RealGM

Just wondering, how do people see the value of these 3? They could all very well be in trades this summer, but I see a range of opinions about their value.

For instance, if my Bulls dealt Lavine to NY, would a 3rd team give any value for Barrett?
The DDR-Port move has been discussed often, would Orl (or another team) take on Simons and give value?
If Miami is going for a star, who will Herro be evaluated?

I see all three with minor positive value-solid young players with no known attitude issues who are on big deals. But, maybe others see them as a negative, or even neutral.

Thanks for any opinions-please vote 3 times below, one for each

Hero and simons neutral for me. They at least fill the scoring role aspect. Barret negative for me. He an expensive potential gamble.

All negative value to me given how overpaid they are , would order them Herro,Simons,Barrett in order from bad to terrible

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Hero and simons neutral for me. They at least fill the scoring role aspect. Barret negative for me. He an expensive potential gamble.

This. I haven’t seen enough from barrett to justify his salary.

pipfan wrote:Just wondering, how do people see the value of these 3? They could all very well be in trades this summer, but I see a range of opinions about their value.

For instance, if my Bulls dealt Lavine to NY, would a 3rd team give any value for Barrett?
The DDR-Port move has been discussed often, would Orl (or another team) take on Simons and give value?
If Miami is going for a star, who will Herro be evaluated?

I see all three with minor positive value-solid young players with no known attitude issues who are on big deals. But, maybe others see them as a negative, or even neutral.

Thanks for any opinions-please vote 3 times below, one for each

All players are young, productive and signed to long term deals. Simmons only recently turned 24 and he's the oldest of the 3. Once again, he just turned 24 and he's the oldest of the three. Anyone who calls them negative values aren't dealing with reality. That isn't' to say teams would pay a premium for them. That isn't to say some teams would value them more than others. And teams would certainly highlight their flaws to try and negotiate a lower price. But they would certainly give up assets to get them and bet on their upside. If anything I would value Simmons the least if only because he's more a combo guard (a.k.a undersized shooting guard) whereas at least Barrett and Herro have the size to play a traditional position. But he and Herro are better shooters than Barrett which is a very big factor in today's NBA so I could see Barrett being the least valuable of the three as well. But yea...all of them have varying levels of positive value.

For me, given their overall youth, they're positive to neutral. A ton depends on the roster surrounding them.

Barrett - Slight negative. Playoffs were promising but he has to show some consistency over the course of next season.

Herro - Neutral. Biggest contract of the 3. Does he have another level to him? idk but his current form is probably fair for the contract

Simons - Positive. Best contract of the 3, and the best offensive player of the 3. His stats playing without dame are promising. My god is he a bad defender though.

Barrett is a positive player here as a two way player. Simons is a positive due to the contract. Herro is a negative due to defense and salary.

Interesting, where does Keldon Johnson fit in this conversation?

balsamic_ducks wrote:Barrett - Slight negative. Playoffs were promising but he has to show some consistency over the course of next season.

While I wouldn’t personally say negative, more neutral to potentially positive given his PO performance, this is still a fair take. Wish there was more of it around here!

Also think Herro and Simons are neutral to potentially positive as well. All 3 probably need a change of scenery to hit their peak potential tho.

I think Barrett ends up as the next Wiggins\Gordon, high lotto pick who received a healthy extension based on potential, flames out, but finds a niche on a contender in a couple of years.

All 3 are positive value to their teams and can contribute in many scenarios. They will also all improve.

Barrett is the most valuable defensively due to being more versatile and switchable, but I wouldn't go so far as to call him *good* defensively. Herro and Simons are both bad defenders with Simons being the worst of the three.

I'm a little surprised that Herro is deemed to have the worst trade value of three. I understand that his contract and injury status might ding him a bit, but he's demonstrated he can contribute within the natural flow of a team offense where the other two have not. That has real value to me as it's much harder to defend in crunch time.

I can't imagine any of these three players would require a pick added just to trade them away. That's negative value.

All three are minor positives. You would at a minimum get back a second round pick for any of them.

I think they are all amazing young players every team would want to have at whatever price their existing team wanted to name.

