Official Trade Thread -- Part XL

[nate33]

Lucky you, your hope has come true. You are wrong about Bryant. Front to back & top to bottom.

Bryant is NOT a good defender, that is true. But, he's not as bad as people seem to want to say he is. & he is an outstanding offensive player. Overall, at his salary, he is one of the best players we have on the team.

What does it mean to describe "the games where he looks like a legit threat from three" when last year he shot it at almost 41%?? This year he started out at 43%. He also blocks 35% more shots than an average NBA Center.

I get the argument that we can't win with Bryant as a starter. But I disagree completely with the notion that he is empty stats fools gold. Bryant is an exceptional offensive player. His absence is a big reason why our offense went from 15th last year to 26th this year. I very much want Bryant back next year as a 22 mpg backup center to help carry the 2nd unit offense. Gafford can start and play about 26 minutes a game.

I believe next year is the last year of his deal. If Ted is strict about the luxury tax and with Rui's contract coming up, I hope they let him go or move him

If he is a 20 mpg backup next year, I don't expect his new contract in 2022 to be very expensive.

[payitforward]

Lucky you, your hope has come true. You are wrong about Bryant. Front to back & top to bottom.

Bryant is NOT a good defender, that is true. But, he's not as bad as people seem to want to say he is. & he is an outstanding offensive player. Overall, at his salary, he is one of the best players we have on the team.

What does it mean to describe "the games where he looks like a legit threat from three" when last year he shot it at almost 41%?? This year he started out at 43%. He also blocks 35% more shots than an average NBA Center.

I get the argument that we can't win with Bryant as a starter. But I disagree completely with the notion that he is empty stats fools gold. Bryant is an exceptional offensive player. His absence is a big reason why our offense went from 15th last year to 26th this year. I very much want Bryant back next year as a 22 mpg backup center to help carry the 2nd unit offense. Gafford can start and play about 26 minutes a game.

I believe next year is the last year of his deal. If Ted is strict about the luxury tax and with Rui's contract coming up, I hope they let him go or move him

Well that would certainly be the Wizards way; I agree with that!

Especially the part about managing salary to make sure we can keep Rui -- after all, Thomas Bryant is all of 6 months older than Rui Hachimura, so why does it matter that he's about 10 times as good a player?

Good God!

[payitforward]

I believe next year is the last year of his (Bryant's) deal. If Ted is strict about the luxury tax and with Rui's contract coming up, I hope they let him go or move him

If he is a 20 mpg backup next year, I don't expect his new contract in 2022 to be very expensive.

Davis Bertans went from "a 20 minute backup" to $16m a year in record time.

Overall productivity: Thomas Bryant is better than Davis Bertans, he is better than Rui Hachimura, he is better than Brown was his 2d year (when he was quite good).

Thomas Bryant is an extremely high-quality NBA player. It would be idiotic to let him go. Fortunately, Tommy Sheppard has a high regard for him, so I don't think it'll happen.

[NYG]

with the hope that Brooks is as bad of coach as we all assume.

You think he's getting let go? Which coach is the right fit? I think a guy like D'Antoni could really get creative with Westbrook/Beal/Avdija/Bertans/Rui/Bryant.

[NYG]

What would it take for the Wizards to feel comfortable trading Beal? If they offer an extension and he doesn't accept... is that enough to start looking or would you give it one more go with this team and hope it comes together next year?

For the Wizards organization? Nothing reasonable this offseason.
I think they run it back next year with a full offseason with the hope that Brooks is as bad of coach as we all assume. Russ and Beal are clearly the engine to it all, but their is belief that our depth is better than advertised and Brooks simply doesnt allow guys like Winston, Bonga, Mathews, etc. to contribute.

I fully expect that the path with be simple going into the ASB next year.
1) Be a playoff team and run the Beal train into the offseason
2) Crash and burn and trade him at the deadline

Beal's very loyal, but it's also not reasonable to expect him to stay if they don't have any success. So, they've gotta make the playoffs and make a decent showing in them. And they've gotta show some improvement next season. That might lead them to trade their pick for a veteran - because they'll assume Beal would want them to. Otoh, with salary cap restraints, that might not be realistic or smart, but a young veteran still in his rookie contract might be what they try to acquire.

As a non-Wizards fan, the hard part for Washington is matching salary without negating the value of the pick in the process. What would the Wizards be looking for in a trade?

[payitforward]

I tell you what, let's turn it around: what would be a deal you think the Knicks could do that would get Bradley Beal on your roster -- while making it worth our while to trade him.

It's easy to think "wow... that team is really in a bind; we should be able to get player X for below his real value." But, the thought is always completely incorrect.

Why? B/c if it's easy for you, then it's easy for a bunch of other teams too. Which means there's a market. Which means that every team is competing with every other team that would like to acquire Player X. Which means that he doesn't get acquired at below value.

So... what do you want to put on offer?

[9 and 20]

The best the Knicks could do would be something built around RJ Barrett and Quickley. Maybe Mitchell Robinson too? And then some kind of draft pick exchange.

I like the idea of Gafford and Mitchell Robinson at C for us. Play each guy 24 minutes.

It would leave the Knicks in decent shape with Randle and Beal to build around, then all of their secondary guys.

[9 and 20]

With Bryant - nobody disputes that he's a good offensive player. It's just harder to play team defense with a (relatively) defensively weak C. It's (again relatively) easy to play someone like Bertans on the wings, or even multiple guys like Bertans on the wings, but you can't have Bryant protecting the rim, then.

I have no advanced statistics on this. It's one guy's opinion on a message board.

[payitforward]

3 points I think are key:

1. In a capped league the idea is to get the most productivity you can for the $$$ they let you spend. This is the single most important goal.

2. Bryant is outstanding value for the $$ he earns. The Wizards are extremely constrained salary-wise. We are not going to be able to replace Thomas Bryant with a FA who is -- overall -- as productive as he is for the $$ we pay him.

3. There are no perfect players. A player who can do what Bryant does on offense & is at that same level on defense is a star. Gets paid like a star too.

Now... if we can draft such a player (which means we have him on a rookie contract) -- great! Do it, & trade Thomas Bryant. In the mean time, extend Gafford as soon as we can & for as long as we can. But don't imagine that he replaces Bryant.

[payitforward]

2 other quick points, this time just my personal POV:

1. Look first at what a player can do, not what he can't do. Poster child: Davis Bertans.

2. Make cheap bets on upside. Poster child: Garrison Mathews. Ditto Bryant. Ditto Gafford. & this recent off-season, I wish we had signed Nathan Knight undrafted.

[gambitx777]

I think it would probably be the Dallas firsts the pistons seconds and 2 of their own firsts. Plus Barret, quickly, toppin, and filler if needed.

The best the Knicks could do would be something built around RJ Barrett and Quickley. Maybe Mitchell Robinson too? And then some kind of draft pick exchange.

I like the idea of Gafford and Mitchell Robinson at C for us. Play each guy 24 minutes.

It would leave the Knicks in decent shape with Randle and Beal to build around, then all of their secondary guys.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

I think it would probably be the Dallas firsts the pistons seconds and 2 of their own firsts. Plus Barret, quickly, toppin, and filler if needed.

So... that's

4 R1 picks
2 high R2 picks
R.J. Barrett
Immanuel Quickley
Obi Toppin
plus "filler"??

Do you think that's likely to appeal to them?

[gambitx777]

Being a big market team on the rise. Yes.
They are only trading 2 of their own picks away the others are extras. Toppin I doubt they would mind tossing in, then you got Barret while good isn't close to beals level yet and quickly while good also not even close.

They get beal, he would likely stay in new york they can keep rose and still have what another max spot plus some change and expections.

Beal is by a mile the best player in the deal. Plus with their cap situation I doubt they need filler they have so much cap too.

I think it would probably be the Dallas firsts the pistons seconds and 2 of their own firsts. Plus Barret, quickly, toppin, and filler if needed.

So... that's

4 R1 picks
2 high R2 picks
R.J. Barrett
Immanuel Quickley
Obi Toppin
plus "filler"??

Do you think that's likely to appeal to them?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

[9 and 20]

Payitforward, I agree with just about all of what you wrote. The only point I don't is on Bryant, specifically, where I just don't think his offensive output on paper matches his on-court, team-related output. I'm not saying he terrible or anything, but I'd happily trade Bryant for an inverse Thomas Bryant - really good on defense and just OK on offense. Those types of centers, though, are much more highly valued, it seems to me, because their impact on the team outweighs their on-paper output. I don't think, for example, the Pacers would trade Myles Turner for Bryant.

[9 and 20]

Being a big market team on the rise. Yes.
They are only trading 2 of their own picks away the others are extras. Toppin I doubt they would mind tossing in, then you got Barret while good isn't close to beals level yet and quickly while good also not even close.

They get beal, he would likely stay in new york they can keep rose and still have what another max spot plus some change and expections.

Beal is by a mile the best player in the deal. Plus with their cap situation I doubt they need filler they have so much cap too.

