Official Trade Thread - Part XXIX

[stevemcqueen1]

Trading Beal for anything other than an established star would be a huge mistake. It's only his third season, and while he's not nearly as efficient overall as you would like him to be, you can see how much talent he has, and I'd expect him to break out similar to Butler and Klay this year in the next 2 years or so. Beal's going to be a top 5 SG for years to come.

Even if he does develop into an all-star, why not get someone who is essentially the Beal of bigs?

Who?

[LyricalRico]

There is no question that Miller has been and will continue to put up better individual numbers than Sessions. But I'm not quite so convinced that it follows that Miller was better for the Wizards' 2nd unit than Sessions will be once he gets his bearings. Miller was great with post ups early in the season, but he didn't do much else to make things easier on his teammates. By the middle of the season, he stopped posting up so he really did nothing to make life easier on his teammates and it showed.

Sessions has been horrible too, but at least his ability to get into the lane could theoretically help his teammates. We'll have to see if they (and Wittman) adjust to his skill set.

[LyricalRico]

Our foundation is Wall and Beal, you all do realize that right?

Dude, reading that line while looking at your avatar almost made me do a spit take. LOL

[stevemcqueen1]

I wouldn't be. Depends on what you project Beal to be I guess. I think he's an AS and one of the best shooters in the league at age 23 and I think the league as a whole would probably agree with that projection. You never trade paper for coins if you don't have to. Trading a foundation player for forty cents on the dollar just to avoid paying him what would eventually be a way below market deal would be a disaster.

He is not one of the best shooters in the league. He is one of the better three point shooters in the league if he has the spacing to get his shot off, but it's not like he has a deadly quick release that scares defenses a la Korver, Curry or Thompson. He does nothing else at a better than an average level. His ball handling is below average. It would be horrible if he got paid $14M a year unless he improves dramatically. Right now he is no better than an average starter at his position.

I recognize that he is only 21 and is likely to improve somewhat, but I'm growing more and more dubious that he will be anything more than a 17ppg .560 TS% type of player - equivalent to maybe Hersey Hawkins. Honestly, is he really any better than a guy like Jodie Meeks? Do you pay Jodie Meeks $14M?

I'm not trying to bash Beal. I think he's a solid player and a legit starter in this league. That's a good thing. I just question the conventional wisdom that he is some kind of budding star. Other than the incredible 2nd half of his rookie season (of only about 20 games before injuries set in), I've seen little indication that he'll be anything more than an average starter. If his trade value is still sky high, we need to seriously consider cashing in on that value now.

Likely to improve somewhat? Nate he's going to improve continuously for the next 8 years or so. He'll be an AS long before he hits his peak. Hersey Hawkins couldn't score 17 PPG and shoot 40% from three in the NBA at 20 years old. Beal may seem like an average player by the numbers right now, but he is not an average talent. Once the various light bulbs start coming on for him he's going to make huge strides and his numbers will compare well to the star wings in the league. We've just gone through this exact same process with Wall. Two years ago to the day, remember how many posters were proposing Wall trades?

I'm going to keep repeating this, but I don't think the fans souring on Beal truly appreciate what his age really means. Young wings in particular take time to get good and a 21 year old SG is an NBA baby. There are still years to go before you can give up on him.

The trade you and Ruzious discussed isn't cashing in on sky high trade value either. It's selling low, trading a foundation piece to acquire a bunch of role players.

[Ruzious]

Steve, you know by now I think you (and I'm hoping opposing GM's agree with you) are putting way to many eggs in the Beal basket. He simply hasn't done enough to make assumptions that he's going to be what you assume he will be.

I think jumping ship on Beal is being very short sighted. Golden State made a lot of people doubt them when they gave Steph Curry his extension despite his ankle issues. When they refused to trade Klay Thompson for Love and then gave him a 70 million dollar extension, people killed them. Said he wasn't worth it and they weren't going to be able to get over the hump to contention. Well, now he's an All Star and they're one of the best teams in the league. GS chased Dwight Howard and struck out. But they're an elite team, even better than Houston for that matter, because they had drafted a foundational back court and they committed to building around them. And it worked.

