RGM's Top 25 Most Valuable Players - Vote for #16

[Zubby]

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/

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

[Texas Chuck]

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.

[JasonStern]

vote: drummond
nominate: bosh

[HartfordWhalers]

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.)

[Texas Chuck]

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.

[shrink]

One of the values to Leslie Alexander isn't in promo deals for Tracy McGrady, but for promo for himself. He is taking advantage of the in-roads that his ownership of the Rockets help make as his investment firm grows its business in China.

Second, at issue isn't about the annual revenues that Yao Ming created, but whatever impact he had on the overall value of the team.

Finally, NYK is probably the worst team in the NBA to claim that winning could create a huge sudden spike in the value of the asset. NYK is fortunate that revenues and ticket prices are always high there, regardless of whether the Knicks win or lose. If you're going to pick the reason for such a big gain, why attribute it's bulk to the ebbs and flows of their record, when they had a specifically unique situation at the precise time that they had a specifically unique jump in asset value? If this is a general trend, it seems strange that Time magazine pointed it out, and you should easily be able to prove your point by showing the correlation between the valuation of MSGC vs the Knicks record.

[HartfordWhalers]

One of the values to Leslie Alexander isn't in promo deals for Tracy McGrady, but for promo for himself. He is taking advantage of the in-roads that his ownership of the Rockets help make as his investment firm grows its business in China.

And it isn't about annual revenues that Yao Ming created, but whatever impact he had on the overall value of the team.

Finally, NYK is probably the worst team in the NBA to claim that winning could create a huge growth in the asset, as revenues and ticket prices are always high there, regardless of whether the Knicks win or lose. If you're going to pick the reason for such a big gain, why attribute it's bulk to the ebbs and flows of their record, when they had a specifically unique situation at the precise time that they had a specifically unique jump in asset value? If this is a general trend, it seems strange that Time magazine pointed it out, and you should easily be able to prove your point by showing the differences inthe valuation of MSGC vs the Knicks record historically.

And here I've been thinking they got $0 per playoff ticket if they missed the playoffs, and zero dollars from ingame concessions. And zero dollars from extra advertising (playoff games should do better then their replacement programing).

I'm not sure if your completely missing the point intentionally, or just too busy to read it. So here you go again.

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.)

It should actually say triply so, since the team owns its network and its stadium. But the point remains, the playoffs are an incredibly big source of additional revenue. Especially since:

evenues and ticket prices are always high there

. If revenue were just flat (instead of higher which it is come playoffs) its basically an extra 5% even if they are a first round sweep.

Now lets compare that with the link you kept linking:
"it’s less than a percentage point of the Rockets’ estimated $150 million a year revenue."

Yeah. I see making the playoffs as a much much bigger potential explanatory variable... because it clearly is.

[shrink]

Now lets compare that with the link you kept linking:
"it’s less than a percentage point of the Rockets’ estimated $150 million a year revenue." is.

I'm not sure if your completely missing the point intentionally, or just too busy to read it. So here you go again.

And it isn't about annual revenues that Yao Ming created, but whatever impact he had on the overall value of the team.

[shrink]

If you want to prove your point - do the work, don't make associations.

If you're right, the value of the MSGC has risen or fallen in previous Februaries (not play-offs) based on the team's record.

If Time is right, and they should mention that the huge gain correlates exactly with Lin's miracle February, the company's value shouldn't differ much from the beginning to the end of February regardless of the Knicks win-loss record.

Both are very public pieces of information.

[HartfordWhalers]

I won't stoop to your level of insult and condescension, but if the shoe fits ..:

And yet here you are, clearly being condescending. Classy as always.

And it isn't about annual revenues that Yao Ming created, but whatever impact he had on the overall value of the team.

Okay, so you want to ignore the actual situation surrounding the Knicks at the time. Okay, I will play along...
So, since then the Knicks didn't keep Lin around, or sign any new long term deals in China. And have actually gone up a lot more since Lin left. How come the Knicks were able to keep this increased asset value -- this Lin induced bubble because obviously no other explanation will be considered or responded to.

Even more generally, you have this argument that Lin increases asset value. But not revenues. Its hard to justify, unless the mere presence of Lin makes owning the Rockets that much better for its own sake -- then any increase in franchise value would be based upon an increase in either current or future revenues. And years and years after Yao, and considerable work, Houston doesn't have this to any appreciable amount to justify your outlandish statements. Yet Yao was doing better in all star balloting etc.

Your argument comes down to Lin is magically value to Houston's franchise, although there is no way to test this and it won't make them more money now, and apparently not to the Knicks. That there might be some small value, perhaps on par with Yao sure. On the scales mentioned? Horribly unrealistic and poorly thought through.

[shrink]

I won't stoop to your level of insult and condescension, but if the shoe fits ..:

And yet here you are, clearly being condescending. Classy as always.

so inappropriate .. again. mr. mod.