I think it would probably be the Dallas firsts the pistons seconds and 2 of their own firsts. Plus Barret, quickly, toppin, and filler if needed.

So... that's

4 R1 picks
2 high R2 picks
R.J. Barrett
Immanuel Quickley
Obi Toppin
plus "filler"??

Do you think that's likely to appeal to them?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

I'm not sure the Knicks would make that trade - that is a lot. I also don't think we'd want or need Obi Toppin - we have 2 young guys like him already in Deni and Rui.

[payitforward]

Payitforward, I agree with just about all of what you wrote....

Only in this case, or as a matter of principle?

...on Bryant, ...I just don't think his offensive output on paper matches his on-court, team-related output....

Can't let that pass, sorry. We are comparing the impact on their teams' ability to win games -- of what players do on the floor not on paper. & it's perfectly easy to understand what wins basketball games.

Spoiler:

To win a game, either you score more efficiently than the opponent or you get yourself more chances to score (more possessions) than the opponent.

That's it. Nothing else. Do both, & you cannot lose. Do neither, & you cannot win. Do one or the other, & you have a chance to win.

Moreover, the effect of, for example, a defensive rebound on the above can be & has been measured.

Then there's the effect on that of defense vs. offense

Spoiler:

In basketball -- unlike football & baseball for example -- defense & offense are linked dynamically & not easily separated. E.g. steals on defense result in high % offensive opportunities for your team. OTOH, giving the other team a basket on defense & then taking the ball out to start your offense results in the lowest % offensive possessions.

This also works the other way of course. Make a bucket, & the opponent has to take the ball out under his own basket -- you're more likely to defend that possession successfully than one in which you give your opponent a defensive rebound or (worse yet) a steal.

Thus, in basketball, an excellent offensive player is helping your defense -- even though that help doesn't show up on his own numbers. Conversely, an excellent defensive player is helping your offense.

At the level of individual-player skills, of course it's ideal for a guy at any position to be great on individual & team offense & on individual & team defense. It happens, but it's rare.

...I don't think, for example, the Pacers would trade Myles Turner for Bryant.

Well, the debate about Bryant has been ongoing since we picked him up. & the comparison/contrast of him & Myles Turner has also been a long-term subject here. People have arrived at their own personal conclusions -- by & large not subject to change! Here's my view:

Spoiler:

IMO, Myles Turner is over-rated. IMO, Thomas Bryant is under-rated. To tell the truth, I wouldn't trade Bryant for Turner straight up! I'm aware that puts me in a minority. &, of course, Bryant has now had a significant injury, which I'm leaving out of the picture.

Turner's biggest defensive skill is blocking shots. People absolutely love to see blocked shots. It's exciting, it's super-athletic, it's super-visible (unlike any number of other good things a player can do). Blocks get shown in highlight reels or on ESPN.

In a way, a block is the defensive equivalent of a dunk: people love dunks. But... a dunk is worth 2 points, period, it provides no more help winning a game than does an open midrange shot that people barely notice.

It's the same with blocked shots: almost all blocks go out of bounds, whereupon your opponent takes the ball out under your basket. You haven't had a big effect on the efficiency of that particular possession for the opponent. Some, to be sure. But overall a blocked shot is no more impactful than a defensive rebound.

Thus, because per 40 minutes last year Bryant & Turner had the same number of defensive boards + blocked shots, we'd have to look elsewhere for a reason to call Turner a better player. Yet, overall, looking at the rest of all the two players' numbers, Bryant is by far the better player.

&, if you want to say, for example, "Bryant is slower of foot than Turner, so he's not as good an individual defender," then you're going to have to listen to me say "Bryant got almost twice as many offensive boards as Turner, & Bryant had 84% more assists than Turner, & Bryant scored almost 30% more points than Turner -- at a TS% of 64.9% vs. Turner's 56.6%.

Not to mention that Turner is paid 2.2 times the money we pay Bryant.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

Let us not dance around it anymore, Bryant cannot and should not be the starting center for this team unless something drastic changes which I think is pure hopin-and-prayin at this point given the body of evidence. Bryant by-and-large seems like an empty stat guy. He has some performances that just knock you back (i.e., the perfect/near perfect games from the field in his first season here, the game against the Nets this season, the games were he looks like a legit threat from three, etc.) but then the bad comes and you just get that itching inclination that it's all fool's gold. Maybe I'm wrong and he'll get it, but I just haven't seen anything from him in terms of body language or development that would suggest otherwise. Hope I'm wrong.

Lucky you, your hope has come true. You are wrong about Bryant. Front to back & top to bottom.