Our foundation is Wall and Beal, you all do realize that right? There really is no better alternative to committing to building around those two and waiting for them to fully develop.

Anyway I had rock solid confidence in Wall from day one and he's rewarded that. I'm similarly confident in Beal. He's going to be an All Star by 23, 24 at the latest. Wings not named LeBron James and Kevin Durant take time. And the nature of the position and NBA offense has changed and Beal is a prototype.

This assumption that because Thompson made it and somebody else made it, Beal will automatically make it - is absurd. I know this is never going to get through to you - as you'll rationalize it away - you've already done that several times, but there have been a lot more guys who didn't make it. He hasn't improved this season or last season - in spite of your rationalizations that he has - which you don't need to repeat. He may indeed become an all-star caliber player, but the odds are he won't. Just assuming he will be because he wasn't awful at 20 makes no logical sense.

[stevemcqueen1]

Steve, you know by now I think you (and I'm hoping opposing GM's agree with you) are putting way to many eggs in the Beal basket. He simply hasn't done enough to make assumptions that he's going to be what you assume he will be.

I think jumping ship on Beal is being very short sighted. Golden State made a lot of people doubt them when they gave Steph Curry his extension despite his ankle issues. When they refused to trade Klay Thompson for Love and then gave him a 70 million dollar extension, people killed them. Said he wasn't worth it and they weren't going to be able to get over the hump to contention. Well, now he's an All Star and they're one of the best teams in the league. GS chased Dwight Howard and struck out. But they're an elite team, even better than Houston for that matter, because they had drafted a foundational back court and they committed to building around them. And it worked.

Our foundation is Wall and Beal, you all do realize that right? There really is no better alternative to committing to building around those two and waiting for them to fully develop.

Anyway I had rock solid confidence in Wall from day one and he's rewarded that. I'm similarly confident in Beal. He's going to be an All Star by 23, 24 at the latest. Wings not named LeBron James and Kevin Durant take time. And the nature of the position and NBA offense has changed and Beal is a prototype.

This assumption that because Thompson made it and somebody else made it, Beal will automatically make it - is absurd. I know this is never going to get through to you - as you'll rationalize it away - you've already done that several times, but there have been a lot more guys who didn't make it. He hasn't improved this season or last season - in spite of your rationalizations that he has - which you don't need to repeat. He may indeed become an all-star caliber player, but the odds are he won't. Just assuming he will be because he wasn't awful at 20 makes no logical sense.

My analysis and projection of Beal, like any of this type, is based on a gestalt. And I trust it. We'll see what happens. But in two years I bet I'm right about him and you're wrong.

[nate33]

Likely to improve somewhat? Nate he's going to improve continuously for the next 8 years or so. He'll be an AS long before he hits his peak. Hersey Hawkins couldn't score 17 PPG and shoot 40% from three in the NBA at 20 years old. Beal may seem like an average player by the numbers right now, but he is not an average talent. Once the various light bulbs start coming on for him he's going to make huge strides and his numbers will compare well to the star wings in the league. We've just gone through this exact same process with Wall. Two years ago to the day, remember how many posters were proposing Wall trades?

I'm going to keep repeating this, but I don't think the fans souring on Beal truly appreciate what his age really means. Young wings in particular take time to get good and a 21 year old SG is an NBA baby. There are still years to go before you can give up on him.

The trade you and Ruzious discussed isn't cashing in on sky high trade value either. It's selling low, trading a foundation piece to acquire a bunch of role players.

I question your assertion that young wings take a long time to succeed in this league. My sense is it's the opposite. Of all positions, SG and SF are the easiest to grasp. Guys usually do most of their developing by the 2nd or 3rd year, and then plateau after that. It's PG's and bigs that take a long time to develop.

I would like to see a study done to compare age versus years of experience. Beal is obviously still very young, so by that metric, he has a good chance to improve a great deal. On the other hand, he is now in his 3rd season. I don't recall many examples of wing players blowing up in the 4th or 5th season. Yes, Klay Thompson made a big jump in his 4th year, but guys like OJ Mayo, Eric Gordon, Latrell Sprewell, Tyreke Evans, Rip Hamilton, Dwayne Wade all pretty much peaked (or at least made "the jump") by their 3rd season.

