T&T board top 25 trade value - Vote for #12

[shrink]

Vote: Brunson. I’d probably go with 26-12 Anthony Davis if he didn’t have that player option, four years out.

MaNomiNa: Embiid

[Mavrelous]

Cade
Garland

[tmorgan]

Vote: Brunson. I’d probably go with 26-12 Anthony Davis if he didn’t have that player option, four years out.

MaNomiNa: Embiid

MaNomiNa…. his legs are doo-doo
MaNomiNa… his ankles are too
MaNomiNa… I just don’t trust him, don’t trust him…. to play much longer too

Meh. I tried. Sounded funnier in my head.

[orlando_joe]

franz not sure how a guy that missed 2 of first 3 yrs or give ball to run team and get you a win can even get votes...over franz...honest do not get it

[brackdan70]

Vote Chet
Nominate White

[Northern hoops]

V: Cade
N: Maxey

[ReggiesKnicks]

Vote Tyrese
Nominate Siakam

[toooskies]

Cade
Trae

I think the next two nominations are not that problematic, to be honest, it should be LaMelo and Trae in some order. Really, only the question of what to do with Embiid complicates this - to me. I love Garland, but I don't think he belongs in this conversation before Ball and Young.

I went Maxey over Trae. LaMelo is too injury prone for my taste, and Trae is just way too much of a defensive liability regardless of his offensive abilities.

Maxey is a reasonable call. Regardless, I just don't see the argument for Garland as the next guy up.

The argument starts with Garland having a better statistical year this year than any of LaMelo, Trae, or Maxey have ever had on a per-minute/efficiency basis. Mostly driven by him being the best shooter of the group. The second argument is that Trae and LaMelo are both heliocentric players but you can't win a title with them being the focus of your offense.

Garland's TS% this year than any of LaMelo, Trae, or Maxey have ever had in their careers and a whopping 7% better than all of them individually. He's simply a better shooter (or has significantly better shot selection) than any of those guys. Would your rather have a 50/43/88 guy or a 42/33/82 guy on higher volume? And even then, the volume difference is exaggerated by the minutes differences between the players-- per-36 Garland is 2nd among the group in scoring, only behind LaMelo. (LaMelo takes seven more shots per 36 to get his 5 more points, and commits 1 more turnover to get slightly fewer assists.)

Individually, Garland has a huge health advantage over LaMelo, a plays-well-with-others advantage over Trae. I have Maxey having a strong argument against Garland historically, but this year means more than any other year and it's a big edge for Garland.

V: Franz
N: Garland

[jowglenn]

Vote: Brunson
Nominate: Sabonis

[tmorgan]

I went Maxey over Trae. LaMelo is too injury prone for my taste, and Trae is just way too much of a defensive liability regardless of his offensive abilities.

Maxey is a reasonable call. Regardless, I just don't see the argument for Garland as the next guy up.

The argument starts with Garland having a better statistical year this year than any of LaMelo, Trae, or Maxey have ever had on a per-minute/efficiency basis. Mostly driven by him being the best shooter of the group. The second argument is that Trae and LaMelo are both heliocentric players but you can't win a title with them being the focus of your offense.

Garland's TS% this year than any of LaMelo, Trae, or Maxey have ever had in their careers and a whopping 7% better than all of them individually. He's simply a better shooter (or has significantly better shot selection) than any of those guys. Would your rather have a 50/43/88 guy or a 42/33/82 guy on higher volume? And even then, the volume difference is exaggerated by the minutes differences between the players-- per-36 Garland is 2nd among the group in scoring, only behind LaMelo. (LaMelo takes seven more shots per 36 to get his 5 more points, and commits 1 more turnover to get slightly fewer assists.)

Individually, Garland has a huge health advantage over LaMelo, a plays-well-with-others advantage over Trae. I have Maxey having a strong argument against Garland historically, but this year means more than any other year and it's a big edge for Garland.

V: Franz
N: Garland

Garland is having an outstanding year on an outstanding team, no doubt. Definitely the best shooter of the group.

The counter-argument is, I suppose, the size of role a player can handle. I won’t get into all of that here, but it’s the reason guys like Paolo are so in-demand. Or, from a guard perspective, Cade I guess. How much efficiency/potency loss are you willing to deal with for a guy that has a more diverse (or able to handle high volume) game?

[OutsidetheNBA]

Maxey is a reasonable call. Regardless, I just don't see the argument for Garland as the next guy up.

The argument starts with Garland having a better statistical year this year than any of LaMelo, Trae, or Maxey have ever had on a per-minute/efficiency basis. Mostly driven by him being the best shooter of the group. The second argument is that Trae and LaMelo are both heliocentric players but you can't win a title with them being the focus of your offense.

