Bill Simmons' "Trade Value List", 2022 edition

[LakersLegacy]

He’s right about the 4 untouchables

[Roddy B for 3]

No stats are perfect, but those were voted the most trusted stats by NBA GMs. The Mavs just weren’t that much better with Luka on the floor than they were with him on the bench this season. The Mavericks were 11.4 points better per 48 with Doncic on the bench than the Nuggets were with Jokic on the bench and yet, with the superstars on the floor, the Nuggets were 4.8 points better.

That’s a pretty huge difference. Some of it is probably noise, sure, but some of it is also that Luka’s still a minus on defense and that he holds the ball SO long that it makes it kind of hard for his teammates to get going. He’s definitely a top 10 player, but he’s not a top 5 player yet. Jokic meanwhile is playing at a top 10 ALL-TIME level.

On/off are reflected heavily by teammates. Dallas has a 100million$ PG on the bench to start the season and Luka came in out of shape. Then we moved that 100million$ PG to SG so he can start and we traded for a 19million per PG to come off the bench.

Anecdotally, I think Jokic is more consistent but Luka peaks higher. I've maintained that position for years. When Lukas on his game he make the Mavs extremely dangerous.

It's similar to Kobe (my fav Luka comp fwiw) and Duncan. Duncan game to game is bringing you an A, but Kobe can give you more A+ games and more "duds". In terms of winning a championship I'll take Luka. I actually think Jokic has been better in the regular season, but Luka has been more impressive in the post season.

I think it’s a good comparison in that Duncan and Jokic do a whole bunch of different things on the floor that help you win while also being excellent scorers whereas Luka and Kobe get too focused on all the amazing things they can do with the ball at times at the expense of their complete games. FWIW, Duncan is #3 on my all-time great list and Kobe is #21.

Fwiw though I'd compare Jokic to more of 2005 and after type Duncan, not peak Duncan. For me this comparison is as far as consistency and level of play- not skill sets. The Luka=Kobe one I think is much cleaner, but still not perfect.

[NBA4Lyfe]

bill simmons is biased, and like most media members hate james harden

if harden comes out and post a season with a PER of 26 or higher watch at how the media leaves him off all-nba for the third straight year. Draymond is right the players need to take these voting privedleges back from the biased media

if luka doncic posted 29/7/6 but the mavs were an 8th seed would bill simmons and his ilk leave luka completely off of every all-nba team like they did james harden in 2016. Nope

[NZB2323]

No stats are perfect, but those were voted the most trusted stats by NBA GMs. The Mavs just weren’t that much better with Luka on the floor than they were with him on the bench this season. The Mavericks were 11.4 points better per 48 with Doncic on the bench than the Nuggets were with Jokic on the bench and yet, with the superstars on the floor, the Nuggets were 4.8 points better.

That’s a pretty huge difference. Some of it is probably noise, sure, but some of it is also that Luka’s still a minus on defense and that he holds the ball SO long that it makes it kind of hard for his teammates to get going. He’s definitely a top 10 player, but he’s not a top 5 player yet. Jokic meanwhile is playing at a top 10 ALL-TIME level.

On/off are reflected heavily by teammates. Dallas has a 100million$ PG on the bench to start the season and Luka came in out of shape. Then we moved that 100million$ PG to SG so he can start and we traded for a 19million per PG to come off the bench.

Anecdotally, I think Jokic is more consistent but Luka peaks higher. I've maintained that position for years. When Lukas on his game he make the Mavs extremely dangerous.

It's similar to Kobe (my fav Luka comp fwiw) and Duncan. Duncan game to game is bringing you an A, but Kobe can give you more A+ games and more "duds". In terms of winning a championship I'll take Luka. I actually think Jokic has been better in the regular season, but Luka has been more impressive in the post season.

I think it’s a good comparison in that Duncan and Jokic do a whole bunch of different things on the floor that help you win while also being excellent scorers whereas Luka and Kobe get too focused on all the amazing things they can do with the ball at times at the expense of their complete games. FWIW, Duncan is #3 on my all-time great list and Kobe is #21.

Having Kobe at 21 is pretty crazy.

