Phx-Suns.Net

Furlanfufi wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:11 pm

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 9:09 pm

Kryptonic wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 8:36 pm

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 8:19 pm

Man, my high-effort posts have really been swing-and-a-miss around here.

I cataloged, categorized and graded 36 picks over 37 years. I identified a pattern so strong it can fairly be called a rule, that nobody seems to be aware of, that has major implications for how we think and talk about trades, which we all the time here, especially lately… yet nobody even notices. What am I getting wrong about everybody? I kinda get why Saucy wouldn’t be interested in the “mystical magical theoretical” history of this franchise, but I’m otherwise confused.

I wouldn’t take it personal. The teams mega frustrating right now and people are prob not as motivated to mull in the “what ifs” and re-litigate our failures. Just doesnt solve our current problem and only reminds us of the mess we’re in.

Everybody’s talking constantly about what we should do and what trades we should make. Yet nobody is interested in considering trends like this?

We should do X.

We’ve done that 16 times before. We almost always regret it. We’ve done the opposite 17 times and always benefit greatly.

I’m not interested in relitigating past failures. Do it!

:facepalm:

What do they say about those who refuse to learn from the past?

Time for me to learn from the past and stop trying.

It's not personal, but also due to the fact that even agreeing with you, the decision ultimately it's not ours.

“The decision ultimately isn’t ours” has never been a reason not to discuss something on this forum, so I think something else is going on.

All I know is that Ishbia won't allow us to be bad. This backs that up, right?

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:20 pm

Furlanfufi wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:11 pm

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 9:09 pm

Kryptonic wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 8:36 pm

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 8:19 pm

Man, my high-effort posts have really been swing-and-a-miss around here.

I cataloged, categorized and graded 36 picks over 37 years. I identified a pattern so strong it can fairly be called a rule, that nobody seems to be aware of, that has major implications for how we think and talk about trades, which we all the time here, especially lately… yet nobody even notices. What am I getting wrong about everybody? I kinda get why Saucy wouldn’t be interested in the “mystical magical theoretical” history of this franchise, but I’m otherwise confused.

I wouldn’t take it personal. The teams mega frustrating right now and people are prob not as motivated to mull in the “what ifs” and re-litigate our failures. Just doesnt solve our current problem and only reminds us of the mess we’re in.

Everybody’s talking constantly about what we should do and what trades we should make. Yet nobody is interested in considering trends like this?

We should do X.

We’ve done that 16 times before. We almost always regret it. We’ve done the opposite 17 times and always benefit greatly.

I’m not interested in relitigating past failures. Do it!

:facepalm:

What do they say about those who refuse to learn from the past?

Time for me to learn from the past and stop trying.

It's not personal, but also due to the fact that even agreeing with you, the decision ultimately it's not ours.

“The decision ultimately isn’t ours” has never been a reason not to discuss something on this forum, so I think something else is going on.

When we're not ao depressed with the team, it wasn't a reason. Lately I'm in a state that I want to sleep and wake up and rrad the team did ANYTHING to get out of this mess.

I could be talking about my life, but the team right now is more depressing than the rest of it, so it won't give me will to discuss what we could do.

But hey, I really like reading your posts and all the effort you put into it!

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:05 am

The one trade I was really wrong about at the time was dumping Googs. I hated that one. Two #1’s just to dump Googs? Come on, his contract’s not THAT much of an albatross. They’re just doing this to save money, not for basketball reasons! JC’s not even going to be here when the picks come due! I had no idea that the cap room generated by the trade would help us get the next two MVPs when other teams could offer more and there were no MVP-level players on the market.

(...)

Boy, was I wrong. Even though one of the picks turned out to be Gordon Hayward, the trade turned out great.

The Googs reflection is not accurate. Googs was an expiring contract when the deal was made to effectively that had no impact on the ability to go after Nash. The real effect that trade had was to decrease the salary mass in light of the franchise acquisition by Sarver.

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 8:43 am

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:05 am

The one trade I was really wrong about at the time was dumping Googs. I hated that one. Two #1’s just to dump Googs? Come on, his contract’s not THAT much of an albatross. They’re just doing this to save money, not for basketball reasons! JC’s not even going to be here when the picks come due! I had no idea that the cap room generated by the trade would help us get the next two MVPs when other teams could offer more and there were no MVP-level players on the market.

(...)

Boy, was I wrong. Even though one of the picks turned out to be Gordon Hayward, the trade turned out great.

