08-18-2023, 11:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-18-2023, 11:11 AM by Ghost of Podkolzin.)
(08-18-2023, 10:54 AM)michaeltex Wrote: 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.