Author Topic: Was the MCW trade a bad one?  (Read 4476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« on: May 27, 2016, 12:08:24 AM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
It being a slow time Of year I thought I would throw out an idea I have debated in my head lately. What do we think of the 76ers trade of MCW for the Lakers pick after they did not get the pick this year? It seems like the pick will probably be at worst 9th or 10th next year because the lakers are going to throw around some money this offseason and won't be intentionally tanking. Obviously MCW has not panned out as a player and looks like a career backup. At the time of the trade however he was viewed as having really good physical skills but unknown limitations on his potential because of his shooting. Was this a great trade by Philly? Awful? Average? If nothing else this was an interesting trade of a reigning ROY with a protected pick.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 12:27:03 AM by celticsclay »

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2016, 12:27:40 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
A top 10 pick in a decent draft is worth way more than Mcw. Great trade.

I'm skeptical the Lakers will be any good next year. They'll be better than this year, probably, but they have a long way to go and nobody will seriously want to sign there.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2016, 12:50:48 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
MCW hasn't shown himself to be anything other than a above average backup PG. So even if it's just a lottery level pick it's a good deal for the 76ers. I do wonder if MCW was with more shooters though. Think he is more a system player.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2016, 01:44:16 AM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
A top 10 pick in a decent draft is worth way more than Mcw. Great trade.

I'm skeptical the Lakers will be any good next year. They'll be better than this year, probably, but they have a long way to go and nobody will seriously want to sign there.

How much value does a pick lose going 3 years down the line? If we took trade offers for Bradley and someone offered us the 18th pick this year or the 12th pick 3 years from now what would you take? Also my point wasn't about whether MCW ended up great but what his value was at alter time.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2016, 02:10:22 AM »

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
Still looks like a great trade to me.
Just to get at 50% shot at the Lakers pick this year was great. MCW looks like a huge disappointment and the Lakers will be lucky if they arent a bottom 8 team next year. Unless they sign multiple solid free agents they will still suck just because of their young guys learning the ropes.

Solid trade then and still now.
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2016, 03:33:49 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Big picture move.  It's the same reason I thought the second Chris Paul trade was better than the one that was "vetoed".  In the first trade, they would have received some serviceable talent like Lamar Odom that would have allowed New Orleans to tread water.  The NBA owned the team at the time and refused to approve such a short-sighted move.  Instead, they traded Chris Paul for Eric Gordon and a 1st.    Gordon and the 1st (Austin Rivers) didn't pan out, but by making that move they allowed the HOrnets to efficiently bottom out - resulting in Anthony Davis. 

Same with Philly's moves.  The goal was to bottom out.  The fact that they have the #1 pick in this draft, widely believed to be a superstar prospect, means moving MCW for a long-range asset was a wise move.  I'm sure they would have preferred for it to convey this season... and there's a chance the Lakers make a shocking quick turnaround leaving Philly with a late 1st.   And there's a chance MCW ends up significantly better than what that pick becomes... but one could argue Philly wouldn't be on the verge of adding a franchise player had it not been for moves like that.  And it's pretty clear Philly was right in believing MCW was not a franchise talent.  He's struggled. 

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2016, 03:41:13 AM »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Tommy Points: 419
Even if MCW lived up to his potential it would still be bad, because his whole game is inefficient.  You'd just be throwing money at a player who makes your team worse in aggregate.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2016, 03:45:21 AM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Big picture move.  It's the same reason I thought the second Chris Paul trade was better than the one that was "vetoed".  In the first trade, they would have received some serviceable talent like Lamar Odom that would have allowed New Orleans to tread water.  The NBA owned the team at the time and refused to approve such a short-sighted move.  Instead, they traded Chris Paul for Eric Gordon and a 1st.    Gordon and the 1st (Austin Rivers) didn't pan out, but by making that move they allowed the HOrnets to efficiently bottom out - resulting in Anthony Davis. 

Same with Philly's moves.  The goal was to bottom out.  The fact that they have the #1 pick in this draft, widely believed to be a superstar prospect, means moving MCW for a long-range asset was a wise move.  I'm sure they would have preferred for it to convey this season... and there's a chance the Lakers make a shocking quick turnaround leaving Philly with a late 1st.   And there's a chance MCW ends up significantly better than what that pick becomes... but one could argue Philly wouldn't be on the verge of adding a franchise player had it not been for moves like that.  And it's pretty clear Philly was right in believing MCW was not a franchise talent.  He's struggled.

This is a pretty good point that they may have not been able to bottom out without this trade. But who is the superstar talent? Because the way the draft is shaping up it seems like we have a 15% shot at anyone

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2016, 04:34:20 AM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
It was a bad move, yes.

But for the Bucks not Philly.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2016, 05:21:18 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Big picture move.  It's the same reason I thought the second Chris Paul trade was better than the one that was "vetoed".  In the first trade, they would have received some serviceable talent like Lamar Odom that would have allowed New Orleans to tread water.  The NBA owned the team at the time and refused to approve such a short-sighted move.  Instead, they traded Chris Paul for Eric Gordon and a 1st.    Gordon and the 1st (Austin Rivers) didn't pan out, but by making that move they allowed the HOrnets to efficiently bottom out - resulting in Anthony Davis. 

