Woj: Deni to Portland for 14th pick and Brogdon

[DCZards]

The good news is that the more Bub plays the fewer people there are complaining about the trade.

[Pistol King]

Give me Deni, Bub and Sarr.

LOL. Okay.

The "I WANT my ICE CREAM NOW! NANANA I'm NOT LISTENING" formulation.

Show me the link that says we had a deal for the 14 without Deni.

The longer we go without trading Kuzma the more you got to figure nobody has offered diddley for the Kuz.
And if you tick through our roster, who else do we have that anybody would want?
Show me a plausible trade, anybody we got for a lottery pick.

As I see it, the Kuzma saga is an example of the long-term miscalculation of this FO, unless anybody thinks they gonna get 2 valuable FRPs for him.

They could have traded him during the deadline, but they valued him more than what the market values him. The result of it: someone the FO allows to take the same amount FGAs of the likes of Ja Morant and Kevin Durant while it leads the team and its young players' development nowhere.

They also gambled on treating Poole as their other biggest asset, (insisted giving him major usage he didn't deserve for the sake of increasing his trading value) when I personally suggested that more investment in Deni could provide them 1) a younger more valuable player you improve for your long term goals, or 2) better assets than any of these two could net, if they don't want him as their building block. They gambled on treating Kuzma and Poole as their biggest assets and, so far, I think it's fair to say they failed on their calculation. Nobody here seems to hold it against them, for some reason.

How much they could have got for Deni, whether as a part of the future, or as an asset, if they invested in him for full season instead of Kuz? for instance, his stats without Kuz were much better.

People here were concentrated on the Deni Vs Bub evaluation but forgot there were few previous mistakes by the FO that led to this trade at its current structure on the first place.

[doclinkin]

I think we should have found a way without trading Deni. Or, we should have waited.

Or better yet, give me Deni and Bub and trade down from Sarr. Or maybe do the trade with Sac but don't insist on 2 picks.

We don't know what they offered, if anything. The Kings just traded Duarte and Barnes for DeRozan, but included zero picks (two 2RP only -- via the Spurs who took Barnes, IIRC). Is Kuzma a better player than DeRozan?

Put it another way. If we didn't trade Deni - no one is complaining or having to justify the trade.

You are putting a nail on the problem. And that goes with Kuz, Poole, Kispert, Brogdon, Bagley and Holmes (and now Jonas, IMO). This FO was in a tough position to start - but at least they started the rebuild in earnest - kind of.

Right. That is the point. We had zero assets. Or okay one. We traded 1 for 5. Yeah we had to lose the only player we really didn't want to lose. But our roster was dog vomit. No matter how good our salesmen are in the front office, they can't sell dog vomit. We don't get better in this by slowly growing our roster around one pretty good complementary player. We have to take big risks and big swings and hope we both get lucky and make smart picks.

League wide consensus BPA was Sarr. As soon as we know he is our pick we have to balance the roster. Seeing how far Sarr has to go before he is a viable player, the only way to get him playing time is to be forced to do so. No reasonable coach will stick Kuzma on the bench behind Sarr. Much less Deni. How would Deni react if he played the best year of his career and suddenly was sitting behind a guy who is even more timid on offense than Deni was his first year in the league? He'd complain. And rightly so. We'd have to trade somebody. At the whiner's discount.

Not a fan of the pick, but once they decided that was their guy, I don't see a move that would net them better return, today. Not sure waiting would have made the problem better. I mean yeah except it would have buried Sarr for a while longer. Or delayed the development of Bilal. Or magnified the problem when we draft Flagg or Bailey.

[dckingsfan]

We don't get better in this by slowly growing our roster around one pretty good complementary player. We have to take big risks and big swings and hope we both get lucky and make smart picks.

I guess that is my point. We have to take smart risks, get good value on our trades and then make smart pick. Feels like we are treading water a bit right now. Seems like one good asset out and one back in. Feels like we are slowly growing our roster.

[dckingsfan]

People here were concentrated on the Deni Vs Bub evaluation but forgot there were few previous mistakes by the FO that led to this trade at its current structure on the first place.

Under the heading of saying it better. We should have had both Deni & Bub, not either or... well, from a really good FO vs. a "good" FO.

[payitforward]

This is just beyond me, it really is.

I *liked* Deni as our pick after 2020. In fact, he was the guy I wanted, & I was really happy when he fell to us.
As it turns out, of course, given his career, Tyrese Haliburton would have been a better pick by far.

For that matter, there's another handful of players taken after Deni who also would have been better picks.
OTOH, Deni has become a good player based on his improvement last year, his 4th in the league. & he's still only 23, which allows for some optimism that he'll continue to improve.

