Towns offers ? Who has the best offer?

[schaffy]

Not sure if he is tradeable. For starters as well as Minnesota has performed this year, it would take a huge offer. On the other side, he will be making $50M plus and has injuries and a lack of wanting to play the center spot.

The bolded part is not true. He was approached about moving off center to accommodate Gobert as part of the deal. He agreed because thats what was in the best interest of the team. He still is very willing to play center.

[HartfordWhalers]

Since they aren't the ones who end up acquiring Towns in this scenario it wouldn't be the best argument to make since its not the risk they are taking.

Sure. Unnamed team could make unrealistic demands of Minnesota to match Minnesota fans unrealistic demands if you prefer..

Who has more value, Markkanen or Towns? I have to think Towns (locked in and if a strong playoff showing spike in value).

So for example:

To Nets: Towns

To Jazz: Simmons + 25/27/29 Suns 1sts + 29 Mavs 1st

To Wolves: Markkanen + 27/29 Wolves 1sts

If too much for Jazz, Wolves could add protections to own picks - say lotto - vs getting back 1sts all together.

I think Lauri has a very strong argument for being worth more. The argument for Towns is he is already paid the max. The argument for Lauri is younger, cheaper, and arguably better defense. Might be an interesting thread in its own, but for instance, for Philly I would offer more for Lauri than for Towns. If Minnesota is just too scared to offer max value for Lauri, that doesn;t actually make him have less value, just makes a Minnesota trade unlikely.

[shrink]

I just wanted to mention that trade value is subjective for each team.

A critical part of the trade value of Towns IN MIN, is that he wants to be there, and is locked in contractually. Players of this caliber and better have some influence to force a trade. One of the reasons that they traded for Gobert was that Rudy said he was intrigued with the idea of playing in MIN. Even with a giant pick-heavy package, MIN needed to trade for a star who wouldn’t leave. If the Wolves trade away Towns for lesser talent, stars aren’t historically showing up asking to come play in Minnesota in free agency.

I would also mention Towns selflessness to change positions for Rudy, and encouraging Ant to be the star, are unlikely to be found in a trade for a similarly talented player, and that adds to his value specifically in MIN.

I think in general, there is an argument that an extended Lauri Markannen could be similar in trade value to Towns to some other teams. Some might even prefer Lauri, and he would be a player I think the Wolves would look at closely. But unless they know that Lauri wants to be in Minnesota longterm, and that he is just fine being overshadowed by Ant for several years, Towns has a significant edge in Minnesota in those areas

[vincecarter4pres]

Since they aren't the ones who end up acquiring Towns in this scenario it wouldn't be the best argument to make since its not the risk they are taking.

Sure. Unnamed team could make unrealistic demands of Minnesota to match Minnesota fans unrealistic demands if you prefer..

Who has more value, Markkanen or Towns? I have to think Towns (locked in and if a strong playoff showing spike in value).

So for example:

To Nets: Towns

To Jazz: Simmons + 25/27/29 Suns 1sts + 29 Mavs 1st

To Wolves: Markkanen + 27/29 Wolves 1sts

If too much for Jazz, Wolves could add protections to own picks - say lotto - vs getting back 1sts all together.

Was going to suggest something like:

‘25 Suns
‘28 Suns swap
‘29 Dallas
Wilson
Simmons
Schröder or DFS

For

KAT
Conley

Don’t see Brooklyn offering all those picks for KAT.

Also don’t see the need for Minny to get their picks back if they’re getting Markkanen.


Agree with Shrink in his recent post about it though.

[Rockazoids]

i think New York will also make a play on KAT. Randle + Bogdanovic + picks, involving 3rd team as/if needed. I think they will offer the most quantity of picks, but that might not be what the wolves want given how win-now they are

I see no reason for NY to trade for KAT. I would just reup Hartenstein and keep Robinson than have to pay KAT $49 M.
That's 35 % of the cap & he has a 10% Trade Bonus too.

[shrink]

i think New York will also make a play on KAT. Randle + Bogdanovic + picks, involving 3rd team as/if needed. I think they will offer the most quantity of picks, but that might not be what the wolves want given how win-now they are

I see no reason for NY to trade for KAT. I would just reup Hartenstein and keep Robinson than have to pay KAT $49 M.
That's 35 % of the cap & he has a 10% Trade Bonus too.

I wasn’t aware Towns had a trade kicker, but even if true, a trade bonus doesn’t matter on a new max deal. The max is the max.

[Rockazoids]

i think New York will also make a play on KAT. Randle + Bogdanovic + picks, involving 3rd team as/if needed. I think they will offer the most quantity of picks, but that might not be what the wolves want given how win-now they are

I see no reason for NY to trade for KAT. I would just reup Hartenstein and keep Robinson than have to pay KAT $49 M.
That's 35 % of the cap & he has a 10% Trade Bonus too.

I wasn’t aware Towns had a trade kicker, but even if true, a trade bonus doesn’t matter on a new max deal. The max is the max.

"Designated Veteran Player Extension (35% of cap, est $141M cap)
2027-28: Player Option (deadline 6/29/27)
10% Trade Bonus"
https://www.spotrac.com/nba/minnesota-timberwolves/karl-anthony-towns-17829/
Evan without the trade bonus I wouldn't trade for him with that deal when I can have Hartenstein and keep Robinson for less.

[SkyHook]

I just wanted to mention that trade value is subjective for each team.

A critical part of the trade value of Towns IN MIN, is that he wants to be there, and is locked in contractually. Players of this caliber and better have some influence to force a trade. One of the reasons that they traded for Gobert was that Rudy said he was intrigued with the idea of playing in MIN. Even with a giant pick-heavy package, MIN needed to trade for a star who wouldn’t leave. If the Wolves trade away Towns for lesser talent, stars aren’t historically showing up asking to come play in Minnesota in free agency.

I would also mention Towns selflessness to change positions for Rudy, and encouraging Ant to be the star, are unlikely to be found in a trade for a similarly talented player, and that adds to his value specifically in MIN.

I think in general, there is an argument that an extended Lauri Markannen could be similar in trade value to Towns to some other teams. Some might even prefer Lauri, and he would be a player I think the Wolves would look at closely. But unless they know that Lauri wants to be in Minnesota longterm, and that he is just fine being overshadowed by Ant for several years, Towns has a significant edge in Minnesota in those areas

Bingo, but beyond that, trade value only truly exists when teams come to agreement. It’s not just about the offer or the demand.

[Wolveswin]

Would Raptors be looking to reset and rebuild? How does Barnes look in MN? Something like…

To Nets: Towns + Filler

To Raps: 25/27/29 Suns 1sts + Clowney + Simmons + More from Nets?

To Wolves: Barnes + Olynyk + Brown

Gobert | Reid | Olynyk
McDaniels | Reid
Barnes | McDaniels
Edwards | NAW
Conley | Brown

[Texas Chuck]

Bingo, but beyond that, trade value only truly exists when teams come to agreement. It’s not just about the offer or the demand.

But this isn't true. Players have value even if they don't move. Did Kobe never have trade value? Dirk? Stockton? Mailman? Of course they did.

There are lots of reasons trades don't happen, but its not because none of the assets involved have value until the moment a trade is done.

[SkyHook]

Bingo, but beyond that, trade value only truly exists when teams come to agreement. It’s not just about the offer or the demand.

But this isn't true. Players have value even if they don't move. Did Kobe never have trade value? Dirk? Stockton? Mailman? Of course they did.

There are lots of reasons trades don't happen, but its not because none of the assets involved have value until the moment a trade is done.

Trade value is hypothetical and undefined until teams come to agreement.

[HartfordWhalers]

Bingo, but beyond that, trade value only truly exists when teams come to agreement. It’s not just about the offer or the demand.

But this isn't true. Players have value even if they don't move. Did Kobe never have trade value? Dirk? Stockton? Mailman? Of course they did.

There are lots of reasons trades don't happen, but its not because none of the assets involved have value until the moment a trade is done.

Trade value is hypothetical and undefined until teams come to agreement.

Trade value is realized when a trade happens. But obviously the value doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. That line of thinking is just devoid of any critical thought.

If you take a player on the Magic, say Isaac, there should be an actual measure of what:
1) He would have brought back at the trade deadline if traded
2) He would bring back last year's draft if traded
3) He would bring back at this years draft if traded.

Even if he isn't traded at all 3 times (which would be la lot of actual trades), there still is what he could have brought back in a trade.

If it helps, try thinking of it as capital gains on an investment.

I might have some stock I bought for 10 dollars. It went to 30, then to 20, then to 40. I never sold, so you can argue that it has more value to me than to the market, but there still very much is a measure of how much it would have gotten if traded. This is unrealized capital gains, and exists even though I didn't sell and have realized capital gains.

In this case there is a public market so it is very easy to see what the hypothetical if I sold value would be, while with NBA players it requires a lot more guesswork. But players clearly have some value even when not traded. If you want to call that 'unrealized trade value' that might help you relate with the rest of us and understand what everyone else is following without the extra term.

[SkyHook]

But this isn't true. Players have value even if they don't move. Did Kobe never have trade value? Dirk? Stockton? Mailman? Of course they did.

There are lots of reasons trades don't happen, but its not because none of the assets involved have value until the moment a trade is done.

Trade value is hypothetical and undefined until teams come to agreement.

Trade value is realized when a trade happens. But obviously the value doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. That line of thinking is just devoid of any critical thought.

If you take a player on the Magic, say Isaac, there should be an actual measure of what:
1) He would have brought back at the trade deadline if traded
2) He would bring back last year's draft if traded
3) He would bring back at this years draft if traded.

Even if he isn't traded at all 3 times (which would be la lot of actual trades), there still is what he could have brought back in a trade.

If it helps, try thinking of it as capital gains on an investment.

I might have some stock I bought for 10 dollars. It went to 30, then to 20, then to 40. I never sold, so you can argue that it has more value to me than to the market, but there still very much is a measure of how much it would have gotten if traded. This is unrealized capital gains, and exists even though I didn't sell and have realized capital gains.

In this case there is a public market so it is very easy to see what the hypothetical if I sold value would be, while with NBA players it requires a lot more guesswork. But players clearly have some value even when not traded. If you want to call that 'unrealized trade value' that might help you relate with the rest of us and understand what everyone else is following without the extra term.

Of course players have trade value even if they’re never traded, but there is no “Blue Book” value for player trades and little consensus IRL. It’s highly variable and subjective based upon a whole slew of factors. And the vast majority of trade proposals go nowhere for precisely that reason.

I’ve said before that I suspect that there are thousands of trade ideas that get bandied about by front offices each year, from casual conversations at lower levels all the way up to owner-to-owner discussions, and we end up with mere dozens which come to fruition. The VAST MAJORITY of trades don’t have legs exactly because teams can’t agree on value, reach an impasse, and end discussion. Why should we expect RealGM to be any different?

[Texas Chuck]

Trade value is hypothetical and undefined until teams come to agreement.

Trade value is realized when a trade happens. But obviously the value doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. That line of thinking is just devoid of any critical thought.

If you take a player on the Magic, say Isaac, there should be an actual measure of what:
1) He would have brought back at the trade deadline if traded
2) He would bring back last year's draft if traded
3) He would bring back at this years draft if traded.

Even if he isn't traded at all 3 times (which would be la lot of actual trades), there still is what he could have brought back in a trade.

If it helps, try thinking of it as capital gains on an investment.

I might have some stock I bought for 10 dollars. It went to 30, then to 20, then to 40. I never sold, so you can argue that it has more value to me than to the market, but there still very much is a measure of how much it would have gotten if traded. This is unrealized capital gains, and exists even though I didn't sell and have realized capital gains.

In this case there is a public market so it is very easy to see what the hypothetical if I sold value would be, while with NBA players it requires a lot more guesswork. But players clearly have some value even when not traded. If you want to call that 'unrealized trade value' that might help you relate with the rest of us and understand what everyone else is following without the extra term.

Of course players have trade value even if they’re never traded, but there is no “Blue Book” value for player trades and little consensus IRL. It’s highly variable and subjective based upon a whole slew of factors. And the vast majority of trade proposals go nowhere for precisely that reason.

I’ve said before that I suspect that there are thousands of trade ideas that get bandied about by front offices each year, from casual conversations at lower levels all the way up to owner-to-owner discussions, and we end up with mere dozens which come to fruition. The VAST MAJORITY of trades don’t have legs exactly because teams can’t agree on value, reach an impasse, and end discussion. Why should we expect RealGM to be any different?

All the regs understand this.

But this place should be different because we aren't making actual trades. So its pointless to place triple retail value on our players and then hate every idea involving them and then saying things like well players don't actually have any real value so I can continue to insist on this valuation even though its actively killing meaningful discussion.

This place should aim to find common ground. It should not be basically every thread is one fanbase saying this is terrible value for us and the other fanbase saying this is also terrible value for us and both sides telling the neutral parties trying to weigh in that you don't watch every game or you don't listen to this local podcast which is clearly the only truth or some of the stuff we get.

Look at the most respected posters on this board. And how they contribute to threads involving their team but also not. But how they can tell you sometimes my team is getting too good a deal. They can put their players' value into context with the rest of their league because their goal is finding reality, not trying to get the highest prices for their players. They listen to other feedback and are open to it, they don't dismiss any source that isn't valuing their players at the highest.

We should all be trying to emulate these posters. This board can be amazing. It can also devolve very quickly especially when posters are actively looking to justify prices they know deep down aren't realistic.

[SkyHook]

Trade value is realized when a trade happens. But obviously the value doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. That line of thinking is just devoid of any critical thought.

If you take a player on the Magic, say Isaac, there should be an actual measure of what:
1) He would have brought back at the trade deadline if traded
2) He would bring back last year's draft if traded
3) He would bring back at this years draft if traded.

Even if he isn't traded at all 3 times (which would be la lot of actual trades), there still is what he could have brought back in a trade.

If it helps, try thinking of it as capital gains on an investment.

I might have some stock I bought for 10 dollars. It went to 30, then to 20, then to 40. I never sold, so you can argue that it has more value to me than to the market, but there still very much is a measure of how much it would have gotten if traded. This is unrealized capital gains, and exists even though I didn't sell and have realized capital gains.

In this case there is a public market so it is very easy to see what the hypothetical if I sold value would be, while with NBA players it requires a lot more guesswork. But players clearly have some value even when not traded. If you want to call that 'unrealized trade value' that might help you relate with the rest of us and understand what everyone else is following without the extra term.

Of course players have trade value even if they’re never traded, but there is no “Blue Book” value for player trades and little consensus IRL. It’s highly variable and subjective based upon a whole slew of factors. And the vast majority of trade proposals go nowhere for precisely that reason.

I’ve said before that I suspect that there are thousands of trade ideas that get bandied about by front offices each year, from casual conversations at lower levels all the way up to owner-to-owner discussions, and we end up with mere dozens which come to fruition. The VAST MAJORITY of trades don’t have legs exactly because teams can’t agree on value, reach an impasse, and end discussion. Why should we expect RealGM to be any different?

All the regs understand this.

But this place should be different because we aren't making actual trades. So its pointless to place triple retail value on our players and then hate every idea involving them and then saying things like well players don't actually have any real value so I can continue to insist on this valuation even though its actively killing meaningful discussion.

This place should aim to find common ground. It should not be basically every thread is one fanbase saying this is terrible value for us and the other fanbase saying this is also terrible value for us and both sides telling the neutral parties trying to weigh in that you don't watch every game or you don't listen to this local podcast which is clearly the only truth or some of the stuff we get.

Look at the most respected posters on this board. And how they contribute to threads involving their team but also not. But how they can tell you sometimes my team is getting too good a deal. They can put their players' value into context with the rest of their league because their goal is finding reality, not trying to get the highest prices for their players. They listen to other feedback and are open to it, they don't dismiss any source that isn't valuing their players at the highest.

We should all be trying to emulate these posters. This board can be amazing. It can also devolve very quickly especially when posters are actively looking to justify prices they know deep down aren't realistic.

I’m not advocating for an argumentative cage match every time, just stating that “common ground” and consensus on value isn’t always a realistic expectation. It’s a rare outcome. It’s okay to say that market value doesn’t exist and that we’re at an impasse. That’s an acceptable response precisely because it’s the most common one in trade negotiations.

[HartfordWhalers]

Saying we cannot agree on what market value is doesn’t make market value not exist.

[HartfordWhalers]

For instance, when Ben Simmons was first not playing / injured for Philly, there was absolutely no consensus whatsoever on what his value was, with some saying negative and others saying highly positive and some others saying in the middle.

But that didn’t mean that there wasn’t a value that he would bring back in a trade, just that we as fans couldn’t agree on it.

Heck, he even was traded and we saw fans still not agree on his value (and just adjust Harden’s value to match what they needed it to be to make Ben Simmons value where they needed it to be).

Not being able to know something doesn’t make it not exist.

[SkyHook]

For instance, when Ben Simmons was first not playing / injured for Philly, there was absolutely no consensus whatsoever on what his value was, with some saying negative and others saying highly positive and some others saying in the middle.

But that didn’t mean that there wasn’t a value that he would bring back in a trade, just that we as fans couldn’t agree on it.

Heck, he even was traded and we saw fans still not agree on his value (and just adjust Harden’s value to match what they needed it to be to make Ben Simmons value where they needed it to be).

Not being able to know something doesn’t make it not exist.

That can be true, but it isn’t universally true. Not being able to know something doesn’t mean that it has to exist either.

[Texas Chuck]

I can't imagine trying to navigate a world where I had to personally know something to accept it exists. And at this point it feels like just wanting to be stubborn or semantic neither of which get us anywhere.

Hopefully the rest of those posting on this board accept the idea that we can discuss value in reasonable terms without being able to pinpoint it exactly because a trade has happened. Otherwise participation here is an utter waste of time if we can jsut say well I think my player is worth 3x what all neutral parties think because value doesn't exist until a deal is made.

[SkyHook]

I can't imagine trying to navigate a world where I had to personally know something to accept it exists. And at this point it feels like just wanting to be stubborn or semantic neither of which get us anywhere.

Hopefully the rest of those posting on this board accept the idea that we can discuss value in reasonable terms without being able to pinpoint it exactly because a trade has happened. Otherwise participation here is an utter waste of time if we can jsut say well I think my player is worth 3x what all neutral parties think because value doesn't exist until a deal is made.

Are there scenarios presented here where unrealistic hyperinflation occur? Certainly, just as in real life. Don’t certain GMs have a reputation for overvaluing their assets?

Do we argue about market value in trades which actually have been executed? Sure. We’ve seen it time and again. We each have many examples we can cite.

I’m not saying that negotiation is futile because consensus is highly unlikely, just that an impasse is an acceptable, frequent result. And if that’s what we’re left with here, that’s okay too. Good chat.