Would you trade Tobias Harris for Okafor and Covington??

[Laimbeer]

Philly would laugh you off the phone. Okafor has his warts but is still a young big with substantial potential, not to mention he's cheaper. You'd have to toss Johnson into the deal to get a conversation started.

[Dirtgrain]

The Tobias Harris acquisition was a great win for us. I don't want to have that negated. No.

[russkopp]

We're watching an NBA finals where Centers are having a hard time staying on the floor unless they are elite rebounders or rim defenders. Besides the PGs, everyone is 6-7 to 6-9. Trading our 23 year old Forward who can guard multiple positions and switch on D for a yet to proven center...to add to our other center is a NO for me.

If we didn't have Dre it'd make more sense to me.

[tmorgan]

Of course you do that. Then you start shopping Okafor.

I realize it doesn't help the current team much, but you still gain tremendous value in the deal.

(Philly would never do that)

[DocRI]

Okafor is a fit that's really similar to Greg Monroe. The value is there but Harris makes sense of this team and Okafor doesn't.

^ So much this. A lot of SVG's success in rebuilding this team has come from removing the square pegs that were previously jammed into round holes due to "perceived value." If we trade for Okafor, we might as well also sign Josh Smith to play SF!

But flip the script for a second — why would Philly want Harris (or Mook)? Assuming they draft Simmons, they'll already have two combo forwards between him and Saric; if they're trading a big man to create a balanced, better-fitting roster, why do so just to create another glut of overly-similar players at another position?

I like Okafor. He doesn't fit, but Harris isn't the best fit either, so might as well go with the cheaper contract with more trade value and create more cap space for FA.

Per the highlighted, this has been Philly's thinking (i.e. Hinkie's thinking) that is now coming back to bite them in the butt. You can hoard all the assets you want, but a player's trade value gets diminished by providing decreasing returns on the floor. If we traded for Oak and then made him a 15-20 mpg back up to Dre, that's the level of return we'd get for him when we flipped him no matter how much "potential" he has. On the other hand, look at Mook; we paid next to nothing for him as a bench player on PHX, but if we traded him now he'd be valued as a solid starter on an awesome contract. I honestly think that's the part of the equation that Hinke just didn't get (or ignored) — player values fluctuate like stocks, and sticking Okafor on the floor with a horribly ill-fitting team that minimized his talents and highlighted his shortcomings did significant damage to his trade value. Heck, if it hadn't we wouldn't be talking about trading a guy who we acquired at the deadline in a pure cap dump for him! And frankly, playing behind Dre makes the Pistons one of the absolutely worst places Okafor could go to try to rehabilitate his value.

[Alexander]

I would absolutely take that trade in terms of value. Okafor is a recent third overall pick that is living up to that billing, at three years younger than Harris. It fits the old adage about the wisdom behind trading big for small (or small for big). All else being equal, Okafor's rookie contract as far more favorable than Harris averaging 16 million over the next three.

When it comes to value trades like this, I am not *as* concerned about fit, and won't get PTSD about the Monroe-Drummond frontcourt. I think the GMs job is to acquire talent/value/flexibility, and trust you hired a coach worthy enough to gameplan around it.

At the same time, you can have too much of a good thing. Gluts of talent at one position can lead other teams to realize that they can lowball you, desperate to clear up a position. Too much value means that you're going to have a difficult time retaining players when they earn their paydays. Players may not get playing time they need or be forced into roles they don't fit.

It's kind of like going to a store and seeing a crazy coupon for a deal on ski equipment when you live in Hawaii. Just because it's a good deal, doesn't mean you have to make it. There's probably a reason the good is valued so poorly, why the seller is eager to get rid of it.
However, maybe if I buy skis cheaply enough, It'll be the push I need to get a season pass at a resort...

My first instinct was to buy low on Okafor and sell high on Harris, so in the end I would.

[Todd3]

Okafor is a fit that's really similar to Greg Monroe. The value is there but Harris makes sense of this team and Okafor doesn't.

^ So much this. A lot of SVG's success in rebuilding this team has come from removing the square pegs that were previously jammed into round holes due to "perceived value." If we trade for Okafor, we might as well also sign Josh Smith to play SF!

But flip the script for a second — why would Philly want Harris (or Mook)? Assuming they draft Simmons, they'll already have two combo forwards between him and Saric; if they're trading a big man to create a balanced, better-fitting roster, why do so just to create another glut of overly-similar players at another position?

