Wiz trade Shard and 2nd rounder for Okafor and Ariza

[fishercob]

I'm more okay with the money and the players we got than most. The one thing that really, really irks me about the trade is that we gave up our #46 pick.

It was having an extra pick two years ago that allowed us to turn Lazar Hayward into Trevor Booker. I really would have liked the option to use #46 to jump a spot or three if a guy we loved was on the board.

OTOH there is a belief amongst some that high seconds are more valuable than very late firsts because of the guaranteed money issue. So I dunno, maybe the FO has decided they're not going to trade up from 32 for that reason.

I want the #46 pick for Marcus Denmon. Now we have to hope he either isn't drafted, or we can buy a pick to acquire him.

Right, I didn't mention that, but of course we might also have actually wanted to use the pick. I fear that someone pretty good will be taken at 46 or after and within a year or two we'll hear "oh we liked so-and-so a lot, we just couldn't get him."

[Zonkerbl]

Hands: it's nothing new, but you're embarassing yourself. And the poker analogy is appropriate. If you consider money you have put into the pot "not lost," you're in trouble. Any money that you have put in the pot is no longer yours, and should only be used to help calculate pot odds.

According to your description, the poker analogy is inappropriate. Money you put into a contract is still yours, since it is an asset that you can use to improve your team.

It's true that either can be accurately described as a sunk cost, but I think hands is right to say that the poker interpretation of sunk cost is not appropriate in the situation we're considering now. You can't use the money in the pot to trade for better cards.

[willbcocks]

The money in the pot (14 million) was not traded for anything. The trade we completed was entirely based on the 10 million that we hadn't spend yet, in the form of the non-guaranteed part of Lewis's salary. The 14 million just cancelled out 14 million of overpay from NO.

Perhaps if the poker analogy is taken to the extreme and you ask me who the dealer is (stern) or what color the chips are (green), I won't be able to answer, but the basic premise is exactly the same.

[Zonkerbl]

That implies that we could have gotten Okafor and Ariza without using Lewis' contract, which is wrong.

According to the poker analogy, the money in the pot is not yours and you can't do anything with it. There are options available using Lewis' contract that are not otherwise.

It is correct that the marginal cost of the transaction was equivalent to using up the equivalent amount of cap space had we simply bought out the contract.

[hands11]

Hoopa, you're a much welcomed breath of fresh air... or fresh hair you might say if you were Brazilian... or if you were a Hands post with his proofreading prowess. I'm pressed for time, so I can't address your well-crafted points. The main thing that concerns me for this season is shooting. That trade gave us 2 offensively challenged players on an already offensively challenged team. Somehow, I don't think adding 2 rookies is going to solve that problem this season. So unless the players we have dramatically improved their shooting, I don't see a playoff team.

Basically, my feeling is they could have gotten the same production they'll get with Okafor by playing and developing Seraphin/Booker/Vesely more and re-signing James Singleton. And Ariza's lack of offensive efficiency is awfully hard to overcome. The thought of teaming him with Jordan Crawford is a nightmare that we hopefully won't see.

I don't know if that is really true. There seems to be a pretty clear trend with him. He was much more efficient when he was playing 22 minutes a game and coming off the bench. Where he seems to struggle when when they ask him to do more then what he was capable of doing. If he splits minutes with C Singleton and another player that get 4 minutes or so at SF, I think he will be more efficient again.

He was a energy guy. He wasn't a core focus of an offense guy. I believe Trevor can be salvaged.

PS. Welcome back Hoopalotta

Great read. I made it about halfway. I'll have to read the rest later.

[hands11]

i really think that we had a depth problem had we stayed pat : our 2/3 rotation was tragic and Nene having an injury history + Seraphin being young meant that having another rocksolid 4/5 is good. I have nothing against Vesely or Booker, but they are fringe bench players at this stage on a regular NBA team. Next season the Wizards without injury + a 3&D guy (not that easy to find...) might have won 35 games. But just one nasty injury to one of Nene/Seraphin/3&d guy and we had no depth. With Ariza and Okafor there is a quality rotation here of starting caliber talent. That in itself has worth.

