Woj: Deni to Portland for 14th pick and Brogdon

[payitforward]

You keep trotting out this argument that no one predicted Deni breaking out, and people keep rebuffing you, and you just keep saying it because ...

Because no one has yet linked to the post where he said "I predict a major break out from Deni next season." Feel free to link to where you did.

Don't get me wrong; certainly we were all *hoping* for more development from Deni.

...Your reasoning keeps saying that it couldn't have possibly been a massive blunder by letting a great young talent slip through your hands for low upside return...the trade looks so lopsided.

Looking forward to where you called Deni "a great young talent" (no I don't mean post-trade).

...plenty of folks here...talking ...on a daily basis the potential they saw in Deni...

Billshut -- along w/ Rui before he was traded, Deni was constantly criticized for most of his tenure on the team.

That said, he was the guy I would have picked in 2020 (given who was on the board). I was thrilled he dropped to 9. But, Deni wasn't very good his first year. He was no better his second year. He wasn't significantly better his third year either. He was definitely better his 4th year -- especially (& mostly) in the 2d half.

That's why we were able to get 2 R1 picks, 2 R2 picks, & a player for him.

...You've literally gone from first that it was a haul we got for him so we had to do it and that we sold high, to Brogdon was great for leadership even if we didn't bring him back, to now we had to do it because Deni was too good and would have ruined the rebuild....

Here's what I've actually written:
1. I presume Dawkins traded Deni because he didn't fit the timeline of a "down to the studs" rebuild.
2. I was (still am) sure Will got as much as he could for Deni -- i.e. that he took the best offer he could get.
3. If the league in general expected Deni to blow up the way he did, then he would have brought more.

All of that seems obvious to me.

...The honorable thing would be just to take the giant L, ... you're boy Dawkins got master stroked ...being petty that the best young talent on the team if Deni was still here today would be a guys Dawkins didn't draft....

I've said this before, & I'll say it again: I don't like the tone of some of your posts (e.g. the words I just quoted). Keep it up, & I'll put you on "Ignore."

This has nothing whatever with differences of opinion or analysis. E.g. nate & I sometimes differ, but I don't have a problem of any kind w/ nate's analyses even when I disagree.

Dawkins is not "my" or anyone's "boy." & you're not qualified to tie his shoes when it comes to team-building, trades, the draft, or any other aspect of his profession in the NBA.

Was that last sentence clear enough? It applies to me as well as to you, btw -- it's not an insult.

[doclinkin]

Nate absolutely broke down Deni’s improvement and per minute stats post all star break and posited his future breakout. He made a convincing enough argument that it was easy to agree.


Still doesn’t negate that this was a smart trade and a solid accumulation of assets. Still too early to judge which way it balances out. As far as Portland can say they won the trade. But as far as the Wiz are concerned it may have been a win win for both teams given what we need to do to get better.

[payitforward]

Guys work out trades by talking back and forth until, somehow, both sides feel like they are meeting more important needs by making, rather than not making, the trade. For that reason, there will ALWAYS be a way to argue in support of EITHER side of EVERY transaction.

Yet, in the end, some transactions will turn out to have been better for one side than another -- often for reasons that simply can't be predicted in advance. Thus, for example, it's conceivable (if extremely unlikely!) that we draft the next Jokic with one of the R2 picks coming to us in the Deni trade.

OTOH, the best argument for the nate, et. al.'s side of this dispute has never even been raised, or at least I don't recall it being raised, even though it's utterly obvious. Do I really need to outline it?

Ok...

Spoiler:

Suppose Portland's GM called Will & said, "here's an idea: you give me the Carrington kid, plus that R1 pick I owe you in '28, plus a couple of R2 picks, plus an expiring vet salary to make things work -- & I'll give you Deni Avdija."

Would you do that deal? If you say "yes," it's hard to continue arguing for the original one, don't you think? & I'd be sorely tempted to say yes! OTOH, I can imagine someone's answer being "no."

Make sense?

[payitforward]

Nate absolutely broke down Deni’s improvement and per minute stats post all star break and posited his future breakout. He made a convincing enough argument that it was easy to agree.

Fair enough. Nor am I surprised.

[One_and_Done]

Bad trade in hindsight probably, but it was part of the change in direction, which was good. Tough to be too critical of it.

[Kanyewest]

Nate absolutely broke down Deni’s improvement and per minute stats post all star break and posited his future breakout. He made a convincing enough argument that it was easy to agree.


Still doesn’t negate that this was a smart trade and a solid accumulation of assets. Still too early to judge which way it balances out. As far as Portland can say they won the trade. But as far as the Wiz are concerned it may have been a win win for both teams given what we need to do to get better.

Yup.

We really need to take a moment and appreciate what Deni has done in the final third of the season. He isn't just a rock solid player, he has produced like an All-Star.

Since February 8th, Deni has averaged 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists on a .604 TS%. The team was just -1.2 per 100 possessions in those minutes, so Deni had this talentless roster playing like a 37-win team while he was on the floor.

Compare that production to three other All-Stars this season:
Player A: 19.9 points, 8.2 rebounds, 6.1 assists, .566 TS%
Player B: 22.2 points, 6.9 rebounds, 5.4 assists, .545 TS%
Player C: 23.0 points, 5.5 rebounds, 3.6 assists, .580 TS%
Avdija: 19.3 points, 9.5 rebounds, 3.9 assists, .604 TS%

Of those 3 All-Stars and Deni, who would you take?

Spoiler:

Player A is Scottie Barnes
Player B is Paulo Banchero
Player C is Jaylen Brown

I'm no longer sure what Deni's ceiling is. It's not like there's any reason to think he has plateaued. Can he keep getting better as a ball handler and decision maker and reduce those turnovers? What if he develops a more reliable step-back 3? Right now, teams can only deal with him by giving him space and shading his right hand, but if he starts hitting step-back 3's, there won't be much of an answer for him.