I like Okafor. He doesn't fit, but Harris isn't the best fit either, so might as well go with the cheaper contract with more trade value and create more cap space for FA.

Per the highlighted, this has been Philly's thinking (i.e. Hinkie's thinking) that is now coming back to bite them in the butt. You can hoard all the assets you want, but a player's trade value gets diminished by providing decreasing returns on the floor. If we traded for Oak and then made him a 15-20 mpg back up to Dre, that's the level of return we'd get for him when we flipped him no matter how much "potential" he has. On the other hand, look at Mook; we paid next to nothing for him as a bench player on PHX, but if we traded him now he'd be valued as a solid starter on an awesome contract. I honestly think that's the part of the equation that Hinke just didn't get (or ignored) — player values fluctuate like stocks, and sticking Okafor on the floor with a horribly ill-fitting team that minimized his talents and highlighted his shortcomings did significant damage to his trade value. Heck, if it hadn't we wouldn't be talking about trading a guy who we acquired at the deadline in a pure cap dump for him! And frankly, playing behind Dre makes the Pistons one of the absolutely worst places Okafor could go to try to rehabilitate his value.

I agree that we shouldn't be in the business of acquiring players who don't fit just to add assets to trade later. (I said the same thing the other day in the draft thread). However, I kinda feel like we already did that with Harris, as he's not really an ideal fit skill-wise and his contract is huge. So this would just be a way to reverse that mistake financially. And given that Harris' role should probably be limited to 20-25 mpg off the bench anyways in order to fit, I figure we might as well go with Okafor in that role and get a better player/prospect on a rookie deal instead. That's my thinking there.

In other words, if we play Harris in his proper role next year, his value will get diminished too, so at least go with the guy on the cheaper contract. Not only for our cap benefit, but when you factor in salary in trade value, Okafor on a rookie deal is more valuable than Harris at 15m/yr. And if we win with him in a 6th man role, suddenly he goes from 'guy who just put up numbers on a bad team' to '#2 pick proves he can win and is being underutilized' and there will be teams interested in him again.

[sfballa13]

Okafor's value is so low, why wouldn't SVG at least take a shot at him?

Tobias, Meeks, Bullock
for
Okafor, Covington, Landry

Reggie / -----
KCP / Hilliard
Stanley / Covington
Mook / Landry - #18
Drummond / Okafor

This trade gives us an additional 10M in cap space as well bringing our total to 28M this offseason

i think we could easily get Lin

We'd also have Baynes + #18 + Mook to trade for a PF (like maybe Faried/Gallinari) as well

I think you are incredibly undervaluing Okafors perceived value by the 76ers. The majority of the league might think Okafor won't amount to anything (which I completely disagree with) but in any case, Philly are a bad team and if his value is as low as you say, they would be better off holding onto him as opposed to selling low. Covington is on a great contract this year and I struggle to believe that Okafor won't improve, which at the very least Okafor is already better than Monroe.

If you have been paying attention to the draft there are rumours every couple of days that Boston is considering trading the number 3 pick for Okafor and other assets so why would Philly even consider a package with Harris as the main prize? (#3 pick > Harris)


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Harris is on a cheap deal, is young, and can produce now

That is important goal for the new front office, to actually win games and put out a decent looking on court product

#3 may develop into a player as good as Harris or not.

The #3 pick is the best deal Philly has received so far or at least the best deal that was reported online. If Okafor's price is really that low than SVG has to make move.

Why are people talking about fit? When Drummond sits, Okafor comes in and puts up 15/10 in his sleep against bench players

[DocRI]

Okafor is a fit that's really similar to Greg Monroe. The value is there but Harris makes sense of this team and Okafor doesn't.

^ So much this. A lot of SVG's success in rebuilding this team has come from removing the square pegs that were previously jammed into round holes due to "perceived value." If we trade for Okafor, we might as well also sign Josh Smith to play SF!

But flip the script for a second — why would Philly want Harris (or Mook)? Assuming they draft Simmons, they'll already have two combo forwards between him and Saric; if they're trading a big man to create a balanced, better-fitting roster, why do so just to create another glut of overly-similar players at another position?

I like Okafor. He doesn't fit, but Harris isn't the best fit either, so might as well go with the cheaper contract with more trade value and create more cap space for FA.

