Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVI

[Ruzious]

At present, we have 14 players under contract & are $11m+ over the Luxury Tax. Two questions:

1. Can someone say with certainty: were we or were we not in the tax this last year?

2. What ideas does anyone have for getting out of tax territory this year?

Based on https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/2017/ it looks like 4 teams were in lux tax land last season. And they were... Warshington, OkC, Golden State and Cleveland. But I can't say with certainty that that is correct.

What can the Wiz do? Sacramento is the ONLY team with signifcant cap space, so it's unlikely the Wiz will be able to make a trade to dump salaries without taking back salaries - unless they're willing to dump multiple picks to Sac. That leaves... ssssstttttrrrrreeeeettttcccchhhhing Mahinmi. That would involve taking the remainder of his 32 or so mil over 5 years. So, he'd count a little over 6 mil this season instead of 16 mil. That saves almost 10 mil - so still not quite enough to avoid the lux tax in and of itself. The rest... try to dump a small salary (perhaps to a team with a trade exception) by the trade deadline - maybe someone owes Ernie or Ted a favor.

[rickrolled]

Trade offer, player only swap.

Morris for either Oubre or Satoransky.

Anyone interested?

[payitforward]

If you go by what he did at the end of the year and the playoffs, Wall looked like a top 10 player. Realistically when healthy he's probably about 15. Last year overall he wasn't in the top 50.

This is getting ridiculous.

He most certainly did not look like a top 10 player in the playoffs.

The idea that "when healthy he's probably about 15" is just plain bizarre. In his very best year -- much better than his 2d best year & utterly eclipsing any other year in his career -- he still wasn't as good a PG as Chris Paul, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Mike Conley, Steph Curry or Isaiah Thomas. Or Kyle Lowry for that matter.

Oh what blasphemy! But if I gave you the numbers without the names, that's how you'd rate them too. & no matter what way you calculate it, no matter whether it's PER or the dreaded WP48 or absolutely any other metric, it always comes out the same.

& if we composite any 3-year sequence for him vs. any of those point guards, it comes out the same.

As to last year, overall he wasn't in the top 150. Look at the d@#ned numbers! You really think John Wall can be playing with significant injury & he's in the top 10% of players in the league?

How about with his hand tied behind his back? Would that push him down to just above average?

When he's healthy & in his best year, he can crack the top 25 players in the league. Just. Has he shown that he can crack it two years in a row? No. How about 2 years out of 3? No.

For saying these things, I suppose I'll hear that I'm "a John Wall hater." Only, no, I'm not -- he is a terrific player. & in any given moment he can look other-worldly great. But, putting him on a higher level than he deserves does the guy no favors.

It's your method of evaluation vs. mines. Frankly I'm not a fan of solely using production measurement roll ups to determine a player's actual impact. So much is missed, especially in terms of a player's gravity, how much attention defenses pay to a particular player which frees up room for his teammates and definitively on the defensive end where fans of productivity measurements offer zero input outside of defensive rebounding, steals & blocks

The issues you mention affect events in the game where one player's activities -- that do not leave a stat -- upgrade (or downgrade I suppose...) the stats of another player.

The implication is that these areas are significant in team success but they give credit (in the form of positive stats) to the wrong person (or too much credit to that person & none to a guy who deserves some & may actually deserves the lion's share).

There are 3 ways to respond to your critique.

1. No roll up is perfect. You don't compare them to "reality." That won't work. You compare them to each other in order to discover which one correlates best w/ a specific result -- wins, in this case. They are tools; that's all. If one correlates better than another, use it!

2. You use statistical regression to determine as closely as you can how much effect these areas of interaction actually have, so that you can weight individual activities reliably based on their actual effects.

