Woj: Gafford to Dallas

[AFM]

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Clippers are injury prone and that pick could change in a hurry.

They may be injury prone, but they're also really deep and can stay afloat if a star goes down.

I actually think the chances of OKC having an injury are more likely to help our cause. But I'm not rooting for an injury. That would be bad juju. I'm just going to hope that Dawkins and co. do a good job with a late FRP.

[nate33]

Um, even a very late first is terrific compensation for Gafford. He's a fringe starting center depending on the roster.

Yeah. I'm fine on the trade. Just wish we had made other moves. Like I see no reason not to have traded Jones for 4 2nd rounders. Or whatever the offer was.

Apparently that 4 SRP offer never actually happened. It was denied by Minnesota.

[nate33]

I'm assuming Wright wasn't traded because nobody was willing to offer a decent SRP, or if they did offer a pick it also included a bad contract which amounted to us paying for too much for a SRP. Teams are probably betting that we will buy out Wright anyhow.

[nate33]

The reason I'm fine with this trade is that I think Gafford is totally replaceable. I like him, but we can just sign a guy like Goga Bitadze or Precious Achiuwa in the offseason and fill his void with little to no dropoff in production. They may also be penciling in Vukcevic as our backup center next year (assuming we don't draft one with a FRP).

Basically, Gafford was destined to be traded (or depart via free agency) sooner or later, and his value probably wasn't going to be any higher than it was right now.

[tontoz]

The reason I'm fine with this trade is that I think Gafford is totally replaceable. I like him, but we can just sign a guy like Goga Bitadze or Precious Achiuwa in the offseason and fill his void with little to no dropoff in production. They may also be penciling in Vukcevic as our backup center next year (assuming we don't draft one with a FRP).

Basically, Gafford was destined to be traded (or depart via free agency) sooner or later, and his value probably wasn't going to be any higher than it was right now.

I think they traded for Bagley with a Gafford trade in mind.

[nate33]

The reason I'm fine with this trade is that I think Gafford is totally replaceable. I like him, but we can just sign a guy like Goga Bitadze or Precious Achiuwa in the offseason and fill his void with little to no dropoff in production. They may also be penciling in Vukcevic as our backup center next year (assuming we don't draft one with a FRP).

Basically, Gafford was destined to be traded (or depart via free agency) sooner or later, and his value probably wasn't going to be any higher than it was right now.

I think they traded for Bagley with a Gafford trade in mind.

Certainly Bagley's play post trade allowed them to contemplate a Gafford trade.

[FAH1223]

I'm assuming Wright wasn't traded because nobody was willing to offer a decent SRP, or if they did offer a pick it also included a bad contract which amounted to us paying for too much for a SRP. Teams are probably betting that we will buy out Wright anyhow.

Josh Robbins says you are right

Read on Twitter

?s=46

The Washington Wizards defied external expectations at the 2023-24 NBA trade deadline.

Many executives from rival teams expected the rebuilding Wizards, in search of draft picks and young players, to jettison point guard Tyus Jones, combo guard Delon Wright and perhaps forward Kyle Kuzma.

Instead, Washington remained relatively silent. Thursday yielded just one trade for the Wizards, who sent 25-year-old starting center Daniel Gafford to the Dallas Mavericks for a 2024 late first-round pick and 30-year-old backup center Richaun Holmes.

Jones and Wright remain on the Wizards’ roster and will become unrestricted free agents this summer, leaving open the possibility they will sign elsewhere without the Wizards receiving any picks or any players in return.

What happened?

Washington was unable to coax a first-round pick for Jones from potential suitors, a team source said, which is not a surprise. If you run through the rosters of the league’s other 29 teams, only a small handful would slot Jones into their starting lineup. The contenders who might have coveted Jones wanted him in backup roles and were willing only to give up second-round picks.

The Wizards, on the other hand, are one of the few teams that can envision Jones, who will turn 28 in May, starting for them next season. Team executives value Jones’ professionalism, leadership and offensive skill enough that, as The Athletic reported last week, they will strongly consider re-signing him this summer in free agency. By not trading Jones, the Wizards will retain Jones’ Bird rights this offseason and would allow the Wizards to re-sign him even though they would be over the salary cap. Wizards executives regarded keeping Jones’ Bird rights and re-signing Jones as more useful than adding second-round picks. In free agency, Washington can offer Jones something that few other teams will be able to offer: a starting job.

