Trade & FA 2023-24: NOP Will Not Give Ingram an Extension

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Bud, you just sent over one play.

The whole point of that clip was simply to show the different of types of players he's asked to guard.

Also, thinks for confirming my point about your ranking system being insanely flawed by saying you can have a stud defender classified as below average, you see the common sense issues with that in regards to this discussion?

I really can't handle the noise anymore for you so I'm just going to go ahead and block you.  Are we sure this guy isn't just dynamicalVoid under a different username?

What NBA player canNOT pull together a similar highlight reel?  A highlight reel *may get you recruit invite to a Division III school, but proves nothing in the way of professional athletes.

av·er·age
noun
1.
a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.
"the housing prices there are twice the national average"

I stated he's a below average starting PF (#21-#30).  How don't understand this concept is beyond me.  I would love to not expose you anymore, so yes, block me.  Please and thank you 

[mvossman]

Well, I think by going with historical cost Holmes is worth a negative FRP (we got OMax by taking on Holmes).  Any inclusion of Holmes in a trade proposal would have to include a FRP just to equal out his negative worth.

Its been pointed out multiple times to you how that is not the way to look at his value.  That first was for taking on his entire salary, which is different than using him as a salary match fodder as in all proposed trades involving him.  Just like its also not reasonable to compare a late round first pick during the draft to an unprotected first years away.  I think I am going to join the block party as well, otherwise I am contributing too much to the noise.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Its been pointed out multiple times to you how that is not the way to look at his value.  That first was for taking on his entire salary, which is different than using him as a salary match fodder as in all proposed trades involving him.  Just like its also not reasonable to compare a late round first pick during the draft to an unprotected first years away.  I think I am going to join the block party as well, otherwise I am contributing too much to the noise.

I was unaware you are to dictate how I am to value players.  I did not say an unprotected FRP.  His value is negative #24 pick.  How on Earth you think his value is ANY different than what it was just a bit ago, without a single basketball bounced, is beyond me.

If you have a problem with logic, that'd be outstanding.  Please and thank you.

[KillerLeft]

Debate is great. Going in depth on certain details is part of that, and we've all been guilty at some point of "Cliff Clavening" each other about stupid things that don't really matter. It's hard to avoid that trap forever on a message board.

Still, let's try to tap out of these arguments juuuuuuust before they get chippy, not after.

[omahen]

Its been pointed out multiple times to you how that is not the way to look at his value.  That first was for taking on his entire salary, which is different than using him as a salary match fodder as in all proposed trades involving him. 

I don't think you can look at it this way. Holmes is a negative value, that is a fact. Yes, if Sacramento would take back an equally negative value contract (as in Bertans, for example), they would not pay a FRP. But the trades we are discussing are for players that we can consider have a positive value contract. Because they are credible starters. In that case the seller naturally demands value back. Either in the form of good players or draft assets. So it is pretty logical, if you offer a negative value player, the need for draft assets increases. 

The seller is not looking to just dump their player. Seller would demand less assets if buyer wouldn't send Holmes contract back but instead just took their player into cap space or TE or even if the buyer sent expiring contract. I think from sellers perspective, the negative value of Holmes deal is basically what Mavs got for him - late FRP. I think the fact that his contract is not expiring, is a real problem for any deal. Teams prefer flexibility than having a bad contract on the books for more than one season.

I guess Mavs best bet would be to try to increase Holmes value. I don't really like the position they put themselves into, but it is what it is. But, I just hope they don't repeat the Wood mistake. Mavs were imho the ones most responsible for tanking his value to the minimum possible level, which ended with a lose-lose situation. Wood will get likely minimum salary and Mavs nothing. They were not contenders, with or without him. He was putting up stats. So, would it really hurt so much to advertise him as "one of best centers ever"?  Instead, Mavs started tanking his value immediately when they signed him by "McGee will be the starter" crap. Which became even more laughable after 5 games or so. I can understand Wood is a pain in the ass and overvalues himself. But smart move imho would be to neglect that. Not because you want to have him, but because you could perhaps get something for his expiring salary.

