Official Trade Thread - Part XXXI

[gambitx777]

Lowe anticipates LMA being on the market.

Porter, Ian and a first for LMA would be a fair deal imo

Make it Ian, Kieff, and a first.

Keep Porter.

if they would take that trade hell yeah I would do that.
We can replace Ian pretty easy with a guy off the street and Keif is not LA. If nicholson continues his play, we can make that work if we find a serviceable back up for gortat.

[payitforward]

We are not in a position to trade away any R1 picks. And certainly not for a guy in his 30s - in the stretch run of his career. Nor is Aldridge a big bargain at his salary.

That said, Mahinmi is an odd fit for us, given he will back up Gortat, and Morris isn't a good player at all. So, no problem giving those guys for Aldridge. But San Antonio wouldn't want Markieff Morris -- that guy is an Ernie Grunfeld special. So, no trade here....

[Dark Faze]

We are not in a position to trade away any R1 picks. And certainly not for a guy in his 30s - in the stretch run of his career. Nor is Aldridge a big bargain at his salary.

That said, Mahinmi is an odd fit for us, given he will back up Gortat, and Morris isn't a good player at all. So, no problem giving those guys for Aldridge. But San Antonio wouldn't want Markieff Morris -- that guy is an Ernie Grunfeld special. So, no trade here....

Emphasis on a future first rather than an all-star like Aldridge is pretty weird. We don't have all that much time at all. As we can see from most of our picks, you're not going to get a ton of value from a guy until his third year of development. Right now if we're being honest, losing John Wall should be seen as a foregone conclusion unless we're able to turn things around here rapidly. A guy like Aldridge is good enough to help us do that especially if it only costs us Porter, a pick, and a guy like Kieff or Ian.

If Wall goes, it'll really depend on if Kelly or Brad have reached franchise player levels yet in terms of if you want to blow the thing up or not. If Wall goes I think it's likely the answer to that is no. If that's the case then you don't want to go the indy or san antonio route and hope to find your new stud with a jackpot late to mid first rounder. We'll need to go straight into the tank game so we can reload.

[payitforward]

We are not in a position to trade away any R1 picks. And certainly not for a guy in his 30s - in the stretch run of his career. Nor is Aldridge a big bargain at his salary.

That said, Mahinmi is an odd fit for us, given he will back up Gortat, and Morris isn't a good player at all. So, no problem giving those guys for Aldridge. But San Antonio wouldn't want Markieff Morris -- that guy is an Ernie Grunfeld special. So, no trade here....

Emphasis on a future first rather than an all-star like Aldridge is pretty weird. We don't have all that much time at all. As we can see from most of our picks, you're not going to get a ton of value from a guy until his third year of development. Right now if we're being honest, losing John Wall should be seen as a foregone conclusion unless we're able to turn things around here rapidly. A guy like Aldridge is good enough to help us do that especially if it only costs us Porter, a pick, and a guy like Kieff or Ian.

If Wall goes, it'll really depend on if Kelly or Brad have reached franchise player levels yet in terms of if you want to blow the thing up or not. If Wall goes I think it's likely the answer to that is no. If that's the case then you don't want to go the indy or san antonio route and hope to find your new stud with a jackpot late to mid first rounder. We'll need to go straight into the tank game so we can reload.

To each his own, DF; I don't buy any of your claims. I don't see Aldridge the way you do. I don't see the potential development of Beal and Oubre the way you do, I don't devalue Porter the way you do, I don't estimate our (almost certainly lottery) R1 pick at the low value you give it, I don't believe teams are driven by "a stud" (i.e. a single player) except very rarely, etc. etc.

Above all, I've come to understand that you value a player by looking at how many points a game he scores; everything else is minor, nor do you attend much to the relation of efficiency to the value of a player's scoring. So it's unlikely we'd agree often.

The only place we do agree in what you post above is when you say "we don't have... much time...." In fact, I'll go further: this generation of the Wizards will never contend for a title, never even contend to win the EC title. And that's why trading future assets for a guy like Aldridge buys us no real benefit.

Don't get me wrong LaMarcus Aldridge is a very good player, and I'd be pleased to have him: I think of him as along the lines of Paul Pierce. It was great to have him here; he got us a few extra wins, got us into the playoffs, helped us get to R2. Then he was gone. He didn't help build the team.