[Kanyewest]

Some more pro Deni takes prior to him being traded

Deni can easily be the third best player on a championship contender. That is no small thing at all. There is even a small chance he could be the second best player but you would need a Wemby type talent to be #1.

From a kings fan visiting the board

I know that there's no chance that the team would let Deni go, so despite having started out just looking for potential future Kings, I think I'm a Wizards fan now because of him.

[x]

Read on Twitter

?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/x]

But, but only Kuzma can handle more usage...

On a serious note, those numbers are impressive considering the stretches of games his teammates ignore him. He's basically making it impossible for the coaching staff to tolerate that from teammates.

That stretch also includes his recent 5-6 game slump from three.

Calling major BS here. You can't honestly watch games on a consistent basis and make this claim. Kuzma undoubtly looks off dudes all the time. Considering Deni is our best player (yep I'm here to claim that), it goes to reason he looks him off. Both the numbers and the eyes tell me this.

Again I love how the Kuzma apologist always want to point to how what Kuzma is doing to help Deni, but never the other way around. And another again, Kuzma is a -6.6 this season On-Off. Deni a +4.9. Deni sets up Kuzma plenty too considering how much less the ball is in his hands as compared to Kuzma.

A lot of really interesting arguments to always bolster a guys that doesn't play a lick of defense, chucks, then barks like he's serious about basketball.

I have some quotes about Deni potentially being better than Otto Porter going forward, him being a candidate for most improved player, and him figured it out by his ability to finish at the rim. I didn't state my opinion on what I thought Deni's trade value was because I would not think the Wizards would move on from Deni at that point in time.

Basically, the breakout had already happened the prior season.

[tontoz]

Deni dropped 43/15 for us in February '24. We still lost though lol.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/202402140NOP.html

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

You keep trotting out this argument that no one predicted Deni breaking out, and people keep rebuffing you, and you just keep saying it because ...

Because no one has yet linked to the post where he said "I predict a major break out from Deni next season." Feel free to link to where you did.

Don't get me wrong; certainly we were all *hoping* for more development from Deni.

More BS. The parameters of your argument are based on someone saying some dumb phrase that you have somehow made up in your head that it is the only possible qualifier for someone being right about Deni. False premise for making an evaluation. Plus Kanye just already bumped several of my post, sorry I got to young kids below two, don't have the bandwidth to go digging through RealGM threads from multiple years ago.

Billshut -- along w/ Rui before he was traded, Deni was constantly criticized for most of his tenure on the team.

That said, he was the guy I would have picked in 2020 (given who was on the board). I was thrilled he dropped to 9. But, Deni wasn't very good his first year. He was no better his second year. He wasn't significantly better his third year either. He was definitely better his 4th year -- especially (& mostly) in the 2d half.

That's why we were able to get 2 R1 picks, 2 R2 picks, & a player for him.

Not by me. He was put in a tough spot to develop on this team from day one. From Westbrook and Beal, to Beal, Porzingis, Kuzma, to Kuzma and Jordan Poole. He got on the floor because of his defense and rebounding, but was relegated to an after thought or parked on the perimeter to chuck threes which was not a strength of his at that point, willing to concede that.

You've marched out new reasoning every quarter and it gets more convoluted each and every time. We didn't get a haul, we got a middling at best PG prospect in a weak draft, a glass made veteran point guard we'll get nothing for (you've both claimed that we could get something for him and then it changed once it was apparent we weren't going to get anything for him that it was worth it for the mentorship, two meaningless second rounders, and Portland's second best first a ways away. Also this other false premise that Dawkins got the best deal fails to realize he failed in talent evaluation and it is once again set up by your false premise that he got the best deal that he could. He sold low, and the best deal would have been no deal.

...The honorable thing would be just to take the giant L, ... you're boy Dawkins got master stroked ...being petty that the best young talent on the team if Deni was still here today would be a guys Dawkins didn't draft....

I've said this before, & I'll say it again: I don't like the tone of some of your posts (e.g. the words I just quoted). Keep it up, & I'll put you on "Ignore."

This has nothing whatever with differences of opinion or analysis. E.g. nate & I sometimes differ, but I don't have a problem of any kind w/ nate's analyses even when I disagree.

Dawkins is not "my" or anyone's "boy." & you're not qualified to tie his shoes when it comes to team-building, trades, the draft, or any other aspect of his profession in the NBA.

Was that last sentence clear enough? It applies to me as well as to you, btw -- it's not an insult.

[/quote]

Maybe you're just a bit too sensitive, I didn't say anything crazy there, just saying it be honorable to take the L instead of trotting bad arguments built on false premise again and again.

Also, no racial undertones were meant by "your boy" as you are so painfully obviously trying to allude to. People say "your guy", "your man", your dude" all the time, all that was meant by "your boy". Stop being such a drama queen.

[payitforward]

First off:

...no racial undertones were meant by "your boy" ...

I see how you might have thought I was invoking that, but I didn't mean to.

You had pixxed me off, but I had/have no reason whatever to imagine you are a racist. My apologies if I gave that impression.

On the other hand, I do have a high opinion of Dawkins' work so far. Hence, I also have no hesitation in repeating that...

...you're not qualified to tie his shoes... (blah blah blah)

Nor am I for that matter, which -- obviously! -- I should have mentioned in the same sentence!

Secondly:

... I got to young kids below two....

Good for you! Nothing greater than having young kids. I bet my kids are older than your parents. I envy you!
(Happily, I should mention, I do have 7 grandchildren!)

Thirdly:

You keep trotting out this argument that no one predicted Deni breaking out...

