RealGM

Real GM's TnT Board Top 25 Most Valuable Players

1. LeBron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Kyrie Irving
4. Derrick Rose
5. Carmelo Anthony
6. Chris Paul
7. Anthony Davis
8. James Harden
9. Russell Westbrook
10. Blake Griffin
11. LaMarcus Aldridge
12. Kevin Love
13. Rajon Rondo
14. Marc Gasol
15. Damian Lillard

With December 15th here, seems now is as good a time as any for our annual list of players with the most trade value. After this is done we will move on to the annual list of players with the most negative trade value.


Please vote for the player that you think currently has the most trade value and please list a nominee that should be added the voting list. Remember this is trade value, so factors such as salary/contract, age, potential, production, injuries, etc. should all be factored in to your vote.



The current nominees:


Kobe Bryant


Jrue Holiday


Dwight Howard


Dwayne Wade


Paul George


Stephen Curry


Deron Williams


Andre Drummond


Ricky Rubio


Serge Ibaka


Some helpful sites for salary information:
http://data.shamsports.com/content/page ... /index.jsp
http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-salaries/


Please write in both your vote and nomination



Last year's results:
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1161629



Votes:
Kobe - 6
Deron - 4
Dwight - 2
Drummond - 3
Lillard - 8
Curry - 1
George - 2
Holiday - 1

Nominations:
Lin -1
Lopez - 4
Ibaka - 10
Bosh - 4
Lee - 1
Wall - 1
Monroe - 2
Duncan - 1
MKG - 2
Favors - 1

Vote: George
Nom: MKG

Sticking with my votes from the last several threads. Injuries, age and contracts push a lot of the bigger names behind George imo.

Vote: Andre Drummond
Said it before.. up to 9 years of potentially the most dominant big man in the game.

Nominate: B.Lopez
#5 in PER, #1 in points in the paint, #1 in scoring among centers, #7 in blocks, all in under 30mpg at age 24.

V: Ibaka
N: MKG

V: Kobe
N: Lin

Teams wouldn't trade guys 16-25 for Kobe. Lakers wouldn't trade guys 6-15 for him. He makes them too much money off the court, in the valuation of the franchise, rights to local distributorships, and sponsors. Ditto for Lin at 26-35, 16-25

We all see Trade Value differently. But to the economist in me, trade value can't be only about what a team would buy for, it needs an equal component of what a team would sell for.

shrink wrote:V: Kobe
N: Lin

Teams wouldn't trade guys 16-25 for Kobe. Lakers wouldn't trade guys 6-15 for him. He makes them too much money off the court, in the valuation of the franchise, rights to local distributorships, and sponsors. Ditto for Lin at 26-35, 16-25

We all see Trade Value differently. But to the economist in me, trade value can't be only about what a team would buy for, it needs an equal component of what a team would sell for.

Ignoring Kobe where I think you make a good point, but you really think the Rockets wouldn;t trade Lin for any of these players?

Lopez - 4
Bosh - 4
Lee - 1
Wall - 1
Monroe - 2
Duncan - 1
MKG - 2
Favors - 1


(Okay, please ignore Lee )


Edit: Woops. Those are guys 25-35.

You think Houston wouldn't swap Lin for Rubio? For Dwight (even unsigned)? For Deron Williams? Drummond? For Paul George? Jrue?

shrink wrote:
We all see Trade Value differently. But to the economist in me, trade value can't be only about what a team would buy for, it needs an equal component of what a team would sell for.

I agree that selling price should be a factor. Strongly disagree it should be anywhere near an equal component.

Vote Deron Williams

Nominate Derrick Favors

V: Drummond, Andre

N: Parker, Tony

shrink wrote:V: Kobe
N: Lin

Teams wouldn't trade guys 16-25 for Kobe. Lakers wouldn't trade guys 6-15 for him. He makes them too much money off the court, in the valuation of the franchise, rights to local distributorships, and sponsors. Ditto for Lin at 26-35, 16-25

We all see Trade Value differently. But to the economist in me, trade value can't be only about what a team would buy for, it needs an equal component of what a team would sell for.

