Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVII

[nate33]

4th pick would be a decent starting point for Beal.

If we rebuild, having the 4th and 9th in this draft would be a good start to kick things off.

No it wouldn't. This draft stinks. Nobody picked 3 or later will be better than Beal.

[Ruzious]

4th pick would be a decent starting point for Beal.

If we rebuild, having the 4th and 9th in this draft would be a good start to kick things off.

No it wouldn't. This draft stinks. Nobody picked 3 or later will be better than Beal.

I think Garland and Doumbouya will be at least arguably better, and there could a couple others that end up better.

[TGW]

4th pick would be a decent starting point for Beal.

If we rebuild, having the 4th and 9th in this draft would be a good start to kick things off.

No it wouldn't. This draft stinks. Nobody picked 3 or later will be better than Beal.

I think Garland and Doumbouya will be at least arguably better, and there could a couple others that end up better.

You really think Garland or Doumboya is going to be better than Beal?

[DCZards]

4th pick would be a decent starting point for Beal.

If we rebuild, having the 4th and 9th in this draft would be a good start to kick things off.

No it wouldn't. This draft stinks. Nobody picked 3 or later will be better than Beal.

I think Garland and Doumbouya will be at least arguably better, and there could a couple others that end up better.

To be "arguably better than Beal," Garland and Doumbouya--and those couple others--would have to become all-NBA caliber players. Not saying it can't happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[prime1time]

Well Beal is still getting better. He's only 25 (birthday is in a week). If you look at what he averaged after Wall went down - 27, 6 and 5 he's an elite player. Not to mention the fact that he still has more room to improve his game. He said that he's working on off the dribble 3's this offseason, and personally I'd like to see him think about how to draw more free throws. He just does those two things and you are looking at an elite level scorer. There's no reason to why 2 years from now Beal couldn't average 30, 7 and 7. He's getting more comfortable having the offense run through him and I think next year we'll see even more chemistry between Bryant, Brown Jr. and Beal. All in all I'm perfectly fine, keeping Beal drafting a player at 9 and letting the season play out.

I know everyone is worried about squeaking into the playoffs but I just don't see it when I look at the standings. Top 5 spots are pretty much set and a lot of young teams will likely start to make a push to be better - Hawks and Bulls. Not to mention that The Knicks might strike gold in the offseason. I think the move next year is to go young and let the young guys play.

[Dat2U]

4th pick would be a decent starting point for Beal.

If we rebuild, having the 4th and 9th in this draft would be a good start to kick things off.

No it wouldn't. This draft stinks. Nobody picked 3 or later will be better than Beal.

I think Garland and Doumbouya will be at least arguably better, and there could a couple others that end up better.

Garland maybe a 10% chance. Doumbouya? Doumbouya will never be more than a guy that can attack closeouts.

[Ruzious]

No it wouldn't. This draft stinks. Nobody picked 3 or later will be better than Beal.

I think Garland and Doumbouya will be at least arguably better, and there could a couple others that end up better.

Garland maybe a 10% chance. Doumbouya? Doumbouya will never be more than a guy that can attack closeouts.

Tbh, I think both of us made equally foolish comments there. You don't get how good a shooter Doumbouya is - as is Garland.

I do think that the combination of Garland and Doumbouya will end up being better than Beal, but I was probably nuts to predict they'll both be arguably better than Beal.

[queridiculo]

Even in stacked years, how many All-Stars eventually emerge out of a draft class, and you can even lower the bar further and pose that same question for the number of starters realistically coming out of the pack.

The likelihood of the sum of Garland and Doumbouya turning out to be more productive than Beal is extremely low.

[Ruzious]

Even in stacked years, how many All-Stars eventually emerge out of a draft class, and you can even lower the bar further and pose that same question for the number of starters realistically coming out of the pack.

The likelihood of the sum of Garland and Doumbouya turning out to be more productive than Beal is extremely low.

I've already said I was wrong to say that, but in Beal's draft year (2012), there were 3 players picked after him that are arguably better - Lillard, Drummond and Draymond. The year before, there was Kemba, Klay and Jimmy Butler. The year after - in anotherwise awful draft, there was Giannis and Gobert.

[queridiculo]

I've already said I was wrong to say that, but in Beal's draft year (2012), there were 3 players picked after him that are arguably better - Lillard, Drummond and Draymond. The year before, there was Kemba, Klay and Jimmy Butler. The year after - in anotherwise awful draft, there was Giannis and Gobert.

Arguably being the key word. I would trade Beal for Lillard and possibly Thompson, and that's about it.

Giannis and Gobert are outliers, and you just need to look at the 2014, 2015 and 2016 drafts and see how looking at the draft for answers can seriously stunt your longterm prospects.

