08-17-2023, 03:29 PM
(08-17-2023, 02:51 PM)mvossman Wrote: 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.