Ben Simmons trades go here (and here only): Expect warnings if not following forum rules

[Roy The Natural]

I would rank the players in the trade this way: Simmons >> McCollum > Grant > Beasley >> Curry > Prince >> Layman
.

Quick clarification question--is this how you rank them on-court or trade value? CJ is definitely a better player than Curry and Beasley might be though I think that's closer. But when you factor in Curry making barely 1/4 of what CJ makes and Beasley's off-court issues I think Curry has more trade value than Beasley and possibly CJ and Grant too.

This is how I would rate the trade value.

Candidly, I don't understand the Curry love. Curry was just traded for Josh Richardson and a 2nd round pick a year ago. I don't see how his one year in Philadelphia at age 31 has improved his trade value by that much. He actually played worse last year than his last season in Dallas. His TS% went from .643 to .607 and his PER went from 15.5 to 12.9.

Chuck really likes Curry... I get it, he's a nice shooter and isn't a bad player. But these are entirely different classes of players we're talking about here. RAPTOR has Curry at a net neutral player over the last 3 years while CJ McCollum has been a 9-10 wins added (rate) player in 2 of the last 3 years with a very similar impact profile to Jamal Murray.

Yes, Curry may be 1/4 the price. However, he's providing less than 1/4 of the wins according to RAPTOR. Neither RAPTOR nor PIPM (LEBRON) have him as a significantly positive player. The same cannot be said of CJ who is quite positive according to both metrics.

[Texas Chuck]

Chuck really likes Curry... I get it, he's a nice shooter and isn't a bad player. But these are entirely different classes of players we're talking about here. RAPTOR has Curry at a net neutral player over the last 3 years while CJ McCollum has been a 9-10 wins added (rate) player in 2 of the last 3 years with a very similar impact profile to Jamal Murray.

Appreciate you helping out, but I can answer for myself.

And as I've repeated ad nauseum. I think CJ is a better player than Seth Curry. but 3/$100M vs 2/$16M isn't something I can ignore when discussing trade value.

I can appreciate teams paying more to acquire CJ than Curry because talent is scarce and if they have the right money to move off then sure give a better asset to get the better player. But I think the difference in value is small for sure.

[bondom34]

Edit Oh its not worth it.

[Roy The Natural]

Chuck really likes Curry... I get it, he's a nice shooter and isn't a bad player. But these are entirely different classes of players we're talking about here. RAPTOR has Curry at a net neutral player over the last 3 years while CJ McCollum has been a 9-10 wins added (rate) player in 2 of the last 3 years with a very similar impact profile to Jamal Murray.

Appreciate you helping out, but I can answer for myself.

And as I've repeated ad nauseum. I think CJ is a better player than Seth Curry. but 3/$100M vs 2/$16M isn't something I can ignore when discussing trade value.

I can appreciate teams paying more to acquire CJ than Curry because talent is scarce and if they have the right money to move off then sure give a better asset to get the better player. But I think the difference in value is small for sure.

Sure. I think we all understand that. But Curry is a 1-2 wins added type guy... he's a net neutral according to most metrics. CJ is adding quite a bit more impact than that.

How overpaid is CJ to you? If he's overpaid, then what is Ben Simmons who's getting paid more? If Ben Simmons isn't overpaid and CJ is, then how do you square that with their similar impact via metrics? What exactly are you using outside the "eye test" to mitigate personal bias and support your valuation that has CJ as so horribly overpaid that a significantly less impactful player should be valued higher?

Clarity on the Ben Simmons thing... there is no underlying hey they should be valued the same thing I'm trying to really get at here. I just now you HIGHLY value Simmons. He makes a bit more than CJ. I know this isn't a conversation directly aimed at Simmons, however I just wanted to get at the heart of understanding what exactly is driving valuation in these conversations. It's hard to get a read on exactly what people are using to say this guy is worth this much money... and this guy isn't.

I guess I agree with your last statement. In an utter vacuum where you were asked to absorb either player, then yes... the value margin can become slim, but in an actual realistic trade scenario I don't have it as being all that close.

[BullyKing]

Thought I'd test out a trade I've been tinkering with here.

