Official Trade Thread -- Part XL

[gambitx777]

What about something like this?

Boston out : nesmith, grant williams, williams III, 2021 seconds ,2022 second, 2023 second,
Boston in. : Bertans and lopez

Cavs out : drummand
Cavs in. : Bryant, ish, robinson

Wiz out : Bertans , lopez, ish, bryant , robinson
Wiz in. : Drummand, Nesmith, grant williams, williams III. 2021, 2022, 2023 second

Obviously the picks can be debated or subtracted but I think it works out.

For bos on they get a nuke off the bench, Bertans is returning to form and 2 decent prospects one of which hasn't played much, and a few seconds for the in shape dialed in Bertans is a good deal. They are still slightly under the tax. So they can play around and they still have all of their firsts to make a move if need be. But, it puts them potentially over the edge as a threat to the nets. If kemba comes back strong that bomb off the bench will matter in a play off battle. This def makes their team better right now! Lopez while he doesn't have the future potential that williams has, he's about as good right now and adds a vet savey and size. Bertans is so much better than grant williams is right now it's not even worth mentioning, and while I really like Nesmith he isn't playing and wouldn't be a factor for them in a play off run.


For the Cavs this is the absolute best deal they could get. Bryant is the absolute best possible asset they could get for drummand at this point and that's only because he's hurt. This deal also saves them a boat load of money. They get to cut robinson and ish for about 9 mill, pay bryant his 8 and save the nearly 10 mill they would have to pay in a buy out. That covers bryant's money next year, and they get a young big to play next to allen and save the cash that drummand may or may not give back in a buy out.

The Wizards get some young cheap players and some assets in the war chest. With the money situation they are in those seconds will matter. Nesmith I really like his potential and we get williams the III , he replaces bryant next year and is the same age on a better deal. Also I like drummand on this team he might not jack shots if he's getting a double double every night cleaning up westbrook misses. Plus, if it meshes well I can see him maybe staying for mid level money cuz he isn't a max guy anymore. Yes we loose Bertans for basically a massive down grade in grant williams, but I think Rui and Deni are ready to step up, and the problems that drummand rebounding could fix for us, I think we end up being a much better team. The wiz get under the tax and can now move forward with maybe bringing in another guy or brining up matthews like he deserves. It also allows us to move mo and brown somewhere for some value.

In Detroit, Drummond was more than "pretty good" statistically -- in some years he was tremendous. Including his rookie year.

Big problem with him lately is that he wants to take a lot of shots, but he doesn't shoot well. &he turns the ball over a whole lot.

I wouldn't do the trade you suggest, nate, for several reasons. For one thing, under no circumstances would I move Bryant for a guy I'm likely not to keep past this year -- why ever would I do that? If you trade a guy who has actual value, which Bryant certainly does, then you want to get back an asset whose value is likely to grow over time. Otherwise, long-term, you get worse with every trade.

Aside from that, your trade, as you point out, adds $3+m in salary. That puts us over the tax line. Yet, since it moves 4 guys & takes only 1 guy back, somehow we'd have to add 3 guys to our 15-man roster....

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

[gambitx777]

I just don't see a situation where beal asks out before the summer if at all.

Would a Wiggins + Oubre + Minny's 2021 1st round top-3 protected pick be good enough to have Beal + filler (Deni Avdija)?

Not even close.

First of all, Avdija is not filler. He's a rookie lotto pick.

The starting point in any Beal trade would be Wiseman + MIN pick + GSW pick + filler (either Oubre or Wiggins). And then it's a question of whether it's reasonable for the Wizards to ask for future picks or pick swaps.

Lately, I'd say our enthusiasm for trading Beal is waning. Beal keeps getting better and better, while professing his loyalty to the organization. Meanwhile, the Wizards have won 8 of their last 11. They now believe they are a likely playoff team, at least the play-in game.

