Minnesota - Washington

Moderators: Trader_Joe, Texas Chuck, pacers33granger, loserX, Mamba4Goat, Andre Roberstan, HartfordWhalers

MoneyTalks41890
RealGM
Posts: 15,622
And1: 7,085
Joined: Oct 13, 2009
 

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#21 » by MoneyTalks41890 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:30 pm

nolian wrote:
nate33 wrote:Not to be snarky, but this is basically what your proposal looks like from Washington's perspective. You are offering one of the 3 worst contracts in the league plus a first round pick and you are hoping to get back a top 15 player about to enter his prime.

in the next 3 years, which can be the prospective for the Wizards?
with the not tradeble contract of John Wall, they can only tank for 3 years, and hope to trade Wall when he become an expiring

in this three years, is bettere give money to Wiggins (and accumulate FRP) or to player like C.Parsons (example)???


I would rather have Chandler Parsons' expiring than Wiggins and less than three firsts.
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 21,385
And1: 4,713
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#22 » by Dat2U » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:30 pm

nolian wrote:
nate33 wrote:Not to be snarky, but this is basically what your proposal looks like from Washington's perspective. You are offering one of the 3 worst contracts in the league plus a first round pick and you are hoping to get back a top 15 player about to enter his prime.

in the next 3 years, which can be the prospective for the Wizards?
with the not tradeble contract of John Wall, they can only tank for 3 years, and hope to trade Wall when he become an expiring

in this three years, is bettere give money to Wiggins (and accumulate FRP) or to player like C.Parsons (example)???


Beal can only be swapped for Wiggins or Parsons, is that what your insinuating?
nolian
Ballboy
Posts: 21
And1: 7
Joined: Dec 27, 2017
 

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#23 » by nolian » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:31 pm

taikibansei wrote:Neither do the Twolves. Does this mean you should be looking to trade KAT now?
i don't understand

TWolves this year can't compete, but netx summer they have big money for a big free agent, and with KAT (and Beal) they can become a good place for free agents

Wizards haven't possibility to compete (neither for play-off) because of John Wall, non tonly next year, but for 2 or 3 year more
User avatar
jscott
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,748
And1: 272
Joined: Oct 14, 2004
 

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#24 » by jscott » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:36 pm

nolian wrote:
taikibansei wrote:Neither do the Twolves. Does this mean you should be looking to trade KAT now?
i don't understand

TWolves this year can't compete, but netx summer they have big money for a big free agent, and with KAT (and Beal) they can become a good place for free agents

Wizards haven't possibility to compete (neither for play-off) because of John Wall, non tonly next year, but for 2 or 3 year more

Dude, just let it go.

Your entire argument about the Wolves contending with Beal negates the value of the pick(s) you want to include.

Also, most of the board values the Wall and Wiggins contracts similarly (I have Wiggins as a better contract than Wall because of age, price, injury, etc - but they are still both Top 3 bad contracts [with Chris Paul in between them]) so why would your argument about not being able to build around Wall not apply to the Wolves not being able to build a contender with Wiggins on the roster?

This is not an argument you can win - IMO.
taikibansei
Analyst
Posts: 3,413
And1: 6,262
Joined: Jul 17, 2008
     

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#25 » by taikibansei » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

nolian wrote:
taikibansei wrote:Neither do the Twolves. Does this mean you should be looking to trade KAT now?
i don't understand

TWolves this year can't compete, but netx summer they have big money for a big free agent, and with KAT (and Beal) they can become a good place for free agents

Wizards haven't possibility to compete (neither for play-off) because of John Wall, non tonly next year, but for 2 or 3 year more


The Twolves are not getting Beal. Even with KAT and Covington, a team with Wiggins (huge negative) and a below-average point guard is going to struggle to get wins. Finally, Wiggins and KAT will take up almost 60% of your cap space next summer--I don't see where this "big money" is coming from, and regardless, when was the last time the Twolves were successful with the big free agents?
Read on Twitter
nolian
Ballboy
Posts: 21
And1: 7
Joined: Dec 27, 2017
 

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#26 » by nolian » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:I would rather have Chandler Parsons' expiring than Wiggins and less than three firsts.
i agree, but ...
1) you willn't have FRP
2) if you'll have Parsons for one year, you'll have to spend about of 30M$ the next two years for another unsignificant player to take the minimum of salary cap (like for example the Orlando Magic some years ago with JeffGreen)
so, neither Parsons, neither another player that you'll sign, become an asset.
Wiggins, in best case scenario can become a good player, in worst case scenario can be an asset when he'll be an expiring

so, in Washington's situation i would prefer Wiggins
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 42,403
And1: 4,110
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#27 » by shrink » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:47 pm

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:I would rather have Chandler Parsons' expiring than Wiggins and less than three firsts.

This is an interesting thought experiment.

First, I believe no player has negative value on the floor. If he does, a coach and GM can simply say, “never play that guy.” If he gets minutes despite that (say, a negative VORP), then it is a choice the front office gets to decide, to see if he can improve with minutes, and that is a choice they can choose to make, or not make. In that case, Parsons and Wiggins both represent dead salary, and are roughly similar value in year 1.

That leaves the future years, where Wiggins is paid $90 mil. I can certainly understand that $90 mil in salary relief is probably worth 2-3 picks. But would it be worth it to the Wolves?

They are unlikely to become a great free agent destination, and have had a history of only winning free agent deals if they overpay a bit. They could use the space (it’s unlikely to be raw cap space in Year 2 with KAT, Dieng, Covington still on the books, but maybe) as a dumping ground to take in bad contracts for assets, so it clearly has value. However, do you think they could get back more than the 2-3 picks they’d give out to trade Wiggins to get that space?

I understand for many teams, paying 2-3 firsts to get out of a bad deal may be worthwhile. They may be well over the lux, and facing taxes. They may be a free agent destination. They may be win-now, and need to move salary to trade for a win-now player.

MIN is none of these things. We see other teams give up assets to move a bad deal, in order to accomplish something better - but there is no clear goal for MIN to move Wiggins, or at least, not as big a goal as it would be for others. Then, the price of carrying KAT’s buddy, Wiggins, is less than the price another team would require to take on Wiggins, because he’s an even worse fit on their team. Trading Wiggins is pushing an asset upstream, to a less desirable location, and those players are unlikely to be traded.
nolian
Ballboy
Posts: 21
And1: 7
Joined: Dec 27, 2017
 

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#28 » by nolian » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:48 pm

jscott wrote:
nolian wrote:
taikibansei wrote:Neither do the Twolves. Does this mean you should be looking to trade KAT now?
i don't understand

TWolves this year can't compete, but netx summer they have big money for a big free agent, and with KAT (and Beal) they can become a good place for free agents

Wizards haven't possibility to compete (neither for play-off) because of John Wall, non tonly next year, but for 2 or 3 year more

Dude, just let it go.

Your entire argument about the Wolves contending with Beal negates the value of the pick(s) you want to include.

Also, most of the board values the Wall and Wiggins contracts similarly (I have Wiggins as a better contract than Wall because of age, price, injury, etc - but they are still both Top 3 bad contracts [with Chris Paul in between them]) so why would your argument about not being able to build around Wall not apply to the Wolves not being able to build a contender with Wiggins on the roster?

This is not an argument you can win - IMO.

ok i can't win :D

and also it's probable tha i'm wrong in all tha valutation

however the contract of Wall and Wiggins can't be confrontable
Wiggins has 4 years x 121M$, he is 24 and he is save
Wall has 4 years x 170M$, he is almost 29, he will not play for a year, and he has a great injury that you can't be sure he will be back the same

no-one GM would prefer J.Wall's contract, even in a parallel universe
User avatar
jscott
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,748
And1: 272
Joined: Oct 14, 2004
 

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#29 » by jscott » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:03 pm

taikibansei wrote:
nolian wrote:
taikibansei wrote:Neither do the Twolves. Does this mean you should be looking to trade KAT now?
i don't understand

TWolves this year can't compete, but netx summer they have big money for a big free agent, and with KAT (and Beal) they can become a good place for free agents

Wizards haven't possibility to compete (neither for play-off) because of John Wall, non tonly next year, but for 2 or 3 year more


The Twolves are not getting Beal. Even with KAT and Covington, a team with Wiggins (huge negative) and a below-average point guard is going to struggle to get wins. Finally, Wiggins and KAT will take up almost 60% of your cap space next summer--I don't see where this "big money" is coming from, and regardless, when was the last time the Twolves were successful with the big free agents?

With Teague expiring and the possibility of moving Dieng's 1 year contract they can get a max deal (or close to it) apparently for next year or if they wait a year and Let Gorgui expire they'll get one the year after. The Wolves were recently very, very close to signing DLo. With only so much money out there someone good will take a max deal over a smaller deal. Ultimately, I think the plan is for them to be able to take on a max deal in a trade rather than sign one outright, but ultimately... who knows.
User avatar
TGW
General Manager
Posts: 9,291
And1: 3,200
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#30 » by TGW » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:09 pm

This is probably the worst Beal offer I've ever seen on this board. Completely one-sided and nonsensical.
taikibansei
Analyst
Posts: 3,413
And1: 6,262
Joined: Jul 17, 2008
     

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#31 » by taikibansei » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:30 pm

jscott wrote:
taikibansei wrote:
nolian wrote:i don't understand

TWolves this year can't compete, but netx summer they have big money for a big free agent, and with KAT (and Beal) they can become a good place for free agents

Wizards haven't possibility to compete (neither for play-off) because of John Wall, non tonly next year, but for 2 or 3 year more


The Twolves are not getting Beal. Even with KAT and Covington, a team with Wiggins (huge negative) and a below-average point guard is going to struggle to get wins. Finally, Wiggins and KAT will take up almost 60% of your cap space next summer--I don't see where this "big money" is coming from, and regardless, when was the last time the Twolves were successful with the big free agents?

With Teague expiring and the possibility of moving Dieng's 1 year contract they can get a max deal (or close to it) apparently for next year or if they wait a year and Let Gorgui expire they'll get one the year after. The Wolves were recently very, very close to signing DLo. With only so much money out there someone good will take a max deal over a smaller deal. Ultimately, I think the plan is for them to be able to take on a max deal in a trade rather than sign one outright, but ultimately... who knows.


Right, with additional (Dieng) trades, you can get there this coming summer, but you can't as currently structured. Also, and I say this as the fan of another team that has had to deal with this for years, having the cap space sadly does not mean you will sign a top FA. The Knicks had two max spaces available this summer but could sign nobody. Next summer, we'll have about one and a half max spaces available...and yet again will most likely be able to sign nobody (or at least no "big free agent").

This ties into what I've argued on the Knicks board and elsewhere for years: the big free agents no longer need to worry about money or media exposure--they'll get plenty of both regardless of where they sign. What they want instead is to go to already competitive teams to cement their respective "legacies" with deep playoff runs (and hopefully championships). Neither the Twolves nor the Knicks will be close to offering such a situation next summer.




Read on Twitter
User avatar
jscott
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,748
And1: 272
Joined: Oct 14, 2004
 

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#32 » by jscott » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:56 pm

taikibansei wrote:
jscott wrote:
taikibansei wrote:
The Twolves are not getting Beal. Even with KAT and Covington, a team with Wiggins (huge negative) and a below-average point guard is going to struggle to get wins. Finally, Wiggins and KAT will take up almost 60% of your cap space next summer--I don't see where this "big money" is coming from, and regardless, when was the last time the Twolves were successful with the big free agents?

With Teague expiring and the possibility of moving Dieng's 1 year contract they can get a max deal (or close to it) apparently for next year or if they wait a year and Let Gorgui expire they'll get one the year after. The Wolves were recently very, very close to signing DLo. With only so much money out there someone good will take a max deal over a smaller deal. Ultimately, I think the plan is for them to be able to take on a max deal in a trade rather than sign one outright, but ultimately... who knows.


Right, with additional (Dieng) trades, you can get there this coming summer, but you can't as currently structured. Also, and I say this as the fan of another team that has had to deal with this for years, having the cap space sadly does not mean you will sign a top FA. The Knicks had two max spaces available this summer but could sign nobody. Next summer, we'll have about one and a half max spaces available...and yet again will most likely be able to sign nobody (or at least no "big free agent").

This ties into what I've argued on the Knicks board and elsewhere for years: the big free agents no longer need to worry about money or media exposure--they'll get plenty of both regardless of where they sign. What they want instead is to go to already competitive teams to cement their respective "legacies" with deep playoff runs (and hopefully championships). Neither the Twolves nor the Knicks will be close to offering such a situation next summer.

Well, much like the Knicks we are hoping out draft pick from the last year pans out. If Culver lives up to his projection, KAT?RoCo continues playing as they have we could be trending the right way - especially with the new coaching staff who has already revamped our offensive set (according to the guys on the Summer League team and the rest of the roster who are practicing together).

I know hitting on consecutive draft picks isn't guaranteed but the Wolves could be young (except for RoCo) and fairly good by the time that deep 2021 FA class comes around. We might be more in a position to trade for someone else's max dude (DLo, as an example, not necessarily one I endorse) that would allow a team like GSW to pursue a FA who wants to sign with them. Maybe Booker demands out and we can send them a Culver or picks or something and cap. I think that's the kind of stuff the Wolves FO is/should-be looking into.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 21,290
And1: 3,772
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
   

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#33 » by penbeast0 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:28 pm

nolian wrote:...
however the contract of Wall and Wiggins can't be confrontable
Wiggins has 4 years x 121M$, he is 24 and he is save
Wall has 4 years x 170M$, he is almost 29, he will not play for a year, and he has a great injury that you can't be sure he will be back the same

no-one GM would prefer J.Wall's contract, even in a parallel universe


The question is whether Wall will be a good player in the last 3 years of his contract. If you believe he will come back and be a good NBA point guard once again, the extra cost of the last 3 years of his contract will be mitigated to a large degree.

The second question is whether Wiggins will be a good player in the last 3 years of his contract. Unlike Wall, there is no history of good play; he's been a bad NBA player his whole career so far. However, unlike Wall, he is young and healthy and so there is always the chance he will "get it."

Finally, there is the question of tanking. For next year, Wall's absence will certainly help a tanking team. If Wiggins doesn't change his performance considerably, he may actually be a better tank commander than a replacement player covering for Wall.

So, the question is what situation you are in and how you believe these players will perform in the future. If you believe, as I do, that Wall will come back and be an above average NBA starter (but not an elite one), and you believe, as I do, that Wiggins will improve a bit over time but probably never get it to the point that he's an above average NBA starter, you would probably value Wall's contract more than Wiggins despite the extra money. For a tanking team, however, Wiggins might be a better bet. That's how I see it for Minnesota, who I see as much closer to being a contending team than Washington at this point; and for Washington, who I see as tanking for at least 2 more years before trying to rebuild a winning base. So, yes, I prefer Wall's contract although I can certainly see that with different answers to the questions I asked, you would have a different answer.
[quote="Nivek"] This post could come only from a Wizards fan. It somehow combines delusional optimism with soul-crushing pessimism.
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 21,385
And1: 4,713
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#34 » by Dat2U » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:43 pm

nolian wrote:
jscott wrote:
nolian wrote:i don't understand

TWolves this year can't compete, but netx summer they have big money for a big free agent, and with KAT (and Beal) they can become a good place for free agents

Wizards haven't possibility to compete (neither for play-off) because of John Wall, non tonly next year, but for 2 or 3 year more

Dude, just let it go.

Your entire argument about the Wolves contending with Beal negates the value of the pick(s) you want to include.

Also, most of the board values the Wall and Wiggins contracts similarly (I have Wiggins as a better contract than Wall because of age, price, injury, etc - but they are still both Top 3 bad contracts [with Chris Paul in between them]) so why would your argument about not being able to build around Wall not apply to the Wolves not being able to build a contender with Wiggins on the roster?

This is not an argument you can win - IMO.

ok i can't win :D

and also it's probable tha i'm wrong in all tha valutation

however the contract of Wall and Wiggins can't be confrontable
Wiggins has 4 years x 121M$, he is 24 and he is save
Wall has 4 years x 170M$, he is almost 29, he will not play for a year, and he has a great injury that you can't be sure he will be back the same

no-one GM would prefer J.Wall's contract, even in a parallel universe


Wall is 28. Wiggins has NEVER been good contrary to your opinion and has only gotten PROGRESSIVELY worse in recent years. There's no track record of Wiggins ever "getting it", it's a fantasy to even suggest he "could get it".

And your initial post was about trading BEAL not Wall for Wiggins b/c it was either Wiggins or Parsons for Beal according to you lol.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 42,403
And1: 4,110
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#35 » by shrink » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:06 pm

penbeast0 wrote:So, the question is what situation you are in and how you believe these players will perform in the future. If you believe, as I do, that Wall will come back and be an above average NBA starter (but not an elite one), and you believe, as I do, that Wiggins will improve a bit over time but probably never get it to the point that he's an above average NBA starter, you would probably value Wall's contract more than Wiggins despite the extra money. For a tanking team, however, Wiggins might be a better bet. That's how I see it for Minnesota, who I see as much closer to being a contending team than Washington at this point; and for Washington, who I see as tanking for at least 2 more years before trying to rebuild a winning base. So, yes, I prefer Wall's contract although I can certainly see that with different answers to the questions I asked, you would have a different answer.

That’s a great post, and this is particular good paragraph.

For me, I determine how positive or negative it is based on the difference between price and projected performance. This influences market value, so we can see how close or far are projections are when a player goes through free agency. What contract would each get if they went through free agency at the start of the month?

If Wall is projected to be an average NBA starter, (not fifth starter, but not a star), with average NBA health, I think that pegs his value at around $16-$18 mil. If he can reach this level for half of this season, that’s $8.5 mil of production, plus three years of $17, so about $60 mil. That seems fair to me - he was seeing issues (particularly defensively) before the major injury, but he also started higher than an average starter too, so I’d take this middle ground. He’s paid $169, so that’s a negative $109. Others are welcome to disagree with this valuation - perhaps some GM who needs a PG would pay him more.

I think there is a lot of hyperbole about Wiggins, but I suspect if he was a free agent this summer, some team would have given him the MLE. He plays a position of need, never gets hurt, has length and athleticism, and I suspect some needy GM would convince himself that they could reach him. Four years is about $40 mil. Wiggins is paid $121, so removing $40 mil is .. negative $81.

I think people could make convincing arguments why that gap should be smaller or greater. Maybe they believe Wall will do better, and remain healthy. Maybe people believe that since Wiggins is worth zero, because he’s performed so badly. For me, I think both players are better where they are. Wall has a fan base in DC that he wouldn’t have elsewhere, Wiggins is KAT’s buddy, the right age, and doesn’t rock the boat after Jimmy Butler.

I don’t think the Wizards should trade Beal or Wall - both have more value right where they are now. Penbeast is right that their value depends on the direction of the franchise, even if their use is “tank commander.”
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 54,289
And1: 8,481
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#36 » by nate33 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:26 pm

shrink wrote:If Wall is projected to be an average NBA starter, (not fifth starter, but not a star), with average NBA health, I think that pegs his value at around $16-$18 mil. If he can reach this level for half of this season, that’s $8.5 mil of production, plus three years of $17, so about $60 mil. That seems fair to me - he was seeing issues (particularly defensively) before the major injury, but he also started higher than an average starter too, so I’d take this middle ground. He’s paid $169, so that’s a negative $109. Others are welcome to disagree with this valuation - perhaps some GM who needs a PG would pay him more.

I think there is a lot of hyperbole about Wiggins, but I suspect if he was a free agent this summer, some team would have given him the MLE. He plays a position of need, never gets hurt, has length and athleticism, and I suspect some needy GM would convince himself that they could reach him. Four years is about $40 mil. Wiggins is paid $121, so removing $40 mil is .. negative $81.

I think that's an excellent way at looking at it.

The one wrinkle is that Wall won't play this year and 80% of his salary will be paid by insurance.

If you ignore this year and make this same calculation next summer, Wall will be paid $128M for $51M of production, or a negative $77M. Wiggins will be paid $94M for $30M of production, or negative $64M. Their "values" will be much closer in this calculation.

And finally, we can obviously quibble at the assigned valuations. You say Wall is "worth" $17M a year and Wiggins is "worth" $10M, for a delta of $7M. If the delta between their two respective valuations rises from your subjective $7M estimate to someone else's subjective estimate of $11.5M, then Wall becomes worth more than Wiggins.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 42,403
And1: 4,110
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#37 » by shrink » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:29 pm

nate33 wrote:
shrink wrote:If Wall is projected to be an average NBA starter, (not fifth starter, but not a star), with average NBA health, I think that pegs his value at around $16-$18 mil. If he can reach this level for half of this season, that’s $8.5 mil of production, plus three years of $17, so about $60 mil. That seems fair to me - he was seeing issues (particularly defensively) before the major injury, but he also started higher than an average starter too, so I’d take this middle ground. He’s paid $169, so that’s a negative $109. Others are welcome to disagree with this valuation - perhaps some GM who needs a PG would pay him more.

I think there is a lot of hyperbole about Wiggins, but I suspect if he was a free agent this summer, some team would have given him the MLE. He plays a position of need, never gets hurt, has length and athleticism, and I suspect some needy GM would convince himself that they could reach him. Four years is about $40 mil. Wiggins is paid $121, so removing $40 mil is .. negative $81.

I think that's an excellent way at looking at it.

The one wrinkle is that Wall won't play this year and 80% of his salary will be paid by insurance.

If you ignore this year and make this same calculation next summer, Wall will be paid $128M for $51M of production, or a negative $77M. Wiggins will be paid $94M for $30M of production, or negative $64M. Their "values" will be much closer in this calculation.

And finally, we can obviously quibble at the assigned valuations. You say Wall is "worth" $17M a year and Wiggins is "worth" $10M, for a delta of $7M. If the delta between their two respective valuations rises from your subjective $7M estimate to someone else's subjective estimate $11.5M, then Wall becomes worth more than Wiggins.

You’re right, and both players have great variability in both directions, so individual valuations can be very different between honest individuals. There is no sure right answer here.
SO_MONEY
Veteran
Posts: 2,507
And1: 328
Joined: Sep 11, 2009
         

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#38 » by SO_MONEY » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:51 pm

Obviously it would take more to get Beal. Much more!
SO_MONEY
Veteran
Posts: 2,507
And1: 328
Joined: Sep 11, 2009
         

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#39 » by SO_MONEY » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:05 pm

nate33 wrote:
shrink wrote:If Wall is projected to be an average NBA starter, (not fifth starter, but not a star), with average NBA health, I think that pegs his value at around $16-$18 mil. If he can reach this level for half of this season, that’s $8.5 mil of production, plus three years of $17, so about $60 mil. That seems fair to me - he was seeing issues (particularly defensively) before the major injury, but he also started higher than an average starter too, so I’d take this middle ground. He’s paid $169, so that’s a negative $109. Others are welcome to disagree with this valuation - perhaps some GM who needs a PG would pay him more.

I think there is a lot of hyperbole about Wiggins, but I suspect if he was a free agent this summer, some team would have given him the MLE. He plays a position of need, never gets hurt, has length and athleticism, and I suspect some needy GM would convince himself that they could reach him. Four years is about $40 mil. Wiggins is paid $121, so removing $40 mil is .. negative $81.

I think that's an excellent way at looking at it.

The one wrinkle is that Wall won't play this year and 80% of his salary will be paid by insurance.

If you ignore this year and make this same calculation next summer, Wall will be paid $128M for $51M of production, or a negative $77M. Wiggins will be paid $94M for $30M of production, or negative $64M. Their "values" will be much closer in this calculation.

And finally, we can obviously quibble at the assigned valuations. You say Wall is "worth" $17M a year and Wiggins is "worth" $10M, for a delta of $7M. If the delta between their two respective valuations rises from your subjective $7M estimate to someone else's subjective estimate $11.5M, then Wall becomes worth more than Wiggins.


It is nice to see a reasonable argument from a Mod on this board that doesn't resort to calling things silly or making backhanded insults, given their ability to operate somewhat in impunity. Koudos good sir! I will offer my minor constrictive criticism in that the bold/underlined is only for on court value, not trade value. That, on court value doesn't always equal trade value, especially when we are talking about contracts that are negative. Because there is a salary cap you need to factor in both value based on production and financial ramifications or lost opportunity due to the overall obligation. This is where I see valuations often go wrong.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 54,289
And1: 8,481
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Minnesota - Washington 

Post#40 » by nate33 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:22 pm

SO_MONEY wrote:
nate33 wrote:
shrink wrote:If Wall is projected to be an average NBA starter, (not fifth starter, but not a star), with average NBA health, I think that pegs his value at around $16-$18 mil. If he can reach this level for half of this season, that’s $8.5 mil of production, plus three years of $17, so about $60 mil. That seems fair to me - he was seeing issues (particularly defensively) before the major injury, but he also started higher than an average starter too, so I’d take this middle ground. He’s paid $169, so that’s a negative $109. Others are welcome to disagree with this valuation - perhaps some GM who needs a PG would pay him more.

I think there is a lot of hyperbole about Wiggins, but I suspect if he was a free agent this summer, some team would have given him the MLE. He plays a position of need, never gets hurt, has length and athleticism, and I suspect some needy GM would convince himself that they could reach him. Four years is about $40 mil. Wiggins is paid $121, so removing $40 mil is .. negative $81.

I think that's an excellent way at looking at it.

The one wrinkle is that Wall won't play this year and 80% of his salary will be paid by insurance.

If you ignore this year and make this same calculation next summer, Wall will be paid $128M for $51M of production, or a negative $77M. Wiggins will be paid $94M for $30M of production, or negative $64M. Their "values" will be much closer in this calculation.

And finally, we can obviously quibble at the assigned valuations. You say Wall is "worth" $17M a year and Wiggins is "worth" $10M, for a delta of $7M. If the delta between their two respective valuations rises from your subjective $7M estimate to someone else's subjective estimate $11.5M, then Wall becomes worth more than Wiggins.


It is nice to see a reasonable argument from a Mod on this board that doesn't resort to calling things silly or making backhanded insults, given their ability to operate somewhat in impunity. Koudos good sir! I will offer my minor constrictive criticism in that the bold/underlined is only for on court value, not trade value. That, on court value doesn't always equal trade value, especially when we are talking about contracts that are negative. Because there is a salary cap you need to factor in both value based on production and financial ramifications or lost opportunity due to the overall obligation. This is where I see valuations often go wrong.

We are actually talking about trade value. Wall is unquestionably worth more than Wiggins in on the court value assuming he gets back to 80-90% of his pre-injury form.

Return to Trades and Transactions