Fox to Minnesota

[Wolveswin]

Yeh there's no chance the Spurs do that.

That is fair to say that and have the opinion Spurs wouldn’t be motivated for such a trade.

But value wise it is real close…and a tasters choice moment.

Randle > Fox

DDV isn’t worth a late lotto in Bryant. But not obscene.

Since Randle>Fox and Bryant>DDV we are close in value.

I don't think anyone was of the view that Randle was more valuable than Fox when the Spurs traded for him. Fox has had a busted shooting finger since then, which he got surgery on, so I'm not sure much has changed.

No idea what you are trying to say. Randle > Fox in value. Simple.

[One_and_Done]

That is fair to say that and have the opinion Spurs wouldn’t be motivated for such a trade.

But value wise it is real close…and a tasters choice moment.

Randle > Fox

DDV isn’t worth a late lotto in Bryant. But not obscene.

Since Randle>Fox and Bryant>DDV we are close in value.

I don't think anyone was of the view that Randle was more valuable than Fox when the Spurs traded for him. Fox has had a busted shooting finger since then, which he got surgery on, so I'm not sure much has changed.

No idea what you are trying to say. Randle > Fox in value. Simple.

Yeh, I don't agree. I think Fox is a more valuable player than Randle, unless he's regressed since he was last healthy, and that was the general consensus a year ago.

[Wolveswin]

I don't think anyone was of the view that Randle was more valuable than Fox when the Spurs traded for him. Fox has had a busted shooting finger since then, which he got surgery on, so I'm not sure much has changed.

No idea what you are trying to say. Randle > Fox in value. Simple.

Yeh, I don't agree. I think Fox is a more valuable player than Randle, unless he's regressed since he was last healthy, and that was the general consensus a year ago.

Fox just isn’t that much better of a player (if at all) to make up for how much more he is paid than Randle. Randle is arguably the better player and much less expensive. In value, that equals Randle > Fox.

[SkyHook]

I do think it is funny that a player that has such middling impact stats and counting stats as McDaniels is valued so highly. He is a nice 3 and D player who you hope hits more 3s, he is a 5th option on offense, and maybe he breaks out at some point ... but I have Fox as comfortably more impactful and better. There is a 3 year difference between them so there is some upside to be found in McDaniels, but Minnesota is also a team that needs a point guard very badly and their main assets to trade for one are Randle - who no one has every really wanted - and McDaniels, IMO. Their picks are mostly traded, they don't have a ton of young players with value, and Dillingham has been such a huge dissapointment he isn't likely to be the centerpiece of a trade for a starting caliber guard.

That's just my take, though. I know Minnesota fans love McDaniels.

Overall I agree, with one caveat though: 3&D gets overused these days; McDaniels is a (very) nice 'D' player, and a (very) mediocre '3' player.

I would suggest that anyone who is concerned about McD's three point shooting should look at his % in the playoffs. He has raised it from the respective regular seasons in each of the three postseasons he's played; career 42.0% and career 48.0% in conference finals on much higher volume, about 50% more per game. While I'd love to see him get more consistent from deep on a greater number of attempts, he's been lethal when it matters.

[schaffy]

Yeh there's no chance the Spurs do that.

That is fair to say that and have the opinion Spurs wouldn’t be motivated for such a trade.

But value wise it is real close…and a tasters choice moment.

Randle > Fox

DDV isn’t worth a late lotto in Bryant. But not obscene.

Since Randle>Fox and Bryant>DDV we are close in value.

I don't think anyone was of the view that Randle was more valuable than Fox when the Spurs traded for him. Fox has had a busted shooting finger since then, which he got surgery on, so I'm not sure much has changed.

Well both guys have signed contracts since that time, so thats certainly changed...

Sent from my SM-S901U using RealGM mobile app

[One_and_Done]

No idea what you are trying to say. Randle > Fox in value. Simple.

Yeh, I don't agree. I think Fox is a more valuable player than Randle, unless he's regressed since he was last healthy, and that was the general consensus a year ago.

Fox just isn’t that much better of a player (if at all) to make up for how much more he is paid than Randle. Randle is arguably the better player and much less expensive. In value, that equals Randle > Fox.

The different contract extensions of each is a big hint about who is more valuable.

[Wolveswin]

Yeh, I don't agree. I think Fox is a more valuable player than Randle, unless he's regressed since he was last healthy, and that was the general consensus a year ago.

