At what point do you trade a player?

by northwestj on Jan 7, 2009 6:09 AM PST Comment 43 comments

This post could be subtitled: Or how I learned to second guess and love hindsight.

I'm going to use Sergio Rodriguez as a case study here, but I would also toss out that players like TO, Martell, Channing, Rudy, and possibly even G.O. could be added to the list.

I remember Sergio's breakout game against the nuggets a couple years back. I think he had 22 points and 11 assists. I don't want to speak for everyone, but everyone was starting to think that this guy was going to be the next Nash. I mean, Nash can't play D either. He had the flare, the vision, and the playmaking ability that made fans scream for more. His play also made the front office's phone lines burn up with interest from other squads.

A decision was made, and Sergio remains a Blazer.

This season, Sergio has played well, but I don't think anyone would argue that his ceiling is as high as people had originally thought. I hear people say that they would be pleased if he's shore up his defense and develop a consistent outside shot. Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make Steve Blake 2.0? It might as well.

So now, I'm at the point where I'm asking, "What is Sergio's trade value now compared to his surprising (albeit short) razzle-dazzle rookie season?" Off the top, I'd say that it's less today than it was two seasons ago, though I'd be open to a counter argument.

If his trade value is indeed lower, than we should figure out if we are still better off not making the trade. Does the potential to be a special player always outweigh the possibility that he won't be?

Channing Frye had a great rookie season, and from what I remember, he was essentially labeled 'untouchable' by the Knicks front office. After a less than impressive second season, the knicks decided to cut their losses and deal Frye to us. What's Frye's trade value now? (that's rhetorical. i know it's nothing)

How many players have good rookie seasons, followed by weak second and third seasons, only to raise again and have great NBA careers. A handful.

All the players I listed at the beginning of this post could have already peaked in terms of their trade value. Does the fact that a player's trade value is at its highest point mean that a deal should be made? Of course not. But if you are going to trade a player, doesn't it make sense to get maximum value?

Finally, I suppose most fans would say that hanging on to a potentially good player is worth it, even if a trade is passed up, because that is how you find great players in this league. Jermaine O'neal is the textbook example of this. But while most people would say that getting rid of J.O. was the mistake that needed to be made so we would learn our lesson, I would say that maybe it's time we started roll the dice a little bit again. How long are we going to let our lives be run by this decision made by a former employee almost a decade ago?

Just because the trade for Double D didn't work out for us doesn't mean that similar moves are always going to be bad. In fact, considering how many of the blazers 'special young talents' are late first-round picks, I would say that if we traded one or two of these guys while their value is high, we might be able to sucker some teams into giving us a great deal for a player who will never turn out.

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I've finally broken up with Travis

Up until this latest terrible stretch I wasn’t 100% done with Travis but I am now.

The guy is in year six of his career and he still makes decisions with the ball that would make rookies cringe. He’s 6’9" and can jump out of the gym and he rarely leaves the three-point line. I’m not sure I’ve seen Travis cut to the rim without the ball one single time this season. He averages 3 rpg – same as Rudy who is three inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter. Granted he is shooting 40% from 3 but he shoots 41% overall and less than 70% at the line. And despite what some here would have you believe, his defense is really bad overall. Yes there are times he can get locked in and shut a guy down one-on-one, or come help with a spectacular block. But I’ve watched nearly every game this season and the number of times Travis has been beaten for easy buckets numbers in the millions.

I actually think in the right place maybe Travis could flourish. But I think he needs a coach who demands that he play to his strengths within the team concept. Apparently he doesn’t have that right now because despite the occasional blip, he’s still bombing away with time on the clock…having lapses on defense…making bad decisions with the ball…

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2009 7:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Err, but I think he has nice trade value

I’m sure lots of NBA teams are as tantalized by his raw abilities as we are (were)

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2009 7:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I couldn't care less

about the trade value of players like Travis. We can’t stack them like cord-wood in the locker room to make room for someone better. I think we just need to face reality, take the loss and open up a spot in the rotation even if we don’t bring someone else back in his place. Trade Travis for cash and give his minutes to Diogu if nothing less.

"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."

by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

that's hardcore

Though patience be a tired mare, yet she will plod. - William Shakespeare

by BlazerFan1 on Jan 7, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

wasn't trying to be a jerk

just saying that more or less, the monetary value of a player shouldn’t dictate his time on the court or the other way around.

"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."

by Seijeff on Jan 8, 2009 1:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Another term that is really starting to piss me off is "trade value"

Who give a $%^ about a player’s trade value? I imagine LeBron James has the highest trade value in the NBA. Just about every team in the NBA would have to give up half their roster to trade for him and the Cavs would not trade him for any combination of players. Both options make James upgradeable, so does that mean he has no trade value?

What is Sergio’s trade value with the Hornets compared to with the Heat? What was Keith Van Horn’s trade value in January of last year compared to late February? There is no such thing as trade value, if there was, then it could be measured.

by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2009 7:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It is measured on the Bill Simmons' scale. Unfortunately the index only updates once per year

Column 2007/08. If you are not in the top 50, you have no real trade value.

by Norsktroll on Jan 7, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I love Simmons and I think you just confirmed that trade value is not a real quantity

by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2009 8:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There is no such thing as stupidity

If there was, then it could be measured.

If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President

by jscot on Jan 8, 2009 7:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's measured with BBIQ

by tominhawaii on Jan 8, 2009 7:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The scale only goes to 37 though

by tominhawaii on Jan 8, 2009 7:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What does 37

on the BarBecue IQ mean?

If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President

by jscot on Jan 8, 2009 7:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Only Nate has gone that high

Me median value for BBIQ is 22.39

by tominhawaii on Jan 8, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When you have decided that they do not fit into your overall team concept.....

…….and you have a better option available. As opposed to the trade deals people propose around here everyday: pie-in-the-sky trades for great young players in exchange for a few of our bench guys; or, trades for players who will not fit with our existing core; or, the seemingly ever popular, “let’s give away 2 or 3 of our young guys for an over the hill star.” None of these options make sense.

First you have to identify your needs. Second you need to target a player that you think can fill those needs and fit with your other guys. Third, you have to talk to the other GM and see if you have pieces that they want in return. Four you have to decide that the price is worth it.

This is not fantasy league where you make trades to collect statistical chits. This is about identifying weaknesses and figuring out how to fill them.

Fans tend to focus on a player’s strengths. GMs need to see a player’s weaknesses and determine whether the player has the physical and mental tools to overcome those weaknesses. None of this addresses the reality that trades are all about cap room and contracts, how long, how much, and do they match up.

by upper left corner on Jan 7, 2009 7:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

can i get an amen

you have to make a trade that is good for both teams too; so many of people’s trades are insulting to other organizations. Like, remember the Monix trade?

Activate Shavlik Randolph

by appel82 on Jan 7, 2009 8:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Attractiveness is hard to quantify

but it’s real enough for most people. That Sergio earns less than a million$ probably makes him pretty attractive to the GM set. Those people are attracted to that kind of stuff. And what about the frenzies that sometimes develop and the wild max contracts given to wierd and weak human beings. Are we gonna get a frenzy this year and next? Or are the GMs gonna keep it tucked in? If money’s tight maybe Fry’s 3 million$ seems like a lot. A lot of trade value depends on these cycles of greed. Good old human nature again.

by oregonslee on Jan 7, 2009 8:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

couple thoughts

TO’s trade value was pretty high after his breakout year last year. For a variety of reasons (playstyle, decision making, team fit, etc), myself and many others on this site advocated trading him in the offseason. Of course we were drowned out most times by a chorus of "#25). How good does that rumored TO for Mike Miller trade look right now?

I grow tired of the JO argument. Yeah, after going to Indiana he had some pretty solid seasons and was an all star (due mostly to lack of bigs in the East). The thing you have to weigh in the equation though is this – by that point in time, would he have EVER turned into that kind of player if he had stayed here? His confidence was shot, he was frustrated, and his motivation was likely low after 3 years on the bench. I contended then and still do that the change of scenery played a very big factor in reenergizing and remotivating Jermaine to prove he was a player in this league. Without the trade, would that have ever happened? I don’t think it would have, at least not to the extent that it did for the Pacers.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 7, 2009 9:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

How good does that rumored TO for Mike Miller trade look right now?

Instead of a logjam at the 3, we get a logjam at the 2.