MN out: Prince (exp.), Beasley, Layman (exp.), 2022 FRP, 2024 FRP, 2023 pick swap. The protections on the picks, if any, can be debated but for now I am leaving out.

MN in: Simmons

Why? MN covets Simmons and doesn't have to sell the farm.

DET out: Grant
DET in: Beasley, Layman, 2024 MN FRP

Why? Detroit adds shooting to pair with Cunningham. Get's a nice pick for perceivable downgrade from Grant to Beasley.

PHI out: Simmons, Curry
PHI in: Prince, McCollum, MN 2022 FRP

Why? Philadelphia gets a playmaker to replace Simmons, plus a first rounder to make up difference in value. A Prince-Curry swap helps balance the roster.

POR out: McCollum
POR in: Grant, Curry, 2023 MN Pick swap

Why? POR doesn't like the Simmons fit with Lillard since both need the ball in their hands to be effective. Grant helps give them a different look with more size for next season. Curry helps replace McCollum's shooting/scoring punch.

I've commented enough on Simmons for McCollum so I'll skip over whether a single first is sufficient in my view to bridge the gap. What I don't understand is: (1) sure Prince for Curry balances the roster slightly but the value is just so incredibly off. Since I've been told that the league is all about shooting, surely this is a way to turn one of the league's best shooters on a bargain contract into a better positional fit without lighting fire to so much excess value; (2) Detroit is getting creamed here in my opinion. I think we all went a little overboard on Grant's value when he came out hot last year but this is just way too low for me; and (3) I don't have McCollum worth Grant. I don't even know if I have McCollum worth Curry once you factor in 3X salary difference. I definitely don't have McCollum as worth Grant, Curry and a pick swap.

Appreciate the feedback. It seems you have a much lower view of McCollum and a higher view of Grant than I do. We can agree to disagree on those specific players. What I don't follow is how Curry's shooting get's a premium in your view, but McCollum's and Beasley's shooting does not. Prince also a capable 40% 3pt shooter by the way.

I would rank the players in the trade this way: Simmons >> McCollum > Grant > Beasley >> Curry > Prince >> Layman

Perhaps the pick swap gets moved from going to POR to PHI.

I'd argue that Prince isn't a 40% shooter from 3 but rather more like his career numbers of 37%. Which might not seem like a huge difference but compared to Curry's lifetime 44% from 3 is a pretty significant divide. So it's not that I'm unwilling to give a shooting premium to McCollum it's that I already have and in my view that's what takes his contract from albatross (I mean, what is McCollum doing for all that money if he can't shoot) to negative.

We also cannot ignore the contract difference. Prince makes $5 million more than Curry which to a tax team like Philadelphia is a big deal. And then Curry has another year left on his deal while Prince is an expiring, which, again, to cap/tax strapped team like Philadelphia changes things also.

[Texas Chuck]

How overpaid is CJ to you? If he's overpaid, then what is Ben Simmons who's getting paid more? If Ben Simmons isn't overpaid and CJ is, then how do you square that with their similar impact via metrics? What exactly are you using outside the "eye test" to mitigate personal bias and support your valuation that has CJ as so horribly overpaid that a significantly less impactful player should be valued higher?

If you'd like to ask that question differently without implying I alone have personal bias I'd be happy to answer it. Especially since you are asking me to be objective while using very subjective language yourself--see the highlighted--especially as you are strawmanning with the horribly overpaid a position I've never expressed.

[BullyKing]

For the record, it has been routinely stated by certain posters that my evaluation of players is part of some illuminati-type narrative that I'm trying to concoct.

For the record, you're all bent out of shape because I liked a post and bolded part of it that was calling out the hypocrisy of certain posters on this forum who concoct their own narratives about other posters motivations and methods of evaluating value regularly and use that to fight the narrative's which they don't agree with.

I think disagreement is the bedrock of this forum. I would love to get well thought out disagreements with my views. However, disagreements coming from certain posters are often not much more than thinly veiled ad-hominem.