3. You track the numbers players put up as they move from one lineup to another, or move through roster changes, or move from team to team. For example, Paul Pierce played one year with John Wall. Was he a very different player from the one he was the year before? Did he do significantly different things, or do things in significantly different proportions, based on what another guy (in this case John Wall) made possible? Or, vice versa, when we look at what John Wall did that year, do we see some "gravity" exerted on his numbers by a "Paul Pierce effect?"

Obviously, the people who come up with these roll up tools understand point 1, & do all the things mentioned in points 2 & 3.

As to my example, Wall & Pierce the single year they played together vs. the many years they played apart, there is absolutely nothing in either guy's numbers that would make you think either of them made the other one either better or worse.

Of course, it's convenient to have something that can't be quantified, that is just a matter of the eye test applied by someone who "knows basketball," which one can use to dismiss critiques of claims one wants to make -- e.g. that John Wall is one of the top 15 players in the NBA. It's especially convenient, because it features nothing at all that can be proven, nothing that can be demonstrated, & therefore no argument against the claim is valid on its own terms.

For example, lets say a person points out that in 2016-17, John's best season by far, only 2 guys in the entire league who played meaningful minutes turned the ball over more often than he did, & this is one reason why even that year he wasn't in the top 10 or 15 (tho he was in the top 25) players in the league. There is no reason for you to respond. Who cares what "stat jockeys" think?

It's as if those turnovers didn't really happen at all, John didn't take the ball out of the hands of his team & put it in the hands of the opposing team more often than just about anyone in the league. That's just a number in a table, a "stat." It's not about basketball at all, in fact it's for people who are fans of numbers instead of basketball fans.

Edit -- the above way too argumentative, Dat. Apologies. Obviously statistical analysis is useful; obviously it doesn't capture everything.

[gambitx777]

I don't think that it would take picks
shump, kosta, randolph. All guys who didn't play much for them at the end of the year. there are a lot of combinations that could absolutely work for trades that don't necessarily need picks involved with the kings.

[payitforward]

Trade offer, player only swap.

Morris for either Oubre or Satoransky.

Anyone interested?

How about we give you our Morris instead; who on your roster would you trade for him in a "player only swap?"

Your Morris?

Could we be sure the trade actually occurred? It would be easier for them just to swap drivers licenses!

Edit: Holy Moly!! I just realized... who knows how many times they've already done it? They might not even be sure any more which of them is which!

[nate33]

As to my example, Wall & Pierce the single year they played together vs. the many years they played apart, there is absolutely nothing in either guy's numbers that would make you think either of them made the other one either better or worse.

Interesting that you brought up that example. Looking at the numbers, I'd say there's pretty good evidence that Pierce benefited by playing alongside Wall. Here are his career stats. Take a look at the last 5 years of his career as his numbers declined due to the inevitable advancement of age.



We can see that in his one year in DC, he experienced a renaissance amidst that general decline. His WS/48, ORtg, and OBPM were actually higher than the previous season. Much of that was due to his lower turnover rate and higher proportion of shots from 3-point range, thanks to Wall's playmaking. Also, Pierce's PER and VORP remained roughly in line with the previous year despite the advancement of age. And the year after he left Wall, his production dropped off a cliff completely and he was suddenly no longer a viable NBA player.

Obviously, Pierce's athleticism-related production, like rebounds and steals, continued to decline with age regardless of Wall's presence because there's not much Wall can do to help Pierce there. But in the aspects of the game that Wall can influence (like Pierce's overall efficiency) I'd say there's good evidence that Wall helped him - at least when compared to the personnel in Brooklyn or LA.

[nate33]

Trade offer, player only swap.

Morris for either Oubre or Satoransky.

Anyone interested?

Why would we possibly be interested?

[trast66]

At present, we have 14 players under contract & are $11m+ over the Luxury Tax. Two questions:

1. Can someone say with certainty: were we or were we not in the tax this last year?

2. What ideas does anyone have for getting out of tax territory this year?

Based on https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/2017/ it looks like 4 teams were in lux tax land last season. And they were... Warshington, OkC, Golden State and Cleveland. But I can't say with certainty that that is correct.