So I am saying once again, Mavs please make Holmes the starting center since start of the camp. The team as it is is not a contender. We know Powell is not a starting level centre.  We also know Mavs will very, very likely not trade Powel, neither would he bring some great assets. So, please Mavs, think long term. Don't repeat the Wood mistake. Even if Holmes is not a long term solution, try everything to increase his value. If you don't do that, you are just sending a very clear signal, that he is bad salary. A bad salary, that will be difficult to move. Who cares if Mavs lose a game or two more, because Powell would perhaps work slightly better. Unless Holmes has fallen completely off the cliff, he will put up stats next to player like Luka. He is probably not the best defensive solution next to Luka, but there are also teams that could value offense more than defense due to their specific team building situation.

[mvossman]

I don't think you can look at it this way. Holmes is a negative value, that is a fact. Yes, if Sacramento would take back an equally negative value contract (as in Bertans, for example), they would not pay a FRP. But the trades we are discussing are for players that we can consider have a positive value contract. Because they are credible starters. In that case the seller naturally demands value back. Either in the form of good players or draft assets. So it is pretty logical, if you offer a negative value player, the need for draft assets increases. 

So if Sacramento was getting back a neutral value player at the same cost as Holmes, do you think they would have sent the first?  I'm not arguing that Holmes is not a negative asset, I am arguing that you should not use a trade who's primary purpose was to generate cap space as a clear indicator of Holmes value in a trade where salary matching is occurring.  They are two different scenarios.  In fact, if they needed the cap space bad enough, they could have made that trade even if the market valued Holmes as a neutral asset.  It likely would have cost less than a first, but it would have cost something.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

So if Sacramento was getting back a neutral value player at the same cost as Holmes, do you think they would have sent the first?  I'm not arguing that Holmes is not a negative asset, I am arguing that you should not use a trade who's primary purpose was to generate cap space as a clear indicator of Holmes value in a trade where salary matching is occurring.  They are two different scenarios.  In fact, if they needed the cap space bad enough, they could have made that trade even if the market valued Holmes as a neutral asset.  It likely would have cost less than a first, but it would have cost something.

I don't think it has to be difficult or mythical.  

Holmes & his Contract = a negative #24 pick.  

That was his cost.  He hasn't changed that since the trade, so that's his worth.

[omahen]

So if Sacramento was getting back a neutral value player at the same cost as Holmes, do you think they would have sent the first?  I'm not arguing that Holmes is not a negative asset, I am arguing that you should not use a trade who's primary purpose was to generate cap space as a clear indicator of Holmes value in a trade where salary matching is occurring.  They are two different scenarios.  In fact, if they needed the cap space bad enough, they could have made that trade even if the market valued Holmes as a neutral asset.  It likely would have cost less than a first, but it would have cost something.

I think yes, since the buyer would only see receiving negative salary for a player that is planned as a back-up. Mavs would still eat 25 mil of bad salary. It is just likely that the deal wouldn't happen, because it only made sense for Sacramento to do the deal with getting cap space. For example, if Bullock had two years on his deal and he would be considered as neutral value due to "old glory" despite his bad season. I don't think Mavs would trade someone useful like that for Holmes without getting same level of compensation back.

I agree cap space has value and Sacramento would have to pay for creating it, even if Holmes would be seen as a neutral asset. I don't think that price would be much different.

[mvossman]

I think yes, since the buyer would only see receiving negative salary for a player that is planned as a back-up. Mavs would still eat 25 mil of bad salary. It is just likely that the deal wouldn't happen, because it only made sense for Sacramento to do the deal with getting cap space. For example, if Bullock had two years on his deal and he would be considered as neutral value due to "old glory" despite his bad season. I don't think Mavs would trade someone useful like that for Holmes without getting same level of compensation back.

I agree cap space has value and Sacramento would have to pay for creating it, even if Holmes would be seen as a neutral asset. I don't think that price would be much different.

So I think we are on the same page?  I'm not stating what Holmes value is.  Its possible it would take a first to send him out in a salary matching trade.  I'm simply saying you should not be using a trade who's purpose was to generate cap space to definitively set his market value in a salary matching trade.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

So I think we are on the same page?  I'm not stating what Holmes value is.  Its possible it would take a first to send him out in a salary matching trade.  I'm simply saying you should not be using a trade who's purpose was to generate cap space to definitively set his market value in a salary matching trade.