At first glance, keeping Wright, 31, seems more difficult to fathom given how he’s likely to leave in unrestricted free agency this summer.

But a team source said the potential trade packages offered for Wright were underwhelming — a late second-round pick, perhaps — and would have required the Wizards to take on salary for the 2024-25 season. Adding salary for next season would have limited Washington’s flexibility relative to the league’s tax threshold.

Wizards executives chose to keep their options open for the upcoming offseason. Washington holds a traded-player exception worth $12.4 million from last June’s Kristaps Porziņģis trade and a $9.8 million traded-player exception from last July’s Monté Morris trade. It’s conceivable that another team will be willing to give up a valuable draft pick by trading a contract into one of those exceptions. Not adding a 2024-25 salary Thursday in exchange for Wright makes it more likely that Washington will be able to use one of those exceptions without approaching the tax.

The Wizards came “close” to accepting one offer for Kuzma, team sources said, but although the Wizards sources would not reveal the identity of the potential trade partner, additional reporting by The Athletic revealed that the suitor almost certainly was the Mavericks and not the Sacramento Kings. The offer for Kuzma from the Mavericks was not compelling enough to the Wizards, who sought a home-run offer and not just a fair offer. Washington’s asking price was said to be at least two first-round picks.

Wizards officials value Kuzma’s play and off-court intangibles — seemingly far more than most other teams, according to The Athletic’s reporting heading into the trade deadline. By keeping Kuzma now, the Wizards can, of course, entertain offers for him again this offseason, when the return might be higher. It helps that the guaranteed salaries for the final three seasons of Kuzma’s contract will descend each year, dropping from $23.5 million for 2024-25 to $21.5 million in 2025-26 to $19.4 million in 2026-27.

Washington did receive the unencumbered first-round pick it coveted in the trade with Dallas for Gafford, who has made strides on both ends this season. In that deal, the Wizards obtained Holmes and, more importantly, also will receive the more favorable of the LA Clippers’ 2024 first-round pick and the Oklahoma City Thunder’s 2024 first-round pick. If the league’s current standings hold, that first-round pick will be the Clippers’ pick at No. 26 overall.

Why would the Wizards part with a starting center on a relatively team-friendly contract in exchange for a late first-round pick in a draft considered to be relatively weak?

While team officials would agree that the upcoming draft likely will not include anyone as talented as the 2023 NBA Draft’s top-three picks — Victor Wembanyama, Brandon Miller and Scoot Henderson — they also think the talent levels of players who will be available late in 2024’s first round will be relatively close to the talent levels of players available at, say, 10th overall.

In essence, the Wizards are betting on general manager Will Dawkins, senior vice president of player personnel Travis Schlenk and their evaluators to find a diamond in the rough late in the first round.

And having a total of two first-round picks would give Washington the option of attempting to package those picks together to move up in the draft if there’s someone whom Dawkins and Schlenk feel is worthy.

Gafford had improved this season as a defensive rebounder and interior scorer, prompting interim coach Brian Keefe on Wednesday to refer to Gafford as “an anchor” for the Wizards all season. But even though Gafford is averaging career highs in points (10.9 per game), rebounds (8.0 per game) and blocks (2.0 per game), most rival scouts and talent evaluators have regarded his ceiling as that of a backup center on a contending team. While Gafford is a good shot-blocker, he’s not an elite shot-blocker who deters opposing drivers in the way that Rudy Gobert, Jaren Jackson Jr. and Anthony Davis do.

Washington’s only other trade of this deadline cycle occurred in January, when the team sent veteran bigs Danilo Gallinari and Mike Muscula to Detroit for center Marvin Bagley III, forward Isaiah Livers, a 2025 second-round pick and a 2026 second-round pick.

Bagley now will slot into the Wizards’ starting lineup in Gafford’s place.

Gafford’s contract, which the Wizards extended during Tommy Sheppard’s tenure as team president and general manager, runs through the 2025-26 season. Holmes’ contract ends with a player option for 2024-25 worth $12.9 million.

By removing Gafford’s 2025-26 salary of $14.4 million from their books, the Wizards will create more room relative to the tax for a likely contract extension for Corey Kispert. That contract extension would go into effect for the 2025-26 season.

