What's Brandon Roy's trade value?

thegreatblaze · Post #1 » by **thegreatblaze** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:42 am

Been wondering this for a while. Just curious what your team would give up to get him and where you rank him in terms of trade value?

vege · Post #2 » by **vege** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:17 am

=.= dumb topic. For me he is the best player on the league on a rookie contract. He is priceless.

Jugs · Post #3 » by **Jugs** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:34 am

way more valuable to "us" than to "you"

john2jer · Post #4 » by **john2jer** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:04 pm

Randy Foye and Cash Considerations.

Smills91 · Post #5 » by **Smills91** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:31 pm

Lower than any Blazer fan will admit.

shrink · Post #6 » by **shrink** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:54 pm

Does he fit into the typical "He's #4 behind LeBron, Dwight Howard or Wade" category that so many teams believe about their #1?

Post #7 » by **coldfish** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:02 pm

Really, really high. As a really good player on a rookie contract, his trade value is absurd. Its basically impossible to come up with a realistic trade from Chicago, partially due to salary issues. Normally, a team looking to move a player like Roy would want to dump every bad contract they have with him, but the blazers don't have any.

For shock value, I'll put it this way: Due to age and salary concerns, I would trade for Roy before I would trade for Kobe.

Teddy KGB · Post #8 » by **Teddy KGB** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:30 pm

"For shock value, I'll put it this way: Due to age and salary concerns, I would trade for Roy before I would trade for Kobe."

so age is more important a factor than Kobe being a significantly better player?

Post #9 » by **Foshan** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:48 pm

JHos Hydro wrote:
so age is more important a factor than Kobe being a significantly better player?

I've noticed on this forum age is given, imo, waaaay to much weight.
"ZOMG he's 23, we'd never trade him for your ancient 25yr old"

That said, i don't think Roy has a trade value unless he forces it, which doesn't look like it would happen.

Post #10 » by **coldfish** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:57 pm

JHos Hydro wrote:"For shock value, I'll put it this way: Due to age and salary concerns, I would trade for Roy before I would trade for Kobe."

so age is more important a factor than Kobe being a significantly better player?

I said, age and contract.

Kobe makes $23M per year. Roy makes $4M and will be getting at most $12M in two years. For a team on a budget, which most teams are, that creates a lot of flexibility.

Who would you rather have:
Kobe

or
Roy and Dwight?
Roy and Al Jefferson?
Roy and Danny Granger?
etc.
because Kobe makes as much as all of those pairings.

Teams like Dallas, LA and Boston don't care about luxury tax, so paying a guy $23M doesn't impact their ability to acquire other players. For almost the rest of the league, its a serious problem. The lux tax is going down to $67M next year. Kobe will be taking up over 1/3 of that by himself leaving $44M to fill out the entire roster, which is nearly impossible to do and have a great team, even with Kobe as a starting point. When you add in the fact that Kobe will only be playing at this level for a few more years, (giving you only a few years to build that team) its nearly an impossible situation.

Basically, to a team looking to build up a franchise, Roy would be the pick. That covers most teams in the league.
For a team with no budget limitations and in a win now mode, Kobe would be the pick. Most teams are not in that situation.

shrink · Post #11 » by **shrink** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:05 pm

I agree with coldfish. Many teams who aren't on the cusp of a championship would take Roy over Kobe, because Kobe wouldn't leave them enough cap space to put a team around him. Roy's on a rookie deal, but I'd caution people .. he'll be a max deal in 16 months. Kobe though, is two max deals.

I may be dragging this thread a little off-topic, but I always wanted to ask coldfish .. Why does CHI care about the lux? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought their giant market is helping them make money hand-over-fist with a pretty mediocre NBA product. Why don't they throw the lux to the wind, and start adding a few overpaid but talented stars?

candy for lunch · Post #12 » by **candy for lunch** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:56 pm

john2jer wrote:Randy Foye and Cash Considerations.

This is the correct answer 8-)

WiscoKing13 · Post #13 » by **WiscoKing13** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:40 pm

OdenRoyLMA2 wrote:Been wondering this for a while. Just curious what your team would give up to get him and where you rank him in terms of trade value?

The wizards?

Prospect Dong · Post #14 » by **Prospect Dong** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:51 pm

No, I don't think he meant "what team would you give up to get him"...

WiscoKing13 · Post #15 » by **WiscoKing13** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:54 pm

Prospect Dong wrote:No, I don't think he meant "what team would you give up to get him"...

NO WAY!

ClipperEric · Post #16 » by **ClipperEric** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:09 pm

His trade value is extremely high. We don't call him "Kobe-light" for nothing.

AI2TOHOUSTON · Post #17 » by **AI2TOHOUSTON** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:55 pm

Cliff Levingston · Post #18 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:44 pm

shrink wrote:Why does CHI care about the lux? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought their giant market is helping them make money hand-over-fist with a pretty mediocre NBA product. Why don't they throw the lux to the wind, and start adding a few overpaid but talented stars?

Because that's not our ownership's prerogative. They're in it to make money first, win second. They'll spend up the luxury tax, but not go over it unless they can be all but guaranteed a title. They've done a masterful job at this so far.

Post #19 » by **coldfish** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:47 pm

shrink wrote:I agree with coldfish. Many teams who aren't on the cusp of a championship would take Roy over Kobe, because Kobe wouldn't leave them enough cap space to put a team around him. Roy's on a rookie deal, but I'd caution people .. he'll be a max deal in 16 months. Kobe though, is two max deals.

I may be dragging this thread a little off-topic, but I always wanted to ask coldfish .. Why does CHI care about the lux? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought their giant market is helping them make money hand-over-fist with a pretty mediocre NBA product. Why don't they throw the lux to the wind, and start adding a few overpaid but talented stars?

Chicago is not owned by Jerry Reinsdorf. He is the chairman and minority owner. Its actually a large group of investors who own the Bulls. Several of which are now dead, so their estates have possession.

That has basically turned the Bulls into a "for profit" investment. They are the most profitable team in the league over the past 10 years and possibly the most in all of sports because of it.

Reinsdorf, in his role, is much like a CEO watching an investment. As such, they want to maximize profit and are going to be very stingy about it. They will only pay tax when there is a clear justification.

shrink · Post #20 » by **shrink** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:17 pm

I may be wrong, but if you can get that kind of sales from an average team, I would imagine that CHI is one of the few places where a foray over the lux would bring back even greater profits by making the team better.

Even I find it kind of ironic to hear me say that too, since I'm normally one of the guys banging the gong about staying under the lux, but I think CHI's huge fanbase would make it an exception.