Official Trade Thread XV: 12/22/10 - 5/3/11

[montestewart]

If Young is so awesome, why do the Wizards suck so bad?

Young is literally the best player on the Wizards team right now. That's why they suck so bad. It's certainly not Young's fault. Young is pretty good, just not good enough to carry a team.

If Young was the third or fourth best player on the team, you wouldn't be using that argument because the team would be winning ball games.

Agreed, and I could even see Young eventually being a 6th man on a championship contender if his upward arc continues. A clutch outside shooter with length that plays hard defense (which he has proven capably if inconsistently) is a valuable commodity.

So far, I don't think anyone's suggesting a huge contract for Young, but his progress this year makes me think it's not as easy an issue as I figured before the season. What's happened with Blatche since the extension screams caution in keeping Young around, but in addition to his much more explosive offensive game and his usually above average (and occasionally excellent) defense, he's become an occasionally thoughtful passer and a stronger rebounder recently. It has my attention, at least.

I certainly wouldn't want to lose him for chump change or nothing at all.

[no D in Hibachi]

A few more teams that have expressed interest in Sacramento's in-demand Omri Casspi have emerged since ESPN.com's report earlier this week that Chicago and New York are trying to persuade the Kings to part with the second-year swingman. One source close to the situation said Toronto and Washington have joined the Casspi chase, while Sam Amick of AOL FanHouse reports that Denver and the Los Angeles Clippers have inquired as well. As stated from the start, though, Sacramento will insist that any team take on the contract of Beno Udrih or Francisco Garcia in any Casspi deal and could well ask for even more than that. The Kings' desire to find a new point guard to pair with Tyreke Evans is no secret among rival teams.

--ESPN

This is re-hashed from about a month ago. In short Sacto values him more than anything I'd be willing to give up to acquire him. He's just not that good.

[WashWiz54]

After watching the first-half of this Portland game, I remember why I'm a fan of Joel Przybilla. Dude is a straight goon who will get in anyones face and is a smart player. He's the exact tough/high IQ player we need here to mentor our boys. A trade is unlikely until Camby comes back from injury, but he's definitely worth inquiring on. He's also an expiring so if a trade couldn't be formulated, I'd love to see us make an offer this off-season.

Plus he does MMA which is pretty freakin' sweet.

[Hoopalotta]

Steph Curry is a remarkable player... for fantasy basketball teams. He'd be an all-star on the empty stat league. Note that if you are playing fantasy basketball - play him AND the opposing PG. GS won 26 games with him last year and they'll win maybe 35 this year. 3 years ago, they were 48-34 with Baron instead of Curry, Harrington instead of David Lee, and Jackson instead of Dorell Wright. Ellis and Biedrins started on both teams. Jackson no longer wanted to play with GS when they got Curry, and Ellis hasn't made it a secret that his game's been hurt by playing with Curry. Curry is still a skinny little guy who can't guard good players, and he's still a shooting guard playing the point. I give him credit for doing a good job in transitioning to the point, but he's still unnatural there. As far as pining for him "Oohh, if we had only picked him... oh the pain" BS. He'd be an outstanding 3rd guard in the Jamal Crawford mode, but wake me up when he starts for a winning team. Speaking of which, I'd rather have Jamal Crawford - all things being equal.

I would agree with the basic premise without going as far with the final judgment.

I have no problems with him offensively, but Curry is really a terrible defensive player, maybe the worst I've seen this year - he's appears to be playing zone defense even though the other Warrior's are in man-to-man. It's not even just that he's bad, it's more like he's blatantly using the defensive side of the court to conserve energy as he can't physically play 35 minutes as a two way player with how skinny his is (he doesn't physically look like most NBA players).

I do still like him overall, but he probably is indeed best as a third guard or with more limited minutes.

[LyricalRico]

A few more teams that have expressed interest in Sacramento's in-demand Omri Casspi have emerged since ESPN.com's report earlier this week that Chicago and New York are trying to persuade the Kings to part with the second-year swingman. One source close to the situation said Toronto and Washington have joined the Casspi chase, while Sam Amick of AOL FanHouse reports that Denver and the Los Angeles Clippers have inquired as well. As stated from the start, though, Sacramento will insist that any team take on the contract of Beno Udrih or Francisco Garcia in any Casspi deal and could well ask for even more than that. The Kings' desire to find a new point guard to pair with Tyreke Evans is no secret among rival teams.

--ESPN

This is re-hashed from about a month ago. In short Sacto values him more than anything I'd be willing to give up to acquire him. He's just not that good.

I wouldn't write Casspi off just yet. Aside from a lower FG %, his numbers aren't very different from Batum's in his second year. If Casspi were on a better team with a better PG, like Batum has in Portland, he might even be better.

[fishercob]

If Young is so awesome, why do the Wizards suck so bad?

You say "as productive as Young." Well, I don't consider Young to be all that productive. It's taken him until the final year of his rookie contract to earn consistent minutes and he's still severely limited as a player. I'd rather get a late pick for him then just let him walk away for free (but I'd sooner let him walk then signing him for big dollars/years). Guys like Nick Young -- guys who don't think the game exceedingly well and/or are extremely specialized players just don't win a lot in the NBA.

IMHO.

Why do the Wizards suck? How many reasons do you want? They turn it over too much, don't get defensive rebounds or play good defense. They lack shooters. None of this can be laid at Youngs feet.

You don't think Nicks is productive?How do you define productive? Who has been the most productive player in the team this year?

Nick can shoot 3s, create his own shot off the dribble and play defense. Your definition of a limited player must be a lot different from mine. What exactly are these "limitations" that are so detrimental?

I'd highly encourage you to read this:

What to Make of Nick Young

Nick is not a terrible basketball player. He has nice physical tools for sure. But he's somewhere between an extremely slow learner and stupid. Given how long it's taken him to get to this level of production -- a decent scorer on a terrible team (also known as "empty stats" to some), I have little faith that he'll be able to take his game to a much higher level.

Not only that, but when we upgrade the players around him so that Nick is playing less of a role, how do you expect Nick to handle that? He's emotionally immature, will hang his head and his play will suffer. Monte says he can see Nick as a 6th man for a contender. Does Nick see that? I don't see Nick being a good soldier and heading back to the bench.

I understand I'm in the minority. I just have very little faith in the kid.

[tontoz]

If Young is so awesome, why do the Wizards suck so bad?

You say "as productive as Young." Well, I don't consider Young to be all that productive. It's taken him until the final year of his rookie contract to earn consistent minutes and he's still severely limited as a player. I'd rather get a late pick for him then just let him walk away for free (but I'd sooner let him walk then signing him for big dollars/years). Guys like Nick Young -- guys who don't think the game exceedingly well and/or are extremely specialized players just don't win a lot in the NBA.

IMHO.

Why do the Wizards suck? How many reasons do you want? They turn it over too much, don't get defensive rebounds or play good defense. They lack shooters. None of this can be laid at Youngs feet.

You don't think Nicks is productive?How do you define productive? Who has been the most productive player in the team this year?

Nick can shoot 3s, create his own shot off the dribble and play defense. Your definition of a limited player must be a lot different from mine. What exactly are these "limitations" that are so detrimental?

I'd highly encourage you to read this:

What to Make of Nick Young

Nick is not a terrible basketball player. He has nice physical tools for sure. But he's somewhere between an extremely slow learner and stupid. Given how long it's taken him to get to this level of production -- a decent scorer on a terrible team (also known as "empty stats" to some), I have little faith that he'll be able to take his game to a much higher level.

Not only that, but when we upgrade the players around him so that Nick is playing less of a role, how do you expect Nick to handle that? He's emotionally immature, will hang his head and his play will suffer. Monte says he can see Nick as a 6th man for a contender. Does Nick see that? I don't see Nick being a good soldier and heading back to the bench.

I understand I'm in the minority. I just have very little faith in the kid.

Let's try this again.

How do you define productive? Who is the most productive player on this team? What are these severe limitations?

Intelligence is not a prerequisite to playing basketball. The SAT scores of NBA players in general aren't stellar. They are athletes, not Rhodes Scholars.

Nick is 13th in the NBA in PER among shooting guards. Are you expecting Kobe production out of him?

@ "how long it's taken him". He is on his rookie cotract. He has been playing a limited role behind veteran players until now. He played fine in the 6th man role (on a bad team) to start the season. No reason to think he can't do it again if necessary.

[fishercob]

Why do I define productive? Great question for which I do not have an easy answer. I'll default to the old Supreme Court/obscenity definition and say "I'll know it when I see it." I wouldn't say Nick is unproductive. I'd say he's reasonably productive.

