Price And Value Are Two Different Things

[urinesane]

I've been seeing this mistake a lot in the fallout of the trade.

Price is what you pay for something, value is what you get out of it.

You don't buy something for $100 and expect $100 of value out of it, you definitely want to get more than $100 worth of value (or it feels like a disappointment).

That being said, you can argue with this trade that the price was High or that it was TOO High. You cannot say that they didn't get enough value or that the price outweighs the value. That can't be known until we see how Gobert works out with this team and what those traded picks actually become. Right now their value is very low and I think most people overvalue picks due to confirmation bias (they take the small % of later picks that turn into great players and ignore the massive amount that do not).

Since you can't know the value yet it seems kind of pointless to argue about the price. The price is the price, the value is TBD.

If the Wolves compete for championships then the price was CHEAP. If they are dogsh*t and the picks turn out to be superstars then the price was far too high.

The fact that people give grades right after a trade is hilariously silly and just a way to waste time before the season starts (which I'd rather waste on more interesting things).

Anyway, please keep in mind that Price does not equal Value going forward. It's a simple mistake to make, but it's incredibly important (not just when judging sports trades).

[winforlose]

I've been seeing this mistake a lot in the fallout of the trade.

Price is what you pay for something, value is what you get out of it.

You don't buy something for $100 and expect $100 of value out of it, you definitely want to get more than $100 worth of value (or it feels like a disappointment).

That being said, you can argue with this trade that the price was High or that it was TOO High. You cannot say that they didn't get enough value or that the price outweighs the value. That can't be known until we see how Gobert works out with this team and what those traded picks actually become. Right now their value is very low and I think most people overvalue picks due to confirmation bias (they take the small % of later picks that turn into great players and ignore the massive amount that do not).

Since you can't know the value yet it seems kind of pointless to argue about the price. The price is the price, the value is TBD.

If the Wolves compete for championships then the price was CHEAP. If they are dogsh*t and the picks turn out to be superstars then the price was far too high.

The fact that people give grades right after a trade is hilariously silly and just a way to waste time before the season starts (which I'd rather waste on more interesting things).

Anyway, please keep in mind that Price does not equal Value going forward. It's a simple mistake to make, but it's incredibly important (not just when judging sports trades).

Fair. It is also fair to say that the Wolves wanted something they couldn’t really afford at its starting price. So they got a bunch of credit cards and maxed them out. They have the money to pay off the debt eventually, but it doesn’t mean they won’t pay a butt load of interest. We got immediately better, but 27 and 29 picks and even the 26 pick swap could all come back to bite them.

[urinesane]

I've been seeing this mistake a lot in the fallout of the trade.

Price is what you pay for something, value is what you get out of it.

You don't buy something for $100 and expect $100 of value out of it, you definitely want to get more than $100 worth of value (or it feels like a disappointment).

That being said, you can argue with this trade that the price was High or that it was TOO High. You cannot say that they didn't get enough value or that the price outweighs the value. That can't be known until we see how Gobert works out with this team and what those traded picks actually become. Right now their value is very low and I think most people overvalue picks due to confirmation bias (they take the small % of later picks that turn into great players and ignore the massive amount that do not).

Since you can't know the value yet it seems kind of pointless to argue about the price. The price is the price, the value is TBD.

If the Wolves compete for championships then the price was CHEAP. If they are dogsh*t and the picks turn out to be superstars then the price was far too high.

The fact that people give grades right after a trade is hilariously silly and just a way to waste time before the season starts (which I'd rather waste on more interesting things).

Anyway, please keep in mind that Price does not equal Value going forward. It's a simple mistake to make, but it's incredibly important (not just when judging sports trades).

Fair. It is also fair to say that the Wolves wanted something they couldn’t really afford at its starting price. So they got a bunch of credit cards and maxed them out. They have the money to pay off the debt eventually, but it doesn’t mean they won’t pay a butt load of interest. We got immediately better, but 27 and 29 picks and even the 26 pick swap could all come back to bite them.

Those fears are based on assumptions though. Do we think those picks would make us a better team than with Gobert? None of the players we traded seemed to be longterm fits, so they were rentals at best.

Basically the only way it's a bad move is if the Wolves don't move up at least a tier in contention and one of those picks turns out to be better than Gobert

The problem with that is with picks you basically are just punting your prime window further down the road. They see KAT/ANT/McD's windows and are adding someone else that is in their prime to take advantage of what IS right now, rather than what COULD be down the road.

I love it. Picks be damned, this franchise needs more aggression and not just "hope for the future". Live in the now!

[winforlose]

I've been seeing this mistake a lot in the fallout of the trade.

Price is what you pay for something, value is what you get out of it.

You don't buy something for $100 and expect $100 of value out of it, you definitely want to get more than $100 worth of value (or it feels like a disappointment).

That being said, you can argue with this trade that the price was High or that it was TOO High. You cannot say that they didn't get enough value or that the price outweighs the value. That can't be known until we see how Gobert works out with this team and what those traded picks actually become. Right now their value is very low and I think most people overvalue picks due to confirmation bias (they take the small % of later picks that turn into great players and ignore the massive amount that do not).

Since you can't know the value yet it seems kind of pointless to argue about the price. The price is the price, the value is TBD.

If the Wolves compete for championships then the price was CHEAP. If they are dogsh*t and the picks turn out to be superstars then the price was far too high.