So you're saying a player's value is completely mystical until you come across a specific trade scenario, and even then it's at least nebulous?  Or is this just traded-in players?  Do you agree that Lively's value is the #12 pick, or is the value of recently drafted players equally mystical?

[ItsGoTime]

So you're saying a player's value is completely mystical until you come across a specific trade scenario, and even then it's at least nebulous?  Or is this just traded-in players?  Do you agree that Lively's value is the #12 pick, or is the value of recently drafted players equally mystical?

I agree with your line of questioning on this particular subject cause it looks like a bit of backtrack without stating so. 

However, a specific pick on draft day is a lot more valuable than it would be outside the draft. What I mean to say is picks on draft day are a bit more valuable than the garden variety first outside of knowing the placement. So the Lively, #12 line of questioning is harder to pin down in an outside the draft day scenario. I have a hard time believing other teams would have picked Lively as high as 15, let alone 12 or 10.

[ItsGoTime]

I think yes, since the buyer would only see receiving negative salary for a player that is planned as a back-up.

I agree with everything you said, is Holmes a planned backup? Well, I guess the 15th man is still a backup, but there is a difference between a rotation backup and deep bench backup, which at this point, can he be traded for value as more than the latter?

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

I agree with your line of questioning on this particular subject cause it looks like a bit of backtrack without stating so. 

However, a specific pick on draft day is a lot more valuable than it would be outside the draft. What I mean to say is picks on draft day are a bit more valuable than the garden variety first outside of knowing the placement. So the Lively, #12 line of questioning is harder to pin down in an outside the draft day scenario. I have a hard time believing other teams would have picked Lively as high as 15, let alone 12 or 10.

Good feedback.  Ya, it's not accounting.  It's fuzzier than that, but I guarantee every front office has a method to value their assets to an approximation.

This is why I look at each player's historical cost differently than current value.  Like any asset you try to get the most value out of the smallest cost possible.

IMO Lively is the perfect example of getting the most value out of the smallest cost...
Cost: Tanking - Bertans + $22.1m/4yrs
Value: #12 pick

OMax is another great example...
Cost: Holmes' $24.8m/2yrs + $13.7m/4yrs
Value: Whatever Value Holmes Provides + #24 pick

[michaeltex]

So you're saying a player's value is completely mystical until you come across a specific trade scenario, and even then it's at least nebulous?  Or is this just traded-in players?  Do you agree that Lively's value is the #12 pick, or is the value of recently drafted players equally mystical?

Isn't player value a variable defined by the context of a proposed trade and the needs of the involved teams? So, yeah, it could be defined as nebulous, although I'd call it fluid in that the value assumes the shape of the space defined by the team needs.

The KP deal was done to put a current All Star together with a future All Star in hopes of establishing a contending core and that hope was worth investment of all those players and draft picks. But it took more picks to trade him away after it didn't work out. But now he's a positive going into Boston.

Holmes was a negative value, to SAC, in that they needed cap space and he didn't fit their future plans. To DAL, he was a positive in that he (potentially) addresses a need and provided the means to pick up a 2nd FRP in Omax (which was on NOBODY's radar going into the draft), who looks like a contributor. His outgoing future value is TBD depending on the needs of the teams involved. 

Everybody had Bertan's as a negative value, and he was, but the value loss was to only drop 2 places and still get a guy targeted going into the night. So the negative wasn't a full FRP as a lot of us thought it might be.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt if Holmes can demonstrate he's still got some gas in the tank.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

I agree with everything you said, is Holmes a planned backup? Well, I guess the 15th man is still a backup, but there is a difference between a rotation backup and deep bench backup, which at this point, can he be traded for value as more than the latter?

IMO, Holmes is a vet min player ($2.9m).  Given his $24.8m/2yr contract, his value is -$19m/2yr...  hence it'd take our sending out a #24 pick to move him (like SAC just did).  I really don't think you can get any more or less approximate than this.

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Isn't player value a variable defined by the context of a proposed trade and the needs of the involved teams? So, yeah, it could be defined as nebulous, although I'd call it fluid in that the value assumes the shape of the space defined by the team needs.

The KP deal was done to put a current All Star together with a future All Star in hopes of establishing a contending core and that hope was worth investment of all those players and draft picks. But it took more picks to trade him away after it didn't work out. But now he's a positive going into Boston.