Per the highlighted, this has been Philly's thinking (i.e. Hinkie's thinking) that is now coming back to bite them in the butt. You can hoard all the assets you want, but a player's trade value gets diminished by providing decreasing returns on the floor. If we traded for Oak and then made him a 15-20 mpg back up to Dre, that's the level of return we'd get for him when we flipped him no matter how much "potential" he has. On the other hand, look at Mook; we paid next to nothing for him as a bench player on PHX, but if we traded him now he'd be valued as a solid starter on an awesome contract. I honestly think that's the part of the equation that Hinke just didn't get (or ignored) — player values fluctuate like stocks, and sticking Okafor on the floor with a horribly ill-fitting team that minimized his talents and highlighted his shortcomings did significant damage to his trade value. Heck, if it hadn't we wouldn't be talking about trading a guy who we acquired at the deadline in a pure cap dump for him! And frankly, playing behind Dre makes the Pistons one of the absolutely worst places Okafor could go to try to rehabilitate his value.

I agree that we shouldn't be in the business of acquiring players who don't fit just to add assets to trade later. (I said the same thing the other day in the draft thread). However, I kinda feel like we already did that with Harris, as he's not really an ideal fit skill-wise and his contract is huge. So this would just be a way to reverse that mistake financially. And given that Harris' role should probably be limited to 20-25 mpg off the bench anyways in order to fit, I figure we might as well go with Okafor in that role and get a better player/prospect on a rookie deal instead. That's my thinking there.

In other words, if we play Harris in his proper role next year, his value will get diminished too, so at least go with the guy on the cheaper contract. Not only for our cap benefit, but when you factor in salary in trade value, Okafor on a rookie deal is more valuable than Harris at 15m/yr. And if we win with him in a 6th man role, suddenly he goes from 'guy who just put up numbers on a bad team' to '#2 pick proves he can win and is being underutilized' and there will be teams interested in him again.

And here's where you and I just respectfully agree to disagree, which is cool — I don't see Harris as such a bad fit or as a "mistake" in the least. We were 17-11 after trading for him and 16-9 with him in the starting lineup, which is like a 53-win pace. Monroe was a bad fit, Josh Smith was the ultimate bad fit, and I think Okafor would be a LOT closer to them than Harris is. We won a lot more than we lost with Harris and his contract is gonna look downright good after this summer's free agency, not bad (keep in mind, it actually declines!). Even if I disagree with you, I can still understand your belief that Harris isn't the fight fit for our team ... but if that's your motivation for trading him, why do so for a a player who's a clearly worse fit whose value will only decline on our team?

[Pharaoh]

Harris is a perfect fit here!

Can post high or low & can hit the 3 ball, can handle a bit too

He played 28 games for us - we won 17 of them.

16-9 with him as a starter and many of those games were without KCP or SJ healthy

We don't know what we really have...yet. What we've seen thus far is enough to keep it though

[Todd3]

^ So much this. A lot of SVG's success in rebuilding this team has come from removing the square pegs that were previously jammed into round holes due to "perceived value." If we trade for Okafor, we might as well also sign Josh Smith to play SF!

But flip the script for a second — why would Philly want Harris (or Mook)? Assuming they draft Simmons, they'll already have two combo forwards between him and Saric; if they're trading a big man to create a balanced, better-fitting roster, why do so just to create another glut of overly-similar players at another position?



Per the highlighted, this has been Philly's thinking (i.e. Hinkie's thinking) that is now coming back to bite them in the butt. You can hoard all the assets you want, but a player's trade value gets diminished by providing decreasing returns on the floor. If we traded for Oak and then made him a 15-20 mpg back up to Dre, that's the level of return we'd get for him when we flipped him no matter how much "potential" he has. On the other hand, look at Mook; we paid next to nothing for him as a bench player on PHX, but if we traded him now he'd be valued as a solid starter on an awesome contract. I honestly think that's the part of the equation that Hinke just didn't get (or ignored) — player values fluctuate like stocks, and sticking Okafor on the floor with a horribly ill-fitting team that minimized his talents and highlighted his shortcomings did significant damage to his trade value. Heck, if it hadn't we wouldn't be talking about trading a guy who we acquired at the deadline in a pure cap dump for him! And frankly, playing behind Dre makes the Pistons one of the absolutely worst places Okafor could go to try to rehabilitate his value.