What can the Wiz do? Sacramento is the ONLY team with signifcant cap space, so it's unlikely the Wiz will be able to make a trade to dump salaries without taking back salaries - unless they're willing to dump multiple picks to Sac. That leaves... ssssstttttrrrrreeeeettttcccchhhhing Mahinmi. That would involve taking the remainder of his 32 or so mil over 5 years. So, he'd count a little over 6 mil this season instead of 16 mil. That saves almost 10 mil - so still not quite enough to avoid the lux tax in and of itself. The rest... try to dump a small salary (perhaps to a team with a trade exception) by the trade deadline - maybe someone owes Ernie or Ted a favor.

I’m ready for the unspeakable. Trade Ian with a first round pick to the Kings. Hell, give them a future 2nd as well, we don’t use them.
We take back WCS, they don’t want him. If that doesn’t get us under luxury tax then stretch Smith’s rear end as well. And shoot some more growth hormones in Meeks while he’s asleep on the bench.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

... Something like Deng + Ball would make more sense for the Wizards....

I'd make that deal for the Wizards.

[payitforward]

As to my example, Wall & Pierce the single year they played together vs. the many years they played apart, there is absolutely nothing in either guy's numbers that would make you think either of them made the other one either better or worse.

Interesting that you brought up that example. Looking at the numbers, I'd say there's pretty good evidence that Pierce benefited by playing alongside Wall. Here are his career stats. Take a look at the last 5 years of his career as his numbers declined due to the inevitable advancement of age.



We can see that in his one year in DC, he experienced a renaissance amidst that general decline. His WS/48, ORtg, and OBPM were actually higher than the previous season. Much of that was due to his lower turnover rate and higher proportion of shots from 3-point range, thanks to Wall's playmaking. Also, Pierce's PER and VORP remained roughly in line with the previous year despite the advancement of age. And the year after he left Wall, his production dropped off a cliff completely and he was suddenly no longer a viable NBA player.

Obviously, Pierce's athleticism-related production, like rebounds and steals, continued to decline with age regardless of Wall's presence because there's not much Wall can do to help Pierce there. But in the aspects of the game that Wall can influence (like Pierce's overall efficiency) I'd say there's good evidence that Wall helped him - at least when compared to the personnel in Brooklyn or LA.

Sigh... I love the way the stats, tiny differences in them, now become important -- in fact, they become the definitive way to assess Paul Pierce's time in Washington.

In '12-13, playing for Boston, Pierce's TS% was 55.9%. The next year, playing for Brooklyn, it was 59.5% -- that, you will agree, is quite a large difference. Or, to quote you from a year or so ago, "these guys are not machines."

"...in the aspects of the game that Wall can influence (like Pierce's overall efficiency) I'd say there's good evidence that Wall helped him - at least when compared to the personnel in Brooklyn..."

Except that his efficiency went down not up when he played with us vs. Brooklyn.

The Brooklyn year his TS% was 59.5%; with us it was 58%. Actually -- no doubt due to John Wall -- his 3 pt. % went up a little with us, while -- no fault of John Wall, I'm sure -- his 2 pt. % went down a bit. &, oddly, because I distinctly recall John throwing him the ball at the FT line, his FT% went down.

If Pierce were benefiting from Wall's playmaking you would expect his PPS to be up over the previous year. It was slightly down.

I can't imagine a better demonstration of what it means to start with a conclusion in mind, & then turn to the stats (but only the ones you want to turn to) & come up with a justification for that conclusion. I can take any two consecutive years from Pierce's more than a decade in Boston, & the differences between them will be as great as between his year in Brooklyn & the following year in Washington.

Don't you think this characterization "...higher proportion of shots from 3-point range, thanks to Wall's playmaking" is slighly ludicrous, Dat? Pierce took just over .5 more 3 pt. attempts per 40 minutes in Washington than he did in Brooklyn. Overall he took almost exactly the same number of shots.

His last year in Boston he took more 3pt. shots per 40 than with Brooklyn but just slightly fewer than with us. The year after his stint in DC, Pierce took more 3pt. shots per 40 than he did with us. The year to year variations during his years in Boston were also in this same range. Or larger, for that matter. Take a look at the number of 3pt. shots he took per 40 minutes in the 4 years beginning w/ '05-6.

In short, there is nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to suggest that John Wall's playmaking had any effect of any kind on Paul Pierce's numbers. Nothing, that is, except your unshakeable determination that it be so.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Trade offer, player only swap.

Morris for either Oubre or Satoransky.

Anyone interested?

God no. You're kidding, right?

How about we give you Markieff for nothing?

[payitforward]

Dat -- lets drop this exchange about stats. In the off-season everyone takes everything too far. I mean that I do!

[payitforward]

Trade offer, player only swap.

Morris for either Oubre or Satoransky.

Anyone interested?

God no. You're kidding, right?

How about we give you Markieff for nothing?

rickrolled's offer is intended to get the Celtics under the tax.

No one in his right mind would swap a developing young player for either of the Morris scrubs. (Except the great Ernie Grunfeld, who might give you a lottery pick for Marcus! Who knows?)

To be serious for a moment... what would you actually offer for Oubre? Or for Satoransky?

Obviously, you don't want to take on salary, so would you give Theis plus a pick for Oubre, for example?

[nate33]

Sigh... I love the way the stats, tiny differences in them, now become important -- in fact, they become the definitive way to assess Paul Pierce's time in Washington.

In '12-13, playing for Boston, Pierce's TS% was 55.9%. The next year, playing for Brooklyn, it was 59.5% -- that, you will agree, is quite a large difference. Or, to quote you from a year or so ago, "these guys are not machines."

"...in the aspects of the game that Wall can influence (like Pierce's overall efficiency) I'd say there's good evidence that Wall helped him - at least when compared to the personnel in Brooklyn..."

Except that his efficiency went down not up when he played with us vs. Brooklyn.

The Brooklyn year his TS% was 59.5%; with us it was 58%. Actually -- no doubt due to John Wall -- his 3 pt. % went up a little with us, while -- no fault of John Wall, I'm sure -- his 2 pt. % went down a bit. &, oddly, because I distinctly recall John throwing him the ball at the FT line, his FT% went down.

Look at the ORtg. It's not on this chart, but his ORtg in Brooklyn was 109 and his ORtg in Washington was 112. ORtg is basically TS% plus turnovers. In DC, his number of lost possessions (missed shots plus turnovers) per point made was better than it was in Brooklyn. He was more efficient despite the obvious affects of age eroding his athleticism.

Don't you think this characterization "...higher proportion of shots from 3-point range, thanks to Wall's playmaking" is slighly ludicrous, Dat? Pierce took just over .5 more 3 pt. attempts per 40 minutes in Washington than he did in Brooklyn. Overall he took almost exactly the same number of shots.

You just confirmed what I said. Pierce had a higher 3PT attempt rate in Washington than in Brooklyn. How is that ludicrous? Also, he had nearly double the number of attempts from the corner 3 than he did in Brooklyn. He shot a higher percentage from 3 than in Brooklyn. As we all know, Wall consistently is among the league leaders in generating corner 3's.

His last year in Boston he took more 3pt. shots per 40 than with Brooklyn but just slightly fewer than with us. The year after his stint in DC, Pierce took more 3pt. shots per 40 than he did with us. The year to year variations during his years in Boston were also in this same range. Or larger, for that matter. Take a look at the number of 3pt. shots he took per 40 minutes in the 4 years beginning w/ '05-6.

In short, there is nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to suggest that John Wall's playmaking had any effect of any kind on Paul Pierce's numbers. Nothing, that is, except your unshakeable determination that it be so.