Garland's TS% this year than any of LaMelo, Trae, or Maxey have ever had in their careers and a whopping 7% better than all of them individually. He's simply a better shooter (or has significantly better shot selection) than any of those guys. Would your rather have a 50/43/88 guy or a 42/33/82 guy on higher volume? And even then, the volume difference is exaggerated by the minutes differences between the players-- per-36 Garland is 2nd among the group in scoring, only behind LaMelo. (LaMelo takes seven more shots per 36 to get his 5 more points, and commits 1 more turnover to get slightly fewer assists.)

Individually, Garland has a huge health advantage over LaMelo, a plays-well-with-others advantage over Trae. I have Maxey having a strong argument against Garland historically, but this year means more than any other year and it's a big edge for Garland.

V: Franz
N: Garland

Garland is having an outstanding year on an outstanding team, no doubt. Definitely the best shooter of the group.

The counter-argument is, I suppose, the size of role a player can handle. I won’t get into all of that here, but it’s the reason guys like Paolo are so in-demand. Or, from a guard perspective, Cade I guess. How much efficiency/potency loss are you willing to deal with for a guy that has a more diverse (or able to handle high volume) game?

Sure, but there's also value in a guy who can play incredibly efficiently in a winning situation in which he doesn't have the ball 100% of the time.

Trae needs to be the #1 guy and have the ball all the time and it's not clear that he's good enough in that role to carry a consistently winning team. I know Trae can shoulder the entire offense of a 38-win team and I'm not sure Garland can do that. But I am sure Garland can be an incredibly good and efficient 2nd-option on a 60-win team and I'm not sure Trae can do that. Personally, I think that makes Garland more valuable. Another way to put it -- if you traded Trae for Garland straight up, I think it would make both the Cavs and Hawks worse, which is a bigger indictment of Trae than Garland.

With LaMelo, I understand he's valuable in the sense that he sells tickets, but the guy doesn't seem to care about winning, has a history of injuries, and needs the ball in his hands all the time. I'd take Garland.

[babyjax13]

The argument starts with Garland having a better statistical year this year than any of LaMelo, Trae, or Maxey have ever had on a per-minute/efficiency basis. Mostly driven by him being the best shooter of the group. The second argument is that Trae and LaMelo are both heliocentric players but you can't win a title with them being the focus of your offense.

Garland's TS% this year than any of LaMelo, Trae, or Maxey have ever had in their careers and a whopping 7% better than all of them individually. He's simply a better shooter (or has significantly better shot selection) than any of those guys. Would your rather have a 50/43/88 guy or a 42/33/82 guy on higher volume? And even then, the volume difference is exaggerated by the minutes differences between the players-- per-36 Garland is 2nd among the group in scoring, only behind LaMelo. (LaMelo takes seven more shots per 36 to get his 5 more points, and commits 1 more turnover to get slightly fewer assists.)

Individually, Garland has a huge health advantage over LaMelo, a plays-well-with-others advantage over Trae. I have Maxey having a strong argument against Garland historically, but this year means more than any other year and it's a big edge for Garland.

V: Franz
N: Garland

Garland is having an outstanding year on an outstanding team, no doubt. Definitely the best shooter of the group.

The counter-argument is, I suppose, the size of role a player can handle. I won’t get into all of that here, but it’s the reason guys like Paolo are so in-demand. Or, from a guard perspective, Cade I guess. How much efficiency/potency loss are you willing to deal with for a guy that has a more diverse (or able to handle high volume) game?

Sure, but there's also value in a guy who can play incredibly efficiently in a winning situation in which he doesn't have the ball 100% of the time.

Trae needs to be the #1 guy and have the ball all the time and it's not clear that he's good enough in that role to carry a consistently winning team. I know Trae can shoulder the entire offense of a 38-win team and I'm not sure Garland can do that. But I am sure Garland can be an incredibly good and efficient 2nd-option on a 60-win team and I'm not sure Trae can do that. Personally, I think that makes Garland more valuable. Another way to put it -- if you traded Trae for Garland straight up, I think it would make both the Cavs and Hawks worse, which is a bigger indictment of Trae than Garland.

With LaMelo, I understand he's valuable in the sense that he sells tickets, but the guy doesn't seem to care about winning, has a history of injuries, and needs the ball in his hands all the time. I'd take Garland.

My disagreement with this - especially re: Trae - is that I disagree that we don't have clarity a/b whether Trae can shoulder the load for a consistently good team. When he has good players around him (and not amazing, his second options in his best season have been John Collins and Jalen Johnson) the team has outperformed expectations. I think it would be relatively easy to construct a playoff team around Trae and the fact that the Hawks have not done so is mostly down to injuries, poor coaching (thank god they hired Snyder), and bad roster construction/asset management. I feel pretty good about the fit of their core-3 (Trae-Daniels-Johnson) and I think they can build something.

But ymmv, your case was a good one, I just wanted to make my position a bit more clear.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote

Holmgren 7
Brunson 6

Cade 5
Franz 3
Jalen Williams 1
Haliburton 1




Nomination

Garland 6

Sabonis 4
Maxey 3

Ball 1
Jalen Johnson 1
Trae 1

Bane 1

Barnes 1

Embiid 1
White 1
Siakam 1