On the other hand, Pierce also didn't cost the team anything to acquire. We signed him as a FA. If we could sign Aldridge as a free agent, I'd be all for it.

[Dark Faze]

I see Aldridge as an all-star and an extremely good basketball player, which we need more of on this team. Not "maybe he can be good", or "I'm not sure how good he is" which is the label so many guys on this team have. He's just legitimately very good. So I don't know how you see him PIF, but that's how I see him. I don't think the East is so unbelievably good that we should just give up. I think it's clear I don't love this team, but I DO think there's a chance to evolve this group to be an ECF winner with the right moves. LeBron is getting older and Kyrie and Love are the type of players that could literally be out for the season at any time. I know you don't want to depend on injury, but the reality is both guys are injury prone.

If Kyrie goes down and we've traded Porter and a pick and Ian for Aldridge, then there's no reason why we shouldn't have a decent shot at the finals given the roster. Now beating the Warriors...whatever. One step at a time, but its a tall order for anyone.

My views on Beal? He's just gotta be better. That's all. Don't hate him, don't love him. I think there's a chance he can be an all-star, but none of us really know. So I don't know what we agree or disagree on about him.

Oubre? His defensive upside looks good. Who could deny that? And he's clearly got a 3 ball that's capable of being developed. I've never said I thought he could be Paul George, but I think he's got a higher ceiling than Otto at this point.

When you talk about only valueing points, I assume you talk about this as my reasoning for disliking Otto. Being an efficient roleplayer on low usage is nearly worthless if you're defending one of the stronger positions in the league and you're not that good on that end. Otto has to be better defensively. Either his usage has to increase with little drop off in efficiency to make up for points he gives up, or his defense has to get better. It's not really rocket science.

You don't believe teams are driven by a stud....um, okay. Let's take a look at the last...20 championship winning teams? Lol. I'm not saying to give up and not even try if we don't have a hall of famer, but yes, Mission A, B, and C should be to acquire at minimum two all-star caliber players, which we haven't been able to do.

But again, this team can be a top team in the East with a guy like LMA. I'd rather give up Porter than Ian honestly. Ian/Aldridge/Gortat is a strong rotation.

[RKL]

Trade Beal for him, straight up.

Sure -- that I'd do in a minute. But, I'd rather trade Beal for a couple of promising young players than for Aldridge. We are about to have to rebuild, and that would give us a head start.

…Jordan Clarkson, Julius Randle and Lou Williams for Bradley ?

[jangles86]

Can someone please tell me what we did with our first round pick in the last draft? I can't remember why we didn't have a 1st round draft pick.

[AFM]

Can someone please tell me what we did with our first round pick in the last draft? I can't remember why we didn't have a 1st round draft pick.

We traded it for Markieff Morris.

[payitforward]

I see Aldridge as an all-star and an extremely good basketball player, which we need more of on this team. Not "maybe he can be good", or "I'm not sure how good he is" which is the label so many guys on this team have. He's just legitimately very good. So I don't know how you see him PIF, but that's how I see him. I don't think the East is so unbelievably good that we should just give up. I think it's clear I don't love this team, but I DO think there's a chance to evolve this group to be an ECF winner with the right moves. LeBron is getting older and Kyrie and Love are the type of players that could literally be out for the season at any time. I know you don't want to depend on injury, but the reality is both guys are injury prone.

If Kyrie goes down and we've traded Porter and a pick and Ian for Aldridge, then there's no reason why we shouldn't have a decent shot at the finals given the roster. Now beating the Warriors...whatever. One step at a time, but its a tall order for anyone.

My views on Beal? He's just gotta be better. That's all. Don't hate him, don't love him. I think there's a chance he can be an all-star, but none of us really know. So I don't know what we agree or disagree on about him.

Oubre? His defensive upside looks good. Who could deny that? And he's clearly got a 3 ball that's capable of being developed. I've never said I thought he could be Paul George, but I think he's got a higher ceiling than Otto at this point.

When you talk about only valueing points, I assume you talk about this as my reasoning for disliking Otto. Being an efficient roleplayer on low usage is nearly worthless if you're defending one of the stronger positions in the league and you're not that good on that end. Otto has to be better defensively. Either his usage has to increase with little drop off in efficiency to make up for points he gives up, or his defense has to get better. It's not really rocket science.