[NZB2323]

Jrue is perhaps the worst ranked player in the history of the column

He’s ranked 20 despite

1. If he was the best player on your team, that team would be absolutely awful
2. Under no circumstance is he a top 20 player in the NBA
3. He hasn’t played at a high level in the playoffs the last 2 years
4. He’s old and past his prime
5. He’s not on a bargain contract
6. He’s not even one of the best second options in the nBa or even his teams second best players

I’d have him somewhere around the 50th-60th

He’s probably around the 45th best individual player in the league + is old and on a big contract

Yeah, it’s odd that Jrue is 20th and Marcus Smart is 47th.

[Ruma85]

No stats are perfect, but those were voted the most trusted stats by NBA GMs. The Mavs just weren’t that much better with Luka on the floor than they were with him on the bench this season. The Mavericks were 11.4 points better per 48 with Doncic on the bench than the Nuggets were with Jokic on the bench and yet, with the superstars on the floor, the Nuggets were 4.8 points better.

That’s a pretty huge difference. Some of it is probably noise, sure, but some of it is also that Luka’s still a minus on defense and that he holds the ball SO long that it makes it kind of hard for his teammates to get going. He’s definitely a top 10 player, but he’s not a top 5 player yet. Jokic meanwhile is playing at a top 10 ALL-TIME level.

On/off are reflected heavily by teammates. Dallas has a 100million$ PG on the bench to start the season and Luka came in out of shape. Then we moved that 100million$ PG to SG so he can start and we traded for a 19million per PG to come off the bench.

Anecdotally, I think Jokic is more consistent but Luka peaks higher. I've maintained that position for years. When Lukas on his game he make the Mavs extremely dangerous.

It's similar to Kobe (my fav Luka comp fwiw) and Duncan. Duncan game to game is bringing you an A, but Kobe can give you more A+ games and more "duds". In terms of winning a championship I'll take Luka. I actually think Jokic has been better in the regular season, but Luka has been more impressive in the post season.

I think it’s a good comparison in that Duncan and Jokic do a whole bunch of different things on the floor that help you win while also being excellent scorers whereas Luka and Kobe get too focused on all the amazing things they can do with the ball at times at the expense of their complete games. FWIW, Duncan is #3 on my all-time great list and Kobe is #21.

Kobe is 21???

[Ruma85]

Tatum is way better than both those guys, though.

Way better then, B.i is very questionable.

Not at all.

Tatum scores more than Ingram (27ppg to 23ppg) on only 0.7% worse from the field on 2.5 more attempts per game.
Tatum shoots 3% better from distance (35.3% to 32.7%)
Tatum is a better rebounder (8 to 5.8) and grabs offensive boards at twice the rate Ingram does.
Ingram is a slightly better playmaker (5.5 to 4.5, TOVs 2.7 to 2.9)

And of course on defense we know it's not even close; Tatum is worlds beyond Ingram on that end and I don't know that Ingram will ever get even as good as Tatum is right now on that side of the court. His lateral quickness is worse, he's worse at rotations, and of course he doesn't even play in one of the most complicated defensive systems in the league like Tatum does.

Given they are of comparable age (Ingram is 6 months younger), given Tatum's elite postseason play over the course of his career (finals series aside) to me it's a no-brainer that Tatum is not only the much better player but also a far more valuable trade asset. There's basically nothing Ingram does better than him except shoot better from a few spots on the floor and get one more assist per game (and I expect Tatum's playmaking to be even more improved this upcoming year, given how much of a leap he took this past year).

I respectfully disagree, i will take ingram long term.

[TheLand13]

No team from the 11-30 range are trading those guys for Evan Mobley.

Seriously, Bill went ham on the promising second year guys. Mobley, Cade, and Barnes are all promising pieces, but none of them is a slam dunk to be a multiple time all-star, and none of them has the ceiling of a Zion who could dominate the league if he can just stay healthy.

Mobley absolutely has the potential to be that dominant… I see his point but let’s not underrate his potential.

[cupcakesnake]

The problem with Bill Simmons is that he clearly doesn't watch a ton of basketball. Even at his peak, he was like most of us on this board: he specifically watches his favorite team so his knowledge only extends to the team he watches and the biggest stars in the league. Whenever the discussion swerves a little deeper into the depth charts, you can tell Bill is running his mouth about players he hasn't seen. This is no great crime, 90% of the posters here are the same, but Bill isn't some realgm poster, he's a sports journalism demigod. I think he was so appealing back in the day because he was a nerdy fan with a very entertaining writing style, back in an era where NBA journalism was extremely bland. But he never made the transition to real analyst.