When I have a young player that's actually lived up to his potential I'll take the bird in the hand approach over the two in the bush any time.

[Ruzious]

I've already said I was wrong to say that, but in Beal's draft year (2012), there were 3 players picked after him that are arguably better - Lillard, Drummond and Draymond. The year before, there was Kemba, Klay and Jimmy Butler. The year after - in anotherwise awful draft, there was Giannis and Gobert.

Arguably being the key word. I would trade Beal for Lillard and possibly Thompson, and that's about it.

Giannis and Gobert are outliers, and you just need to look at the 2014, 2015 and 2016 drafts and see how looking at the draft for answers can seriously stunt your longterm prospects.

When I have a young player that's actually lived up to his potential I'll take the bird in the hand approach over the two in the bush any time.

Well, you better find another bird - and a better one - if you really want to attempt to win a championship.

[payitforward]

No it wouldn't. This draft stinks. Nobody picked 3 or later will be better than Beal.

I think Garland and Doumbouya will be at least arguably better, and there could a couple others that end up better.

You really think Garland or Doumboya is going to be better than Beal?

Anyway, I don't think dangermouse meant to suggest that we would trade Beal for the #4 straight up -- & then that would leave us well set up to rebuild.

At least I hope he didn't! That would not be sensible....

[Ruzious]

I think Garland and Doumbouya will be at least arguably better, and there could a couple others that end up better.

You really think Garland or Doumboya is going to be better than Beal?

Anyway, I don't think dangermouse meant to suggest that we would trade Beal for the #4 straight up -- & then that would leave us well set up to rebuild.

At least I hope he didn't! That would not be sensible....

That's probably why he said "the 4th pick would be a decent starting point for Beal."

[payitforward]

Well Beal is still getting better. He's only 25 (birthday is in a week). If you look at what he averaged after Wall went down - 27, 6 and 5 he's an elite player. Not to mention the fact that he still has more room to improve his game. He said that he's working on off the dribble 3's this offseason, and personally I'd like to see him think about how to draw more free throws. He just does those two things and you are looking at an elite level scorer. There's no reason to why 2 years from now Beal couldn't average 30, 7 and 7. He's getting more comfortable having the offense run through him and I think next year we'll see even more chemistry between Bryant, Brown Jr. and Beal. All in all I'm perfectly fine, keeping Beal drafting a player at 9 and letting the season play out.

I know everyone is worried about squeaking into the playoffs but I just don't see it when I look at the standings. Top 5 spots are pretty much set and a lot of young teams will likely start to make a push to be better - Hawks and Bulls. Not to mention that The Knicks might strike gold in the offseason. I think the move next year is to go young and let the young guys play.

Prime & I often disagree -- but I'm with him 100% on his assessment of Beal.

If we continue to use "make the playoffs" as our goal, then we continue to have a 1-year-at-a-time strategy, ala Ernie. With the secondary idea that winning in the playoffs is about "getting hot at the right time," a really ridiculous notion.

1/3 of the way through the season, Bradley Beal was well behind his 2016-17 productivity level. The 2d half of the season he hit a new level. If he plays next season at that level, he's even more valuable -- and... who knows, maybe he'll keep improving.

The only caveat is Dat's repeated point that he can leave at the end of next season.

My other disagreement is with "I'm perfectly fine... drafting a player at 9..." IMO, we can't come out of the draft with only 1 rookie. We did that last year, & it was an error. Lets not repeat that mistake. 2 at a minimum, & 3 would be better. We have roster room for more, in fact.

[payitforward]

You really think Garland or Doumboya is going to be better than Beal?

Anyway, I don't think dangermouse meant to suggest that we would trade Beal for the #4 straight up -- & then that would leave us well set up to rebuild.

At least I hope he didn't! That would not be sensible....

That's probably why he said "the 4th pick would be a decent starting point for Beal."

Why yes, yes it probably is. Duh...!

[payitforward]

I've already said I was wrong to say that, but in Beal's draft year (2012), there were 3 players picked after him that are arguably better - Lillard, Drummond and Draymond. The year before, there was Kemba, Klay and Jimmy Butler. The year after - in an otherwise awful draft, there was Giannis and Gobert.

Arguably being the key word. I would trade Beal for Lillard and possibly Thompson, and that's about it.

Giannis and Gobert are outliers, and you just need to look at the 2014, 2015 and 2016 drafts and see how looking at the draft for answers can seriously stunt your longterm prospects.

When I have a young player that's actually lived up to his potential I'll take the bird in the hand approach over the two in the bush any time.

Lillard has unquestionably been better than Brad -- over his career & last year too. But Lillard is fully 3 years older than Brad! Makes a difference.

Ruz, you wrote Kemba, Klay and Jimmy..." but I assume you meant Kawhi instead of one of the other "K" names.

I certainly would not trade Brad for Klay Thompson. OTOH, Drummond is far more impactful than Beal -- or pretty much any guard outside of Harden & Steph. Take him off of Detroit, & they might not have won 25 games last year.

2012 was one of the worst round 1's in history: of the 27 guys taken from 4-30, 16 of them are out of the league (most never having played much at all). The draft was saved by the guys picked in R2.

Actually, 2014 wasn't nearly as bad as 2012 -- though once again, a lot of the value was in R2: Joe Harris, Johnny O'Bryant, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jerami Grant, Glenn Robinson, Nikola Jokic, &... never forget: our own J McRae!

The idea that "...looking at the draft for answers can seriously stunt your longterm prospects..." makes no sense to me. Trades & FA acquisitions are governed by a free market; in a salary-capped league, how much can they propel your longterm prospects?

[queridiculo]

The idea that "...looking at the draft for answers can seriously stunt your longterm prospects..." makes no sense to me. Trades & FA acquisitions are governed by a free market; in a salary-capped league, how much can they propel your longterm prospects?

The context matters, and in this instance it isn't trades and free agency, it's moving a known quantity for a complete unknown that has an exceedingly high likelihood of leaving you off worse than you started.

I am not willing to bet that Garland and Doumbouya will leave the Wizards off better in the longterm than keeping Beal and adding another player out of this draft.

[nate33]

The only caveat is Dat's repeated point that he can leave at the end of next season.

Correction. He can leave at the end of the 2020/21 season. That's two full seasons from now.

How many superstars better than Beal are currently locked up longer than the next two seasons? Looking through the player contracts, I count 7: Lebron, Harden, Curry, George, Embiid, Jokic and Doncic (assuming reasonable improvement). So let's not act like having a guy with 2 years left on his contract is some kind of ticking time bomb. It's the new normal in the NBA.

[Ruzious]

I've already said I was wrong to say that, but in Beal's draft year (2012), there were 3 players picked after him that are arguably better - Lillard, Drummond and Draymond. The year before, there was Kemba, Klay and Jimmy Butler. The year after - in an otherwise awful draft, there was Giannis and Gobert.

Arguably being the key word. I would trade Beal for Lillard and possibly Thompson, and that's about it.

Giannis and Gobert are outliers, and you just need to look at the 2014, 2015 and 2016 drafts and see how looking at the draft for answers can seriously stunt your longterm prospects.

When I have a young player that's actually lived up to his potential I'll take the bird in the hand approach over the two in the bush any time.

Lillard has unquestionably been better than Brad -- over his career & last year too. But Lillard is fully 3 years older than Brad! Makes a difference.

Ruz, you wrote Kemba, Klay and Jimmy..." but I assume you meant Kawhi instead of one of the other "K" names.

I certainly would not trade Brad for Klay Thompson. OTOH, Drummond is far more impactful than Beal -- or pretty much any guard outside of Harden & Steph. Take him off of Detroit, & they might not have won 25 games last year.

2012 was one of the worst round 1's in history: of the 27 guys taken from 4-30, 16 of them are out of the league (most never having played much at all). The draft was saved by the guys picked in R2.

Actually, 2014 wasn't nearly as bad as 2012 -- though once again, a lot of the value was in R2: Joe Harris, Johnny O'Bryant, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jerami Grant, Glenn Robinson, Nikola Jokic, &... never forget: our own J McRae!

The idea that "...looking at the draft for answers can seriously stunt your longterm prospects..." makes no sense to me. Trades & FA acquisitions are governed by a free market; in a salary-capped league, how much can they propel your longterm prospects?

I agree with most of that but... you should find a better method to evaluate Klay Thompson - hopefully, you're watching the NBA finals (great basketball and drama) and have watched them the previous 4 years. Imo, Thompson (and Curry) is arguably the best pure shooters in NBA history, an outstanding defender, and has sacrificed his scoring for the benefit of winning championships. And if you're going to start a reply saying you don't want him because he doesn't rebound well for a guard... save the keystrokes for another time. Consider the importance of SPACING - it's a huge part of GS's success.

[Ruzious]

The only caveat is Dat's repeated point that he can leave at the end of next season.

Correction. He can leave at the end of the 2020/21 season. That's two full seasons from now.

How many superstars better than Beal are currently locked up longer than the next two seasons? Looking through the player contracts, I count 7: Lebron, Harden, Curry, George, Embiid, Jokic and Doncic (assuming reasonable improvement). So let's not act like having a guy with 2 years left on his contract is some kind of ticking time bomb. It's the new normal in the NBA.

I think what it does is give him more trade value than he otherwise would have, and that extra value will decrease at some point. But I concur to the estent that there's no reason to rush into a trade. It's always a game of chess/poker as to when to pull the trigger.