Holmes was a negative value, to SAC, in that they needed cap space and he didn't fit their future plans. To DAL, he was a positive in that he (potentially) addresses a need, removed Bertan's millstone contract, and provided the means to pick up a 2nd FRP in Omax (which was on NOBODY's radar going into the draft), who looks like a contributor. His outgoing future value is TBD depending on the needs of the teams involved. 

Of course, it wouldn't hurt if he can demonstrate he's still got some gas in the tank.

IMO, you can get much more approximate than that.  Value is value.  A house is worth a rather finite value, regardless of the fit to the buyer.  It's a $500k regardless if the buyer needs 5 bedrooms or not.  I think what y'all are confusing is value vs finding the right trading partner.  Because we don't need another max player at point, that doesn't mean an allstar point is of less value; it just means they're not a good fit.  A single man wanting to buy that $500k 5 bedroom house doesn't mean the house is worth less than $500k; it means it's a bad fit for him.

A great example is Kyrie.  His value is $119.9m/3yrs even though we already had Luka.  Same in MIN with Gobert and KAT.

[DallasMaverick]

Playing time vs. Player perceived value:

I sometimes see comments about increasing a player's trade value (either through playing time or "starting"). The idea being that, if a team puts a player in a more prominent role, other teams will also perceive that a player is more valuable, and be wiling to give up more in trade.

Sometimes, maybe. Sometimes an increased workload improves a player's efficiency. Or maybe just raw numbers. Or maybe just raises their profile, since their name gets mentioned more often.

Shame on a scouting department that would make their determination of a player's value based on another team's "polishing the turd". Would you be happy with the Mavs', if they suddenly thought more highly of a player that was suddenly getting more minutes?

I'd argue that, in many cases, it actually helps a player's trade value when he receives less exposure, and the target team has to make a determination based on a small sample size. Remember Roddy B? His stock was sky-high for a few months. I seem to remember Mark Cuban being interviewed and saying that only Dirk and Roddy B were untouchable.

I seem to remember that Derrick Jones, Jr. was in that category for awhile. He'd get a few minutes on the court, get a couple of blocks and a highlight-reel dunk that got replayed on SportsCenter. Until the league got to know him a little better, and his weaknesses were exposed.

A few months ago, wasn't Jaden Hardy the second coming of Andrew Toney? Mr. Unstoppable, get his own shot whenever he wanted, etc. But time and exposure temper our expectations.

So maybe Holmes' value is augmented by limiting his minutes. Maybe only against other teams' second units. Get some nice stats, a couple of highlight blocks, get the fans fawning over him on the message boards. Then trade.

[omahen]

Playing time vs. Player perceived value:

I sometimes see comments about increasing a player's trade value (either through playing time or "starting"). The idea being that, if a team puts a player in a more prominent role, other teams will also perceive that a player is more valuable, and be wiling to give up more in trade.

Sometimes, maybe.  Sometimes an increased workload improves a player's efficiency.  Or maybe just raw numbers.  Or maybe just raises their profile, since their name gets mentioned more often.

Shame on a scouting department that would make their determination of a player's value based on another team's "polishing the turd".  Would you be happy with the Mavs', if they suddenly thought more highly of a player that was suddenly getting more minutes?

I'd argue that, in many cases, it actually helps a player's trade value when he receives less exposure, and the target team has to make a determination based on a small sample size.  Remember Roddy B?  His stock was sky-high for a few months.  I seem to remember Mark Cuban being interviewed and saying that only Dirk and Roddy B were untouchable.

I seem to remember that Derrick Jones, Jr. was in that category for awhile.  He'd get a few minutes on the court, get a couple of blocks and a highlight-reel dunk that got replayed on SportsCenter.  Until the league got to know him a little better, and his weaknesses were exposed.

A few months ago, wasn't Jaden Hardy the second coming of Andrew Toney?  Mr. Unstoppable, get his own shot whenever he wanted, etc.  But time and exposure temper our expectations.

So maybe Holmes' value is augmented by limiting his minutes.  Maybe only against other teams' second units.  Get some nice stats, a couple of highlight blocks, get the fans fawning over him on the message boards.  Then trade.