Same with Philly's moves.  The goal was to bottom out.  The fact that they have the #1 pick in this draft, widely believed to be a superstar prospect, means moving MCW for a long-range asset was a wise move.  I'm sure they would have preferred for it to convey this season... and there's a chance the Lakers make a shocking quick turnaround leaving Philly with a late 1st.   And there's a chance MCW ends up significantly better than what that pick becomes... but one could argue Philly wouldn't be on the verge of adding a franchise player had it not been for moves like that.  And it's pretty clear Philly was right in believing MCW was not a franchise talent.  He's struggled.

This is a pretty good point that they may have not been able to bottom out without this trade. But who is the superstar talent? Because the way the draft is shaping up it seems like we have a 15% shot at anyone
Philly has the #1 pick this Summer in-part, because they got rid of capable players like MCW.   Ben Simmons might be the franchise player they need.  So if Simmons pans out like a lot of people think, the big picture result of trading MCW might be a success even if the Lakers go on a run next year and the Laker pick underwhelms.  Philly's entire plan was to be as bad as possible to maximize their chance of landing superstar prospects.  They are in pretty good position right now.  Simmons/Ingram will be on board.  Embiid might finally be healthy.  Saric is coming over.  They can trade Okafor for the #3 pick + additional assets if they want and Noel has pretty good trade value (probably could trade him for Marcus Smart if they want).  This is the kind of big picture stuff a lot of casual fans didn't understand when they looked at Philly.  Yeah, it might still fail, but few teams are better positioned heading into this Summer.  They are set up for a rapid turnaround.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2016, 05:26:41 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
Big picture move.  It's the same reason I thought the second Chris Paul trade was better than the one that was "vetoed".  In the first trade, they would have received some serviceable talent like Lamar Odom that would have allowed New Orleans to tread water.  The NBA owned the team at the time and refused to approve such a short-sighted move.  Instead, they traded Chris Paul for Eric Gordon and a 1st.    Gordon and the 1st (Austin Rivers) didn't pan out, but by making that move they allowed the HOrnets to efficiently bottom out - resulting in Anthony Davis. 

Same with Philly's moves.  The goal was to bottom out.  The fact that they have the #1 pick in this draft, widely believed to be a superstar prospect, means moving MCW for a long-range asset was a wise move.  I'm sure they would have preferred for it to convey this season... and there's a chance the Lakers make a shocking quick turnaround leaving Philly with a late 1st.   And there's a chance MCW ends up significantly better than what that pick becomes... but one could argue Philly wouldn't be on the verge of adding a franchise player had it not been for moves like that.  And it's pretty clear Philly was right in believing MCW was not a franchise talent.  He's struggled.

This is a pretty good point that they may have not been able to bottom out without this trade. But who is the superstar talent? Because the way the draft is shaping up it seems like we have a 15% shot at anyone
Philly has the #1 pick this Summer in-part, because they got rid of capable players like MCW.   Ben Simmons might be the franchise player they need.  So if Simmons pans out like a lot of people think, the big picture result of trading MCW might be a success even if the Lakers go on a run next year and the Laker pick underwhelms.  Philly's entire plan was to be as bad as possible to maximize their chance of landing superstar prospects.  They are in pretty good position right now.  Simmons/Ingram will be on board.  Embiid might finally be healthy.  Saric is coming over.  They can trade Okafor for the #3 pick + additional assets if they want and Noel has pretty good trade value (probably could trade him for Marcus Smart if they want).  This is the kind of big picture stuff a lot of casual fans didn't understand when they looked at Philly.  Yeah, it might still fail, but few teams are better positioned heading into this Summer.  They are set up for a rapid turnaround.

I'm not sure credit can be given to that trade for them sucking this year. The Embiid and Okafor years OK. The reason they still sucked this year was because they hadn't managed to get a sure thing superstar in the draft yet, or at least a healthy and engaged one. If they had scored Towns then I think we'd have seen an upswing over the last summer where they tried to take a next step.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2016, 06:10:05 AM »

Offline Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47136
  • Tommy Points: 2401
It's too early to call but I think it still has a good chance of working out well for Philly. I am not that high on the Lakers free agency chances. Their roster is too young and too flawed. It won't be attractive to most. We'll have a better idea towards the end of July.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2016, 06:50:40 AM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8913
  • Tommy Points: 1212
It was a bad move, yes.

But for the Bucks not Philly.

I don't even think it was that bad for the Bucks,  the Suns came out the worst
I'm bitter.

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2016, 06:58:47 AM »

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2493
  • Tommy Points: 199
It was a bad move, yes.

But for the Bucks not Philly.

I don't even think it was that bad for the Bucks,  the Suns came out the worst

Absolutely. That day was a massive head scratcher for their fans. At least we benefited!

Re: Was the MCW trade a bad one?
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2016, 07:27:57 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
It was a bad move, yes.

But for the Bucks not Philly.

I don't even think it was that bad for the Bucks,  the Suns came out the worst

Absolutely. That day was a massive head scratcher for their fans. At least we benefited!
The whole day was weird for the Suns but the Brandon Knight trade wasn't that bad.  Suns acquired Knight and Marshall and gave up the Tyler Ennis, Miles Plumlee, and the Lakers pick which still hasn't transferred yet.  Ennis and Plumlee are rotation players at best.  Knight is a 20/5/4 type player. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip