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.
