Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX

[pcbothwel]

You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo! As evidenced in your notion that we might "prove to be formidable."

PIF... Im really confused about your position on Wall/Beal. Assuming Wall is healthy (no reason not to given the videos we've seen for what will be a year by the time the season starts), how would you compare Wall/Beal 16-17 to Wall/ Beal 20-21?
I.E. If you took Wall/Beal today and put them on the 16-17 team that won 49 games, how does that fall out to you?

Obviously, we have no idea and its all projection, but I Personally think its close to a wash given how much better/more dynamic Beal is. In fact, It could be better if Wall is actually better (By better, I mean better use of possessions due to less shots and smarter ones while Beal gets the attention.. similar to CP3, George Hill, Lowry, etc.)

You?

[prime1time]

It is pure speculation to attempt to know what Wall is capable of. We haven't seen him in years. Just acknowledge that until we see what we have with both of them on the court everything is on hold.

[DCZards]

If the goal is to contend for an NBA title -- or at least for the EC title -- then there is every reason not to sign Bertans, at least not if we're going to pay him big $$ for 3 years.

Davis Bertans -- whom I've been following since he was in Europe before the 2011 draft -- is a journeyman. He's never started in his years in the league. He didn't start for us. He has one skill -- just one, no others! -- he shoots the 3 ball in high volume & at a high rate of efficiency. That's it. No... he also shoots FTs extremely well -- but he doesn't get to the line enough for that to matter.

Aside from the positive effect of his 3-point shooting on team results, it also happens to be extremely entertaining to watch. Since basketball is not only competition but also TV entertainment, that contributes to justify paying him. His role in our 25-47 season does not.

Bertans is a specialist. The NBA is full of players like him. Some NBA players are great rebounders others are great passers, others are great defenders and others are great shooters. What you hope to have is a team full of players who are above-average at all of those things. That’s difficult—if not impossible—to achieve.

Bertans' rebounding, passing and D are no doubt negatives. His speciality is long-range, 3 pt shooting, which he does very, very well. Davis’s speciality creates headaches for defenses and opportunities for teammates.

Will Bertans be overpaid at 15 mil per year? Probably. Is he an important piece in helping the Zards win games and get better? Absolutely.

[nate33]

Looks like Minny wants to trade out of the #1 pick for "a win-now player."

Any thoughts?

Here's one: would they think of John Wall in that way? If so, would there be a way to move his contract to Minny, & would we then pick Lamelo Ball (dat's top player in this draft) in that #1 slot?

This would re-set our timeline: if Ball is as good as dat & many others think, if we went on to score Okongwu @#9 (& he too is good as people think), we'd have moved closer to contending for a title. Close enough that Beal is still right at the center of that team.

Just an idea....

Well, sure. If we could trade Wall for the #1 overall pick, we would do it in a heartbeat, even in this lousy draft. Hell, I'd trade Wall for nothing but James Johnson's expiring and a giant TPE. But that's not going to happen. Nobody wants Wall's contract.

[dckingsfan]

You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo! As evidenced in your notion that we might "prove to be formidable."

PIF... Im really confused about your position on Wall/Beal. Assuming Wall is healthy (no reason not to given the videos we've seen for what will be a year by the time the season starts), how would you compare Wall/Beal 16-17 to Wall/ Beal 20-21?
I.E. If you took Wall/Beal today and put them on the 16-17 team that won 49 games, how does that fall out to you?

Obviously, we have no idea and its all projection, but I Personally think its close to a wash given how much better/more dynamic Beal is. In fact, It could be better if Wall is actually better (By better, I mean better use of possessions due to less shots and smarter ones while Beal gets the attention.. similar to CP3, George Hill, Lowry, etc.)

You?

Well, I am not PIF but... Do you see 1) Wall getting back to the level he was in 16-17 (I know, separate question)? Do you see 2) anyone at SF playing at the level of Otto Porter that year? Do you think 3) Bryant will play at the same level as Gortat that year? We had some really good 3 point shooting that year too... 4) will we get back to that level?

Answer those questions and you have your answer.

For me 1) No. 2) No. 3) Yes. 4) Maybe.

And then the next question. Does 5) Beal stay at the same level or continue to improve. Does 6) one of the youngsters really break out.

5) Maybe. 6) Maybe.

But it could happen. So the upper bound of the team is probably 49-33?

I know, I know, more questions - no answers.

PIF?

[dckingsfan]

Looks like Minny wants to trade out of the #1 pick for "a win-now player."

Any thoughts?

Here's one: would they think of John Wall in that way? If so, would there be a way to move his contract to Minny, & would we then pick Lamelo Ball (dat's top player in this draft) in that #1 slot?