Don't forget James Singleton. If he was our 5th big, we'd have the depth to persevere if one of our bigs go down to injury.

I agree I wanted James back but that does not address the Lewis contract that needed moved. When you take it all together they addressed what they needed to but yes, it does appear to have that side effect. It's a little hard to except that we got James back and now we will probably lose him again. But if we get Beal maybe he come back as another SF. Doubt it but maybe.

[VictorPage44]

I thought Hoops had a solid summary of the different perspectives on this trade. One point that he made pretty well, that I've attempted to make but not as effectively, is that we will get to see who signs where and for what in Free Agency.

I still stand by the position that it's not a good idea to give a longterm deal out to anyone this offseason, and that we need the yoUng gUys to begin learning how to win ASAP. They werent going to progress as well with only each other to push them. We needed to have a solid team around them. Having James Singleton is not the same as having Okafor for that reason. Singleton is an energy player, but he's a self check on offense. You dont have to guard him, which hurts the team in more ways than his personal eFG%. He's also a 31 year old journeyman. Are we going to going to go into next year with James Singleton as insurance? A guy who wasnt on a roster all year (maybe because he sucked so bad FOR US in 2010? ) and had a nice 12 game stretch against some tanking and resting teams. He'll give you the same things Okafor will? what is every GM in the NBA just an idiot or something for passing on this guy? James Singleton: the per minute numbers of the best 12 game stretch of his career mirror Okafor's career averages. That doesnt mean they're the same player.

[hands11]

That implies that we could have gotten Okafor and Ariza without using Lewis' contract, which is wrong.

According to the poker analogy, the money in the pot is not yours and you can't do anything with it. There are options available using Lewis' contract that are not otherwise.

It is correct that the marginal cost of the transaction was equivalent to using up the equivalent amount of cap space had we simply bought out the contract.

Valiant try Zonk but he is fixated on what he thinks and I don't think any line of logic and facts are going to change that. Probably best we just move on. I think the facts and details of what actually happened have been described plenty of times. Those that understand it do and those that don't probably are not going to. I'm moving on to evaluating how the two can fit in and waiting to see who they pick. Draft day should be exciting.

[nate33]

Having James Singleton is not the same as having Okafor for that reason. Singleton is an energy player, but he's a self check on offense. You dont have to guard him, which hurts the team in more ways than his personal eFG%. He's also a 31 year old journeyman. Are we going to going to go into next year with James Singleton as insurance? A guy who wasnt on a roster all year (maybe because he sucked so bad FOR US in 2010? ) and had a nice 12 game stretch against some tanking and resting teams. He'll give you the same things Okafor will? what is every GM in the NBA just an idiot or something for passing on this guy?

Singleton may not be a "go to" guy on offense, but he isn't a self check either. I saw enough of him to know that his perimeter shot is legit. You can't leave him open. He can't post up like Okafor, but I think there's a real argument that Singleton and his offensive skillset won't be a serious dropoff from Okafor and his offensive skillset. Singleton might even be a better fit alongside Nene/Seraphin at C with Wall at PG.

[willbcocks]

That implies that we could have gotten Okafor and Ariza without using Lewis' contract, which is wrong.

According to the poker analogy, the money in the pot is not yours and you can't do anything with it. There are options available using Lewis' contract that are not otherwise.

It is correct that the marginal cost of the transaction was equivalent to using up the equivalent amount of cap space had we simply bought out the contract.

Valiant try Zonk but he is fixated on what he thinks and I don't think any line of logic and facts are going to change that. Probably best we just move on. I think the facts and details of what actually happened have been described plenty of times. Those that understand it do and those that don't probably are not going to. I'm moving on to evaluating how the two can fit in and waiting to see who they pick. Draft day should be exciting.

