RealGM

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?

V - Drummond
N - Monroe

Vote: Kobe
Nominate: Bosh

George
Noah

Texas Chuck wrote:

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.

I looked at my list in February 2011 and I had them 11th, but they could've been as high as 8 (My list was 1. Heat 2. Thunder 3. Bulls 4. Lakers 5. Clippers 6. Celtics 7. Spurs 8. Magic 9. Hornets 10. Jazz 11. Mavericks. The Magic, Hornets, Jazz didn't have a ton of assets beside their superstar either). Yeah that's still low for a champion but they were a unique team in NBA history. Most people had them outside of their top 5 contenders and Chandler's trade value was artificially lowered both by his upcoming FA and the fact that he was just flat out underrated at the time due to struggling the year before. 95 times out of 100, for teams with the Mavericks talent, age and FA status in 2010-2011, things wouldn't have worked out. It just all came together.

V: Deron
N: Lopez

Dr Positivity wrote:
I looked at my list in February 2011 and I had them 11th, but they could've been as high as 8 (My list was 1. Heat 2. Thunder 3. Bulls 4. Lakers 5. Clippers 6. Celtics 7. Spurs 8. Magic 9. Hornets 10. Jazz 11. Mavericks. The Magic, Hornets, Jazz didn't have a ton of assets beside their superstar either). Yeah that's still low for a champion but they were a unique team in NBA history. Most people had them outside of their top 5 contenders and Chandler's trade value was artificially lowered both by his upcoming FA and the fact that he was just flat out underrated at the time due to struggling the year before. 95 times out of 100, for teams with the Mavericks talent, age and FA status in 2010-2011, things wouldn't have worked out. It just all came together.

Wow Im shocked you had that Mavs team that high but obviously you put in the work and Im just going off my head. If you still have that available and dont mind sharing it Id love for you to PM me a link to that list.

deNIEd wrote:

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.

Again, I never said that it was!

If you're reading what I write, and honestly feel that is what I've said or implied, I think you need to read more closely. If you are just implying it so you have something to argue about - please stop.

It's obviously not the "only" thing. However, it is certainly a factor, especially if a player like Lin may be partially responsible for a half BILLION dollar increase in the value of the company.

I don't want to de-rail this thread any further, but I'm going to continue to vote for Kobe and Lin, because I think they are the most valuable players.

Drummond
MKG

Vote - Drummond.

I don't see much reason to rate his potential lower than A. Davis, and he went a lot higher in these ratings. It's a bit odd. Davis has more offensive potential, Drummond has more defensive potential, both are beasts.

Nominate - Lopez. Though I can totally see MKG also.

Vote: Drummond

His potential at the Center position is just too high in today's NBA. The league is bleeding for any competent big's and Drummond has shown he can become a beast.


Nominate: M. K. G.

shrink wrote:

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.

Lolz thats the article that you found the other day... its a good read great find. But that article goes against yout logic.

"Estimates from sponsorship experts IEG are that the Rockets earned somewhere between $800,000 to $1.25 million in deals from all their China-related sponsorships."
That really is much for a big market like Houston... "it’s less than a percentage point of the Rockets’ estimated $150 million a year revenue."

"IEG said that the Rockets’ overall sponsorship revenue wasn't notably higher than other NBA teams during Yao’s time with the team."


The Lakers organization is so much bigger than the Rockets... Kobe does not make the Lakers, they will always make money
Lakers > Kobe
Rockets > Lin

Since Lin left, MSG has outperformed the market, with a 15% increase over last year.


There is only one player who could possibly turn a franchise around single handed and that's LeBron.



Vote: Dwight
Nom: Bosh

Lin and Yao's value to the Rockets goes beyond direct revenue tho--their teammates get endorsement deals in China. Thus making a contract of the same amount worth more(and for star players like TMac or Harden potentially considerably more). In theory it gives Houston an advantage in the FA market and perhaps even being able to resign their own guys to more team-favorable contracts. Thus increasing the talent level, team success, and ultimately the value of the franchise.

It has nothing to do with selling Rockets memorabilia to Asia.

vote: drummond
nominate: bosh

Texas Chuck wrote:Lin and Yao's value to the Rockets goes beyond direct revenue tho--their teammates get endorsement deals in China. Thus making a contract of the same amount worth more(and for star players like TMac or Harden potentially considerably more). In theory it gives Houston an advantage in the FA market and perhaps even being able to resign their own guys to more team-favorable contracts. Thus increasing the talent level, team success, and ultimately the value of the franchise.

It has nothing to do with selling Rockets memorabilia to Asia.

Has any teammate of Lin's actually gotten an endorsement deal in China since then? This seems highly speculative, and very unlikely to amount to anything (especially when compared with something real like the difference in state tax rates).

That said, I don't think this has been serious since it was suggested that the Rockets wouldn't trade Lin for Dwight, or Deron, or George, or Holiday, or Bosh, or Drummond, or Rubio or Monroe, or Favors, or ...

But in case it was. Wouldn't it make more sense to attribute any rise in MSG to the increased chance of making the playoffs? The team was 8 - 15 and looking like a playoff longshot, only to finish February at 18 - 18 and looking like a lock.

Considering the playoffs are a known actual profit generator (and doubly so since the team owns its broadcasting network), this would be a more logical conclusion to jump to then that Jeremy Lin was worth 500 million (even though the revenues cited that he brings in explicitly don't go to the team and the team let him walk over a 8m a year salary.)

Oh Im in no way supporting Linsanity being worth $500M. Thats crazy talk. No Im not personally aware of any current Rockets endorsements in China but the Chinese economy has boomed since the Yao days and I know TMac had several Chinese endorsements when he was a Rocket. Now I understand Lin is nowhere on the level of Yao because hes not a Chinese citizen nor anywhere near the player. Still I think there is some value(someone smarter than me would have to calculate it) to Lin's teammates for the possible opportunities that could open up in Asia.

I dont think Lin is going to make the top 25 in trade value but I think he will belong in the discussion towards the tail end of this.