I agree that we shouldn't be in the business of acquiring players who don't fit just to add assets to trade later. (I said the same thing the other day in the draft thread). However, I kinda feel like we already did that with Harris, as he's not really an ideal fit skill-wise and his contract is huge. So this would just be a way to reverse that mistake financially. And given that Harris' role should probably be limited to 20-25 mpg off the bench anyways in order to fit, I figure we might as well go with Okafor in that role and get a better player/prospect on a rookie deal instead. That's my thinking there.

In other words, if we play Harris in his proper role next year, his value will get diminished too, so at least go with the guy on the cheaper contract. Not only for our cap benefit, but when you factor in salary in trade value, Okafor on a rookie deal is more valuable than Harris at 15m/yr. And if we win with him in a 6th man role, suddenly he goes from 'guy who just put up numbers on a bad team' to '#2 pick proves he can win and is being underutilized' and there will be teams interested in him again.

And here's where you and I just respectfully agree to disagree, which is cool — I don't see Harris as such a bad fit or as a "mistake" in the least. We were 17-11 after trading for him and 16-9 with him in the starting lineup, which is like a 53-win pace. Monroe was a bad fit, Josh Smith was the ultimate bad fit, and I think Okafor would be a LOT closer to them than Harris is. We won a lot more than we lost with Harris and his contract is gonna look downright good after this summer's free agency, not bad (keep in mind, it actually declines!). Even if I disagree with you, I can still understand your belief that Harris isn't the fight fit for our team ... but if that's your motivation for trading him, why do so for a a player who's a clearly worse fit whose value will only decline on our team?

To clarify, I don't think Harris is such a bad fit that we can't win with him. Obviously we made the playoffs with him. I'm just not sold that he's a good enough shooter to win a championship with him next 2 paint scorers as your 2 best players. So we may ultimately need that money to get those right fitting players we will need to win one.

Ideally we trade him for said players, but I'm just saying trading him for a top prospect on a rookie contract to clear salary is an option to consider too.

I'm not saying we have to trade him ASAP or anything, just that we should consider it if the right opportunity came.

[Pharaoh]

Toddo - can you post the numbers for Harris?

Catch & shoots, defender within 3 feet etc like you've done for KCP in the past.

I'm more of a film guy but just wondering if the numbers match the eye test or if my perception is skewed

[Todd3]

Toddo - can you post the numbers for Harris?

Catch & shoots, defender within 3 feet etc like you've done for KCP in the past.

I'm more of a film guy but just wondering if the numbers match the eye test or if my perception is skewed

I'll look them up after the finals postgame stuff. I agree he did shoot well with the Pistons efficiency-wise. The small sample is what concerns me because over his career he hasn't shot that well.

[MotownMadness]

Toddo - can you post the numbers for Harris?

Catch & shoots, defender within 3 feet etc like you've done for KCP in the past.

I'm more of a film guy but just wondering if the numbers match the eye test or if my perception is skewed

I'll look them up after the finals postgame stuff. I agree he did shoot well with the Pistons efficiency-wise. The small sample is what concerns me because over his career he hasn't shot that well.

In think he's always been a real efficient player but was always a mediocre 3 point shooter. He's hit a good percentage of 3s though over the last two years.

[Todd3]

ok here's the numbers...

Harris and Morris were both very efficient on catch & shoot 3s.

Harris: 38% on 3.1 c&s 3FGAs per game (in 27 games with the Pistons). All of his c&s 3s were with no defender within 4-6+ ft.

Morris: 40% on 3.0 c&s 3FGAs per game on the season. Same - all with no defender within 4-6+ ft.

Efficiency-wise they were both great, but volume-wise they aren't taking enough and that's the issue. Because in this offense with how many Reggie/Dre pnr we run (and how often it draws extra defenders in the paint), we need guys around them who can make 38-40% on more like 5-6 per game each, which is a big difference.

The blueprint for how to build a Finals team around a Center like Drummond in this system is already there in the 2009 Magic. They don't have catch & shoot data before 2014 on nba.com, but by comparison overall, Rashard and Tukoglu combined for 38% on 12 3FGAs per game. In Harris/Morris' 27 games together, they combined for 37% on only 7 per game. Lewis had 7 per game by himself that year. Harris/Morris are efficient enough, but they aren't taking enough to pose the type of threat from 3 that you need in this offense, and there's no evidence they're capable of maintaining that % on that type of volume.