Holmes was basically in the role you are describing in Sacramento. Didn't really work well for his value...

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Playing time vs. Player perceived value:

I sometimes see comments about increasing a player's trade value (either through playing time or "starting"). The idea being that, if a team puts a player in a more prominent role, other teams will also perceive that a player is more valuable, and be wiling to give up more in trade.

Sometimes, maybe.  Sometimes an increased workload improves a player's efficiency.  Or maybe just raw numbers.  Or maybe just raises their profile, since their name gets mentioned more often.

Shame on a scouting department that would make their determination of a player's value based on another team's "polishing the turd".  Would you be happy with the Mavs', if they suddenly thought more highly of a player that was suddenly getting more minutes?

I'd argue that, in many cases, it actually helps a player's trade value when he receives less exposure, and the target team has to make a determination based on a small sample size.  Remember Roddy B?  His stock was sky-high for a few months.  I seem to remember Mark Cuban being interviewed and saying that only Dirk and Roddy B were untouchable.

I seem to remember that Derrick Jones, Jr. was in that category for awhile.  He'd get a few minutes on the court, get a couple of blocks and a highlight-reel dunk that got replayed on SportsCenter.  Until the league got to know him a little better, and his weaknesses were exposed.

A few months ago, wasn't Jaden Hardy the second coming of Andrew Toney?  Mr. Unstoppable, get his own shot whenever he wanted, etc.  But time and exposure temper our expectations.

So maybe Holmes' value is augmented by limiting his minutes.  Maybe only against other teams' second units.  Get some nice stats, a couple of highlight blocks, get the fans fawning over him on the message boards.  Then trade.

Fantastic post!  I would say limiting minutes increases value when the asset is increasing or stable value (makes the "what if they had more minutes?" tantilizing); more minutes either makes or breaks distressed assets ("oh wow, everyone missed out on that one").

---

Holmes was basically in the role you are describing in Sacramento. Didn't really work well for his value...

Completely agree.  With a distressed asset, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving them minutes (from an asset management perspective).

[Ghost of Podkolzin]

Playing time vs. Player perceived value:

I sometimes see comments about increasing a player's trade value (either through playing time or "starting"). The idea being that, if a team puts a player in a more prominent role, other teams will also perceive that a player is more valuable, and be wiling to give up more in trade.

Sometimes, maybe.  Sometimes an increased workload improves a player's efficiency.  Or maybe just raw numbers.  Or maybe just raises their profile, since their name gets mentioned more often.

Shame on a scouting department that would make their determination of a player's value based on another team's "polishing the turd".  Would you be happy with the Mavs', if they suddenly thought more highly of a player that was suddenly getting more minutes?

I'd argue that, in many cases, it actually helps a player's trade value when he receives less exposure, and the target team has to make a determination based on a small sample size.  Remember Roddy B?  His stock was sky-high for a few months.  I seem to remember Mark Cuban being interviewed and saying that only Dirk and Roddy B were untouchable.

I seem to remember that Derrick Jones, Jr. was in that category for awhile.  He'd get a few minutes on the court, get a couple of blocks and a highlight-reel dunk that got replayed on SportsCenter.  Until the league got to know him a little better, and his weaknesses were exposed.

A few months ago, wasn't Jaden Hardy the second coming of Andrew Toney?  Mr. Unstoppable, get his own shot whenever he wanted, etc.  But time and exposure temper our expectations.

So maybe Holmes' value is augmented by limiting his minutes.  Maybe only against other teams' second units.  Get some nice stats, a couple of highlight blocks, get the fans fawning over him on the message boards.  Then trade.

And Roddy B is the perfect example of poor asset management.  Rumors were offers came from the frontend of the 2010 lottery.  Rather than asking Carlisle his long term plans, Cuban held on to Roddy B like his life depended upon it.  Carlisle kept him caged up.  Roddy B got injured.  We know the rest of the story.
Opportunity Cost: 2010 lottery pick (Cousins, P.George, G.Hayward)

C.Wood is another great example.  We give up the #26 pick for him.  Did anyone ask Kidd if he was going to have him in the first 6-man rotation?  I don't think so.  We know the rest of the story.
Sunk Cost: #26 pick

Lesson: A key component to asset management is that the FO and the HC have to be completely aligned with every player on your roster.