I'm not talking about SAT scores and you know it. I'm talking about hoops IQ. Nick doesn't "think the game" very well (probably somewhat evidence by his poor passing). He's terrible off the ball on D -- another barometer of his ability to perceive and interpret what's going on the basketball court outside of what he is specifically engaged in doing.

But my original point was that I'd sooner trade Nick than give him a "big" extension. None of us can define big because (a) we don't know what the new CBA rules will look like and (b) we don't know what the Wizards and Nick are likely to agree to.

You can roll your eyes all you want. at how long it's taken him, but he's had three bad to mediocre years before one decent/pretty one. Guards usually develop pretty quickly. Guys like Wes Matthews, Rodney Stuckey, Tony Parker, Aaron Brooks, Kevin Martin all developed way more quickly than Young did/has. I don't know why people assume Young will keep getting better after signing a contract extension, since he doesn't have a great track record of self-improvement except for in his contract year. Seems like kind of a red flag to me.

[montestewart]

Just to be clear fishercob, I can still see the knuckleheadedness in Young too, I wouldn't be too surprised if I was witnessing his peak right now, and I don't necessarily see him as contender material as is. I think I see that he has the tools and the potential, but I'm not sure that he has the capability or desire to go beyond where he is right now. Considering what's going on with the team, he's far from the most negative aspect, and in such a depressing season, he's perhaps a glimmer of hope. I just want to give him his due for making what are to me significant strides.

[fishercob]

Just to be clear fishercob, I can still see the knuckleheadedness in Young too, I wouldn't be too surprised if I was witnessing his peak right now, and I don't necessarily see him as contender material as is. I think I see that he has the tools and the potential, but I'm not sure that he has the capability or desire to go beyond where he is right now. Considering what's going on with the team, he's far from the most negative aspect, and in such a depressing season, he's perhaps a glimmer of hope. I just want to give him his due for making what are to me significant strides.

Fair enough -- all the more reason to cash him in now, right?

There's one other aspect of Nick that very slightly contributes to my desire to see him moved. I know many here will hate it, so naturally I feel compelled to bring it up:

His connection to Gilbert. Nick is one of Gil's boys and he looked/looks up to Gil (remember that Sacramento idiocy?) and I think he's always going to carry the um "lessons" of being Gilbert's protege. All things equal, I'd start fresh.

[montestewart]

They are athletes, not Rhodes Scholars.

From the Rhodes Trust website:

Mr. Rhodes’ Will contains four criteria by which prospective Rhodes Scholars are to be selected:
1. literary and scholastic attainments;
2. energy to use one’s talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
3. truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
4. moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In practice, #2 above has generally resulted in almost all Rhodes scholars being athletes of some sort. Einstein was too small and slow to compete.

Not to say that Nick Young was ever competing, but former Terp and Bullet Tom McMillen received a Rhodes Scholarship.

It's funny that Cecil Rhodes founded Rhodesia and Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. Do all the best prizes have some taint?

That's enough of off topic for now.

[montestewart]

Fair enough -- all the more reason to cash him in now, right?

I really don't want to wake up and read that he was dealt for Kareem Rush and a 2nd.

[nate33]

Just to be clear fishercob, I can still see the knuckleheadedness in Young too, I wouldn't be too surprised if I was witnessing his peak right now, and I don't necessarily see him as contender material as is. I think I see that he has the tools and the potential, but I'm not sure that he has the capability or desire to go beyond where he is right now. Considering what's going on with the team, he's far from the most negative aspect, and in such a depressing season, he's perhaps a glimmer of hope. I just want to give him his due for making what are to me significant strides.

Fair enough -- all the more reason to cash him in now, right?

There's one other aspect of Nick that very slightly contributes to my desire to see him moved. I know many here will hate it, so naturally I feel compelled to bring it up:

His connection to Gilbert. Nick is one of Gil's boys and he looked/looks up to Gil (remember that Sacramento idiocy?) and I think he's always going to carry the um "lessons" of being Gilbert's protege. All things equal, I'd start fresh.

"Cashing in" on Young sounds great in theory, but it all depends on what we could get in return. As of now, we're looking at packages like an expiring contract plus a mid to late 1st round pick. Sorry, that's just not going to cut it. I have no interest in giving away Young unless we get back a lotto pick. The kid is a legit staring-quality SG in this league, even if he has no chance of being an elite SG. The odds of any mid-first pick panning out to become a legit starter are pretty slim.