"Certain posters" "certain posters" and "certain posters." I'm the certain poster that you called out but I'm not the certain poster that has accused you of anything. So I remain confused what you are arguing about if it's not that everyone needs to agree with your opinions or satisfy some unstated expectation of what an acceptable response is.

I'm actually not calling you out. You aren't one of the "certain posters"... so don't worry about it.

On to a more fruitful discussion.

What exactly is Ben Simmons' value? On impact alone I'm not even sure he's the player that many think he is.

Depending on how you categorize him positionally he's either the 17th ranked PG by RAPTOR, or the 15th ranked SF. By PIPM (LEBRON) he's ranked as the 12th most impactful PG. ESPN's RPM has him at the 7 spot among point guards.

By counting stats he's closer to prime Batum than he is to a true star. I get he's 25 years old but his impact has been pretty stable over the past 2 years at the range he's at now. He hasn't shown much progression offensively and I'm not sure there is much more untapped potential defensively for him.

I'm not sure why even when happy and engaged he should be valued much above fringe all-star. Now with everything that's going on, you've got to imagine it's on the lower end of the fringe all-star curve. In all honesty, that seems to be where many of the "rumored" packages have pegged his value. It's inline with low-end fringe all-star. I'm not sure how much more the 76ers expect they'll get? His impact metrics don't grade him out to a top 20 player in the league, and that's without the drama. Now I don't think neutral/negative impact players is what the 76ers should look for... eg DLo & Heild type deals.

However, I just can't see how Simmons could net other fringe all-star guys plus a vault of assets.

In the end, it seems as if a bunch of picks, or a similar impact player + some small stuff is going to be the answer. I agree with many Philly fans though that right now, there's no need for Philly to panic.

However, there is some inherent risk there. Once the season starts, Philly is relying on a panic move from opposing teams to a slow start. But what happens if Philly starts slow and a guy like Embiid maybe doesn't threaten he'll leave, but starts publicly voicing frustration with the situation?

In the end, it's hard to truly know what's even on the table right now... so it's hard to judge anything.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what Simmons' value is. We have some precedent on what young all-stars locked up return and its big. We have some precedent for what disgruntled all-stars demanding out return and its less than you would think. But I'm having difficulty coming up with precedents for both of these situations together.

And I think which of those two truths you (not you personally, the global "you") endorse more is likely a good indicator of where you feel Simmons belongs on the value spectrum. It's somewhat clear from reporting where Morey falls on the question but it's less clear to me where other teams fall since most of the reporting is that Morey's asks are way too much but much less credible reporting on what is actually being offered. I think the only deal even remotely reported on was that Pacers one from way back and so it's not even clear whether other interested teams have even made formal offers or if it just still feeling each other out.

In the end, as with most things, the answer is likely somewhere close to the middle of these two extremes.

[Roy The Natural]

How overpaid is CJ to you? If he's overpaid, then what is Ben Simmons who's getting paid more? If Ben Simmons isn't overpaid and CJ is, then how do you square that with their similar impact via metrics? What exactly are you using outside the "eye test" to mitigate personal bias and support your valuation that has CJ as so horribly overpaid that a significantly less impactful player should be valued higher?

If you'd like to ask that question differently without implying I alone have personal bias I'd be happy to answer it. Especially since you are asking me to be objective while using very subjective language yourself--see the highlighted--especially as you are strawmanning with the horribly overpaid a position I've never expressed.

I mean... simply. Throw what they're actually getting paid out the window. What do you think each player should be getting paid at fair market? That's simpler.

[Texas Chuck]

How overpaid is CJ to you? If he's overpaid, then what is Ben Simmons who's getting paid more? If Ben Simmons isn't overpaid and CJ is, then how do you square that with their similar impact via metrics? What exactly are you using outside the "eye test" to mitigate personal bias and support your valuation that has CJ as so horribly overpaid that a significantly less impactful player should be valued higher?

If you'd like to ask that question differently without implying I alone have personal bias I'd be happy to answer it. Especially since you are asking me to be objective while using very subjective language yourself--see the highlighted--especially as you are strawmanning with the horribly overpaid a position I've never expressed.

