Official Trade Thread - Part XXV

[J-Ves]

My latest:

Wiz trade Porter+2014 2nd rounder for Henson
Bucks trade Henson+Udoh (expiring)+Knight+2014 1st rounder (top 1 protected) for Ty Lawson
Nuggets trade Lawson for Porter+2014 Wiz 2nd rounder+Knight+Udoh(exp)+Bucks 2014 1st rounder (top 1 protected)

Wiz get a MUCH needed young big in Henson, Bucks gets a MUCH needed PG (signed longterm), and Nuggets decide to tank, and get a SF for the future in Porter, a 2014 1st rounder, and a 2014 2nd rounder.

Looks good for the Wiz and Nugs, but I'm sure the Bucks would say no. The Bucks seem very high on Henson and their GM has been very good in picking up productive players in the middle of the first round(Henson, Sanders, Antetokounmpo), so I would imagine they value that pick highly.

[Nivek]

Honestly, I'd trade Seraphin for pretty much whatever, just so long as it didn't cut into future cap space. An expiring plus a 2nd round pick would do it for me. As for the loss of "depth" -- I don't think that's a big deal because I don't think he provides any. He's terrible. I'd trade him, and sign someone from the D-League.

[payitforward]

Honestly, I'd trade Seraphin for pretty much whatever, just so long as it didn't cut into future cap space. An expiring plus a 2nd round pick would do it for me. As for the loss of "depth" -- I don't think that's a big deal because I don't think he provides any. He's terrible. I'd trade him, and sign someone from the D-League.

What he said....

But you know that's not going to happen.

[nuposse04]

We shoulda done a seraphin for Miles Plumlee swap in the gortat trade as well...That guy is averaging 12-9 in 30 mins a game on good efficiency :/ **** us sideways.

[stevemcqueen1]

I don't see Dallas doing that. Marion and Ariza are similar players, and their backup point guard situation isn't good.

What if they fall out of the playoff race in a month and want an expiring contract for the summer?

Maybe. But do you want to risk max capspace for Jose Calderon? Doesn't seem like the smartest move.

True, and Calderon's contract length is unappealing. I see 4 years and about 7.2 million annually on average. That's a lot to pay for a back up PG and it'd put us on the hook until the summer of 2017.

He also just turned 32.

I like his skill set though. Especially as a legit third guard for this team. He's a terrible defender but I think you can put him on the smaller player in lineups with Wall or Beal or even both, because Wall can defend 2s and even Beal can play up and defend some opposing 3s.

He's an ideal fit offensively. He could run point in Wall's absence and he could really thrive playing off the ball beside Wall. He's become an amazing 3 pt shooter. Small line ups where you play him at the 2, Beal at the 3, and Webster at the 4 would be absolutely deadly from 3 point range. Three of the best long range shooters in the game basically.

It's a risk though because you're right, we wouldn't be able to make a max offer without Bird rights. We'd also be pretty reliant on three 30+ year old members of our line up: Nene, Gortat, Calderon.

But they are in fact good players despite their age, and a Wall, Beal, Calderon, Porter, Webster, Nene, Gortat is potentially a very good top 7. Well balanced. Needs a third big. But we would probably have some money to spend for one.

I don't think we need another max player from outside the organization to truly compete. I think our main focus now is filling in the cracks with the highest quality role players we can acquire. And I don't know that there is a deserving max player out there for us to realistically pursue.

[Nivek]

I wouldn't want Calderon on a 4-year contract, but he's been one of the most underrated players in the league. His defense isn't good, but his offense is so efficient that he more than offsets what he costs on D. He'd be a perfect 3rd guard for the Wizards. If he was on a two-year contract...

[rl25g]

Id do Ariza for Dragic who expires in 2016 but I doubt the Suns go for it

[stevemcqueen1]

I wouldn't want Calderon on a 4-year contract, but he's been one of the most underrated players in the league. His defense isn't good, but his offense is so efficient that he more than offsets what he costs on D. He'd be a perfect 3rd guard for the Wizards. If he was on a two-year contract...

Yeah he is a really fine player. I don't understand what Dallas was thinking in giving him a four year deal though. Even Webster's fourth year is a team option.

Several shooters made bank this offseason and I don't understand a lot of the four year deals given out. I don't understand why Kyle Korver and JJ redick got four years deals, or why they got more than the MLE. And yet Paul Millsap, a far better player than either got just two years and 9.5 million per. Courtney Lee's dollar amount was high. Chase Budinger got a third year player option and Kevin Martin got four years. The deals Steve Novak and J.R. Smith seem like big bargains in comparison.

Feels like teams are overpaying for shooters. And conversely, a lot of quality front court players went for fairly cheap, like Carl Landry, Millsap, Zaza Pachulia, etc.

[deneem4]

I like dieng would definitely do that swap with min...

Shumpert is also on the blocks, not sure how we can get him

I said it alot before but I think a jeff(or thad)needs to be a priority for us...every top team has a tweener forward

Nene/porter
For
Green and bass
Celtics get another piece to theyre rebuild, and lose more games
We get another ball handler and a elite player defender in bass and gets rid of nene contract

Even though I think porter will be really good...Il rather have nene off the books and make it to the 2nd rd of the playoffs, instead of losing our pick for a 1st rd sweep.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Hi all - I haven't been here for too long. Love your board.

I'm curious about Kevin Seraphin, and not just because MIN does so well with it's Kevins.

With Turiaf going down, Pekovic has played too many minutes and with less pick and roll, he hasn't been producing. I'm curious if you think Seraphin could help?

MIN may be looking for a short-term replacement for Turiaf. The Wolves need some size and defense, maybe 15 minutes a night. If the player could run the floor, it'd be a plus. They intend on developing Dieng, but while he's been better than advertised so far defensively, I'm concerned he'd struggle if Pek missed a game or two and he was forced to be a spot starter. Love can do that against smaller teams, but against teams with big centers, filling that Turiaf role would be useful of bogging big men down.

Do you think Seraphin could play that role? And do I remember correctly that Flip looked at Seraphin as a pet project? Finally, I realize he wouldn't cost much, but what are you looking for from him in trade? A bench player at a different position, now that you have Gortat? A 2nd? Or am I insulting you?

Thanks guys!

DWill has been an off and on target of this board. Maybe Seraphin with another player such as Vesely or Booker for Williams? Actually as a player Book is pretty comparable to Williams straight up. Minn might have interest in Vesely though cause Flip "likes white players". But seriously, trade & roster wise Seraphin & Booker for Dwill could make sense for both teams.

Gives Wizards PF depth of Nene, Williams, Harrington, and DWill would give us some insurance if Nene misses any substantial time from the starting lineup. The 2 for 1 opens a roster spot pick up someone like Earl Barron, Jason Collins, Hilton Armstrong, or someone from Dleague to add center depth.

[nuposse04]

I'm still open to trading for D-Will but I know many would decry such an attempt as we'd lose out on Max cap space. If our goal is to retain Gortat, do we even need max cap space?

Greg Monroe is the only max big left, and we'll have to do a S&T for him. DET WILL match. I'd be more interested if either UTAH or MIL decided to ship off Favors or Sanders.

[Dark Faze]

At this point, I'm resigned to the fact that we'll get a significant starter upgrade only when Nene expires.

So trade wise I'd start looking at moves we can make to sure up our bench. Particularly at PG. I think things will get better once Porter heals up, but we'll need someone better than Maynor.

Still shocked we didn't put a waiver out on Seth Curry. I mean, it's not like his PG skills are any worse than what Maynor does. Defensively he couldn't be much worse either. Seth would at least be a threat to knock down the long ball on the regular though.

[Nivek]

I wouldn't want Calderon on a 4-year contract, but he's been one of the most underrated players in the league. His defense isn't good, but his offense is so efficient that he more than offsets what he costs on D. He'd be a perfect 3rd guard for the Wizards. If he was on a two-year contract...

Yeah he is a really fine player. I don't understand what Dallas was thinking in giving him a four year deal though. Even Webster's fourth year is a team option.

Several shooters made bank this offseason and I don't understand a lot of the four year deals given out. I don't understand why Kyle Korver and JJ redick got four years deals, or why they got more than the MLE. And yet Paul Millsap, a far better player than either got just two years and 9.5 million per. Courtney Lee's dollar amount was high. Chase Budinger got a third year player option and Kevin Martin got four years. The deals Steve Novak and J.R. Smith seem like big bargains in comparison.

Feels like teams are overpaying for shooters. And conversely, a lot of quality front court players went for fairly cheap, like Carl Landry, Millsap, Zaza Pachulia, etc.