Anytime I listen to Bill Simmons nowadays (sometimes I'll listen to his podcast if he has a good guest, or I'll listen to him on the Lowe Post), he'll always spew a half dozen garbage-tier takes. He has this confidence that he's a 1 percenter as a basketball mind, but in reality, nerdy NBA fandom caught up an surpassed him a decade ago. He's just some dude now. A normal nerdy fan that just happens to have 10000x the platform than every other nerdy fan.

The list isn't very good. He doesn't know enough about each of the players he's categorizing. Too many of the people on this list are there for the idea of the player, rather than an understanding of what the player is and therefor what their value might be.

[Chanel Bomber]

bill simmons is biased, and like most media members hate james harden

if harden comes out and post a season with a PER of 26 or higher watch at how the media leaves him off all-nba for the third straight year. Draymond is right the players need to take these voting privedleges back from the biased media

if luka doncic posted 29/7/6 but the mavs were an 8th seed would bill simmons and his ilk leave luka completely off of every all-nba team like they did james harden in 2016. Nope

The players are more biased than the journalists covering the sport. It shows in the results when the responsibility is handed to them - they have much more obvious agendas.

It's why you have journalists to make these decisions to begin with, and not people directly involved in the field.

Everybody's biased to some degree. Nobody more than the people directly involved.

[Mike87]

It's about how much you can get RIGHT NOW! And by having that lower salary it makes it MUCH easier to workout deals TODAY! A team that's already nearing the cap can't sign a Young because they'd have to give up players that the other team may not even want to make the salary work. Instead with Ja, it's much easier to make the cap work and then top it off with picks or whatever. Just way more options with a lower salary. And this list is absolutely about their trade value right now this minute!

A lot of people also just see Ja as the better prospect right now...that's a whole other debate, but long term Trae's defense is going to remain an issue.

Yes its about trade value right now but that doesn't mean you only take into account next year. You still have to account for the long-term prospects of the players. Ja will make it easier to build around for just one year, you still have to factor in the future.

Yeah debating Trae vs Ja is a whole other discussion that will probably be going on for years.

You have Ja for another year as well in this...so it's easier to trade now and 1 more year of control. Win win win...it's a huge difference.

I just don't value that one year as much as he does where they are that far apart. Seems like players he has always talked down about are lower to make him feel better about his poor takes. And looking more at the list it's incredibly inconsistent. Jrue Holiday at #20 with two years left (and a player option) on his deal? Tons of weird selections and it seems like he doesn't watch much nba these days.

[Courtside]

No team from the 11-30 range are trading those guys for Evan Mobley.

Seriously, Bill went ham on the promising second year guys. Mobley, Cade, and Barnes are all promising pieces, but none of them is a slam dunk to be a multiple time all-star, and none of them has the ceiling of a Zion who could dominate the league if he can just stay healthy.

Mobley absolutely has the potential to be that dominant… I see his point but let’s not underrate his potential.

If you were a GM, would you be more willing to give up assets for Mobley, Cade or Barrnes... or for Zion, who can't seem to stay on the court?

It's not a list of who is better when they play, it's who would fetch the most value if put on the market. Zion is damaged goods on a monster contract and there are a large number of GMS who would pass on that. I don't see anywhere near as many GMs passing on any of those young guys if the price was the same.

That's how you get to that answer.

[dhsilv2]

Yes its about trade value right now but that doesn't mean you only take into account next year. You still have to account for the long-term prospects of the players. Ja will make it easier to build around for just one year, you still have to factor in the future.

Yeah debating Trae vs Ja is a whole other discussion that will probably be going on for years.

You have Ja for another year as well in this...so it's easier to trade now and 1 more year of control. Win win win...it's a huge difference.

I just don't value that one year as much as he does where they are that far apart. Seems like players he has always talked down about are lower to make him feel better about his poor takes. And looking more at the list it's incredibly inconsistent. Jrue Holiday at #20 with two years left (and a player option) on his deal? Tons of weird selections and it seems like he doesn't watch much nba these days.

