Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX

[payitforward]

I'd actually prefer Beal for Brown plus Boston's picks & Robert Williams.

Don't want to give Bonga & don't really want Turner at his salary.

[payitforward]

There are too many answers that would suffice. The 2021 #1 pick alone plus a another asset would probably suffice.

As far as players, it depends on if we were taking contract into account. Because contract, along with age and production, determine value... Ill assume so.

Embiid, Donovan Mitchell, SGA & Simmons are close enough...
Lillard is clearly better, but also older and that contract...oh boy. I'd say they are about the same too.
Jamal Murray wouldn't be enough and would need another asset/late lotto pick.... but Im also weary of his ceiling.
PG13, IMO, is not quite there due to being 3 years older, on an expiring deal, and is picking up poor reputation as a playoff performer and locker room presence.

Let me confirm that I understand: you are saying that the value of Brad Beal = the #1 pick in 2021 plus any one of Embiid, Donovan Mitchell, SG-A or Simmons?

Is that right?

Incorrect. Im answering the question in both draft capital and players.
Beal for draft pick: No draft pick this year alone would get it done or even close for me. The number one pick next year would be Cade, so Im all for that.

Beal for a player: Embiid, Mitchell, SGA & Simmons are all about the same. You could make arguments for some additional compensation, but this is a macro exercise.
This doesnt mean I would do the trade straight up personally, but you were speaking strictly of value.

I guess I can't get answers to these 2 simple questions.

Except I guess you are saying that Beal for the #1 pick in next year's draft plus any player (assuming no burdensome contract -- let's say someone on a veteran minimum salary, or expiring, or...) would work. That's Brad Beal's value. That's an answer to my first question -- if it's what you mean.

As to the 2d one, in this case too I guess you're answering my question in a sense: let's say that the #60 pick has, essentially, no value. So, Brad Beal has the same value as any player on your list: "Embiid, Mitchell, SGA... (or) Simmons" plus, say, the #60 pick. Is that right?

Do I have this right?

[pcbothwel]

Let me confirm that I understand: you are saying that the value of Brad Beal = the #1 pick in 2021 plus any one of Embiid, Donovan Mitchell, SG-A or Simmons?

Is that right?

Incorrect. Im answering the question in both draft capital and players.
Beal for draft pick: No draft pick this year alone would get it done or even close for me. The number one pick next year would be Cade, so Im all for that.

Beal for a player: Embiid, Mitchell, SGA & Simmons are all about the same. You could make arguments for some additional compensation, but this is a macro exercise.
This doesnt mean I would do the trade straight up personally, but you were speaking strictly of value.

I guess I can't get answers to these 2 simple questions.

Except I guess you are saying that Beal for the #1 pick in next year's draft plus any player (assuming no burdensome contract -- let's say someone on a veteran minimum salary, or expiring, or...) would work. That's Brad Beal's value. That's an answer to my first question -- if it's what you mean.

As to the 2d one, in this case too I guess you're answering my question in a sense: let's say that the #60 pick has, essentially, no value. So, Brad Beal has the same value as any player on your list: "Embiid, Mitchell, SGA... (or) Simmons" plus, say, the #60 pick. Is that right?

Do I have this right?

Close enough. lol
Again, you make it difficult by trying to remove variables that effect value. But yes, you have it about right... though that doesnt mean I would make the trade for those guys.

[payitforward]

Not sure what you mean by "variables that affect value."

Variables certainly affect what you get, of course. Some situations might force you to accept less than full value for a player; other situations might allow you to get more than his value for him, but in either of those cases there is still an idea of what the guy's actual value is.

Nbd -- assuming I understand you correctly, you've given me some understanding of what you think Brad's value is:

Either --
1. the #1 pick in the draft (if you think he's an especially good one) with nothing additional.
or
2. a single player at the level of Embiid or Shai Gilgeous-Alexander with nothing additional.

[pcbothwel]

Not sure what you mean by "variables that affect value."

Variables certainly affect what you get, of course. Some situations might force you to accept less than full value for a player; other situations might allow you to get more than his value for him, but in either of those cases there is still an idea of what the guy's actual value is.