If the money made off the court is such a huge factor in making decisions, why doesn't Yao Ming still have a job in the NBA? Basically pay him $20 million to on the roster in name only. His name and fanbase size would still generate unthinkable amounts of money. In addition, guys like Tim Duncan (even in his prime) would have a lower value than say Vince Carter? Because Vince Carter would sell more jerseys, increase the valuation of the franchise, sponsorships, etc.?


You can't just view it as what would it take for the Lakers to trade away Kobe. There are too many emotions and history for a move like that to be simply about fair value. Would the Spurs trade Duncan? Would Celtics trade Pierce? Especially for a deal that isn't a home-run but simply equal or slightly above equal value? And at their given age and especially given their contract size, no one is going to overpay for Kobe.

Kobe even said multiple times (before this summer's moves) that he was going to retire in 2014. If that's the case, what is better to a franchise. Having a Lillard for the next decade. Or having Kobe for 1.5 years.

Vote: Serge Ibaka
Nominate: Nikola Vucevic

V: Drummond
N: Vucevic

V: Kobe
N: Duncan.

I'm definitely going to take a moment to oppose the Drummond nom, which I really don't like and view as the 2nd worst choice behind Rubio. Yes, Drummond has played well. But I think these claims of "next Dwight Howard" are far, far, far too premature. We have seen far too many extremely young big men play well in limited reserves, have people go "Oh, that's the next superstar"... and then they turn out okay. Or good, just not a superstar. Favors hasn't even been nominated yet, but last year he probably would have been voted in by now. Same with McGee, or DeAndre.

If Drummond continues to improve like everyone thinks he should, I could see voting for him next year. But to take him over established superstars or All-Stars to me is something that doesn't make sense. There's only so much that "potential" can be valued over actual winning talent.

KOBE

WALL

Drummond

Nom. Faried, MKG

deNIEd wrote:

shrink wrote:V: Kobe
N: Lin

Teams wouldn't trade guys 16-25 for Kobe. Lakers wouldn't trade guys 6-15 for him. He makes them too much money off the court, in the valuation of the franchise, rights to local distributorships, and sponsors. Ditto for Lin at 26-35, 16-25

We all see Trade Value differently. But to the economist in me, trade value can't be only about what a team would buy for, it needs an equal component of what a team would sell for.

If the money made off the court is such a huge factor in making decisions, why doesn't Yao Ming still have a job in the NBA? Basically pay him $20 million to on the roster in name only. His name and fanbase size would still generate unthinkable amounts of money. In addition, guys like Tim Duncan (even in his prime) would have a lower value than say Vince Carter? Because Vince Carter would sell more jerseys, increase the valuation of the franchise, sponsorships, etc.?

Your argument style seems to be to take points, magnify them to a huge degree, and then disagree with them.

Did I say anything about Yao Ming today, or to an even more incredulous degree, Vince Carter?

Yao Ming certainly helped rockets owner Leslie Alexander off the court. He has opened up his capital company to new venture in China, and this was in part due to China's familarity with the Rockets and Yao. How do we quantify that value? He has already made his contribution to the Rockets -- why do you think insert that right now, I'd think he's worth $20 million? Again, it seems like you are exaggerating points just to have a reason to argue. Or do you think by posting '$20 million" that's how you honestly understand my point - and that I agree with that? Either way - does not reflect well.

And many owners don't make money on their team each year, but their big payday is by the growth of the asset -- the team grows over time. The value of MSG increased $500 MILLION dollars over Lin's miracle February. Can anyone truly ignore thataffects his value to an owner? FWIW, Alexander bought the Rockets in '93 for $85 mil - t must now be worth over $500 mil.

You talked about jersey sales, which is not tied to the rockets revenues -- at best it is an indication of popularity. I suggest you read this article, and let me know what your opinion is after you've read it:

http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2012/07/19/can-jeremy-lins-appeal-in-china-really-help-houstons-bottom-line/

deNIEd wrote: You can't just view it as what would it take for the Lakers to trade away Kobe. There are too many emotions and history for a move like that to be simply about fair value. Would the Spurs trade Duncan? Would Celtics trade Pierce? Especially for a deal that isn't a home-run but simply equal or slightly above equal value? And at their given age and especially given their contract size, no one is going to overpay for Kobe.