Jrue he was clearly about just flat out liking more than everyone else. he sees Jrue as the missing piece for a lot of teams which sets his value on bill's list way way too high vs anyone else. But again, that was one he was clear about.

[QingJames]

Way better then, B.i is very questionable.

Not at all.

Tatum scores more than Ingram (27ppg to 23ppg) on only 0.7% worse from the field on 2.5 more attempts per game.
Tatum shoots 3% better from distance (35.3% to 32.7%)
Tatum is a better rebounder (8 to 5.8) and grabs offensive boards at twice the rate Ingram does.
Ingram is a slightly better playmaker (5.5 to 4.5, TOVs 2.7 to 2.9)

And of course on defense we know it's not even close; Tatum is worlds beyond Ingram on that end and I don't know that Ingram will ever get even as good as Tatum is right now on that side of the court. His lateral quickness is worse, he's worse at rotations, and of course he doesn't even play in one of the most complicated defensive systems in the league like Tatum does.

Given they are of comparable age (Ingram is 6 months younger), given Tatum's elite postseason play over the course of his career (finals series aside) to me it's a no-brainer that Tatum is not only the much better player but also a far more valuable trade asset. There's basically nothing Ingram does better than him except shoot better from a few spots on the floor and get one more assist per game (and I expect Tatum's playmaking to be even more improved this upcoming year, given how much of a leap he took this past year).

I respectfully disagree, i will take ingram long term.

Okay but why? What do you think he is currently better at than Tatum/project him to be better at?

[dhsilv2]

The problem with Bill Simmons is that he clearly doesn't watch a ton of basketball. Even at his peak, he was like most of us on this board: he specifically watches his favorite team so his knowledge only extends to the team he watches and the biggest stars in the league. Whenever the discussion swerves a little deeper into the depth charts, you can tell Bill is running his mouth about players he hasn't seen. This is no great crime, 90% of the posters here are the same, but Bill isn't some realgm poster, he's a sports journalism demigod. I think he was so appealing back in the day because he was a nerdy fan with a very entertaining writing style, back in an era where NBA journalism was extremely bland. But he never made the transition to real analyst.

Anytime I listen to Bill Simmons nowadays (sometimes I'll listen to his podcast if he has a good guest, or I'll listen to him on the Lowe Post), he'll always spew a half dozen garbage-tier takes. He has this confidence that he's a 1 percenter as a basketball mind, but in reality, nerdy NBA fandom caught up an surpassed him a decade ago. He's just some dude now. A normal nerdy fan that just happens to have 10000x the platform than every other nerdy fan.

The list isn't very good. He doesn't know enough about each of the players he's categorizing. Too many of the people on this list are there for the idea of the player, rather than an understanding of what the player is and therefor what their value might be.

Do you think GM's are THAT different from Bill in that sense? A lot of trade value is the idea of how good a player can be if they're in "our system" or "with our trainers" or "our whatever".

[sp6r=underrated]

bill simmons is biased, and like most media members hate james harden

if harden comes out and post a season with a PER of 26 or higher watch at how the media leaves him off all-nba for the third straight year. Draymond is right the players need to take these voting privedleges back from the biased media

if luka doncic posted 29/7/6 but the mavs were an 8th seed would bill simmons and his ilk leave luka completely off of every all-nba team like they did james harden in 2016. Nope

So I want to say there is a Harden double standard. Some for totally unfair reasons. IF you Harden's playstyle you should also hate Luka. Both are insanely ball dominant players. Yet a lot of people who hated the way Harden played love Luka. The reason to me is quite obvious but this board is too immature to acknowledge why..

Some for fair reasons. Harden quit on two teams to force trades. Would you trade for a guy who quit on multiple teams to force trades? He's also 33 and been in statistical decline for a couple of seasons.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Not at all.

Tatum scores more than Ingram (27ppg to 23ppg) on only 0.7% worse from the field on 2.5 more attempts per game.
Tatum shoots 3% better from distance (35.3% to 32.7%)
Tatum is a better rebounder (8 to 5.8) and grabs offensive boards at twice the rate Ingram does.
Ingram is a slightly better playmaker (5.5 to 4.5, TOVs 2.7 to 2.9)

And of course on defense we know it's not even close; Tatum is worlds beyond Ingram on that end and I don't know that Ingram will ever get even as good as Tatum is right now on that side of the court. His lateral quickness is worse, he's worse at rotations, and of course he doesn't even play in one of the most complicated defensive systems in the league like Tatum does.