Right this instant? It would be great to have Miller playing while Roy is injured. But – no. – Elgin

It doesn't mean you should just because you can. Like Abraham and Ishmael, fighting over sand - it doesn't mean you should just because you can. That is a fact of life. - Adrian Belew

by 22baylor on Jan 7, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, the full trade would be...

Ike Diogu, Jerryd Bayless, TO for Mike Miller and Jarrett Jack.

I believe Memphis wanted the 13th pick with TO.

by The Graduate on Jan 7, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

is chemistry quantifiable?

if not, than according to you, tominhawaii, it can’t exist.

I agree it’s murky at best, but I don’t think the analogy of dumping an inflated stock when it’s obviously overvalued by others isn’t completely off base. I’m sure the blazers have been smitten by guys who didn’t work out (D.A.), and I’m sure we’ve been able to trick other teams into taking some less than substantive players (how about the trade value of T.T. and L.A. for an example).

There is also the side note that a lot of this is predicated on the idea that there was indeed a trade offered and refused, which we’ll never know.

and for the record I am not for trading anybody on our roster right now.

by northwestj on Jan 7, 2009 9:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't talking about chemistry

But it’s pretty easy to see if a team gets along with one another.

The whole concept of trade value going up and down is preposterous, ludicrous, and lame. Trade value depends on team needs. Just look at the JJ trade.

by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

my point with chemistry

was that some things aren’t always quantifiable. And just because you can’t measure them, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Chemsitry and trade value are both good examples.

The JJ trade is exactly what I’m talking about. We decided to cut the cord on a player, even though he had the potential to turn in to a nice player. Team need can influence how highly they value a player. i think that based on a lot of BEdgers’ responses to the draft day deal, a lot of people say that we pritchslapped the pacers. We used the values given to players by the teams involved to put ourselves in a better position.

So which player on this squad is the new JJ? And is it worth getting rid of them now, while other teams covet that player’s abilities, or do we need to let things sort themselves out further? I think a lot of this depends on Martell.

by northwestj on Jan 7, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Travis is the new JJ because he's the new whipping boy

Regarding the JJ trade, a lot of Bedgers were wrong that there was a Pritchslap. Indiana need a draft pick that could play now, the Blazers could wait on a young guy to develop. KP called Bird and said, “Hey, I know you want Rush, so why don’t you draft Bayless for us? You can pay Rush less money as the 13th pick and we’ll throw in two serviceable guys and take Ike off your hands.” It wasn’t a Pritchslap, it was a trade to that fit both team’s needs.

Fans see a player have a hot few weeks and all the sudden his trade value is higher. They seem to think that GM’s only look at a players last month instead of his whole career. If there is such a thing as trade value, then it would be different for each player as applied to each team in the NBA. Sergio may have trade value for a team without a point guard but he’s worthless to the Hornets or the Jazz.

What’s the difference between Roy’s trade value and Raef’s trade value? I’m sure a lot of teams would like either Roy the player or Raef’s contract. Roy anytime and Raef’s value goes up the closer we get to the trade deadline. If there are no teams that want to dump salary, then Raef’s trade value is zero even though he’s an expiring contract.

The term “trade value” is so ambiguous that it has no blog value.

by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

It was a win-win trade

I said that at the team. I still say it, and I’ll say it even if Jerryd becomes an all-star and Jarrett doesn’t. It helped both teams at the time. It also cleared Jarrett’s cap hold this summer, which had some value to us. We can afford to wait a year or two on Bayless to see how he develops. We didn’t have that luxury with JJ, we were either going to let him go or re-sign him.

However, “trade value” is not of no value. It is just of limited value. Attractive assets have value in trading.

Diamonds have value, but I’m not in the market for one right now. If it was made available to me at a sufficiently low price, though, I’d take one. Why? Because when the value exceeds the price, you take the deal.

We aren’t looking for a center right now. But if we were offered Dwight Howard for Travis Outlaw, I suspect KP would convince himself to pull the trigger. Because Dwight has more trade value than Travis.

Now, trade value is indeed ambiguous, because Dwight is a lot more valuable to a team like Detroit than he would be to us. So Detroit might be willing to give up a lot more to get him than we would be. So that means the term is limited in its usefulness, but it isn’t worthless.

Sergio might be attractive to the Hornets as a backup PG. If you offered him for a second rounder, I suspect they would jump at that.

