Five Worst NBA Trades of All-Time (Dime Magazine)

I know it's a subject that's been done before, but Dime Magazine has seen fit to post another list.

1. Date: September 9, 1980
-Warriors Get: Two 1980 1st-round draft picks (Rickey Brown and Joe Barry Carroll)
-Celtics Get: Robert Parish and a 1980 1st-round draft pick (Kevin McHale).

2. Date: June 16, 1975
-Bucks Get: Junior Bridgeman, Dave Meyers, Elmore Smith and Brian Winters
-Lakers Get: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Walt Wesley.

3. Date: January 15, 1965
-Warriors Get: Connie Dierking, Paul Neumann, Lee Shaffer and cash.
-76ers Get: Wilt Chamberlain

4. Date: February 1, 2008
-Grizzlies Get: Kwame Brown, Javaris Crittenton, Marc Gasol, a 2008 1st-round draft pick (Donte Greene) and a 2010 1st round draft pick (Greivis Vasquez)
-Lakers Get: Pau Gasol, 2010 2nd-round draft pick (Devin Ebanks).

5. Date: January 22, 1999
-Bulls Get: Roy Rogers and a 2000 2nd-round draft pick (Jake Voskuhl)
-Rockets Get: Scottie Pippen.

I'd perhaps rank the Gasol trade a little higher, even if his brother has been a great addition for the Grizzlies it was a lopsided trade then and now. As air gordon has reminded me in the past, the Pippen trade was to give Pip his payday while sending him on his way but I'm glad to see it get a mention as it didn't even try to get something of value in return, not even a first round pick.

I always question if it is fair to include trades like Kareem, Wilt and Pippen's here as they were all basically forced trades by the player to a specific location. Even the Gasol one you have to question if it was really "worst" or even "bad" for the Grizzlies.

Why do these never talk about trades like dumping Ewing's expiring contract for horrific contracts and then dumping those for EVEN WORSE contracts. Those are the things that devastate teams for years. The Warriors won a title within a decade of that Wilt trade and made the NBA Finals THE VERY NEXT SEASON. The Bucks became a contender again within five years. And worse than the Bulls trade of Pippen for scraps is trading Brand for Tyson Chandler and then packaging Ron Artest and Brad Miller for Jalen Rose, when three years later they'd all be All-Star players. And there's probably plenty more bad trades like that.

The "analysis" in the full piece is laughable. I didn't know Dime was hiring NLSC posters.

Still don't see the Pau deal as bad for the Grizzlies. I don't think they would be any better off right now with Pau instead of Marc, Z-Bo (cap space) and the second rounders.

It does seem like some trades just stick in our minds as bad and plenty of other bad trades slip through the cracks. benji makes a good point in saying that a lot of these trades were forced, giving the team with the marquee player no wiggle room on getting a good deal. I do agree that they were "bad" trades in the sense that the team is worse after.

This kind of plays into the Carmelo situation this year. Who knows whether Denver will trade him for a package of talent or a package of cap relief? I tend to lean towards the thought that the teams trading the top guy aren't going to get great value back because unless you're trying to switch up super star players (change of scenery?) the receiving team isn't going to give you a great player back. They're trying to improve, not to be even I guess?

I tend to lean towards the thought that the teams trading the top guy aren't going to get great value back because unless you're trying to switch up super star players (change of scenery?) the receiving team isn't going to give you a great player back. They're trying to improve, not to be even I guess?

True, where there's desperation on one side, there's leverage on the other.

Which raises the question, what exactly constitutes a bad trade, or a good one for that matter? Is giving up more for less automatically bad or can the context absolve the deal of that criticism because there's a method to the madness, so to speak?

I've said before that there needs to be lots of attention paid to context. If I just go back and look at the pieces involved it doesn't tell the whole story.

If I wrote an article listing the "worst trades in NBA history" and went:
1. Cleveland trades LeBron James for a second round pick.
2. Toronto trades Tracy McGrady for a second round pick.
3. Orlando trades Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins for Grant Hill.