Yeah... Doc & others have pointed out nate's clear expectations, just one example, of major improvements from Deni. Hence...

Finally:

... Maybe you're just a bit too sensitive....

Not something I have often been called! OTOH, I have been called "wrong" plenty of times! &, in many of those cases --but not always, ok?!-- I'm sure I was.

IOW, in all the above, as & where noted, you were right & I was wrong.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

First off:

...no racial undertones were meant by "your boy" ...

I see how you might have thought I was invoking that, but I didn't mean to.

You had pixxed me off, but I had/have no reason whatever to imagine you are a racist. My apologies if I gave that impression.

On the other hand, I do have a high opinion of Dawkins' work so far. Hence, I also have no hesitation in repeating that...

...you're not qualified to tie his shoes... (blah blah blah)

Nor am I for that matter, which -- obviously! -- I should have mentioned in the same sentence!

Secondly:

... I got to young kids below two....

Good for you! Nothing greater than having young kids. I bet my kids are older than your parents. I envy you!
(Happily, I should mention, I do have 7 grandchildren!)

Thirdly:

You keep trotting out this argument that no one predicted Deni breaking out...

Yeah... Doc & others have pointed out nate's clear expectations, just one example, of major improvements from Deni. Hence...

Finally:

... Maybe you're just a bit too sensitive....

Not something I have often been called! OTOH, I have been called "wrong" plenty of times! &, in many of those cases --but not always, ok?!-- I'm sure I was.

IOW, in all the above, as & where noted, you were right & I was wrong.

Alright time to put this to rest, got the kiddos to bed, going to watch this Naomi Osaka US Open match:

January 7th, 2024

Dear Deni Avdija,

If by some chance you happen to read this, I am so terribly sorry you have to play with such clueless dumb teammates. With teammates who don’t fight and scrap. Who don’t make the right play. I’m so terribly sorry your budding game is being stunted by these players.

You played wonderfully tonight. Running point at times. Running secondary point. Hitting some threes. Driving. Using your body. I think you’re just beginning to learn how good you are. It’s exciting to see.

You are the only reason to watch this team this season. You and Bilal. Let us both hope that brighter days are ahead, with teammates who know ball and have talent.

With gratitude, but also with concern for your emotional and spiritual state,

badinage

You had me at hello...

Dude is going to be great if we just get out of the mentality that he can't do more or that he has limitations. Sure it pisses me off that his free throw shooting falls off whenever he starts playing really good, other than that, I'm happy.

This dude keeps popping up on advanced defensive metric after advanced metric as an outlier (in a good way), has point forward abilities, has shown that he'll hustle his ass off and has a fire to him, rebounds on both end, and is actually a decent shot blocker and steal obtainer considering his average wingspan, yet people keep doubting what is painfully obvious... that the kid is a building block piece if you just give him some confidence, latitude, and most importantly let him touch the damn basketball.

February 4th, 2024

Didnt watch after first but way too many turnovers from him. Hopefully these will be learning moments for him, but got to love 10-13 from the field with only shooting blemish being the missed freebies

This is why I always pump the brakes on all the "Deni needs higher usage" talk. Deni isn't yet able to impose his will offensively. He is at his best when he aggressively takes what the defense gives, but doesn't force things. On some nights, that'll mean 20 points on 15 shots. On other nights, that will mean 9 points on 7 shots.

That said, after the Trade Deadline when nothing matters anymore, I'd be fine with Deni getting more opportunities to try to create offense. I'm not expecting the results to be all that great, but it should help his individual development.

I think he should definitely get more usage, way too many possessions he's not touching the ball. I do agree that there is probably some limit to how much additional usage where it makes him a negative. So I think the folks that say that they want to see his usage increase are right, they may be wrong on how much he can take. Also, it's not just about how many points he's producing either, it's about not relegating him to the guy other teammates can lookoff and involving him more in the wrinkles of the offense.

Also, I certainly am expecting him to struggle some if he does take on higher usage. That's fine, now is the time to let him work some of the kinks out. It's not like Kuzma doesn't have horrible high turnover games as well and he's supposedly some masterclass at absorbing usage.

Another thing that is important, is I don't want Deni to become obsessive about scoring. I would be fine with him being an 15-18 scorer while also doing all the little things that make him a unique and in many ways outstanding player. Deni has maybe -I don't want to jinx it- figured out had meat and potatoes on offense, next it's working on doing that while reducing some of the avoidable TOs while maybe adding a go-to move or two (I love when he's taken his size advantage over smaller defenders in the post this season).

I'd like to see Deni doing something along the lines of 17-18 points 8 rebound 6.5 assists 1 steal 0.5 blocks 2 turnovers on 50/38/80 splits with him d-ing it up on multiple positions. That to me, even if another two years away, is a player that can be valuable piece for 8+ years as he hits the age of 25.

February 8th, 2024

Is it his crybaby act with the refs that coaches hate?

I think this gets Deni in trouble not just with the coaching staff but with the refs. Like he starts getting a reputation with them and then can't get any calls. I get the sense he is not his own best advocate. Has a tendency to run his mouth. Little things like when interviewers asked players 'what teammate do you not want to sit next to on the plane?' on the Japan trip, and Deni was the near-universal answer because essentially he talks all the time, lol.

I think Deni needs a vet with a ring to teach him how to get that respect from the refs. Teach how to shut up and win. Sadly his vet coming in was Beal who often would sulk and bxtch at the refs.

So it's been reduced to blatant innuendo for explaining what the hell is going on with the coaching staff and Deni? I have to say the plane ride interviews as proof made me laugh out loud for the size of that reach. A comedy segment used as a cudgel a young player's rep is special.

February 15th, 2024

Deni has arrived.

Time to build around Deni.

