Post#4 » by NyCeEvO » Tue Mar 1, 2011 12:40 pm
IMHO there are big problems with trading for Derrick Williams:
1) Unfortunately (or fortunately for others), for everyone who wanted a slow rebuild through the draft, that goal is completely shot now that we traded for D-Will. If the FO really wanted Derrick Williams, they should have kept Favors and Harris till the end of the season and tell the Jazz, we have a deal for you on draft night. No one knew D-Will was available and frankly I don't think anyone would've seriously asked for him at least until FA begins. If we would've waited till draft night, our record would be worse than whatever it will be now that D-Will is here and there would've been a high chance for us to even possibly draft him if that's the player that you want. In fact, let's say we ended up with a top 3 pick and had the opportunity to draft Irving. You could have sent Irving to the Jazz and little else for D-Will because everyone sees Irving as a future star and the Jazz obviously wanted to move D-Will. That way you could turn Favors + Harris into a possible Howard deal. However, all of that is risky given the uncertainty of the lottery results.
2) To me, Derrick Williams ceiling is just a super-utility guy. When I first saw him, I thought well he plays like an athletic PF but he's only 6'8". The problem with him being "an undersized Amare" is that Amare is already undersized. It's just that he has freakish athletic ability to make up for that lack of an extra 1-2 inches that would make a traditional PF/C. If he wasn't so athletic, he'd be a tall SF with no handles and a decent midrange jumper. But if all he had was the jumper, people would close out on him and he wouldn't be that effective. Fortunately for Amare, he's an athletic freak of nature and therefore he doesn't need to worry about being a bit shorter than the ideal PF/C.
But if Derrick Williams is an undersized version of another guy who's already undersized then I think you have serious problems. Sure, on the college level he's schooling kids but when you watch him, look at the type of baskets he scores and his versatility. I always see him catch the ball, face up, get around his defender in 1-2 dribbles and/or spin to the basket for a layup.
Sure, he's aggressive but he's 6'8".
Sure, he's athletic, but he's not an athlete like Amare.
That's the problem. He's athletic enough to score in college but I don't see that working in the NBA. Melo is his height but he obviously had more of the total package when compared to Derrick Williams. We've seen the 6'8" PFs in the NBA. The Paul Millsaps and Jason Maxiells of the NBA. They occasionally go off but no where near the amount that you would want for a guy that is being talked about as being the #1 overall pick. To me, I see him as Gerald Wallace type of player in the sense that he's not supremely gifted at anything. Wallace isn't a great passer, shooter, or ballhandler. His athleticism allows him to get a lot of rebounds and his speed allows him to get out on the break but outside of those things, you really see Wallace as a super utility man. However, Derrick Williams isn't even as fast as Wallace because he's stockier and has more muscle.
If you're 6'8" in the NBA, you better do something very well because that is typically the "I don't know if you're a SF or a really undersized PF" size. If you can dribble, shoot, and rebound that's great (a la Melo/Mashburn) and you can be a SF that can punish guys. But if you can't do those well, then well...you're going to be at a disadvantage no matter what unless you are a supreme athlete. Just think about it, Williams is arguably as tall or shorter than LBJ and Melo and yet he'd be playing PF. If he was a supreme athlete or could shoot, pass, or dribble really to offset his lack of height then it would be great. But believe it or not, a lot of guys can rebound effectively. He'd had to continuously use whatever athleticism he has to simply try to outrebound guys who are 6'10 and up. But usually the undersized PFs can only do that for a limited time in a game because it just wears them out to constantly battle people all game long. That's why they end up coming off the bench as an energy guy rather than your 35+mpg starting PF.
It just seems to me that he has super-utility guy written all over him and in a normal draft, there's no way that he'd be arguably the #1 draft pick. His comparisons are to David West and Michael Beasley. Yes, he had Beasley's height but not his shooting range nor dribbling ability (even though it's not much) and he's got West's post game but without the height, which is not good when you're thinking about playing against KG, Pau Gasol, Bosh, Amare, etc. He's just too short to me.