Fox just isn’t that much better of a player (if at all) to make up for how much more he is paid than Randle. Randle is arguably the better player and much less expensive. In value, that equals Randle > Fox.

The different contract extensions of each is a big hint about who is more valuable.

lol that is one of the lamest arguments I have ever seen made here. You are better than that.

Yes, NBA players have NEVER been paid more money than their play warrants. - Green Font.

[One_and_Done]

Fox just isn’t that much better of a player (if at all) to make up for how much more he is paid than Randle. Randle is arguably the better player and much less expensive. In value, that equals Randle > Fox.

The different contract extensions of each is a big hint about who is more valuable.

lol that is one of the lamest arguments I have ever seen made here. You are better than that.

Yes, NBA players have NEVER been paid more money than their play warrants. - Green Font.

Multiple teams were trying to trade for Fox, despite knowing what they'd have to pay him, and his own team wanted to max him too. Meanwhile Randle's team moved him because they would rather 'overpay' for a better player, even if they had to throw in another good player on a decent contract on top just to get the more expensive guy.

[jbk1234]

Yeh, I don't agree. I think Fox is a more valuable player than Randle, unless he's regressed since he was last healthy, and that was the general consensus a year ago.

Fox just isn’t that much better of a player (if at all) to make up for how much more he is paid than Randle. Randle is arguably the better player and much less expensive. In value, that equals Randle > Fox.

The different contract extensions of each is a big hint about who is more valuable.

Not necessarily. The Spurs giving Fox that extension means the Spurs believed he was worth it. It doesn't follow that belief is universally held.

[One_and_Done]

Fox just isn’t that much better of a player (if at all) to make up for how much more he is paid than Randle. Randle is arguably the better player and much less expensive. In value, that equals Randle > Fox.

The different contract extensions of each is a big hint about who is more valuable.

Not necessarily. The Spurs giving Fox that extension means the Spurs believed he was worth it. It doesn't follow that belief is universally held.

It means the teams trying to trade for him felt he was worth it, because they would have known through back-channels what they had to pay him if they got him. Since multiple teams like the Spurs & Heat were trying to trade for him, and he turned down an extension from the Kings, it seems fairly clear his market value is the max. Market value is literally what multiple teams are willing to pay you.

[Neeva]

I do think it is funny that a player that has such middling impact stats and counting stats as McDaniels is valued so highly. He is a nice 3 and D player who you hope hits more 3s, he is a 5th option on offense, and maybe he breaks out at some point ... but I have Fox as comfortably more impactful and better. There is a 3 year difference between them so there is some upside to be found in McDaniels, but Minnesota is also a team that needs a point guard very badly and their main assets to trade for one are Randle - who no one has every really wanted - and McDaniels, IMO. Their picks are mostly traded, they don't have a ton of young players with value, and Dillingham has been such a huge dissapointment he isn't likely to be the centerpiece of a trade for a starting caliber guard.

That's just my take, though. I know Minnesota fans love McDaniels.

He’s their most important defender even over Rudy and plays his best in the playoffs, what’s hard to understand
Fox looked average in San Antonio.

[jbk1234]

The different contract extensions of each is a big hint about who is more valuable.

Not necessarily. The Spurs giving Fox that extension means the Spurs believed he was worth it. It doesn't follow that belief is universally held.

It means the teams trying to trade for him felt he was worth it, because they would have known through back-channels what they had to pay him if they got him. Since multiple teams like the Spurs & Heat were trying to trade for him, and he turned down an extension from the Kings, it seems fairly clear his market value is the max. Market value is literally what multiple teams are willing to pay you.

I don't know what The Heat offered. I don't know if they were committed to offering him the max. I don't know that the Kings offered him a max extension.

[schaffy]

The different contract extensions of each is a big hint about who is more valuable.

Not necessarily. The Spurs giving Fox that extension means the Spurs believed he was worth it. It doesn't follow that belief is universally held.

It means the teams trying to trade for him felt he was worth it, because they would have known through back-channels what they had to pay him if they got him. Since multiple teams like the Spurs & Heat were trying to trade for him, and he turned down an extension from the Kings, it seems fairly clear his market value is the max. Market value is literally what multiple teams are willing to pay you.

There's a lot of stuff we don't know that you are just making assumptions about to back up your point.