He with out a doubt should be a critical piece to the the rebuild. He has a unique skillset for a guy with his size, stupid for us if we look a gift horse in the mouth. He's not a number one, I don't think, but he could be an elite three with what he can do on the court. He could play himself into a player that has not significant weakness with his obviously improved three ball which he's now shooting 40+% from there this season through 54 games.

I'm not done...

[badinage]

[Hand held high]

It was very clear to all close watchers of the team that this was going to prove to be a colossally stupid trade.

Also? We cannot sneak Tre Johnson into a discussion of Deni Avdija

How not?

We ended up with the worst possible pick for our draft record. If you add the wins of swapping Deni minutes for Kuz minutes and assume we got the worst pick, there’s a chance we lost the pick entirely (outside top 10) but a likelihood no matter what that Tre was gone by our pick.

You can hate the trade and still understand a key component of it lay in maximizing our best chance to get a high pick. Failing to respect that is being deliberately obtuse. Yes you can massage losses with better players. But it makes it harder. They have been playing the math the other way. Betting heavy on high draft picks.

I understand the rationale of the trade — though I would have liked for the GM to have stepped forward to explain that rationale himself, and that didn’t happen. Why? And why didn’t the media push him to?

But whatever. I understand it.

I *disagree* with it. And I think that unless Bub or that pick in 2047 pans out — and pans out big — it was a blunder, and not a small one.

Now, as to Tre being part of this discussion. It’s absurd. Sorry. It just is. You assume a whole set of possibilities, while entirely dismissing — or ignoring — others.

Deni is an intriguing talent, and getting better, but his presence on the roster wasn’t going to catapult the team to 30 or so wins. And I know it must sound unseemly to talk about losing games with such blithe casualness, but I’m not talking about throwing games. It doesn’t ever have to get to that. But a team can lose in a variety — in a wide, wide variety — of ways.

Isn’t that what the m.o. of these embarrassingly bad years is? To all but tell the fan base — we’re going to lose; we *want* to lose; we *want* to be abysmal.

So, actually losing isn’t hard. On the contrary, it’s super easy. You can compete hard — and lose because you’re talent is piss-poor; you can compete hard — and lose because you’re not deep enough; you can compete hard — and lose because your best players are so young; you can compete — and lose because you’re not a seasoned, savvy team; you can compete — and lose because your coach pulls the right strings at the right time … etc., etc.

Losing is not the issue, and never was. Everyone knows this team is going to lose. It’s not even suspect. Just trot out Anthony Gill and a bunch of G-leaguers when things get too close. Who could object?

(In fact, given that losing is this team’s AMBITION — shades of “The Producers” — we should be able to just forfeit games. No? Why not? Isn’t that the logical extension of this all-but-declared tanking? I’ll say this: it would be more honest. Not all games, by the way. You still want to develop the younguns. But 15-20 games—?)

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

February 15th, 2024

The swiss army knife, third option on a good/playoff team are solid assessments IMO.

He's an excellent defender though unfortunately he's consistently been on rosters that have by-and-large been horrible on defense so he doesn't get the shine he deserves there. He can guard 1-4 on any night, and the 5 in a pinch (he did some solid work on Wemby a couple weeks ago when matched up on him), and teams make a concerted effort to get him away from their best offensive players with screens and switches on a constant basis; it often works because he plays with a bunch of sieves. He's shown that he can be elite on that end too, various BBall Index Metrics bear this out.

There's some debate if he's a 3 or 4, but he's consistently played more minutes at the 3; nonetheless he's versatile. If you consider him to be a 3, he's tops among the position in rebounding and assists per game or if you are looking at it per 36 minutes. He get's you about 1.2/1.3 stocks a game to go along 1.4 deflections a game.

His shooting splits this season are 52/40/74 with this free throw shooting being a bit streaky over the past month. The big thing here is he worked with a coach this offseason on his three ball and the work is obvious. Smoother mechanics, less hesitation, better form overall, and it has paid dividends. He sits at 8th in the league among SFs after shooting sub 30 last year. His TS% for the season is 61%, and he's become a great finisher at the rim. He also is quietly becoming very good at drawing fouls, if he can up his FT% along the way he becomes that much more efficient.

Then you have the intangibles. He's guy that plays hard, hustles, makes the right pass, moves the ball, doesn't take plays off, plays scrappy. This is often an overlooked thing with him, but he just plays the right way (granted that's subjective) on both ends of the court.

As of today, his biggest weaknesses are turning the ball over and streaky free throw shooting as mentioned above; in the past you could argue it has been assertiveness. The TOs have increased with more minutes and a larger role in the offense, but I'll say his turnovers are typically of the variety of trying to make a great/difficult pass as opposed to say a travels/charges/stepping out of bounds, etc. He also has a tendency to sometimes let refs get to him, whether he's in the right or wrong, but has improved somewhat in that aspect.

In years past he has definitely struggled with confidence issues, which I think was twofold in that some of it was mental but a fair amount of it was playing on treadmill teams where there was a lot of favoritism towards vets as well as having his minutes jerked around with no rhyme or reason whether he played good or bad.

He's only 23, and I'm betting that there's going to be a lot of talk about him once he finally starts to get some exposure with how he's starting to play. There might be some ups and downs with his plays, but I'm really bullish on him and think he can be a core piece to the Wizards' rebuild or as a piece on a serious contender.

February 16th, 2024

Nah.He's a fantastic role player and would start on most teams

I think his offense is a little over-rated, As you have teams just smothering Poole/Kuzma so he kinda doesnt get scouted, But he's a very under-rated defender, Smart (Wouldnt say good) passer, Can hit open 3's at a great clip as we

The contract he signed was huge unders back then, If Washington want to get assets, Deni is worth 2 firsts. He's in this weird spot where he's being asked to guard 2/3's because Gafford was a hugely over-rated defender, Kuzma just stopped trying, while Jones was ok and Poole also sucked, He took on the best opponents, Sure at Washington thats fine, If he found himself on another team he would probably be pushed to guard the 4,

He struggles with quick opponents, He's a smart defender, A fantastic rebounder, he can hit open 3's now, but hes also on a fantastic contract, But he needs to learn how to use his **** left hand

Not sure I agree with you here on several points.

