Solves Final Roster for All Teams: Wolves | Bucks | Jazz

[bondom34]

Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

It actually is a flight risk, and Butler was discounted because of it. What makes it a flight risk, more so than years remaining, is the UFA status. Of course 2 years is better than 1 year then UFA. But more ideal is 1 or 2 years left then RFA!

This is ludicrous.

[rugbyrugger23]

Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

It actually is a flight risk, and Butler was discounted because of it. What makes it a flight risk, more so than years remaining, is the UFA status. Of course 2 years is better than 1 year then UFA. But more ideal is 1 or 2 years left then RFA!

This is ludicrous.

You can call it what you want. But true none the less. Are you saying it's not?

[shrink]

Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

The greater the level of the star, more years means more value for the contract. It also means more loss if you lose the player for nothing. Once a star announces his leaving, he generally receives less value. CHI was facing a difficult season where it seemed like little was going to happen before February that was going to convince him to re-sign. If Jimmy was playing in, say, HOU, the flight risk would not be so great, but for many teams (and MIN has long been in this boat too), years of control is an important concern.

[bondom34]

It actually is a flight risk, and Butler was discounted because of it. What makes it a flight risk, more so than years remaining, is the UFA status. Of course 2 years is better than 1 year then UFA. But more ideal is 1 or 2 years left then RFA!

This is ludicrous.

You can call it what you want. But true none the less. Are you saying it's not?

Its ludicrous because its wrong for the same reason Irving got a massively bettwr return despite the same contract length and being a worse player.

Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

The greater the level of the star, more years means more value for the contract. It also means more loss if you lose the player for nothing. Once a star announces his leaving, he generally receives less value. CHI was facing a difficult season where it seemed like little was going to happen before February that was going to convince him to re-sign. If Jimmy was playing in, say, HOU, the flight risk would not be so great, but for many teams (and MIN has long been in this boat too), years of control is an important concern.

See above.

The return sucked because the Bulls are inept.

[Mystical Apples]

Yet somehow you keep trying to have Minnesota get Middleton. The value is pretty equal between those 2 as many told you in the last thread, in fact Middleton probably has more value at this point. It's also funny you keep mentioning flight risks, as if the team with that player should discount them because they are a flight risk. Yet Minnesota traded for Butler whose a huge flight risk, but something tells me you don't value him any less because of that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Good points. Top players in their primes almost never shake loose with 3 years remaining, let alone a top 15 player like Butler on a team-friendly deal. Expecting anything better than 2+1 is completely unrealistic.

Some recent examples of top ~ 75 player trades....

Butler: 2+1
Paul: expiring
Kyrie: 2+1
Crowder: 3
George: 1+1
Rubio: 2
Howard: 2
Lopez: expiring
Boogie: 1.5
Ibaka: expiring
Batum: expiring
Dragic: expiring
Love: expiring
Bogut: 1.5
Lowry: 2

[bondom34]

I did just learn about 80 percent of the league is now a flight risk.

[rugbyrugger23]

This is ludicrous.

You can call it what you want. But true none the less. Are you saying it's not?

Its ludicrous because its wrong for the same reason Irving got a massively bettwr return despite the same contract length and being a worse player.

Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

The greater the level of the star, more years means more value for the contract. It also means more loss if you lose the player for nothing. Once a star announces his leaving, he generally receives less value. CHI was facing a difficult season where it seemed like little was going to happen before February that was going to convince him to re-sign. If Jimmy was playing in, say, HOU, the flight risk would not be so great, but for many teams (and MIN has long been in this boat too), years of control is an important concern.

See above.

The return sucked because the Bulls are inept.

I think Irving got more because of 1) younger/age vs. Butler, 2) Celtics had very little filler contract options (so by default filler contracts were good players), 3) IT injury way worse than we all knew, 4) Nets 1st doesn't carry value on the street like it does here on RGM.

[LightTheBeam]

Now you are just spreading lies. Last thread confirmed Wiggins has more value...from the individual responses to the actual poll outcome. So there's that...

How much more value Wiggins has is debatable.

Flight risk is a big zap on value. I think exactly why Wolves got Butler for such a value trade. If he had 1 or more years on top of his 2+1, he would of demanded more value in return (similar to the larger asking price during 2016 draft -- that Thibs didn't pay). Middleton is no different. He is a flight risk on a 2+1. Next year even less value than this year. And prior year (before injury) his value on a 3+1 would have been peak.

Really I'm spreading lies? 13v15 and I didn't even vote. If those extra 2 people in your 28 person sample make Wiggins clearly more valuable than Middleton I'm not sure what to tell you.

The provlem with your logic is nobody trades a star with 3 years left on his contract. Go look at all the stars who got moved, cousins, George, butler, etc... They get moved with 2 or less years remaining so by that standard every star to move is a flight risk and nobody should ever pay full value for any star.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Yes Wiggins clearly has more value vs. Middleton, how much is debatable -- but you said Middleton has more value.

Wiggins is younger, better contract, more upside, less injury concern.

Middleton is better all around player now.

That equals more value for Wiggins.

Middleton is the better shooter, better defender, and already an established player. Potential is just a word. As mystical apple explained paying 150 million dollars for Wiggins is hoping he will progress an unheard of amount.

I anticipate a Rudy gay like career for Wiggins. Always wondering why he wasn't a better defender. Never really developing a strong 30t shot, being a 1 dimensional scorer who doesn't really make his team all that much better.

Give me Middleton on nearly any NBA contender.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

[rugbyrugger23]

Yet somehow you keep trying to have Minnesota get Middleton. The value is pretty equal between those 2 as many told you in the last thread, in fact Middleton probably has more value at this point. It's also funny you keep mentioning flight risks, as if the team with that player should discount them because they are a flight risk. Yet Minnesota traded for Butler whose a huge flight risk, but something tells me you don't value him any less because of that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Good points. Top players in their primes almost never shake loose with 3 years remaining, let alone a top 15 player like Butler on a team-friendly deal. Expecting anything better than 2+1 is completely unrealistic.

Some recent examples of top ~ 75 player trades....

Butler: 2+1
Paul: expiring
Kyrie: 2+1
Crowder: 3
George: 1+1
Rubio: 2
Howard: 2
Lopez: expiring
Boogie: 1.5
Ibaka: expiring
Batum: expiring
Dragic: expiring
Love: expiring
Bogut: 1.5
Lowry: 2

Who said they did?

[bondom34]

You can call it what you want. But true none the less. Are you saying it's not?

Its ludicrous because its wrong for the same reason Irving got a massively bettwr return despite the same contract length and being a worse player.

The greater the level of the star, more years means more value for the contract. It also means more loss if you lose the player for nothing. Once a star announces his leaving, he generally receives less value. CHI was facing a difficult season where it seemed like little was going to happen before February that was going to convince him to re-sign. If Jimmy was playing in, say, HOU, the flight risk would not be so great, but for many teams (and MIN has long been in this boat too), years of control is an important concern.

See above.

The return sucked because the Bulls are inept.

I think Irving got more because of 1) younger/age vs. Butler, 2) Celtics had very little filler contract options (so by default filler contracts were good players), 3) IT injury way worse than we all knew, 4) Nets 1st doesn't carry value on the street like it does here on RGM.

Sure go for it. No real point in discussion

[LightTheBeam]

Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

It actually is a flight risk, and Butler was discounted because of it. What makes it a flight risk, more so than years remaining, is the UFA status. Of course 2 years is better than 1 year then UFA. But more ideal is 1 or 2 years left then RFA!

This is ludicrous.

Yes bondom. Every team with a star on a 2 year Ufa deal should trade their star. What's the point of keeping someone if they could potentially leave.

Hey would you mind trading the kings Westbrook and George for Jackson/malachi/Mason/giles. I'd probably give you more but well they are 1 year deals and huge flight risks lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

[LightTheBeam]

You can call it what you want. But true none the less. Are you saying it's not?

Its ludicrous because its wrong for the same reason Irving got a massively bettwr return despite the same contract length and being a worse player.

The greater the level of the star, more years means more value for the contract. It also means more loss if you lose the player for nothing. Once a star announces his leaving, he generally receives less value. CHI was facing a difficult season where it seemed like little was going to happen before February that was going to convince him to re-sign. If Jimmy was playing in, say, HOU, the flight risk would not be so great, but for many teams (and MIN has long been in this boat too), years of control is an important concern.

See above.

The return sucked because the Bulls are inept.

I think Irving got more because of 1) younger/age vs. Butler, 2) Celtics had very little filler contract options (so by default filler contracts were good players), 3) IT injury way worse than we all knew, 4) Nets 1st doesn't carry value on the street like it does here on RGM.

It doesn't fit your narrative and Irving wasnt even a flight risk, the guy damn well made it known he was gone.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

[rugbyrugger23]

Really I'm spreading lies? 13v15 and I didn't even vote. If those extra 2 people in your 28 person sample make Wiggins clearly more valuable than Middleton I'm not sure what to tell you.

The provlem with your logic is nobody trades a star with 3 years left on his contract. Go look at all the stars who got moved, cousins, George, butler, etc... They get moved with 2 or less years remaining so by that standard every star to move is a flight risk and nobody should ever pay full value for any star.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Yes Wiggins clearly has more value vs. Middleton, how much is debatable -- but you said Middleton has more value.

Wiggins is younger, better contract, more upside, less injury concern.

Middleton is better all around player now.

That equals more value for Wiggins.

Middleton is the better shooter, better defender, and already an established player. Potential is just a word. As mystical apple explained paying 150 million dollars for Wiggins is hoping he will progress an unheard of amount.

I anticipate a Rudy gay like career for Wiggins. Always wondering why he wasn't a better defender. Never really developing a strong 30t shot, being a 1 dimensional scorer who doesn't really make his team all that much better.

Give me Middleton on nearly any NBA contender.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

You can anticipate all you want, doesn't make it so. Fact is that unknown (unknown by you or anyone) and untapped potential upside of a 22yo is a value premium in the NBA -- that can't be argued.

Add in a better contract, less per year price tag (dependent on what Middleton signs for, but due to 2nd contract status Wiggins can NOT exceed 149mil unlike Middleton max status who can exceed 149mil), no UFA flight risk, less injury worries, and despite all those things listed that Middleton does better right now, doesn't change the value scale of Wiggins > Middleton.

[rugbyrugger23]

Its ludicrous because its wrong for the same reason Irving got a massively bettwr return despite the same contract length and being a worse player.


See above.

The return sucked because the Bulls are inept.

I think Irving got more because of 1) younger/age vs. Butler, 2) Celtics had very little filler contract options (so by default filler contracts were good players), 3) IT injury way worse than we all knew, 4) Nets 1st doesn't carry value on the street like it does here on RGM.

It doesn't fit your narrative and Irving wasnt even a flight risk, the guy damn well made it known he was gone.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

No Irving and Butler were/are a flight risk. Never said otherwise.

[shrink]

This is ludicrous.

You can call it what you want. But true none the less. Are you saying it's not?

Its ludicrous because its wrong for the same reason Irving got a massively bettwr return despite the same contract length and being a worse player.

Not even on the trade but Butler had 2 full seasons left. Thats not a flight risk, and if it is over half the league should be getting traded.

The greater the level of the star, more years means more value for the contract. It also means more loss if you lose the player for nothing. Once a star announces his leaving, he generally receives less value. CHI was facing a difficult season where it seemed like little was going to happen before February that was going to convince him to re-sign. If Jimmy was playing in, say, HOU, the flight risk would not be so great, but for many teams (and MIN has long been in this boat too), years of control is an important concern.

See above.

The return sucked because the Bulls are inept.

I'm not sure from your response calling people ludicrous what you disagree with in my post.

Do we agree that superstars on two year deals represent a greater value than lesser players on two year deals, and shouldn't be lumped together? A two year deal on Daunte Cunningham isn't a flight risk, because he's easily replacable, while superstars are not. And we agree that the loss of a superstar for nothing is a bigger risk for a franchise?

Do we agree that teams looking to get good trade value don't want to go past the february trade deadline the year before the UFA contract expires, correct? And that the shorter the deal, the more leverage a player has to threaten to not re-sign, name a destination, or further reduce his trade value?

Do we agree that CHI probably wasn't going to convince Jimmy to extend over the next six months of basketball, like, say, a team like HOU could?

I'm not saying CHI made a good trade, but I am saying that Jimmy's flight risk from CHI was certainly a factor in getting a lesser return.

[rugbyrugger23]

It actually is a flight risk, and Butler was discounted because of it. What makes it a flight risk, more so than years remaining, is the UFA status. Of course 2 years is better than 1 year then UFA. But more ideal is 1 or 2 years left then RFA!

This is ludicrous.

Yes bondom. Every team with a star on a 2 year Ufa deal should trade their star. What's the point of keeping someone if they could potentially leave.

Hey would you mind trading the kings Westbrook and George for Jackson/malachi/Mason/giles. I'd probably give you more but well they are 1 year deals and huge flight risks lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using RealGM mobile app

Come on now.

Shrink summarized it very well. Flight risk for current team any super star sits on is very dependent on how conducive the environment is for said super star. Roster make up, chance to win rings, and a whole collection of variables is what makes their desire to stay or not the flight risk calculation.

Flight risk in consideration of contract status in a trade are 2 different things.

[AingesBurner]

Really terrible for Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Try explaining???

Favors and Dieng on court production is very similar. Look up some stats.

Favors is UFA. Jazz should understand meaning of flight risk. Dieng has value due to his contract, and being a good value compared to contracts being handed out today/2018.

Favors has more upside. Dieng has some of his own, although a older player vs. his years experience.

Favors has more injury concerns.

I guess Dieng is better than I thought but Jazz are not taking Aldrich to help out Minny.

[daoneandonly]

Really terrible for Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Try explaining???

Favors and Dieng on court production is very similar. Look up some stats.

Favors is UFA. Jazz should understand meaning of flight risk. Dieng has value due to his contract, and being a good value compared to contracts being handed out today/2018.

Favors has more upside. Dieng has some of his own, although a older player vs. his years experience.

Favors has more injury concerns.

How does Dieng's contract have value? He makes 15, 16, and 17 the next 3 years (not including his 14 this year), that's not value at all given his production and the new new cap.

[Ron Swanson]

Wiggins on a max extension being more "valuable" than Middleton is debatable to say the least, objectively false to say the most....

Again, another trade that ignores that the Bucks would be in luxury tax hell for the next 4 years if they'd agree to it. No, no, no.

[rugbyrugger23]

Really terrible for Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Try explaining???

Favors and Dieng on court production is very similar. Look up some stats.

Favors is UFA. Jazz should understand meaning of flight risk. Dieng has value due to his contract, and being a good value compared to contracts being handed out today/2018.

Favors has more upside. Dieng has some of his own, although a older player vs. his years experience.

Favors has more injury concerns.

How does Dieng's contract have value? He makes 15, 16, and 17 the next 3 years (not including his 14 this year), that's not value at all given his production and the new new cap.

Dieng for very similar production to Favors, will be making up to as much a 10mil less vs. his new contract.