If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President

by jscot on Jan 8, 2009 7:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

trade value

much like market value. It is whatever you’re willing to pay for it.

Greg Oden, where posters happen.

by ratbastird on Jan 7, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You trade a player...

… when his value on the trade market (defined by the best offers you are getting for him) exceeds his value to your team.

I don’t know which Blazers are on this list because I am not in contact with NBA GMs, however players I suspect might be on this list are Aldridge, Outlaw, Frye, Diogu, Bayless, Sergio, RLEC (of course) and Rudy. Those are the players who I could imagine bringing back a more valuable (to the Blazers) player in a trade.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2009 11:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You don't trade away your player based on his value

You trade a player because the player your are trading for better fits your team’s needs. A lot of folks think trades are about getting more back than you are giving up. It’s about fairly meeting the needs of both teams involved. If Diogu started averaging a double double off the bench, you don’t trade him because his trade value is higher, you have him be the first guy off the bench.

by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no, you'd trade him...

… unless you think he could sustainably average a double double. More likely, it would be a short term fluke, and there’d never be a better time to trade him.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're the stat guy and you really think that?

Don’t you think GM’s use stats too? I’m sure you’ve heard the term “probability theory” or the “law of averages.” Trade Value is an urban legend.

by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

there are some really stupid GMs out there

It would definitely be tougher to pull of a one sided trade now that Isaiah and McHale aren’t in the front office, but there are still some real dummies out there.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but that isn't how GM's operate.

you’re talking about exceptions to the rule. Trades are meant to be fair to both sides, and trying to create a philosophy that caters to 1 sided trading is self-defeating.

by premthegrem on Jan 7, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

In general, you want to structure the trade such that the other guy finds it attractive because it will help his team, too.

If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President

by jscot on Jan 8, 2009 7:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rod Strickland

Brian Grant. Rasheed Wallace. Even Buck Williams.

I can think of a handful of players that other teams had given up on (Pritch’s “fallen angels”) and the Blazers picked up that turned out to be great players. From that sense, I think that those other teams were foolish to give up those players rather than using them.

On the other hand, we kept a hold of Cliff Robinson. We hung on to that guy with both hands. I think Portland actually ended up overvalueing that guy.

Here’s the thing: I’ve been influenced by some “Moneyball” type work and I think that the system matters a great deal more than the player. I think, for example, that Phil Jackson created a system that allowed players to be great. I think the same can be said for Addelman. Chalk up San Antonio here as well.

This is why I’m happy with KP’s idea of culture. If Nate—and KP’s secret algorithm—can create a winning system, then what matters after that is chemistry and culture. So I’m inclined to hang on to some players whose trade value might be only marginally less than other players if they fit niceliy within the system.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Jan 7, 2009 11:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

how long

do you think is reasonable to wait to see if the system inspires the players that have been brought in? Does a player like Travis, who was here before the system was implimented and hasn’t seemed to be very responsive to it, get the same consideration as a player specifically taken to be a part of that system?

"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."

by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

a player like Travis, who was here before the system was implimented and hasn’t seemed to be very responsive to it,

He’s ten times the player now, compared to what he was when he got here. – Elgin

It doesn't mean you should just because you can. Like Abraham and Ishmael, fighting over sand - it doesn't mean you should just because you can. That is a fact of life. - Adrian Belew

by 22baylor on Jan 7, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's make the the assumption that Trout is a bad fit in th system

That’s a hugely debatable assumption but that argument is playing itself out on many different threads.

For now, you ask how long do we wait for a player like Travis?

A system—like Denver’s running game or Bill Walsh’s West Coast Offense—should be able to make a winning system out of merely competent players. If they buy into the system.

Once it is clear that Travis does not buy in, he should be traded immediately.

I’ve argued before hat 3pt shooting SF’s seem pretty available. I use Udoka and James Jones as examples (players I’d love to have right now on this team). They seem to walk into and buy into a system. If one perceives Trout as not being able to fill that role as well (and I think one could make that argument reasonably) then that’s it. He’s out.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Jan 7, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As an aside,

I think that’s why the BBIQ thing stung people a bit. I happen to think that Trout has mental lapses rather than physical ones that cause his on-court gaffes.