Likewise, the enthusiasm from Golden State is probably declining too. Particularly when the filler probably must be Wiggins, and he is playing pretty well for you.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

What about something like this?

Boston out : nesmith, grant williams, williams III, 2021 seconds ,2022 second, 2023 second,
Boston in. : Bertans and lopez

Cavs out : drummand
Cavs in. : Bryant, ish, robinson

Wiz out : Bertans , lopez, ish, bryant , robinson
Wiz in. : Drummand, Nesmith, grant williams, williams III. 2021, 2022, 2023 second

I'd just do the first trade and be done with it. I'd be happy rolling with the Bryant/Williams tandem at center. I wouldn't ask for Grant Williams since they can absorb the salary differential without including him.

I don't see Boston giving up nearly that much for Bertans though. Heck, I'd do it without any of the 2nd round picks coming our way. Bertans + Lopez for Robert Williams and Nesmith is good for me. It gives us a rim protecting center, a young sharpshooter on a rookie contract, and cleans up any luxtax concerns.

[payitforward]

Lopez is expiring & at/near the end of his career. He has little trade value at $7+m. Thus, essentially, this amounts to Robert Williams & Nesmith (just picked @#14) for Bertans.

Last year, when Bertans was playing a lot better, Boston offered 1 pick (presumably either the #26 or the #30) for him, but not 2, which was Tommy's asking price.

What possible reason would they have to make this trade?

[NatP4]

That would be a terrible trade for Boston. I could see them giving up one B level asset for Bertans, not three picks and two former 1st round picks.

[nate33]

Last year, when Bertans was playing a lot better, Boston offered 1 pick (presumably either the #26 or the #30) for him, but not 2, which was Tommy's asking price.

What possible reason would they have to make this trade?

Over the past 16 games, since recovering from Covid, Bertans is playing even better than he did last year.

That doesn't mean Boston would take the deal. But I do think his trade value is unchanged from last year (other than the contract implications).

[Dat2U]

Last year, when Bertans was playing a lot better, Boston offered 1 pick (presumably either the #26 or the #30) for him, but not 2, which was Tommy's asking price.

What possible reason would they have to make this trade?

Over the past 16 games, since recovering from Covid, Bertans is playing even better than he did last year.

That doesn't mean Boston would take the deal. But I do think his trade value is unchanged from last year (other than the contract implications).

I'd put Bertans value at neutral. Teams put a premium shooting so I think he can easily be moved but that 5th year hurts and probably would give teams some pause about the long term implications. Maybe you can get some ones draft disappointment going into their 3rd or 4th year (like a TBJ or JRob) or protected late first that turns into 2 2nds.

Edit: Or swap him for another overpaid rotation guy making similar money.

[nate33]

Last year, when Bertans was playing a lot better, Boston offered 1 pick (presumably either the #26 or the #30) for him, but not 2, which was Tommy's asking price.

What possible reason would they have to make this trade?

Over the past 16 games, since recovering from Covid, Bertans is playing even better than he did last year.

That doesn't mean Boston would take the deal. But I do think his trade value is unchanged from last year (other than the contract implications).

I'd put Bertans value at neutral. Teams put a premium shooting so I think he can easily be moved but that 5th year hurts and probably would give teams some pause about the long term implications. Maybe you can get some ones draft disappointment going into their 3rd or 4th year (like a TBJ or JRob) or protected late first that turns into 2 2nds.

Edit: Or swap him for another overpaid rotation guy making similar money.

I think that's about right. He's worth expiring contracts and a late 1st or high 2nd. Though I'd characterize that as positive value,
not neutral.

Note, that 5th year is only guaranteed for $5M, and that's only if he plays 75% of his games in his 4th year. So there's a little less risk of an injury turning that contract into a long term nightmare.

[pcbothwel]

Nate, his 5th year is also only 16M which is ~13% of the cap. Thats less than Oubre, Danny Green, etc. I dont think that last year is any risk, especially with the 75% guarantee.

