[CHRON via Sac Bee] Sacramento View of the Robinson Trade

Explain how we got a first round pick traded to us for Jordan Hill the 'bust'? JH as a Rocket shot over 50% with almost 5rpg in limited minutes and ended up netting us a 1st round pick. He was clearly not a bust.

 

This.

 

Oh cmon. Let's be realistic here. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of "the Kings mgmt is a bunch of idiots for trading a #5 pick less than a year after he was drafted" and "Robinson is a bust". If his value were that of a lottery pick right now, they could have gotten a better package in return. For Robinson to become invaluable come draft time, especially for big time talent, he has a HUGE mountain to climb.

 

I'm giving Robinson a fresh slate. Not expecting bust or future star at this point, and won't be surprised if he spends most of the season in the d-league.

It's good that Morey was able to get a top 5 draft pick player he considered moving up to get, but playing devil's advocate, just about every player that we aquire or draft, Morey has a glowing review for about their potential at the time we aquire them. Many of them don't see the court outside of garbage time for a long time after they are picked up.

The positive is that we didn't lose any pieces that were likely to be of significance by the time the team is a realistic threat to contend. Even if Robinson is a complete bust, we increased Dmo and Terrence Jones playing opportunities so we can see what we have there before the team considers a Josh Smith/Pau Gasol/Milsap pick up this summer and increased our cap space. Best case we got a player worthy of being a top 5 pick in exchange for players who are average at best.

 

to me - the reality of whether robinson busts or excels is insignificant to the trade.

we cleared our glut at PF and added someone with a high ceiling while getting rid of competant low ceiling players

successful trade is successful

my personal belief is that he was poorly used in Sacto and probably equally as poorly evaluated given the lack of fit on their team.

Other teams still had him rated high and his base skill set is very complimentary to the current rockets makeup.

IOW - while he still could have busted there if given more time to develop - as the same player in our system he may produce at a respectable clip.

 

They can complain and undervalue THEIR own draft pick all they want, so they jot have a D league affiliate for SAC? Either way, poor scouting and poor player development coaching is what I attribute this to for now. We shall see how he develops and then ill make my judgment. For now SAC for trolled in my opinion. Cleared our log Jan at the 4, AND got a top 5 pick! Kudos, Murray. Kudos!

 

I noticed that too. People say, since Morey is excited about this kid, he must be good. Well, yes, Morey is pretty good, except that he was also VERY excited when he drafted Patterson. So was he when he drafted Morris. Do you guys have very short memory?

I was surprised that BOTH Patterson and Morris were traded away. We are left with 4 rookies PFs, if you count White. You would expect that he would package one of Pat-Morris (but not both) and a rookie for a trade like this. Trading Patterson for Robinson itself is pretty solid. But why did Morey get rid of Morris for just a second round pick? Was he seeing something in the rookies and tried to force McHale's hand?

 

I'm encouraged by the fact that Sacramento drafted Tyreke and continues to hold onto him as well as Jimmer. That tells you how much to take the Kings' talent evaluation seriously.

 

2pat can finish, he just can't rebound.

 

I don't think he was trying to force McHail's hand, but I do definitely think he saw Morris' potential as tapped out and that, barring a miracle, he was going to be replaced in the lineup by one or more of Donuts, Jones or White as soon as next season. He couldn't keep all of his PF stockpile without at least a couple guys getting upset on that bench, and he went with the higher upside guys over Morris. A prudent choice in the long run, probably, even though it makes reaching the playoffs this year harder.

That high second rounder is just the sort of asset Morey likes to collect, but I think the Morris move was as much about Donuts as Marcus.

 

I could see why Morey wanted a 2nd rounder, that's pretty much a first rounder for him. We always get a contributor it feels like in the 2nd round.

 

Either morey/matt or adam made the point this morning that moving Morris was a function of being able to make the deal now for an asset that they liked (contract benefits of early 2nd rounder).

However, had we waited til the offseason to move him and then found that we needed to clear some money for full max slotting, teams would know and our leverage would be lost, making trading him more difficult.

Also, while I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I do lend some credence to the fact that he wanted to get d-mo some playing time. Now, d-mo is the only floor spacing big we have. (While parsons will play heavy minutes at the four now, he's not a big.)

 

In terms of Moneyball/basic statistics, you look at two things: expect-return vs risk (standard deviation).

Expected return is how good, on average, you think a player will be going forward. This includes how well he will fit with your team, aka positive correlation.

Standard deviation is how uncertain your assessment is, or if looked at positively, how much potential upside, a player may have. The higher the standard deviation, the fatter the tails: in other words, the greater the chances for bust or for getting something for nothing.

A gambler is someone who trades expected return for larger standard deviation: someone who likes bargains or players who seem to have failed to play up to expectations. OTOH, someone who is risk-averse will always take the big names and players with a lot of experience, even at greater cost. You could be a good gambler or a bad risk-averse GM. Don't let the connotations associated with the terms fool you...

A trade between two teams happens when your assessment of expected return vs risk, given your risk tendencies, matches up with another team or two's own expected return vs risk, given their risk tendencies, such that both sides think they are getting a better bet. If both GMs are rational, when this condition is satisfied, a trade happens. Of course, the information is quite asymmetric, meaning that different teams will know different things - they are privy to private information. After a trade, you will hear lots of opinions from the public, which only knows public information. The difference of opinion is often due to different assessments of expected return or risk, but just as often, due to that assessor's risk profile.

As far as building an entire team, LA/NY are obviously far on the risk-averse side of the scale (they are willing to give up potential upside to the point of paying like crazy to get a known veteran or superstar). Houston is closer to the gambling end-of-the-scale. It's not surprising that there are often trades between a gambling and a risk-averse team.

As shown in the last few trades, Morey likes to trade for potential upside. But this isn't suprising: besides natural proclivities, it's normal psychology to keep betting when your last few bets have paid off big. When you are taking risks on rookies or unproven talent, there is a greater chance of a bust or finding a diamond in the rough.

The sign of a good risk manager is one who has the patience to fairly assess what kind of rookie you just traded for, and having the balls to trade him if you happen to be wrong.