Could lose more than just a prospect. Could lose 2 if you make the wrong move. Trading Green and #9 has a respectable chance of being 2 All Stars (retainable for a 12 year period). If you trade that for 1 All Star (retainable for a 4 year period), how is that not worse than just losing 1 prospect? That's an absolute catastrophe. Like I said, it's BAD to lose a prospect, but there are also worse things i.e. worse asset management. Alpi is set, he's only going to improve. On Green, if he doesn't have a good first half next season, time is up imo.
This is way off. Idk how you are saying we can retain Green for 12 years but if we trade for an all star in their mid 20's it's only 4. And with number 9 it's not automatically "12 years" if they are an allstar. Also, "respectable" chance that both will be all stars is giving a lot of room to respectable. Obviously opinions differ on Green but I don't think the odds he'll consistently be good enough to be an all star are all that high. And for the #9 pick, here are the last 10 and this is supposed to be a weak draft. Taylor Hendricks Jeremy Sochan Davion Mitchell Deni Avdija Rui Hachimura Kevin Knox Dennis Smith Jakob Poltl Frank Kaminsky Noah Vonleh It's possible there won't be a single all star appearance in that group, though it's also at least possible Sochan or maybe Avdija or Hendricks can really make a leap and get there. If you go back further there are a few big hits at 9 with Tmac and Dirk and some solid players like Hayward, Iggy, and Kemba Walker. There are plenty of busts too. But odds are whoever we draft at 9 will be decent with an outside possibility they turn out really good and an outside possibility they turn out to be a total bust.
No, you can retain Green for 4 years and the #9 pick for 8 years. That's 12 total years. Btw 33% of #9 picks have made an All Star game. 26% of #10 picks. As I said you could be trading two All Stars. Did not mean more or less than that.
im not referring to any specific trade proposal. All I’m saying is losing any of our core 6 prospects for nothing is unacceptable.
Okay that's a little misleading phrasing then, though maybe unintentional on your part. If you are looking at it that way then it would be the equivalent of "one" all star caliber player effectively under team control for 12 total years. Also, even if we hit on #9 it will probably be at least a couple of years before we get anything close to all star caliber play, especially considering the likely minutes logjam. I didn't realize historical for 9 has been that good since it hasn't been great over the last 10 years. Though it is pretty interesting that you chose to include #10 but didn't include #8 since there's only been one all star picked at 8 in the last 33 years (Vin Baker). Franz may get there and make two.
I'm not sure why so suspicious but ok. Why would I put odds for #8 when we aren't getting a top 8 prospect? Doesn't make any sense. We could get the 10th best player with the 9th pick, it's actually relevant.
OK well whether what you are doing is intentional or not it's painting a much rosier picture than actually exists. This is from an article charting each pick from I believe 1990 through 2020. Maybe you got your numbers from here. So yeah, 9 and 10 relative to some other nearby draft positions have been pretty historically lucky from 1990 through 2020. But 9 being historically pretty lucky and 8 being crazy unlucky (the Ringer had a piece about this last year) probably doesn't have any true predictive power going into this draft that we've got a good shot at an allstar at 9 but we'd be screwed if we were drafting 8th. And when I initially decided just to look at the last 10 years of the 9th pick you can see luck has run out a bit on the 9th pick in the last decade as well. When you look at historical 7 through 12 from 1990-2020 there was a 15% chance at getting an allstar. That's probably about right. Not terrible but also not great. I'd say it's a few ticks below "respectable", especially since this is supposed to be a bad draft. But one can argue semantics.
I can't think of a more semantic argument I've ever had than to say it's not a respectable chance at an All Star.
Unless a legitimate all-star that plays both sides of the court becomes available, all of our core players should be untouchable until at least the all-star break. If Jalen doesn’t continue to improve, then maybe send him packing at the all-star break. FVV, Brooks, Adams, Landale, Tate and picks (excluding the 25 nets pick) should be in play for the right price. Amen, Jabari, and Sengun should be untouchable unless they return Giannis or Jokic which, of course, will not happen. I would trade Jalen and picks for Booker if he becomes disenchanted and forces his way out. No aging/injury prone players should be in the equation unless they are practical give always.
OK, either way going back to the original point. Even if there's a 15% chance the 9 pick becomes an all star and 20% chance Jalen Green becomes an all star (both numbers which I think are too high for the particular circumstances but putting them in to avoid an argument over that) the math would suggest it's certainly not bad asset management to turn those odds into a player in his mid 20s that has an ~80% chance at performing at an all star-ish level here, especially given that we already have a good number of promising prospects to develop on the roster and more potential HR swings with the Nets picks. I think the better argument is if you want to let it ride with Jalen and bet on him becoming a top 10-15 player like he was in March. There's obviously going to be disagreement on how likely that is. I don't think it's likely but acknowledge it's at least possible.
I think there's a significantly greater than 20% chance Jalen Green becomes an All Star but more importantly his ceiling is very high. Other than Kobe Bryant, his archetype isn't willing to play defense (Westbrook, Rose, Morant, etc.). That's a world of difference since I view defense as exactly half of all potential production. I'm very optimistic about his future especially after Udoka/Stone/FVV exit interviews along with listening to objective non-Rocket fans discuss his future. I don't know how someone can convince Ime Udoka that he figured out how to play like a bonafide star and is well known for his work ethic can have a low chance of progressing. You can say I'm a huge believer in work ethic, both in basketball and in life. You can potentially get someone in their late 20's or early 30's who has repeatedly failed to lift a team and are widely regarded as overly selfish but can make All Star games. If a 25 year old two way All Star becomes available for trade (insanely rare), Jalen Green and the #9 pick won't be enough to get them. That's why I don't think your comparison is realistic.
Fair point.... serious question: by what metric would you define a top 50 player? PER? #80 / 16.3 Win shares? #68 / 5.4 Win shares/ 48? #35 True shooting %? #45 (.612) 3 pointers made? #41 (169) [38% made threes 3/7.8 a game] Box plus / minus? #43 VORP? #57 My points are these (1) he is borderline top 50 player; (2) MOST top 50 players do not become available; (3) I am not even sure Pellies would trade him RN b/c he is playing out of his mind in playoffs; & (4) you don't know who will be available (& what spot the pick is) in the draft. #9 (if it is that) is a crap shoot & Trey is proven. He also protects the ball. Led the league this year in TO%. Someone mentioned having to pay Thrilla, Alpi, & Trey (if acquired) and that is probably one of the best arguments against the move. BUT if Trey was playing well, he becomes a bargaining chip. That being said, probably a moot point because Pellies prolly won't trade him now.... but could be another Harden situation this time for the Crescent City
That's why it's better not to do trades because young top 50 players do not become available. Overwhelming majority of star trades do not work out because it's just a grass is greener syndrome but in reality if the dude was worth trading for he would be untouchable. And yes sometimes there are exceptions like Harden trade, but in those cases the star was probably underestimated and got bought at a discount. Later on teams like Philly and Brkn who acquired Harden at a premium regretted it. Majority of the time if the trading team just stayed Pat and been more patient they would have been better off, for example Hawks trading for Murray or Chicago trading for Vucevic. In fact the play seems to be getting young prospects, letting them mature to their prime and then trading them at a premium to some desperate team. That's why I'm not in favor of any "upgrade" trade using our draft capital or drafting for need. Lotto picks should always be used to get the guy who they think will be the BPA. If there are fit concerns later on, you can trade one of your guys at a premium to make a profit rather than drafting for need and wasting the pick when you could have filled the need via Free agency.
Personally I think Jalen is easily 50-50 to make an All Star game so yeah we're unlikely to agree here.
If you mean over the entire course of his career? A 50% chance of making at least one all-star game sounds about right. It's not that high of a bar, and there have been plenty of guys who were nowhere near being foundational franchise players who made one ASG. With how he's flashed the ability to get very hot for stretches, it's not implausible to believe he'll have at least one season where he's hot enough for long enough before the all-star break to make it in. I think his odds of becoming a perennial all-star, #1 option are much, much lower though. Even saying 5% might be generous. His median outcome right now is much closer to perennial 6MOY candidate than it is to perennial All-NBA candidate.
You know I'm optimistic about him, I think it's 50-50 he'll do it in the next 3 years. True making one ASG is good but not definitive in terms of being a max-worthy player, but honestly in the West for over a decade now if you get in as a guard you are probably a max player. If we were talking about forward it may be different, you get the occasional Kyle Kuzma in there I get it. Haha on the median outcome, yes I'm aware that if without context we plot on a chart a bunch of stats and try to draw a linear line through them the outcome is not going to be "star". My analysis includes more context than that though, I lean more towards Udoka's mind set of: what happened in those first two years is largely meaningless as long as he is a hard worker, coachable and improves when a good coach challenges him. The only information I take as definitive from the first two years is he had no fundamentals (very low floor for winning/efficiency) and a very high ceiling (like crazy high for his age at the time). Other than that, those stats mean nothing to me. He shot twice more than he would be allowed in any other circumstance, and I know that on a serious team his first two seasons he would have had high efficiency on a meager 10-12 shots going against bench players. That would have made him be seen different. That would be the right way to develop him, but we wanted ping pong balls more. In hindsight, it was ridiculous for us to expect a 19 year old with no fundamentals to be anything else but atrocious on 17+ shots a game - all HS'ers in NBA history other than Lebron James would have looked just as bad as Green if taking that many shots unaccountable. That includes Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady and Kevin Garnett who would have shot 40% or less from the field taking 17-20 shots against starters (those guys took like 10-12 shots per game for 2 years on veteran teams and against bench units). Add to that KPJ at PG, Silas/Stone as coach, historically obscene level of forcing losses from the front office. It's just not real data to be honest. To say those stats are noisy is a major understatement.