Seems like GMs pay based on the latest fashion more so than on a robust and worthwhile assessment of the player's overall value. Like Leonsis and Grunfeld, I think many learn the wrong lessons from looking at other successful teams. Continuity doesn't bring success, for example, it's a result of success. "Fit" isn't about getting the right assemblage of skills, but rather about acquiring good players with the maturity to play well together. And, one of my other favorites -- the Wizards' problem wasn't too many young players, it was too many IMMATURE players (who also weren't good).

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I wouldn't want Calderon on a 4-year contract, but he's been one of the most underrated players in the league. His defense isn't good, but his offense is so efficient that he more than offsets what he costs on D. He'd be a perfect 3rd guard for the Wizards. If he was on a two-year contract...

Yeah he is a really fine player. I don't understand what Dallas was thinking in giving him a four year deal though. Even Webster's fourth year is a team option.

Several shooters made bank this offseason and I don't understand a lot of the four year deals given out. I don't understand why Kyle Korver and JJ redick got four years deals, or why they got more than the MLE. And yet Paul Millsap, a far better player than either got just two years and 9.5 million per. Courtney Lee's dollar amount was high. Chase Budinger got a third year player option and Kevin Martin got four years. The deals Steve Novak and J.R. Smith seem like big bargains in comparison.

Feels like teams are overpaying for shooters. And conversely, a lot of quality front court players went for fairly cheap, like Carl Landry, Millsap, Zaza Pachulia, etc.

Seems like GMs pay based on the latest fashion more so than on a robust and worthwhile assessment of the player's overall value. Like Leonsis and Grunfeld, I think many learn the wrong lessons from looking at other successful teams. Continuity doesn't bring success, for example, it's a result of success. "Fit" isn't about getting the right assemblage of skills, but rather about acquiring good players with the maturity to play well together. And, one of my other favorites -- the Wizards' problem wasn't too many young players, it was too many IMMATURE players (who also weren't good).

I'm still not that impressed for the most part with what GMs pay for.

Too often, IMO, they go for athleticism and size in the draft and they pay for scoring potential in free agency. I agree with steve.

What they rarely do is consider chemistry, fit, and use something like WS/48 as a gauge of who might help them succeed. What I don't see teams do very often is craft a team of disparately skilled players. Bill Russell, in a book of his that I wish I could cite but just can't recall the name, said his Celtics contained a team full of really good specialists. Each guy had his own strength and his own skill. The Celtics were really well balanced and had well-defined roles. Guys more or less "stayed in their lane". (My way of putting it).

What I notice is GMs seem to pick the same kind of player over and over. I don't see a team that likes project/athletes go for a pure shooter. Some GMs will draft shot blocker after shot blocker. Some will have a ton of rebounders on the same roster. (Humphries with Evans last season comes to mind.) Others will add shooter after shooter, but not have a real athlete. I might be wrong, but I rarely see GMs DRAFT FOR NEED.

Seems to me OKC got it right with Steve Adams. The Wizards drafted Otto Porter after they already had Ariza and Webster. Only a couple years after they drafted Singleton and Vesely (to both be SFs). They also drafted Glen Rice, Jr. I complained about the guy's character but the dude is a real good athlete and he's yet to play. How can he on this roster?

I thought it was dumb as all heck for the Wizards to trade the rights to Nate Wolters. The guy is a BRAIN on the court and is a SCORER/REBOUNDER for a PG. Wolters makes few mistakes. He set all kinds of NCAA records, or was close. I know he's not an athlete. I'm aware his FG% is low. But I'm also not at all surprised he's starting (I said he would before the draft). He's not hurting the Bucks.

Teams like the Wizards are dumb to me. Sorry if that sounds smug, arrogant, condescending, etc. To me, with all the resources they have they should know better. I post stuff here year after year that may seem counterintuitive. It's not group think. But to me a successful basketball player doesn't fit a certain type. Seems to me they usually never want anyone like a Blair but they will take any veteran who's over 30 and who can score a bit or who had some reputation somewhere else. They like other teams to do the leg work and they prefer known commodoties. Washington also throws a lot of overlapping, redundantly skills guys into a crowded mix. They never seem to address glaring weakness in their current roster and they don't seem to give an iota of thought to chemistry. They just like the word "veteran".