Nbd -- assuming I understand you correctly, you've given me some understanding of what you think Brad's value is:

Either --
1. the #1 pick in the draft (if you think he's an especially good one) with nothing additional.
or
2. a single player at the level of Embiid or Shai Gilgeous-Alexander with nothing additional.

And you? What value do you prescribe to Beal?

[payitforward]

What value do I ascribe to Beal?

That's a great question. Where'd you come up with that question?

Here is my answer:

Spoiler:

I don't know. I'm having a hard time figuring it out -- that's why I asked!

[wall_glizzy]

Using wall_glizzy's research...

I won't belabor this because it doesn't seem to have captured the interest of anyone else in this thread (as well it shouldn't, I guess; it's neither "The Myles Turner thread" nor the "Theories of Rebounding" thread, but I think the spirit of it is largely correct. My two nitpicks would be that

(1) I don't agree fully with the one rebound = one point idea, but there's no reason to open the team vs. individual rebounding can of worms here
(2) We still can (and should) adjust for pace here - just as pace represents possessions / 48 minutes, we can back out how many possessions each player's team used per 40 and scale one's numbers up (in the case of Turner) or down (in the case of Bryant) to represent a plausible number of both possessions and minutes for one player or the other.

and, having nothing to do with the analysis that you provided,

(3) In a perfect world, we'd have at least a whiff of data that could begin to quantify a player's defensive impact on defense beyond the shots they contest, such as the ability to stop a valuable, high-percentage shot before it's even taken; the ability to minimize defensive lapses that allow one's man to end up shooting over a less-adept defender; the ability to restrict blow-by drives that result in one's man taking a shot against no one at all, etc. I think Turner would do well in these, but we're not even close to measuring this sort of stuff. At least not with public data - can somebody get Daryl Morey on the line?

Not a big deal though, as the two first points are, at best, minor exaggerators of an obvious trend - Turner was putrid on offense this year. Based on his 2019-20 performance especially, he certainly deserves to be talked about as a great one way, lacking in the other player in the same manner that we so often discuss Bryant.

I, of course, was responding to claims earlier in the thread that Turner's (a) rebounding was so bad that (b) it might completely nullify his defensive impact, which (c) wasn't real beyond the veneer of shot-blocking anyway. My position is, and has been, that he'd be a defensive asset in a position of sore need, and that as intriguing as that may be his value would almost certainly not exceed his salary.

I'm interested in what nate said here:

Statistically, it's hard to argue that Turner is better than Bryant. But I do think that there are intangible factors that don't show up in the box score favoring Turner. Indiana has been a top 6 defensive team for two years now despite a pretty poor group of defenders at guard and forward - guys like Bogdanovic, Lamb, Warren, Collison and Tyreke Evans. And it's not like Sabonis is a defensive monster in the paint either. I have to think that Miles Turner has something to do with it.

Besides the idea that Turner's defensive value is potentially understated by the gap in our understanding of advanced offensive vs. defensive statistics, I think a lot of people project further "intangible" value onto specific player archetypes according to the ebbs and flows of the NBA meta-game. Turner has been, and probably still is, benefitting from the "unicorn" label attached to players who can both shoot threes and protect the rim (the aura has stuck, even considering his relative nosedive in the former this season).

I'd be interested in talking about the ongoing development of NBA strategy, both in terms of positional fixations ("playmaking wings" seems to be the new one) and possible contrarian approaches which might allow us to get surplus value from signing certain out-of-fashion player/positional archetypes and/or allow us to exploit more widely-adopted "modern" strategies. We'll leave it for a future thread!

[doclinkin]

I'd be interested in talking about the ongoing development of NBA strategy, both in terms of positional fixations ("playmaking wings" seems to be the new one) and possible contrarian approaches which might allow us to get surplus value from signing certain out-of-fashion player/positional archetypes and/or allow us to exploit more widely-adopted "modern" strategies. We'll leave it for a future thread!

I’m bout it. I’ll start the thread.

[Ruzious]

Should we offer this guy a minimum contract - assuming Noel and other free agent centers sign elsewhere?

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Should we offer this guy a minimum contract - assuming Noel and other free agent centers sign elsewhere?

Read on Twitter

Didn't he quit basketball because he hated it?

He might not be a good locker room presence. And one wonders how hard he would work on his game if he doesn't like the sport. Also, his style of game is pretty outdated today. He can't shoot and wasn't really a rim runner either.

[pcbothwel]

Should we offer this guy a minimum contract - assuming Noel and other free agent centers sign elsewhere?

Read on Twitter

Didn't he quit basketball because he hated it?

He might not be a good locker room presence. And one wonders how hard he would work on his game if he doesn't like the sport. Also, his style of game is pretty outdated today. He can't shoot and wasn't really a rim runner either.

I dont care if he was jesus in the locker room ... The guy is turning 32 and hasnt played meaningful basketball in 6 years.

[Ruzious]

Should we offer this guy a minimum contract - assuming Noel and other free agent centers sign elsewhere?

Read on Twitter

Didn't he quit basketball because he hated it?

He might not be a good locker room presence. And one wonders how hard he would work on his game if he doesn't like the sport. Also, his style of game is pretty outdated today. He can't shoot and wasn't really a rim runner either.

Yes, but apparently he was having serious depression issues beyond his control at the time - that's supposedly in his past. And he got paid quite a lot after he quit on his team. Not to mention, he couldn't make a jump shot to save his life. But because he's such a gifted defender, I'm guessing someone gives him a chance.

[payitforward]

Using wall_glizzy's research...

[I won't belabor this because it doesn't seem to have captured the interest of anyone else in this thread...

Agree, & I won't either -- in fact this response is mostly for you, w_g.

...but I think the spirit of it is largely correct....

Thanks!

My two nitpicks...

They aren't nitpicks; they're significant objections -- whether right or wrong. Or both! But I'll only look at the first (& a few of the many cans of worms behind it! )

(1) I don't agree fully with the one rebound = one point idea...

Actually, that was me being stupid -- the proper value is .5 for a defensive board & 1 for an offensive board. Changes the comparison between MT & TB some, but it still ends up in TB's favor.

My dummheit points to a key problem in statistical measures -- especially those which intend to arrive at an overall conclusion about what makes players better/worse as understood in terms of their effect on wins/losses.

What is that "key problem?" People often try to compare these products of the mind with "reality." In fact, that can't be done. It's useless.

So... what can be done? Simple -- they can be compared to each other! You can use statistical regression to determine which of these numerical methodologies has the closest correlation with game results (&, therefore, team records). Then use the one that does best.

Essentially, all such methodologies are borrowed from economics. Because shots aren't free -- you don't get as many as you want -- using a shot has a "cost." OTOH, a made shot has a "benefit" -- either 2 or 3 points. If we assign a cost of "1" to a shot, then statistical regressions give us a higher correlation with actual real-world results than if, e.g. we assigned it a cost of ".5" or "2." In fact, "1" gives us the highest correlation we can get.

Key point: in this case we didn't compare the metric to reality. We compared it to other metrics. None of them correlates at 100%. But we can still pick the best one.

The best value for a defensive rebound is ".5." The best for an offensive rebound is closer to "1." This is not the place to go through every piece of the overall set of metrics that works best; suffice it to say that it's possible to achieve a correlation of approximately 93% between the predictions of a metric based exclusively on boxscore stats of (& minutes played by) all the players on each NBA team and the overall records of those teams.

Now... boxscore stats assign every event they record to one or another individual. It is always possible to argue that this methodology incorporates error. Hence what you call...

...the team vs. individual rebounding can of worms...

Except... it's not a can of worms, it's an artifact of the "key problem" I mentioned above -- the attempt to turn an explanatory metric into a mirror image of reality. Can't be done. All we can do is measure the relation of the metric to "results" -- & results are themselves already a "metric." A "win" is an animal of a different order from "a game."