But that's just the beginning of it. They also had Jameer making 45% on 4 per game and Lee making 36% on 3 per game. Then had Redick and Pietrus off the bench combining for 36% on 7 per game.

So when you compare what they had around Dwight to what we have around Drummond, we just don't have anything like the type of high volume efficient 3pt shooters you need to run this offense how it's supposed to be run.

Reggie isn't likely to become the +40% shooter Jameer was, but he did prove he can be the "35-36% on 3 per game Guard" like Lee. But that means our other Guard is going to have to provide Jameer's shooting instead to compensate, and KCP hasn't proven he can at anything better than 34%.

Nor has Harris/Morris compared to Lewis/Turkoglu volume-wise. That's why I think they'd be better off the bench in a more limited role, where they can combine for 37% on 7 per game and be an asset like Redick/Pietrus were, instead of liability by not taking/making enough with the starters. Because we need more of a 3pt threat than that in the starting lineup, volume-wise.

Should we give Harris/Morris another year to prove they can be those high volume shooters like Lewis/Turk? Probably, because they did earn more shots with how efficient they were. But KCP has been taking 4-5 per game like Jameer for the last 2 years and only making 31-34%, so I don't think another year is going to suddenly make him the 40% high volume 3pt shooter we need at that spot. At least one of those three positions should be upgraded this summer with a bigger shooting threat.

[Pharaoh]

ok here's the numbers...

Harris and Morris were both very efficient on catch & shoot 3s.

Harris: 38% on 3.1 c&s 3FGAs per game (in 27 games with the Pistons). All of his c&s 3s were with no defender within 4-6+ ft.

Morris: 40% on 3.0 c&s 3FGAs per game on the season. Same - all with no defender within 4-6+ ft.

Efficiency-wise they were both great, but volume-wise they aren't taking enough and that's the issue. Because in this offense with how many Reggie/Dre pnr we run (and how often it draws extra defenders in the paint), we need guys around them who can make 38-40% on more like 5-6 per game each, which is a big difference.

The blueprint for how to build a Finals team around a Center like Drummond in this system is already there in the 2009 Magic. They don't have catch & shoot data before 2014 on nba.com, but by comparison overall, Rashard and Tukoglu combined for 38% on 12 3FGAs per game. In Harris/Morris' 27 games together, they combined for 37% on only 7 per game. Lewis had 7 per game by himself that year. Harris/Morris are efficient enough, but they aren't taking enough to pose the type of threat from 3 that you need in this offense, and there's no evidence they're capable of maintaining that % on that type of volume.

But that's just the beginning of it. They also had Jameer making 45% on 4 per game and Lee making 36% on 3 per game. Then had Redick and Pietrus off the bench combining for 36% on 7 per game.

So when you compare what they had around Dwight to what we have around Drummond, we just don't have anything like the type of high volume efficient 3pt shooters you need to run this offense how it's supposed to be run.

Reggie isn't likely to become the +40% shooter Jameer was, but he did prove he can be the "35-36% on 3 per game Guard" like Lee. But that means our other Guard is going to have to provide Jameer's shooting instead to compensate, and KCP hasn't proven he can at anything better than 34%.

Nor has Harris/Morris compared to Lewis/Turkoglu volume-wise. That's why I think they'd be better off the bench in a more limited role, where they can combine for 37% on 7 per game and be an asset like Redick/Pietrus were, instead of liability by not taking/making enough with the starters. Because we need more of a 3pt threat than that in the starting lineup, volume-wise.

Should we give Harris/Morris another year to prove they can be those high volume shooters like Lewis/Turk? Probably, because they did earn more shots with how efficient they were. But KCP has been taking 4-5 per game like Jameer for the last 2 years and only making 31-34%, so I don't think another year is going to suddenly make him the 40% high volume 3pt shooter we need at that spot. At least one of those three positions should be upgraded this summer with a bigger shooting threat.

Based on the numbers methinks we need to get Harris & Mook more catch and shoot 3s!

Don't wanna repeat my post in another thread but:

1 - we need snipers on the bench

2 - a PF to play with Dre that can also play small ball C

3 - a PG to play with RJ that can create off the bounce so RJ can get some real rest during the season

Dre/FA #1
Harris/Mook/FA #1
Mook/SJ/Harris
KCP/SJ/FA #2
RJ/FA #2

That's an 8 man rotation - throw in a sniper on the wing and I'd be happy to roll with that long term