Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIV

[DCZards]

No. He wasn't very good. But he was a whole lot better than Markieff!

Moreover, Bradley Beal turned 23 last June. A few months later the season began, & he took a big jump.

Markieff is about to turn 28. His years of improving are over. He's entering his 7th season; his career is likely more than half over. He's not a good player; he's a bad player. & he has no future.

I'm always amused/amazed by people who believe they can determine the extent of another person's potential. Maybe there's a crystal ball involved.

[montestewart]

No. He wasn't very good. But he was a whole lot better than Markieff!

Moreover, Bradley Beal turned 23 last June. A few months later the season began, & he took a big jump.

Markieff is about to turn 28. His years of improving are over. He's entering his 7th season; his career is likely more than half over. He's not a good player; he's a bad player. & he has no future.

I'm always amused/amazed by people who believe they can determine the extent of another person's potential. Maybe there's a crystal ball involved.

Generally, I agree, but still there are some pretty established age lines in various sports beyond which players rarely improve. I would think the Marky Mo finding a new and improved game at this point would be pretty exceptional.

[payitforward]

...
Markieff is about to turn 28. His years of improving are over. He's entering his 7th season; his career is likely more than half over. He's not a good player; he's a bad player. & he has no future.

I'm always amused/amazed by people who believe they can determine the extent of another person's potential. Maybe there's a crystal ball involved.

Actually, you are quite correct. If we were to look hard enough I'm sure we'd find some NBA players who improved at 28 (or even later).

Off the top of my head I can't think of any, but I'm probably missing some obvious cases, & when someone brings one of them up (as I hope someone will), I'll recognize them. So, Zards is right; I shouldn't have declared, as I did, that Markieff's "years of improving are over."

But it is undeniably true that these cases represent a small percentage of players. Small enough that I doubt anyone would think it's something to count on. So what I should have said instead was something like:

"Markieff is about to turn 28, & at that age very few players improve. So it doesn't seem to make sense to count on much improvement from him."

I know as well, Zards, that you don't like hearing Kieff called "a bad player." Yet, 1) all those 3 words do is stand in for his numbers, which are what they are over 6 seasons & can't really be denied, & 2) "a bad player" doesn't mean "a bad person." I don't see any reason to think he's a bad person.

Even "bad player" should really read "bad NBA player." Presumably the NBA includes the 500 best basketball players in the universe! So, even a guy who isn't good in the context of the league is actually a tremendous basketball player when viewed globally!

[penbeast0]

I know as well, Zards, that you don't like hearing Kieff called "a bad player." Yet, 1) all those 3 words do is stand in for his numbers, which are what they are over 6 seasons & can't really be denied, & 2) "a bad player" doesn't mean "a bad person." I don't see any reason to think he's a bad person.

Even "bad player" should really read "bad NBA player." Presumably the NBA includes the 500 best basketball players in the universe! So, even a guy who isn't good in the context of the league is actually a tremendous basketball player when viewed globally!

Maybe "well below average NBA starting PF?"

[Dat2U]

I know as well, Zards, that you don't like hearing Kieff called "a bad player." Yet, 1) all those 3 words do is stand in for his numbers, which are what they are over 6 seasons & can't really be denied, & 2) "a bad player" doesn't mean "a bad person." I don't see any reason to think he's a bad person.

Even "bad player" should really read "bad NBA player." Presumably the NBA includes the 500 best basketball players in the universe! So, even a guy who isn't good in the context of the league is actually a tremendous basketball player when viewed globally!

Maybe "well below average NBA starting PF?"

Depends on what statistical tool your using. If you were to weigh Markieff's impact via TPA or WP48, Markieff not only looks bad, he looks like one of the worst players in the league. WS48 & BPM have him as being below average (in line with a below average starter) while RPM has him on the cusp of being a 10 PF at his position mainly due to his defensive impact.

While I like RPM, I find myself skeptical of what the results say about Kieff. Also, while not viewing him as an ideal starter, its hard for me to conclude he's one of the worst players in the league. Personally, I think the WS48 & BPM indicators are closer to his true performance level.

[JWizmentality]

You guys are going a bit overboard with the Morris hate. For a good stretch pre asb, he was exceptional. I think his biggest problem is he lacks motivation. He has all the physical tools to be at least average but lacks the drive to be consistent.

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Tapatalk

[ozthegap]

...
Markieff is about to turn 28. His years of improving are over. He's entering his 7th season; his career is likely more than half over. He's not a good player; he's a bad player. & he has no future.

I'm always amused/amazed by people who believe they can determine the extent of another person's potential. Maybe there's a crystal ball involved.

Actually, you are quite correct. If we were to look hard enough I'm sure we'd find some NBA players who improved at 28 (or even later).