This would re-set our timeline: if Ball is as good as dat & many others think, if we went on to score Okongwu @#9 (& he too is good as people think), we'd have moved closer to contending for a title. Close enough that Beal is still right at the center of that team.

Just an idea....

Well, sure. If we could trade Wall for the #1 overall pick, we would do it in a heartbeat, even in this lousy draft. Hell, I'd trade Wall for nothing but James Johnson's expiring and a giant TPE. But that's not going to happen. Nobody wants Wall's contract.

Or a NY minute... and we would say, "let the rebuild commence".

[payitforward]

:) You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo! As evidenced in your notion that we might "prove to be formidable."

PIF... Im really confused about your position on Wall/Beal. Assuming Wall is healthy (no reason not to given the videos we've seen for what will be a year by the time the season starts), how would you compare Wall/Beal 16-17 to Wall/ Beal 20-21?

Let's see if I understand your question. Are you asking whether, assuming Wall is healthy, I think he'll be as good as he was in 2016-17?

He might be. He was younger then, of course. & he was in his 6th season -- a fairly typical career-point for a player to peak. He's older now. He's 30. &, whether a player recovers from an injury fully or not, injuries still take their toll. Do 30-year old players coming off of 2+ years lost in their careers usually return right at their peak? I can't think of one that did.

OTOH, of course he still might! But, it's not something I'd be willing to bet on -- tho I hope he does!

Of course you might mean something diffferent -- e.g. by this...

I.E. If you took Wall/Beal today and put them on the 16-17 team that won 49 games, how does that fall out to you?

...you might mean to ask whether Beal at his current level & Wall at his peak, combined w/ the guys we have on the team now, would make us a 49-win team again. Or, perhaps you really mean, "wouldn't that make us an even better team than 16-17?

The last two years we've been a 30 win team. Thus, essentially, you are asking whether adding back John Wall can create 19 more wins.

No, my friend, there is no chance of that whatever. In 16-17, Wall played 2800 minutes & was all on his own responsible for about 12 of our wins. This year, in about 2800 combined minutes, Ish, Payton & Shabazz accounted for something like 5 of our wins. Take them away & substitute peak John Wall & it looks like we are @ 7 wins to the good.

Of course, this is really abstract. It's hard to really know how close that is to true. But you can't just issue some kind of statement out of nowhere. You do have to use something to think about this stuff. & you do have to account for the fact that a team of average players, an average team, wins 41 games. I.e. it's not only really good players like John who account for wins. Better players just account for more of them.

Not to mention that you find it easy to ignore the incredible year Otto Porter had in 16-17. He -- not John & not Brad -- was the single largest contributor to our success. Every 16 possessions he used produced 20 points, plus he rebounded exceptionally well, stole the ball a lot, & basically never committed a turnover! (Of course, this will be denied: it always is -- but, it's true all the same)

Obviously, we have no idea and its all projection, but I Personally think its close to a wash given how much better/more dynamic Beal is. In fact, It could be better if Wall is actually better (By better, I mean better use of possessions due to less shots and smarter ones while Beal gets the attention.. similar to CP3, George Hill, Lowry, etc.)

You?

As I wrote: "You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo!" It's like the rest of the team doesn't exist. It doesn't even occur to you that it might matter whether Troy Brown continues to improve or whether Rui Hachimura actually plays anywhere near the level of an average NBA player. Or, whether we happen to come out of the draft with someone who is good immediately. Or, whether Bonga builds on a really terrific first season. Or anything about Thomas Bryant. Or whether re-signing Bertans might have any effect at all on the team (positive or negative). No mention of any of that -- it's all just John Wall & Brad Beal.

It really is kind of amazing -- & I am sincere in calling it "admirable." Now... if you were the Wizards GM it wouldn't be admirable (tho it'd be even more amazing). But, you're a fan. Your reserves of optimism are totally special!

[pcbothwel]

:) You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo! As evidenced in your notion that we might "prove to be formidable."

PIF... Im really confused about your position on Wall/Beal. Assuming Wall is healthy (no reason not to given the videos we've seen for what will be a year by the time the season starts), how would you compare Wall/Beal 16-17 to Wall/ Beal 20-21?

Let's see if I understand your question. Are you asking whether, assuming Wall is healthy, I think he'll be as good as he was in 2016-17?

He might be. He was younger then, of course. & he was in his 6th season -- a fairly typical career-point for a player to peak. He's older now. He's 30. &, whether a player recovers from an injury fully or not, injuries still take their toll. Do 30-year old players coming off of 2+ years lost in their careers usually return right at their peak? I can't think of one that did.