As far as chemistry goes, I think Coach Wittman doesn't get it with Vesely. I think a game like today vs OKC is lost when the coach gets locked in to a short bench and he doesn't rotate in rebounding, size, and bigs who defend on the perimeter. Just because he has faith in some veterans is no reason to treat professionals like they can't play. Vesely started games two seasons ago. Now, he can't be trusted with seconds of play off the bench? Really?

Wittman has a guy like Temple come in against Brooklyn and it made some sense. But why is he on the roster and a guy like Rice, Jr. will never ever play? What's the point? To me, a guy the Wizards cut really quickly, D'or Fischer, had a requisite skill set this team now lacks.

I think teams need to consider function, skill set, diverse ability/mentality, leadership, etc. Instead, what I think I see is really narrow thinking on who can play and who can't. Guys like Rudy Gay are going to be max players. They'll bring in a Bargnani (at his height) but a guy like Steve Novak (deadly at what he does well) gets cast off. I don't get it. I can't see bringing in Bargs or Gay, because those guys tend not to help teams win. But they put up offense.

I love coaches like Brad Stevens. He's got an analytics guy who he brought with him from Butler What Stevens will do is totally scrap his lineup and expand his paradigm of what works based on numbers, if need be. I think the NBA will eventually become more numerically driven in time. I think the art is always going to be in figuring what key factors lead to wins and which combos of players make that happen. Teams need to think of players like a good cook thinks of spices in the spice rack.

Salt and pepper are the basics but the master chef can work in a whole lot more seasonings. Nivek, I agree with your statement about GMs favoring the latest fashion. I attribute that to saving face or meeting the expectation of peers. Staying within the normative culture just so as to avoid criticism or ostracism. It's safe to make certain moves. To me, Sam Presti is going to look like a damned genius in time. Just like Memphis did right by letting Pau go for picks, and Orlando did great letting Dwight go for picks; OKC is loaded for years to come. But it wasn't the "latest move" so they've been criticized for letting Harden blow up in Houston.

Funny thing: After they beat the Wizards tonight, Durant said that's some of the best basketball he's seen since he's been with OKC. The guy's on a complete team now. Not one with three stars and shaky cap forever. Sorry for the rant. I like when teams consistently make shrewd moves. Especially when they go against conventional wisdom and things work out well.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Back on topic: Trade Thread

I think the Wizards need to consider they have a surplus of wing players with some athleticism and a real deficit of shot blocking bigs who are good defenders. They need to try to replicate what they lost in Okafor.

Also, pure shooting and size at backup PG are an issue if Temple is never going to play there due to Maynor.

If Harrington's going to play all the big minutes off the bench, they might as well trade Vesely ASAP. Same with Singleton--if they don't choose to waive him. Why are they on the roster?

Seems to me Washington's got a good amount of talent but a lot of it is redundant. There have to be some SF trades to yield either a PF/C or a PG with size, like Livingston. If Temple is that guy, then they need to try and acquire a Faried/Reggie Evans type player. A player big enough to bang with the likes of Drummond would be nice, too.

Trade guys who are never, ever going to play.

[stevemcqueen1]

Seems like GMs pay based on the latest fashion more so than on a robust and worthwhile assessment of the player's overall value. Like Leonsis and Grunfeld, I think many learn the wrong lessons from looking at other successful teams. Continuity doesn't bring success, for example, it's a result of success. "Fit" isn't about getting the right assemblage of skills, but rather about acquiring good players with the maturity to play well together. And, one of my other favorites -- the Wizards' problem wasn't too many young players, it was too many IMMATURE players (who also weren't good).

I agree with most of your post, but I think it's more complicated than that.

I do think fit exists, in a very intuitive sense. Specific skills like passer & ball handler + shooter go well together and produce synergy. A team is a system and IMO your best approach to creating that system with limited resources is to come up with a mix of pieces that can cover up each other's weaknesses. And while I don't think the difference in skill levels between the freaks that are NBA players is as large as we sometimes make it seem, I do think that subtle differences has a large effect over long periods of time.

When organizations talk about a player's fit, I think they're often talking about his personality though. People just operate in unique ways. Some people will simply not be able to "get it" and buy in at one place, but then they'll go somewhere else and it is a natural fit.