But, none of that means that we shouldn't have traded him.

Nor is there any reason at all to think we didn't get "enough" for Deni.
We got Bub Carrington, Malcolm Brogdon, a R1 pick & 2 R2 picks for Deni.

Do you thinkDeni would have brought as much as a single lottery pick, & no more, a year ago?
Based on his first 3 seasons?
Not a chance.

We got as much as we did, because Deni improved in his 4th year in the league.
So... why all the emotion? Why the surge of negativity towards Will & the new FO?

It's beyond me. It seems entirely arbitrary. I just don't understand it at all.

[payitforward]

...We have to... get good value on our trades....

Every team has to get good value on their trades. Every GM works hard to get good value on every trade.

If you imagine Will Dawkins was being somehow "lazy" or wasn't trying to get as much for Deni as he could, it's hard to know what to say in response -- other than that the thought makes no sense whatever to me.

...and then make (a) smart pick....

What are you criticizing? Picking Alex Sarr, who was projected to be the top pick in the draft virtually the entire preceding year? Not picking Reed Sheppard? Not trading down from 2? Rating Bub highly? Not somehow acquiring a R2 pick in the '24 draft? ...? What?

...Feels like we are treading water a bit right now. Seems like one good asset out and one back in. Feels like we are slowly growing our roster.

????
We added 3 rookies, 3 future draft picks, Malcolm Brogdon, & Jonas Valanciunas. We restructured Richaun's contract to make him easier to trade. We signed a youngish role player Saddiq Bey for not much $$$. YMMV, but what the current level of activity has to do with "trading water" beats me. Feel free to explain.

[dckingsfan]

We added 3 rookies, 3 future draft picks (a late 1st and a couple of seconds), Malcolm Brogdon (probably no value), & Jonas Valanciunas (probably no value). We restructured Richaun's contract to make him easier to trade (probably no value). We signed a youngish role player Saddiq Bey for not much $$$ (good move).

And we should have done it without moving Deni.

I still like that they are starting the rebuild in earnest. I like the Beal trade. I don't like the Poole trade. I think they could have gotten more for Porzingis & Gafford.

But at this point, it isn't how many picks you have but assets that move the needle. So, I don't think the progress is as fast as you are making it out to be.

But I will let this go. I have made my points. You, Doc and others have made good points as well.

[payitforward]

We added 3 rookies, 3 future draft picks (a late 1st and a couple of seconds), Malcolm Brogdon (probably no value), & Jonas Valanciunas (probably no value). We restructured Richaun's contract to make him easier to trade (probably no value). We signed a youngish role player Saddiq Bey for not much $$$ (good move).

And we should have done it without moving Deni....

Obviously, one of the rookies came as a pick we got in the Deni trade. Hence, I have no idea what you mean by "without moving Deni."

...I don't like the Poole trade. I think they could have gotten more for Porzingis & Gafford....

I don't like Poole's lack of production, but I don't understand not liking the trade.

There was no way whatever, none, to get "more for Porzingis." Period. No path at all. & I don't understand what makes you think we could have gotten more for Gafford.

...But at this point, it isn't how many picks you have but assets that move the needle. So, I don't think the progress is as fast as you are making it out to be....

?? Picks are assets.
As for "progress" -- if you mean we aren't getting better in the present, you are correct. The intention is to get better in the future. To do that, you have to change. The rate of change has been high.

But I will let this go. I have made my points. You, Doc and others have made good points as well.

Nah. Don't let it go! We're going to have a few years of conversations along these lines!

[dckingsfan]

We added 3 rookies, 3 future draft picks (a late 1st and a couple of seconds), Malcolm Brogdon (probably no value), & Jonas Valanciunas (probably no value). We restructured Richaun's contract to make him easier to trade (probably no value). We signed a youngish role player Saddiq Bey for not much $$$ (good move).

And we should have done it without moving Deni....

Obviously, one of the rookies came as a pick we got in the Deni trade. Hence, I have no idea what you mean by "without moving Deni."

...I don't like the Poole trade. I think they could have gotten more for Porzingis & Gafford....

I don't like Poole's lack of production, but I don't understand not liking the trade.

There was no way whatever, none, to get "more for Porzingis." Period. No path at all. & I don't understand what makes you think we could have gotten more for Gafford.

...But at this point, it isn't how many picks you have but assets that move the needle. So, I don't think the progress is as fast as you are making it out to be....

?? Picks are assets.
As for "progress" -- if you mean we aren't getting better in the present, you are correct. The intention is to get better in the future. To do that, you have to change. The rate of change has been high.

But I will let this go. I have made my points. You, Doc and others have made good points as well.

Nah. Don't let it go! We're going to have a few years of conversations along these lines!

