a solid chance at a top 3 pick in 2025.
2. we get to keep our 2026 R1 pick.
3. a chance at turning that 2026 pick into a top 3 prospect in the 2026 draft.
4. possibly a meaningfully higher R1 pick in the 2027 draft than if we hadn't made the trade.
5. Bub Carrington.
6. a R1 pick in 2029.
7. a R2 pick in 2028.
8. a R2 pick in 2030.
9. Malcolm Brogdon.