I mean... simply. Throw what they're actually getting paid out the window. What do you think each player should be getting paid at fair market? That's simpler.

But we can't do that. There is no "fair market". Legit max players are all artificially underpaid as are rookies who outperform their deals. Then we have arbitrary cutoffs at the MLE, the tax MLE, the BAE, and the various vet minimums. Then you have tax concerns and cap space/Bird Rights etc...

I much prefer to deal with the reality of the contracts players actually have.

[Roy The Natural]

If you'd like to ask that question differently without implying I alone have personal bias I'd be happy to answer it. Especially since you are asking me to be objective while using very subjective language yourself--see the highlighted--especially as you are strawmanning with the horribly overpaid a position I've never expressed.

I mean... simply. Throw what they're actually getting paid out the window. What do you think each player should be getting paid at fair market? That's simpler.

But we can't do that. There is no "fair market". Legit max players are all artificially underpaid as are rookies who outperform their deals. Then we have arbitrary cutoffs at the MLE, the tax MLE, the BAE, and the various vet minimums. Then you have tax concerns and cap space/Bird Rights etc...

I much prefer to deal with the reality of the contracts players actually have.

I'm simply asking as a gauge for what you believe the difference in impact between the 2 players is. So I'll be more direct. How much better do you think CJ McCollum is? Let's say you threw all money out the window and swapped CJ McCollum with Seth Curry.

How much better are the 76ers? How much worse are the Blazers?

I'm avoiding the "value" question for now so that we can at least get an impact differentiation before moving on to "value".

Let's assume no Ben Simmons on the team. Let's say he retired or something. Or he just doesn't exist.

Value is something that you have done a good job of explaining as a resultant of multiple various factors. It is the answer to an equation. However, we can't even come close to solving this equation if we don't even know the coefficients placed on the various factors.

Money is simple. We have their contracts, we can come up with a weight factor to be the coefficient and give Curry the nod for the good contract. Age is basically a wash. However without actually defining impact we're leaving it to an overwhelming vagueness that doesn't really lend to a discussion regarding value.

Objectivity and subjectivity are part of any weighted evaluation system, so it would be appropriate to define the criteria in which we are weighting the value of players to ensure our evaluations are consistent and process oriented.

[Ballerhogger]

If your the sixers and you can get Roco and CJ why woudlnt you? Whats wrong with RoCO , we know what CJ brings but whats wrong with RoCO? 38% From 3 , good defender. What you lose in Curry is will be made up on the defensive end in RoCO...

Both teams make out well here. Both get scoring and defense what more can 76ers ask for ? Its obvious this is the deal to make for both sides.

[Texas Chuck]

I mean... simply. Throw what they're actually getting paid out the window. What do you think each player should be getting paid at fair market? That's simpler.

But we can't do that. There is no "fair market". Legit max players are all artificially underpaid as are rookies who outperform their deals. Then we have arbitrary cutoffs at the MLE, the tax MLE, the BAE, and the various vet minimums. Then you have tax concerns and cap space/Bird Rights etc...

I much prefer to deal with the reality of the contracts players actually have.

I'm simply asking as a gauge for what you believe the difference in impact between the 2 players is. So I'll be more direct. How much better do you think CJ McCollum is. Let's say you through all money out the window and swapped CJ McCollum with Seth Curry.

How much better are the 76ers? How much worse are the Blazers?

Let's assume no Ben Simmons on the team. Let's say he retired or something. Or he just doesn't exist.

What is the point of this? I've already said CJ is a better player than Curry.

But there is no way to swap CJ/Curry as the principals in a way that makes Philly better because they don't have dead money filler.

We can't throw out the money. There is $85M difference. We can't and shouldn't make it go poof to argue CJ is far more valuable in trade than Curry.

[Ballerhogger]

But we can't do that. There is no "fair market". Legit max players are all artificially underpaid as are rookies who outperform their deals. Then we have arbitrary cutoffs at the MLE, the tax MLE, the BAE, and the various vet minimums. Then you have tax concerns and cap space/Bird Rights etc...

I much prefer to deal with the reality of the contracts players actually have.