The Googs reflection is not accurate. Googs was an expiring contract when the deal was made to effectively that had no impact on the ability to go after Nash. The real effect that trade had was to decrease the salary mass in light of the franchise acquisition by Sarver.

So I was right in the first place, two #1s just to save money?

Fwiw I appreciate these posts Cap and I am sure it took time to compile all of this. I think the relatively modest traffic on these threads reflects the fact that we're a small community and that right now our team is pretty depressingly bad, so traffic and chatter are down a bit. I have found this thread and the detailed analysis of our past draft-pick-moving trades quite interesting. It does reinforce my prior opinion that maybe we shouldn't just throw away draft picks in trades; this is perhaps the most compelling overall data set to reinforce that view that I have seen, with decades of hindsight and the ability to detach from any one trade, or even any one era.

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 9:34 am

The pattern I meant is simply this: most of the “pick in” deals worked out good to great, and I don’t think any of them actually harmed the franchise; the “pick out” deals mostly range from horrible to catastrophic, with just two (Rubio for CP3, dumping Googs) working out well.

Mmmh I don't know. Adding picks in inherently a positive thing the same way losing picks is inherently negative. But we need to put it into context: what was the main goal chased by the team at the time of the move, and to what extent it was achieved. The real factor is how you evaluate talent and roster composition. Money (picks) well spent vs waste of resources.

Pick in deals can mean a lot of things. In a few cases where you graded good or great, the pick we get in is an accesory:

KJ deal that also delivered Majerle; this would have been a great move even if no pick or if the pick was used on nothing special.
JJ deal that also included a pick that turned out to be Jacobsen; great move even if the pick was used on a inconsequential player
Marbury trojan horse; great move where the cap space was the main driver for us, not the picks.
Hedo deal; good move where we were looking mainly to rebalance the roster with Gortat and undo the absurd mistake that was acquiring Turkoglu for Barbosa.

On the other hand, in a few of the moves classified as bad or worse, the conclusion has little to do with giving up the picks in itself (in both senses):

McDyess was a fail because he bolted, but if he stayed with Kidd we'd be singing a very different tune.
Longley was a fail because the team paid for a bum, but if they had set their target better, using the pick is again not a bad thing.
Penny was a bad move not because of the pick used, but because he was done as an all NBA and then after the injury as a relevant player.
Googs I addressed on the post above as a total waste of picks as he was an expiring contract.
Sergio Rodríguez: selling the pick for cash was a fail in itself. It always is. Same goes for any move that is driven by cost aversion (KT, Rudy Fernández).

Cap wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 8:51 am

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 8:43 am

Cap wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:05 am

The one trade I was really wrong about at the time was dumping Googs. I hated that one. Two #1’s just to dump Googs? Come on, his contract’s not THAT much of an albatross. They’re just doing this to save money, not for basketball reasons! JC’s not even going to be here when the picks come due! I had no idea that the cap room generated by the trade would help us get the next two MVPs when other teams could offer more and there were no MVP-level players on the market.

(...)

Boy, was I wrong. Even though one of the picks turned out to be Gordon Hayward, the trade turned out great.

The Googs reflection is not accurate. Googs was an expiring contract when the deal was made to effectively that had no impact on the ability to go after Nash. The real effect that trade had was to decrease the salary mass in light of the franchise acquisition by Sarver.

So I was right in the first place, two #1s just to save money?

I guess. Two 1stRs just to save money to make the product they were selling more attractive, not to gain cap space the following season.

I applaud the effort, Cap. I read through it and found it interesting. I also enjoyed the AI analysis of it. Just because I didn't have any feedback to give doesn't mean I didn't enjoy and appreciate it. I really do. You are bringing something unique to the table.

It will be interesting to see where we are in five years and what Ishbia and team can do with what they have created to this point. Like I said, I have marked the time period and it will be fun to revisit then.

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:25 am

McDyess was a fail because he bolted, but if he stayed with Kidd we'd be singing a very different tune.

He did bolt. My grade is not an evaluation of JC’s decision making process in 1997, nor does it entertain speculation of how things could or might have worked out in a different world. It’s just an evaluation in hindsight of how things worked out in the real world.

It’s easy to look at some of these deals and say the ways they worked out were flukes and don’t prove anything. I think it’s something else to look at a dataset this large, with only one or two exceptions to the rule, and dismiss the entire pattern as a fluke.

Cap wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:58 am

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:25 am

McDyess was a fail because he bolted, but if he stayed with Kidd we'd be singing a very different tune.