First and foremost, teams don't really smoother Poole, he just sucks.

In terms of defending 2/3, most teams would have him do that on the regular. He has the size, speed, and instincts, and regularly shows it. Not really sure where you pulling that he "struggles" with quick opponents from. The only areas you can legitimately say that he "struggles" on defense is with huge centers in the post that negate his size. He also used to be a bit foul prone too, but by-and-large he's mostly cleaned that up. He can guard the 1-4 on basically most matchups and do a good job at it.

Again, he doesn't get props like other players do because he's been on horrendous defensive teams, and that's no reflection of him. I'd be willing to say that 95% of Wizards fans would attest to this not being at the feet of Avdjia who is working every night on that end and doing a good job (you can only do so much when your teammates who play heavy minutes by-and-large could care less).

I do agree that Gafford was pretty overrated on defense. Great shot blocker, but just too weak in his base and was prone to getting pushed around. Also struggled with pick-and-rolls and being pulled out to the perimeter. Bagley, his replacement with minutes, is worse. Agreed on Kuzma, too. He hasn't even attempted to look like he's trying on defense this season even though he has the tools to not be a liability there.

Poole, as bad as he's been on offense, might be worse on defense. Dumb fouls, not trying, floating in no mans land, lack of hustle, not knowing where to rotate, being outmuscled, etc., etc. We'd probably have 5-6 more wins had it not been the debacle that he has been this season on defense alone. Jones tries on defense, but he just doesn't have the size to be effective night-in, night-out.

Our two next guys who play the most minutes are Kispert and Coulibaly. Kispert tries, but is still a sieve at this point in his career. Just doesn't have good instincts and has terrible lateral quickness on that end. Bilal, our second best defender after Deni, can get some blocks and steal is still very much a work in progress. He was defending better at the beginning of the season, but since the scouting reports have started to catch up, he has struggled quite a bit. Has the tools, but is a rookie, and has a lot of physical growing and learning still to do.

Which is to say, Avdija is playing with scraps on the defensive side of the ball. A perfect example of this was last night versus New Orleans. When he was off the court the team was something in the minus 15-20 range, with him on the court they were +15. In the nine minutes he didn't play the team got destroyed.

On the season, the Wizards roster's On-Off numbers among players who have played have played 60% of the teams games (they've played 54) since being on the roster or overall who and have averaged at least 10+ MPG:

-Delon Wright (13.8 MPG in 33 games): +5.6
-Deni Avdija (28.2 MPG in 54 games): +3.6
-Daniel Gafford (26.5 MPG in 45 games with Washington): +2.8
-Marvin Bagley (24.1 MPG in 11 games with Washington): +2.6
-Landry Shamet (15.1 MPG in 37 games): +2.0
-Richaun Holmes (12.0 MPG in 2 games with Washington): -0.5
-Bilal Coulibaly (26.9 MPG in 53 games): -5.4
-Jordan Poole (29.2 MPG in 52 games): -5.4
-Kyle Kuzma (31.7 MPG in 52 games): -5.6
-Corey Kispert (22.5 MPG in 53 games): -5.6
-Tyus Jones (29.0 MPG in 54 games): -7.0

The other two players that that have averaged 10+ minutes but have been traded away that don't meet that games played threshold are:

-Danilo Gallinari (14.8 MPG in 26 games with Washington): -2.5
-Mike Muscala (14.1 MPG in 24 games with Washington): -10.8

So on a roster that has been relatively injury free for the season, Avdija's on-off numbers speak volumes given that he's one of two players on the roster to have played every game this season (Jones being the other). Among players who have played 20+ MPG he's one of the three to have a positive on-off, which he leads among the three. One of those other players Gafford has been traded and the other Bagley has played 20% of the teams games this season after being traded for.

The only other guys to have a positive on-offs are two journey man guards who have both missed approximately 40% of the season and both average less than 15 MPG.

The top five players other than him still on the roster in terms of MPG (minus Bagley who has only played 11 games with the team) are:

-Bilal Coulibaly (26.9 MPG in 53 games): -5.4
-Jordan Poole (29.2 MPG in 52 games): -5.4
-Kyle Kuzma (31.7 MPG in 52 games): -5.6
-Corey Kispert (22.5 MPG in 53 games): -5.6
-Tyus Jones (29.0 MPG in 54 games): -7.0

Of those five guys, they've missed a grand total of 6 games. Deni is +9 to the next nearest guy in Bilal Coulibaly.

If this isn't proof of his impact on the court is, especially defense, I don't know what is...

February 16th, 2024

I'm not gonna lie, i dont follow Deni and the Wizzies, and most of my information comes from others talking about him. So others being wrong about his D and me parroting uninformed opinions is an unfortunate casualty of a run of the mill NBA fan. His stats til this year and his willingness to extend so early honestly didnt make me think much of him. If he was hot stuff, he'd have wanted to hit RFA and get paid the most he could, woulda been my line of thinking.

That's fair.

His offense was always the question mark with him. Didn't have a go to move, wasn't great at converting at rim, was a career 31% shooter from trey.

What kept him on the court was his defense, rebounding, and his ability to move the ball and facilitate (even despite the above holes in his offense). The second half of last year, you could tell he's was getting better at finishing at the rim, but would still miss a lot of attempts he did 95% of the work getting to a place he wanted to be but couldn't convert. His three ball at the beginning of last season was a disaster, then had some better shooting months from there, but was never able to put together any consistency from range.

This year he's basically been both excellent at finishing at the rim and shooting the three ball other than a bumpy two-thirds of December where his all around game kind of went into a slump out of nowhere. Despite the more consistent offense, for most of the season his minutes have been a choppy, herky-jerky mess and until recently, it was a thing that many Wizards fans were constantly complaining about. Since WUJ was removed as HC, he's gotten much more consistent minutes (especially after the deadline when they were showcasing a lot of players) and it's not a surprise he's starting to put it together more with not having to look over his back.

March 24th, 2024

^ Never.

Best player on the team, and the face of it as well. The only two-way player, and a guy who plays the game the right way.

(How many players on this team make the extra pass? Most don’t even make the pass.)

I heard some dude on sports radio — 980 — saying that Deni wouldn’t start for any other team in the league. So stupid. So clueless. The guy would start for at least 28 teams and probably EVERY team.

Ah, to be so confidently out of the loop.

Imagine Deni on the Nuggets, Knicks (Thibs would play him 45 minutes a game and grind his knees to dust), OKC, Clippers, Suns, etc., etc. This guy would be getting All-Defensive recognition and would be a borderline All-Star. He'd seamlessly fit into so many squads because he's not a prima donna, plays excellent defense, hustle, isn't selfish, wants to win, etc., etc.

April 3rd, 2024

Good team win.

Deni, aside from being cold from deep, had a solid, solid game. Butler made some huge shots when the Bucks looked like they may rally that kind of took the air out of their sail; he was like 3-3 from three in the late stages. Gill had a lunch game, looked like he belonged. Poole, despite still just taking some mind-numbingly bad shots and proceeding to just brick them, was a good floor general and I don't think I noticed him getting totally abused on defense.

Vuk looked pretty damn good, a lot more polished than I was expecting. That one hesitation, spin move on the perimeter for a soft floater looked like Jokic at his height. Also someone mentioned it in the thread, he actually looks like might have some tools to be a decent defender.

For all the praise Omoruyi gets from Gooden and Miller, you'd think he's the second coming of Paul Milsap, but I just don't see it. If there was a stat for him tipping the ball around without actually getting the rebound he'd probably lead the league though. Not to hate, but Gooden is blaming the team every time Omoruyi can't grab an offensive board.

I'll go with Deni for the all-around game. Needs the ball more, will keep saying it. Good things happen when he's involved and gets touches.

April 3rd, 2024

How can you not love the way Deni plays? He's now the perfect combination of aggressive, always looking to get his teammates open shots, rebounds, and plays defense. The ball needs to be in is hands more, good things happy when he gets touches.

March 16th, 2024

Nate, seems like you willing to defend that only Kuzma can handle high usage to the end of the earth.

Agreed, the defense has sucked though over that stretch as it has for the whole season.

I just call 'em like a I see 'em.

Deni is without a doubt my favorite Wizard. Since his breakout at the end of December, he has been the best player on the team. But I still think Deni is an opportunistic scorer, not a guy who imposes his will against a set defense. He just doesn't get the same defensive attention from opponents that Kuzma does. I don't think he could replace what Kuzma does on offense, at least not yet.

I don't even think we are in disagreement there that Kuzma gets more defensive attention. I just feel like this default reaction to whenever Kuzma does stupid stuff on the court, especially on offense, that it's because he has to. Because he's the only guy that can handle more usage, when the results just don't bear that out.

Deni can handle more usage, and Kuzma and Poole look him off far too often is what's the issue here. I've said plenty of times Kuz has a nice bag, his problem is he doesn't realize when it's time to showcase it and when to pass the ball. Also, his love for fancy jumpshots and early clock contest junk shots are likely why he is a career sub-efficient player despite his bag of tricks. So we as observers can only go with what he does on a night to night basis.

There's a reason why Kuzma has an on-off of -6.6 this season, and Deni is a +4.9. That's an 11.5 point swing there. This whole Kuzma is a victim of circumstance has become such a stale argument.

[doclinkin]

Now, as to Tre being part of this discussion. It’s absurd. Sorry. It just is. You assume a whole set of possibilities, while entirely dismissing — or ignoring — others.

Deni is an intriguing talent, and getting better, but his presence on the roster wasn’t going to catapult the team to 30 or so wins.

Doesn’t have to be 30 games. If we won 2 more games we’d be behind Charlotte in the odds. Did you miss the fact that we got the worst possible selection from our lotto standing? Based on one last second shot. In a year when we actually were attempting to tank. Really working hard to do so.

Nate posits that the difference between Deni and Kuz would be equivalent to us equaling Philly in the standings. Six games. 3 from Deni being good, 3 from Kuzma not dragging us down. But we wouldn’t automatically have gotten Phillys luck. If we had gotten a bad break from that position we’d have picked 10th.

The point about intentionally bottoming out is not solely about guaranteeing a top pick but about insulating yourself from the worst case scenario.

We got the worst pick we could get.

At 2 games worse in the standings that means the difference between Tre Johnson and Jeremiah Fears.

At those 6 games difference Nate suggested it’s Khaman Maluach. #10.

At 8 games difference — 4 from Deni being good, 4 from the lack of Kuzma— there’s a non zero chance we lost our pick at #11.

We don’t have to imagine the worst case scenario, since we experienced it. With a complete and utter tank job we still missed out on franchise players..

Hindsight may show that we lucked into Tre Johnson. That he’s the best fit. Better than players taken ahead of him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s the ROY.

But nobody had him top 3 in any mock.

You can talk about all the things a team can control to try to lose. But you can’t control luck. You don’t know if a team is going to get on a hot streak. If opponents suffer injuries to stars on the nights you play them. If multiple other teams commit harder to the tank that year. If the guys you draft prove a revelation or a young player has their breakout year. Flukes happen. Hell we’ve had Rasual Butler play like he was MJ for half a season here.