I'm simply asking as a gauge for what you believe the difference in impact between the 2 players is. So I'll be more direct. How much better do you think CJ McCollum is. Let's say you through all money out the window and swapped CJ McCollum with Seth Curry.

How much better are the 76ers? How much worse are the Blazers?

Let's assume no Ben Simmons on the team. Let's say he retired or something. Or he just doesn't exist.

What is the point of this? I've already said CJ is a better player than Curry.

But there is no way to swap CJ/Curry as the principals in a way that makes Philly better because they don't have dead money filler.

We can't throw out the money. There is $85M difference. We can't and shouldn't make it go poof to argue CJ is far more valuable in trade than Curry.

Is Robert Covington a dead money filler?

[Roy The Natural]

But we can't do that. There is no "fair market". Legit max players are all artificially underpaid as are rookies who outperform their deals. Then we have arbitrary cutoffs at the MLE, the tax MLE, the BAE, and the various vet minimums. Then you have tax concerns and cap space/Bird Rights etc...

I much prefer to deal with the reality of the contracts players actually have.

I'm simply asking as a gauge for what you believe the difference in impact between the 2 players is. So I'll be more direct. How much better do you think CJ McCollum is. Let's say you through all money out the window and swapped CJ McCollum with Seth Curry.

How much better are the 76ers? How much worse are the Blazers?

Let's assume no Ben Simmons on the team. Let's say he retired or something. Or he just doesn't exist.

What is the point of this? I've already said CJ is a better player than Curry.

But there is no way to swap CJ/Curry as the principals in a way that makes Philly better because they don't have dead money filler.

We can't throw out the money. There is $85M difference. We can't and shouldn't make it go poof to argue CJ is far more valuable in trade than Curry.

I feel like you're intentionally being combative to remain obtuse in your evaluations.

You seem to have no problem defining the differences in contracts in order to support your valuation. Why is it so difficult to make a hard and fast evaluation on the difference in impact between the players?

Value is a result of an equation that we all weigh a bit differently on various factors.

For example it could be:
.2*health+.1*off-court issues+.3*impact+.3*contract relative to impact+.1*age = value.

You may think that's oversimplifying it, but it really isn't. The value that you place in a player is simply the sum of a bunch of criteria. However, you seem to be purposefully avoiding answering the question of one of the fundamental criteria that is pretty much universal in evaluation of trade value.... Impact.

Damian Lillard is better than Curry as well, and he's paid more than McCollum. He's also older than McCollum. Why isn't his value close with Seth Curry's?

Oh yea... That's right, because impact as a player is a critical part of determining value. Maybe leaving something as integral to the discussion as a players impact to be shrouded away from the discussion isn't really conducive to an honest debate.

Both objectivity and subjectivity are part of any "scoring" system worth anything. I don't understand why defining the process and criteria used to define and weight the equation of value is such an affront.

I don't think there's anything unfair at all about asking you to further define the on-court impact difference between Curry and McCollum further than "better".

[Texas Chuck]

I'm simply asking as a gauge for what you believe the difference in impact between the 2 players is. So I'll be more direct. How much better do you think CJ McCollum is. Let's say you through all money out the window and swapped CJ McCollum with Seth Curry.

How much better are the 76ers? How much worse are the Blazers?

Let's assume no Ben Simmons on the team. Let's say he retired or something. Or he just doesn't exist.

What is the point of this? I've already said CJ is a better player than Curry.

But there is no way to swap CJ/Curry as the principals in a way that makes Philly better because they don't have dead money filler.

We can't throw out the money. There is $85M difference. We can't and shouldn't make it go poof to argue CJ is far more valuable in trade than Curry.

Is Robert Covington a dead money filler?

CJ makes nearly 4x Curry. Adding another player who makes more than Curry makes that problem bigger not smaller....

[mademan]

If your the sixers and you can get Roco and CJ why woudlnt you? Whats wrong with RoCO , we know what CJ brings but whats wrong with RoCO? 38% From 3 , good defender. What you lose in Curry is will be made up on the defensive end in RoCO...