I'll jump back in on this one in '30

[lastemp3ror]

]
I don't like Poole's lack of production, but I don't understand not liking the trade.

Can you please elaborate on how you like the Poole trade?

[payitforward]

]
I don't like Poole's lack of production, but I don't understand not liking the trade.

Can you please elaborate on how you like the Poole trade?

Fair question, since it's not possible to be happy about the acquisition of Poole now -- given his play.

I guess what I mean is that I didn't dislike the trade at the time it was made. We'd gotten CP3 (one of my favorite players of all time, btw) in the Beal trade -- but not because we *wanted* a player at his state of his career: we just took what we could get.

Hence, we were happy to be able to trade Chris Paul, & the deal brought us 3 young players -- Poole, Baldwin & Rollins. Poole had shown promise, Baldwin had been a R1 pick a year earlier & was recovering from injuries, & Rollins was/is a talent (who seems to be a bit nutty -- why shoplift at Target when you're making $1m/year?): I wouldn't count him out, btw; he's on a 2way with the Bucks.

Poole had had a good season in '21-22, & there was reason to be optimistic. He was clearly overpaid, but our salary structure made that fact irrelevant to us. Moreover, with a very few exceptions, everyone else on this board also liked the trade -- more or less for the reasons given above. Go look at the threads about him back then.

The only false step last year was failing to pick T J-D at 57 instead of trading the pick. But, as I've mentioned already, every GM in the league whiffed on him, most of them twice, some of them 3 times! Everyone gets a pass! Moreover, given the fact that there were only 58 picks (i.e. not 60), even if you liked the guy you might roll the dice on him being there 2 picks later (i.e. undrafted) & figure that Baldwin & Rollins justified the slight risk.

Overall, I thought & still think that Will et. al. are doing a terrific job. I'm sure they'll have some whiffs, of course. But, so far so good. That doesn't mean, btw, that I wanted to trade Deni. It means I can understand trading Deni, given the return.

[lastemp3ror]

]
I don't like Poole's lack of production, but I don't understand not liking the trade.

Can you please elaborate on how you like the Poole trade?

Fair question, since it's not possible to be happy about the acquisition of Poole now -- given his play.

I guess what I mean is that I didn't dislike the trade at the time it was made. We'd gotten CP3 (one of my favorite players of all time, btw) in the Beal trade -- but not because we *wanted* a player at his state of his career: we just took what we could get.

Hence, we were happy to be able to trade Chris Paul, & the deal brought us 3 young players -- Poole, Baldwin & Rollins. Poole had shown promise, Baldwin had been a R1 pick a year earlier & was recovering from injuries, & Rollins was/is a talent (who seems to be a bit nutty -- why shoplift at Target when you're making $1m/year?): I wouldn't count him out, btw; he's on a 2way with the Bucks.

Poole had had a good season in '21-22, & there was reason to be optimistic. He was clearly overpaid, but our salary structure made that fact irrelevant to us. Moreover, with a very few exceptions, everyone else on this board also liked the trade -- more or less for the reasons given above. Go look at the threads about him back then.

The only false step last year was failing to pick T J-D at 57 instead of trading the pick. But, as I've mentioned already, every GM in the league whiffed on him, most of them twice, some of them 3 times! Everyone gets a pass! Moreover, given the fact that there were only 58 picks (i.e. not 60), even if you liked the guy you might roll the dice on him being there 2 picks later (i.e. undrafted) & figure that Baldwin & Rollins justified the slight risk.

Overall, I thought & still think that Will et. al. are doing a terrific job. I'm sure they'll have some whiffs, of course. But, so far so good. That doesn't mean, btw, that I wanted to trade Deni. It means I can understand trading Deni, given the return.

Ah ok. You are saying you liked the trade at the time, as did I. At first, I thought you meant you still like the trade.

[badinage]

The good news is that the more Bub plays the fewer people there are complaining about the trade.

Bub is great. Love Bub. Kid’s a baller. So poised, so commanding. Got a knack for the ball. Makes heady plays — very few PGs at that age can do what I’ve seen him do. The 3 is strong and will only get better.

Trading Deni is still a gut-punch to long-suffering fans, and also a pretty terrible move in the mid-term.

[payitforward]

I didn't experience it as a "gut-punch." We gave up something to get something. I'm sure we started by offering Kuz, but it didn't make the bell ring.

If Bub develops into the player we're getting hints of, & if we get reasonable value out of the other R1 & pair of R2s in the deal, & if Brogdon helps keep us entertaining (& then turns into something of value in a trade), then moving Deni will look great in retrospect. Which still wouldn't mean it was easy to "like."