3) All that is to say that Lopez is at least has the height of a true C and can put points up. There's a reason why even during a bad season, he's still ranked as a top center. Who's really better than Lopez as a true center? Howard, Bogut, but after that the list gets really really murky. Al Horford? Too small...Nene? Nice player but smaller...Bynum? If he didn't get injured all of the time, yes, but he does get injured so no...Kaman? For one season in like '06 where he was played really well but outside of that no.
No matter how much we may get on Brook, he's a top 3 center. I am almost willing to bet anything that Derrick Williams will never be a top 3 player at whatever position plays, be it SF or PF. Maybe in a few years I'll put my foot in my mouth but I really don't see it. And if you have a top 3 player at any position, his value to any team is a ton regardless of how much he sucks in your eyes.
Brook is worth more than that Derrick Williams. Denver just assumed that Lopez was untouchable because they see him as that good of a center (not that good of an overally player but that good of a center). If you're top 3, you have to be considered an elite center no matter how many holes you have in your game. If you listen to Billy King, he kept emphasizing the fact that typically if you have a top PG and top C, your team has a really good starting point and traditionally he's right.
You can make the argument that a top 3 player at one position should only be traded for another top 3 player at another position simply for what they can do to your team. For argument's sake if you believe Carmelo to be the #3 SF in the league, you could say Brook Lopez could be traded for him. And while some would say no Melo is better at his position, the NBA expert says so what, his value is that he's top 3 at his position. He does stuff that only 2 other center in the NBA can really do at his size. No matter how much you dislike Brook, he has a ton of value. Acquiring Derrick Williams gives up that leverage that you have in trade talks because you're getting a player who's not taller as tall as most as his position, there will always be more than two people at his position who can shoot, rebound, pass, block, and defend better than he can simply because he's undersized and is not a freak athlete.
This is why if you're going to trade Brook Lopez, you play the strategy mindgame with any GM you're trading with. That's why when people scoff at us approaching Orlando for Howard, they don't understand that the argument. It's not "Brook is almost as good as Dwight in every area". The argument is you have the best center but he's looking to leave. We have the 3rd best center, he's a RFA (next year), much cheaper to keep around, we're including 2 1st round picks, and other players. So is that a deal?
When you think about value at a position Brook is high up there. We must trade Brook for his value at his position, not for his value to us in our eyes. His value at his position is much higher than what his overall skill level is. As E has said before, Howard is a defensive beast but he's still a project (who is getting better) on offense. If you said that about any guy at any other position, they wouldn't be the best at their position cuz there are so many other guys at other positions that are more complete. However, Howard is the best simply because of his value at his position.
We're undervaluing Brook here. Trade him for whatever value he is at his position and whatever return you get should/could be a player that will soon be at that same level at their position (potential) or is already there (current skill level). This is why Orlando would have to consider our package no matter what. What other top 3 player at every respective position could you get for Howard?
PG: CP3, Deron, Rose?...No because their teams would just lose their star in order to gain Howard.
SG: Kobe, Wade, pre-injury Roy/Joe Johnson? Kobe...no, Wade...only because there is LBJ, otherwise you'd just be trading star for star, Roy/JJ, you're losing too much in respective talent and they have massive contracts.
SF: LBJ, Durant, Melo? LBJ...no (can't get), Durant...no (can't get), Melo...yes, but he just went to NY with a fat extension.
PF: Gasol, Amare, Dirk, Duncan? Gasol...yes, but he's much older, Amare...no, balky knees and fat extension in NY, Dirk...no, much older, Duncan...no, much much older.
C: Howard, Bogut, Brook? Howard...no, you can't trade for yourself, Bogut...yes, but injuries are concerning, Brook...yes, not as good as Howard but is younger and still has potential.
Brook is the only one on that entire list who still has significant deficiencies and yet still has the time and potential to solve those deficiencies.
I strongly doubt that you'll ever see Derrick Williams on a top 3 list unless the NBA's talent level dilutes fairly quickly. I guarantee you that if you told any team that we'll trade Brook for whoever the #1 pick is, they'd most likely do that deal straight up maybe except Irving and even that's iffy. None of those players have 19/9 in a game let alone an entire season. Don't discount Brook. He's worth more trade and NBA value wise than you think.
I kid, I kid, but man was that a lot of post.
