Trade & Free Agency 2026/2027

[mvossman]

I'm with Smitty. The issue for me is that players are only being defined as an "asset" if you can envision trading them for a pick who you can then use to draft a different player that in most of the scenarios you only hope will give you play on the court as good as the player you traded away in the first place.

Picks are only tools to try to get a useful player. They aren't that player. To some degree they are a real crapshoot, especially when they are not in the lottery.

To me, that approach makes no sense. You already have that very-useful player, on a very-reasonable contract. He is an asset just to have him. You don't have to turn him into someone else to replace him, to then have an asset. That's how I see it.

So I agree that a player worth their current contract has value.  Is that enough?  Is a bunch of neutral contracts and some late future firsts enough to build around a superstar and a #9 lottery pick into a contender?  I'm not sure that it is.  That is why I would be willing to sacrifice some near term winning to restock asset cupboard.  To give them a better chance to contend later.  Its a tradeoff, and I think you can make an argument either way.