[badinage]

It’s extraordinarily hard to acquire first-rounders in this climate. So, the fact that they did is a pretty big deal. Consider this: they didn’t get one for Porzingis, who had a helluva season last year. They didn’t get one for Beal, a former all-star just two seasons removed from a 30-point season. They didn’t get one for Wall. But they did get one for … Gafford. Wow.

So, I don’t get the negativity from some in Wizland.

First-rounders are more than chances to get a guy in the draft. They’re also currency in a rebuild. Stockpile enough of them, and you can do things, good things.

This isn’t a decent outcome. It’s a great outcome.

Now, if you factor in the inability to get a deal done for Jones — yeah, that smarts.

But I personally don’t want them to continue to accrue second-rounders. Sign-and-trade him in July, after the draft.

[The Consiglieri]

When we are left with nothing and the worst draft class in a decade?

what we have are chairs on the titanic and an incoming draft that is straight garbage.

Worst draft class in a decade? Where are you guys getting this stuff from? There’s no one, absolutely no one capable of knowing for sure where this draft class will rank 5, 10, 15 years from now.

Or what absolute stud(s) might be available in the first or second round.

It's the valuation of elite talent available or not in the class coming in. Nobody knows where players will be years down the line, but scouts can evaluate the talent of the class, and the view is clearly and emphatically that this is the worst lottery (maybe different opinion as theathletic article implies on the later depth past the lottery zone) since 2013, and of a piece with that class and 2000 as the worst this century, going in. What it is five years from now, nobody knows, players will surprise, players will disappoint, but there's a reason people valued the '21 and '22 and '23 lotteries, and are far less impressed with '24, and historically I can't recall a time where a class was called garbage going in, and wasn't garbage. Saying that I fully acknowledge there can be undervalued gems to be discovered like Giannis and Gobert in '13 etc.

[DCZards]

Always gems that the scouts overlook/underestimate. You mention two. Here’s a few more—Kawhi, Joker, Brunson, Butler, Bane.

[queridiculo]

So still no details on the compensation?

Bulletsforever seems to be implying it's the Jazz pick.

[mariller]

It’s extraordinarily hard to acquire first-rounders in this climate. So, the fact that they did is a pretty big deal. Consider this: they didn’t get one for Porzingis, who had a helluva season last year. They didn’t get one for Beal, a former all-star just two seasons removed from a 30-point season. They didn’t get one for Wall. But they did get one for … Gafford. Wow.

So, I don’t get the negativity from some in Wizland.

First-rounders are more than chances to get a guy in the draft. They’re also currency in a rebuild. Stockpile enough of them, and you can do things, good things.

This isn’t a decent outcome. It’s a great outcome.

Now, if you factor in the inability to get a deal done for Jones — yeah, that smarts.

But I personally don’t want them to continue to accrue second-rounders. Sign-and-trade him in July, after the draft.

Wall and Beal where negative contracts? Wall especially but Beal almost as bad. It's a miracle they didn't have to attach a first (or did they), let alone get one.

[The Consiglieri]

Always gems that the scouts overlook/underestimate. You mention two. Here’s a few more—Kawhi, Joker, Brunson, Butler, Bane.

Kawhi was from a solid class, and I will cede that, but when you have a bad class, as this is supposed to be, what makes it so much worse is that there's so much more room for error. Fewer high ceiling prospects, fewer mod ceiling high floor guys, lots of pitfalls, there are gems in every class, hidden gems (well, except for 2000 for the most part), but you still are trying to find those handful of gems while rummaging through a giant pile of busts, low ceiling guys and at best moderate floor guys. Bad classes make it much easier to select a bust, or a non-needle moving guy. Think of 2020. Many teams sucked, including us in 2020, and there were only 2 or 3 teams that escaped that meh class with any talent worthwhile despite having a terrible year, and Sacramento and us were two of those teams. That is likely to happen again this year, except this years class is supposed to be definitively worse than even 2020, especially at the top end, which of course makes it really unfortunate because you're going in understanding that the scouting report, even on the most desired prospects is basically a ceiling of "starter" or "starter with moderate upside". When you rock bottom like we are this year, with our worst season in my lifetime, and the best the scouts can say about the top of the draft are there are some guys that they think might make an all star game once or twice, but they don't see any transformative players along the lines of sane Ja, or Wembenyama or Doncic, Tatum etc, not even one, it's a nightmare. Will there be a guy like that? Maybe, but who? You can point to a guy per draft, but he's sitting there in a mystery box in the top 30 to top 50 and we don't know what box he's in. What are the odds we actually take him? Miniscule. That's why you want the good classes, you got a much, much better chance of leaving the draft with at least a legit complimentary player and often a star. Now? Good Luck.