More seriously I think that if a team got to move out some unwanted money each of them could return an asset, but if you asked a team to take on the whole deal, Simons is the only one of these guys I feel good about teams being willing to do so.

Because on court, the play isn't justifying the contract for the other two currently and young doesn't necessarily mean there is another level especially when we aren't seeing meaningful growth or increased impact. It's one thing to take a chance on a young player who is cheap. It's another when a guy is being paid as a proven good starter and they are still a drag on the team.

And what I find interesting is how easy it is for most posters to see that when the player is not currently on their team. I always wonder why they think their team is an exception and don't consider that perhaps their attachment is affecting their evaluation, instead of accusing neutral fans of bias, not watching the games, creating narratives, etc....

Yeah. They all are young enough that I always understand the attachment and don’t think assets would need to be added in dumping them if their teams wanted to do so.

But id take Herro first I think. Then Simons and then RJ.

Sort of meh though. Really whichever one you’re hoping for late development.

andyhop wrote:All negative value to me given how overpaid they are , would order them Herro,Simons,Barrett in order from bad to terrible

just watch the next year or so. they wont look overpaid with the new deals coming.

Knickfan1982 wrote:

pipfan wrote:Just wondering, how do people see the value of these 3? They could all very well be in trades this summer, but I see a range of opinions about their value.

For instance, if my Bulls dealt Lavine to NY, would a 3rd team give any value for Barrett?
The DDR-Port move has been discussed often, would Orl (or another team) take on Simons and give value?
If Miami is going for a star, who will Herro be evaluated?

I see all three with minor positive value-solid young players with no known attitude issues who are on big deals. But, maybe others see them as a negative, or even neutral.

Thanks for any opinions-please vote 3 times below, one for each

All players are young, productive and signed to long term deals. Simmons only recently turned 24 and he's the oldest of the 3. Once again, he just turned 24 and he's the oldest of the three. Anyone who calls them negative values aren't dealing with reality. That isn't' to say teams would pay a premium for them. That isn't to say some teams would value them more than others. And teams would certainly highlight their flaws to try and negotiate a lower price. But they would certainly give up assets to get them and bet on their upside. If anything I would value Simmons the least if only because he's more a combo guard (a.k.a undersized shooting guard) whereas at least Barrett and Herro have the size to play a traditional position. But he and Herro are better shooters than Barrett which is a very big factor in today's NBA so I could see Barrett being the least valuable of the three as well. But yea...all of them have varying levels of positive value.

its not about neck length though. Herro 6'4 with 6'3 wingspan and 8'4 standing reach. Simons 6'2 with a 6'9 wingspan and similar 8'4 reach.

tiderulz wrote:

andyhop wrote:All negative value to me given how overpaid they are , would order them Herro,Simons,Barrett in order from bad to terrible

just watch the next year or so. they wont look overpaid with the new deals coming.

Never understand this argument. Other contracts potentially being worse don't make other contracts good. Barrett specifically has been a -10 guy for two years running making $100M. That's bad value unless major growth comes. Regardless if Cam Johnson gets $125M or not.

Texas Chuck wrote:

tiderulz wrote:

andyhop wrote:All negative value to me given how overpaid they are , would order them Herro,Simons,Barrett in order from bad to terrible

just watch the next year or so. they wont look overpaid with the new deals coming.

Never understand this argument. Other contracts potentially being worse don't make other contracts good. Barrett specifically has been a -10 guy for two years running making $100M. That's bad value unless major growth comes. Regardless if Cam Johnson gets $125M or not.

people think player x is overpaid. then the next year, the average contract bumps up say $10mil. player x now on existing contract not overpaid, but on average, or underpaid. salaries have to be taken in context to what the average salary and deals are at the current time. Orlando signed MxGrady for a max at what, 7 years $92 mil (13 mil/yr)? Jalen Brunson signed for 4 years $104 mil (26 mil/yr). you could say, wow, NY really overpaid for Brunson, but salaries go up. so for example Simons making say $25mil over the next 3 years, we'll have to see what signings are made this summer and compare to ask, is he overpaid or not.