The fact that people give grades right after a trade is hilariously silly and just a way to waste time before the season starts (which I'd rather waste on more interesting things).

Anyway, please keep in mind that Price does not equal Value going forward. It's a simple mistake to make, but it's incredibly important (not just when judging sports trades).

Fair. It is also fair to say that the Wolves wanted something they couldn’t really afford at its starting price. So they got a bunch of credit cards and maxed them out. They have the money to pay off the debt eventually, but it doesn’t mean they won’t pay a butt load of interest. We got immediately better, but 27 and 29 picks and even the 26 pick swap could all come back to bite them.

Those fears are based on assumptions though. Do we think those picks would make us a better team than with Gobert? None of the players we traded seemed to be longterm fits, so they were rentals at best.

Basically the only way it's a bad move is if the Wolves don't move up at least a tier in contention and one of those picks turns out to be better than Gobert

The problem with that is with picks you basically are just punting your prime window further down the road. They see KAT/ANT/McD's windows and are adding someone else that is in their prime to take advantage of what IS right now, rather than what COULD be down the road.

I love it. Picks be damned, this franchise needs more aggression and not just "hope for the future". Live in the now!

Plenty of people buy the dishwasher or washer drier combo when they cannot quite afford it because they want to live in the now. There is nothing wrong with that. I like Gobert and wanted us to get him. I am thrilled he is a wolf, and as I said repeatedly I think we have the best big 3, starting 5, and overall team in the NBA. I think we win at least one ring with this deal, and if everyone stays healthy it could be this year. That said, the bill will come due. Picks are about more than players. They trade tools to get role players and stars without giving them up and/or dealing with the cap. We emptied the piggy bank and maxed the cards. That doesn’t mean doom and gloom, but it does mean we are where we are.

I mentioned the big city effect and the Gollum effect in other threads. The lure of the big city vs the overwhelming urge to chase the precious ring. If the Gollum effect wins out it might not matter. If not, we will likely miss those picks, and the possibilities they represented.

[Krapinsky]

Regarding the price of the trade, is there a comparable player age 32 or younger that was traded with multiple years on his deal and who did not request a trade?

I think that is an overlooked aspect of this deal. In just about every comparable scenario where an all nba player was traded while still in their prime and multiple years on their deal, the player requested the trade and forced ownership's hand.

Paul George - requested trade [young star-Gilgeous-Alexander, 5 first round picks (4 unprotected), 2 swaps]
James Harden - requested trade [young star-Allen, plus starter-Levert, 3 first round picks (all unprotected), 4 pick swaps]
Anthony Davis - requested trade [young star-Ingram, plus starter-Ball, #4 pick in first round, top 8 protected first, unprotected first, 2 pick swaps]

The trades that come to mind where the players did not request a trade brought back limited value because the players were all on short term contracts:

Jrue Holiday - did not request trade but had only 1 year left on his deal [plus starter-Bledsoe, recent draft pick-Hampton #24, 3 firsts (2 unprotected), 2 pick swaps]
Jimmy Butler (to MN) - did not request trade but only had 1 year left on his deal [young star Lavine, recent #5 pick Dunn, #7 pick]
Pierce and Garnett - did not request trade; Pierce was in last year of his deal; Garnett had one more year left [Plus starter-Wallace, 3 unprotected 1sts, one pick swap]

Considering the above, I'd argue that the Wolves did not actually overpay at all. This is fair market value for an all-NBA player that is still in his prime, with multiple years left on his deal, and who did not request a trade.

[winforlose]

Regarding the price of the trade, is there a comparable player age 32 or younger that was traded with multiple years on his deal and who did not request a trade?

I think that is an overlooked aspect of this deal. In just about every comparable scenario where an all nba player was traded while still in their prime and multiple years on their deal, the player requested the trade and forced ownership's hand.

Paul George - requested trade [young star-Gilgeous-Alexander, 5 first round picks (4 unprotected), 2 swaps]
James Harden - requested trade [young star-Allen, plus starter-Levert, 3 first round picks (all unprotected), 4 pick swaps]
Anthony Davis - requested trade [young star-Ingram, plus starter-Ball, #4 pick in first round, top 8 protected first, unprotected first, 2 pick swaps]

The trades that come to mind where the players did not request a trade brought back limited value because the players were all on short term contracts:

Jrue Holiday - did not request trade but had only 1 year left on his deal [plus starter-Bledsoe, recent draft pick-Hampton #24, 3 firsts (2 unprotected), 2 pick swaps]
Jimmy Butler (to MN) - did not request trade but only had 1 year left on his deal [young star Lavine, recent #5 pick Dunn, #7 pick]
Pierce and Garnett - did not request trade; Pierce was in last year of his deal; Garnett had one more year left [Plus starter-Wallace, 3 unprotected 1sts, one pick swap]

Considering the above, I'd argue that the Wolves did not actually overpay at all. This is fair market value for an all-NBA player that is still in his prime, with multiple years left on his deal, and who did not request a trade.

This, plus the fact that no major stars or young guns went with. V8 is a nice deal but his game has major holes. Bev isa good player but is 34 month. Beasley is a one dimensional player whose ceiling is likely reached. My point is, the draft capital is a tool for them to go get players they want or to rebuild with. In either event not getting substantial player value is an important factor. That said, we did overpay in draft value by at least one first and one pick swap. Especially considering Utah wanted to move Gobert.