I would hope people will hate me for ignoring the context. Hell, the Grant Hill trade is only considered "bad" now because of what happened, if you had included in a year after the trade it's not going to be seen as lopsided yet as Wallace is an unknown and Hill is a known superstar who just happened to be injured but will be coming back soon. But after 2003 it completely flips into "Orlando blew it!" (Or more accurately, Orlando was unlucky.)

I think you have to take a long term view, and look at what the teams would know making the trade. The Rose for Artest/Miller trade is bad because the Bulls at the time were trading near equal players in Rose and Artest, and then throwing in a very good young center. The Ewing trade is bad because they're giving up an expiring for large long-term deals for below average aging players.

I think you have to take a long term view, and look at what the teams would know making the trade. The Rose for Artest/Miller trade is bad because the Bulls at the time were trading near equal players in Rose and Artest, and then throwing in a very good young center. The Ewing trade is bad because they're giving up an expiring for large long-term deals for below average aging players.

I agree with that, but you have to think those trades aren't as flashy as the ones in the article, thus, the average reader isn't going to get all worked up over them now. That Knicks one is bad because it financially fucked the team, but it's not like the Kareem or Pippen ones because those signaled the end of an era.

I mean, the Iverson-Billups trade looks terrible now because of the success of the Nuggets and lack of success for Detroit, but in the long-term i'd bet it won't even come near being as bad as people in Michigan make it out to be. Carmelo leaves Denver and the nuggets turn into a mediocre team and Chauncey's franchise-changing impact on the team goes away because the team doesn't have their best player.

Then Detroit could end up having CV and BG play well, propelling them to mediocrity and WHAM-O, we have an even slate trade!

But to answer your question Andrew, I don't think trades can't be rightfully judged as soon as they happen. They may look good on paper and all that stuff, but I mean, say you make a trade and it propels you to a championship then after a few years that same guy ends up ruining your team by being a lazy cancer, does that trade still look good with the early success and late head ache(s)?

"The Mavericks then traded Traylor to the Bucks for Nowitzki and Garrity, and they in return traded the latter to Phoenix for Nash."

I agree with that, but you have to think those trades aren't as flashy as the ones in the article, thus, the average reader isn't going to get all worked up over them now. That Knicks one is bad because it financially fucked the team, but it's not like the Kareem or Pippen ones because those signaled the end of an era.

Ewing leaving the Knicks after 15 years?

I mean, the Iverson-Billups trade looks terrible now because of the success of the Nuggets and lack of success for Detroit

No, it doesn't. The whole thing turned out bad because Joe D wasted the cap space it created. But you can't consider the trade bad because of that, the goal was to create cap space, the fact said space was poorly used doesn't change the trade in my opinion. The criticism of the trade is that it was a move that didn't need to be made at the time. Joe D just pulled the trigger on rebuilding early then had the money burn a hole in his pocket.

"The Mavericks then traded Traylor to the Bucks for Nowitzki and Garrity, and they in return traded the latter to Phoenix for Nash."

I've harped on this one a number of times. It was not a BAD TRADE, it was a bad DRAFTING. The Mavericks drafted Traylor FOR the Bucks, and the Bucks picked Nowitzki because it was who the Mavericks wanted in return for "trading down" from the higher pick. Had they traded the picks before the draft it would not have changed who was drafted at #6.

Ewing leaving the Knicks after 15 years?

shit I meant to include that in the era category, good catch.

You're right on the Iverson-Billups thing though, I kind of contradicted myself by saying it was awful after two years and then rambling on about how you can't judge a trade right away

That Ewing trade was I think, at the time, the largest trade in NBA history. (Teams/Players involved.)

The breaking of the original rumor is what made Chad Ford famous wasn't it? Whatever site that got bought to become ESPN Insider was the one who first came out with it like days before ESPN had anything. Anybody remember the name of it?

I believe this is worse too:

Suns Get: Stephon Marbury
Nets Get: Jason Kidd (you know what did he do)

Overhauled half the team and had a healthy Kerry Kittles? I don't think that was his doing.

Yes... At least K-Mart shined.

Few people think about the pippen for polynice trade.
"Pippen was selected fifth overall in the 1987 NBA Draft by the Seattle SuperSonics and traded to the Chicago Bulls for Olden Polynice."
cna you imagine if the sonics had not traded him away?

It ain't nothing close to the trades above, but Webber for Mitch Richmond/Otis I think deserves to be mentioned since the Kings rose to the contender while Mitch went downhill shortly after the trade.

One of the worst trades ever:

1996: Charlotte Hornets get Vlade Divac from the Lakers for the 13th pick in the 96 draft.

Why? Because that 13th pick happened to be a guy called Kobe Bryant.

This one is worse than me:

Hawks get: Rasheed Wallace
Blazers get: Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

Abdur-Rahim is retired. Hawks released Sheed after only 1 game and Rasheed win a ring with Pistons at same season.

That isn't really fair, how many 13th picks do you know that have exploded like that?

Karl Malone exploded. Pacers drafted R.I.P. Wayman Tisdale, and Suns drafted Ed Pinckney at 1985 NBA Draft.

Few people think about the pippen for polynice trade.
"Pippen was selected fifth overall in the 1987 NBA Draft by the Seattle SuperSonics and traded to the Chicago Bulls for Olden Polynice."
cna you imagine if the sonics had not traded him away?

One of the worst trades ever:

1996: Charlotte Hornets get Vlade Divac from the Lakers for the 13th pick in the 96 draft.

Why? Because that 13th pick happened to be a guy called Kobe Bryant.

Again, these are both examples of bad drafting, not bad trades. In both cases the team trading the eventual "star" was drafting for the other team.

This one is worse than me:

Hawks get: Rasheed Wallace
Blazers get: Shareef Abdur-Rahim.

Abdur-Rahim is retired. Hawks released Sheed after only 1 game and Rasheed win a ring with Pistons at same season.

Again, context is important. Sheed only went to Atlanta for that one game because the Pistons could not get an agreement on a three-way deal that directly brought Sheed to Detroit, so he stayed in Atlanta until the subsequent deal could be finished.

And Portland was very specifically blowing up the Jail-Blazers.

One of the worst trades ever:

1996: Charlotte Hornets get Vlade Divac from the Lakers for the 13th pick in the 96 draft.

Why? Because that 13th pick happened to be a guy called Kobe Bryant.

Again, these are both examples of bad drafting, not bad trades.

Actually it's bad draft trading.

No, it's not. It was a failure to properly gauge Kobe's value within the draft, and most importantly that Kobe would never play for them in the first place so there was no reason NOT to leverage the pick into the big man they wanted. It was not a bad trade in that they dealt nothing for something.

Here's some history: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/0 ... -kobe.html

Kobe was a dick, just like Steve Francis refusing to playing for Vancouver. Divac was in his prime, age wise and could helped the team more right away.

But to answer your question Andrew, I don't think trades can't be rightfully judged as soon as they happen. They may look good on paper and all that stuff, but I mean, say you make a trade and it propels you to a championship then after a few years that same guy ends up ruining your team by being a lazy cancer, does that trade still look good with the early success and late head ache(s)?

I agree with you and Ben, the long term ramifications have to be taken into consideration along with the short term impact, not to mention the context and motivation. In that example however I'd say that trade was still worth it if it yielded a championship which is (supposedly) the ultimate goal of every team. You'd then also have to look at the fallout in context too, examine how and why the player became a headache.

Since the subject of draft picks and draft day trades has also been brought up, Tyson Chandler for Elton Brand is another example I'd throw out there. I think a deal like that has a couple of characteristics that could be considered defining traits of a bad trade, notably that it looked bad at the same and in hindsight. It looked like a gamble at the time and ultimately it didn't pay off, with the Bulls forced to go through Plans B, C, D and so on.