Grade the Kennard trade!

[Manocad]

The fact that it was a three team trade is moot, really. Kennard was the player going out and Bey was the player coming in. Whether that was a direct two-team swap or a three-team deal doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the Pistons made a good move; only Bey and Kennard need to be considered.

It's not moot in the terms of the existing conversation as to who won and who lost the trade, which is a misguided conversation I don't think is worth having. It wasn't so simple as Bey-for-Kennard. The Clippers didn't trade away Bey and were not going to have had Bey. Bey was never a factor for them, and they never owned the draft pick that was used to select him.

I agree that it was a good trade for the Pistons; that's not the point I'm arguing.

I get what you're saying but the point of the thread, especially when considering the poll options, was to grade the trade relative to how it worked out for the Pistons, i.e. was the better value for the Pistons getting Bey or was the better value keeping Kennard at $16M/year for four years plus four future second round picks. Is it worth having the conversation after the fact when it's over and done with? Not really, but that's what a message board is for. If all us weren't 30-something losers living in our mother's basement and were instead out racing our convertibles around town and picking up hot babes who hopefully would get drunk and naked on our boats, message boards wouldn't exist.

[DetroitSho]

i was definitely a fan of kennard's but understood his limitations. at the time of the trade i totally understood why they did it - it didn't make any sense for our timeline to pay role players/sixth men types.

i just didn't think he'd be anywhere this bad for the clippers though. i thought he'd at least be a floor spacer for kawhi/george if not a spark plug/facilitator off the bench. i haven't watched a minute of the clippers this year, does anyone know if it is his defense keeping him out of the rotation?

also little fun fact: the clippers' three best shooters from 3 this season (by percentage) are marcus morris, luke kennard and reggie jackson.

There are former Pistons playing prominent roles all throughout the playoffs. Its crazy.

Cause now they're round pegs in round holes and not miscast!

Happy for them all to do well and hope they're happy where they are.

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

Those 3 guys are playing the exact roles as they were here. Who are you thinking was miscast and isn't now?

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[DetroitSho]

Detroit got suckered again by LAC. They were supposedly so concerned about Kennard's knees they needed four second round picks. Now mere weeks later they give Kennard and his knees $64M.

We got completely destroyed in absolutely every trade we did this offseason.

And this is why you shouldn't speak in absolutes, folks. Crow, serving for two, please.

I disagree, and I confirm what I said back there. We got destroyed in every trade. Just because Kennard got paid big money won't change it. We got lucky that Bey fell in our lap, but the price we paid for the #19 pick is still absurd.

And here folks, is what we call the DOUBLE DOWN.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[chrbal]

Cause now they're round pegs in round holes and not miscast!

Happy for them all to do well and hope they're happy where they are.

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

Explain why/how you think this

[bstein14]

There are former Pistons playing prominent roles all throughout the playoffs. Its crazy.

Cause now they're round pegs in round holes and not miscast!

Happy for them all to do well and hope they're happy where they are.

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

Those 3 guys are playing the exact roles as they were here. Who are you thinking was miscast and isn't now?

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

Jackson, Kennard, and Morris are a great bench unit. Throw Drummond and Stanley Johnson in there too and you've got yourself the best bench in the NBA. Also, one of the worst starting 5's. As guy's that bring offense off the bench and have to defend 2nd unit guys they are great. Even when Reggie was a FA I didn't want him back, but admitted he would be a good scoring PG off the bench for some team.

[Pharaoh]

Cause now they're round pegs in round holes and not miscast!

Happy for them all to do well and hope they're happy where they are.

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

Explain why/how you think this

Drummond is not the centrepiece

Reggie is not the starting PG responsible for all the things that go with that job.

Morris is at most a 4th option

Luke isn't playing but if he was he'd be a shooter and not much else.

We expected them to be more than what they actually are and it set us back a lot if years.

Kinda funny that we traded Tobias for Blake when if you look at it Harris was the one guy we should have kept

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

[vege]

And this is why you shouldn't speak in absolutes, folks. Crow, serving for two, please.

I disagree, and I confirm what I said back there. We got destroyed in every trade. Just because Kennard got paid big money won't change it. We got lucky that Bey fell in our lap, but the price we paid for the #19 pick is still absurd.

Bey didn't fall in the Pistons' lap. They traded for him after he was drafted by Brooklyn meaning they traded for a specific player; they didn't get lucky. Given what 2nd rounders are typically valued at by the league compared to the value Bey appears to have, added to the fact that it's not the Pistons paying Kennard $16M/year to hobble around and score 8 points a game while giving up 12, it turned out this was an absolute grand slam of a deal for the Pistons. Which is part of how you evaluate a trade--the actual outcome. So to claim they got "destroyed" in this trade was premature, and it asserts that the Pistons would be far better off to not have Bey, still have four future second round picks, and have Kennard under contract for four more years. That is utterly ridiculous by anyone's standards but yours.

Take your medicine for once and maybe everyone won't break your balls all the time. Or just do this next time--say "I think this is a bad trade for Detroit and here's why." If you present some logical reasons that back up your speculation no one is going to give you a hard time if it turns out wrong.

I disagree with so many things here. Let's start for the most important part, the end. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, this would be boring if we all agree about everything. Nothing gives people the right to personal attack me. Period.

As for your argument. According to your logic, we can't evaluate the trade yet, we need to wait and see who those 2nd round picks will end up being, and wait for their carreers, I mean, what if one of those 2nds becomes an all star and Bey never make an all star game? Then it was a bad trade? Or is it ok to just value the player we picked at #19 and not the 2nds?

Shall we evaluate an older trade using your logic here? We gave up a lotto pick to dump Ben Gordon's contract. Using this logic, it was a fantastic trade, because the player drafted with that pick had an irrelevant career, so we gave up almost nothing and we got out of BG's bad money.

The fact is, we gave up Kennard (a young player that LAC wanted and liked, they paid him big money and that's proof that not only they liked him, but possibly more teams wanted him, since he was paid so much money) and 4 more likely than not good/early 2nds, that's absurd value for the #19 pick. We got destroyed here.

[Manocad]

I disagree, and I confirm what I said back there. We got destroyed in every trade. Just because Kennard got paid big money won't change it. We got lucky that Bey fell in our lap, but the price we paid for the #19 pick is still absurd.

Bey didn't fall in the Pistons' lap. They traded for him after he was drafted by Brooklyn meaning they traded for a specific player; they didn't get lucky. Given what 2nd rounders are typically valued at by the league compared to the value Bey appears to have, added to the fact that it's not the Pistons paying Kennard $16M/year to hobble around and score 8 points a game while giving up 12, it turned out this was an absolute grand slam of a deal for the Pistons. Which is part of how you evaluate a trade--the actual outcome. So to claim they got "destroyed" in this trade was premature, and it asserts that the Pistons would be far better off to not have Bey, still have four future second round picks, and have Kennard under contract for four more years. That is utterly ridiculous by anyone's standards but yours.

Take your medicine for once and maybe everyone won't break your balls all the time. Or just do this next time--say "I think this is a bad trade for Detroit and here's why." If you present some logical reasons that back up your speculation no one is going to give you a hard time if it turns out wrong.

I disagree with so many things here. Let's start for the most important part, the end. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, this would be boring if we all agree about everything. Nothing gives people the right to personal attack me. Period.

As for your argument. According to your logic, we can't evaluate the trade yet, we need to wait and see who those 2nd round picks will end up being, and wait for their carreers, I mean, what if one of those 2nds becomes an all star and Bey never make an all star game? Then it was a bad trade? Or is it ok to just value the player we picked at #19 and not the 2nds?

Shall we evaluate an older trade using your logic here? We gave up a lotto pick to dump Ben Gordon's contract. Using this logic, it was a fantastic trade, because the player drafted with that pick had an irrelevant career, so we gave up almost nothing and we got out of BG's bad money.

The fact is, we gave up Kennard (a young player that LAC wanted and liked, they paid him big money and that's proof that not only they liked him, but possibly more teams wanted him, since he was paid so much money) and 4 more likely than not good/early 2nds, that's absurd value for the #19 pick. We got destroyed here.

Don't straw man. I never claimed the results of the trade were defined by the entire career of both players. We're talking about the very next season here, and quite frankly if you want to bet that Kennard will go on to have a better career than Bey I'll be more than happy to wager any amount of money you want to bet on that one.

As I stated previously, "We got destroyed here" would emphatically imply that you'd MUCH rather have Kennard back on a 4 year, $64 million contract and those four second round picks rather than Bey. Is that true? Answer that question; that's all it takes to grade this trade.

[vege]

Bey didn't fall in the Pistons' lap. They traded for him after he was drafted by Brooklyn meaning they traded for a specific player; they didn't get lucky. Given what 2nd rounders are typically valued at by the league compared to the value Bey appears to have, added to the fact that it's not the Pistons paying Kennard $16M/year to hobble around and score 8 points a game while giving up 12, it turned out this was an absolute grand slam of a deal for the Pistons. Which is part of how you evaluate a trade--the actual outcome. So to claim they got "destroyed" in this trade was premature, and it asserts that the Pistons would be far better off to not have Bey, still have four future second round picks, and have Kennard under contract for four more years. That is utterly ridiculous by anyone's standards but yours.

Take your medicine for once and maybe everyone won't break your balls all the time. Or just do this next time--say "I think this is a bad trade for Detroit and here's why." If you present some logical reasons that back up your speculation no one is going to give you a hard time if it turns out wrong.

I disagree with so many things here. Let's start for the most important part, the end. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, this would be boring if we all agree about everything. Nothing gives people the right to personal attack me. Period.

As for your argument. According to your logic, we can't evaluate the trade yet, we need to wait and see who those 2nd round picks will end up being, and wait for their carreers, I mean, what if one of those 2nds becomes an all star and Bey never make an all star game? Then it was a bad trade? Or is it ok to just value the player we picked at #19 and not the 2nds?

Shall we evaluate an older trade using your logic here? We gave up a lotto pick to dump Ben Gordon's contract. Using this logic, it was a fantastic trade, because the player drafted with that pick had an irrelevant career, so we gave up almost nothing and we got out of BG's bad money.

The fact is, we gave up Kennard (a young player that LAC wanted and liked, they paid him big money and that's proof that not only they liked him, but possibly more teams wanted him, since he was paid so much money) and 4 more likely than not good/early 2nds, that's absurd value for the #19 pick. We got destroyed here.

Don't straw man. I never claimed the results of the trade were defined by the entire career of both players. We're talking about the very next season here, and quite frankly if you want to bet that Kennard will go on to have a better career than Bey I'll be more than happy to wager any amount of money you want to bet on that one.

As I stated previously, "We got destroyed here" would emphatically imply that you'd MUCH rather have Kennard back on a 4 year, $64 million contract and those four second round picks rather than Bey. Is that true? Answer that question; that's all it takes to grade this trade.

The trade was not Kennard vs Bey. It was Kennard on a rookie deal + 4 2nds for the #19 pick.

[Snakebites]

I disagree with so many things here. Let's start for the most important part, the end. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, this would be boring if we all agree about everything. Nothing gives people the right to personal attack me. Period.

As for your argument. According to your logic, we can't evaluate the trade yet, we need to wait and see who those 2nd round picks will end up being, and wait for their carreers, I mean, what if one of those 2nds becomes an all star and Bey never make an all star game? Then it was a bad trade? Or is it ok to just value the player we picked at #19 and not the 2nds?

Shall we evaluate an older trade using your logic here? We gave up a lotto pick to dump Ben Gordon's contract. Using this logic, it was a fantastic trade, because the player drafted with that pick had an irrelevant career, so we gave up almost nothing and we got out of BG's bad money.

The fact is, we gave up Kennard (a young player that LAC wanted and liked, they paid him big money and that's proof that not only they liked him, but possibly more teams wanted him, since he was paid so much money) and 4 more likely than not good/early 2nds, that's absurd value for the #19 pick. We got destroyed here.

Don't straw man. I never claimed the results of the trade were defined by the entire career of both players. We're talking about the very next season here, and quite frankly if you want to bet that Kennard will go on to have a better career than Bey I'll be more than happy to wager any amount of money you want to bet on that one.

As I stated previously, "We got destroyed here" would emphatically imply that you'd MUCH rather have Kennard back on a 4 year, $64 million contract and those four second round picks rather than Bey. Is that true? Answer that question; that's all it takes to grade this trade.

The trade was not Kennard vs Bey. It was Kennard on a rookie deal + 4 2nds for the #19 pick.

See, even you know you’re on unstable ground here.

I know that because you add in “on a rookie deal” to Kennard’s description, knowing full well that while technically correct that doesn’t really capture the full picture of Kennard’s contract situation at that time.

[zeebneeb]

1st man-"Its raining outside"

2nd man-"No its not"(while standing in the rain)

Not sure there's much of a discussion there.

[tmorgan]

A pick is worth who is available with it and who you take with it.

Can someone remind me WHEN we made the deal to acquire #19? Was it with #19 on the clock, or in advance? If it was on the clock, Weaver undeniably made a very good deal. If it was in advance, there was more luck involved.

[Manocad]

I disagree with so many things here. Let's start for the most important part, the end. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, this would be boring if we all agree about everything. Nothing gives people the right to personal attack me. Period.

As for your argument. According to your logic, we can't evaluate the trade yet, we need to wait and see who those 2nd round picks will end up being, and wait for their carreers, I mean, what if one of those 2nds becomes an all star and Bey never make an all star game? Then it was a bad trade? Or is it ok to just value the player we picked at #19 and not the 2nds?

Shall we evaluate an older trade using your logic here? We gave up a lotto pick to dump Ben Gordon's contract. Using this logic, it was a fantastic trade, because the player drafted with that pick had an irrelevant career, so we gave up almost nothing and we got out of BG's bad money.

The fact is, we gave up Kennard (a young player that LAC wanted and liked, they paid him big money and that's proof that not only they liked him, but possibly more teams wanted him, since he was paid so much money) and 4 more likely than not good/early 2nds, that's absurd value for the #19 pick. We got destroyed here.

Don't straw man. I never claimed the results of the trade were defined by the entire career of both players. We're talking about the very next season here, and quite frankly if you want to bet that Kennard will go on to have a better career than Bey I'll be more than happy to wager any amount of money you want to bet on that one.

As I stated previously, "We got destroyed here" would emphatically imply that you'd MUCH rather have Kennard back on a 4 year, $64 million contract and those four second round picks rather than Bey. Is that true? Answer that question; that's all it takes to grade this trade.

The trade was not Kennard vs Bey. It was Kennard on a rookie deal + 4 2nds for the #19 pick.

Which completely overlooks the possibility that the trade was made specifically so Weaver could take Bey. And it’s not like that doesn’t happen during drafts ALL THE TIME. Why you insist that it was a totally blind move on Weaver’s part is beyond me, but whatever.

[Manocad]

A pick is worth who is available with it and who you take with it.

Can someone remind me WHEN we made the deal to acquire #19? Was it with #19 on the clock, or in advance? If it was on the clock, Weaver undeniably made a very good deal. If it was in advance, there was more luck involved.

FINALLY. I just found verification of what I thought was true but wasn’t 100% certain that my memory was correct.

Saddiq Bey WAS DRAFTED BY BROOKLYN. He was then traded to Detroit. That tells you everything you need to know right there, which was that obviously the deal was FOR SADDIQ BEY. No if’s, ands or buts about it.

[Snakebites]

A pick is worth who is available with it and who you take with it.

Can someone remind me WHEN we made the deal to acquire #19? Was it with #19 on the clock, or in advance? If it was on the clock, Weaver undeniably made a very good deal. If it was in advance, there was more luck involved.

FINALLY. I just found verification of what I thought was true but wasn’t 100% certain that my memory was correct.

Saddiq Bey WAS DRAFTED BY BROOKLYN. He was then traded to Detroit. That tells you everything you need to know right there, which was that obviously the deal was FOR SADDIQ BEY. No if’s, ands or buts about it.

You are technically correct...the best kind of correct in terms of when the trade actually became official.

The trade was agreed to before the Nets made the pick, though. They made the pick on our behalf as part of the condition for the deal.

I don't think any of that matters when evaluating the deal now.

[440BB]

It's hard for me to fathom anybody faulting the Pistons in this trade. Trading a shooter with limited athleticism and knees that were problematic in the last year of his rookie deal for a player with Bey's abilities and potential, including throwing in those second rounders, was clearly better for the rebuilding Pistons.

Imagine if we kept Kennard, he had a so-so year and we either signed him for say $8 million a year or just let him go. Either way we would be worse off going forward.

The real winner in the trade was Luke Kennard. He cashed in, may end up with a ring and his knees held up enough to play almost 20 minutes a night.

[Pharaoh]

I doubt many know what 2nds we traded in the Luke deal...

Portland's 2023
Ours 2024
Ours 2025
Ours 2026

We're entering the 2021 Draft

IF in 2024 we our 2nd is between 31 and 44 we've got bigger issues!



Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

[bstein14]

We knew we were drafting #19 before we even picked Stewart at #16.

We might have even known before the draft started.

Previously Weaver made the comment about how there wasn't much difference in the draft between picks 4 and 14... that there was going to be 9 or 10 guys that were really close and they could really go anywhere in that group. I'm assuming he was hoping one or two of the guys he thought wasn't far off from the 4th or 5th pick was fall down to the mid teens.

The Shocker to a degree, was taking Stewart at #16 when a lot of mocks had him as a late first but we've seen how well that worked out and how much Weaver valued the work ethic and fight Stewart brought.

[DetroitSho]

Cause now they're round pegs in round holes and not miscast!

Happy for them all to do well and hope they're happy where they are.

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

Explain why/how you think this

Drummond is not the centrepiece

Reggie is not the starting PG responsible for all the things that go with that job.

Morris is at most a 4th option

Luke isn't playing but if he was he'd be a shooter and not much else.

We expected them to be more than what they actually are and it set us back a lot if years.

Kinda funny that we traded Tobias for Blake when if you look at it Harris was the one guy we should have kept

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

There's literally nothing about their play style now that's different than when they were here. Reggie started for the Clippers a great portion of the season. Morris is a starter. Drummond is a starter.

The only guy that was relied on to be a #1 option while here was Reggie and he actually did very admirable in that role before his knees betrayed him. Morris plays the same way for the Clips, except his shooting has improved so he's much better on the catch and shoot from 3 than he was here. So he doesn't spend as much time in the midrange as here.

Drummond literally plays the same way. Still tries to take his man off the dribble at times, still tries the jump hook in the post. We didn't ask for inefficient play from any of these guys. But when you put bona-fide superstars on the court with them, there's less opportunity for inefficient play and also the superstar's presence immediately makes these guys better.

Really Luke is actually worse than he was here oddly enough. If anything he's being miscast now.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[Pharaoh]

Explain why/how you think this

Drummond is not the centrepiece

Reggie is not the starting PG responsible for all the things that go with that job.

Morris is at most a 4th option

Luke isn't playing but if he was he'd be a shooter and not much else.

We expected them to be more than what they actually are and it set us back a lot if years.

Kinda funny that we traded Tobias for Blake when if you look at it Harris was the one guy we should have kept

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

There's literally nothing about their play style now that's different than when they were here. Reggie started for the Clippers a great portion of the season. Morris is a starter. Drummond is a starter.

The only guy that was relied on to be a #1 option while here was Reggie and he actually did very admirable in that role before his knees betrayed him. Morris plays the same way for the Clips, except his shooting has improved so he's much better on the catch and shoot from 3 than he was here. So he doesn't spend as much time in the midrange as here.

Drummond literally plays the same way. Still tries to take his man off the dribble at times, still tries the jump hook in the post. We didn't ask for inefficient play from any of these guys. But when you put bona-fide superstars on the court with them, there's less opportunity for inefficient play and also the superstar's presence immediately makes these guys better.

Really Luke is actually worse than he was here oddly enough. If anything he's being miscast now.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

Explain why/how you think this

Drummond is not the centrepiece

Reggie is not the starting PG responsible for all the things that go with that job.

Morris is at most a 4th option

Luke isn't playing but if he was he'd be a shooter and not much else.

We expected them to be more than what they actually are and it set us back a lot if years.

Kinda funny that we traded Tobias for Blake when if you look at it Harris was the one guy we should have kept

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

There's literally nothing about their play style now that's different than when they were here. Reggie started for the Clippers a great portion of the season. Morris is a starter. Drummond is a starter.

The only guy that was relied on to be a #1 option while here was Reggie and he actually did very admirable in that role before his knees betrayed him. Morris plays the same way for the Clips, except his shooting has improved so he's much better on the catch and shoot from 3 than he was here. So he doesn't spend as much time in the midrange as here.

Drummond literally plays the same way. Still tries to take his man off the dribble at times, still tries the jump hook in the post. We didn't ask for inefficient play from any of these guys. But when you put bona-fide superstars on the court with them, there's less opportunity for inefficient play and also the superstar's presence immediately makes these guys better.

Really Luke is actually worse than he was here oddly enough. If anything he's being miscast now.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

The bold shows the significant difference in their new roles vs the roles they all had here! You described it better than I did.

Dre & RJ were our 1/2 punch for a lot if the time. Now they're at most cast as the 3rd or 4th option.

Not really sure what you're arguing about

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app