lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:dremill24 wrote:
Yeah I can only see the four deals in the graphic but the Rockets and Thunder ideas, in particular, are QUITE generous to the Suns lol
I'll agree that ( depending upon the picks specificity) the OKC trade is solid value. But the Houston trade is still short! Because...........
1- Reed Sheppard in his 1st season hasn't really shown anything in his first season. He's averaged around 4 points/ 1 rebound/ 1 assist on 35% FG shooting and 33% from three with a -1.7 BPM and a 0.7 VORP. and on a 10 million dollar contract for that production and efficiency as only a 6'2 player in a height, athleticism, physicality dominated league. His value is neutral at best as a salary currently.
2- Jock Landale. Is an end of bench garbage time big that although has good efficiency, hasn't done much of anything to prove he's more than an end of bench big equivalent to maybe Plumlees' current value, although younger and can occasionally shoot. He's basically an $8 million dollar near neutral filler.
3- Pick swap premise. This is really just surrendered value back to Houston! I mean common sense assessment here, which team do you really think will be worse in the coming years? Houston a top 2 playoff team with elite defense that just added KD and will obviously get better.
Or us who are giving up our best impact player, 27 points per game, and a player who's gravity was key for keeping double and triple teams off Booker. What player are we really going to add in the next couple of years that'll actually replace that impact?
Were currently not even a playoff team. We're a low key lottery team that has just given up its top impact/ production player, and obviously going to get much worse before we get better!
So we'd be giving Houston back a likely top 10-14 ( at worst) lottery pick in a swap?? And their pick would likely be in the mid to late 20s at best. That's like just giving back one of our two firsts in the deal.
We really have to break this mentality that it's acceptable to give up unnecessary value in trades. Especially when we're clearly giving up the best asset in the deal and helping the other team improve while we take a step back.
Basically, this trade becomes D Brooks/ J Smith Jr/ two salary fillers/ 1 1st ( by virtue of returning a lottery pick to Houston with the swap) reducing the cumulative value of the picks value aspect of the package. Does that really seem generous now??
It's funny how you down you are on Reed after just one season yet bring up random late 2nd draft prospects nobody has ever heard of and make comps as if they are second coming of some very good NBA players. Reed might not have been super high on my draft board last year but he's at worst a late lotto pick in most drafts.
Jock is filler. Yes. I expect in most KD trades, there will be at least one player who will be salary filler.
Why would there be a pick swap where we give up the better pick lol?
On the virtue of these 4 trades, only the Spurs deal has more than 2 FRPs on offer and in that trade the best player coming back is Sochan who I like but I probably would prefer Jabari/Reed over him. I think both OKC and Houston are solid.
Well there's obviously a big difference between being a top 3 pick putting up less than 5 points a game on Terrible efficiency, while making 10 million in your first year and the value comparison of a player on a very small scale 2nd round salary in terms of cost/ expectation vs production.
The 2nd round prospects that I have shared are mostly under the radar prospects that have initially low expectations, but for contractual cost could very likely outplay their value contract! Also in today's NBA, remind me what type of players succeed most? Is it the 6'2 and under prospects that have decent but not great athleticism, and haven't really shown the ability to shoot even though that's the crux of their draftable value. And also not showing even decent efficiency.
And for the record, being down on him.does not mean that I hate him.or have any animosity towards him, just that for overall value purposes, and knowing the direction the league is trending, that he's unfortunately on the wrong end of the spectrum.
Now I'm not saying I'd be completely against taking him, I'm only pointing out the obvious that Reeds' value given to en what he's shown or not shown in his 1st season absolutely does not accurately represent 3rd pick level value. And he shouldn't be leveraged as having that value ( given what he's shown).
There's nothing wrong with him being a filler at his value taking cost per production into consideration. But treating him like he's established 3rd pick level lottery value is completely nonsensical. As I've said, the value isn't equitable and they should switch Reed out with Eason or Whitmore to accentuate further value for a premium value exchange.