Players do not try to lose. Institutions can tank, coaches can fudge substitutions and line ups. But good players will win.

One sure fire way that a team can control the odds is by playing young guys who have not yet broken out. Deni was not that.

It is absolutely reasonable to argue that you hold on to players that are actually good. Or to judge (with limited evidence) that the value we have recouped does not look like it will balance out. You still have to count high draft picks as part of that calculus.

Because you can’t argue both ways. If Deni is good then he would help our team win. And even a one game swing in the standings means you have a chance to be picking lower down. That’s not fiction. We just saw it happen.

The front office has been working to protect against those worst case scenarios as well as to maximize our chances at a top pick. It’s just facts that a good player like Deni will affect those chances. That’s why you want him.

[Silvie Lysandra]

as I've been saying (in agreement with doc), the reason why Deni was traded was *because* **** rosters play like playin level rosters when he's on the floor. Trading a guy like that is a reason the trade was smart (if highly risky) because even with the flattened lottery odds, I'd rather increase my odds at the #1 pick by 30-80% or even higher. And yes, there are ways to tank with a guy like that on your roster. But they're not foolproof, and it also means that you're paradoxically hoping your other young players *don't* improve too much, and having a guy like Deni makes it more likely and makes that potential improvement more likely.

Let's say Bilal makes the jump this year to being an above average NBA player, and Sarr becomes an average NBA player. Let's say we still end up in the 4-6 range (rather than dropping from 2-6, we just pick 6th "naturally" and still draft Tre). That's a pretty exciting young team, but with no bonafide potential #1 option, and more importantly, we're losing this year's pick for sure, in a draft class that seems to have multiple #1 worthy players. Maybe you could build something like the Pacers out of that, but in that scenario, we wouldn't even have a Halliburton. You're hoping that our players improve *beyond* reasonable projections, essentially.

Myles Turner, Deni, Jaylen Brown, and Desmond Bane is an exciting young core - but can it win a title? That looks more like the pre Kawhi Raptors, last years Pacers, or the no-Ja Grizzlies with Bane, but is it a bonafide championship contender? Probably not. And you're also losing an asset on top. You're hoping that Sarr turns into JJJ, and Bilal becomes closer to Tatum than Brown, and/or Tre (and btw, assuming that we still get the #6 pick is generous here) becomes closer to Klay than Bane.

Now maybe on a strategic level, it would have been better to take the double you had with Deni instead of try to swing for the fences by a pure tanking strategy. But that's the way to argue against the trade, not simply by comparing immediate returns. It was a chess move, and maybe it was a non ideal chess move, but most of the critiques of it have been at the level of checkers.

[nate33]

The point about intentionally bottoming out is not solely about guaranteeing a top pick but about insulating yourself from the worst case scenario.

We got the worst pick we could get.

At 2 games worse in the standings that means the difference between Tre Johnson and Jeremiah Fears.

At those 6 games difference Nate suggested it’s Khaman Maluach. #10.

At 8 games difference — 4 from Deni being good, 4 from the lack of Kuzma— there’s a non zero chance we lost our pick at #11.

We don’t have to imagine the worst case scenario, since we experienced it. With a complete and utter tank job we still missed out on franchise players..

Doc, this is a disingenuous argument and you know it. You can't make all trades assuming we will get the worst possible outcome in any lottery.

The odds of falling out of a top 4 slot are fairly high because there's really no where to go but down. But the odds of dropping 3 or 4 slots from the #5 slot or the #6 slot are astronomically small.

When we had the #2 slot, there was only a 52% chance of staying in the top 4. There was a 28% chance we would fall to 5th and a 20% chance we would fall to 6th. We ended up falling to 6th, but it was not a ridiculously improbable event.

But if Deni had brought us 6 more wins, we would have been in the Philly slot as the 5th worst record. We would have had a 42% chance of moving UP to the top 4 (barely worse than our odds at the #2 slot), a 46% chance of picking 6th or 7th, only an 8.7% chance of falling to 8, and virtually no chance (0.6%) of falling to 9th. We would not have fallen to 10th.

And if Deni has brought us 8 more wins, we would have been in the Brooklyn slot. First of all, 8 additional wins would have been highly likely given that we would have intentionally tanked if necessary. You and PIF keep overlooking this fact. Portland made a big jump not just because of Deni's play, but because others also improved, and more importantly, they were TRYING TO WIN. That was a bigger factor than anything else. But I digress. If Deni had somehow brought us 8-12 more wins and moved us back to the #6 slot, we still would have had a 37% of moving up to #4, and a 50.5% chance of picking 7th or 8th. There would have been just a 3.7% chance of falling to 9th and a 0.1% chance of falling to 10th. And no possibility at all of falling to 11 and losing our pick.

There was no scenario whatsoever with Deni on the roster that we would have ceded the pick to NY, and only a 1 in 1000 chance that we would have fallen to 10th.

My point all along has been that the lottery is a crap shoot in both directions, and in fact, the lottery actually helps the teams in the 5-8 range more so than it helps those in the 1-4 range because the teams in the 1-4 range really don't have anywhere to go but down. In the 7 years since the new lottery odds have been implemented, there have been 28 teams with a top 4 draft position, only 13 have actually ended up with a top 4 pick. Meanwhile, of the the 28 teams that fell in the 5-8 range 11 of them have ended up with a top 4 pick. We saw that dynamic in spades this last draft when the #5 slot and the #8 slot ended up picking #3 and #2.