I think NBA teams are a lot like any other major corporation in the way they have unique cultures that are established by leadership and permeate every level of the organization. Maturity plays a part in a player's ability to buy in. But I think it's more complicated than a guy just being mature or immature. I've worked at places that were successful but I thought they had a messed up organizational culture and was never able to buy in. And I've worked at places where I've gotten there and been like, "ah, I've found my place."

Also I do think there is intrinsic value to continuity. Obviously it's more nuanced than that. Maintaining continuity with bad employees is counterproductive. Making the evaluation that a bad employee is now counterproductive is probably more art than science. But continuity itself contributes to success and is not merely a byproduct of it. Familiarity and the ability to accurately anticipate outcomes is important and leads to success when you have to make rapid decisions in dynamic situations with limited information. That's really what basketball is.

Businesses heavily factor continuity into personnel decisions. High turnover is bad for their business obviously, and they do what they can to keep their people because it takes a lot of time for employees to develop into their most productive phases. Works the same for basketball.

[nate33]

I think the Wizards need to consider they have a surplus of wing players with some athleticism and a real deficit of shot blocking bigs who are good defenders. They need to try to replicate what they lost in Okafor.

Also, pure shooting and size at backup PG are an issue if Temple is never going to play there due to Maynor.

If Harrington's going to play all the big minutes off the bench, they might as well trade Vesely ASAP. Same with Singleton--if they don't choose to waive him. Why are they on the roster?

Seems to me Washington's got a good amount of talent but a lot of it is redundant. There have to be some SF trades to yield either a PF/C or a PG with size, like Livingston. If Temple is that guy, then they need to try and acquire a Faried/Reggie Evans type player. A player big enough to bang with the likes of Drummond would be nice, too.

Trade guys who are never, ever going to play.

The guys that are never going to play have no trade value.

The only place where there is any kind of surplus of good players is at SF, but that's only if Porter returns and is actually good enough to contribute. As of now, Ariza and Webster are getting all the minutes they can handle.

I agree that our biggest need is a defensive big, but I just don't think they guys we could acquire (using Vesely, Singleton and Seraphin as bait) would be any better than Seraphin defensively.

At this point, the only option to improve our team in the short term is to trade expiring contracts for good-but-overpaid vets. And that takes Greg Monroe out of consideration as a free agent this summer. (Which is certainly an option. There's a good chance Detroit matches any Monroe offer anyhow. And the fallback plan is to resign Gortat with Bird Rights.)

[payitforward]

... -- the Wizards' problem wasn't too many young players, it was too many IMMATURE players (who also weren't good).

You could just say "too many bad players" -- whatever the reason. And all hand-picked by our fearless leader.

That's still what we have -- too many bad players, all hand-picked by Ernie Grunfeld.

[mhd]

We REALLY need a combo guard who can score and put pressure on defenses. I wonder if Nate Robinson may be available if Denver continues to slump?

[mhd]

I think the Wizards need to consider they have a surplus of wing players with some athleticism and a real deficit of shot blocking bigs who are good defenders. They need to try to replicate what they lost in Okafor.

Also, pure shooting and size at backup PG are an issue if Temple is never going to play there due to Maynor.

If Harrington's going to play all the big minutes off the bench, they might as well trade Vesely ASAP. Same with Singleton--if they don't choose to waive him. Why are they on the roster?

Seems to me Washington's got a good amount of talent but a lot of it is redundant. There have to be some SF trades to yield either a PF/C or a PG with size, like Livingston. If Temple is that guy, then they need to try and acquire a Faried/Reggie Evans type player. A player big enough to bang with the likes of Drummond would be nice, too.

Trade guys who are never, ever going to play.

The guys that are never going to play have no trade value.

The only place where there is any kind of surplus of good players is at SF, but that's only if Porter returns and is actually good enough to contribute. As of now, Ariza and Webster are getting all the minutes they can handle.

I agree that our biggest need is a defensive big, but I just don't think they guys we could acquire (using Vesely, Singleton and Seraphin as bait) would be any better than Seraphin defensively.

At this point, the only option to improve our team in the short term is to trade expiring contracts for good-but-overpaid vets. And that takes Greg Monroe out of consideration as a free agent this summer. (Which is certainly an option. There's a good chance Detroit matches any Monroe offer anyhow. And the fallback plan is to resign Gortat with Bird Rights.)

Yup Nate: Ves+Singleton would probably get you Bass. If we are resigning Gortat, it may be a good move (just make Nene the main backup center).