I can't view it that way, huh? Well, I'm educated as an economist, and if you don't mind, I'll stick with looking at both sides of a transaction, seller and buyer, when I determine value.

If I sell a bottle of water for $1000 to a man dying of third in the desert, does that mean it's value is $1000? Desperate attachment from the seller can't be dismissed any more than desperate attachments from the buyer can be.

A random point, obviously we're doing this project now and would wait some time to follow it up with another one, but what do you guys think of doing a TEAM trade value rankings as a yearly event on here? I do my own on my blog once a year but I wouldn't mind seeing the board's verson. IMO team trade value might be the best way to measure how strong a position that team is in. The reason assets have high trade value is how strongly they improve a team's position

Dr Positivity wrote:A random point, obviously we're doing this project now and would wait some time to follow it up with another one, but what do you guys think of doing a TEAM trade value rankings as a yearly event on here? I do my own on my blog once a year but I wouldn't mind seeing the board's verson. IMO team trade value might be the best way to measure how strong a position that team is in. The reason assets have high trade value is how strongly they improve a team's position

Im not sure how valuable that really is. To me the perfect example is the 2011 MAvs. Dirk would have the most trade value but probably at the edge of the top 10 at best(havent gone back and really looked at contract status/injuries for the league's superstars ) but none of their other players had any trade value to speak of at all. We got Tyson for ERick Dampier and a bad contract. Kidd, Marion,Terry, Haywood were all looked at as overpaid past their prime veterans. Butler was an expiring (and then injured), JJB,Cardinal,DEshawn,Ian,Roddy B, DoJo all essentially worthless. Dallas would have been in the bottom 1/4 of the league and yet were champions. Meanwhile you have teams that seemingly have tons of valuable assets in talented youth and high draft picks that 4 or 5 years later are still lotto teams.

You cant just add up assets to determine the strength of a team's standing.

V: Holiday
N: Monroe

shrink wrote:Did I say anything about Yao Ming today, or to an even more incredulous degree, Vince Carter?

Yao Ming certainly helped rockets owner Leslie Alexander off the court. He has opened up his capital company to new venture in China, and this was in part due to China's familarity with the Rockets and Yao. How do we quantify that value? He has already made his contribution to the Rockets -- why do you think insert that right now, I'd think he's worth $20 million? Again, it seems like you are exaggerating points just to have a reason to argue. Or do you think by posting '$20 million" that's how you honestly understand my point - and that I agree with that? Either way - does not reflect well.

I'm simply saying, the money a player will bring to an organization isn't the only thing that matters. Would Yao increase the revenue and worth of a franchise by bringing in all of China to watch his games? I'm sure it would. Even if he wasn't playing. If you justify a player's salary by the amount he can increase the team's networth, then Yao would still easily be worth $20 million today.

shrink wrote:And many owners don't make money on their team each year, but their big payday is by the growth of the asset -- the team grows over time. The value of MSG increased $500 MILLION dollars over Lin's miracle February. Can anyone truly ignore that affects his value to an owner? FWIW, Alexander bought the Rockets in '93 for $85 mil - t must now be worth over $500 mil.

Yes, a player's ability to increase the value of an organization is important. It's just not that big of a deal in terms of trade evaluation. Can you name any examples in which the player's ability to increase the value of the franchise was ever exhibited in an actual trade?

shrink wrote:I can't view it that way, huh? Well, I'm educated as an economist, and if you don't mind, I'll stick with looking at both sides of a transaction, seller and buyer, when I determine value.

If I sell a bottle of water for $1000 to a man dying of third in the desert, does that mean it's value is $1000? Desperate attachment from the seller can't be dismissed any more than desperate attachments from the buyer can be.

Rules that traditionally are upheld in business and economics, don't necessarily hold true in sports. In business/economics, the goal is to make a profit. That comes first and is essentially the only thing that matters. In sports (depending on the class of the organization), winning is the primary goal. Emotions are too intermixed into sports where your normal theories in economics get broken down. Why would every owner not push to move into a big market if economics were a priority?