[payitforward]

Deni is an intriguing talent, and getting better, but his presence on the roster wasn’t going to catapult the team to 30 or so wins. And I know it must sound unseemly to talk about losing games with such blithe casualness, but I’m not talking about throwing games. It doesn’t ever have to get to that. But a team can lose in a variety — in a wide, wide variety — of ways.

Isn’t that what the m.o. of these embarrassingly bad years is?...

Must interrupt briefly at this juncture. I do NOT agree that these are "embarrassingly bad years." Indeed, for me at least, the last two years have been the best in quite a while.

...To all but tell the fan base — we’re going to lose; we *want* to lose; we *want* to be abysmal.,..

That's prejudicial & inaccurate -- as you certainly know.

What Winger/Dawkins told the fan base was the exact opposite of that: we intend to build a very different franchise, they said, one that contends for a title regularly &, one hopes, wins one or more championship. To do which, we must rebuild totally -- from the ground up -- starting by "deconstructing" the current team.

So, actually losing isn’t hard. ...You can compete hard — and lose because you’re talent is piss-poor; you can compete hard — and lose because you’re not deep enough; you can compete hard — and lose because your best players are so young; you can compete — and lose because you’re not a seasoned, savvy team; you can compete — and lose because your coach pulls the right strings at the right time … etc., etc.

Losing is not the issue, and never was. Everyone knows this team is going to lose. It’s not even suspect. Just trot out Anthony Gill and a bunch of G-leaguers when things get too close. Who could object? ....

IMO, aside from being unfair to Anthony Gill, this is also conceptually & factually off.

Conceptually wrong in that "trying to lose" is inaccurate. We were in, as Winger put it, "the deconstruction phase" of the rebuild. We were taking apart the old, perpetually failing team. Starting over. What we were/are "trying" to do was to assemble the absolutely maximal amount of draft capital in order to add, over time, the absolutely maximally best possible players to new team we were building.

The natural & necessary result was that we would lose a lot of games, of course. But no comprehension of any part of this process can be attained by claiming that what we were doing was "trying to lose."

Above all, none of this has anything whatever to do with trading or not trading Deni Avdija. Zero. Zip.
Every single player on every team is, in one sense or another, available in a trade. The only question is... what's on offer?

I.e. if one wants to criticize the Deni trade, no problem -- but the critique has to be that "we didn't get enough for Deni," followed by justification of the claim. &, in fact, this was the approach nate took initially (if I recall correctly), writing that if we were going to trade Deni we should have gotten the same kind of value that Cam Johnson had just brought.

[nate33]

I.e. if one wants to criticize the Deni trade, no problem -- but the critique has to be that "we didn't get enough for Deni," followed by justification of the claim. &, in fact, this was the approach nate took initially (if I recall correctly), writing that if we were going to trade Deni we should have gotten the same kind of value that Cam Johnson had just brought.

Mikal Bridges. I wanted the Mikal Bridges package.

[nate33]

as I've been saying (in agreement with doc), the reason why Deni was traded was *because* **** rosters play like playin level rosters when he's on the floor. Trading a guy like that is a reason the trade was smart (if highly risky) because even with the flattened lottery odds, I'd rather increase my odds at the #1 pick by 30-80% or even higher. And yes, there are ways to tank with a guy like that on your roster. But they're not foolproof, and it also means that you're paradoxically hoping your other young players *don't* improve too much, and having a guy like Deni makes it more likely and makes that potential improvement more likely.

Let's say Bilal makes the jump this year to being an above average NBA player, and Sarr becomes an average NBA player. Let's say we still end up in the 4-6 range (rather than dropping from 2-6, we just pick 6th "naturally" and still draft Tre). That's a pretty exciting young team, but with no bonafide potential #1 option, and more importantly, we're losing this year's pick for sure, in a draft class that seems to have multiple #1 worthy players. Maybe you could build something like the Pacers out of that, but in that scenario, we wouldn't even have a Halliburton. You're hoping that our players improve *beyond* reasonable projections, essentially.

Myles Turner, Deni, Jaylen Brown, and Desmond Bane is an exciting young core - but can it win a title? That looks more like the pre Kawhi Raptors, last years Pacers, or the no-Ja Grizzlies with Bane, but is it a bonafide championship contender? Probably not. And you're also losing an asset on top. You're hoping that Sarr turns into JJJ, and Bilal becomes closer to Tatum than Brown, and/or Tre (and btw, assuming that we still get the #6 pick is generous here) becomes closer to Klay than Bane.

Now maybe on a strategic level, it would have been better to take the double you had with Deni instead of try to swing for the fences by a pure tanking strategy. But that's the way to argue against the trade, not simply by comparing immediate returns. It was a chess move, and maybe it was a non ideal chess move, but most of the critiques of it have been at the level of checkers.

I was open-minded to this argument at the time. The difference is that I didn't see the urgency to rush into the mediocre trade we made with Portland. I thought (I believe correctly) that we could have still tanked the 2024-25 season with Deni on the roster and finished with the 3rd to 6th worst record in the league and still have only slightly worse odds at a top 4 pick.

I agree that if we still struck out in the 2025 lottery, then we would be in a trickly situation where it may be too hard to tank the 2025-26 season. But in that scenario, Deni could still be traded THIS SUMMER, only for much better return because by now, his break out is evident for all to see.

Heck, we may have been able to trade Deni straight up for Dylan Harper. It's a deal that would have made a ton of sense for San Antonio.

[badinage]

I.e. if one wants to criticize the Deni trade, no problem -- but the critique has to be that "we didn't get enough for Deni," followed by justification of the claim. &, in fact, this was the approach nate took initially (if I recall correctly), writing that if we were going to trade Deni we should have gotten the same kind of value that Cam Johnson had just brought.

Mikal Bridges. I wanted the Mikal Bridges package.

THIS.

The return — relative to what went out — was poor. Not nothing — but poor.