As I alluded to in my last post, the analogy was never meant to explain every single aspect of the trade and the CBA, just as I would not try to compare the felt on a poker table to the hardwood of a basketball court. The purpose of using an analogy is to be illustrative, not identical, and the point I was originally illustrating with the poker analogy is this: making a trade because you don't want to pay Lewis 14 million dollars to walk away (a sunk cost) is a bad basis for decision-making as an NBA GM in the exact same way it is a bad basis for making decisions at the poker table. Some posters have, ad nauseum, been using this as a justification for Ted making the trade. My point is that this is either an inaccurate depiction of Ted, or, if true, a strike against him.

My opinion is that Ted is fully aware that sunk costs should not factor into business decisions, but he is dishonestly using it as a justification for moving away from his original plan and trying to win more games now. He sounds very insecure in some of his posts, so maybe he's tired of the losing and the criticism and just wants to drum up fan interest. If that is his intention, I, like Kevin, am not sure he's going about it the right way with these specific players.

[LyricalRico]

People around the league keep talking about "the OKC model" in recent years, but I think that's a misnomer "model" implies that it's a duplicatible plan. If that were true, then every team that's in the lottery 3+ years in a row would be on the road to contention. So is there an actual model that multiple teams have been able to follow in the last few years? Maybe there is.

I call it the "medium three" model. Not a Big 3 of elite players surrounded by specialists, but 3 borderline All-Star players surrounded by a solid mix of players where everybody plays smart and plays defense. Teams that seem to have followed this model;

Atlanta - Johnson, Smith, and Horford
Indiana - Granger, West, and Hibbert
Philly - Holiday, Iguodala, and Evans (used to be Brand)
Memphis - Gay, Randolph, and Gasol
Denver - Galinari, Lawson, and Faried
Utah - Harris, Jefferson, and Milsap
Houston - Martin, Scola, and Lowry (missed the playoffs but were over .500)

All of those teams except one made the playoffs, but none of those teams have a true superstar on their roster. In fact, most of the players I listed average less than 20 ppg. I don't see why next year's Wizards can't be one of those teams.

We already have two-thirds of our "medium three" in Wall and Nene, two borderline All Star talents averaging less than 20 ppg. Assuming that our #3 pick is the same type of player, we then would have the first part of my description. The second part is "a solid mix of players where everybody plays smart and plays defense". That's where Okafor and Ariza come in, to supplement the young guys we already have that showed signs last season.

The biggest difference between the Wizards and several of those teams above is that our "medium three" project is a bit more expensive. But I don't think that alone should overshadow the potential of next year's squad. I really think this team has the potential to surprise a lot of people.

Thoughts on the "medium three" concept?

[verbal8]

Atlanta - Johnson, Smith, and Horford
Indiana - Granger, West, and Hibbert
Philly - Holiday, Iguodala, and Evans (used to be Brand)
Memphis - Gay, Randolph, and Gasol
Denver - Galinari, Lawson, and Faried
Utah - Harris, Jefferson, and Milsap
Houston - Martin, Scola, and Lowry (missed the playoffs but were over .500)

Thoughts on the "medium three" concept?

I don't think you want to model any time of team building concept on the Atlanta Hawks. However I think the success of teams like Indiana, Philly and Memphis made the most recent trade a little more attractive. I think most of these teams are successful more due to depth and coaching than the 3 best players.

[Zonkerbl]

That implies that we could have gotten Okafor and Ariza without using Lewis' contract, which is wrong.

According to the poker analogy, the money in the pot is not yours and you can't do anything with it. There are options available using Lewis' contract that are not otherwise.

It is correct that the marginal cost of the transaction was equivalent to using up the equivalent amount of cap space had we simply bought out the contract.

Valiant try Zonk but he is fixated on what he thinks and I don't think any line of logic and facts are going to change that. Probably best we just move on. I think the facts and details of what actually happened have been described plenty of times. Those that understand it do and those that don't probably are not going to. I'm moving on to evaluating how the two can fit in and waiting to see who they pick. Draft day should be exciting.

