Trade & FA 2023-24: Stein-Ingram Trade Inevitable| LAL Want Lebron Back On Any Terms

[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.