[NatP4]

Can we trade Bertans&Neto to NOP for Ball&Hayes?

[payitforward]

Last year, when Bertans was playing a lot better, Boston offered 1 pick (presumably either the #26 or the #30) for him, but not 2, which was Tommy's asking price.

What possible reason would they have to make this trade?

Over the past 16 games, since recovering from Covid, Bertans is playing even better than he did last year.

That doesn't mean Boston would take the deal. But I do think his trade value is unchanged from last year (other than the contract implications).

I didn't mean to imply any change in his value as a player -- especially if the recent pattern continues, as I assume it will. But, do you think, right now, that we would be able to get a R1 pick for him?

His contract certainly would affect that question. Not to mention that it simply makes a trade more difficult to put together.

IOW, trade value is a different matter from value as a player. &, of course, that's what you mean by "contract implications."

If you feel you have a shot at a title, trading a low R1 pick (1 out of the 3 you have in the upcoming draft) for an expiring, moderately-priced sharpshooter presents a totally different decision process from the one presented this time, in which your team is not contending, you take on an expensive 5-year contract, & you're giving up Robert Williams & I forget who/what else was included!

edit: oh yeah, the guy you picked #14 3 months ago!

To put it another way: "what possible reason would they have to make this trade?"

[Kanyewest]

If Collins is so good, why is Atlanta no better than us?

If you match up best player to best player, 2nd best to 2nd best, etc., they're better down the line at everything except Beal versus Trae:

Trae < Beal
Collins > Westbrook
Hunter > Hachimura
Capela > Lopez/Wagner
Gallinari = Bertans
Huerter > Avdija
Bogdanovic > Mathews
Reddish > Bonga

Being without Hunter has hurt them. They were 12-9 when Hunter was in the lineup.

Also in terms of point differential, the Hawks have a point differential of +.2 (offense: 112.6 def:112.4 while the Wizards have a -4.3 (Off: 114.8 Def:119.1).

Perhaps the units of Collins and Capella while good defensively are a bit redundant when they play together. The Hawks have also lost several close games, where the Wizards may have benefited from some close wins (maybe it comes down to the fact the Wizards have better closing lineups).

[payitforward]

Over the past 16 games, since recovering from Covid, Bertans is playing even better than he did last year.

That doesn't mean Boston would take the deal. But I do think his trade value is unchanged from last year (other than the contract implications).

I'd put Bertans value at neutral. Teams put a premium shooting so I think he can easily be moved but that 5th year hurts and probably would give teams some pause about the long term implications. Maybe you can get some ones draft disappointment going into their 3rd or 4th year (like a TBJ or JRob) or protected late first that turns into 2 2nds.

Edit: Or swap him for another overpaid rotation guy making similar money.

I think that's about right. He's worth expiring contracts and a late 1st or high 2nd. Though I'd characterize that as positive value,
not neutral.

Note, that 5th year is only guaranteed for $5M, and that's only if he plays 75% of his games in his 4th year. So there's a little less risk of an injury turning that contract into a long term nightmare.

"Neutral: may mean unchanged from last year. Not sure what it could mean otherwise.

"Expiring contracts" would be required to make a trade work that had the same net effect as the rumored trade w/ Boston last year. If that were true, it would indicate that a 5 year $80m contract (w/ a little protection) had no effect on his real trade value.

Maybe, but I find that hard to believe -- there are a lot more scenarios for a trade last year than in the current situation. More scenarios means more teams that could be interested, which means you get more for what you're trading.

Dat is suggesting you could get a player like Jerome Robinson. Not a R1 pick.

[NatP4]

Definitely think we could get an expiring contract and a lottery protected 1st from a contending team for Bertans.

Something like the trade the cavs made for Kyle Korver a couple years back.

[payitforward]

If Collins is so good, why is Atlanta no better than us?

If you match up best player to best player, 2nd best to 2nd best, etc., they're better down the line at everything except Beal versus Trae:

Trae < Beal
Collins > Westbrook
Hunter > Hachimura
Capela > Lopez/Wagner
Gallinari = Bertans
Huerter > Avdija
Bogdanovic > Mathews
Reddish > Bonga

Being without Hunter has hurt them. They were 12-9 when Hunter was in the lineup.

Also in terms of point differential, the Hawks have a point differential of +.2 (offense: 112.6 def:112.4 while the Wizards have a -4.3 (Off: 114.8 Def:119.1).

Perhaps the units of Collins and Capella while good defensively are a bit redundant when they play together. The Hawks have also lost several close games, where the Wizards may have benefited from some close wins (maybe it comes down to the fact the Wizards have better closing lineups).

The point differential suffices -- not to mention that only a few days ago nate wrote "we have won some games we shouldn't have won."

Btw, I'm surprised that you think Bogdanovic has been better than Mathews, nate. I'd say Mathews has been a lot better than Bogdanovic; it isn't even close, really.

The 2 guys score virtually the same # of points per 40 minutes, but Mathews TS% is 64.9%, whereas Bogdanovic is at 53.7%. A huge difference.

If you look next at offensive boards, turnovers & steals, again the difference is enormous. Bogdanovic is the better defensive rebounder & gets more assists, but it's not nearly enough to make up for the other stuff.

[payitforward]

This guy predicts (or at least suggests) Robinson for McGee: https://hoopshabit.com/2021/02/11/one-prediction-nba-team-trade-deadline/4/

It would be fun. But... what's in it for Cleveland?

[nate33]

"Neutral: may mean unchanged from last year. Not sure what it could mean otherwise.

I think of neutral as being worth expiring contracts.

If a team will trade for your guy and give nothing back but expiring contracts and/or cap room, your guy has neutral value. The trade market values your guy at roughly the same cost as a free agent (since the alternative to trading for your guy is to acquire a free agent in the offseason).

Positive value is if they'll give you additional assets in addition to expiring contracts/cap room in exchange for your guy. And when I say "the trade market", I mean the one team in the league who values your asset the most. If 28 teams in the league wouldn't take on Bertans if you put a gun to their head, but one team will give you a first round pick and an expiring for him, then Bertans' value is a 1st round pick and an expiring.

[nate33]

This guy predicts (or at least suggests) Robinson for McGee: https://hoopshabit.com/2021/02/11/one-prediction-nba-team-trade-deadline/4/

It would be fun. But... what's in it for Cleveland?

Why do we need a 4th center?

The value is good because Robinson is worthless and McGee has some marginal value. I'd do that trade and immediately flip McGee for anything I could get. I think a handful of playoff teams wouldn't mind one more serviceable backup center on the roster.

[nate33]

Running the Tankathon lottery simulator, I gotta admit that it's psychologically less painful to have the 7th worst record rather than the a bottom 3-4 ranking. As a bottom 3-4 team, it seems that, more often than not, you are disappointed as you find yourself falling to the 5th or 6th pick more often than you think you should be.

But when you have the 7th worst record, it feels like you are moving up to the top 4 with surprising regularity. Meanwhile, the worst case scenario tends to be a fall from 7th to 8th, which doesn't seem so bad.

[doclinkin]

Running the Tankathon lottery simulator, I gotta admit that it's psychologically less painful to have the 7th worst record rather than the a bottom 3-4 ranking. As a bottom 3-4 team, it seems that, more often than not, you are disappointed as you find yourself falling to the 5th or 6th pick more often than you think you should be.

But when you have the 7th worst record, it feels like you are moving up to the top 4 with surprising regularity. Meanwhile, the worst case scenario tends to be a fall from 7th to 8th, which doesn't seem so bad.

clearly nate has way too much time on his hands right now.

Hmm. do we know when the lottery is supposed to be?