[Frichuela]

I was on the "non like camp" for Deni's trade, but this article suggests POR may have taken a sizeable risk...

"Shipping out a distant first-rounder is still risky business,". "Portland has protected itself against disaster with 'second most favorable' language. But Milwaukee's future, along with its own, isn't surefire enough to declare this an afterthought asset."

"In essence, the question becomes: did the Trail Blazers just give the Wizards a lottery pick? Possibly."

https://www.si.com/nba/trailblazers/news/portland-called-out-for-risky-trade-decision-ak1987?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[nate33]

I was on the "non like camp" for Deni's trade, but this article suggests POR may have taken a sizeable risk...

"Shipping out a distant first-rounder is still risky business,". "Portland has protected itself against disaster with 'second most favorable' language. But Milwaukee's future, along with its own, isn't surefire enough to declare this an afterthought asset."

"In essence, the question becomes: did the Trail Blazers just give the Wizards a lottery pick? Possibly."

https://www.si.com/nba/trailblazers/news/portland-called-out-for-risky-trade-decision-ak1987?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Because the wording of the trade is such that we are getting Portland's second best pick, I think it's pretty likely that we are talking about a pick outside the top 10. If it falls in the very late lottery, it's still not much to write home about. The good picks are in the top 5, with a fairly steady decline down the 12th pick or so. After that it flattens out considerably. Historically, the the difference between the #13 through the #30 pick is negligible.

From an old post about the odds of landing an All-NBA player at each pick, with 3-pick and 5-pick moving averages:

Code: Select all

Pick   Odds   M-Avg 3   M-Avg 5
#1   38.67%      
#2   20.00%   28.45%   
#3   26.67%   20.38%   24.44%
#4   14.47%   21.17%   18.00%
#5   22.37%   14.44%   15.97%
#6    6.49%   12.91%   13.07%
#7    9.86%    9.50%   12.58%
#8   12.16%   11.34%   10.57%
#9   12.00%   12.16%   11.06%
#10  12.33%   11.10%   10.23%
#11   8.96%    9.00%    9.19%
#12   5.71%    7.20%    7.93%
#13   6.94%    6.12%    6.64%
#14   5.71%    6.18%    5.71%
#15   5.88%    5.29%    5.74%
#16   4.29%    5.35%    4.65%
#17   5.88%    3.88%    4.40%
#18   1.47%    3.94%    3.54%
#19   4.48%    2.50%    3.00%
#20   1.56%    2.55%    2.81%
#21   1.61%    2.70%    3.19%
#22   4.92%    3.31%    2.90%
#23   3.39%    3.78%    2.91%
#24   3.03%    2.68%    2.59%
#25   1.61%    1.55%    2.92%
#26   0.00%    2.72%    2.92%
#27   6.56%    3.32%    3.03%
#28   3.39%    4.51%    4.08%
#29   3.57%    5.79%   
#30   6.90%

Unfortunately, even with a little lottery luck, it's not going to boost our chances of it being a high pick much. If Portland finishes, say, 9th, and Milwaukee 10th, and then Milwaukee somehow wins the lottery, Portland would just keep the Milwuakee pick and stick us with their #9 pick.

[payitforward]

Your last point is interestiing, nate -- & annoying! I.e. the order of their picks is determined after the ping pong balls...? Grrrrr!

[payitforward]

...The good picks are in the top 5, with a fairly steady decline down the 12th pick or so....
I know people make that claim, & they must make it based on thoughtful statistical analysis. All the same I can't find that in the data.

......Historically, the the difference between the #13 through the #30 pick is negligible.

This, otoh, does jump out of the data.

OTOH, suppose you compared the last 20 #11 picks vs. the last 20 #13 picks. Do you think there would be a straightforward pattern in which 11 overall seems significantly different from 13 overall? I wonder....

[doclinkin]

Your last point is interestiing, nate -- & annoying! I.e. the order of their picks is determined after the ping pong balls...? Grrrrr!

Of course. They’re not picks before then, they are lottery combinations. But it works to our benefit with respect to our pick swaps with PHX.

Doesn’t matter anyway. An extra first round pick is a valued asset beyond the percentages of any one slot. We will have our own pick plus the 2nd most valuable of Portlands pick. OR we will package the two to trade up for a top pick. Or bundle it with a 2nd rounder to climb the ladder a little more. Or or or.

And it may matter less from a statistical standpoint, but the market value of a lottery pick is worth more to other teams than a later first. That perception adds leverage if you’re working another trade.

From a team that had negative future picks we have consistently added assets and opportunities under Winger and Dawkins. You can disregard any one pick as useless. But they understand the value of those picks to other teams. Adding 5 assets for one player gives greater freedom of choice to shape the franchise.