Off the top of my head I can't think of any, but I'm probably missing some obvious cases, & when someone brings one of them up (as I hope someone will), I'll recognize them. So, Zards is right; I shouldn't have declared, as I did, that Markieff's "years of improving are over."

But it is undeniably true that these cases represent a small percentage of players. Small enough that I doubt anyone would think it's something to count on. So what I should have said instead was something like:

"Markieff is about to turn 28, & at that age very few players improve. So it doesn't seem to make sense to count on much improvement from him."

I know as well, Zards, that you don't like hearing Kieff called "a bad player." Yet, 1) all those 3 words do is stand in for his numbers, which are what they are over 6 seasons & can't really be denied, & 2) "a bad player" doesn't mean "a bad person." I don't see any reason to think he's a bad person.

Even "bad player" should really read "bad NBA player." Presumably the NBA includes the 500 best basketball players in the universe! So, even a guy who isn't good in the context of the league is actually a tremendous basketball player when viewed globally!

skill wise Idk but the way Atlanta utilized korver made him a first time all star at a surprising age.

[pcbothwel]

I'm always amused/amazed by people who believe they can determine the extent of another person's potential. Maybe there's a crystal ball involved.

Actually, you are quite correct. If we were to look hard enough I'm sure we'd find some NBA players who improved at 28 (or even later).

Off the top of my head I can't think of any, but I'm probably missing some obvious cases, & when someone brings one of them up (as I hope someone will), I'll recognize them. So, Zards is right; I shouldn't have declared, as I did, that Markieff's "years of improving are over."

But it is undeniably true that these cases represent a small percentage of players. Small enough that I doubt anyone would think it's something to count on. So what I should have said instead was something like:

"Markieff is about to turn 28, & at that age very few players improve. So it doesn't seem to make sense to count on much improvement from him."

I know as well, Zards, that you don't like hearing Kieff called "a bad player." Yet, 1) all those 3 words do is stand in for his numbers, which are what they are over 6 seasons & can't really be denied, & 2) "a bad player" doesn't mean "a bad person." I don't see any reason to think he's a bad person.

Even "bad player" should really read "bad NBA player." Presumably the NBA includes the 500 best basketball players in the universe! So, even a guy who isn't good in the context of the league is actually a tremendous basketball player when viewed globally!

skill wise Idk but the way Atlanta utilized korver made him a first time all star at a surprising age.

PIF isnt wrong and neither are you. Generally, players do not get better after 27/28, though shooting is one thing that stands out as an ever improving skill set. But players can refine their games to be more efficient and the game itself can change to fit a player better. There is a reason Jason Smith might of had his best season offensively at 30/31. He also seems to be a good fit as a modern 5 defensively.
We shouldn't expect to see Kieff get better defensively, at the rim, or on the boards. But he can cut his FGA by 1-2 and increase his 3Ptr to about 30%. That alone would make him a more effective player, if not "Improved".

[payitforward]

I know as well, Zards, that you don't like hearing Kieff called "a bad player." Yet, 1) all those 3 words do is stand in for his numbers, which are what they are over 6 seasons & can't really be denied, & 2) "a bad player" doesn't mean "a bad person." I don't see any reason to think he's a bad person.

Even "bad player" should really read "bad NBA player." Presumably the NBA includes the 500 best basketball players in the universe! So, even a guy who isn't good in the context of the league is actually a tremendous basketball player when viewed globally!

Maybe "well below average NBA starting PF?"

Depends on what statistical tool your using. If you were to weigh Markieff's impact via TPA or WP48, Markieff not only looks bad, he looks like one of the worst players in the league. WS48 & BPM have him as being below average (in line with a below average starter) ....

But "below average" isn't anything like "below average starter," Dat. 493 guys played in the league last year, of which @165 (given fluctuation) were starters. Presumably, an average starter would be @#80-85 best player in that group -- so, anyway, among the top 100 players in the league, around the top 20% of players in the league. A below average starter still fits somewhere in that top 165 guys -- the top 1/3 of all players.

(Now, this can't be exact, of course, because productivity isn't evenly spread across all positions, but still....)

OTOH, a below average player is clearly not in the top 85-100 players in the league! By definition, a below average player is in the bottom 1/2 of players.

...weigh Markieff's impact via TPA or WP48, Markieff not only looks bad, he looks like one of the worst players in the league. ... its hard for me to conclude he's one of the worst players in the league....

But, what does "one of the worst" mean exactly? I.e. if there were 493 players last year (per the above), does "one of the worst" mean "in the bottom 10%"?

WP48 ranks him @ at the bottom 20% mark -- about 20% of players are worse, about 80% are better. But keep in mind that wp48 is designed so that you can compare players across positions -- in most (not all) standard measures of production, for example, Centers do way better than SGs: they shoot a higher %, rebound more, turn it over less, etc., all of which makes sense if you think about it. WP48 adjusts for that.

But, before that adjustment it produces another ranking -- ADJP48. Using that measure, Markieff #258 of 493. So, right in line with the way you suggested WS48 & BPM rank him.

If you restrict it to PFs, & you only look at guys who played 500+ minutes (in order to leave out the least reliable small samples), @25% were worse than him, @75% were better.

Not a very good player no matter how you measure it. & obviously, his is the one position we would most want to upgrade -- I think everyone likely agrees w/ that (3 of the other 4 starters being max players!).

[BigA]

Actually, you are quite correct. If we were to look hard enough I'm sure we'd find some NBA players who improved at 28 (or even later).

Off the top of my head I can't think of any, but I'm probably missing some obvious cases, & when someone brings one of them up (as I hope someone will), I'll recognize them. So, Zards is right; I shouldn't have declared, as I did, that Markieff's "years of improving are over."

Bruce Bowen is the one that immediately comes to mind for me.

[montestewart]

Actually, you are quite correct. If we were to look hard enough I'm sure we'd find some NBA players who improved at 28 (or even later).

Off the top of my head I can't think of any, but I'm probably missing some obvious cases, & when someone brings one of them up (as I hope someone will), I'll recognize them. So, Zards is right; I shouldn't have declared, as I did, that Markieff's "years of improving are over."

Bruce Bowen is the one that immediately comes to mind for me.

Every one I can think of, including Bowen, Nash and Rodman, looks more like a late but nonetheless steady ascent. I can't think of any significant example of a player with a relatively early start and an up and down career who made significant changes in his game (in Morris' case, say, a drastic increase in rebounding or 3P production/efficiency) that produced a marked and sustained ascendancy after ages 27-28 that could not have been predicted by his prior career.

[DCZards]

Every one I can think of, including Bowen, Nash and Rodman, looks more like a late but nonetheless steady ascent. I can't think of any significant example of a player with a relatively early start and an up and down career who made significant changes in his game (in Morris' case, say, a drastic increase in rebounding or 3P production/efficiency) that produced a marked and sustained ascendancy after ages 27-28 that could not have been predicted by his prior career.

I don’t expect Kieff’s rebounding numbers to get a whole lot better, but I think his 3pt shooting will continue to improve, as it did last season when he shot 36%. (He also shot a career best 83% from the FT line last season, a significant improvement over past years.) Like many other PFs, Kieff appears to be making a concerted effort to make the 3pter a bigger part of his game.

Shooting is an area where players, with hard work, can indeed improve into their late 20s and early 30s.

[montestewart]

Every one I can think of, including Bowen, Nash and Rodman, looks more like a late but nonetheless steady ascent. I can't think of any significant example of a player with a relatively early start and an up and down career who made significant changes in his game (in Morris' case, say, a drastic increase in rebounding or 3P production/efficiency) that produced a marked and sustained ascendancy after ages 27-28 that could not have been predicted by his prior career.

I don’t expect Kieff’s rebounding numbers to get a whole lot better, but I think his 3pt shooting will continue to improve, as it did last season when he shot 36%. (He also shot a career best 83% from the FT line last season, a significant improvement over past years.) Like many other PFs, Kieff appears to be making a concerted effort to make the 3pter a bigger part of his game.

Shooting is an area where players, with hard work, can indeed improve into their late 20s and early 30s.

Remember when Blatchemo ended up on the Nets and had that (for him) monster season as a rotation big? In what little I saw of him that year, it looked like he (or his coaches) had resolved that he would play closer to the basket on both ends, take more shots at the rim, and his efficiency went up. Sure he was only 26, but that was after seven or eight seasons in the league and it looked like maybe he had turned a corner. Unfortunately, he still fancied himself a 3 point shooter, reverted somewhat to form the following season, and was soon out of the league.

In order to justify his starting PF position, I would think Morris would have to continue to up his 3P% toward the .400 range on higher volume and couple his increased FT% with increased FTAs to produce a TS% sufficient to offset what he gives up in rebounding. I hope he can do that, but I'm not betting on it.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Diamond Stone as a camp invite?

Andrew Bogut for the minimum?

Take a flyer on either and try to make Marcin expendable.

[80sballboy]

When the Wizards were at their best this season from January to the All-Star Break, Kieff was one of the main reasons. He played great. But that was for about a month and a half.

To say he's the worst player or worst starter in the league is absurd and bs hyperbole from a stat freak. F-ck the numbers. He's not great. He's barely average. But he also has intangibles which I don't necessarily like but it makes sense for this fairly soft team. Sometimes guys have intangibles that can't be judged by DPM, RPP, or REM. He's a tough guy wannabe that is willing to stick his nose in another guy's face or give a hard foul on somebody when you need a push . Wall must like him for that reason. I don't particularly but I think sometimes you need a loose cannon, who might put up 16 and 8 on one night and get 4 and 3 with two techs in another.

[gambitx777]

Crazy gambit trade of the day.
Cavs get : Rubio and Mahinmi, 2019 first wiz and 2018 second wiz, 2018 first jaz, 2019 second jazz.
sixers get Joe johnson.
wiz get Favors and holmes.
jaz get Kyrie, JR, and jason smith .

Here is why for all teams.
sixers. Joe johnson fits a vet need for them and gets them over the floor, holmes if everyone is healthy is going to be in a log jam. Might as well use him to get a vet that can help you and continue your freeing of cap space to resign your young players.
Cavs, gets them a kyrie replacement and a true back up center, and gets them out of that JR smith contract thats pretty abd plus they have plenty of wings. the picks pay for kyrie.
Jaz, get kyrie. a year too late but they get him. JR is part of the payment. and jason helps them with vet bench depth.
Wiz, we get out of that mahinmi deal. yes we spend picks and maybe we can negotiate that part down. But, favors and holmes more than makes up for mahinmi. and holmes is 23, getting better, favors is a decent enough defender to maybe but in at back up center. Maybe talk him in to a solid rate extension due to the cap bubble burst. You can roll with Gortat/Favors/ochifu and Holmes, Morris, Scott. play with the line ups a bit. maybe its Homes/Gortat morris/Favors or Favors/Gortat Morris/Holmes or Gortat/favors Morris/Holmes Pretty much better than having mahinmi and smith.


Oh and just to save piff the time
"oh how productive trading yet another first round pick for a middling/ bad player on a one year deal perfect, I really like holmes but trading picks is a sin that I just can not bare deep down in my soul." (love you piff) lol.

[penbeast0]

At the risk of agreeing with piff (which I generally do), the Wizards have been trading picks for help now since just after they broke up the championship team in the 70s and decided to roll with two young, relatively unknown bigs in Jeff Ruland and Rick Mahorn. In all that time, the ONLY major deal they have made to get younger was the Pervis Ellison for Jeff Malone trade and with Pervis's injury history that was a major gamble which didn't work out (okay, maybe the Hinrich deal too if you call that major). Every other deal has been to make us a 2nd tier playoff team and that's exactly what we are.

No Hinkie and process here.
,

[Dark Faze]

honestly

lebron should come to dc

just demand a trade to washington and we make the deal work and include a pick--done deal, all he has to do is say he'll only extend with washington, gilbert won't want anymore drama

won't happen, but the only other places that make sense are OKC, Pelicans, and San Antonio--and three of those things have something in common: They are out West where his finals streak could get snapped as early as the second round

[Dark Faze]

When the Wizards were at their best this season from January to the All-Star Break, Kieff was one of the main reasons. He played great. But that was for about a month and a half.

To say he's the worst player or worst starter in the league is absurd and bs hyperbole from a stat freak. F-ck the numbers. He's not great. He's barely average. But he also has intangibles which I don't necessarily like but it makes sense for this fairly soft team. Sometimes guys have intangibles that can't be judged by DPM, RPP, or REM. He's a tough guy wannabe that is willing to stick his nose in another guy's face or give a hard foul on somebody when you need a push . Wall must like him for that reason. I don't particularly but I think sometimes you need a loose cannon, who might put up 16 and 8 on one night and get 4 and 3 with two techs in another.

I like his toughness, but his series against Millsap ended any interest I had in him starting moving forward. YES the refs were soft as eff, but he was beyond animal dumb on a prime Javale McGee level with the way he was baited in that series. He's honestly slow as EFF for a guy with his athleticism. Can't close out on the perimeter for ****. Offensively he takes too many possessions that should be defaulting to Otto (this is a fault with Otto's aggressiveness but still).

It's time to get the Kelly and Porter 3/4 starting combo going asap. The Gortat/Kieff combo was proven to be ass many times over two teams in PHX and Was.

[queridiculo]

@gambit the Wizards don't have a second rounder until 2022.

Beyond that I don't see how that trade helps the Cavs. They trade Irving for Rubio, unbalance their roster by removing a productive wing player for a center on a toxic deal and get a couple of non-lottery first rounders and low seconds to make up for it.

Makes absolutely no sense for Cleveland, they give up the biggest price and are off the worst in a 4 team deal.