He did bolt. My grade is not an evaluation of JC’s decision making process in 1997, nor does it entertain speculation of how things could or might have worked out in a different world. It’s just an evaluation in hindsight of how things worked out in the real world.

It’s easy to look at some of these deals and say the ways they worked out were flukes and don’t prove anything. I think it’s something else to look at a dataset this large, with only one or two exceptions to the rule, and dismiss the entire pattern as a fluke.

Man I provided more than one or two exceptions, in both sets (picks in, picks out), and I didn't even went fully into all the moves as I thought it was demonstrated enough that you can't extract causality in (a) getting in picks = good moves and (b) sending out picks = bad moves.

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 10:12 am

Cap wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:58 am

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:25 am

McDyess was a fail because he bolted, but if he stayed with Kidd we'd be singing a very different tune.

He did bolt. My grade is not an evaluation of JC’s decision making process in 1997, nor does it entertain speculation of how things could or might have worked out in a different world. It’s just an evaluation in hindsight of how things worked out in the real world.

It’s easy to look at some of these deals and say the ways they worked out were flukes and don’t prove anything. I think it’s something else to look at a dataset this large, with only one or two exceptions to the rule, and dismiss the entire pattern as a fluke.

Man I provided more than one or two exceptions, in both sets (picks in, picks out), and I didn't even went fully into all the moves as I thought it was demonstrated enough that you can't extract causality in (a) getting in picks = good moves and (b) sending out picks = bad moves.

I’m saying there are only one or two exceptions to the rule that deals in which we receive #1s work out well and deals in which we send #1s work out badly.

Rubio for Paul was an “Out” trade that worked out well.

I also count the Dunn/Oso thing as a good “Out” trade because they’re having good rookie years so far, but it would probably more fairly be graded as incomplete. Also, trading down from 22 to 28 technically qualifies it for the Out category, but it’s kind of a “Baby Out.”

Aside from that, the rule holds. One or two exceptions in 37 years. Coincidence?

Cap wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:05 am

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 10:12 am

Cap wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:58 am

Ring_Wanted wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:25 am

McDyess was a fail because he bolted, but if he stayed with Kidd we'd be singing a very different tune.

He did bolt. My grade is not an evaluation of JC’s decision making process in 1997, nor does it entertain speculation of how things could or might have worked out in a different world. It’s just an evaluation in hindsight of how things worked out in the real world.

It’s easy to look at some of these deals and say the ways they worked out were flukes and don’t prove anything. I think it’s something else to look at a dataset this large, with only one or two exceptions to the rule, and dismiss the entire pattern as a fluke.

Man I provided more than one or two exceptions, in both sets (picks in, picks out), and I didn't even went fully into all the moves as I thought it was demonstrated enough that you can't extract causality in (a) getting in picks = good moves and (b) sending out picks = bad moves.

I’m saying there are only one or two exceptions to the rule that trading for picks works out well and trading away picks works out poorly.

Rubio for Paul was an “Out” trade that worked out well.

I also count the Dunn/Oso thing as a good “Out” trade because they’re having good rookie years so far, but it would probably more fairly be graded as incomplete. Also, trading down from 22 to 28 technically qualifies it for the Out category, but it’s kind of a “Baby Out.”

Aside from that, the rule holds. Coincidence?

The rule holds? By what criterion? Because in some trades the pick plays a secondary role that bears little say in the overall assessment the role, so I wouldn't consider these cases as proof (causality) the alleged rule.

I also pointed out moves in both "picks in" and "picks out" that are not coherent with "trading for picks works out well and trading away picks works out poorly". In other words, what is "well" and what is "poorly".

Look at this: Ceballos out for a pick was great. Why? Because the pick became Finley. Next move, Socks out, was "not particularly meaningful" because the player selected was a Posey, nothing more than a role player. Bo Outlaw out for a pick was great because we got Amare. But Gortat out was not particularly meaningful because we drafted a bust in Tyler Ennis. Or Markieff to WAS for their pick.

I think it’s maybe not super useful to evaluate the specific moves for picks in a good or bad sense independently of the team’s ability to draft.

At some point I remember reading one of the stat heads on ESPN assigning dollar values to picks based on historic performance at those specific points. That might be a better tool to discern patterns, assuming the goal is to identify patterns that better help our ability as a team to make the “right” move in future transactions.

FWIW I hated the KD trade at the time, tho not because of the picks, but because of Mikal and Cam *and* Crowder without moving Ayton. But if at least one or two of those players stayed I would have looked at the trade in a much different light.