Are there ways to check for, as it were, gross errors of the metric in being, as it were, "out of phase" with reality? Sure. The simplest one is to follow players as they move from team to team. How much do their numbers change? Turns out that, overall, they don't change in major ways (though of course there are exceptions) that are different from how they change year to year staying on a single team.

Your point about "pace" represents an issue similar to the one above. But it's more complex than can be dealt with here. Briefly, "pace" is already a metric. When you begin modifying one metric in the light of another, things get complex methodologically, which leads to results that may not be thoroughly trustworthy. This must be considered when deciding whether/when/how to engage in this. Especially if small differences are used to cause results to yaw.

In any case, even between the Pacers & the Wizards, "pace" didn't vary much. The Wizards took 2.7% more shots per game than Indy. Moreover, the only "pace" we'd be interested in was when MT & TB played (overall that's about 56% of game minutes)

Ok... that's enough typing!

[atlantabbq99]

I was wondering if the DC fans would be interested in #6 for #9 and a protected 2021 pick?

I want the Hawks to draft Aaron Nesmith and #6 seems too high for that.

[payitforward]

Depends on the pick and the protection, of course, but given agreement about those issue... sure. We really like Okongwu on this board, so his being available would make the trade easier.

But, doesn't #9 still seem high for Nesmith to go? Won't he be there at #12 for example? Have you tried the Kings Board? If so, what do they say?

Btw, what do you guys think of your GM these days?

[Frichuela]

I was wondering if the DC fans would be interested in #6 for #9 and a protected 2021 pick?

I want the Hawks to draft Aaron Nesmith and #6 seems too high for that.

How about Atlanta sends their #6 and Huerter and the Wizards send Jerome Robinson, their #9, #37 and next year’s 2021 1st top 10 protected (2022 top 8 protected, 2023 top 5 protected, and if it does not convey it turns into 2024 and 2025 seconds).

Fyi- you do not have a high 2nd round pick this year, so #37 may be appealing..

[Frichuela]

Another trade to consider -if we can not get Okongwu at #9- and the Pelicans agree is:

The Wiz send #9 + Schofield and the Pelicans send #13 + Josh Hart.

Why would the Pelicans do it? They may not want to pay Josh Hart in 2021 when he is an RFA and they may like a prospect at #9 such as Vassell, Okoro or Halliburton that will not be available at #13.

Why would the Wiz do it? Instead of using the MLE on a Derrick Jones or Torrey Craig, we may want to get Josh Hart on a cheap 1 year rookie deal and then extend him for an MLE type deal. Hart may be a bit short at 6’5” (and 6‘9” wingspan) to play wing, but he played plenty of minutes last year as a 3, and put up superb rebounding numbers and strong defense.

[atlantabbq99]

Depends on the pick and the protection, of course, but given agreement about those issue... sure. We really like Okongwu on this board, so his being available would make the trade easier.

But, doesn't #9 still seem high for Nesmith to go? Won't he be there at #12 for example? Have you tried the Kings Board? If so, what do they say?

Btw, what do you guys think of your GM these days?

I also made similar offers on other team boards, to the Suns, Spurs, Kings, and New Orleans' fans.

All seem ok with a pick swap and throwing in a protected first round pick.

But ya you are right, the negotiations will all come down to the level of protection on the future pick.

[atlantabbq99]

I was wondering if the DC fans would be interested in #6 for #9 and a protected 2021 pick?

I want the Hawks to draft Aaron Nesmith and #6 seems too high for that.

How about Atlanta sends their #6 and Huerter and the Wizards send Jerome Robinson, their #9, #37 and next year’s 2021 1st top 10 protected (2022 top 8 protected, 2023 top 5 protected, and if it does not convey it turns into 2024 and 2025 seconds).

Fyi- you do not have a high 2nd round pick this year, so #37 may be appealing..

No thanks on Huerter.

There is not much wiggle room here, but we can negotiate between the level of protection on the future 1st round pick and additional second round picks.

[TGW]

I would pass on that trade. No reason to trade up IMO, even for Okongwu. Stay at #9 and take BPA.