Given they are of comparable age (Ingram is 6 months younger), given Tatum's elite postseason play over the course of his career (finals series aside) to me it's a no-brainer that Tatum is not only the much better player but also a far more valuable trade asset. There's basically nothing Ingram does better than him except shoot better from a few spots on the floor and get one more assist per game (and I expect Tatum's playmaking to be even more improved this upcoming year, given how much of a leap he took this past year).

I respectfully disagree, i will take ingram long term.

Okay but why? What do you think he is currently better at than Tatum/project him to be better at?

BI dropped last year in 3pt % over previous and took less 3s overall. I think a lot of this had to do with him having the ball so much in his hands, therefore the 3s that were mostly available to him were off the bounce. But if you look at his corner 3 attempt rate? It was down to .133 from .260 two years prior. It’s clear he’s not getting the catch and shoot opportunities these days that he was previously. Maybe that changes this year with a full season of CJ and the return of Zion.

[Ruma85]

Not at all.

Tatum scores more than Ingram (27ppg to 23ppg) on only 0.7% worse from the field on 2.5 more attempts per game.
Tatum shoots 3% better from distance (35.3% to 32.7%)
Tatum is a better rebounder (8 to 5.8) and grabs offensive boards at twice the rate Ingram does.
Ingram is a slightly better playmaker (5.5 to 4.5, TOVs 2.7 to 2.9)

And of course on defense we know it's not even close; Tatum is worlds beyond Ingram on that end and I don't know that Ingram will ever get even as good as Tatum is right now on that side of the court. His lateral quickness is worse, he's worse at rotations, and of course he doesn't even play in one of the most complicated defensive systems in the league like Tatum does.

Given they are of comparable age (Ingram is 6 months younger), given Tatum's elite postseason play over the course of his career (finals series aside) to me it's a no-brainer that Tatum is not only the much better player but also a far more valuable trade asset. There's basically nothing Ingram does better than him except shoot better from a few spots on the floor and get one more assist per game (and I expect Tatum's playmaking to be even more improved this upcoming year, given how much of a leap he took this past year).

I respectfully disagree, i will take ingram long term.

Okay but why? What do you think he is currently better at than Tatum/project him to be better at?

I'm not saying his better at the moment, i just think it's easier to contain tatum then ingram.

I seen many times where tatum takes these lomg 2's and misses and keeps on taking them which is exactly what the defence want's him to do, Needs to improve his handle as well.

[turnaroundJ]

I would like to see a team sell high on a young guy with a lot of perceived value. It would be risky because they could fulfill their potential, but could also pay off. For example, there was probably a time when KAT and Ben Simmons were considered some of the top assets in the entire league. They could've even net superstars. The Wolves could've made offers for guys like Paul George or AD to pair with Jimmy Butler. Or Philly could've paired Embiid with another star wing or guard. I doubt they're worth as much now.

[sp6r=underrated]

The problem with Bill Simmons is that he clearly doesn't watch a ton of basketball. Even at his peak, he was like most of us on this board: he specifically watches his favorite team so his knowledge only extends to the team he watches and the biggest stars in the league. Whenever the discussion swerves a little deeper into the depth charts, you can tell Bill is running his mouth about players he hasn't seen. This is no great crime, 90% of the posters here are the same, but Bill isn't some realgm poster, he's a sports journalism demigod. I think he was so appealing back in the day because he was a nerdy fan with a very entertaining writing style, back in an era where NBA journalism was extremely bland. But he never made the transition to real analyst.

Anytime I listen to Bill Simmons nowadays (sometimes I'll listen to his podcast if he has a good guest, or I'll listen to him on the Lowe Post), he'll always spew a half dozen garbage-tier takes. He has this confidence that he's a 1 percenter as a basketball mind, but in reality, nerdy NBA fandom caught up an surpassed him a decade ago. He's just some dude now. A normal nerdy fan that just happens to have 10000x the platform than every other nerdy fan.

The list isn't very good. He doesn't know enough about each of the players he's categorizing. Too many of the people on this list are there for the idea of the player, rather than an understanding of what the player is and therefor what their value might be.

Yup, and his football takes were even bad for 2004 and he bets on those games.