As I alluded to in my last post, the analogy was never meant to explain every single aspect of the trade and the CBA, just as I would not try to compare the felt on a poker table to the hardwood of a basketball court. The purpose of using an analogy is to be illustrative, not identical, and the point I was originally illustrating with the poker analogy is this: making a trade because you don't want to pay Lewis 14 million dollars to walk away (a sunk cost) is a bad basis for decision-making as an NBA GM in the exact same way it is a bad basis for making decisions at the poker table. Some posters have, ad nauseum, been using this as a justification for Ted making the trade. My point is that this is either an inaccurate depiction of Ted, or, if true, a strike against him.

My opinion is that Ted is fully aware that sunk costs should not factor into business decisions, but he is dishonestly using it as a justification for moving away from his original plan and trying to win more games now. He sounds very insecure in some of his posts, so maybe he's tired of the losing and the criticism and just wants to drum up fan interest. If that is his intention, I, like Kevin, am not sure he's going about it the right way with these specific players.

Ah, I get it.

Sure.

[dobrojim]

Man, go away for 3 days and there's too much to catch up on...

was the CLE trade up confirmed? Or still a rumor/pending.

Where is Doc's post? Help!!!

[nate33]

I call it the "medium three" model. Not a Big 3 of elite players surrounded by specialists, but 3 borderline All-Star players surrounded by a solid mix of players where everybody plays smart and plays defense. Teams that seem to have followed this model;

Atlanta - Johnson, Smith, and Horford
Indiana - Granger, West, and Hibbert
Philly - Holiday, Iguodala, and Evans (used to be Brand)
Memphis - Gay, Randolph, and Gasol
Denver - Galinari, Lawson, and Faried
Utah - Harris, Jefferson, and Milsap
Houston - Martin, Scola, and Lowry (missed the playoffs but were over .500)

Good post Rico.

As I've said over and over again, the Wizards are much better than their 20-46 record. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they made the playoffs this year.

I'd put Vesely, Booker and Ariza into the "solid mix of role players" category, but I wish one of them could shoot at an above average clip for their position. Unfortunately, our draft pick will probably only be in the role player category as well. Rookies are rarely good enough to carry a team.

Okafor is probably a bit better than "role player" but not quite good enough to be a "medium three". However, if he was traded for a wing, we might get a "medium three" player in return because there is usually a premium for bigs. So basically, we would be a "medium three" team if either our draft pick or an Okafor trade netted us a "medium three" caliber player. If not, we only have 2 players and are probably a sub 40-win team.

[tontoz]

I don't think you want to model any time of team building concept on the Atlanta Hawks.

Actually the Hawks had the right plan, it was the execution that was the problem. They cleared cap space and lured a high profile FA in JJ. But they blew their draft picks.

Childress at 6 over Iggy/Deng
Marvin at 2 over Paul/Deron
Shelden at 5 over Roy/Gay

They had a lot of capspace in the summber of '06 and signed Speedy Claxton and Lorenzen Wright lol. In spite of these obvious blunders they have been a winning team for years.

[nate33]

I don't think you want to model any time of team building concept on the Atlanta Hawks.

Actually the Hawks had the right plan, it was the execution that was the problem. They cleared cap space and lured a high profile FA in JJ. But they blew their draft picks.

Childress at 6 over Iggy/Deng
Marvin at 2 over Paul/Deron
Shelden at 5 over Roy/Gay

They had a lot of capspace in the summber of '06 and signed Speedy Claxton and Lorenzen Wright lol. In spite of these obvious blunders they have been a winning team for years.