There is a scenario where a player buys in but he simply doesn’t have the mental acuity to operate within a complex scheme. I suppose any scheme on someoccasions.

Travis might be a player who has bought in philosophically (with his heart) but can’t with his brain. That hurts. That’s a sad situation that anyone should pity and feel bad about.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Jan 7, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is my concern

It isn’t that I think Travis is dumb, its just that I don’t know what his capacity to understand, grasp and implement the system that McMillan is teaching, and so all I have to go on is the nightly performance on the court.

I have to admit that I’m rather flumoxed because every third game or so (it seems to be an average) Travis will do better, and have what in my mind is a somewhat better than average night for his position. Then his performance dips back down once more and we’re left with a couple of obvious questions: One being, which is the real Travis Outlaw? The other being that If he is capable of performing like we all know he is, is there really a comprehension problem or is it merely an attitude shift? Is he just simply doing enough to get by?

If that were the case, I don’t know if McMillan would be so happy about it and willing to call plays for him, but he does so which in my mind rules out both mental incapacity and unwillingness to put forth the effort.

I don’t have a third alternative at the moment.

"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."

by Seijeff on Jan 8, 2009 1:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's concentration

Mental lapses. I’m persuaded of that. Not that he doesn’t have the mental capacity to know what needs to be done, but that he loses focus.

That’s why so often he does so well in the fourth quarter, and under pressure — his concentration goes up.

He’s like the really smart kid in class who gets halfway through the math test, answering every question correctly, but he heard something outside, looks out the window, and sees a butterfly flying around. He never answers another question on the test, until the teacher says, “2 minutes left”, and then flies through 2/3 of the remaining questions, getting almost all of them right.

There’s no question of the kid’s math ability, or of Travis’ basketball ability. He just loses concentration too often. That’s my opinion.

No one can keep intense concentration for every minute on the court. But Travis’ lapses are worse because he was never drilled in fundamentals in junior high or high school, never went to college, and his first couple years were not conducive to developing good habits. Most players, when their concentration lapses, still do the right thing out of habit. Not Travis. He never developed those good habits.

And he is almost certainly not a visual or auditory learner. Visual learners learn by seeing, auditory learn by hearing. Travis probably learns by doing. Telling him to do something doesn’t connect in his brain the way it does for some people. Showing him how, and stepping him through it, does. And that makes it hard for him to learn basketball instincts over the summer. He needs to be in five-on-five scrimmages probably all summer long, and where do you get that with people working with him on good fundamentals/habits when he goes wrong?

If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President

by jscot on Jan 8, 2009 8:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe he should try that five hour energy stuff

"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."

by Seijeff on Jan 8, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And if that's the case

and you may be right, then you have an entirely different set of questions.

1. Can you, by repetition and training, overcome/lessen some of the mental lapses? We may be seeing some progress on that front.
2. Can you put him in limited situations where those mental lapses are less costly than the benefits? For instance, DON’T start him, put him on the second unit, and tell him, “Travis, go score. You know you can, that’s your role. Do it.” When the guy’s only job is to go score, he does pretty well at that a lot of the time.

If Travis learns one new skill every year (this year, his passing has been improved, as has his 3 point shooting) and doesn’t lose the skills he learned in the past, at what point should you give up?

Cost/benefit analysis. When the costs are not sufficiently outweighed by the benefits or the anticipated future benefits. And you have to factor in also the costs/benefits you receive by trading him for whomever you could get back.

His issue is basketball instincts. He doesn’t recognize situations on the floor often enough, and make the right decision. But some of this IS improving. He is still a work in progress, even in his sixth year.

I’m glad I don’t have to make the decision on when to give up and when not to. I don’t think Travis is done growing, and I am persuaded he could have a key role on a championship team. But whether the benefits he brings sufficiently outweigh the costs and the value he could bring in a trade is something that is very hard to gauge at this point in time. And part of that picture is something KP knows and the rest of us don’t know — who could we really get for Travis, and who could we get last summer?

The fact that a trade is discussed and written about in the media doesn’t mean it was ever really an option. We don’t know what was really offered.

If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President

by jscot on Jan 8, 2009 7:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the one thing that I hope for

is that when the team does reach championship level and are in the playoffs that we don’t have Travis show up one game and then disappear for the rest of the series.

"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."

by Seijeff on Jan 8, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs