Scase wrote: ruckus wrote:
I don't believe in this dollars per win/money ball nonsense.
Scase wrote:I know they say there's no such thing as a stupid question, but this is getting pretty close.
The more money you spend on mediocre players the less money you have to spend on players that are worth it.
The average cost of an NBA win is 1.8m dollars. More of those millions spent on players that can't come close to averaging enough wins vs their salary, makes it nigh on impossible to have a winning team.
That's small market thinking. We are not a small market.
I'd rather be known as a team that goes all out to win instead of the team that tries to pick and choose free agents and still gets shot down in the end.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Are you effing kidding me?
It's called VALUE. If a player is paid more than he's worth that's bad VALUE. Thus making him a hindrance instead of an asset. And if said hindrance isn't working out his VALUE is lower due to being overpaid and harder to TRADE. Thus shackling the team with that bad VALUE contract that no one wants. Having an entire team of these causes a team to become what the raps are. A crappy team going nowhere fast.
How you have made it to the age you have and not learned the value of a dollar is beyond me.
I know you can handle it, so going to be a devils advocate here.
Getting good value players is a good rule of thumb, but not the golden measuring stick that most make it out to be.
If that was true, you can compose a whole team with serviceable players on rookie contracts; it'll meet the criteria of players > value of contract. However this team won't probably go anywhere.
Some finance savvy folks will say that if you have assets > book value, then you can flip them for better assets. That is entirely true given that the market is liquid. However the NBA is not like the stock market where you can flip assets whenever you choose to. Illiquidity is a cost, and thus a premium has to be charged on that.
Then there is gaming. This really @#$%s up the fair value of assets. Colangelo trying to block a Nash trade to NY by offering Landry a bloated contract will mess up his value because the contract value isn't tied directly to the value of the asset (the player) anymore. This is one example where there are other factors than intrinsic value of the player dictating the value of the contract.
Also on the point of intrinsic value, I agree that this is the "truest" way to equate contract value with the player/asset. However without a crystal ball/hindsight, valuation in this manner will most likely be off. This is because intrinsic value tries to capture both the current value of the asset as well as the future value of the asset. Since it is too difficult to predict what the future value of any player is going to be, in practice, there is a mismatch between player and contract value.
The only alternative that is left then is comparative value. This method is using similar assets to value your own. The downside here is that, unless you are comparing your assets with another that is accurately valued, player/contract value will be misaligned once again.
And the list goes on to as why contracts are valued improperly. A GM's job on the line, injuries, cognitive biases, etc all play into this.
This is why it is difficult to offer contracts based on wins/dollar, in a vacuum it works, in practicality it only serves as a guideline at best.