Both teams make out well here. Both get scoring and defense what more can 76ers ask for ? Its obvious this is the deal to make for both sides.

Forgetting value for a second, on court going from Simmons/Curry to CJ/Roco is a pretty big drop. Ive said it before, but i would much rather have Beasley/Mcdaniels accompanied by a big pick package. I dont think Portland would give say 3 picks/2 swaps with their package but i think Minny would.

[bondom34]

Leaving this link with no further statement.

https://theathletic.com/2753332/2021/08/10/nba-player-tiers-lamelo-ball-kyle-lowry-julius-randle-check-in-at-tier-4-alongside-40-other-players/

[Texas Chuck]

I feel like you're intentionally being combative to remain obtuse in your evaluations.

You seem to have no problem defining the differences in contracts in order to support your valuation. Why is it so difficult to make a hard and fast evaluation on the difference in impact between the players?

Value is a result of an equation that we all weigh a bit differently on various factors.

For example it could be:
.2*health+.1*off-court issues+.3*impact+.3*contract relative to impact+.1*age = value.

You may think that's oversimplifying it, but it really isn't. The value that you place in a player is simply the sum of a bunch of criteria. However, you seem to be purposefully avoiding answering the question of one of the fundamental criteria that is pretty much universal in evaluation of trade value.... Impact.

Damian Lillard is better than Curry as well, and he's paid more than McCollum. He's also older than McCollum. Why isn't his value close with Seth Curry's?

Oh yea... That's right, because impact as a player is a critical part of determining value. Maybe leaving something as integral to the discussion as a players impact to be shrouded away from the discussion isn't really conducive to an honest debate.

Both objectivity and subjectivity are part of any "scoring" system worth anything. I don't understand why defining the process and criteria used to define and weight the equation of value is such an affront.

I don't think there's anything unfair at all about asking you to further define the on-court impact difference between Curry and McCollum further than "better".

First you are insulting me to start. I'm tired of it. Leave off your personal crap please moving forward. There is no need to label me combative(because I have a different opinion than you) or obtuse.

But let's see -- the salary they make is an objective number. I can quantify it. The way they impact games is far less easy to quantify though picking the one stat that paints one of the players in the most favorable light can certainly lend the appearance of objectivity, it certainly cannot quantify it the way we can contracts.

Accusing me of avoiding answering questions? Me? Cmon now. Not giving you the answer you want is not avoiding answering. Might point you you sometimes are asking the wrong questions.

So it should be obvious why I put a hard and fast value on their salary, and will not put a hard and fast value on their impact which simply can't be quantified numerically with any degree of precision.


This isn't me being obtuse or combative. This is simply reality.

You then make a really reductive Dame point--sorry that's just not worth engaging with on any level.

I'm not going to try and put a number on how much better CJ than is than Curry because that number does not exist.

[Ballerhogger]

Leaving this link with no further statement.

https://theathletic.com/2753332/2021/08/10/nba-player-tiers-lamelo-ball-kyle-lowry-julius-randle-check-in-at-tier-4-alongside-40-other-players/

cant read that . Pay wall.

[SO_MONEY]

If your the sixers and you can get Roco and CJ why woudlnt you? Whats wrong with RoCO , we know what CJ brings but whats wrong with RoCO? 38% From 3 , good defender. What you lose in Curry is will be made up on the defensive end in RoCO...

Both teams make out well here. Both get scoring and defense what more can 76ers ask for ? Its obvious this is the deal to make for both sides.

Forgetting value for a second, on court going from Simmons/Curry to CJ/Roco is a pretty big drop. Ive said it before, but i would much rather have Beasley/Mcdaniels accompanied by a big pick package. I dont think Portland would give say 3 picks/2 swaps with their package but i think Minny would.

I don't think MN would, especially if you expect McDaniels. I don't think MN's offer goes much higher than Beasley, Reid, Beverly/Prince and two FRPs. I don't think MN wants to trade McDaniels and MN's interest is proportional in adding Simmons as the last piece with a starting lineup that includes both him and McDaniels. I really believe that is the aim. You can debate what you think of that offer, I get it, it isn't a high level return some are expecting.