[daSwami]

I wish Gafford all the best in Dallas, but this trade stinks in the surface for us.

Maybe Dawkins & Co. already have a high-upside prospect in mind who they can reliably grab in the late-20s? Or, maybe they intend to use the pick as leverage for some draft-night maneuvering? or, ...? I dunno if the rumors are true, but it sticks in my craw that the "first-round" pick mandate came down from the meddling buffoon Turd himself.

Anyway, as an amateur draft junky it's fun to deep a bit deeper in the Tankathon Big Board and elsewhere for hidden gems.

[Endless Loop]

I wish Gafford all the best in Dallas, but this trade stinks in the surface for us.

Maybe Dawkins & Co. already have a high-upside prospect in mind who they can reliably grab in the late-20s? Or, maybe they intend to use the pick as leverage for some draft-night maneuvering? or, ...? I dunno if the rumors are true, but it sticks in my craw that the "first-round" pick mandate came down from the meddling buffoon Turd himself.

Anyway, as an amateur draft junky it's fun to deep a bit deeper in the Tankathon Big Board and elsewhere for hidden gems.

Pretty unlikely IMO that Ted said the team had a first-round mandate. That was just positioning and negotiation 101 from the brain trust. "The big guy says I need a #1, what can I say. Let's just do this..." I thought it was kind of clever at the time.

[The Consiglieri]

It's probably crazy, but it does make me wonder if they think the efficacy of his game isn't good for the tank, and his contract wraps in '25-'26 and so its empty calories in lost seasons anyway? Add in that they got Bagley in here for 1.5 of those 2.5 seasons and maybe they feel like just giving Bagley the minutes so maybe we can flip him as well as in '24 or '25, don't let Gafford's talent screw us up since he's likely gone once we try to contend in '26? That sounds crazy as hell, even to me (although I would totally do it lol), but its conceivable, and add in that they probably will use one of those later picks in June on a big, and it does make me wonder why....

most likely to me is simply:
1.Gaffords gone when we can contend, so lets get a first now for a player we'll actually have when we're contending.
2. Give more minutes to Bagley so we can showcase and maybe flip him with empty stats to somebody.
3. Losing Gafford maybe helps the tank

That would be what I imagine the reasoning is, with 1 and 2 being the most likely. You guys would know better than me though. I'm torn on it, I would have preferred a future first to one in this draft (although its helpful to hear that the class appears to flatten out, outside the early lottery), and I'd prefer a better first, but I always heard that the debate was, could we get a first for him at all, and the consensus seemed to be more "maybe" than a high or mid first. The problem for me, though, is that at the end of the day, neither of those firsts are likely to be close enough to the middle to be that valuable. It really feels more like the pick is probably gonna sit somewhere between 23rd and 28th, which is basically a late mid 1st, to a glorified touch earlier than a 2nd rounder which is just total ---.

It's done though, and I'm glad we have more picks if nothing else, and it probably does help the tank the next two-three years to be rid of his solid play.

[payitforward]

Always gems that the scouts overlook/underestimate. You mention two. Here’s a few more—Kawhi, Joker, Brunson, Butler, Bane.

Kawhi was from a solid class, and I will cede that, but when you have a bad class, as this is supposed to be....

Actually, 2011 (when Kawhi went) was called a bad class -- almost universally. & the fact that he went at 15 tells you with great clarity that no one knew how good 2011 would be. Not to mention Jimmy Butler at 30 that same year.

Because the season was going to be a shortened one, it was said that a lot of prospects were staying another year in college. Along the same lines, 2012 was then dubbed a very strong draft class.

But, in fact, 2011 turned out to be an extremely strong draft overall, while 2012 featured a quite weak R1 overall.