[AFM]

And it took Joe Johnson 5 years to figure it out, after 2 years at Arkansas.

I went to look up Larry Hughes' stats, dude never figured it out. Wow, he was all over the place

[rockymac52]

How about Jimmy Butler this year? Very different players obviously, but just another very recent example.

I don't think anyone is saying just because Klay and guys like Butler made an incredible jump in year 4 that Beal is going to do it as well, those are just examples of players who did have a big jump several years into their career. The pro-Beal crowd (myself included) see all kinds of encouraging signs from him that make us believe in his future all-star ability.

[nate33]

And it took Joe Johnson 5 years to figure it out, after 2 years at Arkansas.

I went to look up Larry Hughes' stats, dude never figured it out. Wow, he was all over the place

At least Johnson started his progression curve in his 3rd season. His PER jumped by 2 points in each of his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th seasons. If you had Johnson on your team and saw the improvement from 2nd to 3rd year, you would want to keep him and see if it continued. When he improved again from 3rd to 4th, you'd continue to keep him. And so on.

Beal has showed no improvement at all. He's statistically the same player he was in his rookie year. The eye test indicates he has made some minor improvements in ball-handling and playmaking, but they're not really showing up in the numbers. There certainly hasn't been anything one would characterize as a "leap".

[nate33]

How about Jimmy Butler this year? Very different players obviously, but just another very recent example.

I don't think anyone is saying just because Klay and guys like Butler made an incredible jump in year 4 that Beal is going to do it as well, those are just examples of players who did have a big jump several years into their career. The pro-Beal crowd (myself included) see all kinds of encouraging signs from him that make us believe in his future all-star ability.

Jimmy Butler is a fair counterpoint, rockymac52. It's hard to argue with that one. Statistically, there was little reason in his 3rd season to expect that much of a jump in his 4th year.

[rockymac52]

And it took Joe Johnson 5 years to figure it out, after 2 years at Arkansas.

I went to look up Larry Hughes' stats, dude never figured it out. Wow, he was all over the place

At least Johnson started his progression curve in his 3rd season. His PER jumped by 2 points in each of his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th seasons. If you had Johnson on your team and saw the improvement from 2nd to 3rd year, you would want to keep him and see if it continued. When he improved again from 3rd to 4th, you'd continue to keep him. And so on.

Beal has showed no improvement at all. He's statistically the same player he was in his rookie year. The eye test indicates he has made some minor improvements in ball-handling and playmaking, but they're not really showing up in the numbers. There certainly hasn't been anything one would characterize as a "leap".

Right, but how many players come into the league, produce at a decent level, but never improve at all? Very few guys are good enough to have a long NBA career, but come into the league year one playing average, and continue playing at exactly that same level. People improve. At least we know his floor. And overall he's not that efficient yet, but if his floor is somebody who can take 4 threes a game and shoot 40% from 3, that's encouraging.

[rockymac52]

How about Jimmy Butler this year? Very different players obviously, but just another very recent example.

I don't think anyone is saying just because Klay and guys like Butler made an incredible jump in year 4 that Beal is going to do it as well, those are just examples of players who did have a big jump several years into their career. The pro-Beal crowd (myself included) see all kinds of encouraging signs from him that make us believe in his future all-star ability.

Jimmy Butler is a fair counterpoint, rockymac52. It's hard to argue with that one. Statistically, there was little reason in his 3rd season to expect that much of a jump in his 4th year.

I agree, I never saw this coming. Very few, if any, did. Just last year in the playoffs he was a huge liability because he couldn't contribute on offense. Look at him now. Definitely not the norm, and we can't blindly expect Beal to do the same, but it's still worth noting.

What about Ray Allen? Ray was better at scoring at the basket from a young age, but Beal is shooting even better than Ray did in his first three years.

You're right that PGs and big men probably have a lot more to learn and take more time to develop than wings, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take time for wings to develop as well.

Hell, look at James Harden. Would he have been a star from his rookie or sophomore season if he began with Houston instead of behind Durant and Westbrook? Hard to say. But even with OKC, he took some time to develop.

[nuposse04]

Chicago's developmental staff is also probably better then ours. Seriously, which young players outside of Wall really develop here? Porter has mad a significant statistical jump, but he was atrocious last season. I still maintain Beal, Porter and maybe even Seraphin could be better players had we a better developmental coaching staff. I believe Wall's ascension into a good guard is in spite of the current regime, not because of them.

[rockymac52]

Only 9 players have ever had over 300 made 3s while shooting over 40% from 3 in their first 3 seasons. Beal is one. Good company.

http://bkref.com/tiny/tR9GG

[nate33]

Only 9 players have ever had over 300 made 3s while shooting over 40% from 3 in their first 3 seasons. Beal is one. Good company.

http://bkref.com/tiny/tR9GG

I think much of this is just a consequence of the era we're in. I note that 6 of those 9 players accomplished the feat within the past decade when the 3-ball became a primary weapon. It's also worth noting that none of those players went on to become perennial all star type players except Curry. (The jury is still out on Thompson.) My fear is that Beal really is the next Wesley Person/Voshon Leonard/Anthony Morrow.

[stevemcqueen1]

Likely to improve somewhat? Nate he's going to improve continuously for the next 8 years or so. He'll be an AS long before he hits his peak. Hersey Hawkins couldn't score 17 PPG and shoot 40% from three in the NBA at 20 years old. Beal may seem like an average player by the numbers right now, but he is not an average talent. Once the various light bulbs start coming on for him he's going to make huge strides and his numbers will compare well to the star wings in the league. We've just gone through this exact same process with Wall. Two years ago to the day, remember how many posters were proposing Wall trades?

I'm going to keep repeating this, but I don't think the fans souring on Beal truly appreciate what his age really means. Young wings in particular take time to get good and a 21 year old SG is an NBA baby. There are still years to go before you can give up on him.

The trade you and Ruzious discussed isn't cashing in on sky high trade value either. It's selling low, trading a foundation piece to acquire a bunch of role players.

I question your assertion that young wings take a long time to succeed in this league. My sense is it's the opposite. Of all positions, SG and SF are the easiest to grasp. Guys usually do most of their developing by the 2nd or 3rd year, and then plateau after that. It's PG's and bigs that take a long time to develop.

I would like to see a study done to compare age versus years of experience. Beal is obviously still very young, so by that metric, he has a good chance to improve a great deal. On the other hand, he is now in his 3rd season. I don't recall many examples of wing players blowing up in the 4th or 5th season. Yes, Klay Thompson made a big jump in his 4th year, but guys like OJ Mayo, Eric Gordon, Latrell Sprewell, Tyreke Evans, Rip Hamilton, Dwayne Wade all pretty much peaked (or at least made "the jump") by their 3rd season.

Maybe we're using different definitions of success. I'm talking about playing at an AS level. We've seen a lot more PGs come in and play at that level early in their careers than wings. And the bigs that do it right off the bat, a lot of the time they're not actually good players yet, they're just putting up ridiculous numbers based off athleticism and motor: grabbing a ton of rebounds and scoring with high efficiency by playing very limited offensive roles where they catch the ball around the rim and shoot point blank. Wing is a finesse position with wide responsibility on both sides of the court.

I honestly can't really think of any 20, 21, or 22 year old wings out there just killing it like Wall/Irving/Westbrook/Lillard/Rose or Drummond/Davis/Griffin/Cousins did. There aren't many that are even holding down starting jobs. The things that a wing has to do well--off ball defense, off ball movement, passing, and especially shooting--these are the skills that take players a long time to learn to do at an NBA level because almost nobody comes in knowing how to do it at a really advanced level any more. And the young wings don't get to use possessions like young PGs do, so they don't prop up their numbers with volume.

I don't think you'll be able to find a study of experience that doesn't involve age. Players come in at different ages and I think age is the most relevant. a rookie Wall is not the same as a rookie Beal, he was a year older and a year more mature and he still played a year more highly competitive basketball and I think it mattered. Perhaps a useful question is do older rookies play better than younger rookies? Can the value of extra pre-NBA experience be quantified?

The sample of players you mention has guys who were ages 20, 21, and 22 their rookie seasons. I don't think you're going to find a great analog to Beal in that group because of that. Plus you've got difference of era in the case of Wade, Hamilton, and Sprewell hurting a comparison. That difference plays into the value of different skill sets. For example, I think early career shooting ability is a lot more essential in today's NBA, and slashing ability is less essential. Finally team situation also matters for the comparison. A wing that can't shoot playing with other perimeter players that aren't shooters is killer in today's NBA. MKG for example. Came in with a Pippenesque set of skills but has had a hard time getting a lot of burn because he can't shoot and Charlotte has a bunch of ball handlers that aren't shooters. Or the flip side would also be a problem: if Klay Thompson and Beal played for teams with crappy PGs that couldn't handle the ball they'd be in trouble.

Also this is a nitpick, but I think it's fair to say Rip Hamilton made a significant leap in his late 20's when he got a good three ball, fell into the right situation in Detroit, and became an AS. All Star caliber offensive performance is one of those things that can come together for a wing in their late 20's. Happened to Luol Deng and Gerald Wallace too.

[gambitx777]

So we could have apparently done Webster for Jack and a pick swap........ Why in the world did this not happen................ They could have still gotten Sessions for depth and the cash savings....... URGH....

[AFM]

And it took Joe Johnson 5 years to figure it out, after 2 years at Arkansas.

I went to look up Larry Hughes' stats, dude never figured it out. Wow, he was all over the place

At least Johnson started his progression curve in his 3rd season. His PER jumped by 2 points in each of his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th seasons. If you had Johnson on your team and saw the improvement from 2nd to 3rd year, you would want to keep him and see if it continued. When he improved again from 3rd to 4th, you'd continue to keep him. And so on.

Beal has showed no improvement at all. He's statistically the same player he was in his rookie year. The eye test indicates he has made some minor improvements in ball-handling and playmaking, but they're not really showing up in the numbers. There certainly hasn't been anything one would characterize as a "leap".

Right but remember JJ spent two years in college. If this time next year, Beal still hasn't improved I'll be concerned.

[Ruzious]

I think jumping ship on Beal is being very short sighted. Golden State made a lot of people doubt them when they gave Steph Curry his extension despite his ankle issues. When they refused to trade Klay Thompson for Love and then gave him a 70 million dollar extension, people killed them. Said he wasn't worth it and they weren't going to be able to get over the hump to contention. Well, now he's an All Star and they're one of the best teams in the league. GS chased Dwight Howard and struck out. But they're an elite team, even better than Houston for that matter, because they had drafted a foundational back court and they committed to building around them. And it worked.

Our foundation is Wall and Beal, you all do realize that right? There really is no better alternative to committing to building around those two and waiting for them to fully develop.

Anyway I had rock solid confidence in Wall from day one and he's rewarded that. I'm similarly confident in Beal. He's going to be an All Star by 23, 24 at the latest. Wings not named LeBron James and Kevin Durant take time. And the nature of the position and NBA offense has changed and Beal is a prototype.

This assumption that because Thompson made it and somebody else made it, Beal will automatically make it - is absurd. I know this is never going to get through to you - as you'll rationalize it away - you've already done that several times, but there have been a lot more guys who didn't make it. He hasn't improved this season or last season - in spite of your rationalizations that he has - which you don't need to repeat. He may indeed become an all-star caliber player, but the odds are he won't. Just assuming he will be because he wasn't awful at 20 makes no logical sense.

My analysis and projection of Beal, like any of this type, is based on a gestalt. And I trust it. We'll see what happens. But in two years I bet I'm right about him and you're wrong.

I hope you're right, and I hope there are GMs that agree with you - particularly Hinkie (or Hinkle?) in Philly. I just don't assume you're right.