OTOH, of course he still might! But, it's not something I'd be willing to bet on -- tho I hope he does!

Of course you might mean something diffferent -- e.g. by this...

I.E. If you took Wall/Beal today and put them on the 16-17 team that won 49 games, how does that fall out to you?

...you might mean to ask whether Beal at his current level & Wall at his peak, combined w/ the guys we have on the team now, would make us a 49-win team again. Or, perhaps you really mean, "wouldn't that make us an even better team than 16-17?

The last two years we've been a 30 win team. Thus, essentially, you are asking whether adding back John Wall can create 19 more wins.

No, my friend, there is no chance of that whatever. In 16-17, Wall played 2800 minutes & was all on his own responsible for about 12 of our wins. This year, in about 2800 combined minutes, Ish, Payton & Shabazz accounted for something like 5 of our wins. Take them away & substitute peak John Wall & it looks like we are @ 7 wins to the good.

Of course, this is really abstract. It's hard to really know how close that is to true. But you can't just issue some kind of statement out of nowhere. You do have to use something to think about this stuff. & you do have to account for the fact that a team of average players, an average team, wins 41 games. I.e. it's not only really good players like John who account for wins. Better players just account for more of them.

Not to mention that you find it easy to ignore the incredible year Otto Porter had in 16-17. He -- not John & not Brad -- was the single largest contributor to our success. Every 16 possessions he used produced 20 points, plus he rebounded exceptionally well, stole the ball a lot, & basically never committed a turnover! (Of course, this will be denied: it always is -- but, it's true all the same)

Obviously, we have no idea and its all projection, but I Personally think its close to a wash given how much better/more dynamic Beal is. In fact, It could be better if Wall is actually better (By better, I mean better use of possessions due to less shots and smarter ones while Beal gets the attention.. similar to CP3, George Hill, Lowry, etc.)

You?

As I wrote: "You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo!" It's like the rest of the team doesn't exist. It doesn't even occur to you that it might matter whether Troy Brown continues to improve or whether Rui Hachimura actually plays anywhere near the level of an average NBA player. Or, whether we happen to come out of the draft with someone who is good immediately. Or, whether Bonga builds on a really terrific first season. Or anything about Thomas Bryant. Or whether re-signing Bertans might have any effect at all on the team (positive or negative). No mention of any of that -- it's all just John Wall & Brad Beal.

It really is kind of amazing -- & I am sincere in calling it "admirable." Now... if you were the Wizards GM it wouldn't be admirable (tho it'd be even more amazing). But, you're a fan. Your reserves of optimism are totally special!

You're overthinking this. We are not discussing ANY OTHER PLAYERS right now for either this team or the 16/17 team.
The question is simple. How do you compare Wall/Beal now to Wall/Beal then?
Wall is older/worse now, and Beal is better... I think that much is clear, but to what degree?

My contention is this:
Wall: While I dont believe he is physically as good, I believe this version of Wall will be more efficient due to less usage and shots as well as better shots (Spot up 3's and higher FTr).

Beal: Beal is clearly better based on what we saw last year. I actually think he can be more efficient this next year because his usage was REALLY high last year, and a healthy Wall/TBJ/Bryant/Rui will all help carry the load.

So I believe the Wall/Beal production of 2021 will be quite comparable to the 2016/17 version. You seem to vehemently disagree, so no need to continue the exercise that compares the other players on the roster. Im very much aware of the other players, but you cant seem to take this step by step. When comparing the two teams, it is much simpler to take in two parts for post length reasons. 1) Wall/Beal 2) Supporting Cast

I dont want to delve into #2 quite yet, but you're overrating the contribution. Yes, Otto was great... But Kieff, Oubre, Smith, Thornton, burke, Sato, Jennings... you're talking 8k-9k minutes of somewhere between below average and AWFUL basketball... But we can save that.

[payitforward]

Bertans is a specialist. The NBA is full of players like him. Some NBA players are great rebounders others are great passers, others are great defenders and others are great shooters. What you hope to have is a team full of players who are above-average at all of those things. That’s difficult—if not impossible—to achieve....

I'll say! It's hard to find even a single player who is above average at ALL parts of the game. LeBron's career FT% is somewhat below average.

What you hope to have, tho, is a team that is above average at all those things as a team. I.e. (since "average" is different depending on position) taking into account all positions & all the minutes played at those positions.

If you do that, you have an above average team, & you win more than you lose. There is no example of a team like that (above average across the board) that doesn't have a winning record.

Bertans' rebounding, passing and D are no doubt negatives. His speciality is long-range, 3 pt shooting, which he does very, very well. Davis’s speciality creates headaches for defenses and opportunities for teammates.

Will Bertans be overpaid at 15 mil per year? Probably. Is he an important piece in helping the Zards win games and get better? Absolutely.

What Davis does well (i.e. shoot!) helps the team win games -- of course! Creates headaches on the on hand & opportunities on the other. Just as you say.

But, in exactly the same way, it is also true that what he does badly helps the team lose games. If the first is true, then so is the second.

The point is to measure these things. Suppose Davis was exactly as he is with one change -- per 40 minutes he grabbed 2 more defensive rebounds. Would that make him better -- i.e. a little bit closer to "what you hope to have?" Of course it would!

What about the opposite? Suppose he was every bit the shooter he is but -- somehow -- he couldn't rebound at all, got zero rebounds per 40 minutes (well... per any number of minutes! ). He'd be pretty much unplayable.

He doesn't do that, obviously. &, he's not unplayable, obviously. But, no, he is not "helping the Wizards win games and get better" -- if by that you mean helping as much as an average NBA 4 helps his team. & if by getting better you mean getting closer to an average team -- one that posts a .500 record rather than going 25-47.

If that's what you mean, then, no, he is not helping: getting 70% as many defensive boards as average & only 27% as many offensive boards as average (!) simply makes that impossible. Still a remarkable shooter, of course. Fun to watch.

There have been some claims that Davis makes his teammates a bit better (i.e. get better results) when he's on the floor with them. It's not worth arguing against this, even if strictly speaking it can't be demonstrated (not in the strict sense I mean). We still won 26 games this year -- call it 30 on an 82 game season. Last year with a few bums who are gone we won 32 games.

How much "better" can Davis be making anyone? How can he be "an important piece in helping the Zards win games and get better?"

[doclinkin]

How much "better" can Davis be making anyone?

+7.9 points per 100 possessions.
+3.5 win shares per season.

Simple. Done. Let's move on to a different argument.

[payitforward]

You're overthinking this....

There is no such thing. There's thinking well & thinking badly -- to be sure. But, to understand something of this kind you have to do all the thinking it requires.

...We are not discussing ANY OTHER PLAYERS right now for either this team or the 16/17 team.
The question is simple. How do you compare Wall/Beal now to Wall/Beal then?
Wall is older/worse now, and Beal is better... I think that much is clear, but to what degree?...

Beal: Beal is clearly better based on what we saw last year. I actually think he can be more efficient this next year because his usage was REALLY high last year, and a healthy Wall/TBJ/Bryant/Rui will all help carry the load.

It's not particularly difficult to understand the ways in which Brad is better & the ways in which he isn't better. All you have to do compare what he did in 16/17 with what he did this year & use "thinking" to understand the difference between the situations of those 2 years & how that difference might affect the question.

E.g. he shot better back then, but he shot much more this year. His TS% wasn't as good this year, but he was still "better," because of how well he did given the pressure put on him.

He's also become a far better playmaker & rebounder in the intervening years. He does turn the ball over a lot more -- but the ball is in his hands a lot more!

One might, therefore, argue that with John back full time we should expect Brad to get even better. He won't have to shoot as much or be as much of a playmaker. Thing is... we'll have to wait & see.

...Wall: While I dont believe he is physically as good, I believe this version of Wall will be more efficient due to less usage and shots as well as better shots (Spot up 3's and higher FTr).

We all hope so. & that's as far as it goes, sorry.

...So I believe the Wall/Beal production of 2021 will be quite comparable to the 2016/17 version. You seem to vehemently disagree....

?? What would make you think I disagree? Nothing to disagree about. You're voicing what you "believe." I'm suggesting that we'll have to wait & see. That's not disagreement. It's not even an opinion! It's just a fact. We'll know it's true when we see it.

So, sure, the production of those two combined might well be "comparable" to 16-17. Quite possibly it can be even better -- obviously that depends much more on John than Brad. Or it might not be as good.

[nate33]

We had a $5M TPE generated in the Satoransky trade last year.

Normally a TPE lasts for a year and would have expired on June 7, 2020, but I wonder if that changes because of the delay in the start of the season. Will we have that TPE at our disposal to work out a draft day trade?

We won't have a ton of luxtax room after signing Bertans, but we will have enough to absorb a salary with that TPE. Might that be enough to buy us a pick, help us move up in the draft, or at least absorb the salary of a half-decent player from a team looking to generate cap room?

Utah, for example, is pinching pennies and may be happy to offload their backup center Tony Bradley and his $3.5M contract. Bradley rebounds like crazy and is an efficient rim runner. I don't know about his defense though.

There are other teams flirting with the luxtax having guys they might move. Khem Birch from Orlando? DJ Wilson or DiVincenzo from Milwaukee? Zhaire Smith from Philly?

[payitforward]

How much "better" can Davis be making anyone?

+7.9 points per 100 possessions.
+3.5 win shares per season.

Simple. Done. Let's move on to a different argument.

Absolutely! But, first, please take a look at the same page of numbers for Thomas Bryant: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanth01.html

Davis's "+3.5 win shares" for the season is his total contribution for the year in 1583 minutes. Thomas Bryant played 72% as many minutes, but he's listed at #3.9 win shares.

Ok! So by this measure Thomas Bryant is 53% better than Davis Bertans.

I'd make it a little different from that using a somewhat different measure -- but, that's close enough. No further argument.

[doclinkin]

Absolutely! But, first, please take a look at the same page of numbers for Thomas Bryant: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanth01.html

Davis's "+3.5 win shares" for the season is his total contribution for the year in 1583 minutes. Thomas Bryant played 72% as many minutes, but he's listed at #3.9 win shares.

Ok! So by this measure Thomas Bryant is 53% better than Davis Bertans.

I'd make it a little different from that using a somewhat different measure -- but, that's close enough. No further argument.

Excellent! Let's sign Bertans and trade him for that Thomas Bryant guy. Sounds like we would get an upgrade at that position. (Thomas Bryant is a 3pt shooting 3/4? I haven't checked).

[payitforward]

Absolutely! But, first, please take a look at the same page of numbers for Thomas Bryant: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanth01.html

Davis's "+3.5 win shares" for the season is his total contribution for the year in 1583 minutes. Thomas Bryant played 72% as many minutes, but he's listed at #3.9 win shares.

Ok! So by this measure Thomas Bryant is 53% better than Davis Bertans.

I'd make it a little different from that using a somewhat different measure -- but, that's close enough. No further argument.

Excellent! Let's sign Bertans and trade him for that Thomas Bryant guy. Sounds like we would get an upgrade at that position. (Thomas Bryant is a 3pt shooting 3/4? I haven't checked).

Oh you rhetorician... I thought you said we should move on -- & I even agreed.

You are the one who brought up Win Shares; not only did you refer us to it via a link but trumpeted it in your post as decisive: that's that, & no need to continue.

& I'm perfectly happy to use this kind of analysis -- the kind you just chose -- to place Davis on the map of productivity. Even if it over-estimates him (which would be easier to know if we understood how win shares are calculated), it nonetheless documents that he's not all that productive.

That's all. I like Davis Bertans. Always have. & there are good reasons to have him on the team even if, overall, he's not especially effective.

But, there are no good reasons to pay the guy a whole lot of money. & you know what? Maybe we won't have to overpay him! In which case, it would be great to see him in a Wizards uniform next season.

[WallToWall]

https://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker/saved_trade/7334308
Since Houston is probably gonna clean house... Harden + Nwaba for Wall + Wagner + 2 first round picks.
Thoughts?
Put Harden at SF. Since he can handle the ball and Beal can handle the ball, the point guard duties can be diminished some, and we may get by with a defensive oriented PG. Re-sign Bertans, and this would make a pretty good shooting team.

[wall_glizzy]

https://basketball.realgm.com/tradechecker/saved_trade/7334308
Since Houston is probably gonna clean house... Harden + Nwaba for Wall + Wagner + 2 first round picks.
Thoughts?
Put Harden at SF. Since he can handle the ball and Beal can handle the ball, the point guard duties can be diminished some, and we may get by with a defensive oriented PG. Re-sign Bertans, and this would make a pretty good shooting team.

This would, uh, be a pretty good trade for the zards. We could follow it up with flipping Bonga for Giannis and the Bucks first - who says no?

[nate33]

This would, uh, be a pretty good trade for the zards. We could follow it up with flipping Bonga for Giannis and the Bucks first - who says no?

C'mon now. Be realistic. We would have to at least include Bertans and Bryant to make the salaries match.

[payitforward]

Hey! We don't see WallToWall all that often -- don't give him a hard time the minute he shows up!

[WallToWall]

This would, uh, be a pretty good trade for the zards. We could follow it up with flipping Bonga for Giannis and the Bucks first - who says no?

C'mon now. Be realistic. We would have to at least include Bertans and Bryant to make the salaries match.

Surprisingly, the salaries match as it is. Houston would probably want a bunch of first round picks. However, Harden is 31 y.o. now, and he probably can keep going at a high level for a couple more years before father time catches up. Now that Morey is out, their new GM may want to go young.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app