In short, we have no idea whatever whether 2024 will be "a bad class" or an outstanding one.

[The Consiglieri]

Always gems that the scouts overlook/underestimate. You mention two. Here’s a few more—Kawhi, Joker, Brunson, Butler, Bane.

Kawhi was from a solid class, and I will cede that, but when you have a bad class, as this is supposed to be....

Actually, 2011 (when Kawhi went) was called a bad class -- almost universally. & the fact that he went at 15 tells you with great clarity that no one knew how good 2011 would be. Not to mention Jimmy Butler at 30 that same year.

Because the season was going to be a shortened one, it was said that a lot of prospects were staying another year in college. Along the same lines, 2012 was then dubbed a very strong draft class.

But, in fact, 2011 turned out to be an extremely strong draft overall, while 2012 featured a quite weak R1 overall.

In short, we have no idea whatever whether 2024 will be "a bad class" or an outstanding one.

You guys are both right (not that you don't know that lol), my memory was off, I was mixing classes, that one wasn't solid, it was below average, but not in that dumpster fire scale grade that '00, '13 and now '24 got and are getting.

As for '24, I 1000% disagree with you. I think, though, this is more philosophical disagreement than anything, maybe semantics as well, as I agree that you can't know for sure until they're pro's, but you can have very reasonable, educated guesses, and I cannot recall a single time they didn't call a class ---- where they were wrong, and I don't view '11 as a class that was viewed as ----, Kanter was in there and valued, same with Valanciunas, Kyrie was a prize of prizes, basically my memory is that it had a huge prize at 1, 4 or 5 guys regarded as upside guys, and then a huge pile of guys with high floors and potential (that Kemba, Morris twins zone).

But anyway, I disagree w/you about understanding if '24 is regarded as a bad class or outstanding, scouts absolutely can grade a class based on the talent available and perceptions about their upside going into a draft. It doesn't mean their 100% right or even 90% right, but in my experience watching this for decades, when they called classes crap, they were crap (and again, that doesn't mean it featured zero hits slot 10-60 or 30-60 or 15-30. but the paucity of hits projected was dramatic and proved reasonably accurate).

[Endless Loop]

It's probably crazy, but it does make me wonder if they think the efficacy of his game isn't good for the tank, and his contract wraps in '25-'26 and so its empty calories in lost seasons anyway? Add in that they got Bagley in here for 1.5 of those 2.5 seasons and maybe they feel like just giving Bagley the minutes so maybe we can flip him as well as in '24 or '25, don't let Gafford's talent screw us up since he's likely gone once we try to contend in '26? That sounds crazy as hell, even to me (although I would totally do it lol), but its conceivable, and add in that they probably will use one of those later picks in June on a big, and it does make me wonder why....

most likely to me is simply:
1.Gaffords gone when we can contend, so lets get a first now for a player we'll actually have when we're contending.
2. Give more minutes to Bagley so we can showcase and maybe flip him with empty stats to somebody.
3. Losing Gafford maybe helps the tank

That would be what I imagine the reasoning is, with 1 and 2 being the most likely. You guys would know better than me though. I'm torn on it, I would have preferred a future first to one in this draft (although its helpful to hear that the class appears to flatten out, outside the early lottery), and I'd prefer a better first, but I always heard that the debate was, could we get a first for him at all, and the consensus seemed to be more "maybe" than a high or mid first. The problem for me, though, is that at the end of the day, neither of those firsts are likely to be close enough to the middle to be that valuable. It really feels more like the pick is probably gonna sit somewhere between 23rd and 28th, which is basically a late mid 1st, to a glorified touch earlier than a 2nd rounder which is just total ---.

It's done though, and I'm glad we have more picks if nothing else, and it probably does help the tank the next two-three years to be rid of his solid play.

I think that #3 is underrated. The Wiz have played a bit better lately, while Charlotte is cratering, SA is flatlining, and Detroit's picking up a few wins. The loss of Gaff might be worth 2-3 losses, which could help a lot in the race to the bottom.

Maybe now they can lose with more style points, and not have to pull Deni for the entire fourth quarter when they're in danger of picking up an unexpected win.

Otherwise hard to understand why you deplete the position you're thinnest at while keeping all your (expiring) point guards in a guard-heavy draft.