You don't believe teams are driven by a stud....um, okay. Let's take a look at the last...20 championship winning teams? Lol. I'm not saying to give up and not even try if we don't have a hall of famer, but yes, Mission A, B, and C should be to acquire at minimum two all-star caliber players, which we haven't been able to do.

But again, this team can be a top team in the East with a guy like LMA. I'd rather give up Porter than Ian honestly. Ian/Aldridge/Gortat is a strong rotation.

Well, we know what you'd rather do. Good enough. And, yes, Aldridge is a very good player, I agree. Paul Pierce was also a very good player.

As to Porter, since you insist on repeating it, I'll respond. You don't know what you're talking about. And you are right; it's not rocket science. Losing teams have guys that score a lot of points. Losing teams have guys you think are "studs." Otto Porter is one of the best young 3s in the league.

As to the idea that the current Washington Wizards roster - minus Porter, Mahinmi & our R1 pick next year, but plus Aldridge - has "a decent shot at the finals" is one of the most preposterous notions I've read in a long time. Wow! That team doesn't even make the playoffs.

But, it doesn't matter, thank heavens, as your proposed trade isn't happening. Lets drop it ok? You brought it up, I responded, you insisted, I responded again. Don't try for the last word in addition to the first word, just let it go -- I have no desire to put you on Ignore.

[AFM]

PIF, there's no need for that. No need to put DF on ignore. He hasn't called you a moron, as I have, 'any times.

Look, some posters are more optimistic in nature. DF is right in stating that outside of cleveland, there's no dominant EC team. Toronto? We beat them with Pierce. The EC is wide open for the 2 seed.
That being said, I doubt we make the playoffs, if we do, it's the 8 seed.

[payitforward]

PIF, there's no need for that. No need to put DF on ignore. He hasn't called you a moron, as I have, 'any times.

Look, some posters are more optimistic in nature. DF is right in stating that outside of cleveland, there's no dominant EC team. Toronto? We beat them with Pierce. The EC is wide open for the 2 seed.
That being said, I doubt we make the playoffs, if we do, it's the 8 seed.

You are right - and anyway I am a moron sometimes. Like most of us.

I was thinking just a minute ago about why I got exercised about something as speculative as this anyway -- hey DarkFaze, sorry about that man! You have just as much right as the rest to not know what you're talking about!

But... the EC isn't wide open any more. Boston has improved, the Hawks are unlikely to have slipped much, Toronto won 50 games last year and will have their C back, Detroit will improve. Etc. We got no chance.

[AFM]

PIF, there's no need for that. No need to put DF on ignore. He hasn't called you a moron, as I have, 'any times.

Look, some posters are more optimistic in nature. DF is right in stating that outside of cleveland, there's no dominant EC team. Toronto? We beat them with Pierce. The EC is wide open for the 2 seed.
That being said, I doubt we make the playoffs, if we do, it's the 8 seed.

You are right - and anyway I am a moron sometimes. Like most of us.

I was thinking just a minute ago about why I got exercised about something as speculative as this anyway -- hey DarkFaze, sorry about that man! You have just as much right as the rest to not know what you're talking about!

But... the EC isn't wide open any more. Boston has improved, the Hawks are unlikely to have slipped much, Toronto won 50 games last year and will have their C back, Detroit will improve. Etc. We got no chance.

It isn't wide open, but IMO there isn't a huge second tier after Cleveland. There's cleveland and then...everyone else who is decent.
The difference between 3rd seed and 8th seed could be 4 wins.

[Dark Faze]

Wouldn't shock me if we're .500, my argument is that adding a guy like LMA would put us in that tier of Boston/Toronto. I don't know that any of those teams will be as good as the 60 win Hawks of a couple of years back and we were competitive with that team without a second all-star. We've also been competitive with a team that seemed to completely have our number in the regular season (Toronto).

I don't think this team is very good right now, but I think this team is really a big time trade away from being right in 2nd/3rd seed territory pretty easily. And like I said, you're talking about a Cavs team with Kyrie and Love, both those guys could go down anytime and it wouldn't shock anyone. If you're willing to trade a first for Gortat and Markieff, then you've got to be willing to trade a first for Lamarcus Aldridge.

[payitforward]

Wouldn't shock me if we're .500, my argument is that adding a guy like LMA would put us in that tier of Boston/Toronto. I don't know that any of those teams will be as good as the 60 win Hawks of a couple of years back and we were competitive with that team without a second all-star. We've also been competitive with a team that seemed to completely have our number in the regular season (Toronto).

I don't think this team is very good right now, but I think this team is really a big time trade away from being right in 2nd/3rd seed territory pretty easily. And like I said, you're talking about a Cavs team with Kyrie and Love, both those guys could go down anytime and it wouldn't shock anyone. If you're willing to trade a first for Gortat and Markieff, then you've got to be willing to trade a first for Lamarcus Aldridge.

"Wouldn't shock you..." -- do you mean that would be below your expectations but not shocking? IOW, you think, somehow, that we are better than we were last year? Hard to believe anyone could think that.

I understand your argument -- I just disagree. Take a closer look at the Boston & Toronto rosters.

We were "competitive" with (i.e. lost a 6-game series to) Atlanta when we had Paul Pierce, and when Millsap was hampered by injury. Note that we lost the series; we didn't win it.

Yes, we beat Toronto -- now just think about the fact that the most wonderful thing that's happened to this team in about a decade is that we won a series in the first round of the playoffs. Gee, wow.

"...a big time trade away from ...2nd/3rd seed territory" -- I don't agree, but even if it were true (which it's not
): you want to trade away any better future than that "territory" to get there for a year or so (except that we wouldn't). No thanks.

Trading a first -- where did the trades of R1 picks for Gortat (whom we could have had a few months later w/o the trade) and Markieff (whom nobody else seems to have wanted) get us? Where we are; i.e. nowhere. So much for that plan....

[payitforward]

PIF, there's no need for that. No need to put DF on ignore. He hasn't called you a moron, as I have, 'any times.

Look, some posters are more optimistic in nature. DF is right in stating that outside of cleveland, there's no dominant EC team. Toronto? We beat them with Pierce. The EC is wide open for the 2 seed.
That being said, I doubt we make the playoffs, if we do, it's the 8 seed.

You are right - and anyway I am a moron sometimes. Like most of us.

I was thinking just a minute ago about why I got exercised about something as speculative as this anyway -- hey DarkFaze, sorry about that man! You have just as much right as the rest to not know what you're talking about!

But... the EC isn't wide open any more. Boston has improved, the Hawks are unlikely to have slipped much, Toronto won 50 games last year and will have their C back, Detroit will improve. Etc. We got no chance.

It isn't wide open, but IMO there isn't a huge second tier after Cleveland. There's cleveland and then...everyone else who is decent.
The difference between 3rd seed and 8th seed could be 4 wins.

We'll get a chance to find out.

[Dark Faze]

I think we're in 8-10 seed territory until proven otherwise PIF.

But really, I haven't seen an argument from you that explains why we couldn't compete with Toronto/Boston if we were able to swap roleplayers and a pick for an all-star like LMA. Are we forgetting Boston only lost Avery Bradley and ended up losing to an Atlanta team on the decline last year? So they gained Horford--great, but why does Boston gaining Horford make them such a monster while us adding a player of LMA's stature makes us still not able to be competitive as a 2nd or 3rd seed? Toronto very easily could have lost to the Hornets last year in the first round as well.

[popper]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

[Dark Faze]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/5

^ This list gets cited a lot as a reason why, along with the good ORTG and efficiency.

[montestewart]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

If "better SFs" equals top half, I think he's definitely that, and still developing, showing a clear positive trajectory since joining the team. Melo has some size and some moves, and Porter is still learning and could probably use a little more muscle to cover the beefier forwards, but don't slow down that length too much. Appearances on Shaqtin' the Fool notwithstanding, I think he's developing pretty well defensively. PIF can explain his numbers analysis, but I generally liked what I saw last season from game to game, and hope to see a continuation of same.

[JAR69]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/5

^ This list gets cited a lot as a reason why, along with the good ORTG and efficiency.

And when you sort it this way - http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/WINS/position/5 - you get Otto, Dudley, and Ariza at 11, 12, 13.

Doesn't mean anything, but just noticing.