The initial reporting from Shams seemed to suggest fox had 4 or 5 teams on a list. By the end it was basically just the Spurs. We could just as easily assume that he cooled on other teams when the back channeling made it more apparent some of those teams wouldn't be interested in giving him the 30% max. But we don't know what other teams were interested in -- fox at any price, fox at a certain price, fox without the same draft pick compensation going out, etc.

Sent from my SM-S901U using RealGM mobile app

[Domejandro]

I do think it is funny that a player that has such middling impact stats and counting stats as McDaniels is valued so highly. He is a nice 3 and D player who you hope hits more 3s, he is a 5th option on offense, and maybe he breaks out at some point ... but I have Fox as comfortably more impactful and better. There is a 3 year difference between them so there is some upside to be found in McDaniels, but Minnesota is also a team that needs a point guard very badly and their main assets to trade for one are Randle - who no one has every really wanted - and McDaniels, IMO. Their picks are mostly traded, they don't have a ton of young players with value, and Dillingham has been such a huge dissapointment he isn't likely to be the centerpiece of a trade for a starting caliber guard.

That's just my take, though. I know Minnesota fans love McDaniels.

He’s their most important defender even over Rudy and plays his best in the playoffs, what’s hard to understand
Fox looked average in San Antonio.

There is no world where Jaden McDaniels is a more important defensive player than Rudy Gobert, at least up to this point in their tenures.

[wemby]

He’s their most important defender even over Rudy and plays his best in the playoffs, what’s hard to understand
Fox looked average in San Antonio.

You mean, in all of the 17 games he played for the Spurs with a torn tendon in his shooting hand? New team, tanking team, torn tendon in shooting hand, small sample... really hard to pick which reason invalidates that the most.

[One_and_Done]

I saw no indication in the reporting of teams like the Heat dropping out of the bidding, so the logical inference is that they too were willing to pay Fox, as were the Kings. How many teams have to be willing to pay you before it becomes your market? I'd say 3 is more than enough.

[ReggiesKnicks]

This feels like a lot more than San Antonio gave up to get Fox.

I’d say a value increase of some amount makes sense, as he’s now locked up, and isn’t one year away from expiring.

But I agree, I don’t think it’s this much of an increase?

You'd have to have an optimistic view of Fox currently and moving forward if you think him being locked up on his deal is positive.

[tcheco]

Honestly, Spurs will spend assets to move Fox, whenever that is.

[Scoot McGroot]

This feels like a lot more than San Antonio gave up to get Fox.

I’d say a value increase of some amount makes sense, as he’s now locked up, and isn’t one year away from expiring.

But I agree, I don’t think it’s this much of an increase?

You'd have to have an optimistic view of Fox currently and moving forward if you think him being locked up on his deal is positive.

Any team willing to talk of trading for him would probably have an optimistic view, no? SA wanted him and traded for him on a 1.5 year type setup and then extended him. Other teams seemed to have interest in acquiring him, knowing they’d have to extend him. Etc.

If you view his deal as bad, obviously there’d be no talks or approach or willingness to take him on, etc.

But in general, expiring player is less value than a locked up player. Unless you’re just treating Fox as a salary filler?

[jbk1234]

I’d say a value increase of some amount makes sense, as he’s now locked up, and isn’t one year away from expiring.

But I agree, I don’t think it’s this much of an increase?

You'd have to have an optimistic view of Fox currently and moving forward if you think him being locked up on his deal is positive.

Any team willing to talk of trading for him would probably have an optimistic view, no? SA wanted him and traded for him on a 1.5 year type setup and then extended him. Other teams seemed to have interest in acquiring him, knowing they’d have to extend him. Etc.

If you view his deal as bad, obviously there’d be no talks or approach or willingness to take him on, etc.

But in general, expiring player is less value than a locked up player. Unless you’re just treating Fox as a salary filler?

I don't know that Fox has negative value on his extension, but I don't know how robust his trade market currently is either. The truth is that Klutch is very proactive when it comes to getting their clients to teams who are willing to pay them before free agency when the market could disappoint.

Did he end up in S.A. because they were willing to max him and a team like the Heat was less willing to commit on that front? What did the Heat actually offer? It was less than what the Spurs offered or Fox would be in Miami.

There are players who every team will give a max deal to, but it doesn't follow that every player who gets one is viewed as being worth it by even a majority of teams.