Also it's funny how almost no one here including yourself chooses to do the level of digging and research on these players as I do, yet because I offer lesser known prospects that aren't nationally recognized or hyped, you somehow feel it necessary to ridicule or deride the fact that I also offer their apex ceiling outcome if everything hits,
as if that's somehow an impossibility or a histrionic perspective. Yet when it's a player you have interest in, even though I'm only making a value assessment based on their documented statistical production and efficiency, your assessment is somehow more valid and reasonable but somehow mine isn't? Tell me, what exactly he's shown in a full season to warrant top 3 pick lottery value in a trade?
By your logic, shouldn't Jalil Okafor, James Wiseman, Dragan Bender, etc all be viewed as having the same value in a trade by virtue of draft range regardless of their first year outcome. Or any player by virtue of draft range? How about Johnny Davis?
He was a top 10 pick that no one wanted and had similar efficiency and production to what Sheppard showed. Should he have been viewed as having that level of trade value due to draft range? Is statistical production/ efficiency Irrelevant in trade value assessments?
And yea, I'm well aware of the fact that inconsequential fillers would be included in trades man. I mean look at how many trades I offer and the frequency too. Go back if necessary and reflect upon how much I detail the aspects of the trades even mentinloning fillers , expirings, picks, etc. I have no qualms with taking Landale back as an obvious necessity filler for salary matching. But his cumulative value is still what it is, and the cumulative value thresholds need to be met otherwise, we lose the trade in terms of value!
We need to try and extract maximum value as much as possible. And Landales' value is another filler and obviously not contextually a centerpiece value option nor a young athletic intriguing talent.
So again, regardless of Reed's draft pick range, for his production vs contractual cost, he's currently in near neutral range by virtue of his lack of production and inefficiency/ struggles. Also his athletic and statural weaknesses are not likely to bolster his outcome positively.
This makes him at 10 million basically in the salary filler range along with Landale because both their impact/ production vs cost is similar in terms of overall value. Due to that, the premium value pieces shift to D Brooks/ J Smith Jr/ two fillers/ two firsts and a pick swap ( our 1st returned). Now IF Houston would actually be willing to return our 29' first in the trade, which obviously isn't a swap unless we're replacing that 1st coming back with one of our CLE " least favorable " picks (which Bourget made now statement of or reference to in his tweet or YouTube breakdown).
Then the value difference I've referenced is made up equitably by the cumulative pick value. But yes, even though I actually do like Sheppard and have given him a davorable ceiling outcome of Mark Price/ crafty Darius Garland. I didn't make him struggle as he has, but also won't falsely portray his current value in a trade just because he was picked high.
Lastly, I actually do understand the difference between pick trades and pick swaps man. But obviously reflecting on the mind numbing propensity of our front office to give up unnecessary and excessive value in trades as clearly illustrated by Ishbia and Jones with pretty much all of the trades that we've done over the past couple of seasons. And frequently the Phoenix media/ podcasters have also championed this too.
So while obviously a mistake on my part, I've become fairly conditioned to expect nothing less from their proposals than often follow suit with what Ishbia and Jones have done pandering and capitulating to the suns front office up until the last week or so as a result of the horrific outcome of the season.
Now we don't even have draft assets to offer currently aside from out CLE swaps. So when Bourget said a 29' swap, my assumption was that we were giving up our CLE 29' 1st as a sweetener to close the deal. Because that's historically what our front office has shown to do. And PHNX often champions similar premises.
You know just like they did with the Beal trade unnecessarily and with the KD trade too overpaying. Because that's their pattern of negligence over the past few seasons. And Bourget has often promoted those same trade ideas/ frameworks along with Esposito often championing them too at times.
And honestly, couldn't he just have said our 29' 1st returned? Or otherwise actually mentioned in his video breakdown, or in the actual tweet the specifics of the pick swap he only mentioned vaguely?