"As always," you continue with your personal attacks.

Can other mods warn you?

I'm not sure if your completely missing the point intentionally, or just too busy to read it, but ...

Isn't this the "classy" line YOU wrote?
...

The article itself says that the direct value is hard to assign, and I agree. However, "something" made MSGC's value rise a half billion dollars in February. You suggest it's winning games. All I say is "prove it" show me the correlation in other Februaries and I'll buy it. I doubt you'll find it, especially since the Knicks make money regardless of their record.

[HartfordWhalers]

If you want to prove your point - do the work, don't make associations.

If you're right, the value of the MSGC has risen or fallen in previous Februaries (not play-offs) based on the team's record.

If Time is right, and they should mention that the huge gain correlates exactly with Lin's miracle February, the company's value shouldn't differ much from the beginning to the end of February regardless of the Knicks win-loss record.

Both are very public pieces of information.

You realize you have done nothing to prove otherwise first right?

Facts:
MSG stock increased during Frebruary
Lin went from being a scrub to Linsanity then
Knicks went from he team was 8 - 15 and looking like a playoff longshot, to 18 - 18 and looking like a lock.

So we have two listed correlates. Or it could be anything else.

Other facts:
Lin leaves Knicks
Knicks continue winning
MSG stock goes up.


Well, its not looking good at all for making a simple correlation based upon Lin.



If someone wants to find other times the Knicks have radically had their season prognosis change in a short time period, please do so. The only other I can think of was the Finals run from the 8th seed when it looked like they might miss the playoffs. And yes, that includes the playoffs, those were exactly the important revenues I was discussing, and the chance at them..

From April 27 to June 25 Cablevision went up 25%, DJ was up 12% and SP500 was up 1%. (Not including playoffs and just the run in the numbers are 17% Cablevision, 9% DJIA, 2% S&P500)
During that time, the Knicks won 6 of 8 to sneak in as the 8th seed, and then made it to the finals. Also known as Houston-mania.

[shrink]

You realize you have done nothing to prove otherwise first right?.

I repeated the contentions of Time magazine that suggested that Lin's presence could be responsible for the reasons.

You've said that that's ridiculous, and offered that it's win-loss.

If you want to refute the contention, then it's easy for you to prove. All I have is one data point, February 2012 for one spike in asset value.

You have multiple years with multiple win/loss records correlated with asset rise or fall.

If you want to step in and say that Time is wrong here, and shouldn't have mentioned the rise in asset value in a Lin article, do the work.

[shrink]

Hey -- don't backtrack now. Here's what you said:

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.

.. and the dramatic level you've changed it to.

[If someone wants to find other times the Knicks have radically had their season prognosis change in a short time period, please do so. The only other I can think of was the Finals run from the 8th seed when it looked like they might miss the playoffs.

Wow! Is that the same as "increased chance" to make the play-off? Now it's "radical change?"

I'm sure there are plenty of years you can find an "increased chance of making the play-offs," right?

[HartfordWhalers]

Hey -- don't backtrack now. Here's what you said:

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.

.. and the dramatic level you've changed it to.

[If someone wants to find other times the Knicks have radically had their season prognosis change in a short time period, please do so. The only other I can think of was the Finals run from the 8th seed when it looked like they might miss the playoffs.

Wow! Is that the same as "increased chance" to make the play-off? Now it's "radical change?"

I'm sure there are plenty of years you can find an "increased chance of making the play-offs," right?

I'm comfortable with my original wording.

looking like a playoff longshot

to

looking like a lock.

I won't quibble if that is simply an increased chance or a radical change, I think it fits the latter but you can call it the former if you like. Just make sure it fits that change initially outlined, and a short period of time in which that transition happened. I have found another, occurring at the end of the 99 season with a 6-2 run.

[Texas Chuck]

^^^^^its like watching your parents fight

[lewdog]

V - Kobe (it's time boys)
N - Wall

[Zubby]

You realize you have done nothing to prove otherwise first right?.

I repeated the contentions of Time magazine that suggested that Lin's presence could be responsible for the reasons.

You've said that that's ridiculous, and offered that it's win-loss.

If you want to refute the contention, then it's easy for you to prove. All I have is one data point, February 2012 for one spike in asset value.

You have multiple years with multiple win/loss records correlated with asset rise or fall.

If you want to step in and say that Time is wrong here, and shouldn't have mentioned the rise in asset value in a Lin article, do the work.

Quick thought Time is a weekly magazine based out of NY, their goal to sell copies... Lin is a sexy story, draws interest.

I know they have quite a few opinion pieces in that magazine.
Its like how every magazine makes a top ___ list... It draws attention even though for the most part its speculation.

I mean logic does say winning = financial success, not the likability of character.

[9abovetherim]

V - Curry
N - Holiday

[eliasrapp98]

Holiday's already nominated...