[fishercob]

Fair enough -- all the more reason to cash him in now, right?

I really don't want to wake up and read that he was dealt for Kareem Rush and a 2nd.

Scoundrel! You deleted my smiley face.

Surely the great Nick young has better market value than a 30 year old SG who hasn't played in the NBA in nearly two seasons and a 2nd -- unless of course you mean the second overall pick. In which case, I begrudgingly accept your offer.

[tontoz]

Why do I define productive? Great question for which I do not have an easy answer. I'll default to the old Supreme Court/obscenity definition and say "I'll know it when I see it." I wouldn't say Nick is unproductive. I'd say he's reasonably productive.

I'm not talking about SAT scores and you know it. I'm talking about hoops IQ. Nick doesn't "think the game" very well (probably somewhat evidence by his poor passing). He's terrible off the ball on D -- another barometer of his ability to perceive and interpret what's going on the basketball court outside of what he is specifically engaged in doing.

I disagree completely. Nick is not a ball stopper like Blatche. He isn't holding the ball dribbling between his legs over and over while everyone else stands around. Whatever Nicks does he does quickly. If nothing is there he kicks it back out.

Dumb players like Blatche force the action when nothing is there. Dumb players make dumb turnovers. Nick does neither.

As far as this off the ball D this looks like something that Bloom just made up.

[fishercob]

Just to be clear fishercob, I can still see the knuckleheadedness in Young too, I wouldn't be too surprised if I was witnessing his peak right now, and I don't necessarily see him as contender material as is. I think I see that he has the tools and the potential, but I'm not sure that he has the capability or desire to go beyond where he is right now. Considering what's going on with the team, he's far from the most negative aspect, and in such a depressing season, he's perhaps a glimmer of hope. I just want to give him his due for making what are to me significant strides.

Fair enough -- all the more reason to cash him in now, right?

There's one other aspect of Nick that very slightly contributes to my desire to see him moved. I know many here will hate it, so naturally I feel compelled to bring it up:

His connection to Gilbert. Nick is one of Gil's boys and he looked/looks up to Gil (remember that Sacramento idiocy?) and I think he's always going to carry the um "lessons" of being Gilbert's protege. All things equal, I'd start fresh.

"Cashing in" on Young sounds great in theory, but it all depends on what we could get in return. As of now, we're looking at packages like an expiring contract plus a mid to late 1st round pick. Sorry, that's just not going to cut it. I have no interest in giving away Young unless we get back a lotto pick. The kid is a legit staring-quality SG in this league, even if he has no chance of being an elite SG. The odds of any mid-first pick panning out to become a legit starter are pretty slim.

Understood. I'm ok with this as long as you/our brass is willing to let Nick walk for nothing rather than overpay him in order to keep him. Again, very tough to define "overpay" not knowing the CBA and the market, but if there's a reasonable chance Young's deal inhibits future options then to me it's a bad deal.

[montestewart]

Fair enough -- all the more reason to cash him in now, right?

I really don't want to wake up and read that he was dealt for Kareem Rush and a 2nd.

Scoundrel! You deleted my smiley face.

Surely the great Nick young has better market value than a 30 year old SG who hasn't played in the NBA in nearly two seasons and a 2nd -- unless of course you mean the second overall pick. In which case, I begrudgingly accept your offer.

I'm like WTA. I don't understand all you hipsters and your new-fangled technology.

Rush was a little hyperbole, but you know what I mean. I'm still recovering from Webber for Richmond.

[fishercob]

Don't forget Otis Thorpe! He was to rebounding as Anthony Peeler was the three point shooting. That is to say, once they became Wizards you could they "they were at one point very good at it."

[TGW]

Fishercob...weren't you pining for Rudy Fernandez for like the past 2 years? Did you use advanced metrics when you were offering up McGee on a silver platter for him?

JK dude.

[fishercob]

Fishercob...weren't you pining for Rudy Fernandez for like the past 2 years? Did you use advanced metrics when you were offering up McGee on a silver platter for him?

JK dude.

I don't think I ever advocated offerring Javale for Rudy. But yes, I wanted Rudy badly. What can I say? Dat has his Kwame. CCJ has his Morris Almond. You stick around here long enough and you're going to be wrong plenty.

I still would have liked to have seen Rudy here -- out of Portland and Roy's shadow, in a much more international city. I think he could have been better than Young. We'll never know.