By the time he went to LA, he was reduced to playing a low-minute 3&D backup PF. He had a higher percentage of attempts from 3, not so much because they were better at setting him up, but because he literally couldn't do anything else. They parked him behind the arc and hoped that the other team's second-unit defense wouldn't close out quite as well. You can tell from his 3P% (just .310) that those attempts were not high quality shots.

To argue that there is "nothing, zero zip, nada" to suggest that Wall helped Pierce is ridiculous. By nearly every offensive metric, Pierce was equal or better than he was the previous year despite the ravages of age. And when he moved to LA he became almost unplayable

[nate33]

Dat -- lets drop this exchange about stats. In the off-season everyone takes everything too far. I mean that I do!

Sorry.

Made my last post before reading this.

And stop confusing me with Dat2U

[NatP4]

Trade offer, player only swap.

Morris for either Oubre or Satoransky.

Anyone interested?

God no. You're kidding, right?

How about we give you Markieff for nothing?

Hell, we will include a 2nd rounder with him.

[pcbothwel]

Trade offer, player only swap.

Morris for either Oubre or Satoransky.

Anyone interested?

God no. You're kidding, right?

How about we give you Markieff for nothing?

Hell, we will include a 2nd rounder with him.

Dude, how quickly we forget a guy how Kieff was top 10 in RPM when healthy...
Now you would trade 2nd to get rid of him and his expiring 8M salary?!?

He has his flaws which are obvious, but has hasnt been the locker room headache or chucker many though he would be.
He went from a 32% 3 point shooter to 36/37% shooter while almost doubling his 3PTr.

I think a healthy Morris is a great fit on this team and a positive asset. Not one you dump along with a 2nd like he is Jason Smith.

[NatP4]

God no. You're kidding, right?

How about we give you Markieff for nothing?

Hell, we will include a 2nd rounder with him.

Dude, how quickly we forget a guy how Kieff was top 10 in RPM when healthy...
Now you would trade 2nd to get rid of him and his expiring 8M salary?!?

He has his flaws which are obvious, but has hasnt been the locker room headache or chucker many though he would be.
He went from a 32% 3 point shooter to 36/37% shooter while almost doubling his 3PTr.

I think a healthy Morris is a great fit on this team and a positive asset. Not one you dump along with a 2nd like he is Jason Smith.

2016-2017 was the outlier year though. We just don’t need him. We have Otto and Jeff green to play PF. It’s time to adapt to the new NBA. You don’t need two bigs, especially one that doesn’t rebound or play team defense or truly space the floor. Troy Brown would get to play more, Sato and Oubre would play more.

He was 11th in RPM by the way

[pcbothwel]

LOL. What has Oubre done to prove he deserves MORE than the 27 MPG he got last year... Ill wait.
What about Otto? Great player, always getting dinged up. So you want to count on those two, Jeff Green, and Troy Brown to hold down the 3 & 4 spot...LOL that is ridiculous to assume at this point. Brown deserves spot minutes at best right now. And who knows if Last years Jeff Green was real, or if the Bad Jeff Green reappears...

Kieff is going to remind people this year he is a solid rotational piece. Somehow the discussion went from "Was it worth trading a 1st for him and can we build a winner with him as our core" ... to "How can we get rid of him"

I dont get it. If you take the healthy Morris from 16/17 and combine him with shooter we saw last year... thats a legit player worthy of starting on quite a few teams at the 4 and playing solid minutes as a small ball 5.

Again, My proposed trades would happen near the deadline after Otto proves he is healthy, Oubre shows he is maturing, and Green shows he can still play. Then you take a healthy Morris and trade him.... but you do so as a positive asset. I understand the glut, but that doesnt mean you dump him. You use him to dump others.

[Ruzious]

Trade offer, player only swap.

Morris for either Oubre or Satoransky.

Anyone interested?

That would be worse than getting rickrolled, rickrolled. We're not interested in the Lebron-stopper.