Wow. They could have had a lineup of:
Paul
Johnson
Deng/Gay
Smith
Horford

(although if they drafted Paul, they would not have been in position to draft Horford)

[tontoz]

No telling what would have happened if they had drafted Paul or Deron but they already had Smith and would sign JJ that summer. Those are 3 good players to build around. If they had drafted Deng the year before he probably wouldn't have effected their win total much that first year.

So many blown opportunities.

[Severn Hoos]

In Review:
It’s basically an underwhelming trade that might mean low expectations by Ted or it might mean that we’re going a roundabout route towards something better by "incubating assets" (I'm trade marking that, so don't get any ideas, now). It’s not really that Okafor and Ariza are crippling contracts that I hate, it’s just that in conjunction with Nene we’ve got too much money committed.

Hoopa, welcome back - it's great to see you again!

"incubating assets" - I like that. I'm not in favor of the trade, but not terribly opposed to it. I am concerned that it continues my streak of promoting guys, only to have the Wiz acquire them several years later - Jamison, Hinrich, now Okafor - heck, I remember when the Bullets signed a washed-up Ralph Sampson! Give it a few more years, they'll trade for Evan Turner when he's 33 and on the back end of his 3rd contract...

I do get the incubating assets (TM) mindset, though. If hoarding cap space for next summer to attract a (super?)star was one plan, that seems pretty dependent on one of two things happening:

1) Perfect storm of UFA who wants to leave his current team AND wants to play in Washington - and the window is only open for the one summer. If you don't like those FAs, then this scenario is out the window
2) Perfect storm of disgruntled (but still in his prime) Star who wants to leave his current team AND wants to play for the Wizards (call this the Garnett Plan). Again, not very likely, and wholly dependent upon other circumstances. Plus, this would require giving back significant value to the other team (Al Jefferson is no bum, BTW).

Other options, such as BOYD and mid-level star signings (Batum, for example) are very nice, and I'd be all for doing them, but they are really incremental in the grand scheme of things and don't make us a contender.

So - we extend the game. We move Rashard's contract - which vaporizes at the end of this month - for assets that could still be used in trades for the next 18 months. (For example, if Shard's deal was actually a $13M expiring - thus the same outlay - I think they would not have made this trade, because they would still have been able to trade him through the rest of this summer and up to the trade deadline, where he would be even more valuable to other teams. But as is, they have to sever ties and can no longer include him in any deals if they buy him out.)

So now, if Ernie plays his cards well, he has several more chances to make a move. Wait for contenders to get nervous, watch who goes down this season, hang out a sign for Okafor and Ariza, push Blatche on someone, whatever.

How's this for a hypothetical: Atlanta gets off to a good start, and around the midway point, J-Smoove goes down with a season-ending injury. (I know, sorry to sound like I'm wishing an injury on anyone, just painting a possible scenario) Josh Smith for Ariza + Blatche is a perfect fit salary-wise. Would they do it? They took Hinrich off our hands, after all.

Point is, there could be scenarios where this deal actually increases our options over the next year and a half. Ultimately, I don't think it does - I think the net is that it decreases them, but it doesn't shut them out. And if T & E (Ted & Ernie) can swing one of those deals, I'll be quite happy.

[dobrojim]

btw, if I am trading one of our veteran bigs, I'd rather move Nene than Okafor, those extra years and injury history still scare me.

I kind of the opposite just because I like Nene as a player better than Okafor.

That said, I didn't realize how close to a double double machine Okafor had
been for much of his career. There is an injury concern but I'm guessing
both will be healthy.

I had said that I wasn't convinced that Okafor was better than Seraphin.
Time will tell. What I DO LOVE now is that we have potentially 3 above
average STARTING caliber Cs on the roster. We could move one (RMartin). Or either
Okafor or Nene can slide to the 4. The 3-some of Nene, Okafor and Seraphin
are pretty imposing. That still leaves Booker and Vesely as additional depth.

Ariza will have to be reigned in on his shot attempts. Hopefully that
won't become a major issue. That and I continue to believe that Wittman
will operate a meritocracy and the guys who play best will play the most.