Bryant is NOT a good defender, that is true. But, he's not as bad as people seem to want to say he is. & he is an outstanding offensive player. Overall, at his salary, he is one of the best players we have on the team.

What does it mean to describe "the games where he looks like a legit threat from three" when last year he shot it at almost 41%?? This year he started out at 43%. He also blocks 35% more shots than an average NBA Center.

I get the argument that we can't win with Bryant as a starter. But I disagree completely with the notion that he is empty stats fools gold. Bryant is an exceptional offensive player. His absence is a big reason why our offense went from 15th last year to 26th this year. I very much want Bryant back next year as a 22 mpg backup center to help carry the 2nd unit offense. Gafford can start and play about 26 minutes a game.

And that’s fine, I think he could feast off of subs and provide I nice kick off the bench I just don’t see him as a starter and we’ve been gifted Gafford. All I know is Bryant’s entire stint here we’ve been atrocious defensively and we’ve had a terrible record some of which has to do with having a gaping hole defensively at center. As far as the offense go, sure Bryant has got some talent but I’m not convinced his absence is what really has tanked our offensive efficiency.

I’d point more so towards to this team’s knack for absurdly bad turnovers (it’s not just Russ either and I put a lot of the blame of Brook’s on this because he’s too much of a veterans coach to hold people accountable), that our forwards are giving us little in the way of consistent offensive production, Brook’s insisting on giving players like Jerome Robinson or Ish Smith the green light because he thinks they’re “The Microwave” reincarnate, Brook’s penchant to not play Matthews, and basically anything else you can think of regarding Brook’s coaching philosophy.

[nate33]

And that’s fine, I think he could feast off of subs and provide I nice kick off the bench I just don’t see him as a starter and we’ve been gifted Gafford. All I know is Bryant’s entire stint here we’ve been atrocious defensively and we’ve had a terrible record some of which has to do with having a gaping hole defensively at center. As far as the offense go, sure Bryant has got some talent but I’m not convinced his absence is what really has tanked our offensive efficiency.

I’d point more so towards to this team’s knack for absurdly bad turnovers (it’s not just Russ either and I put a lot of the blame of Brook’s on this because he’s too much of a veterans coach to hold people accountable), that our forwards are giving us little in the way of consistent offensive production, Brook’s insisting on giving players like Jerome Robinson or Ish Smith the green light because he thinks they’re “The Microwave” reincarnate, Brook’s penchant to not play Matthews, and basically anything else you can think of regarding Brook’s coaching philosophy.

We had Brooks last year too. And last year our forwards were worse offensively with Rui a rookie and Bonga in place of Avdija. I suppose one could argue that Westbrook was worse than Thomas/Napier on offense, but I think the bigger difference was the lack of production at center and more importantly, the lack of spacing.

[Dat2U]

I get the argument that we can't win with Bryant as a starter. But I disagree completely with the notion that he is empty stats fools gold. Bryant is an exceptional offensive player. His absence is a big reason why our offense went from 15th last year to 26th this year. I very much want Bryant back next year as a 22 mpg backup center to help carry the 2nd unit offense. Gafford can start and play about 26 minutes a game.

I believe next year is the last year of his deal. If Ted is strict about the luxury tax and with Rui's contract coming up, I hope they let him go or move him

Well that would certainly be the Wizards way; I agree with that!

Especially the part about managing salary to make sure we can keep Rui -- after all, Thomas Bryant is all of 6 months older than Rui Hachimura, so why does it matter that he's about 10 times as good a player?

Good God!

Comparing Cs to non-Cs is a silly exercise and a terrible way to determine true value.

[Dark Faze]

Payitforward, I agree with just about all of what you wrote. The only point I don't is on Bryant, specifically, where I just don't think his offensive output on paper matches his on-court, team-related output. I'm not saying he terrible or anything, but I'd happily trade Bryant for an inverse Thomas Bryant - really good on defense and just OK on offense. Those types of centers, though, are much more highly valued, it seems to me, because their impact on the team outweighs their on-paper output. I don't think, for example, the Pacers would trade Myles Turner for Bryant.

There were people who legitimately didn't think Turner was worth 18 million a year, which was bizarre to me. He was/is the perfect archetype at center for this team. He won't be available at this point, but I like a rotation of Gafford/Bryant. What this team ultimately needs is better value at the 3/4. Next year is a huge year for Rui. He had some legitimate excuses this year, but if things aren't looking good by the break then I'll probably want to move him. My long term hope at the moment is to see Deni develop because his potential on the glass and defensively at the 4 is quite high. Offensively it could break either way. He'll need to work incredibly hard this off-season.